# Intro to Vedanta part 13: Outward-turned Inquiry: Brahman & World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcK6OA4pJJ4

[00:19] They just shanty shanty.
[00:32] Good. Welcome back.
[00:37] In our last class, I thought we would turn the corner, so to speak, and begin the second part of our inquiry.
[00:42] Didn't happen.
[00:44] We had some very important uh material for the last class.
[00:50] Today, it will happen.
[00:50] We will turn the corner.
[00:54] And just to explain that corner a little bit,
[00:56] all of Vanta can be expressed in three three-letter words which you already know.
[01:06] All right.
[01:08] So, so far our inquiry has been into one
[01:15] Inward turned inquiry for the sake of understanding the truth of oneself.
[01:22] So the shift that will take place uh starting this evening is an inquiry into tut.
[01:29] In Sanskrit language they use terms like uh twa vara vara and inquiry into twa the meaning of the word twam.
[01:42] So we begin now the tuta vichara the inquiry into the meaning of the word tut.
[01:48] There's no such thing as a vichara because if you understand tut and properly they cannot but be identical.
[02:07] So there is no ai inquiry.
[02:11] The inquiry is all tut and tu.
[02:11] So we begin.
[02:11] So on
[02:16] the surface meaning of those words tum is you the one sitting in your chair the ja the individual conscious person and uh tut at this level refers to ishwara the creator sustainer destroyer of the cosmos and through a process of inquiry we come to dis to discover that the truth of who you are and the truth of who ishwara are one the same.
[02:45] We'll come to that a little bit later.
[02:49] So if the inquiry into the meaning of the word twam was a focus inside within the body within nukma share mind etc going in and in and in.
[03:04] So now our inquiry into tut begins by looking outside in into the world towards the world.
[03:11] And when you look out at the world,
[03:17] uh, do you see Ishwara anywhere?
[03:20] So, [laughter]
[03:22] so we don't begin with ishwara, we begin with what we see.
[03:26] And we see a world around us.
[03:30] And we're going to begin this evening with an inquiry, analysis of the nature of that world.
[03:36] If you remember when we began our inquiry into the uh twam pa the word twum um we had introduced a logical tool for the sake of that inquiry that logical tool if you remember is dria.
[03:54] va that discernment between seer and seen it was like a tool that we used for the sake of our inquiry in a very helpful important tool it was.
[04:06] So in a similar way in this tuta it is the inquiry into the meaning of tut that we
[04:17] begin right now we also require another tool and uh let's start by getting familiar with that tool and then we'll start using it.
[04:29] The rule basic principle is you should know how to use a tool before you I'm sorry.
[04:34] You should know what a tool is and how to use it before you actually go after it.
[04:40] I had a funny image of someone if you've seen out on a construction site they use those jackhammers.
[04:48] Can you imagine what would happen if you if someone says here gosh be big trouble.
[05:01] Okay. So let's get familiar with this tool.
[05:03] And this tool is an inquiry into three levels of reality.
[05:11] And the words we're going to use to describe those three levels of reality is satyam,
[05:19] Mitia and tucham.
[05:26] They describe three kinds of reality.
[05:30] Satyam is that satyam means real or true
[05:35] and it means that which is absolutely
[05:37] real.
[05:37] Absolutely true.
[05:41] So which means mity can't have the same
[05:44] meaning and first of all mitaya cannot
[05:47] in our vantic context mity does not mean
[05:52] false and in vernacular languages mitya
[05:55] is sometimes used for false or a lie or
[05:58] something like that we've got this word
[06:00] tucha for that so tutum is the elephant
[06:05] I'm holding in my right hand.
[06:08] You get the idea.
[06:08] Yeah.
[06:12] So this elephant is to chum.
[06:15] What kind of reality does it enjoy?
[06:15] None whatsoever.
[06:21] So tutchum is a word we reserve for that which is as real as the elephant in my hand.
[06:28] And uh the uh the the term they always like to use and you know there always these catch terms that uh people uh are fond of using in the commentaries.
[06:40] So the commentators always like to use the term shasha vishana.
[06:47] Vishana is a horn.
[06:52] Shasha is a rabbit.
[06:58] So the horns of a rabbit.
[07:01] So a bull can have horns, a rabbit has no horns.
[07:06] So that's the traditional metaphor or example I should call it to describe tutum.
[07:09] So satyam is that which is absolutely and unconditionally real.
[07:17] Tutum is that which is absolutely unreal.
[07:21] So mitya obviously is something in between and that's what we need.
[07:28] That's the tricky one to define.
[07:31] The two extremes satyam and tuchum are pretty easy to grasp.
[07:36] The middle one is a little trickier.
[07:40] And a good definition of mity is that which has dependent existence.
[07:53] And this is actually a translation of the Sanskrit term adishana.
[07:59] We don't need to worry about the the Sanskrit dependent existence separates it from satyam which has independent existence.
[08:07] Satyum is that which exists independently of everything else as opposed to mity which is that which exists depending upon something else.
[08:20] And here we have our favorite
[08:23] Vdantic metaphor is the clay pot.
[08:29] So the clay exists and the pot exists.
[08:34] Which means neither clay nor pot are tum right like this elephant.
[08:38] So clay is not like this elephant and pot is not like this elephant.
[08:48] So there's there's some reality here.
[08:50] But what kind of reality can clay exist without pot all the time?
[08:56] Can this pot exist without clay?
[09:03] And there you have it.
[09:05] It's really that simple.
[09:10] So in this metaphor, clay represents satyam that which has independent existence.
[09:16] That whose existence doesn't depend on anything else as opposed to mity represented by
[09:23] The pot.
[09:26] The pot exists but it enjoys dependent existence.
[09:31] The pot exists only because of the clay.
[09:35] In the absence of clay, there could be no pot here in my hand.
[09:39] So then we reserve these words.
[09:42] In the metaphor the clay is uh satyam and in the metaphor the pot is mity.
[09:49] So this is our standard definition.
[09:52] So just hold and the best way to do it is just hold on to that connection in your mind.
[09:57] The clay represents satyam the pot represents mitya.
[10:02] Of course, with a little bit of of thinking, we understand that pot, if I ask you, what is pot?
[10:10] It's surprisingly difficult to answer.
[10:14] Some analysis leads us to to to some it the more you think about it, the more confusing it gets.
[10:21] Suppose this um
[10:25] this pot weigh suppose the clay weighs about four or 5 oz.
[10:29] 5 ounces of clay.
[10:32] I don't know how much it actually weighs.
[10:33] Something like that.
[10:37] So, this is 5 oz of clay.
[10:39] How much of that five 5 oz is due to the clay and how much of it is due to the pot?
[10:50] That's interesting.
[10:53] So, it's really five in five uh ounces of clay.
[10:57] The pot doesn't seem to add anything.
[11:04] In fact, as you already know, pot is a form of clay.
[11:10] We use that language all the time.
[11:13] You take clay and you put it into the form of a pot.
[11:16] That's what some potter did in India some years ago.
[11:18] He had this big It's fun.
[11:21] Have you ever watched them?
[11:23] It's fun. you.
[11:25] So they they get this big this chak chakra
[11:28] going. Use a stick and get that going really really fast.
[11:31] They got a big lump of of uh clay on that.
[11:37] And with their hands they take the little bit of the clay on top and they go zip.
[11:44] Takes about one second.
[11:46] It took about one maybe two seconds on a bad day.
[11:54] They just go zip and then they use a piece of string and they cut it off.
[11:58] Then they go zip and then they use a piece of string and they got a zip and then they got that's it you know that's why for so many years in India many of you growing up in India how did you take your tea not exactly in this form but but you know so so which means that the pots cost almost nothing and now you can understand one two seconds zip zip zip okay so clay I'm sorry pot is a form of
[12:30] clay.
[12:30] It's not an additional thing.
[12:34] It's a form of an already existing thing.
[12:38] And we can add one more observation here.
[12:42] Not only is this a particular form added to the pot, added to the clay.
[12:48] And again, when you add the form to the clay, you're not adding anything, right?
[12:55] You're nothing is added.
[12:55] It's still the same clay.
[12:57] It was the same clay before the pot.
[12:59] It's the same clay during the pot.
[13:01] If I break this thing, it'll be the same clay after the pot.
[13:04] We're not adding anything when when when we make the form pot.
[13:10] There's a second factor that we use to refer to this form and that is the name pot.
[13:20] So in addition to clay, we can identify two further factors.
[13:24] One is the form that we call pot and the other is the
[13:32] name pot
[13:35] leading to two Sanskrit terms that
[13:37] you've you've you've heard many many times
[13:39] and now you get the you get the uh correct context for these two names or these two words Nama and Rupa.
[13:51] Nama form,
[13:53] nama name,
[13:56] and rupa form.
[13:59] So what am I holding in my hand?
[14:04] If you're a vantan, you say clay.
[14:11] And then you might go on to explain, but in addition to the clay, there's this nama and rupa of pot.
[14:16] But the nama and rupa are not a thing.
[14:20] In addition to the clay, ultimately there's only clay.
[14:24] Nama and rupa have what kind of existence?
[14:35] That's what we use the word mity for.
[14:38] If I ask you to show me a pot without the clay, give me a give me a pot with no clay.
[14:44] And you'll say not with no nothing.
[14:47] No, don't say it's made of metal or made of wood or something.
[14:49] A pot made of nothing.
[14:51] Show me one.
[14:55] Give me one.
[14:57] You can't because the nama and rupa have only dependent existence.
[15:05] Nama rupa cannot exist without a real the word we have to use is adhishtana.
[15:15] Adhana means substratum.
[15:19] This is one of the technical terms you should get familiar with.
[15:23] You're already familiar with nama rupa.
[15:26] So one more term is adhana.
[15:32] Substratum is a
[15:36] philosophical term for the underlying reality fundamental reality.
[15:42] So now we can use all the proper vdantic terminology here.
[15:45] This pot is namarupa which has clay as its adhishana.
[15:54] You follow the description.
[15:58] The pot is namarupa which is mitya.
[16:01] Clay is the adhishtana because of which pot exists.
[16:09] And that adhishtana is satyam.
[16:12] All right.
[16:15] So this is the logical tool we're going to use for our inquiry.
[16:18] And that's it.
[16:21] It's not that complicated.
[16:21] So we began by differentiating that that both satyam and mitya are different from the elephant in my hand which is toa.
[16:30] And then we made a further differentiation between satyam the independent reality and mitya the
[16:38] dependent reality.
[16:41] So this is our logical tool that we'll use when we look out into the world.
[16:44] Now is the world to chum?
[16:48] Is it like the elephant in my hand?
[16:51] Obviously not.
[16:54] So the world is not tutum.
[16:57] is the world satyam or mitya and that's what we want to inquire into.
[17:03] So for the sake of this inquiry let's take an example.
[17:07] um ah we'll take this example cloth.
[17:11] saty is tuchum clearly not satyam or mitya.
[17:17] now bear in mind cloth is a form of threads.
[17:22] you can kind See the threads here at the
[17:38] So cloth is a form of threads.
[17:43] fibers.
[17:45] So in fact cloth is nama and rupa.
[17:50] The underlying reality because of which this cloth exists is threads.
[17:53] If you took the threads out, what would I be wearing?
[18:00] [laughter]
[18:03] That would be a problem.
[18:06] [laughter]
[18:09] So because threads are the adhishtana the underlying reality because of which the cloth exists.
[18:19] So this is a very clear example just as the clay pot.
[18:25] Oh that's that's very uh I when I use that expression it just reminded me of something that puja saw me d on the love tool.
[18:33] He made this observation very nicely.
[18:35] He he said in English we get
[18:39] things backwards
[18:41] and what do you mean?
[18:43] So he you know he's a scholar of Sanskrit and so he would he gave a grammatical example.
[18:51] You in in every language including English and Sanskrit and Hindi etc. we have nouns and adjectives.
[18:56] Adjectives describe nouns.
[18:58] So you know we can call this an orange cloth.
[19:05] So orange is an attribute an adjective about the cloth.
[19:08] So in the same way as we have an orange cloth we have a clay pot.
[19:15] So clay is an adjective describing the nature of the pot.
[19:18] But now let's come back to this analysis we just finished and that is nouns.
[19:25] I think the grammatical term they use for it is substantive.
[19:30] a noun.
[19:33] The grimarians will use the word substantive,
[19:35] the thing.
[19:37] So we call this a clay pot.
[19:40] example, clay pot, clay is the adjective
[19:43] and pot is the substantive.
[19:43] Correct?
[19:47] Clay pot.
[19:47] Clay is a modifier and pot is the modified, the substantive.
[19:56] What is it from a vdantic standpoint?
[19:58] Isn't it backwards?
[19:59] Zulta.
[20:01] So the substantive is clay.
[20:08] So Puja Swami said we got it all backwards.
[20:11] It's not a clay pot because pot is an attribute of the clay.
[20:15] Clay is the underlying stuff, the substantive.
[20:19] The potness is an attribute that's been kind of superimposed on the clay.
[20:26] So we've got the attribute and the substantive mixed up.
[20:29] So he said we shouldn't call this a clay pot.
[20:34] He said we should call it potty clay.
[20:39] [laughter]
[20:40] [snorts]
[20:42] And then he he would then launch into
[20:44] his favorite example which was a gold
[20:46] chain
[20:47] which has the same problem.
[20:50] So he says it's not it's not gold chain
[20:54] it's
[20:55] chainy gold right?
[20:58] [laughter]
[21:00] So just just a nice observation to show
[21:03] how language
[21:06] messes up our thinking.
[21:09] We get confused between what is the
[21:11] substantive and what is the namarupa?
[21:14] What is the name of form? Which is why
[21:16] when I held up this cloth and I asked
[21:19] you satyam or mitya some of you thought
[21:22] yeah satyam
[21:24] no way. So we have to be very clear in
[21:27] our thinking. This is I this is threads.
[21:35] Threads in the form of cloth.
[21:39] So thread is the adhishtana the
[21:43] underlying reality which in our in the
[21:46] metaphor is satyam as opposed to the um
[21:50] cloth which is formed through this
[21:52] weaving the warp and woof if you look at
[21:55] it really carefully. You can even make
[21:57] make that out if you look real
[21:59] carefully. And so therefore cloth is
[22:03] namarupa. And as we established with the
[22:06] clay pot, namarupa is not as real as the
[22:11] adhishtana.
[22:12] So cloth is not as real as the thread.
[22:17] Pot is not as real as the clay. Chain is
[22:22] not as real as the gold.
[22:25] So absolutely real is satyam.
[22:28] Independently real is satyam. Mitya is
[22:31] not as real. We called it dependent
[22:35] reality. Okay, enough said. So now we
[22:38] know I'm not wearing cloth. I'm wearing
[22:41] threads.
[22:43] All right.
[22:47] Isn't that some some American slang?
[22:50] Nice threads.
[22:52] [laughter] All right.
[22:55] But now suppose we get a little fancy.
[22:58] Take one of these threads and put it
[23:00] under a microscope.
[23:02] That would be interesting if you looked
[23:05] at it with the right microscope in the
[23:08] right way. You'd you'd start to see,
[23:13] by the way, thread threads come from
[23:16] what?
[23:18] Cotton, right? Cotton is a plant. Do you
[23:21] remember when you were a kid in school
[23:24] learning that plants are made of cells?
[23:30] And if you looked at this under a
[23:33] microscope, you could probably make out
[23:35] those cells that that comprise the
[23:39] filaments of the cotton
[23:43] which is used to make this
[23:46] and actually we can break it down even
[23:47] more. So each thread is composed of
[23:52] cotton filaments. I'm going to get more
[23:55] more break it down more analytically. So
[23:58] here we go. Cloth is a form of threads.
[24:02] Cloth is not satyam. It's meta. Why?
[24:05] Cloth is namarupa. The underlying
[24:08] reality is threads. But threads are made
[24:11] from cotton fibers.
[24:14] Right?
[24:15] So thread is not faty.
[24:19] Thread is a form of cotton fibers.
[24:23] Therefore thread is namarupa and cotton
[24:26] fibers are the satyam are the adishtana.
[24:31] But now put that fiber under the
[24:33] microscope you'll see the fiber is made
[24:36] of if I remember right cellulose cells
[24:41] if I remember right a particular kind of
[24:43] cell.
[24:46] So it's made of cells. Fibers are made
[24:49] of cells. Which means fibers are namupa.
[24:56] The cell is what is the adhishtana.
[25:00] But those cells are made of oh now
[25:04] things get interesting.
[25:06] And you remember all of the all of do
[25:08] you remember studying all the different
[25:09] parts of the cell?
[25:13] Forget it. [laughter] How about if we
[25:15] just how about if we we just skip ahead
[25:17] a little bit. Cells are made of
[25:19] proteins. How's that? All right. Cells
[25:22] are made otherwise if we start
[25:24] identifying all the parts of the cell
[25:25] then it'll be here forever. So cells are
[25:28] made of proteins which means cell is not
[25:31] the fundamental reality. Cell is also
[25:33] namar. Proteins is the underlying
[25:36] reality. The adishtana proteins are made
[25:39] of molecules.
[25:42] Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms
[25:46] are made of electrons, protons and
[25:48] neutrons.
[25:50] Electrons, protons, and neutrons are
[25:52] made of quarks.
[25:57] What quarks are made of. You come back
[26:00] in a hundred years and you you find out.
[26:02] Right now, we don't know. [laughter]
[26:05] Eventually, they find out what quarks
[26:07] are made of. And then eventually,
[26:08] whatever that is, we'll find out that's
[26:10] made of something else. And that's made
[26:12] of something else. And that's made of
[26:13] something else. So it's very
[26:15] interesting. We started an analysis of
[26:18] this cloth looking for satyam.
[26:23] Did we find any
[26:26] at every level? We discovered it was
[26:30] mity namarupa name and form
[26:35] which means the cloth I'm wearing is
[26:39] mita. That makes sense. It has depend at
[26:44] every level. It has dependent reality.
[26:49] But now we've got a little problem.
[26:52] We haven't been able to locate the
[26:55] underlying reality
[26:58] because of which this cloth ex because
[27:01] of which everything exists. So if you
[27:03] keep going down down down down down
[27:06] it'll that process of of deconstruction
[27:10] just analysis breaking it down into
[27:12] finer and finer and finer little bits
[27:15] it's endless.
[27:17] It's like if you start chopping up a a
[27:21] distance of one of one inch. So cut it
[27:25] in half got got a half inch. Cut it in
[27:28] half you have a quarter inch. Cut it in
[27:30] half an eighth of an inch. When will you
[27:32] arrive at the fundamental unit of
[27:34] length?
[27:36] Whatever length you have is further dis
[27:40] divisible.
[27:42] So by this analysis, however much you
[27:45] analyze and deconstruct this cloth,
[27:48] whatever you end up with is further
[27:51] divisible.
[27:54] Which might lead us to conclude that
[27:57] there is only Mitia here. And here's the
[28:01] problem we got. We just said mita is
[28:05] that which has dependent existence which
[28:08] means it depends on satyam.
[28:11] There's no such thing
[28:14] as a pot without some adhishtana.
[28:19] Doesn't have to be clay but it has to
[28:21] have some adhishtana.
[28:24] Now here all we've done is in a more
[28:27] elaborate way we've we've deconstructed
[28:30] this down level after level after level
[28:32] and see that all the levels are meta.
[28:37] We haven't discovered satyam. Suppose we
[28:41] were to make a conclusion. There's no
[28:44] satya.
[28:45] It's just endless chain of name and
[28:49] form. Namarupa namarupa namarupa at
[28:52] every level. Whatever level you come to
[28:54] is further divisible.
[28:57] This by the way is the conclusion made
[29:00] by our Buddhist friends. It's exactly
[29:04] the conclusion made by by Buddha and all
[29:07] of his followers. He understood very
[29:10] clearly the mitatwa mitiatwa means
[29:14] mityaness
[29:16] mitiatwa the nature of the state of
[29:18] being mitaya. So Buddha very clearly
[29:21] understood the mitiatwa of jagat the
[29:25] universe and he got that absolutely
[29:28] right. Um but then he denied the
[29:33] possibility of any underlying reality
[29:37] because of which this cloth can exist
[29:41] because of which anything can exist and
[29:44] that's where we have a problem because
[29:48] if one namarupa
[29:52] cannot exist without samadishtana follow
[29:56] the language this is namarupa
[29:59] This namarupa called pot cannot exist
[30:02] without some adhishtana.
[30:05] If an individual namarupa cannot exist
[30:09] without an adhishtana,
[30:12] how about an infinite chain of namarupa,
[30:15] level after level after level of
[30:18] namarupa? If an individual namarupa
[30:21] can't exist without an adhishtana,
[30:24] then couldn't we draw the conclusion
[30:27] that this infinite series of namarupa
[30:32] through this process of uh
[30:34] deconstructing the cloth that infinite
[30:37] series or levels of namarupa
[30:40] couldn't exist
[30:43] without some kind of underlying reality.
[30:49] This is just a little bit of reasoning,
[30:51] a little bit of logic. Of course, it's
[30:53] reasoning and logic born of our
[30:55] scriptures, which is why Buddha rejected
[30:58] it. I mean, what really distinguished
[31:00] Buddha was his rejection of of the Vadic
[31:04] scriptures. What Buddha taught is not so
[31:07] different from what Hinduism teaches.
[31:10] The reason Buddhism is considered an
[31:13] independent religion is for the simple
[31:16] fact that Buddhism doesn't acknowledge
[31:18] the validity of the vadas. The
[31:21] definition of Hinduism is a religion
[31:23] based on the vadas. So for this
[31:25] technical reason, Buddhism falls outside
[31:28] the scope of of Hindu thought. So to
[31:32] come back to our topic, if an individual
[31:36] namarupa cannot exist without some
[31:40] adhishtana,
[31:41] then this infinite series of namarupas
[31:45] that I'm wearing cannot exist without
[31:49] some kind of attana.
[31:53] It's just a proper application of
[31:57] reasoning. And again, it's reasoning
[31:59] based on on our scriptures. And we'll
[32:02] bring in the scripture in just a moment.
[32:07] Do you think science will ever be able
[32:09] to find
[32:12] a fundamental
[32:14] stuff
[32:17] based on everything that we've we've
[32:19] just discussed? Anything you come up
[32:21] with is divisible. Like the length of
[32:25] length is infinitely divisible.
[32:29] Namarupa is infinitely
[32:33] divisible.
[32:35] But that infinitely divisible namarupa
[32:39] could not possibly exist if there
[32:43] weren't some kind of real adishtana.
[32:47] Mity cannot exist without satyam. That
[32:50] simple. So therefore the entire universe
[32:54] can be decomposed as we decompose
[32:57] deconstructed the cloth. We can
[33:00] deconstruct the entire universe and just
[33:02] come up with layer after layer of
[33:04] namarupa. But all of those layers of
[33:08] namarupa could not exist without some
[33:12] underlying reality, some adhishtana
[33:15] which is not accessible
[33:19] through a scientific kind of inquiry.
[33:23] Sometimes we forget how limited science
[33:25] is. Everything that we come to know
[33:28] through science is basically born of
[33:31] observation. remember learning something
[33:34] about the scientific method.
[33:36] So scientific method begins with
[33:38] observation hypothesis all of remember
[33:40] all those steps which means the the
[33:44] scope of science is the observable.
[33:50] Anything that can be observed and some
[33:53] we use all kinds of fancy instruments
[33:55] for the sake of these observations not
[33:57] just our five senses but but it can be
[34:00] observed through any instruments. So the
[34:03] scope of science is the observable the
[34:06] observable of n is namarupa.
[34:11] There we go.
[34:13] So science is limited to the realm of
[34:18] namarupa.
[34:19] Science can never penetrate to this
[34:23] underlying reality this adishtana that
[34:26] we call satyam which means we have to
[34:30] set science aside at this notice this
[34:33] whole analysis of the cloth was a very
[34:35] scientific
[34:37] uh analysis now we set that aside and we
[34:40] just said science can't get us there and
[34:44] therefore it's time to turn to scripture
[34:48] scripture contain contains the
[34:51] revelations of the ancient rishies. The
[34:54] rishies were those the very word rishi
[34:59] means one who sees and a good good
[35:03] paraphrase would be one who sees what no
[35:05] one else can see. One who understands
[35:08] what no one else could understand. Those
[35:11] who made certain discoveries of
[35:14] fundamental truths, discoveries that
[35:17] none of us could make. But these rishies
[35:19] had some unusual blessing. They were
[35:22] able to make these discoveries. Whatever
[35:25] they discovered got compiled into our
[35:27] scriptures. And the basic scriptures
[35:30] that they revealed were called the
[35:32] vadas. The vadas as many of you know has
[35:35] four parts. The last part of which is
[35:37] upanishad which is [snorts] why we call
[35:39] it va ant vanta. The last part of each
[35:44] va. And we're going to talk a little bit
[35:47] about one of those upanishs which
[35:49] contains the teachings of the ancient
[35:51] rishies which bear upon our subject
[35:53] matter and it's something actually we're
[35:56] t we're studying on the in the Tuesday
[35:58] night class and it's the chandoga
[36:01] upanishad
[36:03] in the sixth chapter of the chandoga
[36:07] upanishad this topic is dealt with in
[36:11] the most brilliant fashion you can
[36:13] imagine And before I share share that
[36:16] with you, let me just tell you the
[36:18] story. This is in the sixth chapter of
[36:19] the Chandoganishad.
[36:21] Uh fa the a typical father and son story
[36:25] which means trouble.
[36:27] [laughter]
[36:29] So
[36:31] father Udalika
[36:33] sends his 12year-old kid off to school
[36:37] to Guruklam and the son's name is Teetu.
[36:42] So Schweetu goes off to the gurukulum
[36:45] lives and studies with his guru for a
[36:48] period of 12 years. Studies all the
[36:50] vadas and after 12 years he comes back
[36:53] and and
[36:56] 24 age of 24 is very interesting age. I
[36:59] don't know about you but at the age of
[37:02] 24 I was probably one of the most
[37:05] obnoxious people you could find. I
[37:08] thought I knew everything.
[37:11] I was just on top of everything. I was
[37:14] intelligent and skillful and resourceful
[37:17] and and full of myself. Anyway,
[37:21] that's that's what it was at the age of
[37:23] 24. It appears that Ketu was a little
[37:27] bit like that
[37:30] and father and father came to understand
[37:33] that there
[37:35] had this kind of hotty attitude, this
[37:38] know-it-all attitude. So father just
[37:40] wanted to explore this a little bit and
[37:43] he said you know in your 12 years of of
[37:46] learning did you learn that knowing
[37:51] which everything else becomes known?
[37:56] Did you learn that
[38:00] knowing which everything else
[38:04] becomes known? Peculiar question but an
[38:07] interesting one.
[38:10] And and just before we we explore that,
[38:13] suppose there is a pile
[38:17] not of of pots, a thousand pots in a
[38:21] pile. Every pot is a different shape, a
[38:24] different color. So how long would it
[38:27] take you to go through this mountain of
[38:30] pots and go and examine each pot to see
[38:34] what is the shape and color? It would be
[38:36] a big job.
[38:38] On the other hand, could we say by
[38:40] knowing clay
[38:44] all the thousand pots are known correct?
[38:48] Because
[38:50] the shape and color is namar rupa.
[38:55] By the way, the word rupa in the
[38:58] dictionary, the first meaning of rupa is
[39:01] not form, it's color. [laughter]
[39:07] Form is the secondary meaning. The
[39:09] primary meaning of rupa in a dictionary
[39:11] is is color. So you go through this big
[39:14] pile of pots examining the form and
[39:17] color of each and every one of the pots.
[39:20] That's the the difficult way of doing
[39:22] it. Or you could just know they're all
[39:26] clay. By knowing clay
[39:30] all the pots are known. Correct. And
[39:35] that was uh Udalaka. Udalaka was the
[39:38] name of the father. Udalikica's question
[39:39] to his son was exactly that. Did you
[39:43] learn that knowing which everything else
[39:48] is known? Like knowing the clay all the
[39:51] pots are known by knowing something
[39:54] everything in the universe is known.
[39:58] And the sonet Ketu being a little
[40:02] obnoxious said, "I don't think my they
[40:06] they didn't teach it to me. Apparently
[40:09] my my teachers must not have known
[40:11] that."
[40:13] [laughter]
[40:15] Well, he doesn't want to take
[40:17] responsibility for not having learned
[40:19] that lesson. Turns out you this is a
[40:22] special lesson. You have to ask for this
[40:25] lesson. It's not in the normal
[40:28] curriculum. It's a special subject
[40:30] matter. If you don't ask for it, your
[40:32] teachers will not tell you. And Dalak,
[40:35] I'm sorry. Shu Ketu didn't want to admit
[40:38] that he didn't even think about it or
[40:40] ask about it. So anyway, he he blames it
[40:42] on the teachers. Not my fault. They
[40:45] didn't teach me. Um but then he he
[40:48] eventually comes comes along comes
[40:51] around, sorry. and [snorts] uh with the
[40:53] father's encouragement and and he asks
[40:56] his father then please teach they didn't
[41:00] teach me please teach me father please
[41:03] teach me so what ensues is a fatherson
[41:06] dialogue in which the father has a role
[41:09] of guru and the son has a role of shisha
[41:12] student and the dialogue that ensues by
[41:15] the way the dialogue that ensues
[41:18] culminates with
[41:19] tatwami
[41:22] later in the chapter. So this is the
[41:24] earlier part of the chapter before comes
[41:29] and in the and it begins with one of the
[41:34] most profound
[41:36] scriptural statements one of the most
[41:38] profound statements you find in any
[41:40] scripture although you find echoes in
[41:42] other scriptures. So father
[41:55] Dear son,
[41:57] a gray in the beginning. In the
[42:01] beginning specifically means before the
[42:04] universe existed with name and form.
[42:09] When there was no name and form. When
[42:13] there was no universe, when there was no
[42:15] name and form, he said sa ait.
[42:21] What existed was sata.
[42:25] Now sat is a word. It can mean truth in
[42:29] this context. It can mean reality. And
[42:33] it ends up being a word for Brahman.
[42:38] Let me give you that statement since
[42:40] it's so important.
[42:42] It says
[42:52] you know all this stuff we can erase it
[43:00] I'll break the words apart for you make
[43:01] it easier to see a seat.
[43:06] So agree in the beginning.
[43:13] So Somia dear son in the beginning
[43:18] Adam this world
[43:26] aitu
[43:30] was
[43:32] agree before this world existed. A seat.
[43:36] What existed? There was There was what?
[43:40] Sat and the words change spelling. Ava
[43:44] alone.
[43:48] Sut alone. And s means real or true. And
[43:54] it ends up being a word that describes
[43:58] Brahman.
[44:00] Brahman is our vantic term for the
[44:05] adhishtanana
[44:07] for everything.
[44:09] The the ultimate adhishtana. What we
[44:12] could not locate through this analysis
[44:16] of the cloth. But then we concluded
[44:18] there must be some adhishtana because of
[44:22] which all these levels exist. Well,
[44:26] here's an identification for that.
[44:28] Adishtana udalika calls it sat sat aa
[44:34] truth alone, reality or alone. And in
[44:38] our vantic language, we can use the word
[44:41] brahman. Um, a comment about this word
[44:44] brahman. Brahman is actually the um it's
[44:47] actually a grammatically incorrect form
[44:51] on the board because the rule is you
[44:54] have to decline words before they're
[44:55] they're used and it declines but there's
[44:58] both a masculine and a neuter form. The
[45:02] neuter I'm sorry the masculine form is
[45:05] pronounced braha with the long ah and it
[45:10] refers to Ishwara's creator right braha.
[45:14] uh Vishnu and Shiva Brahma you'll say
[45:17] Braha G
[45:19] so that and it's a Brahma so that Brahma
[45:23] is the masculine form of this word and
[45:26] it refers to a particular aspect of God
[45:31] as creator. There's a neuter form of
[45:35] this word which properly is braha with a
[45:39] short uh as opposed to the long a of
[45:43] brahaj braha.
[45:46] I often put on the nakara just to make
[45:48] to make the difference more clear
[45:50] between otherwise the difference between
[45:53] braha and braha can get lost. So I'll
[45:57] often say Brahma and Brahman just to
[46:00] make the distinction very clear. It's a
[46:03] neuter noun and the word Brahman refers
[46:07] to that absolute reality because of
[46:12] which everything exists.
[46:17] Yeah. So Brahman or Braumhub is more
[46:23] more grammatically correct is the
[46:26] ultimate reality not only because of
[46:28] which the cloth and the threads and the
[46:32] fibers and the cells blah blah blah blah
[46:34] blah. It's the ultimate reality not
[46:37] because not only because of which this
[46:39] cloth exists but because of which
[46:41] everything in the universe exists. So
[46:44] Brahman is that ultimate reality cannot
[46:48] be discovered through a scientific
[46:51] process. Why? It's not observable.
[46:54] The observable is namarupa.
[46:57] This is not namarupa.
[46:59] This is satyam. So science is really
[47:03] good in analyzing mitya. Namarupa. Thank
[47:06] goodness it does a great job of it and
[47:09] we're all blessed by all of that. But
[47:11] science is useless in going beyond
[47:15] namarupa to satyam. So we turn to this
[47:18] scripture and we find the underlying
[47:23] reality because of which everything
[47:25] exists being called brahman. So just as
[47:29] clay is a reality because of which the
[47:32] pot exists. Brahman is a reality because
[47:37] of which everything
[47:40] exists. And this is a good analogy. So
[47:43] this pot is namarupa.
[47:46] This pot is mitya. The pot is namarupa.
[47:49] It exists because of clay. This universe
[47:52] is also mitya. This universe is also
[47:54] namarupa.
[47:56] This universe of namarupa exists because
[48:00] of brahman just as the pot exists
[48:03] because of clay. All right. That that
[48:08] that being said, now we're now we
[48:11] actually are in trouble.
[48:15] And here's why we're in trouble.
[48:19] This is
[48:21] he says sat aa only. There's nothing
[48:25] else. There's only s there's only
[48:29] Brahman.
[48:32] All of this is only Brahman.
[48:36] What?
[48:40] What about this chair? What about this
[48:42] table? What about this TV?
[48:47] It's all sata.
[48:50] It's only Brahman. And there's something
[48:54] in our minds that rebel against. How can
[48:57] you? What do you mean? It's only
[49:01] Brahman. I see a chair. I see a table. I
[49:04] see all these things. How can you say
[49:06] there's only Brahman?
[49:09] Well, if I had a thousand pots,
[49:14] isn't it true? There's only clay.
[49:18] Is there any thousand pots? You have to
[49:21] picture big pile of pot.
[49:24] Is there anything in addition to clay?
[49:29] There's nothing in addition to the clay.
[49:33] It's only
[49:35] clay. This challenges us
[49:39] to develop a new way of thinking
[49:44] about things in which we appreciate
[49:48] those tutum. Again, we can ignore I
[49:51] think you can safely ignore the elephant
[49:53] in my hand. You won't be trampled by.
[49:56] There's no negative consequences to
[49:59] ignoring the elephant in my hand. you
[50:02] won't be trampled, you don't have to
[50:04] feed it,
[50:06] etc.
[50:10] But we really need to master mentally
[50:15] master these two perspectives of satyam
[50:19] and mitya. They're two perspectives
[50:26] which have to be clearly understood and
[50:30] separated.
[50:32] So, we've been spending a lot of time
[50:34] with this clay pot, but you get it. The
[50:38] nama rupa is not a second thing,
[50:43] but it most certainly appears.
[50:48] It is an appearance, which is an kind of
[50:51] a nice paraphrase of mity.
[50:55] That which appears
[50:58] is mita. Anything
[51:02] that appears
[51:04] is mity.
[51:06] It is all appearance. Now at this point
[51:10] then then we we get into trouble with
[51:13] careless use of language because now at
[51:17] this point somebody will introduce the
[51:20] term illusion. Right? At this point in
[51:24] our discussion someone will say this is
[51:28] all an illusion.
[51:34] Is this pot an illusion?
[51:39] It holds water.
[51:42] An illusion cannot hold water.
[51:47] This elephant is an illusion.
[51:50] Absolutely.
[51:52] But this pot is the elephant is tuchum.
[51:57] This pot is not tuchum.
[52:00] This pot appears. This pot has empirical
[52:03] reality. And we we do vanta a huge mis
[52:10] injustice
[52:12] by introducing the word illusion.
[52:16] To call the universe an illusion is
[52:20] absolutely contrary to the teachings of
[52:22] vanta.
[52:24] But how many times is that word illusion
[52:27] used? And and then and then they'll
[52:30] they'll use another a Sanskrit term
[52:33] which they will will mis misuse in this
[52:36] cont context. You'll you'll hear things
[52:38] like
[52:40] maya.
[52:42] [laughter]
[52:44] You'll hear that that. So then maya is
[52:47] our word for illusion. Maya doesn't mean
[52:49] illusion. It'll take us some time to
[52:51] develop. We're going in that direction.
[52:53] It'll take us some time to get there,
[52:57] but it's really obvious.
[53:06] It's really obvious
[53:08] that the word illusion is absolutely
[53:12] incorrect.
[53:13] An illusion won't hold water. There's an
[53:16] interesting play of words.
[53:20] [laughter]
[53:21] So,
[53:23] All right.
[53:25] What?
[53:28] Why? Why can this pot, notice I'm saying
[53:34] pot, not clay? Why can this pot hold
[53:38] water?
[53:40] And the answer of course is not only is
[53:43] the pot mita, but the water is also
[53:48] mita.
[53:50] So for holding mity water,
[53:55] what better vessel
[53:57] than a mity pot?
[54:01] You don't [laughter]
[54:03] you don't need a real pot to hold mity
[54:07] water.
[54:09] You require a mitya pot to hold mity
[54:15] water.
[54:17] Bear in mind that pot is namarupa.
[54:21] Water is also namarupa.
[54:24] Why isn't water namarupa? Remember H2O.
[54:29] And then the H and the and the O's. No,
[54:32] the H's and the O are then made of
[54:35] particles which are made of quarks which
[54:37] are blah blah blah blah. We did all that
[54:39] already. It's just a lot of easier than
[54:43] than the cloth. Fewer steps. Clearly
[54:45] water is also namarupa. Water is also
[54:49] nita.
[54:51] So what we want to develop in our
[54:54] thinking is two categories
[54:59] of existence.
[55:01] One is a category of absolute reality.
[55:07] Another is a category of empirical
[55:10] reality or appearance. Let me give you
[55:14] the the Sanskrit terminology for that
[55:17] since they're important terms.
[55:20] So the satyam
[55:28] these are long Sanskrit terms anyway
[55:31] sorry about that.
[55:35] So reality in Sanskrit is sata.
[55:40] Sata means reality, state of reality.
[55:43] Sata
[55:45] and Satyam. And I apologize for the long
[55:48] words, but this is Sanskrit.
[55:54] How's that?
[55:58] A sat
[56:01] nasty Sanskrit terms that describes a
[56:05] state of reality which is absolute.
[56:10] An absolute state of reality is satyam
[56:15] as opposed to the world of appearance
[56:17] which we see which as we've said is
[56:20] mitia. And now we're we use a different
[56:24] world word to describe the world of
[56:28] appearance, the empirical world. And
[56:31] that is called
[56:33] let me spell it right. Vavahar
[56:42] vah.
[56:46] So this is and maybe the English is a
[56:49] little easier. absolute
[56:54] reality and empirical
[57:01] reality. Vavahharika
[57:04] sat is empirical reality.
[57:10] And then please note that vyavahharika
[57:13] sata which is whatever we're
[57:15] experiencing right now. It's not like
[57:18] the elephant in my hand. And it's not
[57:20] tutum. It is mitya. It is namarupa which
[57:25] depends on brahman which is satyam for
[57:31] its existence. Now all of this is
[57:34] getting a little bit more clear. Now
[57:36] we'll just introduce the next topic. Um
[57:38] but we're not I we don't want to go all
[57:40] the way into it tonight.
[57:55] In explaining
[57:57] to his son Schweetu, the father Udalika
[58:03] used this exact metaphor. That's perhaps
[58:06] why the pot is so famous because it
[58:10] comes in this chandoga
[58:13] chapter 6 which is very important in uh
[58:16] for students of Edwaita vanta and father
[58:19] later says
[58:25] he says the clay alone is what is real.
[58:32] And then what shall we say about about
[58:35] this form? And he says varam.
[58:49] Don't worry about the Sanskrit. I just
[58:50] want to get it clear in my head.
[58:54] So he says this
[58:57] vara vik means a change. This is a
[59:01] modification.
[59:03] It is a modification of clay
[59:06] obviously. So this vicada this this pot
[59:11] is
[59:15] we went through at the very beginning of
[59:17] the class the pot is not something in
[59:21] addition to the clay. Do I have one pot
[59:24] and one clay in my hand? There's only
[59:29] clay.
[59:30] So then how do we account
[59:35] for the pot?
[59:37] And the answer is simply it appears
[59:43] before us. That's it. And we give it a
[59:46] name. So he so Udalaka says
[59:51] that that this vikara this modification
[59:56] in the form of a pot is
[01:00:00] Namade
[01:00:02] it is merely a name
[01:00:07] merely a name suggesting form as well.
[01:00:10] We can include name and form together
[01:00:12] which is varam
[01:00:16] which is born of speech
[01:00:20] and born of speech means born of mind.
[01:00:25] Whatever you can think of, whatever you
[01:00:28] can imagine
[01:00:29] is nama rupa.
[01:00:32] This pot that's anyway the the mantras
[01:00:36] of the vadas are a little obscure. So
[01:00:39] let me uh put it in my own words. They
[01:00:42] just become a little bit uh simpler.
[01:00:52] Ava he said that that part is simple
[01:00:55] there's only clay
[01:00:58] yet pot appears
[01:01:04] clay is satyam
[01:01:06] the appearance is namarupa mitya and
[01:01:10] please note these are to use a modern
[01:01:13] term these are parallel realities one
[01:01:18] does not negate the other if I were to
[01:01:21] ask you Is this a pot or is this clay?
[01:01:26] And the answer is it depends.
[01:01:30] If you're talking from
[01:01:33] this level of reality, there's only
[01:01:37] clay. There's absolutely no pot
[01:01:40] whatsoever.
[01:01:42] You can't even speak of pot from this
[01:01:44] level. On the other hand, from this
[01:01:48] level, vyavaharikas
[01:01:51] empirical reality, if you want a drink
[01:01:54] of if you want a a a cup of tea
[01:01:58] in India 50 years ago,
[01:02:02] would a lump of clay be of any use?
[01:02:05] [laughter]
[01:02:08] Clay doesn't hold water. Clay doesn't
[01:02:11] hold tea.
[01:02:13] Clay doesn't do anything. [laughter]
[01:02:17] So if and it goes back to our discussion
[01:02:21] before
[01:02:23] tea is vyavah. It's empirical mity. So
[01:02:27] for mity tea you better have a mita cup
[01:02:31] to hold that mita. You get it? So the
[01:02:35] bottom line here is in our thinking we
[01:02:39] want to differentiate between these two
[01:02:43] levels of reality. Sata means a level of
[01:02:48] reality. There is a vyavaharika sata
[01:02:52] which is this world of name and form and
[01:02:55] that we experience every day. It's all
[01:02:57] appearance. When we say it's appearance,
[01:03:01] it's doesn't mean illusion. Right? We
[01:03:03] went through that. It's not illusion.
[01:03:06] It's as real as as it seems.
[01:03:11] Notice the wall is matya.
[01:03:15] My hand. That's why it works. It's at
[01:03:18] the same level of reality. If the wall
[01:03:22] were satyam and my hand were mita or the
[01:03:25] other way around, that wouldn't work. It
[01:03:28] only works because they're the same
[01:03:31] level of reality.
[01:03:34] So this world we see around us is a
[01:03:37] world of appearance. It's a world of
[01:03:39] namarupa which could not exist
[01:03:44] without some underlying reality
[01:03:48] adhishtana which we called satyam which
[01:03:52] uh dalika called sat and which in vanta
[01:03:56] we call brahman. So this is a good place
[01:04:00] to end today because
[01:04:03] starting our next class and we have to
[01:04:05] say okay how the everyone will ask okay
[01:04:09] how did the clay become a pot. Now in
[01:04:14] India there was this [snorts]
[01:04:17] in the Sanskrit they kala
[01:04:20] uh Hindi make kulhar kul
[01:04:23] kular koular yeah so in in Sanskrit the
[01:04:27] uh kalala so who who makes this pot so
[01:04:32] then kumhar that that's a word I'm good
[01:04:35] good good thank you kum kumhar
[01:04:39] so
[01:04:40] who cares it is [laughter]
[01:04:43] That's okay.
[01:04:46] Um, it doesn't make any languages.
[01:04:51] [laughter]
[01:04:55] No problem. [laughter]
[01:04:58] All right. So, let's let's finish this
[01:05:01] up. How did the clay become a pot?
[01:05:07] Two answers to this question. One is
[01:05:11] from the first standpoint up there, clay
[01:05:16] never became a pot.
[01:05:19] It's still clay and clay alone, right?
[01:05:24] So if you say from Brahman,
[01:05:27] how did the universe arise
[01:05:31] from the first standpoint of Paraka
[01:05:33] Sata?
[01:05:35] It didn't.
[01:05:38] It it's Brahman even now right this is
[01:05:41] even now this is clay and nothing but
[01:05:46] clay
[01:05:48] on the other hand we shift our
[01:05:50] perspective now to via
[01:05:54] and there is an empirically real pot
[01:05:59] that appears in my hand and it can
[01:06:02] contain empirically real water or tea or
[01:06:05] or anything. Now if we ask how did that
[01:06:10] empirically real namarupa
[01:06:13] arise
[01:06:14] we have explanations
[01:06:16] and that's what we have to discuss
[01:06:19] starting in our next class. How did this
[01:06:22] universe come into existence and we'll
[01:06:24] we'll pick that up then next week. All
[01:06:26] right.
[01:06:34] Survey
[01:06:39] survey.
[01:07:01] Om shanty shanty shanty.