# Intro to Vedanta part 14: Reality, Ishvara, and Maya

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu7OsN23NrA

[00:18] They just shanty shanty.
[00:29] Good. Welcome back.
[00:37] When I was uh preparing for today's class, I realized that there's a mistake that's often made when uh the uh the nature of I is is taught and that is there's certain preparation which is really crucial.
[00:55] And if we skip over that preparation, then a gazillion questions will come up and then you have to answer those anyway.
[01:07] So, it would make more sense if we slow down a little bit in today's class. And and this is
[01:09] going to be a little maybe a little bit of a heavy class, but it'll be a really important class because it'll prepare you for everything that comes next.
[01:19] And what comes next is who and what is is I ishwhara.
[01:24] And uh to begin I'd like to return to um that main topic from the prior class and that was these uh levels of reality.
[01:35] Our jumping off point of course was the clay pot and we said there are two perspectives we can have on this clay pot.
[01:43] From one perspective, there's only clay, nothing but clay since pot or pot is not a second thing in addition to clay.
[01:55] So that's one perspective.
[01:57] Another perspective which is equally important is this is a useful pot.
[02:06] It has a form. It has a function. It has a name nama rupa and we relate to it as such as a
[02:13] Pot.
[02:15] We gave these two perspectives these fancy names.
[02:19] We better return to those names bec and we're going to add one more.
[02:24] So let's let's return here.
[02:36] Sata means level of reality.
[02:40] And vavah sata.
[02:49] And we define these as being this is an absolute reality and this is an empirical reality.
[03:03] And then we had a third term to chum.
[03:13] What's in my hand?
[03:16] That's right.
[03:16] You got that.
[03:18] The elephant in my hand is to chum.
[03:21] It is utterly unreal.
[03:27] So in this metaphor the uh pot belongs to vyavaharika sata empirical reality.
[03:32] The clay in the metaphor is is paramika sata absolute reality and the elephant of course is all right.
[03:47] Um you notice I left a gap.
[03:52] There's a reason for that gap.
[03:56] There's another fancy term that gets filled into that gap.
[03:59] So, we might as well put that in.
[04:01] We're going to need this later in about two, three more classes.
[04:06] So, we might as well introduce it here.
[04:08] It fits in very, very nicely.
[04:13] And that term is another long fancy
[04:15] Sanskrit term.
[04:15] Don't blame me.
[04:15] I didn't make up these terms.
[04:28] SATA.
[04:28] We'll call that projected.
[04:34] And this last one is is is a absolutely unreal.
[04:42] And it means absolute unreality.
[04:42] Not just ordinary unreality, but that which has no existence.
[04:47] In fact, non-existent would be a much better translation for that.
[05:02] So here we have something which is absolute existence or independent existence was the term we used in the last class.
[05:11] Just as the clay exists independently of the pot, this absolute
[05:19] existence, by the way, there is only one absolute existence, Brahman.
[05:26] So that Brahman, that one absolute existence is independent.
[05:31] Everything depends on Brahman.
[05:34] Brahman doesn't depend on anything.
[05:37] It's like the clay, I'm sorry, the pot depends on the clay.
[05:39] Clay doesn't depend on anything else.
[05:42] Then we have the empirical reality represented by the uh by the pot the the elephant is this tuchum.
[05:51] So what is this this new one I've introduced it projected reality that would be the most common example that's given in scriptures.
[06:04] That's the reality of your dream world.
[06:09] It would be like a pot in your dream world.
[06:12] A dream pot.
[06:15] Does a dream pot exist?
[06:19] In your dream world, it does.
[06:22] It absolutely exists in your in your dream.
[06:25] But that dream pot is ab is also clearly different from the pot I'm holding in my hand.
[06:31] The pot I'm holding in my hand is a vyavahharika pot.
[06:38] And the pot in your dream is a pratibasika pot projected by you.
[06:41] Now we're going to we'll be using that pratibasika pot that pratibasa sata.
[06:50] We'll be using it much more and we're going we'll see it a little bit more in today's class.
[06:57] But there's something to uh understand about these uh three these three orders of reality.
[07:04] I have four or five I'm sorry four items on the board.
[07:07] Why are there only three orders of reality?
[07:13] Because fourth one is not a reality at all.
[07:18] So you can't count a nonreality as a level of reality or an order of reality.
[07:24] There are three orders of reality pratibas, vyavaharika and and and paramatica.
[07:31] But the the fourth one tutum can't be included because it's not a reality at all.
[07:37] In fact, we define it as that which has absolutely no existence or reality at all.
[07:44] That is tucha.
[07:50] This three-fold distinction that we're we're just beginning to see is one of the teachings Sri Shankarachara is famous for.
[08:00] He didn't invent it, but he kind of organized it.
[08:04] He made it very clear and very obvious.
[08:06] And it's another one of those really excellent tools that we use.
[08:09] We have like a vdantic toolkit.
[08:15] In those toolkits, we've we've used several vdantic tools.
[08:18] One was durisha vivea.
[08:20] And another one another one of
[08:25] Our tools was this Satyam Mitia relationship that we uh discussed in the last class.
[08:32] So this is another tool philosophical tool in our toolkit.
[08:34] It's this threefold division.
[08:37] And you might be you might be thinking this is a very philosophical topic.
[08:43] Why would this be such an important thing?
[08:45] Why would Shankarachia make so much uh such a big deal of it?
[08:50] Well, we're going to there's there's something I won't say subtle because it it's it's fundamental, but it's something you wouldn't ordinary ordinarily think about and that is these three levels of reality are utterly separate.
[09:13] Not only independent but they're nonop overlapping.
[09:18] Do you remember in school did you ever study these what they're called ven diagrams?
[09:23] Remember this stuff.
[09:27] All right.
[09:30] So you can have like two two groups and the two groups have some overlap area.
[09:36] In this case, there's absolutely no overlap at all.
[09:42] And that's what I want to describe right now.
[09:45] So, let's just kind of represent this as three nonover overlapping groups or what they are a sata means orders of reality.
[10:02] Now when I say they're nonover overlapping this is I'm this is really the long I'm just thinking of planning out this class in my head we're taking those the long route you know there's a shortcut and there's long route and we're taking the the scenic
[10:25] [laughter] the the scenic route
[10:28] which is going to make something which is going to empower for us and let let me just present the question otherwise you're going to wonder why are we talking about all this philosophy it'll seem very abstract and so let me explain why why did Shankarachia make such a big issue out of this why are we making a big deal of this why are we getting involved in what seems to be some very dry philosophical discussions well in a few minutes or more than a few minutes.
[11:04] Scenic [snorts] route, remember?
[11:09] So, when we get there, [laughter] we we have to answer the question, how how did this world emerge from Brahman?
[11:23] How?
[11:25] And that question is really a nuisance.
[11:30] It's very difficult.
[11:32] It's a little bit like when some of you were raising children when they're at a certain age,
[11:37] the the question is always why,
[11:41] right? But why, mom? Why?
[11:46] I never had to deal with that.
[11:48] I imagine some of you did.
[11:50] So, it's a vexing question.
[11:53] We're going to end up with the same kind of vexing question very shortly.
[11:56] How did the world arise from Brahman?
[12:04] And it's really tricky.
[12:09] Now, some of you are thinking and why should it be so complicated?
[12:11] So, how did the uh clay I'm sorry, how did the pot arise from the clay?
[12:19] That seems so simple, right?
[12:24] We have what what did we the Hindi was? Kulhar.
[12:27] Kulhar. Kumar. Kumar. Kumar.
[12:28] There we go.
[12:28] So, and in
[12:31] Sanskrit, Kalala.
[12:33] So, the Kalala sat and made made the pot out of clay.
[12:39] Well, it turns out that's actually a distortion of this because the pot maker didn't start with clay.
[12:51] The pot maker started with a lump of clay.
[12:58] Notice the distinction.
[13:01] A lump of clay is clay plus namarupa.
[13:08] So from one clay plus namarupa from a lump of clay, you can then create a pot which is still clay plus namarupa.
[13:21] So really speaking, the potter did not make the pot out of clay.
[13:25] The potter made the pot out of a lump of clay.
[13:34] this is a really important distinction
[13:36] because
[13:38] the pot and the clay, I'm sorry, the pot
[13:43] and the lump
[13:45] share the same order of reality.
[13:49] There's a relationship
[13:52] between
[13:55] there there's an a a funny word a pure
[14:01] between lump and pot.
[14:01] A pure peer
[14:07] relationship means on the same level, right?
[14:09] So [clears throat] there's a
[14:10] peer, not that they're colleagues or anything.
[14:12] We can use peer in other
[14:14] senses as well.
[14:14] So there's a pure
[14:16] relationship, a relationship on the same
[14:19] level between the lump and the uh pot.
[14:24] There's no one toone relationship
[14:27] between clay and lump.
[14:27] There's not a
[14:30] pure relationship.
[14:30] They're not at the
[14:32] same level.
[14:32] So it's pretty easy since
[14:36] since lump and pot exist at the same level.
[14:40] It's pretty easy to describe how the lump becomes a pot.
[14:46] But when we go from one level to the other, suppose I ask you now, how does formless clay become a form, a lump or a pot?
[15:02] That's a much trickier question, right?
[15:06] How does the formless clay become a formed lump or a formed pot?
[15:18] And I bet you can answer that question.
[15:22] It didn't.
[15:24] Right.
[15:26] From the perspective of clay, it's still clay.
[15:29] It's only clay.
[15:32] Now, this is why we have this fancy diagram up here.
[15:34] these three
[15:37] nonover overlapping things.
[15:42] So here's here's the deal as they say in English.
[15:45] in the same level vavaharika sata we have a lump.
[15:53] and we have a pot.
[15:57] and it's pretty easy to get the relationship between the lump and the pot.
[16:01] By the way it's it's reversible.
[16:05] You can actually grind up the pot and add water and you end up with a lump.
[16:11] So they share the same order of reality.
[16:17] unlike this clay.
[16:21] And here's what we're after.
[16:26] We can understand a cause effect relationship here.
[16:40] between the lump and the pot.
[16:44] Cause effect relationships exist within an order of reality.
[16:56] When we try to look between two orders of reality, we really cannot talk about cause effect relationship.
[17:06] Cause effect relationships exist within an order of reality, not between orders of reality.
[17:16] Let's come down here and and you'll see what I mean.
[17:23] Um, can can there be a cause effect relationship between this lump of clay and a pot in your dream?
[17:36] So, there's a real lump of clay at your home.
[17:40] I don't know why do you
[17:42] have a lump of clay at your home?
[17:43] I have no idea.
[17:46] and you have a lump of clay at your home
[17:49] and then you dream of a pot.
[17:52] So my question to you is how did that lump of clay in your home become a dream pot?
[18:02] The answer of course is it didn't.
[18:05] There's no cause effect relationship possible between a an empirically real lump of clay and a projected reality pot.
[18:20] That pot is part of your dream.
[18:23] So where did the dream pot come from?
[18:27] I suppose there if you had a dream lump lump from a dream lump and of course you need a dream you need a dream potter.
[18:40] So in your dream you have a dream potter
[18:42] And a dream lump and you end up with a dream pot.
[18:48] So the point we're making right now is is cause f these this is pure philosophy but we need to master this.
[18:57] Causality exists within a given order of reality.
[19:03] So there is an empirical causality by which an empirically real potter takes an empirically real lump of clay and creates an empirically real pot.
[19:17] There is a dream order of reality bas in which you can have by the by the way you in dream we have our own rules.
[19:27] You can have a dream powder and a dream lump but you need not you can skip those steps if you want.
[19:32] They're optional.
[19:34] That's that's how a dream is different from empirical world.
[19:37] So the rules in the dream world and the rules in the
[19:44] empirical world are different sets of rules.
[19:46] In the empirical world, you don't get to make up the rules.
[19:49] In the dream world, you make up the rules and you can change the rules anytime you want.
[19:54] Now to further illustrate this, oh that was a term I was looking for before and I didn't get it.
[20:02] And this is related to you remember those classes of ven diagrams.
[20:07] Mutual exclusivity.
[20:12] That's a I was looking for that term before.
[20:20] Each of these realms are mutually exclusive.
[20:22] And that's really the essence of what of our current topic.
[20:24] Now, just to illustrate that mutual exclusivity, now that I've remembered the term,
[20:32] suppose you have some vyavaharika water.
[20:38] and a pratibasika pot.
[20:43] Can the prati bhasika pot hold
[20:46] vavahharika water? No. How about the
[20:49] other way around? You have you have a
[20:53] vyavahharika pot and some pratibasika
[20:56] water.
[20:59] Again,
[21:00] you get the idea that these
[21:03] relationships,
[21:04] all relationships,
[21:07] including the special relationship we
[21:09] call causality.
[21:11] Cause effect is a relationship, right?
[21:14] It's a very special relationship is a
[21:16] very important relationship. All
[21:19] relationships take place in a given
[21:22] order of reality. If I ask you what is
[21:25] the relationship, this is a tricky
[21:27] question. What is the relationship
[21:29] between the pot and the clay?
[21:34] Well, from a paratica standpoint,
[21:37] there's only clay. So, there is no pot.
[21:41] And from the standpoint of the pot, we
[21:45] won't call it a relationship. We would
[21:48] say that clay is that because of which
[21:53] the pot exists. We don't say that clay
[21:56] is the cause for the pot.
[22:00] Why? We went through that, right? Clay
[22:02] cannot be the cause for the pot. Why?
[22:06] Two different orders of reality. A lump
[22:09] can be the cause for the pot. So
[22:12] instead, we use this other way of
[22:15] describing the status of the two things.
[22:18] We call the clay satyam independent
[22:23] reality. We call the pot mita dependent
[22:27] reality but that's really not a
[22:29] relationship. That's my point. It's not
[22:32] a relationship. It's really defining
[22:34] what is what. So from a paratica
[22:37] standpoint if I ask you what's the
[22:40] relationship between clay and pot? There
[22:42] is no relationship whatsoever. There is
[22:44] no pot. There's only clay. From a
[22:48] vyavahika standpoint if I ask you what's
[22:50] the relationship between clay and pot?
[22:52] Again there's no relationship. On the
[22:55] other hand we can define what each of
[22:57] them are. We can say that clay is an
[23:00] absolute reality be independent reality
[23:04] because of which pot the dependent
[23:06] reality exists. Okay enough said. Now
[23:14] we're ready.
[23:16] We're ready for that question.
[23:20] How did the world emerge from nondual
[23:25] Brahman? Remember in a prior class or
[23:27] the class yeah I think it prior class we
[23:30] established the fact that the world on
[23:34] analysis is nothing but namar rupa names
[23:36] and forms just as a pot is nothing but
[23:39] namarupa it's not a thing the thing is
[23:42] clay in the same way you remember the
[23:45] analysis we we started with the cloth as
[23:48] an example and we discovered that the
[23:50] cloth is nothing but namarupa and in the
[23:53] same way the universe is nothing But
[23:56] namar rupa on the other hand just as an
[23:59] individual namarupa cannot exist without
[24:03] an underlying reality in this case clay
[24:07] or a cloth cannot exist without an
[24:10] underlying reality threads. In the same
[24:14] way the entire universe which is all
[24:18] namarupa
[24:19] cannot exist without an underlying
[24:23] reality. We call that underlying reality
[24:26] brahman. I gave you that famous quote
[24:29] from the from the chandoga.
[24:36] In the beginning all this was sat means
[24:40] reality. S means Brahman. In the
[24:43] beginning means prior to creation. Okay.
[24:47] That being fed, we understand that
[24:51] everything you see here
[24:54] right now when we describe the universe,
[24:57] we're describing
[24:59] this, right?
[25:02] So everything you experience when you're
[25:05] awake is this part. Well, not
[25:07] everything. Just a technical
[25:10] distinction. You're walking down the
[25:12] dark alley and you see a snake.
[25:18] That snake really speaking is not
[25:21] vyavahharika.
[25:23] The rope is vyavaharika
[25:26] but that snake you see is projected. The
[25:31] point I'm making is pratibasa is not
[25:34] only your dream world but it's anything
[25:38] projected.
[25:40] So extending that definition a little
[25:42] bit. Um so coming back here
[25:47] if we understand there is only Brahman
[25:52] everything we experience
[25:56] that's not like the snake on the rope
[25:59] everything we correctly experience as
[26:02] part of the world that's all
[26:04] vyavahharika sata we know that this
[26:08] vyavahharika sata has brahman as its
[26:13] underlying reality. We've established
[26:15] that really clearly in the last class.
[26:18] This is all this is an infinite series
[26:20] of namarupa of names and forms cannot
[26:23] exist without an underlying reality. So
[26:26] we understand there is an underlying
[26:29] reality because of which all this
[26:32] vyavaharika this all this world exists.
[26:36] And now we ask that question, how
[26:40] how did this world come forth
[26:44] from that absolute reality? When you ask
[26:48] the question how, you're asking a
[26:51] question about cause effect
[26:53] relationships, are you not?
[26:57] If I ask you how does milk become
[27:00] yogurt,
[27:02] you can answer me, right? If I ask you
[27:05] how does a lump become a pot,
[27:09] you can answer me. So how is a question
[27:13] about cause effect relationships and a
[27:16] manner in which the cause de is
[27:20] developed into the uh effect. There's
[27:23] lots of heavy philosophy behind this. We
[27:27] can fortunately we can leave most of it
[27:31] [laughter] aside but this is where a lot
[27:33] of especially in commentaries it becomes
[27:36] a very deep extensive discussion. We're
[27:39] skipping most of it right now. So if you
[27:43] ask how does the lump become a pot we
[27:48] can answer that. If we a ask how does
[27:52] clay become a pot, we said that's not a
[27:56] valid question, right?
[28:00] Remember why?
[28:02] If I ask how does clay become a pot,
[28:04] then you have to say from what
[28:06] standpoint?
[28:08] So from this standpoint,
[28:11] clay doesn't become a pot because
[28:13] there's no pot.
[28:16] And from this standpoint,
[28:18] clay doesn't become a pot because
[28:22] there's no causality,
[28:26] there's no relationship between things
[28:28] of different orders. We can talk about
[28:31] the clay and pot, but we but they don't
[28:35] have a pure relationship.
[28:37] It's not a cause. You have a cause
[28:40] effect relationship between things of
[28:42] the same order of reality. I'm repeating
[28:45] myself but but it's a point that we
[28:47] really need to hold on to. With this in
[28:50] mind now we come back to our question.
[28:53] How did Brahman
[28:57] become the world? We can answer it in
[29:00] the same way as we just did with the
[29:01] clay. So from the st uh the from the
[29:04] standpoint of paratika sata if I ask you
[29:07] how did Brahman become the world of
[29:09] duality the answer is
[29:14] Brahman never did
[29:17] [gasps]
[29:18] just as right now there's only clay
[29:23] from that standpoint there's only clay
[29:25] there's nothing else here
[29:27] so from the standpoint of paramika sata
[29:30] there is only Brahman
[29:35] you can't speak of anything else that
[29:39] leads to the famous upanishes statement
[29:41] you've all heard
[29:53] all this
[29:55] indeed is Brahman
[30:00] Brahma and That kalu indeed means like
[30:03] also only. All this is only Brahman.
[30:08] Just as this is only clay, all this is
[30:13] only Brahman. If I had a thousand pots,
[30:16] it's still only one clay. If we have a
[30:22] universe of countless stars and
[30:25] galaxies,
[30:27] one Brahman. So from the standpoint of
[30:31] par martikica sata if we ask how did
[30:34] that nondual Brahman become a world of
[30:36] duality the answer is didn't
[30:41] then from the standpoint of yavaharika
[30:43] sata our worldly standpoint if we ask
[30:47] how did nondual brahman become this
[30:49] world of duality from our empirical
[30:52] standpoint we're back we're now back to
[30:54] that other error what is the other error
[30:59] we're asking asking about a cause effect
[31:01] relationship
[31:04] between
[31:05] two different orders of reality. We've
[31:08] already established that there is no
[31:10] cause effect relationship that crosses
[31:12] the boundaries. Just as there's no cause
[31:15] relationship
[31:17] possible between the lump of clay at
[31:22] your home and the pot in your dream,
[31:25] there's no possible cause effect
[31:27] relationship there. In the same way up
[31:29] here, there's no possible Brahman.
[31:33] There's no possible cause effect
[31:35] relationship between that non-dual
[31:37] Brahman
[31:38] and the world of duality.
[31:42] So I I I won't apologize. This is th
[31:47] this is a little bit philosophical but
[31:49] it's really important to understand that
[31:53] we cannot
[31:57] discuss
[31:58] creation in a way that crosses from one
[32:03] realm to the other. The process of
[32:06] creation
[32:07] we can choose one perspective or
[32:09] another. If we pers if we choose the
[32:12] higher perspective paramatica sata in
[32:15] one way it's simpler there's only
[32:17] Brahman there is no then you say but
[32:19] what about the universe and then the the
[32:22] guru says what universe [laughter]
[32:26] right that's the highest perspective
[32:31] he says what universe are you talking
[32:33] about
[32:35] and then then you'll say the un what
[32:38] everything you see what do you See and
[32:41] the guru says I see Brahman
[32:46] [laughter]
[32:46] what can you say so at that level it's
[32:51] very simple
[32:53] but it's also not very useful
[32:56] because you have that question how how
[32:59] it's like you know your your child
[33:02] asking why why why you have to give them
[33:05] some answer because if you don't give
[33:08] them an answer they go on asking Why?
[33:10] And why and why? We need to have an
[33:12] answer. So look, look where we're left.
[33:16] If we say how did Brahman become this
[33:19] world of duality? One answer is in fact
[33:23] in both cases in one in one case Brahman
[33:28] didn't become the universe. In the other
[33:31] case we can say there's no cause effect
[33:33] relationship
[33:35] between Brahman and the universe. Which
[33:38] means if we're going to proceed
[33:42] and this is finally we're getting
[33:44] getting to the getting out of this
[33:47] [laughter] this very complicated thing.
[33:50] From this standpoint we have an absolute
[33:53] reality. There's only Brahman. There is
[33:55] no creation. All of that is true but it
[33:57] doesn't answer our questions. From this
[34:01] level
[34:02] we have a tricky problem. We can't talk
[34:05] about a cause effect relationship
[34:07] between an absolutely real Brahman and
[34:10] an empirically real universe. So at this
[34:14] point we introduce
[34:19] a unique
[34:22] teaching methodology and this is a
[34:25] methodology that is absolutely unique to
[34:28] the tradition that we call Edwita Vanta.
[34:31] You won't find this exact uh methodology
[34:35] enumerated in any other spiritual
[34:37] tradition in India or elsewhere. This is
[34:40] one of the unique teachings of Edwaita
[34:43] Vanta and it works like this.
[34:48] First of all, we're speaking from now
[34:50] from the empirical standpoint
[34:54] because otherwise it's meaningless to
[34:56] talk about creation. Right? from
[34:58] paramatica sata it's not meaningful to
[35:01] to discuss how did the universe come
[35:03] about so only from this vyavaharika sata
[35:06] does this discussion become meaningful
[35:09] and then from right now here we are
[35:12] we're sitting here in this empirical
[35:14] reality and we ask a question how did
[35:17] this universe emerge from nandu brahman
[35:20] and then we say what swami Anandanda
[35:23] said we can't find a causal relationship
[35:27] but we We still have the question just
[35:30] like that two-year-old. But why, mom?
[35:32] Why? Or maybe three or four. I don't
[35:35] know how old they are when they're
[35:36] asking that. Why? So, [laughter]
[35:40] probably two is too young for that,
[35:41] right? [snorts]
[35:43] I think two is when they say no.
[35:46] [laughter]
[35:48] Is that right? I think why comes a
[35:51] little later. [laughter]
[35:55] Okay. So
[35:57] fortunately the ancient rishies
[36:01] had a solution to this question which
[36:05] was in the upanishads but not very
[36:09] clearly brought out until Shankara who
[36:13] developed this. So all of this again not
[36:16] created by shankara but systematized and
[36:20] made really clear but it all has its
[36:23] roots in the teachings of the rishies in
[36:25] the upanishads. So here's here's
[36:28] shankara's explanation
[36:31] again evolved from the teachings of the
[36:33] ancient rishies.
[36:36] We have this problem.
[36:40] We have this problem of Brahman
[36:45] on one side. This is like an equation.
[36:48] Brahman is on one side of the equation
[36:51] and juget. The world
[36:54] is on the other side of the equation
[37:00] and you you can't really equate them.
[37:04] Well, equate is not the right. This
[37:07] that's not working. Anyway, I I try
[37:10] different things. Sometimes they work.
[37:12] Sometimes they they don't work. That
[37:14] didn't work. Why does that not work?
[37:18] It's really it's tricky. Watch this. And
[37:21] Puja Swamji loved to do this and it
[37:23] would always confuse everyone. Not right
[37:25] now. I can confuse you in the same way.
[37:28] [snorts] What? Watch the language.
[37:32] The pot is clay.
[37:36] Clay is not pot.
[37:40] Correct.
[37:42] Pot is clay.
[37:44] Clay is not pot. [clears throat] And
[37:47] that's that's why I had to erase this
[37:51] because it's both equal and nonequal.
[37:55] Jugget is Brahman.
[37:58] Brahman is not
[38:00] jug. So we can't use that approach. So
[38:04] and besides we're talking about about
[38:06] creation. So we want to know what is the
[38:11] how. So we're still stuck on that
[38:13] question. How how how we need an answer.
[38:18] Of course from this standpoint there's
[38:20] no answer. If there is going to be an
[38:23] answer this is the paramatica
[38:24] standpoint. If there is going to be an
[38:26] answer it has to be from this answer
[38:28] this level. So just as the empirical
[38:32] lump, I'm sorry, the empirical pot came
[38:35] from an empirical lump, this empirical
[38:39] universe must come from an empirical
[38:44] creator.
[38:46] It must have an empirical source. It has
[38:48] to have a cause of the same order of
[38:53] reality. That make sense?
[38:56] So here the uh the cause has to be of
[39:00] the same order of reality as the effects
[39:03] lump and pot. Here the effect jugget has
[39:09] to be of the same order of reality as
[39:13] its cause. So what is the empirical
[39:17] cause? Not the absolute cause because
[39:20] that's when we get in trouble. The
[39:22] empirical cause for this jug is
[39:33] the empirical cause. Ishwara is a word
[39:36] we use for God.
[39:40] um what you call Bhagavan in a in a um
[39:44] in an absolute sense which means not a
[39:48] particular form of God like Shiva or
[39:51] Krishna or anything but the one God who
[39:56] is the creator sustainer destroyer. So
[40:00] we can if in prayers we tend to use a
[40:03] word like bhagavan just a very general
[40:06] term but in vdanta this word ishwara is
[40:10] a little bit more specific even though
[40:12] the meaning is not exactly right. The
[40:15] meaning of ishwara is lord. Lord means
[40:18] you know gives you the wrong idea of the
[40:20] guy who's in control the boss. Well
[40:24] that's not very helpful. That's kind of
[40:27] what the word ishwara might suggest, but
[40:29] it's not our usage of the word ishwara.
[40:33] So ishwara though used in advant has
[40:36] very much the same sense as the English
[40:39] word god. God in an absolute s well even
[40:42] that's a problem. God means what depends
[40:45] on who you ask, right?
[40:48] So you ask uh you ask a Jew and God is
[40:52] the lawgiver
[40:54] who's ready to punish you for your
[40:56] transgressions.
[40:59] You ask a Christian
[41:01] and that Christian might might might say
[41:04] God is love. Wonderful.
[41:07] But look how different [laughter]
[41:10] those answers are. You ask a Muslim, you
[41:12] ask this person, that person, you ask a
[41:15] Buddhist and they'll say, "What God?"
[41:17] [laughter] you. So we get many different
[41:19] answers. So the word god is very
[41:21] nebulous and we've discussed already the
[41:24] importance of using a proper technical
[41:28] vocabulary in our discussion. So we use
[41:31] the word ishwara. Yes, it happens to
[41:33] mean lord but let's just cancel that
[41:36] meaning out. So we're using l ishwara as
[41:40] a technical term. as a technical term
[41:43] meaning the God who creates, sustains
[41:47] and destroys the universe. By the way,
[41:49] when we say destroy, it means the one
[41:51] who receives the universe at the end of
[41:54] time. Not that he smashes the universe,
[41:59] but rather when the universe due to
[42:01] karma undergoes dissolution, that
[42:04] universe returns to its source. That
[42:07] universe returns to Ishwara. So here
[42:10] we're using now Ishwara as a technical
[42:12] term to refer to creator, sustainer,
[42:16] destroyer
[42:18] which are not three different gods right
[42:21] which I just share with you with
[42:22] children. Such a heavy topic I'll tell
[42:24] you quick quick joke here. So I asked
[42:27] children you know are are Brahma, Vishnu
[42:30] and Shiva three different gods
[42:33] and they said is it like Brahma creates
[42:37] the universe and then he goes on
[42:40] vacation so somebody's got to take care
[42:43] of it.
[42:45] So Vishnu takes care of it. But after a
[42:48] long time, Vishnu gets tired and he
[42:50] stops taking care of it and the universe
[42:52] just falls apart and Shiva has to come
[42:55] and clean up the mess.
[42:59] How absurd.
[43:02] So the same
[43:07] ishwara who creates the
[43:10] the same ishwara who creates the
[43:10] universe is the same ishwara who
[43:12] sustains the universe is the same who
[43:14] receives the universe at the end of time
[43:16] in necessity. So we we can talk about
[43:21] ishwara as an empirical reality
[43:26] because of whom the universe is created
[43:30] sustained and we'll we'll return to that
[43:32] one. Ishwara is an empirical reality
[43:38] unlike Brahman.
[43:41] Now this is a very unique solution to
[43:44] the problem. We're not done with it, but
[43:46] but let's just point this out that by
[43:51] presenting ishwara
[43:54] as part of this empirical world, we
[43:59] solve this philosophical problem of
[44:02] cause and effect. If were paramika,
[44:07] Ishwara could not be the cause of the
[44:09] universe. Right?
[44:12] Only if ishwara is vyavaharika
[44:15] only then canshwara be the cause of
[44:19] universe. You with me? All right. At
[44:22] this point our har krishna friends and
[44:25] our pious vishnava friends will get
[44:28] really upset.
[44:32] Why will they be so upset? Are you
[44:34] telling me that Ishwara is not
[44:38] absolutely real
[44:41] blasphemy?
[44:42] [laughter]
[44:46] So because and then they'll point the
[44:48] scriptures you know Vishnu Sakshhat
[44:50] Bhagavan and statements like this that
[44:52] come up with the statements to support
[44:56] this position that ishwara must be
[45:00] assigned to this um paramatica sata and
[45:04] they cling to that perspective in spite
[45:08] of the fact that for all the reasons
[45:10] that we've talked about in the whole
[45:12] class so far it's absolutely
[45:14] unreasonable.
[45:16] to have an absolutely real. It's like
[45:22] it's like can you make a pot right now
[45:26] that you can fill with water in your
[45:27] dream?
[45:32] [laughter]
[45:34] Any pot you make right now is useless in
[45:37] your dream. That's the mutual
[45:40] exclusivity of those circles shown up
[45:43] there. So if ishwara is paramika
[45:48] and that ishwara creates a universe it's
[45:51] not this universe I don't know what it
[45:53] is. So an ishwara who is paramatika
[45:57] cannot create a vyavaharika
[46:02] universe.
[46:04] So this is this is shankara and this is
[46:06] why also the har krishna are have been
[46:08] angry. By the way, Hari Krishna is
[46:10] actually part of this Chaitananya Maha
[46:13] Prabhu Vayishnava tradition. They call
[46:15] it Gaodia Vishnava. It's actually a very
[46:17] traditional lineage, Vashishnava
[46:20] lineage. And it's it's a a teaching of
[46:23] duality. It's very unlike Adwita Vanta.
[46:27] And in from their perspective, they
[46:30] really cling and need to cling to
[46:33] ishwara being the absolute reality. And
[46:36] then I don't mean to make fun but in
[46:39] their tradition that ishwara who is
[46:42] paramatika sata looks like that.
[46:49] That's their tradition
[46:51] you know and it's not there's nothing
[46:53] wrong with it. It helps them a lot. It's
[46:56] a very profound devotional tradition.
[47:00] The focus is on devotion. The focus is
[47:03] is not on understanding
[47:06] who is I ishwara. If you want to develop
[47:10] devotion to Ishwara, you'd probably be
[47:13] better off with that tradition. I'm
[47:16] being very honest.
[47:18] But if you want to understand who and
[47:21] what is
[47:23] that that tradition will say that's
[47:26] ishwara
[47:28] and it's not help. So you you see my
[47:31] point. I I certainly don't mean to
[47:33] criticize. So I'm making a distinction
[47:34] here. That tradition that uh dualistic
[47:40] tradition gaudia vishnavism the basis
[47:43] for the um Hari Krishna movement
[47:45] [snorts] is extremely useful in
[47:48] cultivating bacti.
[47:51] But all the bacti in the world will
[47:53] never lead you to understand whom you're
[47:55] praying to.
[47:57] If you want to understand whom you're
[48:00] praying to, we need something else and
[48:03] that's the focus of of adwita vanta. So
[48:06] who is that ishwara? Now how do we
[48:10] respond to our Hari Krishna friends who
[48:14] say that that Shankara has demot they'll
[48:17] use language like this Shankara demoted
[48:21] Ishwara
[48:23] [laughter] you got got a demotion
[48:28] and what and in a manner of speaking
[48:31] Shankara sayshwara
[48:35] is not as real as Brahman.
[48:39] True or false?
[48:42] True. It's absolutely true.
[48:46] Ishwara from the standpoint of Edwaita
[48:49] Vanta is not as real
[48:53] as Brahman. Absolutely true.
[48:57] But that's a good thing.
[49:00] And here's why. It means that Ishwara is
[49:05] as real as you and me.
[49:09] And if is as real as you and me, we can
[49:14] have a personal relationship with that
[49:17] ishwara.
[49:19] If were of a different order of reality
[49:24] from you and me,
[49:26] how could we relate
[49:28] to that ishwara?
[49:31] It's like if you're in a dream
[49:35] and you're praying
[49:39] Who are you praying to in that dream?
[49:43] You're praying to a
[49:45] dream ishwara. Correct?
[49:50] You can't pray to any other ishwara
[49:53] because as we said before, you can only
[49:55] have relationships within the same order
[49:58] of reality. If you're praying in a
[50:01] dream, you're praying to a dreamishwara.
[50:03] If you're praying in the waking state,
[50:05] you're praying to a vyahwara
[50:08] a vyahwara
[50:10] who's not as real as Brahman. It's not a
[50:14] demotion.
[50:15] It's it's rather a reasonable present.
[50:20] It's it's presentation of Ishwara as a
[50:23] re relational reality. Pardon all the
[50:27] fancy terminology, but you get it.
[50:29] Relational. First of all, Ishwara is
[50:32] when we say ishwara is not as real as
[50:35] Brahman, are we saying ishwara doesn't
[50:36] exist?
[50:40] Pot is not as real as clay. Therefore,
[50:42] pot doesn't exist. What kind of language
[50:45] is that? So, we don't see that's
[50:48] absolutely incorrect. Pot is not as real
[50:50] as clay, but pot exists at its own level
[50:54] of reality. So when we say that Ishwara
[50:58] is not as real as Brahman, we're not
[51:00] saying Ishwara doesn't exist.
[51:04] We're saying ishwara exists at his own
[51:08] level of reality. And fortunately that
[51:11] level of reality is our level of
[51:14] reality. That's why we can relate.
[51:19] Thank goodness
[51:21] we have a tradition which makes ishwara
[51:25] as real as you and I
[51:28] brings ishwara into a realm where
[51:33] there's an actual relationship. It's
[51:35] possible to have a real relationship
[51:38] between you and Ishwara. What is a real
[51:41] relationship? We're going to talk about
[51:43] it a lot in the coming couple of
[51:45] classes. But simply put, Ishur is a
[51:48] reality because of which you exist. He's
[51:50] your cause. He's the one who sustains
[51:53] you. He's the one unto whom you will
[51:57] return.
[51:59] Watch it.
[52:02] Can we say that the pot is born of clay,
[52:06] sustained by clay, and will return to
[52:08] clay? Or wouldn't it be better to say
[52:12] that pot came from a lump
[52:17] and if we want we can crush this down
[52:19] and add water and end up with another
[52:21] lump.
[52:23] So this is the correct way of
[52:25] understanding cause effect relationships
[52:27] only exist at the same order of reality.
[52:31] So ishwara
[52:33] is as real as you and I. And this is our
[52:36] answer to those devotional traditions.
[52:38] We do not say that Ishwara is unreal.
[52:44] We do say Ishwara is not as real as
[52:46] Brahman. We do say that Brahman is the
[52:51] reality because of which ishwara exists.
[52:56] Just as clay is the reality because of
[52:59] which pot exists. In the same way,
[53:03] Brahman is the reality because of which
[53:06] ishwara exists. Is that somehow
[53:10] demeaning to Ishwara? I don't think so.
[53:12] I don't think so at all. Anyway, this is
[53:14] a topic that's much misunderstood and it
[53:18] becomes an item of contention amongst
[53:21] people who get into these arguments and
[53:23] it's easy easy to understand. Of course,
[53:27] just a a a last comment about religious
[53:30] arguments. Um,
[53:34] Buja Swami Diananda had a had a unique
[53:37] response to how to handle uh these
[53:40] religious arguments. Suppose you're in a
[53:42] in a in an argument with a follower of
[53:45] Iskan Krishna movement.
[53:48] Are you going to be able to convince
[53:50] them?
[53:51] No. Are they going to be able to
[53:53] convince you? No. [laughter]
[53:57] But you can get into a pretty long
[54:00] heated argument. So Puja Swami's uh
[54:04] solution to the problem is give them a
[54:07] cup of tea and something to eat some
[54:09] biscuits. Why? As long as their mouth is
[54:13] full, they can't say anything.
[54:15] [laughter]
[54:20] That's his solution. Very pragmatic.
[54:22] [laughter]
[54:24] All right, one last topic to to see
[54:27] tonight and this will uh prepare us then
[54:29] for the next class.
[54:32] Let me show this a little bit more
[54:36] clearly.
[54:43] So ishwara is the cause for jugat
[54:51] and that ishwara is not as real as
[54:55] brehman. This is what we've we've set up
[54:57] so far. We still say how just like that
[55:02] fouryear-old why why why why now we're
[55:05] we're not four. We're 44 and 54 and 64,
[55:08] but we're still asking those those
[55:10] questions. So, how
[55:13] how does Brahman facilitate
[55:18] all of this? And we come now to one more
[55:22] very powerful teaching of Shankara again
[55:25] has its roots. Can you turn the uh
[55:27] thermostat down? uh one more teaching of
[55:29] Shankara that has its roots in the uh
[55:32] teachings of the ancient uh rishies
[55:35] and it works like this.
[55:38] Brahman in and of itself
[55:45] is different from ishwara.
[55:49] Why
[55:52] ishwara has this capacity to create,
[55:56] sustain and so quote destroy in
[55:59] quotation marks.
[56:02] Brahman lacks that capacity. Brahman
[56:06] just gives reality.
[56:08] Brahman gives existence and reality
[56:11] which is a very passive thing. It's not
[56:14] an action. It's not doing something. So
[56:17] we can say Brahman gives reality and
[56:19] existence to everything. But Brahman l
[56:23] in and of itself lacks the power to
[56:29] create, sustain and destroy.
[56:32] Ishwara has the power to create, sustain
[56:38] and destroy. So the difference between
[56:41] Brahman and Iswara is the absence and
[56:46] presence of this power to create,
[56:50] sustain and destroy. That power to
[56:55] create, sustain and destroy which
[56:57] Brahman lacks and ishwara possesses is
[57:02] something a word that is very common but
[57:05] you may not make the connection. The
[57:08] technical word for that power is maya.
[57:17] Maya is invanta. Now, now the word maya
[57:21] is used in so many ways in the broader
[57:24] Hindu tradition. It is used variously.
[57:28] It can mean illusion. It can mean magic.
[57:30] It can mean so many different things.
[57:33] This is our usage and the vata. So we're
[57:36] using just as we're using ishwara as a
[57:38] technical term, we're also using maya as
[57:42] a technical term. Maya to us does not
[57:45] mean illusion. Maya doesn't mean magic.
[57:48] What maya means to us, Maya is
[57:53] a shaky.
[57:55] We call it maya shaky.
[58:00] Maya is a shaky, a power. What kind of
[58:04] power? We just said power to create,
[58:06] sustain and destroy.
[58:09] Ishwara is the possessor
[58:13] of that power.
[58:16] So the the language used in vanta is
[58:20] that Maya is shaki
[58:24] and ishwara is shakiman.
[58:28] The one who possesses and wields that
[58:33] power. So maya shaki power of creation
[58:37] sustenance and destruction is shakiman
[58:41] the one who possesses that three-fold
[58:44] power the one who wields that three-fold
[58:47] power and to conclude how do we get from
[58:51] here to there and now we make an
[58:55] equation
[59:00] there's the equation this is a famous
[59:03] vant IC equation Brahman
[59:07] in association with this creative
[59:10] capacity called Maya
[59:13] is
[59:17] now notice I'm not what I'm what we're
[59:20] not saying is Brahman somehow gets
[59:23] converted into ishwara remember these
[59:26] are two different orders of reality so
[59:29] the clay doesn't get converted into pots
[59:33] in In the same way Brahman doesn't get
[59:35] converted into Ishwara. But in order to
[59:39] understand Ishwara who has this capacity
[59:42] of creation and Brahman doesn't have
[59:45] that power of creation there must be
[59:48] another factor to explain it. And here
[59:52] is our factor. It's a solution to this
[59:56] problem. Brahman accompanied by this
[01:00:02] capacity.
[01:00:03] Brahman in associ better word Brahman in
[01:00:07] association
[01:00:09] with this capacity
[01:00:11] creative capacity is a nice English uh
[01:00:14] uh translation mayashaki. So Brahman in
[01:00:19] association with Maya Shaki
[01:00:23] is ishwara which means ishwhara is
[01:00:27] Brahman. What did we say before?
[01:00:32] Pot is clay.
[01:00:34] Clay is not pot.
[01:00:37] [clears throat] Ishwara is Brahman.
[01:00:41] Brahman is not
[01:00:43] ishwhara.
[01:00:45] Brahman in association with this
[01:00:48] creative capacity called Maya is whom we
[01:00:51] call Ishwara. So this solves our
[01:00:54] problem. It solves our problem because
[01:00:57] now we can explain reality
[01:01:01] from an empirical standpoint.
[01:01:05] This is the bridge
[01:01:07] to get us from this absolute standpoint
[01:01:10] to this empirical standpoint. And that's
[01:01:14] probably why the rishies called it maya
[01:01:18] because maya suggests something which is
[01:01:21] mysterious
[01:01:24] because there's something very
[01:01:26] mysterious going on here. How does that
[01:01:28] one nonduel brahman
[01:01:31] give rise to this universe?
[01:01:34] And
[01:01:37] it's very mysterious. But one thing we
[01:01:39] know is we see a universe. I mean let's
[01:01:43] just end with this. This is an important
[01:01:44] observation and we'll wrap up this class
[01:01:46] today
[01:01:52] from our vyavahar standpoint.
[01:01:58] We know two things.
[01:02:00] We know based on our last class that
[01:02:03] there must be a nondual brahman which is
[01:02:07] a reality because of which everything
[01:02:08] exists. We established that in the last
[01:02:10] class. And the second thing we know is
[01:02:14] all of this exists.
[01:02:16] We know these two things and they're
[01:02:19] incontrovertible truths. We can't deny
[01:02:22] either one of them. We can't exactly put
[01:02:24] them together either. So we have these
[01:02:27] two incompatible
[01:02:30] two how shall we call them inconvenient
[01:02:33] facts. One is the and inconvenient
[01:02:37] because you can't get there from here.
[01:02:40] You have nondual Brahman and then you
[01:02:43] have a world of duality
[01:02:46] and the American expression you can't
[01:02:48] get there from here. There's no direct
[01:02:50] connection. We need to create some kind
[01:02:53] of bridge. There must be some kind of
[01:02:56] explanation. That explanation is Maya.
[01:03:01] If you're at all math, you're probably
[01:03:03] not mathematically oriented. But in
[01:03:07] mathematics
[01:03:08] there's a tradition
[01:03:10] of
[01:03:17] this
[01:03:18] x plus a or better yet
[01:03:25] x time I can't even read what I'm x here
[01:03:30] we'll use mathematical uh x * a equals y
[01:03:36] That's remember in mathematics a dot is
[01:03:38] a times.
[01:03:39] So what this is doing is it's showing a
[01:03:43] relationship between x and y with
[01:03:46] something here that's called technically
[01:03:49] it's called a fudge factor.
[01:03:53] There is a fudge factor which allows you
[01:03:57] to see the relationship between x and y.
[01:04:02] Without this fudge factor, you can't
[01:04:04] show the relationship between X and Y.
[01:04:09] Well,
[01:04:13] so to speak, Maya is our fudge factor.
[01:04:17] [laughter]
[01:04:19] Sorry, but
[01:04:22] by the way, I'm not the only person to
[01:04:24] use this kind of language. I'm not
[01:04:26] making this stuff up. what you're
[01:04:28] hearing, even though I put a very modern
[01:04:30] uh twist on it, it's what you're hearing
[01:04:33] is is a very traditional unfoldment of
[01:04:37] how Adwita Vanta explains.
[01:04:42] So, and to call it a fudge factor, in
[01:04:44] fact, we'll we'll end with this to show
[01:04:47] you fudge factor. This is a a
[01:04:50] traditional story. I got to see if I can
[01:04:52] if I can do this right.
[01:04:58] 17 I pretty yeah 17
[01:05:03] there you have to start with the right
[01:05:05] number to make this to make this work.
[01:05:07] This is just a story to demonstrate how
[01:05:10] Maya functions as a fudge factor
[01:05:13] [laughter] because you're thinking Swami
[01:05:15] is making up this fudge factor thing. I
[01:05:18] went to demonstrate that it's actually a
[01:05:20] traditional perspective to call it a
[01:05:21] fudge factor. So there was a king who
[01:05:25] had
[01:05:27] 17 elephants
[01:05:30] and he decided to in his will he was
[01:05:34] going to leave half of his elephants to
[01:05:38] his eldest son,
[01:05:40] a third of his elephants to the middle
[01:05:43] son
[01:05:45] and just one ninth of his elephants to
[01:05:48] the youngest son.
[01:05:50] So he has 17 elephants
[01:05:53] and he decides to give half of the
[01:05:55] elephants to his eldest son, a third of
[01:05:58] the elephants to the middle son and one
[01:06:02] ninth. I sure hope I've got the if these
[01:06:05] numbers aren't right, then the whole
[01:06:07] thing just falls apart. I I think this
[01:06:09] is right. Let's see what happens. So
[01:06:12] anyway, uh the king dies and now the the
[01:06:16] the sons what a sad thing it happens in
[01:06:19] India even today where the siblings go
[01:06:21] on fighting over the parents estates not
[01:06:24] just in India but it seems to be a kind
[01:06:27] of a typical uh Indian story.
[01:06:30] So siblings are fighting for and what
[01:06:33] are they going to do? So the oldest says
[01:06:37] I get half well half of 17. Yeah, I'm
[01:06:40] not going to take what what is half of
[01:06:42] seven eight and a half. So he says,
[01:06:44] "Then I'll take nine."
[01:06:46] And then the other two say, "Wait a
[01:06:48] minute. How can you take more than what
[01:06:50] you're allotted? You should take less.
[01:06:53] I'm not going to take eight. I want
[01:06:54] nine." And they get into this big
[01:06:57] argument. And what? They're not going to
[01:06:59] cut an elephant in half. That doesn't
[01:07:01] solve anyone's problems.
[01:07:04] So sorry, I'm just being silly.
[01:07:07] So anyway, finally they they they call
[01:07:10] in the uh the the king's minister. King
[01:07:13] is no Mormon minister is there. So they
[01:07:15] they ask him mantry they ask him please
[01:07:19] solve our problem. And the mantry says
[01:07:21] I've got a solution for you. He said I
[01:07:25] will give you my elephant.
[01:07:28] So king has 17 elephants. Montree has
[01:07:31] one. And he says to the three sons,
[01:07:34] "I'll give you one and that'll solve
[01:07:36] your problem." And they're elated
[01:07:37] because they get an extra elephant.
[01:07:40] Not bad. How does it work? So now
[01:07:43] instead of 17 elephants, they now have
[01:07:46] 18.
[01:07:48] The oldest gets half of them. Half of 18
[01:07:50] is
[01:07:51] nine. The middle one gets a third. Half
[01:07:55] of 18, I'm sorry, a third of 18 is
[01:07:58] six.
[01:07:59] Six.
[01:08:01] The youngest gets one ninth. A a ninth
[01:08:04] of 18 is two. So what do we have? 9 15
[01:08:09] 16 17
[01:08:12] and there's one elephant left. The
[01:08:14] minister gets back on his elephant and
[01:08:17] [laughter]
[01:08:19] and leaves.
[01:08:24] [laughter]
[01:08:26] So
[01:08:28] [snorts] perfect,
[01:08:31] so the 18th elephant
[01:08:35] is introduced to solve this problem and
[01:08:39] then when the problem is solved, the
[01:08:42] 18th elephant is withdrawn.
[01:08:47] This is a famous
[01:08:47] [cough and clears throat] story. Anyway,
[01:08:49] the reason I'm sharing that with you is
[01:08:51] to just to make it clear. I'm not making
[01:08:53] up his fudge factor business. So the
[01:08:56] 18th elephant is like a fudge factor.
[01:08:58] And the point I'm making is that the
[01:09:01] word maya
[01:09:03] can even even though we use it in this
[01:09:06] technical sense of maya
[01:09:09] this creative capacity which we'll talk
[01:09:12] much more about in our next class. But
[01:09:15] the sense here is that the word maya
[01:09:18] still conveys that sense of mystery.
[01:09:21] This is
[01:09:24] a problem that cannot be otherwise
[01:09:28] solved without maya. It is it is
[01:09:32] inexplicable
[01:09:34] how nondual Brahman becomes a world of
[01:09:39] duality is inexplicable
[01:09:42] without some special factor. We call
[01:09:46] that factor maya. And we'll talk much
[01:09:48] more about that in our in our next
[01:09:50] class. All right.
[01:10:24] Om shanty shanty shanty.