2. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi Samvada: Introduction continued...

that Brahman is infinite and this universe is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. Then taking the infinite of the infinite it remains as the infinite Brahman alone. Om, peace, peace, peace. Namaste and welcome back to the Prezarnyaka class. At the beginning of this Upanishad, we have the customary Shanti Mantra, the peace invocation and for this Upanishad it is the Purna-Madaf Purna-Midam. Now we have come across this peace invocation earlier also, the last Upanishad which we were doing, the Isha Upanishad, also has the same Purna-Madaf Purna-Midam. The reason being that this Purna-Madaf Purna-Midam is the Shanti Mantra associated with the Shukla Yajurveda. So all the Upanishads which come in the Shukla Yajurveda, like the Brahyada Yajurveda, like the Isha-Vasya Upanishad, they will all have Purna-Madaf Purna-Midam as there, Shanti Mantra. Now as I said that I will dwell a little bit more on this Mantra. Last time what we did was that we looked at the traditional, advaithic interpretation of this Mantra, Purna-Madaf Purna-Midam, based on the Bhashya, the commentary of Adi Shankaracharya. We saw what it means. What does it mean? According to the traditional interpretation, it means that Purna-Madaf Purna-Midam, that is infinite, this is infinite. Purna-Purna-Madaf Chetty, from that infinite, this infinity has come. From that infinity this infinity has come. Purna-Syapurna-Mada-Aya, discovering the infinity of this infinity, Purna-Maya-Vasya-Syate, only infinity remains or infinity alone remains. Expanding it a little bit, what does it mean? That infinity means Brahman or Saguna Brahman in religious language, God, Ishwara, Bhagawan. And this means the Jeeva and Jagat, us and the world which we inhabit. So that is infinite and this is infinite. Saguna Brahman is infinite, Jeeva and Jagat, the real nature of Jeeva and Jagat is infinite, Purna. From Saguna Brahman, from that infinity this infinity has come. From Saguna Brahman, this Jeeva and Jagat have come. Then in this Jeeva, when we discover the infinity of this Jeeva, Purna-Syapurna-Mada-Aya, here Purna means, Aayi the Jeeva, when I discover my infinity. Then what happens? Purna-Maya-Vasya-Syate, infinite Brahman alone remains. Putting it in Sanskrit terms, more in traditional format, Saguna Brahman is infinite. At so is the Jeeva. From the Saguna Brahman, the Jeeva and Jagat have come. Saguna Brahman is the cause, Jeeva Jagat are the effect. When the Jeeva discovers its own infinity, Purna nature, then that infinite Brahman alone remains, Nid-Guna Brahman alone remains. This is the meaning of the mantra from the traditional Advaithic perspective. That means, Purna-Malone is real. The non-dual atman or non-dual Brahman alone is real. It is that which appears as the three Jeeva Jagat Ishwar. Jeeva Jagat Ishwar. Ishwar as the cause, Jeeva and Jagat are the effect. Ishwar as that infinite, Jeeva and Jagat are this infinite, this one. From that infinite, this infinite has come, these two, the Jeeva and Jagat have come. When this infinite, the Jeeva discovers its infinite nature, the infinite alone Brahman remains, Nid-Guna Brahman alone remains. So, this is the traditional meaning. That means, what is reality? Reality is Purna. Reality is non-dual Brahman. Reality is Nid-Guna Brahman. The rest of it, Saguna Brahman, Jeeva and Jagat are appearances of that reality. So, and appearances of two categories. Cause and effect. Cause is Saguna Brahman. Effect is Jeeva Jagat. Effect means cause means Karana and effect means Karya in Sanskrit, Karana and Karya. So, this is the traditional interpretation. Now, last time I had said that there is a portion of Shankaracharya's commentary which I will touch upon in this session. See, this portion is a long portion and it is a debate. Who is it a debate with? It is a debate with an ancient, even more ancient Vedantin called Bhattri propanjya. Bhattri propanjya is a Vedantin. The one who accepts the Upanishads as the foundation of, you know, of Vedanta, Upanishads has the source and interprets the Upanishads. But the interpretation of Bhattri propanjya is not non-dualistic. Shankaracharya differs strongly with Bhattri propanjya and that debate which we find here. What is Bhattri propanjya's take on this mantra? What is Shankaracharya's take on this mantra? What is Bhattri propanjya's criticism? A probable criticism. Because Bhattri propanjya preceded Shankaracharya. We did not actually engage in debate with Shankaracharya. So, all we know of his position and his attacks on this present interpretation, the non-dual interpretation is through the refutations of Shankaracharya which Shankaracharya offers. So, what would be Bhattri propanjya's criticisms of Shankaracharya? And what would be Shankaracharya's response to that? What is Bhattri propanjya's counter-response to Shankar's response? And what is Shankaracharya's counter-counter-response to that? That is basically the theme of the, is a long debate. If you go into the Sanskrit commentary of Shankaracharya on Purnamada Purnamidam in the Brajdarni Kupanishad, 5.1, fifth chapter first verse. And there you will find this long commentary. Only a part of it is explanation of Purnamada Purnamidam. The rest of it is this ancient, ancient debate. Why are we interested? We will see how important it is to refine first of all to refine our understanding of non-duality, to clear up some misconceptions about non-duality. Also, Bhattri propanjya is like the grandfather for many of the dualistic schools and monistic schools today of Vedanta. So, for example, the long debate between Bhishisthadwait and Advaita Vedanta, post-Sankaracharya, post-Ramanujacharya. But that has its roots here. We will see very soon what Ramanujacharya, in fact many of the dualistic schools of Vedanta, what they were saying was already anticipated by Bhattri propanjya. And the issues that Bhattri propanjya raises and the answers given by Shankaracharya, they will only be reflected later on in the long debate between Advaita on one side and the Vishisthadwaita, Dvaita, Dvaita, Dvaita, Dvaita all of them on the other side. These very arguments which we will see just now in its basic outline, they just became much more sophisticated in the succeeding centuries on both sides. All right, what is Bhattri propanjya's criticism of this non-dualistic interpretation of Purnamada Purnamida? Bhattri propanjya thoroughly disagrees or would disagree with Shankaracharya's non-dualistic interpretation of Vedanta. Why? On multiple counts. First of all, Bhattri propanjya would say, what Shankar is saying is, is very damaging to the Vedas. It is the Vedavirotha. Most of the Vedas is Karma Kanda. It is the ritualistic portion of the Vedas, where the devout person performs fire rituals for getting results in this life or the next life, for getting something they want in this life or to go to heaven after death and so on and so forth. So, this presupposes that dualism is true. The presupposes that there is somebody who will perform the rituals. The rituals are activities different from that person and the results are to be something different from that person so that person wants to go to heaven. Heaven and that person are not one and the same. It is not non-duality. It is thoroughgoing duality. Every action assumes duality. So, Karma Kanda Vedas are teaching duality. Karma Kanda is the entire ritualistic portion which is the bulk of the Vedas by the way. Bhattri Upanishad would argue. It is entirely based on dualism and Shankaracharya is simply denying that. So, you are going against your very foundation which are the Vedas. That is one. Second, you are going against the testimony of your own senses. Just open your eyes and look around. What do our senses reveal? They reveal duality. They reveal difference. They reveal variety. They reveal plurality. How many things are there in this world? There is time, space, objects, so much. The word is a word of difference. Our senses show it. Protecture. You see it here. It's belly. It tastes. They touch it. All of it is difference. And then based on this perception, there is inference and other sources of knowledge. The technical name for these sources of knowledge is Pramana. So, the Pramanas. All our Pramanas reveal difference. Bay the difference. Bay the duality. Not a duality. Not a Bay the oneness. No, no, no. So, again on second count, Shankaracharya not only goes against the Vedas, but also goes against the low-key Pramanas, our day-to-day sources of knowledge, like perception, like inference. All of these reveal duality. Shankaracharya says duality is false and non-duality is true. So, he is going against the testimony of our senses, of our well-known Pramanas, sources of knowledge, Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upamana, all of these. Then, all right, then what is your interpretation? Well, he says, there is no doubt that there are non-dualistic texts in the Upanishads. What the preponcious is. But there also dualistic texts. Yes, it is there that aikam evad with you, one without a second, but it's also there. Doha Superanas, I use are there two birds sitting. So, two birds. So, like this, he says that there are many dualistic texts in the Upanishads and many non-dualistic texts. The Upanishads teach Veda and Abheda, difference and non-difference. So, the real nature, the nature of reality is Veda, Abheda, difference and non-difference. So, from the original Brahman, which was non-difference, has come this world of difference. Actually, it has come. So, that Brahman is non-difference, Purna-Mada, is non-dual, is one. But Purna-Midam, this is also this difference, world of difference of human beings and animals and worlds, life and death. All of this is also real. That has come from that, from that non-dual Brahman, this world of dualism has come. From that Abheda, this Veda has come. And it is the same Brahman. So, Purna, Purna, Purna, Bhadachate, the cause is Brahman, God, real and the effect is equally real. This world and us, we are all real. So, and one day we will all go back to Brahman, Purna-Syapurna-Mada, Purna-Veva, our sishis will go back to Brahman and become one with Brahman. So, something like this, this interpretation, he has not given Bhattiprapanshiva, this is what would follow from Bhattiprapanshas, Veda, Veda, Veda, the doctrine of difference and non-difference. Brahman is non-different, correct, non-dual correct, but also equally, Brahman can and does become multiple and various, according to this very mantra, because from Purna, this Purna has come. So, take that seriously, you cannot take the cause and deny the effect. If the cause is real, then the effect must be real. And clearly the cause is non-dual, clearly effect is dualistic. So, both non-dual and dualism both are correct and Brahman, the nature of reality of Brahman is dual and non-dual, difference and non-difference. So, what does Shankaracharya say? The counter to this, Shankaracharya says this is utterly illogical, this is impossible. You cannot affirm contradictory characteristics of the same object of the same entity at the same time. So, a thing cannot have contradictory characteristics. So, you can say some, I think cannot be law, you know, a person can be tall and plump, but a person cannot be tall and short. That is no meaning at all. A flower can be, you can have these characteristics, so it can be red, it can be large, it can be fragrant, but you can't see the flower is fragrant and non-fragant. The flower is large and small at the same time. It is impossible, you cannot affirm the two contradictory qualities, characteristics A and not A of the same entity at the same time. It is beyond, it is simply illogical to say that. Now, this is Shankaracharya's preliminary counter. Bhatri Prapansha comes back with, so I am just summarizing the arguments provided in Shankaracharya's commentary. Bhatri Prapansha then would come back to all this with his counter-argument. He says, it is quite possible for an entity to be veda and veda at the same time. How? For example, depending on the avasthadhi, the state or the status. So, for example, a seed is homogenous, it is small and homogenous, inside it looks all the same. But when it sprouts into a plant and a tree, you know, seedling and a plant and it becomes a tree, it is immediately variegated into roots and trunk and branches and leaves and flowers and fruits. There is so much division difference within the tree, so much variety. You can't say that the seed is real and the tree is false. The seed is real, equally the tree with all its differences is true, it is real. As real as the seed was, in fact, it is that seed alone, which has become this tree, poor not poor namodacharya. So, this is Bhatri Prapansha's response. Yes, the same thing can be non-dual homogenous and one in one state and it can be variegated and full of difference in another state, but it is the same reality. So, same raman can be one non-dual satchidan and then it can become this world of tremendous difference. Ji, variegated and all of these tremendous differences can be there and you should take this as real. Should not say this is an appearance. Another example, which actually Shankaracharya gives, I mean, Bhatri Prapansha gives, according to Shankaracharya, is the ocean example. The same thing can be non-dual and dualistic depending upon your perspective. So, the ocean, it is one vast mass of water, but yes, the same ocean is thousands and thousands of waves rising and falling. It is four and surf and so much activity and yet it continued at the same time. You can see the seed was seed and then it became a tree no longer a seed. But the ocean continues to be one vast mass, one vast mass of water and yet full of, here it is calm, there it is tsunami wave. Here it is bubbles and foam, there it is huge waves, it is continuously like that. So, both are really, you cannot say ocean, vast mass of water, that is the reality, waves are not real, waves are only appearances. Not true. So, you must accept that Brahman can indeed be one Brahman and at the same time not appear, actually also become this entire world. Just like the ocean being one, it appears, not appears, it actually becomes so many waves and so much activity. You can't honestly deny these things. Now Shankara's counter-counter answer here, he gives an exhaustive critique of the Bhakti-Preponsia position. First, he says, this ocean example and waves, ocean and waves example, the seed and tree example, none of them apply to Brahman. It is true that Advaita Vedanta uses ocean and wave example, Advaita Vedanta uses seed and tree example, but in a different sense, not in this sense of actual transformation. Why will it not apply? So, no example is perfect. That is why it is an example. It will be applicable in some ways only. Now, what Advaita Vedanta wants to say is, the reality of this ocean is water and the reality of each wave is just water. Water is the underlying reality other than that, no wave exists and no ocean exists. However, that does not make the waves a part of the water. The water, if you take it away, it will not be a wave. At no point did the water become a wave. Not that the wave, the wave is some one part of water is called a wave, not at all. It's a name and a form and activity imposed upon water, but the water continues to be the water regardless. And without that water, you can't say water is real and wave is real. No. Without the water, the wave is not real. Whereas, the way Bhattri Prapantya uses the example, Shankaracharya's objection is twofold. One, you are showing the ocean as changeful. It is coming up and disappearing. The waves are coming and really coming up and disappearing, which means you are saying, Brahman is changing. The changes in Brahman according to you are not appearances. They are real. If they are and then second, so this is called Savikar. You are saying Brahman is Savikar. There is change in Brahman. There is modification in Brahman. Second problem. This example, the way you are using it, the ocean and wave example, the seed and tree example. You are saying that Brahman has parts avayava as parts. You are saying that ocean is here in waves. They are not in waves here. tsunami wave is there. There it is calm. So, it has parts and you are accepting that. You are saying the seed now transforms into the tree, which has real parts, roots and leaves and fruits and flowers, these parts of the tree. Similarly, this world with Jeevan Jagat are parts of Brahman according to you. Now, you see, direct line to Bishishtadwaita Vedanta is here. But Brahman does not have parts. The simple logic, core idea and Advaita Vedanta is anything that has parts, anything that is subject to modification. Notice, only things which have parts avayava can be modified. What is the modification? A change, a change in some of the parts, some re-adjustment. Some one part is lost or another part comes or re-adjustment, repositioning or reconfiguration of the parts. That's what we call change. That's how an ocean is formed. That's how in some form, how a seed becomes a tree, change with an internal change because there are parts which can interact and change. So, if it is changeful, one, if it is with components and parts, it will become impermanent, unethical. It will be subject to all the problems with change as it will have growth, it will diminish, it will be affected by, you know, problems in the world, it will be affected by karma, good karma, bad karma, sinful karma, it will be affected. And ultimately, it can decay, maybe it can die. So, Brahman will be destructible, Anikyam. And that will lead to the further consequence. It's called Anir Bhakshaprasanga. This kind of Brahman cannot give you Bhakshap. If a Brahman is really sprouted from seed to a tree, I mean, seed is sprouted into a tree. Brahman is sprouted into this world, Jeevan Jagat. If you attain to such a Brahman, as you are saying, from that Brahman, this Jeeva has come and ultimately this Jeeva will go back to that Brahman and the only Brahman will remain. Well, again that Brahman will sprout and Jeeva will come out from it. How do you know that the moksha which you will get will be permanent? If the Brahman itself is not permanent, if it is again going to change, if it is continuously changing, attainment of that Brahman does not save you from change, does not save you from causality, does not save you from power upon you, then what kind of moksha would that be? So, on all logical grounds, this formulation falls flat. Now, back to your charges that we are against the adveitas going against the Vedas. Well, no, you are going against the Vedas because the Vedas, see the way he says to Bhattiprapantra, the way you have formulated Brahman, this can only be Saguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is Brahman with the power of Maya which creates, preserves, destroys, etc. And that is the only real Brahman which you can accept. And Nidguna Brahman, you cannot accept. In that case, you are going against the Shruti vakyas, the statements of the Upanishads, which clearly talk about Nidguna Brahman, Aikam Aewad with Yam, Aham Ramhasmi, Nishkalam, it says, one of the Upanishads says, Partless, undivided, Partless. None of them you can justify on the basis of. So, all the non-dualistic texts cannot be justified from the Bhattiprapantra perspective. Second, this is a second. Then, back to your original charges, what about Karma-Khanda? It is based on dualism and clearly the Vedas teach Karma-Khanda. What about our day-to-day experiences of multiplicity? The answers are straightforward, what has become standard Advaitha cancers. First of all, Shankaracharya says, the Vedas do not teach dualism, because they need not. Dualism is instinctive. Shankaracharya says in his Adhyasavashya, his introduction to Advaitha Vedanta and the Brahman Suthras, Naisar Gikoyam, Loka Bhavahara, this is instinctive, inborn. It comes with our ignorance. We are born with ignorance of our real nature and therefore we behave in these ways. So, dualism is something that we don't have to be taught by the Vedas or by any spiritual system. That is how we operate. That is how the world appears to us and that is how we take it to be and so we operate accordingly. And the Karma-Khanda is simply a teaching in accordance with how we look at the world, how people in general look at the world, people see the world, see themselves as a poor, numb, limited and they want something in this world. And the Karma-Khanda, ritualistic portion of the Vedas just teaches people how to attain what they want in an ethical way, in a religious way, so that they rise from immorality to morality. They learn some restraint and discipline which will help them ultimately towards spirituality. Karma-Khanda will take you to Yana-Khanda. The ritualistic portion of the Vedas will take you to the spiritual portion of the Vedas, the knowledge portion of the Vedas, from the Karma-Khanda to the Upanishads or to Vedanta. This is just, in Sanskrit, this is called Anuvada, not translation. Anuvada means, as is our experience of the world, the Vedas is alright, granted that you are just this limited living being, granted that you want pleasure. Now let me tell you about the existence of heaven, where everything that you could possibly want you will get and you live in this pious way, disciplined and moral way, perform these religious actions and so your desires will be fulfilled. So this is the nature of the Karma-Khanda. This is not the primary teaching of the Vedas. The primary teaching of the Vedas, when we are ready for it, come to the Upanishads, which negates all this and says non-duality is the reality. And if you realize it, you will truly be free of suffering and attain fulfillment. So Karma-Khanda is not the teaching, dualism is not the teaching of the Vedas. Vedas is not the teaching of the Vedas. So when we talk about Abheda or non-duality, we are not contradicting the teaching of the Vedas. Then the matter of the our Pramarnas, Shankaracharya says, all Pramarnas are, they have free operation in this transactional relative realm, what is called Gavaharika. Indeed, even Vedanta depends on the fact that you have eyes and there is a book of Abhれたannika Upanishad, which you will come and read, come to class. All this is dualistic, it is fully accepted in Vedanta. So in the realm of appearance, in the realm, in the movie, in the realm of the transactional world, all the sense organs, the operate and the knowledge gained by the sense organs, eyes, ears and not are all fully accepted by Abheda, Vedanta. Why not? All right. Just like we would see stuff in the dreams, we would hear stuff and we do stuff in the dreams. All of those things are experienced. Yes, when we wake up, we realize none of that was ultimately real. So this is Shankaracharya's counter-attack on Bhatri Prapancham. And these arguments have continued down the centuries. Later on, the Vishishtadwaita school came up and Ramanujya gave very sophisticated attacks on Advaita Vedanta. And the post-Shankaradwaitis replied to those, Dvaita Vedanta came up, Dvaita dvaita Vishishtad, and then Shuddha dvaita, then the Achintya Vedavya, all of them, you will find, in principle, the arguments are similar to what Bhatri Prapancham was offering. Just that, they became more involved, more sophisticated as the centuries went by. Done. So this is what Shankaracharya's Bhashya commentary does. It explains the Purna-Mada-Purna-Midam from an Advaita perspective, and then counters other interpretations, Bhatri Prapancham interpretation of Vedanta. All right. Now, I also said in the remaining time, I'll make some general observations about this. It's a very beautiful mantra of all the Shanti mantras. It is my favorite. So I will make some interesting observations. Earlier class, and up to now, I was restricted by Shankaracharya's interpretation, and the commentary, Bhashya. Now, I will just speak freely. Okay. Nilguna Brahman, Brahman Adon will remain. Put it in another language, Purna-Mada-Purna-Midam, that is Purna-Midam, this is Purna-Midam. There, that means Saguna Brahman, Ishwarar, Bhagawan. In technical language, that is Brahman with Upadi. This means the Jeeva, technical language, that's also Brahman with Upadi. The difference is that Brahman is with the Upadi of Maya. I'm not explaining once again what the Upadi is. Remember the crystal and the colored cloth and all that. So the Upadi of Maya, with the Upadi of Maya, Brahman or Purna will appear as Saguna Brahman, Ishwarar, Bhagawan, the God of religion. And with the Upadi of this body might, or more specifically, individual ignorance, Aggyana, Karna-Shairira, then that's the same Purna of Brahman will appear as us, each one of us. Purna-Purna-Mada-Pchati, from that Saguna Brahman, this Jeeva Jagat has come. Therefore, that Saguna Brahman is the Karanam, is the material cause of this universe, and this Jeeva Jagat is the Karium, is the effect. What is the relationship? The Karium emerges from the Karanam and remains in the Karanam and merges back into the Karanam. Material cause, the effect emerges from the material cause, remains in the, is sustained by the material cause and merges back into the material cause. This is the idea of creation and destruction in Vedanta. So a pot, the material cause is the clay. So the pot is made from the material cause, the clay. So basically the pot emerges from the clay, emerges means that the potter will make it from the clay. And where does the new thing, this pot, where does it exist? In clay, instead of saying that clay is there in the pot, rather the pot is basically in the clay. The pot is the name and the form and an activity imposed on the clay. And if the pot is broken, what remains? Clay. So the emergence of the effect from the cause, the pot from the clay is what is called creation in Vedanta. The pot remaining with the help of the clay, the basis is clay, without clay, the pot wouldn't remain. That is called existence. Srishti's Thithi, Thithi, maintenance existence in Vedanta. And the destruction of the pot, where only the clay remains, where the effect goes back to the cause, that is called destruction. Srishti's Thithi lay out, dissolution or destruction. So this is the Vedanta's idea of creation, existence and destruction. What is creation? Effect emerging from the cause, the effect emerging from material cause, pot emerging from clay. What is existence? Thithi? What is going on right now? This is existence of the universe. That is the effect existing in the material cause. The clay, the pot existing in the clay, the cloth existing in the threads. And then what is destruction according to Vedanta? Destruction is the effect going back to the cause, merging back in the cause, the wave merging back into the water. And the pot being broken, giving up its pot name, form and use and just remaining as broken pot or clay. So effect going back to cause is called destruction. Remember, in that case the cause remains throughout. It was there before the effect came, it is there when the effect is there, it is there when the effect is destroyed. Before our existence, it was God alone. During our existence, it is God alone. When we die, we go back to God alone. This is the idea of creation, existence and destruction in Vedanta. Purnah, Purnama, dhachati. Then Purnasya, Purnama, this Jeeva, which is Purnama with the upadi of body mind, when it realizes its Purnama nature, its Brahman nature. What remains? Purnama, Ewa, Vashishyati. Brahman alone remains. Purnama alone remains. That is interesting. If you take Jeeva with the body mind, with the upadi of, you know, causal body, subtle body, physical body, stool, a sukshma, karna-shari, or the three upadhis, and consciousness alone. If it realizes that I am consciousness alone, if it realizes I am Purnama, if it realizes that I am Brahman, then what remains? It remains as Brahman and you would expect that it remains as Brahman, then the upadi is also will remain separately. I am not the upadi. I am not the body, not the mind, not the causal body, not the subtle body, not the physical body. I am Chidhan and the Rupa, Shivoham. This is Purnasya, Purnama, dhaya. Then what will remain? You would expect that, yes, Chidhan and the will remain. Atman, Brahman will remain. Purnam will remain. And separately, now you have separated the upadi. This body, mind, all of these will remain separately. No, it says they don't remain anymore. Only the infinite remains. Which means those upadhis are not real. Important point. The upadis are not real. They are not second realities apart from the Purnam. They cannot be. Purnam has to be one only. So, but the upadis are not really important point. This is the meaning of Jagatmithya. Jagatmithya. The world is false. It means these upadhis are false. These upadhis, they are like dreams. They are dreamt up. It's like, let me give a little trained example. In our dreams, we fall asleep and we forget that we are sleeping on this bed. And we dream up a world of our dreams. And in that world of our dreams, we have a body. We have a personality in that. We are in there in our own dreams. So, that body in the world of dreams. And that mind in that world of dreams. That's my dream upadhi. Because that's what the one I'm identified with when I'm navigating the virtual world of dreams. In the virtual world of dreams, I don't feel I am all this. I don't have a God's eye point of view. I am one character only in that dream world. That character's body mind is my body mind. That's my upadhi. What happens when I wake up? I realize I am not that at all. Oh, I was dreaming. I'm here. We dismiss the whole thing. And we say, I am this one. Now, interestingly, if I realize that I am not that body, I'm not that mind, I am this person who was dreaming on the bed, then shouldn't it be that I wake up and that body and mind now remain separately like a suit of clothes which I've taken up? No, not at all. They will disappear. I, the mind, dreamer, I had become, I had appeared as that body mind. The moment I realize what I am, those body mind also disappears. The dreamer alone remains at the or the wakeer alone remains. Similarly, that's all that remains of the dream world. Similarly, when we realize we are Brahman, Atman, limitless consciousness, Purnam, then that Purnam alone remains. Atman, Brahman alone remains. You remain as that Purnam. Not that you plus the upadhi's we remain. The upadhi's are realized to be false appearances. Nothing but you. So this whole Purnam with them is also another way it can be stated as it was later on. Brahma Satyam, here it means Purnam Satyam. Jagat Mithya. Upadhi's are Mithya. Then what am I? Purnasya Purnam Adaya. You are none other than the Purnam, none other than Brahman. Now this is Moksha. We don't know this. This is Avidya or ignorance. Vedanta, this Purnam Adha Purnam teaches us this. When we realize it, this knowledge makes us realize it, points it out. We realize this is Moksha. Freedom. How is it freedom? What does it actually do? What happens when we are a Purnam? We are not Purnam. What happens? One is, we become dependent. Look at our lives right now. The way we look at our lives. We don't know we are Purnam. Even when we chant it, the 1000 times, we still don't feel that we are Purnam. We feel we are very dependent. As bodies, we are very dependent. As persons, we are dependent. I'm dependent on the air I breathe. I'm dependent on the food that I eat. I have to eat multiple times in a day. Otherwise I feel we can help less. I am dependent on shelter. Otherwise, I'll freeze to death outside in New York. I am dependent on a nice society around me, which only in which I can exist, survive and flourish. Without this society around me, people who are providing all these institutions of society, you know, the police, the hospitals, the libraries and colleges and schools and shopping malls, all of these things. I'm entirely dependent on the material world, on our society, on this body. This is called sapeksha, dependent. And with this dependence comes next. I notice another thing. All of everything here is impermanent, unitium. Everything here keeps on changing and disappearing. All are effects. They are arising and going back to the cause again. So, these are changing. And third, I notice I have desire. I feel unfulfilled because I feel I have limited. So, I feel unfulfilled. I feel hungry, thirsty. I want this and that thing. I want objects. I want sustenance. I want people. I want my limits. My desires are endless. Economics, first lesson, that human desires are unlimited. The resources to satisfy those desires are limited. How to use limited resources to satisfy unlimited desires is called economics. So, I have unlimited desires, calm, appurdom leads to calm, calm means desire. And that leads to baya, fear. The moment I'm limited will always be in fear because I'm dependent on so many things. And everything is changing. My body is aging and problems are getting worse and worse. So, it becomes worse and worse. I have fear. Upanishad says, 'Yasya Udaram kurutatasya bayaam bhavati, whoever sees even the slightest difference here, that one has fear. You're infected with fear. And then finally, all of this culminates in dukha suffering. It can be mild disappointment, it can be mild existential angst even if things are going very nicely for me. Or it can be extremely cruel deprivation and terrible suffering, deep anguish and sorrow. But generally, it's infected with suffering, pervaded by unhappiness, sorrow, dissatisfaction, suffering. So, this is a sorporic should dependent on it here, impermanent, changing, subject to death, desire, endless desires, calm, because of our lack of fulfillment. When I have got fear, baya, and suffering. Whereas, what is Purnum? If I realize myself as Purnum, the result will be, I am Nirapeksha. I am not dependent on anything. Purnum exists by itself. Then I will be Nittium eternal, beyond time basically. Then I will have Aptakaava, where all desires will be fulfilled. There's nothing left to desire. I'll be always fulfilled by my own nature, not depending on anything outside my nature. Then I will have, I'll be Nirbhaya, fearless. There will be nothing to be afraid of. Once Adhu put it so beautifully, there is no death. There is no possibility of death for this one shining mass of existence, consciousness. What death can there be? The death of the body is like Vivekanthi, like the falling of a hair from our body, as in consequential as that to the Purnum. And there is no non-consciousness anywhere, because it is all a mass of consciousness. That's what you are. And there can be no suffering or no limitation, there no deprivation there, because you are the infinite. There is nothing that is excluded from you. These are not just rhetoric. The enlightened one actually feels this. So, Nirbhaya, fearless. That one becomes fearless. And Dukha, no Dukha will be there. Sukha only. Ananda only will be there. So, this is the difference. This feeling and living as if a Purnum, and then feeling and realizing that I am Purnum and living like that. Huge difference. Huge difference. This is the practical result of Vedanta of realizing our Purnum nature. A few observations on the etymology of the word Purnum. I have been translating it as infinite, as limitless, as complete or whole and so on. So, there are these multiple words. Each of these words in Vedanta, they express the entire teaching of the Vedanta. One word is Purnum, which means whole or complete. Shankaracharya in the commentary, he says, "Now the abhritam kutashchit," which is not different from anything else. There is nothing in the universe different from this Purnum. The definition of Purnum is where there is no existence apart from it. Apart from Brahman, Atman, apart from you, that's the definition of Purnum. That which the root, it means that which swells to envelop everything, which becomes the whole. Very interestingly, the word Brahman comes from the root. We are doing a little bit of etymology here. Brahman comes from the root, Briha, the Briha Dhatu, the root. It means exactly the same thing, to swell without limit, to expand without limit. Rajesh Patimitra says, because it is vast, because it expands without limit, the Atman is said to be Brahman. So Brahman, another word, means exactly the same etymologically, grammatically, it means the same as Purnum. Again, interesting, the word Anantam, limitless, it means the same thing as Purnum or Brahman, that which has no limit in time, space and object. Then the word Vishnu, which is the word for God, use Saguna Brahman. Vishnu means that which is not limited in time, space and object, that which is Viapi, which pervades all time, space and object. Again, the same meaning as Purnum or Brahman. Purnum is equal to Brahman, is equal to Anantam, is equal to Vishnu, and the most surprising allot of all Shunyam. I was surprised to discover, I was in my latest trip to India last, I think a couple of months back, in one of our colleges in India, run by our order, we have a huge institution called the Narendrapur complex of educational institutions, there's a beautiful college there. I was taken on a tour of what they call the zero gallery. So, there's a gallery set up by the mathematics department or educational purposes for the kids, and the whole gallery is about zero, because you know the ancient Hindus invented the zero. So, the history of the zero and the history of the zero in the Mayan civilization, the history of the zero in the Aztecs and the ancient Egyptians and Babylonian civilization, and the present form or understanding of the zero, which comes from the ancient Indians, ancient Hindus. So, that's all depicted in nice slides and you know art and informative panels. One of the panels introduces the Sanskrit word for zero, Shunyam, which is of course huge philosophical connotations for Buddhism and also for Vedanta, Shunyam. But what was interesting was one of the panels depicted the etymology of Shunyam. It comes from the root sweet, which means to swell without limit. This is original etymological thing. So, Shunyam means nothing, zero. But the original etymological thing is that is sweet is to swell. Notice the similarity between the English swell and the Sanskrit sweet. It's literally the same sound, you know, and it's not any accident. The comparative philology which started in the 18th century, when the British started studying Sanskrit, they found this amazing similarity between Sanskrit and ancient European languages, especially Greek. And then they realized that they must have been a proto-language beyond the modern Sanskrit and Greek, which was the source of all of these Indo-Aryan languages. Anyway, so there's this reason why sweet in Sanskrit sounds a lot like swell in English, because they mean the same thing etymologically. Of course, in the Shunyar derivation, it technically means zero. So, even Shunyar in that sense, and if you bring in Tibetan Buddhism, Madhyamaka Buddhism, then the Shunyar of Madhyamaka Buddhism, as that which is different from existing entities, that which is different from non-existing entities, different from both existing and non-existing and the negation of both. Chathushkoti Vinid Muktha Tatvam, which begins to sound eerily like Brahman then. So, we have all these terms, the Braja from which Brahman has come, the Pur, from which Purna has come, Anantam, Limitlessness, Vishnu, Shunyam, all of them contain in them in a seed form the entire teaching of Vedanta, the entire teaching of Purna. In fact, one way of saying with all of Vedanta in one word would be Purna-tum, completeness or wholeness or limitlessness. Now, what does it mean? What do all these things mean technically? It means limitless means, there are three kinds of limit possible in this world. What is this world? Remember, when you say this world already Purna-mada Purna-midam has defined it, Idam, this one, the one which we are living in which we are experiencing. Here, everything is limited in time, space and object. Everything is a beginning and an end, that's the time limitation. We are born and we die. Everything is produced and destroyed. So, everything is changing here, whatever we experience, moment to moment changing. So, this is called time limitation. Then, space limitation, everything is located in space. I am here, you are there. Somebody say in New York, somebody is on the best course, somebody is in India. We are located in space. If you are here, you are not there. If you are there, you are not here. So, we have this space limitation. We are not everywhere. We cannot be. No object is everywhere. Even you will say, well, space is everywhere. Not necessarily. Physical space is only physical space. What about your dream space? Is physical space in the dream space or the dream space in physical space? No. What about a mathematical space? Is that in physical space or is physical space in mathematical what about a fictional space? So, you can have multiple spaces, which are actually different from each other. Nothing is limitless here. Everything is limited in time, limited in space and object limitation. Every entity is only itself. The box is only a box. The table is only a table. The man is only this man. The dog or the cat is only the dog or the cat. Each entity is itself and different from everything else. I am different from the chair in which I am sitting. I am the chair is different from the floor on which it is standing. They are all different from each other. This is called object limitation. Each object is only itself and separate from every other object. It is a limitation. It is a smallness. It is a poverty. It is a deprivation. Now, Ananda means, Purna means that which has no limitation in space and therefore, it must be there in all space. That which has no limitation in time. That means, it was always there, no creation and destruction for it. Always there, it is there and it will always be there. No limitation in object. There is no object in the universe which is separate from Purna. So, there is no second reality apart from Purna. Since there is no second reality apart from Purna, Purna will always be Advaitham, non-dual. No second, Advaitham. Since there is Purna, there is no time when Purna was not. So, Purna will always be Nithyam eternal. Since there is no space where Purna is not, Purna will always be Sarvabhyapya or Shankaracharya says Vyapya. That means, pervasive. There will be no space where Purna is not. So, Purna means, all-pervading, eternal, non-dual. Sarvabhyapya, Nithyam, Advaitham. This is the meaning of Purna. This is the meaning of Brahman. This is the meaning of Atman. This is the meaning of Vishnu. This is the meaning of Anantam, Shunyam even on an Advaithic interpretation. Yes. Now moving on. Next, I'll make two more points and stop. One is, this is etymology. All fine. We are understanding the meaning of the word and seeing how profound that word is. Wonderful. But it's just a word. It's just etymology. Does such a thing exist? Does Purna exist? This rock, it's not only a concept, it's a real rock. By the way, this was a gift from one of our ashrams, this rock. I saw it in my room in that ashram and I asked them, can I take it back to my room in New York? See what this rock says. It says the most important thing ever. If you can see, it says here, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing, this is the essence of Rajayoga, of concentration, of meditation, of focus. The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. This is the sheer fire method to success in anything that you want. First figure out what is the most important thing. What is it that we want? Make it the main thing and then just keep the main thing as the main thing. The main thing is to keep the main thing as the main thing. So this rock, it actually exists. It's not just a thought or a concept, not a word, not for etymology only. This actually is very much so. Like that Purna, does it exist or is it just a word? Purna, Midam, Purna, Madaha. Now what it does is, the mantra does is, all right, the word Purna, now what does it say? That is Purna. This is Purna. But this we know for sure it exists. What is this? This world and us. This world and us. This is the meaning of Idam, this. This world, it exists because it is revealed by our senses. I see it. That is the most sheer fire, guarantee of existence in our common sense. And in science also, it is available to sources of the instruments of knowledge, epistemic instruments, establish the existence of this world. I see it. I hear it. I smell it. I taste it. I touch it. So all our senses reveal the existence of this world. It does exist. But then the mantra says, this is Purna. You are asking, does Purna exist? This is Purna. We will see later how, but don't think that Purna is a concept. This world is not a concept. Is this a concept? It is a rock. Very hard and solid. It is real. And Upanishad is saying, this is Purna. So it exists. Purna exists. Revealed by every sense, Purna Thva is not revealed. But Upanishad says that which you are seeing as indubitably existing, revealed by all your sense organs. Our language operates on this linguistically. We operate on this reality. Our senses, our language, our thoughts and emotions are continuously concerned with this world and this body. So it exists. This is the existence of the Purna. We will see how this one is Purna. But first of all, existence, to prove the existence of Purna, the mantra says, this existence, which you are sure about. And more than this existence, we are even more sure about what? About our own existence. I have mentioned this many times, that which Descartes could not deny. Cogit or Goswam, I am, I exist. Now very interestingly, someone might object that, Idam, Idam is meant for only this. It does not mean Aham, I. But the Ah, let me make some interesting point. The Ah, which I am talking about now, is actually covered under the Idam. This Ah, which we are experiencing right now, apparent on the surface. It is under the Idam. Just by the way, if you are interested, many of these points which I am sharing is just a part of material I have borrowed from one great scholar Lee Swamy, Purnab Chaitanya Puri, who has offered a retreat on Purnama, the Purnamidam, if you see on YouTube, he has given 8 lectures on this mantra. I have just taken a few insights, which I am sharing in this session, but many more insights are there. So, one point he makes, here is that existence. Yes, this existence. And the point he makes is, we often think, the way Vedantic analysis we do, this means object, and I am the subject. I am separate from this. But practically speaking, when we start off right now at the level at which we are starting off, the I is also part of this. That is why this I, it feels it does not exist in deep sleep. The I, which disappears in this deep sleep, is this, it is not the real I. So, it is part of Idam. Shankaracharya and the Adhyasa Bhashya, he makes, this is something you play of words there. Ahamidam, mamidam. I am this, and this is mine. Notice, he says, I am this. Why do I say I am this? Real I can never be designated as this, but the bodily I, the bodily subjectivity, this personality I, it can certainly be designated as this. This I, I, this fellow, who is there now, who is in some other ghostly form in dreams, and who disappears into deep sleep also. It is certainly a this. So, Idam Purnam. What is that Purnam you are talking about? All that Brahman, Vishnu, Anantam, Shunyam Purnam. What is that? Idam, and this Idam has two parts, objects and the, the relative subject, the empirical subject, this fellow. This fellow and this fellow's world, this is Idam. Also, other Purnam, the that one, God. That is also, in a sense, we know it exists by faith, by scripture, by there are proofs of the existence of God. If you will, in Christian theology, five proofs, the five proofs of Aquinas, if you search, five proofs of Aquinas, the design proof, the first mover proof, the original cause, proof, gradation proof, the five proofs of the existence of God, Neyaika, Udaya Natharya, centuries before Aquinas, gives nine proofs of the existence of God in his debate against the Buddhists. He wrote a book. One is Atma Tatva Vibhaka, and other one, the more famous one, he gives, this is Udaya Natharya. He gives his proofs of the existence of God. So, Rick has given some information here, Udaya Natharya. Neyaakusamanjali, yes, Neyaakus, very famous book, Neyaakusamanjali. The point is, by logic and by scripture and by faith, even that God, we understand as existing. Now, what this mantra is doing, that Purnam, that absolute, that Brahman, it connects the existence of Brahman to the existence of this God and this world, and the subject. Whatever we consider as existing, Ishwara, Ji, Vajagat, Purnam, Miram, Purnam, Adav says the existence of those things is this Purnam. One more subtle point, and all this I am borrowing from our Pranachaitanya Maharaj. He says, very subtle point. He says here, when I say that is Purnam and this is Purnam, a certain subconsciously we feel there are two Purnams. Of course, there are not two Purnams, but when I say this and that, it feels like there is a Purnam here and there is a Purnam there. No, no, no, this duality is created by the words this and that, but there is no duality in Purnam. So, this and that does not mean there are two. The same Purnam appears as this because of the Upadiya body mind and the world. The same Purnam appears to us as that because of the Upadiya, Maya as that God in heaven distant, but the Purnam is one. Now, what he has done here is that that and this are not two different things. It is that one Purnam alone. And this I have said earlier, this is the Mahavakya. What I am saying, I will stress once again here. Purnam, Adav, Purnam, Miram. The first quarter of this mantra is the Mahavakya, Tattu Amasi, Aham Brahma has me, it is saying this. If that God is Purnam and I am Purnam and it is the same Purnam, then I and that are one. I am Brahm and them. Tattu Amasi, you are that, that's what it is saying. So, this is a very profound consequence of Purnam, Adav, Purnam with them. One final point I will make, there is no more time. Also, tremendous consequence, philosophical consequence, is the next part. Purnam, Purnam, Adav, Cheri. What's the primer-facing meaning? From Brahm and from God universe has come. That is the old, old saying of all these stick religions. The common understanding in shaybism, Vaishnavism, Shaqtaism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism is that there is a cause of this universe, which is God, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Narayana, Devi. And there is an effect this world, all beings here cause an effect. So, this is the first thing and this is very important. All of religion is packed into a tasty religion. But the mantra is so profound, it subverts it almost immediately by saying that cause is Purnam, the effect is Purnam. If the cause is Purnam and the same Purnam, if the cause is Purnam and the effect is Purnam, then what happened in causality? You cannot say the seed is Purnam and the tree is Purnam. No, the seed actually became the tree. This is a change. It's not the same thing. But if you say it is the same thing, it means nothing has happened. It is after presenting causality as a way pointing back to the Purnam, it says by saying the cause is Purnam and the effect is Purnam, it denies causality. This ultimately there is no causality. Vivekanth puts it very simply. One alone exists. It appears as nature's soul. It translated directly into Purnam, the Purnam with them. One alone exists. What alone exists? Purnam. It appears as nature and so, not that it becomes nature and so. Nature, Purnam, aha, that one, God, Prakriti, nature, whatever you call it. If you are in Sankhya, you will call it nature. If you are a scientist, you will call it nature. If you are believing person, believing in religion, you will call it God. Purnam, that is what the Upanishads says, Purnam, aha. And this one, I, soul, the individual being, the subject, the sentient being, the jiva. But the Upanishads says, Purnam, idam, this is Purnam. The cause is Purnam, the effect is Purnam. The same Purnam appears as cause. It appears as effect. It appears as nature. It appears as the products of nature. Therefore, causality is in the world of nature, in the relative world, in the universe. But ultimate reality, causality is not ultimately real. Because causality is not ultimately real, Purnam is free of causality. Purnam is free of karma. No karma touches Purnam. And you are Purnam. You are free of karma. This is mocksha. This is the philosophical understanding of mocksha. By realizing your Purnam nature, you will realize that I am free of karma. All past karma, I was never born. I will never die. And therefore, what about my past karma? Will it be burnt? No, past karma actually. That is the meaning of past karma being burnt up by knowledge. That is the meaning of being freed from the cycle of birth and death. You will realize there is no cycle of birth and death for you for Purnam. It is all, at the relative level, relative level, very true, r-struth. But when you realize you are that Purnam, what will happen? Purnasya Purnamada. And how will you realize? Dhrigdhrishya, Viveka, Panchakoshya, Viveka, Vastatraya, Bichara, so many methods are there. But you do. All of them will culminate in, aham Ramhasme. This Purnasya Purnamada, realizing the Purnam nature, in this Purnam. What will happen? Chaitanya alone remains. The non-dual alone remains. Purnam alone remains. Not Purnam and a separate world body might know. All of this right here in this life, it becomes Purnam. Or you realize it as Purnam. One unbroken, unmistakable mass of radiance, mass of existence of airness. And you will continue to exist in this particular form. The Jiva with its Upadis will continue to appear. But you know it is just one radiance. Then it will be fine that, yes, I am the body also. Purnam is the body. Purnam is the prana. Purnam is the mind and intellect and everything and the world and all this creatures, it is all Purnam. But it is all is, as Viveka has said, all is not Purnam alone is. And you are that Purnam. So this is the one more very nice insight that this denies causality. It explains, it shows what causality is. It shows us what is God. It shows us what is the universe. It shows us the nature of our bondage, how we are whirling around, causality for us is law of karma, each of us. That's where we attract. And it shows us the way out of it also. The how the Purnam is free of all of that already. And you just have to realize that you are this Purnam. That is why all sadhana is there. The Mukyasadhana, main sadhana is this insight. That's where Vedanta comes in. That's where Upanishad comes in. That's where Purnam other Purnam with them comes in. Associated sadhana, meditation, focus very important. Main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing, very important sadhana, most important. This is what associated. Knowledge is primary and if you to get that knowledge, focus is the most important thing. Devotion, love, another extremely important thing. Karma services, you see, Swami Vivekananda's more and more we begin to see what a tremendously powerful philosophy that is. The Vedantic philosophy of service, Siva, Siva Ganesh, Jiva, Siva. That what is the practical effect of this Purnam? You see the vastness here and you are this vastness. Everyone and everything is one with you. How will you respond? You will respond with love and service. So why not make it already make it your philosophy of life? Live like that already. Good. As Swami Vivekananda offered his thoughts regarding debate between dualists and non-dualists, he has certainly. There is a comprehensive view that actually offers guidance to non-acceptive experience. Yes, you find it in Sri Ramakrishna's approach. What we just said, Purnam other Purnam with them and you combine it with the consequences of Sri Ramakrishna's approach like service, Shiva Ganesh, Jiva, Siva like harmony of religions. So these are the consequences. Then you will have a very comprehensive approach and all of those can be based on this Purnam or Purnam, Purnam. Comprehensive Sanskrit would be Purnam, Purnam approach. This is comprehensive, you see. The result of this philosophy you will see in general Hinduism, if you see. Look at the conception of the divine in Hinduism. How Purnam it is? Does God exist? Yes and no. We can become enlightened with God and without God. And you can understand it through Purnam or the Purnam with them. Is God with form? Yes and no. God is without form also. Is God male? Yes and no. God is female also. Is God does God have to have human form? Yes and no. God can have animal form also. God can have the form of the elements, fire, space, water, all of those. If you say God, you have to believe in God. Then your idea of spirituality is not Purnam. If you say yes, you have to believe in God but only in God without form. God cannot have form. If you say God can only have form. It cannot be formless. If you say God can only be male, not female, then you are not Purnam. God can only be female and not male, not Purnam. God can only be worshipped in human form, not animal or other non-human forms. Then you are not Purnam. So this Purnam idea, now you begin to compare it with actually what Hinduism has become over the centuries. You see, it's like a development of the Purnam idea in religion, this vastness. On Irban, Non-Rodhana Chodhpati, it's yes. That is the negative side of the Purnam other Purnamism. Purnam other Purnamism is a positive way of saying this. Shubhata says, "Since the enlightened people say that they see oneness in everything, they are the same as Brahman agreeing to non-dual teachings. Can we safely say none of the dualists who existed were enlightened?" No, no, not at all. Then again, you will not be Purnam. It's not that you have to come to this view to be enlightened. If you touch the divine in any form, in any way, you don't have to come through it to Purnam other Purnamism. You can come to it through the worship of Gopala. When the Gopala's mother, Gopala's mother, in the story of Sri Ramakrishna, when she sees the baby Gopala in all beings, how is it different from this Purnam other Purnamism? So, the dualists who have the spiritual experience, whether they are Vaishnavas, Shaatas, Christians, Muslims, without any particular religion, once they come in touch with that reality, and they are enlightened. And you don't have to say that they have to be enlightened in the way which perfectly matches by sophisticated non-dualistic philosophy. No, Vivekantha would say here, it would be practical, which is an ounce of practice. An ounce of realization is worth twenty tons of tall talk. Rama, you said that when we realize of a true nature, that alone remains and the Upadi's disappear. Yes, disappeared means you realize those Upadi's are also that Purnam. The body and mind will still appear to you. The Upadi's will appear to you, but they will not limit you anymore. You will not feel, I am limited to this and everything else is outside me, and separate from you never. Then Priyanka says, how does the Srishti-Dishti-Vad of Advaitha forego dualism? It has to consider some ground there, certainly. The Srishti-Dishti and possibly only Ajata-Vad was subscribed to pure Advaitha. So, these are approaches. Think of them as runways. Srishti-Dishti-Vad is a longer runway, and Srishti-Srishti-Vad is a shorter runway, and Ajata-Vad is like a helicopter, you have to go straight up. We have no chance of running and taking, you know, to take off. Srishti-Dishti-Vad has gives the maximum concession to dualism, and Srishti-Srishti-Vad gives very little concession to dualism, and Ajata-Vad gives no conception at all, straightaway into Purna. Abhijit says, in the first part of the Mantra, Purna, Mother, Vedas, other, that denotes Saguna Brahman and not Nidguna Brahman. Yes, think about it. If that is Nidguna Brahman, then what is this? So, if you talk about Nidguna Brahman, that is also Nidguna Brahman, this is also Nidguna Brahman, or neither that, nor this is Nidguna Brahman. Nidguna Brahman alone is. Moment you bring in that. What is that actually? That means with the Upadhis, which are which are paroksha, distant. God is in heaven. God is a matter of faith. God is not something perceptible to the senses. Clearly, some Upadhis that play here, distinctions are being made here. In that case, other is different from Idam. Is this denoted in Shankar's commentary on the Mantra? Yes, you can find it there. Logically also, you will see. The moment you say, Purnaum, other, Purnaum Idam, distinguishing other from Idam, there is some Upadhi. What is the Upadhi for that? And what is the Upadhi for this? Why would you say, why do I feel I am this because of location in this body mind? This is my Upadhi. If I remove this body mind location, notice how my sense of what I am and where I am change is when the body mind is changed, like dreams. Suddenly, you will feel I am in a different place, in a different body, in a different entirely different. So, the Upadhis have changed. Now, the Upadhi, the Cosmic Upadhi, is Maya. Consciousness associated with the Cosmic Upadhi becomes the Cosmic creator, preserve or destroyer, the cause of everything. The language implies it. And further, you will say, why that other means Saguna Brahman, you will see the next part of the mantra, see what it says, Purna, Purna, Madhacharya. So, from that Purna, this Purna has come. If something has come from something, then that something is the cause and this something is an effect. The moment you say, cause an effect, it means God and the world. So, other will mean Saguna Brahman. If it went Nidguna Brahman, there would be no question of anything coming from anything. Richard has pointed out the books. Thanks for this quick research. Niyakosumanjili, wonderful, wonderful book, which is an attack, which is dualistic, fully dualistic book. An attack on the Buddhist, Buddhist denial of God. Buddhist says there is no issuer, and Ludha and Acharya defends the Hindu conception of God. Our professor in Harvard University, Parimal Partial, has written a book against a Hindu God. The name of the book is against a Hindu God. So, he summarizes the attacks of the Buddhists on the concept of God and the efforts of the Niyakas, the Niyafilosophers, to defend the conception of God. It is a very dense book, very difficult book. Kiranavali, Atma Tatwa Vidyaka is Udayana Acharya's another book, not as famous as Niyakosumanjili, but it defends the idea of the self, Parimal and self, not the Advaithik self, the dualistic self, body, mind, self, separate self, Atma, defends that conception. Puneetas is a Jaja, Ikhani, as he is Maa said, whatever is here is here itself, true, Purnam. This is Purnam, correct? Aashonali has said, God, infant circles, center, appearance, or conference, no, the right, right, right, correct, correct, well put, and he didn't think of that. Take care, and the next time we will actually start the Bhrirdana Kupanishad, one part of it, only one chapter.