How Rational Can Spirituality Get? | Swami Sarvapriyananda

0:00 Advaita says, "Enlightenment can be obtained through philosophy. Not that you can argue your way to enlightenment, but you can come very, very close to it." >> How rational can spirituality get? I met Swami Sarvapriyananda, one of the world's leading teachers of Advaita Vedanta, the non-dual philosophy rooted in Hinduism that puts self-inquiry and rational thinking so much at the center that it irritated more devotional schools of Hinduism. >> The yogis would charge us with, "You guys talk a lot, but you don't meditate enough. You don't have these experiences. Do you even believe in the deities? Do you take a a dip in the holy Ganges?" And our answer was, "Yes, we do all of that."

0:46 Except that we don't think it's the end. There is an ultimate reality, which is the reality of all things in the universe. Where is it? What's [music] it? It's you. >> According to Advaita Vedanta, reality is fundamentally a projection of consciousness that itself remains untouched by the [music] images because it is the screen. >> Wherever the movie is, the screen is [music] there. Uh and in fact, the screen is the reality, not the pictures or the what's happening on the movie at the level of appearance. Whatever your level of suffering, all the time >> [music] >> this non-dual reality is available for you, untouched by the story of the movie. In the midst of suffering, there

1:31 is peace. >> According to Advaita Vedanta, our individual [music] selves, jiva, equal the divine, Shiva. And out of this, the tradition derives its ethics. >> Worship Shiva by serving jiva. My God, the poor. >> [music] >> My God, the sick. My God, the hungry. My God, the ignorant. My God, the wicked. The biggest questions which human beings have. What is real? How do we know anything? And what's the point [music] of it all? Notice there's one answer for all of these, a simple insight that >> Before we go, allow me one short message. The Essentia Foundation exists to share with the world that consciousness is fundamental in our universe. It's our essence, our

2:18 essentia. This worldview is known as non-dualism or idealism, and not only is it more compatible with modern science, it also gives deep to our lives. >> Once you decide that you're going to find out, the world will present you the next step [music] to do. >> We are a nonprofit that relies on donations, and your membership would really help us to continue and grow this [music] channel. Now, we've created two tiers of memberships with a special surprise [music] in the second one, something we've been building and working on for quite a while, namely the Essentia app, a knowledge hub that unlocks all our videos and essays with an AI-powered search engine that directly leads you to clips around a specific topic, and lets you discover

3:04 links between all the scientists that have appeared on our platform. If you want to discover more, hit the join button below. But whether you become a member or not, I really want to thank you [music] for watching our videos and for all the love that we've been receiving for the last couple of years. Thank you so much. And uh without further ado, I really hope you enjoy the following conversation. I have the great pleasure and honor of sitting down with Swami Sarvapriyananda. A very warm welcome, Swamiji. >> Thank you, Hans. Wonderful to be here. I watched some of your videos online, so I didn't know I would be actually participating in one. >> It's a great pleasure to have you here. Just for our audience who do not know you, I think many will know you, but

3:49 just a brief introdu- introduction, you're one of the world's leading teachers in Advaita Vedanta, which is the non-dual spiritual tradition rooted in Hinduism, mainly concerned with um the Upanishads, which contain great sayings that are very similar to analytic idealism, namely that Brahman is consciousness, and that fundamentally we are that consciousness. So, I think it's just very interesting to explore all of that with you, and um you are um [snorts] head of the Vedanta Society of New York, and um I just find it amazing to see your reach online with your videos, your lectures, your Q&As reaching so many people, and I think not only because of your knowledge of uh Hindu philosophy

4:37 and modern science, but also your gift to explaining it and translate it into modern-day language, inspiring people worldwide, and how to bring it into practice also. So, I just think that's really great. >> [snorts] >> Um so, it's my honor to have this conversation with you. >> Thank you. I think we are just lucky to be alive at this particular time when this amazing technology which has connected the world, and it has become um a vessel for spreading wonderful ideas, including Vedantic ideas, so easily across the world. >> Hm. So, it can be part of a yogic practice to to do podcasting in that sense. >> Yes. Um I remember Swami Vivekananda, who founded the Vedanta Society of New York, and was a disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, a

5:22 very noted uh central figure in spirituality in India in the late 19th century. Swami Vivekananda said that whenever uh the world has been knit together, maybe by empires in the past, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Empire, the uh and then finally the British Empire in 19th century, 18th, 19th century, Indian ideas have spread out across this these connections. And now we have the empire of the internet. So these ancient ideas developed in in part in the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago. They have a new virtual life in the 21st century. >> They do. And I'd like to start a bit personal. I've read you come from a pious family

6:09 and had a spiritual inclination from a very young age on, but you also pursued a more more worldly education obtaining an MBA. And you write about the moment that after those studies instead of pursuing sort of the worldly path of becoming a business leader and maybe earning a lot of money and worldly success, you chose of course the monastic path. And to quote you from your book, someone asked you, "Are you mad? Why are you giving up all these pleasures? Don't you want anything?" To which you then replied, "No, I want everything." >> Mhm. >> I found that such a profound answer and I wanted to ask you what led you to that decision and also just what you mean exactly by that answer that you pursued everything by becoming a monk. >> Yes, that's a good question.

6:54 In fact, the interesting thing is that doing the MBA was actually part of on my on my journey to becoming a monk, not the other way around. >> All right. >> What happened was as a kid growing up in that family and it helps to be in India, I guess, where there are multiple living spiritual traditions. Even being monks is not unknown. It's It's It's part of society. You know, there always have been spiritual practitioners and yogis and monks. So as a child, I remember reading these books, especially by Swami Vivekananda and by others also. And I was lucky enough to be maybe part of the last generation before cable TV, certainly before the internet. So we had books to to entertain ourselves.

7:40 And I thought if God realization is possible, if spiritual realization enlightenment is possible, then that should be my goal in life. If I do what my parents did, my uncles and aunts did, my life will be something like that, maybe a little better, little worse. So, why not do this which if it is real, then this is the most worthwhile worthwhile thing to do. Um so, very early on I decided to be a monk, but I had to finish my education. And it so happened as in the monastery near our house, a senior monk who was visiting, he uh encouraged me, but he said, "Look, you're young. Um you finish your studies, you earn a little bit of money and see how your mind behaves when you're independent and you have got

8:25 money in your hand. Would you still want to give it up?" I thought, "All right, that sounds wise." Um and I thought, "How do I get money very quickly so that I can give it up very quickly." And I didn't even know what an MBA was until somebody told me there's this new thing called an MBA. It wasn't new, but it was a new for us in India at that time. And uh if you do that, you'll earn a lot of money very quickly. So, I thought, "Okay, that's what I have to do." And I did it. And um I did earn a little bit of money just uh before giving it all up. I didn't even have to get a job afterwards because uh you know, in the MBA in the summers, you do an internship in in companies. So, that's when I got a sort of sort of experience of doing a job and earning a little bit of money. And then I gave it up. So, it was an MBA

9:11 on the way to becoming a monk. >> That's a very interesting career path and um >> Um if I go back to what you asked about the everything, yeah. >> A friend asked, um "Why do you want to give up all this?" I said, "I'm not giving up just something. I'm I'm I want everything." By everything I mean, what I understood from Vedanta intuitively is it's looking us at the um from heart of reality, the reality of everything. Um you know, the question which comes up in Vedanta again and again is um what is that by knowing which you know everything? And that one thing. And that's the that's how the pursuit of spirituality is understood in Vedanta. So, that's what I meant that, you know, I'm not giving up anything. I want I

9:58 want it all, not just a part of it. Yeah, to be one with the universe, if you want to use cliches. But Vedanta says it's entirely possible. And then it's in fact, even more amazingly, it's already a fact. We have to uncover it. >> That um of course touches on the key um ontology of Advaita Vedanta in which of course the notion of Brahman is very important. I think many people have have have heard of it, but we need sort of stories and metaphors to really understand it. And I very much liked in in your latest book how you describe it uh in a story of a boy and a father going to the cinema. And the story is of course about how we ourselves find find ourselves in a world of appearances, you could say a cinema.

10:44 And we are identified with the images on the screen, but that is not the reality of the cinema. Could you tell us that story and how it points to sort of also the difficulty of grasping what Brahman is? >> Yes. Um when I first heard it, it also struck me. I was I was fascinated by that uh analogy. And it's not of course not a traditional example. A traditional example would be the clay pot or you know, um gold and ornaments or the water and waves, things like that. Um but I heard it from a traditional wandering monk. Um his name was Ramananda Saraswati. He's passed away several years ago. And he talks about a little boy who's

11:30 taken by his father to a cinema hall to watch his first cinema. And on the way the father explains what a cinema is. There is a screen on which pictures are projected and there's sound and a story is told. And so they enter and when they enter the hall it's dark and the movie has already started. We basically enter into life and it's already started, you know, so it's there's already a movie. There are parents and there is the society around us and everything. And we already have a body. Um and the boy at first becomes very absorbed in the movie as we do in life and then starts asking questions as we do after some time. Uh what's it all about? And so the boy asks, "Where is the screen? You told me

12:15 about the screen. Where's the screen?" And the father whispers, "There, in front of you. That's the screen." But he says uh and here I sort of visualize it as the famous scene in Mahabharata maybe where Krishna is teaching Arjuna in the middle of the battlefield. He says "There, in front." Um you mean um Krishna and Arjuna? No, no, no, behind them, behind them. Behind them, the chariot? No, no, no, behind it all. Oh, you mean the battlefield and the sky? And the father says, "No, no, no, what I mean is um if you remove it all." "Oh, you mean the screen is nothing?" No, no, no, no, I mean it's that that's all of it. "Oh, the screen is the warriors and the chariots and the elephants and the you know, the sky and

13:01 the earth?" Now the monk said, "How will the father point out the screen? Because wherever he's pointing to, uh there's a picture. And the child looks at the picture, the boy looks at the picture and thinks, "That's what you're talking about." And if you say, "No, no, ignore the picture. It's what's behind the picture of the um that on which the picture is projected." If you say ignore the picture then the child doesn't see anything except the pictures, so he thinks it's nothing. Um but the screen is that on which the entire movie takes place. Wherever the movie is, the screen is there. Uh and in fact, the screen is the reality, not the pictures or the what's happening on the movie at the level of appearance. And that's a good example, a modern

13:48 example to explain um what Brahman is. Whatever we experience, there's a foundational reality right here. And uh in Vedanta, that is called Brahman. Uh what is Brahman? Uh it is characterized as existence itself. The screen is existence itself. Uh and further, consciousness itself, and even bliss itself. Look at it this way. It struck me about a couple of years ago that the foundational questions in philosophy are um um what is real? And the branch of philosophy which deals with that is ontology. Um [clears throat] the second question is um how do you know these things? Whether God is real or heaven is real or

14:34 the world is real or minds are real, is matter real? How do you know these things? So, the branch of philosophy which deals with this is called epistemology. And then finally, we have a number of other fields which are clubbed together. There's a new name for it, axiology, the science of values, study of values. So, aesthetics, then ethics, what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what's the point of life, what is beautiful, what is worth having. All of them together, um axiology. Now, these big questions, the biggest questions which human beings have. What is real? How do we know anything? And what's the point of it all? >> Yeah. >> And now if you come back to Vedanta, notice there's one answer for all of these. Uh you may agree or disagree with that

15:20 answer, but the answer is bold and it's fresh and it's ancient and it's very direct. Ontology, what is real? Um for in Vedanta, it is existence itself. Existence, being, the Sanskrit word is sat. Not existing things, but existence. How do we know anything? How is knowledge possible? How is experience possible? And the Sanskrit word for that is chit. Consciousness. And um ananda, bliss. That's the point of it all. So here you have three questions. The ontological question, the epistemological question, and the axiological question. And the Vedantic answers are sat, pure being, chit, consciousness itself, and ananda or bliss itself.

16:05 And Vedanta goes further and says, these three are not three, but they are one. There is an ultimate reality which which is the reality of all things in the universe, like the screen of the movie. Wherever you find existence, existing things, that's sat, it's there. It's also that very thing is also what we experience as consciousness in sentient beings. And in its real nature, it's what we are all searching for, it's what what gives value or point to life. Even morality or ethics can be drawn from it. So it's one reality and it's called Brahman and the word Brahman just means the vast. It's not the name of a Hindu god. Um although later on, there would be any number of uh divine figures which represented Brahman. But Brahman the

16:50 original term in the Upanishads, in the original text, is very philosophical. It's just means the unlimited, the the vast. Um and Vedanta goes further and claims this Brahman, you ask, where is it? What's it? It's you. >> It's right here. >> It's right here and it is you. It is everything, but also, very interestingly, it is you and Vedanta would like you to focus on yourself in order to discover that. And if you did discover it, you would know the secret of all reality, what this universe is, you would know the secret of all experience and knowledge, and you would have that which you are looking for in life, the answer to the axiological question. >> Beautiful. Thank you so much. This is very elaborate answer and a great answer

17:36 and it makes me There are so many follow-up questions. One I have, I think in particular interesting to our audience is I've interviewed many physicists and what I find super fascinating is now how of course modern-day physics is arriving at many metaphysical insights that are known for thousands of years in Hinduism and Advaita Vedanta. And one of them is of course that the world of appearances, the movie on the screen in the story you just told, we know that those images are not fundamental because we know in measurement that physicality, a world which we can measure and has shape and form, only presents itself when we look at screen. And of course what projects

18:21 and how the projection takes place, that that's the big question in physics. It's called the measurement problem. So I'm just super curious how what your how you look at quantum mechanics, how it sort of is similar to Advaita Vedanta in where it points to metaphysically, but also where Advaita can Vedanta can enrich sort of where physics is now sort of hitting a wall. >> Yes. Sorry for the big >> No, no, but >> You're you're right. Uh it's something that I've been trying to avoid, but I can't avoid it. The reason I tried to avoid the whole issue of quantum theory is because I'm not trained in it. It's not my field and it's a very sophisticated field, cutting-edge physics. Um you would be surprised at the number of uh uh monks who are physicists by training.

19:07 I know a few who are PhDs in physics. I think what drives them to the monastic life, those few who are monks, is the same quest which drove them to fundamental physics in the in the first place, to to particle physics or to cosmology. This quest to know the reality of this universe, the ultimate and the answers to the ultimate questions. Um Yes. But from what little I've read about quantum theory, and that is just Now there is there are a plethora of books trying to introduce it to lay people like us. Um first thing which strikes me is the founders of quantum theory they were almost to a man all fascinated by Vedanta. That is very very interesting. Uh

19:52 Oppenheimer, of course, uh he was um uh he loved the Bhagavad Gita. He called it the greatest philosophical song written in any language. He actually learned Sanskrit and read it. He learned Sanskrit in Berkeley uh as a student. Uh and uh he read the Gita in the original. He knew verses in the original Sanskrit. And he would in fact at at one stage in his life he would hand out copies of the Gita to uh friends. And he all he had a small library which would always travel with him, and the Gita would always be part of that. Um but >> Yes. Yeah, and then just sorry, he quoted I remember that famous uh fragment where he quotes Bhagavad Gita, "Now I've become the destroyer of worlds." >> of worlds. Now I come time, the destroyer of worlds, and also the

20:38 explosion of the atom bomb with as if a thousand suns rose in the sky. And that's in the Gita, 11th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. Um but also Heisenberg, Schrödinger, um they were not aware not only aware, they read uh Vedanta. They talked about it among and then themselves and to others, also. So they found a resonance there. To whatever extent they studied Vedanta, they found a resonance. Um not just Vedanta. On the other hand, um, Buddhism. Um, there is the quantum theorist Carlo Rovelli today who writes in his book Helgoland that he was asked, "Have you read Nagarjuna, what you speak about uh, that seems similar to what Nagarjuna

21:25 said?" And he says, "Who's this Nagarjuna? I I better read Nagarjuna." And he finds out that Nagarjuna was this monk, a philosopher who lived nearly 2,000 years ago in ancient India. And when he, uh, Rovelli read the translation of the root verses of the middle way, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, he says, "I was fascinated to discover that this Buddhist monk and philosopher who lived nearly 2,000 years ago, you know, through sheer, um, philosophical inquiry, not that he knew quantum theory, he didn't, but through sheer philosophical inquiry he comes to a worldview which is extraordinarily, um, you know, um, reminiscent or, um, like an echo, uh, or or like a like a mirror image of

22:12 what I'm tr- what quantum theory is telling us about the nature of the world, this interdependent existence. So um yes that is an interesting aspect. We are These are two areas of great interest today. One, as you said, in science, in quantum theory, uh, the ultimate nature of physical reality. Um, we are running up into consciousness there. Uh, somebody wrote that it's I found a new entrant into physics fundamental physics conferences in the last 30 years and most unexpected presence, and that's consciousness. >> Yeah. >> You wouldn't expect it to be. You think con- consciousness is a high-level emergent phenomenon, you know, after you have living beings, brains, so it's something to do with physiology,

22:58 neuroscience, brain science, and then consciousness. But when you're [clears throat] talking about, um, quantum theory, the very building blocks of of the universe, how does consciousness come in there? Uh so that's one area and the other area of course today again very hot is consciousness studies itself. And if you look at these two and you see the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta is you are that. You meaning bare consciousness itself. That meaning bare existence itself. Are one and the same thing. And so the fundamental thing which Advaita Vedanta could contribute in principle to this debate would be what is the nature

23:43 of consciousness? What is the nature of existence? And most stunning is that you Advaita Vedanta projects or predicts you'll come to the same answer in both. >> I um think that in the West um I mean we concocted all subject object divide philosophically though interesting to mention that it is also part of Hindu uh philosophical history like dualist traditions. Um but now um as physics indeed as you say point to the fact that those appearances are not fundamental. Um we are still so much attached to the screen of perception so to the appearances physicality that we find it hard to to uh just explore the fact that maybe consciousness might be fundamental. And

24:30 now the richness of of your tradition is of course to say if you start there, things become a lot easier. You can can sort of tell um the story of reality better. But there are of course a big question still. Um one for me has to do um on a meaning level. When we think of Satchidananda, right? The uh being consciousness and bliss. Uh especially that notion of bliss um the the movie of life, getting back to the cinema metaphor just for for for for people to understand, is of course has pleasure and joy, but it also has pain, uh sickness, and natural disasters, or sometimes just pure horror about by the violence we inflict inflict upon each other. And a critique many

25:15 people have on non-dualism and idealism is that what is your answer there? Because if it's all consciousness and there is a universal mind that is inflicting all of this on us. What does that tell us about nature? And um how can you call that bliss? So, I was very curious on your answer here, and also how to define bliss and ananda to better understand this. >> This is what is called the problem of evil in in religion and theology. Um So, one form of this question is uh in religion, it would be if this so-called God exists, why is there so much suffering in the world? Um There is tremendous amount of suffering at the natural world and in the human world. Part of it is natural suffering,

26:00 just the way the life is, you know, it feeds on life itself. There's tremendous violence in nature. Um then there is the very way our bodies are designed, where there's possibility of a lot of pain and disease, and finally old age and death inevitable for everybody. Um somebody said, "Life is the name of a of a disease with a 100% fatality rate." >> [laughter] >> So, it's just it seems to be designed to produce suffering. Um What does non-duality say here? In fact, I think non-duality has the answer. Non-duality does not um shy away from confronting the suffering. It admits to all the suffering. And this

26:47 is the says this is just the way nature is. Some of it can be avoided, some of it some of it is human suffering, which is avoidable, inflicted by human beings on others, Uh prompted by our baser instincts, our nature. However, what non-duality says is that in the midst of this suffering, more fundamental than this, is a non-dual reality where we can find security, peace, and and safety from that suffering, and transcendence of suffering. I like the word transcendence. It doesn't mean that all the suffering will be cured forever, some kind of a heaven idea where there would be any suffering at all. That's not just doesn't seem possible. Uh but even whatever your level of suffering, all the time this non-dual reality is

27:34 available for you. The screen of the movie is available for you, no matter what the characters in the movie are undergoing. Behind them, the screen is there, untouched by the story of the movie. And each of the characters is actually that screen, appearing as the characters in the story. And this is not just theoretical. This has been shown again and again and again to work. Um Sri Ramakrishna, to take a clear example, maybe the most powerful extraordinary spiritual figure in ancient in in 19th century India. He died of throat cancer in 1886. And one just few months before his death, when he was already emaciated with cancer in the throat,

28:20 one of his disciples who became a monk in the future, this young man comes and asks him the morning, "How are you today, sir?" And Sri Ramakrishna, bedridden, he says, "I can't eat. This hurts." And this young man, we don't know what he saw. He looked at Sri Ramakrishna and said, "But, sir, I see that you are in great bliss." Now, that's a strange thing to say to a cancer patient, a terminal cancer patient who's suffering terribly and dying of it. But what's even more strange is Sri Ramakrishna's reaction. He laughs and he says, "Oh, the rascal has found me out." The you know, that means you've seen through it. He admits that there is great bliss right here. Now, he's not acting. It's not that he's not feeling the the the the tumor, the

29:07 pain, the slow degeneration of the body. But he sees the screen, the reality beneath or the foundational reality. From that perspective, he says, "I am in great bliss." And that's what non-duality does for us. >> Yeah. >> It shows us in the midst of death, these bodies will die. No matter even the most spiritual of people throughout the ages, the most powerful, the most learned, the richest, the most spiritual, they all died. So, the bodies will die no matter how enlightened one is. The minds fluctuate all the time, no matter how enlightened one is. Um an enlightened person's mind might be much superior to our, you know, chaotic minds, but still it's a mind and it is affected by the vagaries of the body

29:54 also. But what the the tradition and those who have walked down this path, what they say is there is a foundational spiritual reality. Call it Brahman or Atman, the Buddha nature, or in dualistic atheistic religions, God or the divine. And we have access to it. If one can find that out and be centered in it, then one can face this suffering. Then one would be able to say with Sri Ramakrishna and with mystics and spiritual people in all traditions throughout the ages that in the midst of suffering, there is peace. That there is a place of spiritual reality, which is

30:40 not a small thing. It's it's a really big thing. It's in fact in some sense is more real than this suffering. >> Mhm. >> So it's not to deny the suffering. >> No, I hear you. Yeah. >> It accepts the suffering as it is. And this is what is the solution? One solution would be at the level of suffering. Physical suffering, medicine and care. Economic suffering, try to make a better economy, more jobs and wealth and all that. Political suffering, law and order and police and all that and courts and and all of this a civil society modern science technology. You know, if you permit me, I at this point I always love to tell the story of the two arrows. The Buddha was once asked by one of his monks. And this is a this is not a new internet story but is actually from the original Pali sources.

31:26 One of the monks asked Buddha Buddha, um I have a question. That you taught us the that there is suffering and there's a way out of suffering. And we are following your teachings. You taught us that suffering is old age, disease death. But we who are following your teachings, we are becoming older. And we get sick and we suffer physically. And some of us have died and I guess all of us will die. And what's even more worse is you are getting older. You get sick sometimes. And I guess unfortunately you will die too. So how did you overcome suffering? Your teachings which is supposed to help us to overcome suffering. You are enlightened. You are supposed to have overcome suffering but it's there.

32:13 >> [snorts] >> And then the Buddha explains. He says the nature of suffering is like a man hit by two arrows. He's hit by an arrow and then another one. The first one is what life throws at you, the first arrow. Old age, disease, death and all sorts of big and small problems that life throws at you which causes pain and suffering. That's the first arrow. The second arrow is our reaction to it. >> Mhm. >> And how we react to it the Buddha says most of our pain is there. >> Mhm. >> Uh how we react to it. Cuz you Clearly, that's a very acute observation. We see two patients um one with serious illness maybe with calmness and dignity. One with a minor problem completely losing it. >> Mhm. >> Who is suffering more? >> Yeah. >> The one who is losing it is is suffering

33:00 more. >> Yeah. >> Uh so, our reaction that causes the most proximate intense suffering. >> Yeah. >> And the Buddha said, "What I have taught you will remove the the suffering of that second arrow." And the first arrow I cannot do anything about. Of course, the whole Buddhist teaching is once you attain nirvana, that first arrow also is gone. So, this is the nature of spiritual teachings, all spiritual teachings, including non-dual teachings. They work on the second arrow. So, in the midst of the suffering imposed by the material world and our biological selves, in the midst of that, can you genuinely transcend suffering through spirituality? That's the precise contribution of all spirituality and non-duality particularly.

33:45 >> Thank you. And um I'd say it is in indeed it's that second arrow which is a call it an >> [clears throat] >> an over-identification with the world of appearances, right? It would be sitting in a horror movie and thinking that it's really inflicted upon you, whereas an enlightened state would be to realize I'm sitting here comfortably in a chair and it's just a movie playing. And what I find interesting about Advaita Vedanta when compared to other traditions is that uh the way to realize that it is indeed just uh um that we are safe and we're just watching something and it is not really us. Um many traditions would require either um adhering to certain dogmas, following gurus, uh um

34:32 uh or altered states of consciousness. And now I think in the West we've discovered of course how psychedelics can can bring us there to that state. Now it's all good. But we all come down and we're back in in our daily lives where we are immersed again. And Advaita Vedanta's proposition so to speak. I'm thinking back to the use you telling us that you had an MBA, right? Like a business the business proposition of of Advaita [snorts] Vedanta is to say this tradition can get you there by thought and reason. Could you tell us how exactly? Like like briefly. I know of course that that's a long would require a long answer of course. >> All right. Yes. Um I remember a monk saying putting it very briefly in Hindi he said there are only two ways.

35:19 Either you know it or you believe it. So he's trying to show us the uniqueness of the Advaita path. In Hindi he said Jano ya mano. So either you know it or you believe it. Both will work. The way of belief is more well known. That's what religion is usually identified with. Um especially here in the West. >> Yeah. >> In America for example the name for religion is faith. Which it's sort of taken implicitly if you're a religion means believing in something. But in India it was seen that no that's not the only way. There are different paradigms of being spiritual. If you have have a There's a conventional religion of course, but we are talking about the spiritual quest to overcome suffering to know reality. Um One way was of course the way of faith. The way of God and scripture and faith

36:06 and believe in it and the higher power will give you that realization. It's still pursued it's still that, but that enlightenment, but that comes from the higher power from God. And that's perfectly valid. But the problem with that is it depends on belief and it becomes more and more difficult today. Um we shouldn't cut it down because the the Hindu traditions are very in one sense very motherly in the sense there is something for each child. So, the mother cooks various kinds of food and depending on what the child likes or what is the child can eat or digest. And so the mother heart is that works for this child. It may not at all work for you. So, the way of belief

36:51 um I remember there's a person who was talking to me about his religion. And it was a lot of myths and lot of stories, but I saw and to me it was a lot of rubbish. But uh I saw how that person believed in it. How that person was fascinated by with all those stories and uh and more importantly, how all of that faith was uh helping him transform his life. Becoming a better person, more controlled person, and a more disciplined person. Yes, with all the beliefs in of after life and heaven after death and rewards and after life and all of that. Uh which I find difficult to believe or subscribe to and many people would, but I see how it works. And the mother heart of Hinduism it says, yes, there's a

37:36 place for that, too. But the problem is if you are thinking, if you are asking questions, then that is very difficult to subscribe to that. So, the second paradigm of spirituality is the path of mystical experience. It says you don't have to believe. Um experience will show you the truth of the truth of the claims of religion. Vivekananda said if religion is realization. Um the religion if I have if God exists, I should be able to see God. Uh if I have an immortal soul, I should be able to feel it. And so, you might call it the yogic paradigm. The we are told that you don't have to believe. You uh practice these uh meditative exercises. You sit in this way, breathe in this way, focus and visualize, and you will have certain

38:22 mystical experiences, extraordinary, not ordinary, extraordinary experiences, which will prove to you the truths about these claims. And that was the way of the yogis. And of course, mystics in every religion. But that also can be questioned. It has been questioned. Mystics were always regarded as crazy people. Or today, neuroscience will say, I I know you think you're seeing light, but it's just because there's a tumor in your brain and uh or because you've taken a uh psychotropic substance or something. So, it can be doubted. One reason it's doubted is because those experiences are not public experiences. Um like Hume said, uh extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And religious claims seem to have very little proof, let alone extraordinary. They make extraordinary claims, but with

39:08 very little proof. Moving on to the non-dual path, Advaitic path here it's a different paradigm. It's not a belief paradigm. It's not even an extraordinary experience paradigm. Advaita actually takes philosophy very seriously. Uh Advaita says enlightenment can be obtained through philosophy, through philosophical inquiry, by the sheer force of uh of intellect and reason. Not that you can argue your way to uh to enlightenment, but you can come very, very close to it. And so, that's the way of Advaita Vedanta. It doesn't require us to believe in anything. In fact, requires us to understand. It doesn't require extraordinary experiences. It always confines it- itself to experiences which are common to everybody. It starts with that. And step by step,

39:55 it aims to point out something which it claims it's already available to us in experience. Uh it works on shifting our paradigm, our framework of how we see ourselves and the universe. That's how Advaita Vedanta works. >> And and that I think is also why um having watched your conversations between you and Bernardo Kastrup, it's just not even it at least it's not a debate or discussion because you there's so much similarity between that and sort of the analytic approach of idealism coming from consciousness Bernardo's work and I would find it nice to see if we can can touch upon that. Also find the differences. If we think of universal mind that dissociates itself into a form of

40:41 consciousness being Hans here in Advaita Vedanta terms that would be Brahman through a process and correct me if I'm wrong. I just find it so fascinating the the the I maker I think of it translated Ahamkara which leads to Jiva, right? My ego consciousness. But then also in that process of Brahman doing all of this, we get sort of the world. >> Yes. >> Jagat? >> Jagat, yes. >> And also the deities or God and that is something different, I think, at least from in in Bernardo's work. But I'm so curious if you could just briefly sketch for us, okay, from Brahman, how do we get down to us sitting here and what the terms are and also comparing it analytically to

41:27 >> Yes, I was fascinated when I came across Bernardo's work. Two books, one of his early books on criticism of materialism and a more recent one on analytic idealism. The reason why I found it fascinating was as you said, not only the parallels and the intersections with Advaita Vedanta that you already have with some other ancient philosophies. Not surprisingly, they all came out of the same milieu. >> Yeah. >> So there is a very ancient Sankhya philosophy which has a lot of similarities with Advaita. >> [snorts] >> There are Buddhistic philosophies like the emptiness school and the mind only school which have many similarities with Advaita Vedanta and they all mutually criticize each other on the points of their difference. That's not so surprising.

42:12 But, here you have somebody who is coming from an entirely different perspective and is taking a fresh look at philosophy and science today. An independent fresh look and penetrating look at science and a revolutionary look at science and and seeing it um what appeals to the non-dualist, the Advaitan would be the groundedness in experience. >> Yeah. >> And the boldness to follow experience and reason as far as they will go. And at the same time not violating science, not um you know, contradicting already established mainstream science. So, both in the old Advaita view and in new in Bernardo's view, scientific discoveries are preserved and the field for scientific inquiry is still open.

42:59 It's not dismissed, it's not um yeah, you know, sometimes dualistic theories, religious theories, dualistic religious theories already make a claim about the world based on uh old texts, old theories, uh stories and they go directly against modern scientific discoveries. And now the person in the path of faith in dualism has a choice either to revise or update his his belief system or to reject science. And often people reject science because uh uh the the danger is the fear for them is because my very precious religious faith is based on a set of beliefs which are interconnected. If I let go a few of

43:45 them, what's to say that my cherished beliefs in God and heaven, I don't have to let go of that also. It'll be shaken, the whole thing will be shaken. So, we are driven to uh a position where even the things which are utterly ridiculous in this in the light of modern scientific discoveries, yet with people tend to hold on to that and contradict science. Or um uh you find a way of in non-dualism, also. Uh, the and a global approach to the universe as Maya, as appearance. So, what happens there is that um the non-dualist would say that, "Yeah, yeah, there's science and we accept all of that, but it's all appearance. The reality is Brahman and it's all Maya. You can plug in your particular theory.

44:32 It's compatible with everything. It's compatible with ancient cosmology. It's compatible with modern cosmology. It's compatible with quantum theory. It's compatible with, uh, um, you know, the stories of, uh, primitive tribes because it's all appearance. The reality is is Brahman." I remember a physicist being shocked. Uh, he said he approached a traditional Vedanta teacher and told him that he's a physicist. And the Vedanta teacher said, "Oh, all that is Maya. You come to, uh, Advaita. I will I will show you the way to the truth." That again is not helpful. We live in the world of science. It is it's, uh, we are children of this age. We must find a way to work with, uh, yes, our most fundamental spiritual, um, insights and modern science. That's what Bernardo does. Uh,

45:18 so, and the resonances are so amazing that, uh, I have started using, um, with due credit to him, of course, arguments from his book on analytic, uh, idealism to show that what we are encountering are not independent material entities existing outside our conscious experience. Somehow, then we are conscious and we come into contact with these entities and they exist by themselves external external to consciousness. No, no, no. It is consciousness alone. The whole universe is experience, conscious experience. Yeah. And his precise analytic arguments to show the to expose the the underlying, um, absurdity of the materialist claim.

46:04 Yeah. So, uh they're so compatible with ancient Advaitic thinking that they I use them to supplement old arguments. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Um Now, you asked about two things, the sentient being and the God question. >> Yeah, I find that interesting because it has that notion of Ishvara, right? There is a a a place still for for divinity, so to speak, in Advaita. >> There, um I can explain Advaita Vedanta's perspective. That's where Bernardo has a distinctly different perspective on Jiva, who we are. He brings in, in fact, concepts from psychiatry to show how the individual being arises.

46:50 What happens in the Advaitic idea of the individual being, and from there to the cosmic being, the God of religion. Um Advaita Vedanta, as you said, the Ahamkara, the ego, it means the I-maker, literally. Uh Advaita has developed multiple um models to show how this one background reality, limitless existence and consciousness, could become individual beings like us. So, multiple models. Three of those models I can uh say they're just ways of trying to model what's going on. Um Two of them are so-called reflection models. One is the called limitation model. The reflection models are uh imagine the

47:37 reflection of the sun in the water, or our face in the mirror, for example. So, um the appearance of mind, and there's a cosmological way in which bodies and minds in the universe appears. When the mind appears, consciousness is reflected in the mind along the lines of a face being reflected in the mirror. And then just as uh the just as we do not um see our own face, we see the face in the mirror. >> The reflection, yeah. >> The reflection. And suppose we forgot our own face, then we would think I am that that that face in the mirror. Similarly, the ego and consciousness the conscious

48:22 ego. There are two things there. I and consciousness together. The I is an activity of the mind, the ego is an activity of the mind, and there's a reflected consciousness in that. Think of the ego as the mirror. The mind itself is the mirror, but more precisely the ego itself as a mirror, and [snorts] that catches the reflection of consciousness. So, the ego whenever the ego appears, it's always a conscious ego. >> Mhm. >> I, it's a particular thought. I is a thought like any other thought, but it's also conscious. And uh from that conscious ego the mind gets consciousness, from the mind the sensory system is lit up by consciousness, and then we experience a world. So, that's the reflection model. That's one way in which sentient beings come into existence. Um pure consciousness, which we really are, the face,

49:08 >> Yeah. >> uh then the mirror of the mind or ego, and then the face reflected in the mirror, consciousness in the ego. >> And just just to clarify, the ahankara, the I maker process would be the uh consciousness forgetting that there's something else than just a mirror, just identifying with the reflection itself. >> Is that the the important >> Um not necessarily. What happens there is in between the um it's like between our reality and the reflection, there appears an ignorance, >> Mhm. >> which is why we are not aware of this. See, when we look at our faces in the mirror, it's not that we forget our faces. In day-to-day when we go and brush my teeth or shave, I can see my face in the mirror and I know it's here. It's perfectly all right. And that's the state of an enlightened person. So, even for an enlightened person also, the world appears, the body, everything

49:55 goes on exactly the way it is. But, in addition, the enlightened person is aware of the real face, not just the mirror and the So, that's all. That's the difference. Um So, that is the ego which catches the reflection of consciousness and then carries on. And somehow we have forgotten that I am the witness of the ego. I am the illuminer of the ego. I am not the ego. But, thinking that I am the ego, thinking of absolutely identifying with the ego, the moment you identify with the reflected face in the mirror, you are also identified with the mirror because the reflected face is nothing but the mirror. >> Yeah. >> The moment you're identified with the ego, you're identified with the mind. And the mind is identified with the body and the brain and everything. And then you become identified with the physical body.

50:40 Um so, this is the reflection theory. And there are two varieties of it, but we won't go into that. Um Here, there's a little bit of a problem because we you have in in your our minds when I think of the face and the face reflected in the mirror, like there are two faces, you know? It seems like that. There's one here and there's one there. Um and then the question becomes, how do I go from the reflected consciousness back to the real consciousness? And that So, there's there's a process for that in um non-duality, a philosophical investigation. The limitation model of how sentient beings arise, um they don't go in for the reflection idea, you know? I I love the reflection idea because right here in Amsterdam you have these

51:26 canals. And you can see Amsterdam reflected in the canals, buildings and people and trees and sky. But, the limitation model says, think of a window. And when we look through a window into the sky outside, the sky seems like little squares or triangles depending on the the lattices in the window, the grills in the window. And then sometimes they are circles, then there's a there's a triangle or a square, big and small. And the sky seems to be divided. The sky seems to be square or triangular or circular. The division in the sky is actually a division in the the grills or the lattices in the window. The these limitation of the size, the shape of the sky which you see, none of them are in the sky.

52:11 They're imposed on the sky by the window. But the beauty of the system is when you look up through through a window into the sky, you're actually seeing the real sky. Though it seems divided and with all sorts of shapes and all, you are in contact with the real sky. Exactly like that, the limitation model says, pure consciousness alone shines. And the mind seems to put like a window a a limitation on it. Seems to. It cannot actually limit. And so the consciousness we are experiencing right now is the pure consciousness, but it seems to be divided because of the fluctuations of the mind, the the thoughts, the feelings, the ideas, the I sense. These are all putting limitations on consciousness. Yeah, so that's the difference between

52:57 That's how a sentient being comes into existence. Now from here to God, Ishvara is just one step. That limitless consciousness, that sky in one little window would be us. Each window Each little window or part of a window would be us. But if you take the entire Suppose there's a whole wall of windows, you know, all of it together and the sky coming through all of those together. The sky identified with all the windows, the sky identified with the face reflected in all the mirrors, the one consciousness identified with all minds and bodies is what Vedanta would call Ishvara or God. And this is what we

53:43 claim is the God of religions. Mhm. So right now, you and I, we are pure consciousness, that same Brahman or Atman, that non-dual consciousness. But [snorts] um identified with one limiting set of body and mind. So we think I am this. >> Yeah. >> And Ishvara would exactly be that with two crucial differences. Ishvara would be identified with all bodies and minds. So there's a claim uh this is this is where faith comes in. There's a claim that just like there is a being clearly there is a being who is conscious and yet also identified with one mind and one body. This is obvious to us because of our own experience. >> Mhm. >> And so I can say there are others like me. At least in one case it has

54:28 happened. I am here. So others look like me, so they also must be individual beings. But from there we jump to one more level. Is that imagine a consciousness which is identified with all minds and all beings. This this super being which is considers the universe itself to be its body. >> Mhm. >> Um and all minds connected to be its own mind and beyond that also. That would be the God that's the understanding of God in in Vedanta. >> so interesting because it it is doesn't give ontic ground to that God because you still say the sky is what's ultimately re-fundamentally versus Brahman and it's not God. So in that sense it would be a it it's taking a step back

55:13 when you think about all world religions, right? In Christianity you're taking a step back from Yahweh and saying the ground beneath or Allah and you take we And I find that interesting. What I'm curious at if if does it have a function in Advaita Vedanta to then um devote yourself in some sense to Ishvara or is that just an in between step that a pure enlightened being should skip, so to speak. >> Uh um it's an in-between step. It's a helpful step. It explains religion. >> Mhm. >> Um what What's the connection between dualistic religions and non-duality? One way would be, "Oh, they're all wrong. What they're talking about is just um superstition. And here's the truth. We have the truth." Or but that's never been the way in um in India. And

55:59 generally it's been a very inclusive tradition. How do you work that into a So, from from the non-dual perspective, what is it that they are doing? The dualistic schools. >> Yeah. >> Um What they are doing is they take um themselves as individual beings and they don't deconstruct themselves. They take themselves as consciousness, mind, body, this whole package. And then they they project that universal consciousness as the god of of their particular religion. Yeah. That's what they're doing. And they stop there. Whereas Advaita Vedanta, what it says is what you see through one window and what you see through the entire range of windows uh is literally the same sky. It's exactly the same sky. This explains that

56:45 the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta, you are that. So, when it Advaita says you are that, you point to one window and say, "You are that sky." We don't mean that little square of the sky. Mo- moment you go you leave the window behind and go to the sky, it is the whole sky. >> Yeah. >> Uh it is the sky itself is not limited by one little square of a window or a thousand windows. It's just the limitless sky. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um Now, if you remain as the little sky shining through one window and you worship the huge sky shining through a million windows, that's dualistic religion. What Advaita says there is that's not wrong because you're still referring, though indirectly, to the sky.

57:31 To the sky. To to that reality. Yep. So So it's it's still perfectly all right. It should lead you at some point to transcend that. And you'll find in all the dualistic religions, strongly staunchly dualistic religions, there's always a mystical or heretical or marginal non-dualism always there. In Christianity it's there very much. Meister Eckhart, who was here, many others. Um in Islam it's there. In Judaism it's there. And you have always a thinkers right here in in Netherlands, like Spinoza. >> Exactly. >> Who uh entirely on his own >> Yeah. >> came to a sort of non-dualism. Same same kind of Yeah. The non-dual uh >> Yeah. >> Somebody, I don't know if it's true, Einstein was asked if you believe in God and he said I believe in Spinoza's God.

58:17 >> Yeah. That and that's so nice. It It's It was here in the Netherlands and um in I think the so in just briefly so in Advaita Vedanta, there is place for worship in that sense, devotion to for instance Krishna, doing mantras, etc. >> Yes, but it's very helpful. >> Yeah. >> It's seen not seen as superstitious or wrong. And it's very helpful because it develops the devotional side of a person's nature. >> Yeah. >> Um see, psychologically you can see why why it's helpful. A problem in Advaita might be not only might be I've seen it happen it happens throughout the history of the tradition. One might intellectually grasp this amazing idea. It's a very liberating thought. You would expect the emotions also to follow along with it. And you would

59:03 expect the person to be transformed into a fearless, because you can't die as the sky doesn't die. >> Yeah. >> The window might be broken, but sky doesn't die. The mirror might be smashed, the sky doesn't die. You can switch off the movie, but the screen is still there. So you are basically immortal. Nothing can happen to you. Nothing affects you so in that sense. So you can be fearless. You will one with everybody because literally you are all of them. They don't recognize what you are what they truly are, but you recognize it. So, you feel one with everybody. And from there you find the ultimate ground of ethics also. Why why be truthful? Why be loving? Why be self-sacrificing? Why be altruistic? It's because the all is the

59:49 real you. >> Mhm. >> This limited one is as a superimposition. So, the devotional worship of God as the all is very helpful because it purifies the emotions. Otherwise, what one one can have is an intellectual appreciation of I am the non-dual consciousness and still in day-to-day life behaving as the same old person. >> Mhm. >> Because the emotions have not been purified, have not been sublimated. The most powerful way to sublimate the emotions is through devotion. So, that was So, Advaita would not consider it absolutely essential because there would be non-dualists and there were throughout the tradition in centuries and millennia who completely skipped, as you said, that part. There are texts also which completely skip it. They don't even mention it mention God.

1:00:36 >> Mhm. >> But uh the original sources of the um of the Vedanta the Upanishads and all, they mention the attributeless absolute >> Mhm. >> the limitless sky. They also mention the absolute under limitations, which is one kind of limitation is us, the other kind of limitation is the cosmic being God. A- and so, you dualistic schools also emerged out of the matrix of the same texts. And so, they got along pretty harmoniously. >> And the the difficulty or difficulty I wouldn't say, but the challenge there I think for especially the Western rational mind, if we arrive indeed, as you say, intellectually at that notion all is one and pure intellectually we say it doesn't make sense to harm you because a

1:01:22 fundamentally I'm harming myself. So, okay, great. You're there intellectually and then indeed as you mentioned in our day-to-day life sort of the the just the the monkey brain takes over and we can get angry and even [snorts] do violence to to other people. So, it needs to sink in. But I think for for many people the bhakti notion of devotion and the devotional path when it comes to especially deities etc. is such a leap because then again the the ratio kicks in and says how can I commit to something? This is superstition etc. So, we're in search of I'd say a practice or ritual that can can fit in in the West and I'm just curious what Advaita Vedanta has to offer here for people watching this saying okay, I'm I'm on

1:02:08 par with analytic idealism. I just wanted to more influence my daily life. What is it that they can do instead of sort of singing mantras to a to to deity which you have have said is a great way but maybe for some people it >> Step to part. >> Yeah. >> Right, especially today. >> Yeah. >> Never in history as far as we know there have been as many people who are agnostic or atheistic as there are today and yet spiritual. There's a hunger for spirituality. Yeah. Um I I remember reading this book a history of thought by John Luke Ferry. He was he is a French philosopher. But this this is a general introduction to Western philosophy. And

1:02:54 it was became so popular apparently in France it became translated into English and I read that. And there he says Western thought has gone through these four phases. There's the Greek phase broadly speaking. Then there came the Christian phase and then there came the enlightenment phase phase and now there is the post-modern phase. >> Yeah. >> And he then he at the end he says, "If you ask me which one would I prefer to adopt as the truth, which I personally would prefer." He says, "Undoubtedly it would be the Christian faith. However, however, the problem is I can't believe today after enlightenment and after postmodernism today, where we are standing today, I can't believe all that stuff."

1:03:39 >> That's what you're asking basically. I'm going back to that. >> Exactly. It is very nice if it were true, but it clearly it's I can't believe. I think they This is where Advaita Vedanta and certain schools of Buddhism they can and already are contributing. This is This is serious spiritual seekers turning to these Eastern Eastern philosophies over the last 100 years or so. It points to that phenomenon. There is a whole new age phenomenon. That's a different thing. But there are serious seekers. And they find solace and insight in these paths. Um So, what these paths offer is this. That um I'll tell you what they did traditionally. And today I'll tell you a

1:04:25 brilliant new idea which uh is rooted in tradition, but is an innovation by Swami Vivekananda, which I think would really bring together some some wonderful things. I think this is an answer to the you know, the cry which Jean Ferry is putting out there. Can you help me to believe in spirituality, but with all that we know right now? >> Yeah. >> Um The traditionally, if you look at the non-dualists in India, the Advaitins, they were a little bit of an outlaw outlier to Hinduism. In fact, philosophically we were often our opponents, the dualistic schools, often charged us with being Buddhists, hidden Buddhists. The Buddhists were the big enemies of the Hindus and their big thousand-year debate on the existence of the soul, on the existence of God, on

1:05:10 epistemological, logical grounds. Huge debate and led to an enormous development of sophisticated philosophy over a thousand years. And we were our school was a charged by other Hindu schools as being you guys are actually Buddhist. Do you even believe in the deities? Do you take a a dip in the holy Ganges and and [snorts] our answer was yes. We do all of that. Except that we don't think it's the end. It That's not the final point of That's part of the spiritual process. We agree all of those have value. And it does have psychological value, spiritual value. So, not just devotion. For example, the yogic schools, the paths of meditation. Another parallel debate between

1:05:57 philosophical approach and the meditative approach. The yogis would charge us with you guys talk a lot. A lot of interviews and talks and books. But you don't meditate enough. You don't have these experiences. And the charge from our side would be if you're looking for knowledge, what's the point of just sitting quietly? You're not going to get come to knowledge that way. Inquiry leads to knowledge. So, this kind of debate was there. But the consensus was even the yogic meditation was extremely helpful. The reason why it's difficult to grasp non-dualism and once having grasped it to center it and you know, take benefit from it is because the instrument we're using, the mind, is always in chaos. It's not been trained and disciplined. And so, the yoga disciplines, the meditation

1:06:43 disciplines are very helpful. The devotional bhakti disciplines are very helpful. The meditation disciplines are helpful in training and focusing the mind. The bhakti disciplines are helpful in purifying and sublimating the

…