Transcription
Om, Vasudeva Sutam Devam, Kamsa Chanuram Ardhanam, Devaki Paramanandam. So, we [...] the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. This is a chapter on meditation, Dhyana.
He has set the context for meditation, that a certain amount of moral, ethical preparation and discipline is necessary to prepare the mind for [...] meditation. Most of our efforts in meditation, we find it very difficult. Everybody complains about how they're unable to meditate, and it's almost [...] in fact, it's always the lack of these preparations which Krishna has mentioned in the first few verses.
Now, he concludes the topic of preparation in the eighth verse, which is a beautiful verse, and profound verse, where what is the ultimate result of not only the preparations but also the meditation, the enlightenment. What kind of an enlightened? What is the effect of [...] What will we be like after enlightenment? All these things are summed up beautifully in the 8th verse, 8th and 9th verse, also. After which, we'll start the detailed instructions on meditation. So the eighth verse, we'll take a look at the eighth verse today, eighth and ninth verses.
Verse number eight:
jñāna-vijñānatrpta-tmā kūta-stho vijjitendriyah
yukta ity ucyate yogi samalostāśmakānchanah
The Yogi, whose self is satisfied through knowledge and realization, who is steady and has the senses under control, and to whom a clod of earth, a stone and gold are of equal value, is said to be steadfast.
So this is basically the definition of the ideal yogi in the sense of an ideal spiritual seeker. Now, certain points I wanted to make here. One is this word Yukta. So who is a yogi? An ideal spiritual seeker, and ultimately an enlightened person. According to Krishna, he uses the word Yukta. Yukta ityutjate, Yukta. This word Yukta comes a number of times in the Bhagavad Gita, and every time it's defining some aspect of being a yogi. So the main ones which we have come across, I will talk about, most of them we have already come across. So, I'll just touch upon those ones quickly.
We saw in chapter 5, 19th verse. If we go to verse number 19, chapter 5, we'll see Chapter 5, verse number 19 is... Have I made a mistake here? Oh, I see. No, this is not the verse I wanted to talk about. The words I wanted to talk about here is Chapter 5, verse number 23. I got [...] Same chapter, 23, a few verses after this.
Chapter 5, verse number 23 goes:
śakno'ti heiva ya so'dhum rākṣa-rīrā vimokṣanāt
kāma-krodho'dbhavam vegam sa yukta-sa sukhī naraḥ
So this is the definition of Yukta. The word Yukta in general means steadfast, engaged, connected, attained, practicing something assiduously, sincerely. That person is Yukta. Now, the various aspects of being a yogi or being Yukta. In the 23rd verse, Chapter 5, it says that a person who is able to withstand the waves, the turmoil, the urges of anger and greed and lust in this life itself. That means after death it's all over. But in this life itself, in the midst of temptation and aggravation, if one can remain steady, steady in what? Steady in your spirituality, in your devotion to God, or in your [...] Atman. If that is possible, if one can practice that to the extent that one can practice it, one is Yukta.
So Kama krodha udbhavam vegam. Vega means a wave, a burst, or an agitation, or a turmoil. One who can, who can withstand, that means one who is not [...] So the urge to hit out, to lash out in irritation or anger, it will come. What he's saying is not that it will not come. That's much later, much more advanced. But at a preliminary level, those things will come. Negative reactions. Can I not be swept away by it? There is an urge to say a harsh word. Urge to maybe insult somebody, maybe even you might feel that person deserves it. But can I not be swept away by it? The thought comes, the feeling comes. But I do not give in to it. I keep quiet, and obviously that thing passes away. The very interesting thing is it goes away quite soon actually, sooner than you would expect. It's the same thing for greed, a desire to accumulate which becomes an addiction. Can I stop myself from accumulating possessions, money, whatever it is. Or passion, lust. So one can, if one can withstand those urges, not given to them [...] Yukta. Basically what he is saying here is the ability to manage one's Raga Dvesha, one's likes and dislikes, one's likes and dislikes, preferences. They are born of our past conditioning. Most of those likes and dislikes are worldly. They are not of much help in spiritual life. Some of them are of help in spiritual life. Yes, I like, I have a liking for Vedanta, maybe. I have a liking for devotional music. Very good. That you can give a green light to. Yes, go on, let that be expressed and let me follow that up. But there are certain things which do not help me in spiritual life. And he says, the urges, the waves, the turmoil caused, specifically mentions anger and lust, and not to be given, not to be swept away by that. That person is Yukta. This is the first stage.
We are investigating here the word Yukta, which Krishna uses. It's a key term to define a yogi, to indicate a yogi and to tell us what we must practice and also show us what it will be like at an advanced level. So the first one is this ability to manage one's Raga Dvesha, not to be swept away by it. Then the second, a deeper meaning of Yukta, we have come across in an earlier verse. By the way, none of this is my own analysis. Sometimes I don't reveal [...] but it's good to know that it all comes from a lot of wisdom gathered by many masters. Often a lot of it is not available in English. So what I'm talking about here, the great non-dualist Advaitin Akhandananda Saraswati, who lived in the mid 20th century, a little later also in north of India. Very great Vedanta teacher, but unfortunately, I mean, it's not [...] us in English. It's all in Hindi or in Sanskrit. So he says, in a talk he gave on the Gita. He says, just consider the word Yukta. So take a deeper look at the word Yukta. We go to chapter 4 and a very famous verse, the 18th verse of chapter 4.
The 18th verse goes:
He who sees inaction in action and action in inaction is wise among men. He is poised and a performer of all actions.
So here you have the word [...] This is the one who is Yukta. This is a well-known verse. It might jog your memory, some of us. We spent quite a bit of time on this verse. I think one whole class probably be spent on this verse. And it's one of those paradoxical verses, difficult ones, where Sri Krishna reveals a profound teaching using paradoxical language. That which obviously seems to be action. He says, the wise person knows that is inaction. You know, you're doing something, working, walking, talking, reading, or even praying and meditating. It's what seems to be action. He says it is actually inaction from a wise person's perspective, from the one who is Yukta. From that perspective. And the opposite, what seems to be inaction to the rest of us. Somebody taking a nap, or somebody who has given up, you know, worldly duties and job and family and gone off into the mountains and become a monk or a nun or something. So the person is disengaged from actions and not action, no action. We think that. And he says the wise person says that it is the [...] that is action. What we normally think as inaction. The Yukta, the yogi says that is action. [...] we normally think of as action. The yogi says that is inaction. And we know what is the meaning. This is the teaching about the nature of the self using paradoxical language. The false self, the lower self, the personality, that is the one, the lower person is the one who feels I am the doer of actions. I am the one who is here. Obviously, I'm here. I'm talking and sitting. I am reading. I'm engaged with all of you. Why wouldn't it be so? But consider this, for example, example of your dream. So in your dreams, suppose you are there in your own dreams. You went out, met with friends, and did stuff. Maybe many things happened, and you did many things too. And when you wake up, you realize it all seemed to be so. It seemed to be action from the perspective of the waker. Nothing happened. Yeah, you saw the dream. You are a witness of the dream, but you did not actually do any of those things. You did not go to those places. You did not meet those persons. You did not perform those actions, but you saw it as a dream. This is an example. An example for what? The enlightened person realizes that every moment of our lives is like that. Our real nature is this unchanging radiance, a pure subjectivity, and unchanging radiance in which is lit up all the activities of our lives. Just as all the activities of our dreams are lit up by the dreamers mind. That's an example. Right now, whatever is happening, and whatever has happened [...] past. Whatever will happen in the future, all of it is lit up by that constant light, which is I wouldn't even say my real self, I'll say I am that. So from that perspective, all the so-called activities of the world, [...] on, is not activity. Because I, that radiant consciousness, I do not do any of that. I never did. I am not the doer of those actions, nor am I the experiencer. In Sanskrit, karta bhokta. Karta means doer. Bhokta means once you are the doer, you will be the experiencer of the results, good and bad. All action consciously done generates Papa Punya, merit, demerit. And if I feel I am the doer of these actions, that one, which is the doer of the actions, that one will experience the pleasure and pain associated with good deeds and bad deeds. But I, the one radiance, the divinity, you know, the one divine I. Aurobindo used a very beautiful language. The world drowned in the white glare of an immortal gaze. But what a beautiful language, and awesome language! What is this realization of pure consciousness? Is the world drowned? In the white glare of an immortal gaze. What is that immortal gaze? Pure consciousness, which reveals everything, and yet is unaffected by [...] And you say, that might be great for the pure consciousness. What about me? I'm suffering. No, you are that. You always were that. You are that now. And from your perspective, nothing whatsoever has been done actually. All of it has been like the witnessing of a dream. And this is not as esoteric or as abstract as it sounds. A little bit of thinking about it, one begins to get it. Isn't it so in our lives? Especially when we look back through the lens of memory, how much of those things, which has happened to us, which we consider to be our memory, how much of it, if you really see the feel of it. How is it very different from fiction stories? You know. So we remember patches of our lives and the people we lived with from childhood till now. And if they are not vividly present with us right now, they would have faded, more or less. Some of it would be less story-like, almost. You remember it, but it's almost like a story. So… It's like you witnessed it. And what Vedanta is saying, it's going like that same thing is going on now. From that perspective, no action whatsoever is done, even though a lot of activity is going on.
Another example, one example was the dream. Another example is the screen and the movie. So from the perspective The screen, nothing whatsoever is going on. From the perspective of a movie, a tragedy, a comedy, an action movie, [...] fiction movie, a horror movie. You know, there are horrible stuff is going on, or funny stuff is going on. Or space aliens are coming. So much action is taking place. From the perspective of the screen is Akarma, no work is being done at all. Now, the opposite also, what the unenlightened see, think that it is not action. I will not I will go out and do anything. I will sit here quietly. I'm not performing any action. That's also action from the enlightened person's perspective, because the unenlightened person. Who is the enlightened person? The person who is identified with body and mind, who just thinks I am this. I have no idea what else you're talking about. Or if I read a little bit of [...] I have some idea what you are talking about, but honestly, I feel I am just this person. Then this is the person who, when I say, I'm going to sit quietly and not do anything, enlightened one, the Yukta will say that's also doing something. As long as you are the driver of the car, the operator of this body-mind, you are firmly attached, embodied, rooted in this body-mind. If you think you're doing something, you are doing something. If you think you are not doing anything, you're still doing something. You are still trapped in the agentship associated with body-mind. So this is the vision of our nature as pure consciousness, that white radiance, immortal gaze which Aurobindo wrote about. This is the second deeper meaning of the Yukta, word Yukta. The Yukta is the one who sees this. It's a vivid reality for that person.
Third meaning of Yukta, even deeper meaning in chapter six. This verse we have not seen yet, it is going to come later very soon. Chapter 6, 18th verse.
18th verse:
yadā vinīyataṁ cittam ātma- nyevāvatishthate
nispriha sarvaka [...] tadā
When the mind well controlled remains fixed in the self alone, and one is free from craving for all enjoyments, then one is set to have attained yoga.
Note the word Yukta, Ittyuchyate Tada. Yatha means when? When what? This one radiance which you saw in the earlier verse, the Yukta from which perspective one can see even when there's a lot of activity at the level of the world and the senses and the body and the mind and the speech, lot of activity is going on, you can honestly say I do not do anything. I, the witness consciousness, do not do anything. I witness all this happening. Or I illumine all this happening. From that perspective. So that pure consciousness which you saw in the earlier verse, that is the Yukta. In this verse what is said is the Yukta is the one who can now become immersed in that pure consciousness in Samadhi, in deep meditation and now no longer sees the movie. So, in the earlier verse, it was like the person sees the movie but knows it's a movie. It's like seeing a sculpture made of stone. Maybe you can see a lion or a horse or an elephant. And so you are seeing the lion, you're seeing the horse, you're seeing the elephant, but also at the same time uniquely you're seeing that it is stone. It is nothing other than stone. That was the state in the earlier verse, when we said Yukta, that person sees the activity going on in the world and knows that I, as pure consciousness, do not act. Even though the body is acting, even though the senses are active, even though the speech is active, even though the mind is active, I really do not do anything. That was the perspective, but obviously, that person is experiencing that. The dream is going on, the movie is playing, and the activity, though it is an appearance, it's still happening now. That same person can, has got the capacity of withdrawing the mind, focusing, withdrawing the senses, focusing the mind. Turning it inwards, as it were, into that white radiance, into that immortal gaze, input into that pure consciousness, that radiant presence. Let me call it that, the radiance presence. And the mind submerged in that loses all awareness of any kind of external [...] body, senses, thoughts, all of that stuff. Only light remains, that light which you are. So he says, Yadā vinīyataṁ cittam ātmanyeva avatiṣṭhate. Having controlled the mind, one remains steady in the radiance of the self. Yukta Ittyuchyate Tada. That's another meaning of Yukta, the deeper meaning of Yukta.
And finally, we come back to this verse which we are talking about now. Chapter 6, verse number 8. Even deeper meaning of Yukta. Now you'll see the the term Yukta in all its glory. He says here it means both, the one who can immerse oneself in Samadhi and lose complete, you know, completely immersed in pure consciousness, not aware of the external world, body, senses, thoughts, all of that. The senses, thoughts have stopped. The senses are calm and withdrawn, the body is steady in meditation, sitting in asana, and the world outside is not perceived at all. So what is experienced? He has not fallen asleep. So this person is immersed in his or her own real self, which is pure [...] That is Samadhi. Now, when this person awakens to the external world, when again comes back to the world, sees that same reality everywhere. So as Sri Ramakrishna says, with eyes closed and with eyes open. One reality at the heart of everything, the presence, the radiant presence. You see that, and then again you look at the world, you see that reality in everything. So that is what is mentioned here. So the technical terms they use is just one word, they will indicate all [...] I'm going on about. They say Samadhi and Vyutthana. Vyutthana means arising out of Samadhi. Arising out of Samadhi in the sense, arising into an awareness of the world, which is now just name and form to you, to the one who is enlightened. So he says, Gyana Vigyana Triptatma Kutastha Vijitendriya Yukta Ity Uchyate. This is the eighth verse of the sixth chapter. The deepest meaning of Yukta we get here. With eyes closed, with eyes open, the same radiance is seen everywhere.
How do you know that he is talking not only about Samadhi, but also about [...] of appearance? He says Samalosh Tashmakanchana. The Yogi, this Yogi, for this Yogi gold, Kanchanam, stone, you can call it a stone, a clod of earth, they are all the same for the yogi. Why are they all the same? They are all the same because they are all appearances. Gold is not gold. Stone is not a stone, and the clod of earth is not a clod of earth. Just as things seen in the dream would be considered an appearance, you would not mourn the loss of a lot of money in the dream. You would not celebrate the winning of a lottery in the dream, after you wake up, you wouldn't start dancing the jig because you earned a lot of money in the dream. It's no gain, and it's no loss to you. So because it is absolutely, there are appearances. Jagat Mithyatva, because the world is an appearance, therefore this yogi is the same to [...] a clod of earth, and a stone. Deeper reason, because the yogi sees the same divinity everywhere. So in that [...] it is the same divinity. Which the ignorant call a stone, or gold, or a clod of earth. So you can see it is same thing, which is the rope, and which is the snake. As snake, it is an appearance, as rope, it is the reality. Now, what is a piece of stone or earth in a clay or gold? You can see it in both ways. You can see that it is nothing at all. The gold is not gold, and nothing particularly valuable or great. The stone is not a stone, or clod of earth is not just mean ordinary [...] know. A little bit of dirt? No. They are all appearances, and it's the same to me. Or you can say, it is the same divinity which shines through all of them. It's not that the gold is a little more divine than a little bit of earth, a [...] bit of clay. No. The dirt and the gold are equally divine to me. And these are not two alternative explanations. They are the same truth. I'm saying the same truth in two ways. You can see why, if you look at it, think of it as the snake and the rope, snake and the rope example, you can say whatever is the snake is the rope. Whatever appears to be a snake is actually the rope, and the reality which is called rope was misperceived as the snake. We are both talking about the same reality. So this is from the enlightened perspective, but remember this verse is at the juncture of summing up the preparations for meditation. and then showing you the final result of enlightenment. So as a preparation for meditation, what it means here is not that you will be able to see everything as false, not that you will be able to see the same divinity in everything. We have not reached that level yet. But what is expected of us is vairagya, dispassion. So because of dispassion, what is dispassion? The things of the world have little value for me, no value for me. What is of value for me is God, and God alone. This dispassion, dispassion for the world and love of God. In Bengali, Sri Ramakrishna used to say, So viraga, a dispassion for vishaya, things of the world, things of the senses. Anuraga, affection, love and pull, Ishvara towards God. So vairagya has these two sides. It's not just negative. It has a positive side of it. If we actually look at the words themselves, interesting when you say Vairagya and Viraga and Anuraga, the word Raga means liking. The Sanskrit word Raga means liking. Also when you say Virag, dislike. But it also means removing the coloring. Our mind is colored with a false sense of the importance of gold. I am dismissive of dirt, and I saying that money is much more important than that. This is a coloring in my mind. That coloring, removing that coloring is called Viraga, to remove that coloring. Anuraga means to color the mind with liking. But color the mind in what? Color the mind in God. Sri Ramakrishna's example of the man with a vat of dye. Color. And people would come and say, can you give me, can you make my cloth yellow? And he puts it in the dye and makes it yellow. And can you make my cloth blue? And he puts in the dye and makes it blue. So we color the cloth in God. and wash away the coloring of the world. That is Virag. So when Sri Ramakrishna is sitting, he's demonstrating this on the bank of the Ganga, and here many people notice in Bengali Taka Mati Mati Taka. Taka means money, Mati means dirt, or you know, clay. And he would take up a handful of dirt in one hand and a handful of coins in the other and throw both into the river, Ganga. So coins or money are clay and clay is money. And is humorous also. I did that to practice that it's a saying to me. So this is this passion. He at this point he's not saying So this is a teaching for us. At this point he is not saying it is all appearance. It's mithya. It's like a snake in a rope, and therefore it is the same. He is not saying that. He is not even saying it is the same Divine Mother in all. If it's the same Divine Mother in all, He wouldn't throw away either dirt or the coins. What He is saying is much more practical at our level, that this false coloring we have given importance to money. This thing has to be given up. So, because of dispassion, because of the renunciation of worldly passions and greed pulls, worldly pulls and the pull towards God being more. Therefore, clay and gold and a piece of stone are the same to me. Sri Ramakrishna is also humorous. He said, I threw them both away, but then I became nervous what if mother Lakshmi becomes annoyed with me. Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth. So I threw money away. Money is supposed to be the symbol of the goddess of wealth. What if mother Lakshmi gets annoyed at me and stops my… he said the vegetable soup. So, which is supplied from the temple. He was the priest of the temple. Suppose, the Divine Mother cuts off my supply. So he said, I quickly prayed in my heart, that I quickly prayed, Mother stay in my heart. So not as money in my pocket, but stay in my heart as the Divine Mother so that she won't be annoyed. Right? So that is the meaning of Yukta and Samalosh Tashmakanchana. These things are same to me. Though somebody joked later on that Sri Ramakrishna did the right thing because he was aware of the importance, the value of real estate which was going to shoot up. So that's why he said money and real estate are the same thing. Earth and money are the same thing. And he also says here Vijitendriyaha, controlled, senses are controlled. Senses are controlled here means that for an ordinary person, Our joy is in the contact of the senses with their objects, to see things which I like. Which gives me pleasure. So I must, my eyes must come in contact with pleasing forms, colors, shapes. My ears must come in contact with pleasing sound. The voice of a loved one, the beautiful music which I like, or the pitter [...] raindrops on the leaves outside. Right now it's raining here in Manhattan. So this is pleasing sound, and my ears must come in contact with that. So this gives me pleasure, and the opposite. That my senses must not come into contact with things which I dislike, which give me pain, or cause me annoyance. I don't want to see certain things, I don't want to hear certain things. I don't want to taste a particular kind of food. This is causing me because I have a dislike for that. This is the state of a worldly state where our likes and dislikes are dominators. And there these are likes and dislikes connected to satisfying the sense organs. And this is a kind of slavery. And there is a beautiful saying that, Alas! What is my condition? I have been made a servant by the servant of my servant. I have been made alas. I have been made a servant by the servant of my servant. Who is my servant? I am the Atman, pure consciousness. Who is my servant? [...] Who are the servants of the mind? The senses. And I, the pure consciousness, the spirit, the soul, I have become a servant to my senses. I run around trying to gather things which they demand. Eyes demand to see certain things, the tongue demands to eat certain things. The ear demands certain things, the skin demands a kind of touch. So all of these things I'm running around day and night together and feed these senses. I have become a servant to the servants of my servant. So, um. That is the condition of the worldly person. What's the condition of this person? The enlightened one, he says Vijitendriya, senses have come under control. No longer a servant of the servants of my servant. Why? Because this person's satisfaction is in the self, in reality. This person's satisfaction is Gyana Vigyana Triptatma, the next phrase which is given, the satisfaction is in knowledge.
All right, let me use the words Gyaana and Vigyaana because then I have to translate [...] be Vijnana be? Higher knowledge. So this enlightened person satisfaction is in Jnana and [...] What is the ordinary person satisfaction in? In trying to satisfy the senses. Because this person's satisfaction is not in trying to satisfy the senses, this person's satisfaction is in Jnana and Vijnana. We'll see what that means. Therefore, the senses of this person are already under control, are well under control. This person, everybody wants to be happy. Now what do the senses do? They're insidious. You will be happy if you see these nice things, these pleasurable things. You will be happy if you get these nice touches. you will be happy. These are all things my senses promised me, if you hear this kind of music, or if you hear the voice of the beloved person. So this is you'll be happy and therefore in order to be happy we say all right Let me go around, keep on gathering these things. And of course, it doesn't work. It works only for a while and then it's gone again. Again you're running around to gather these things. Whereas the enlightened person is not after that. Enlightened person is [...] not by gathering what the senses are demanding but by something within. What is within? Jnana and Vijnana. So what is this jnana and vijnana? We will see. Why it is of particular interest to us is because of, of course, Iyan Mahaj's Vijnana Vedanta. So what is the way in which Gyan and Vigyan has been translated traditionally in the traditional commentaries, including by Shankaracharya? Shankaracharya's commentary on this. Gyaana, which is translated as knowledge, is the knowledge gained by the study of Vedanta, Shastra Gyaana. So you do Shravana Manana of especially Shravan and Manana of Vedanta. You study Vedanta, argue it out, reasoned it out, you begin to get clarity, you tick off all the books on your reading list and that gives you that does give you a certain amount of joy, definitely does. So specifically the knowledge gained by study of Vedanta or gained by the study of the scriptures, that is called Jnana. The traditional interpretation is after this comes Vijnana, when this Jnana is converted into experience, when you can say [...] I am the Atman, I heard, I am pure consciousness. I argued it out that I am not the body and mind, but now honestly. I can claim, if not to anybody else, at least to myself, I can claim. I clearly see that I'm not the body and not the mind. I clearly see that I am the witness consciousness. So C means in the sense of understand. So this is called Vidyana. What has been read, what has been studied, and then what has been understood and you're convinced about it, that is now clearly seen as a fact of life. It's clearly seen as a fact of life. So, this is the traditional interpretation. Gyaana knowledge is gained by a serious concentrated systematically studying Vedanta. You study the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahma Sutras, the Vedantic text like Vedanta Sara, Paroksha Anubhuti, Rishabh Vivek and so many Vivek Chudamani, so many of the [...] You don't have to complete all of it. In fact, any one of it will do because they all teach the same thing. But you have studied it. Now, you get the feeling it must become a living reality. I still feel I am this my living reality, the lived realities that I am an embodied awareness that must shift to that I am an awareness in which World, body, even embodiment is an appearance. That must happen. I feel I'm still this somehow connected, even if I'm not [...] I'm still somehow connected, inextricably bound to this mortal body, this [...] this sickening body. I am bound to this mind which is fluctuating. I am so I'm somehow caught up in this limitation. That must change to show [...] already unlimited. So this shift is called Vijnana. So this is the traditional interpretation. So what's wrong with this? Nothing wrong with it. But then Sri Ramakrishna in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, which Ayyan Maharaj has seized upon, he says that Sri Ramakrishna says that to see the reality, to know that there is this ultimate reality, to realize it that Brahman [...] I am Brahman. This is Gyana. This is knowledge. God is. It is knowledge. And then what is Vijnana? Vijnana is to see that the same reality has become everything in this universe. An example Sri Ramakrishna gives is that when you climb up to the roof of the [...] go to the staircase and climb up floor after floor, go to the roof of the house. And then you see what the roof of the house is made of, the same In concrete, and wood, and bricks, and whatever, the house itself is made of the same thing. And look back, and you saw whatever you left behind was made of the same thing. It's that same reality. So going to the roof of the house is realizing God, and that is Jnana, and then looking back upon the entire universe which you had left behind, [...] not this look behind, and you see Even the mind, and the senses, and the body, and the universe are the same one divinity. This is Vijnana. And Sri Ramakrishna insisted this one must go to that level. One must not only, you know, neti neti, not this, not this, but iti iti, that here itself in these people itself who I thought to be someone is my friend, someone is my relative, that will come in the next verse. You think this one is your friend, this one is your well-wisher, this one is your relative, this one is your enemy. This is a person whom you're indifferent to. That is a person you don't like. No! All that, all of that is wrong. Why? From the perspective of, or there's some echo there. From the perspective of the world, the falsity of the world because None of [...] anything to you. You have that asanga, unattached consciousness. Or from the perspective of Brahman, one reality. All of them are the same Brahman to you. So these distinctions which we have made in any case, those are not right. So Jnana and Vijnana. So now we have two interpretations. One is the general interpretation you find in many of the commentaries, what you study here from the teachers, we learn Vedanta, that is Jnana, and that's good, that gives you some peace, some tripti, some fulfillment. But the higher fulfillment, the realization is Anubhava. Sankaracharya uses the word anubhava when it becomes a living reality for you. And then the second interpretation is Sri Ramakrishna, who says no, no. I mean, he never said no, no. But he says jnana the realization itself is jnana and then a fuller realization. Yes, let's call it this way, a fuller realization is to see an all-comprehensive realization that there is nothing other than God. Whatever you had left behind, whatever you had dismissed is nothing other than that one divinity. So this is what's Ayyan Mahaj calls Sri Ramakrishna's Vijnana Vedanta, and there's no doubt Sri Ramakrishna has a special emphasis on this. He says in many of the parables which he has used. For example, he says some have heard of milk. Some have seen milk, but there are others who have drunk milk and become nourished by it. So the one who has heard and seen might be the jnana. Who has just heard might be just book learning. Who has seen it, for whom it's a living reality, it is gyan, knowledge. But who has become nourished by it, who has drunk it, who is immersed in it and full of the joy and can distribute that joy to others, invigorated by it? That is the Vijnani. That's another example. Number of parables he used. Now my point here is, one can make too much of this distinction. The traditional interpretation is different from Sri Ramakrishna's [...] because if you actually see what traditional Advaitic teachers teach [...] in the in Uttarakhand and all, it's not so much different what from what Sriram Krishna said. So for example, just today itself I was reading the Hindi commentary by the Swami Akhandananda Saraswati which I mentioned earlier. Speaking in the mid 20th century, he is explaining Jnana and Vijnana. So what are the two alternatives we have got? We already, what we just talked about, the study of Vedanta and the realization of that. That's one. That's a traditional commentary, if you go to the Sanskrit commentaries, you'll find that. Or what Sri Ramakrishna says, he starts with realization and goes to a fuller realization. Now, what does this traditional teacher today of Shankara Vedanta say? Very beautifully he says, what is Jnana and what is Vijnana? He says to see the one reality in all the diversity of the universe, in all this diversity is not real. Underlying it is this one reality. Anekh mein ek ko dekhna gyaan hai. In all this diversity of the universe, you dismiss the so-called diversity, and you find there is one reality. It's actually one. Foundationally, underneath the ground of it all, is one reality. So what is this diversity? Mithya. It's an appearance. What is that one reality? The truth. Brahmasatyam jagat mithya. Brahman alone is real. The world is an appearance. And he says that is Jnana. According to him, then what is Vijnana? The Vijnana is to see, says to see the one appearing as all the diversity, the diversity everywhere is that one thing. You look back upon that diversity, and you see the one in everything. You look away from the diversity, and you find the one underneath, that is Jnana. Then you look at the diversity, and you find the one there also in [...] is Vijnana. How is this very different from what Sri Ramakrishna was saying? Not very different at all. So one can make too much of a distinction. But my feeling, my instinct after talking to, reading and listening to a number of teachers of Shankara Vedanta, very traditional teachers. They are monks, and some of them are pandits who are very well versed, very well grounded in Advaita Vedanta, classical Advaita Vedanta. What they are saying is not fundamentally, conceptually different from what Sri Ramakrishna is saying, that Gyan and Vigyan interpretation. At the most, what you can say is in the Sri Ramakrishna avatar, there's an [...] on the Vijnana. There's an emphasis in seeing the imminence of the divine. See the Gyana might be the transcendence of the divine. The transcendence of the divine means apart from the names and forms of [...] beyond that, there is one reality, unchanging reality, it's a transcendent reality. What is eminence? Eminence is that same reality is in and through everything in this world. Just as gold is in and through every golden ornament, water is in and through every wave, and clay is in and through all pottery. Similarly, one Divine pervades is in and through underlying all the diversity, so that is Vijnana. You see, the one underlying all of diversity and to see the one as all this diversity. Jnana and Vijnana. There is an emphasis in the avatar of Sri Ramakrishna on the imminent aspect to see God in everything. I think that's why he kept on stressing the worship of the Divine Mother of Kali. A Brahman manifested as Shakti. So that much, that much difference you can definitely say.
Then one more verse, let's do quickly, and then we'll look at the comments and questions in the chat. The next verse continues with this same theme.
Surya Mitra Aryodhaseena Madhyastha Dvesha Bandhusho
sādhusu api chapāpesu sama buddhir viśiṣyate
Verse number nine:
He excels who looks equally on a well-wisher, a friend, an enemy, a neutral, an arbiter, a hateful person, a relative and also on the good and the sinful.
So this is what we are talking about earlier. You see the, see them all [...] See whom? Soorin. Soorin means well-wisher. So there are persons Shankaracharya defines all of these. There are persons who do good to you, they don't want anything back from you. Maybe like your parents, like somebody very close to you, the best well-wisher is your guru. So who just wants the highest and the best for you and wants nothing from you at all. So Surhin, your well-wisher. Mitra, friend. So this is a friend as we understand friends. Ari, whom we consider to be [...] Udasena, who's neutral, neither this side nor that side. Madhyastha, who mediates in the middle of a conflict. So there are some people who will try to resolve conflicts. What's the difference between a neutral person and you know, Udasi and Madhyastha, neutral person and a mediator? I was thinking it's a bit like the difference between say Switzerland [...] Nations. So the United Nations like a mediator. Switzerland is neutral. So Switzerland is very much in, in the middle of all things but neutral will not take sides. In the Second World War for example, Switzerland did not take the side of [...] of the Germans. of the axis. But the United Nations today is not neutral. It will jump in and try to solve problems. Often mediators are the ones who get beaten up by both sides. So Madhyastha, Madhyastha is the one who tries to mediate between in a dispute. And, then Dveshya, whom you dislike. So, the Ari is your enemy, but the Dveshya is the one whom you dislike. Bandhu, one who is related as a relative, a blood relative. Sadhushu, sadhu here Shankaracharya defines as a person of good moral [...] lives a moral and ethical life. Papeshwara, papa here Shankaracharya defines as a person who performs, who does sinful things. Samabuddhi sees all of these with an equal eye. How is that possible? The yogi sees all of this as an equal eye. Is it possible in exactly the same way as the clay and the stone and the gold? How is that possible? Remember, three levels. One level is to see the falsity of the world. Really, you are a well-wisher and you're an enemy. And not really ultimately, you're a well-wisher and enemy. Both are appearances. And the second level is to see the divinity in all beings. Your well-wisher and your enemy, and your friend, and your relative, and the neutral person, and the mediating person, and all these are masks. Behind the mask is one divinity, the cosmic actor, one cosmic actor God [...] behind all of it. So this is from the perspective of Jagat Mithya Brahma Sathyam. Two ways of seeing the sameness of all beings. And the third one, the third one of seeing the sameness of all things which Sri Ramakrishna was demonstrating money and clay are the same throwing into the river. What was he doing there? He was not teaching Vedanta there. He was saying that the these worldly clinging that we have, the importance that we give to one thing and disparage the other thing, both one must have dispassion for it. So if one has deep dispassion, then all of these will become equal to you. All of these you'll have a kind of sameness of vision towards everybody. And this is something that we must aim for first, before realizing the world is Maya or everything is Brahman. That is the state of enlightenment, but the preparatory stages, the vairagya, dispassion. See, it's interesting. These two verses, they are like on the margin of practice and enlightenment. It's relevant, you can interpret it from an enlightened person's perspective, you can interpret it from an advanced spiritual seeker's perspective. So the advanced spiritual seeker who is not yet enlightened, how would this person be the same to a well-wisher? Same in the sense the same politeness, the same gentleness, the same courtesy? If necessary, the same strictness, the same assertiveness, common sense for all beings. So how would the practitioner do this? Have dispassion, have vairagya. Shankaracharya in his commentary He gives this third method of being the same to everybody. He does not say here, because interestingly, he does not say here, [...] world of appearances. So what appears to be a friend, appears to be an enemy, and they are appearances anyway, be calm. He does not say that. He does not even say that Brahman alone is everything. Therefore, your so-called enemy and so-called friend, they're none other than Brahman. So be calm. No, he doesn't even say that. He just says Kah King Karma Aiti Bhava. Who are these people? What are their activities to me? Nothing to me. I was thinking, isn't this the neutral person? No. The neutral person is like Switzerland, very much in the middle of the world. Very interested in the world, but just doesn't take sides. This person is not in the middle of the world, he's not pursuing worldly goals. So this is something important, a lesson we have to learn. Of initial practices in spiritual life and for a long time, not to meddle and not to get too entangled in the world. Of course, you will do your duty. If you have a family, you'll have to take care of it. Do not… It will be very difficult to be spiritual. You will have to, if you are a monk, you can live by begging your food and staying in an ashram. If you are a householder, if you are by yourself, you will have to provide for yourself because that can't be helped. So that much engagement is necessary in the world. But we go much further [...] We generate what is called in Vedanta, Jiva Srishti, a universe created by [...] God creates an universe. The universe created by God is made of, he says, Panchabhuta, the five elements, stars and planets and bodies and minds, all of these are created by God, but what is created by us? My friend, my enemy. I like, I hate, I'm so unhappy or I am so thrilled, I'm excited, all of these things are created by us. In Uttarakhand, the sadhus say there's a saying, Ishwar Srishti kisi ko dukh nahi deta. What a big thing! The creation of God does not give sorrow to anybody. You might think that's not right. A cyclone is a creation of God. Coronavirus is the creation of God. How can you say does not give sorrow to [...] They are inflexible in that and know the creation of God actually does not give sorrow to anybody. It is our own creation which gives sorrow to us. It is true. Think about an enlightened person who has come out of the delusion of being a Jiva. So that person still inhabits the world. of appearances generated by Ishwara, and that person is not impacted by the so-called ups and downs in the creation of Ishwara. That person is serene in the midst of suffering, in midst of pleasure, of [...] dishonor. So, that means actually Even in the so-called creation of God, which is [...] which is also vyavaharika, transactional, an enlightened person can live there without any sorrow, which means the sorrow is not generated truly by the creation of God.
It's our generation. It's our contribution to the world. So, why was I saying this? Yeah, so this is the third one.
We, in the initial stages of spiritual life and for a long time, we must be careful of how we are getting entangled in the world. Especially people who are in worldly life, in the sense of you have a job, you have a family, and it's a reality for you. You cannot treat everybody at the same way as you treat your family. You cannot treat your own property and everybody else's property the same way. This is common sense of living in the world and this is perfectly all right. But don't generate this spider web of one's own fantasies and delusions.
Kah King Karma. Kah means who are they? King Karma means what is their activities and their behavior, what is it to be? This practice one must do. This practice two-step practice. But I'm telling you the practice, but don't do it all the time. It's like taking a medicine maybe twice a day, not more than that, for a couple of minutes practices.
Look around, step one. Look around and see whatever you are seeing, whatever I am seeing, hearing is all meaningless. All of it is meaningless. All these positions, these people, what people are saying good and bad, all meaningless.
Step one, then calmly close your eyes. Look inwards. All my thoughts, good thoughts, bad thoughts, Vedantic thoughts, worldly thoughts. All of my thoughts, my memories, my desires, my aspirations, my guilt, my unhappiness, all of it is meaningless. It has no meaning, no relevance at all. It sits like that for just a minute. And then come back to the world. Don't stay in that meaningless state. Otherwise, you will not be able to function in the world. This is flushing your mind. You can do it twice a day, but don't do it too much because that can lead to alienation.
This is what Shankaracharya says, Kah King Karma. What is it to me? Often it happens as young monks when we come to monastic life as novices, finding. It's very natural. The reason is we have come into a life with high ideals in life. I want to live up to this wonderful ideal. It's a trick of the mind. It's very difficult to live up to those ideals. So what we slip into the error is we want others to live up to those ideals. That's why you will find this fault-finding, criticism, backbiting, gossip sometimes more in an Ashram. From more in a monastery, monks can be quite gossipy. Why? Why does this happen? It's because there is a reason behind it, and it's actually, it's nothing terrible. It's almost natural. I'm taking up a pretty high ideal. And I want. This is an ashram, they are all, everybody is a monk. They must live up to this, and I'm quite justified in saying that. Only thing, why is it a trick of the mind? The only thing the mind hides is what am I doing? That's hidden. I'm very good at making excuses for myself, but finding fault in the lives of others. So we are often corrected by senior monks. I have been corrected also by senior monks, and they'll always tell us, you have come here to become a sadhu, have you come here to make the rest of us sadhus? You have come here to become a monk, an enlightened person. Work on that. Have you come here? Are you in charge of making everybody a sadhu? No. Another thing senior monks would say is that in Bengali they would say, Amra kev sadhu hoye asini, sadhu hote esechi. None of us have come here becoming perfect monks, becoming enlightened ones. We have come here to become enlightened. So we are all work in progress, work in progress. So this criticism of others, meddling into the lives of others, this becomes a hurdle in spiritual life. It's a temptation. Often very busy people in the world, they don't have time for all of this. You're busy earning money, busy getting your PhD, busy raising children. You have no time to meddle into what other people are doing. So it is retired people, monks, people with lots of time on their hand and who can look around and start passing judgments on others. So don't do that, that's part of Jiva Srishti. That's an entire creation of our mind, and it only leads to unhappiness.
Why am I saying this? It is an explanation of ka, king karma. Shankaracharya just uses two words. Who are these people? So-called friend, well-wisher, enemy, neutral, mediator, relative, mother, sister, even children. Who are these people? And their activities and doings, what does it matter ultimately? It is meaningless. The whole point is to free yourself up for spiritual realization, for spiritual practice and realization.
Let me quickly take a look at what has been said here. Shravani says, technically the unchanging radiance that lights up the world and actions, is it Chidambhasa? No, it's not Chidambhasa. Reflected Self. It is the real Self. Why is it not Chidambhasa? Chidambhasa is not unchanging. Jiravasabki keeps on flickering with the flickering of the mind, it's like the moon reflected in the water. As the water goes into waves and ripples, you see the reflected moon also goes into waves and ripples. As the mind falls asleep, the Chidambas also will become dimmer and dimmer, and then will be obscured for a time being. So Chidambas is not and Chidambas is not the radiance which lights up the world because it is for each mind. One unchanging radiance lighting up the world through the Chidavasa, you are right through Chidavasa, through mind, through the sense organs, those are all flickering lights because they are all reflected in flickering mediums. The material medium in which consciousness is reflected in through which is this channel, that's always changing. What is changing can never be studied.
Girish says, Jeevanmukthas are unaffected by the pain associated with samsara, which means they're equally unmoved by the pleasures of the world, art, literature, music, cuisine. They can enjoy all of them, and they can feel all of the pains. Remember, I've mentioned this many times, so the Jivan Muktas, do they feel pain or not? Of course! Are they permanently anesthetized? No, not at all. This is a beautiful thing to understand, as long as they are not in Samadhi. When their eyes are open, when they're talking with us, they feel exactly what we feel. Maybe a little more. They are more sensitive to the world than we are. I asked a monk after a few days of becoming a monk as a young novice, do we become more sensitive to the world when we are monks or less? He said more, there's no doubt about it. So you're more sensitive. So the Jeevan Muktus feel pain. They feel hunger and thirst, and yet they can transcend. We have talked about this many times, how Sri Ramakrishna feeling the pain of cancer, and yet can say that I am in. So equally, art, literature, music, cuisine. Can they enjoy these? Certainly! If they have cultivated, depends on whether they have cultivated it, so they are able to enjoy. Swami Vivekananda, his appreciation of music and art and literature and food, all of this architecture. What an eye he had, incredible. Sri Ramakrishna when it comes to key turns and bhajan, he was very appreciative of good singers. He couldn't bear it if somebody missed a beat. So and one must, the secret is in understanding, how is this possible? How can you appreciate and understand and feel all of it. So enlightenment, Jeevan Mukti is not an anesthesia. It's not an escape from anything in the world. Falling asleep is an escape. Drinking oneself senseless is an escape. Drugging oneself is an escape. Running away is an escape. None of them are effective. None of them are effective. All of them just keep increasing the suffering, unhappiness. That same Akhandananda Saraswati, whom I quoted in one place, he says very beautifully, Advaita, non-duality is not meant to erase the world. Advaita is not meant for erasing transactions in the world. Then what does Advaita non-duality do? He says, Advaita Nirbhāda is difficult to translate into English. It means unrestricted, limitless, free, not fearful, comfortable. At ease with whatever the world can throw at you. It's all fun for you now. You experience everything that the world can throw at you. Not one thing you. But it's perfectly all right. You're no longer afraid. No longer, you know, meanly asking begging for certain pleasures and happiness from the world. No longer scared and cringing away from pain and fear and you know, anxiety and problems in the world. That is real fearlessness, that's what Advaita gives you.
Bill says, Sri Ramakrishna practiced equality of gold and clay. He consigned both to the Ganga. Right, coins and money and clay. But anyway, that's the point.
Puneetaji says, how does a Yogi remain loving towards all, when it is known to be Mithya? It's also known to be God. It's also known to be one with you. What is known to be Mithya, names and forms? What are you one with? You are one with everybody. The only time a yogi can dismiss other people's suffering is when the yogi is in Samadhi and not aware of other people's suffering. Otherwise, the yogi is more tuned to people's sufferings and unhappiness. He or she himself is transcendent. If you are not able to transcend, then it's no point. You'll become unhappy with one mind. If you are aware of the misery, sensitive to the troubles of everybody, you will become ten times, thousand million times unhappy. That's not the point. The point is you transcend it. You are able to see the underlying perfection, purity and freedom. And yet appreciate the sufferings of others, identify with it and do your best. At least to sympathize, if not actively remove the sufferings of others.
Bill says, earth is actually more intrinsic value than gold, without we can grow food, gold is useful for dental work, correct, I fully agree.
Praveer Babu, is Kutastha in this verse, does it have the same meaning as used in Panchavashi? Thanks for reminding me. I missed that word Kutastha. It means the witness consciousness and yes, it has the same meaning as used in Panchavashi.
Rita says, does one need Anubhava experience of what has been studied from Jnana to Vijnana? That's a traditionalized interpretation. Shankaracharya says what is given in the Shastras is Jnana and then one makes the transition to Anubhava realization. But Advaita Vedanta points out that it's already there. It has to be recognized. That recognition itself, that Brahmakara Vritti, that one breakthrough or intuitive grasp of an existing truth. You can call that anubhava. That feels, definitely feels like something startling and new, tremendous. For example, we study, read, study and understand Tattvamasi, which is Jnana. But one must experience this fact to have been Jnana. Is this a correct interpretation? This is the correct interpretation from a traditional classical Advaitic perspective. So this is Vijnana, that you make it a living reality. And how we do that, we have been talking about it in Vedanta Sara.
Poonam says, without Indriya Nigraha, enlightenment is not possible. Only enlightened person can have senses under control. How should we move towards Indriya Nigraha? What she's saying without control of the senses, enlightenment is not possible. Only the enlightened person can have perfect control of the senses, then is it possible to become enlightened? Enlightened. If you are going to only, you know, insist on perfect control of senses, then only you'll be enlightened. And then you say finally that only the enlightened person can perfectly control senses, then you're caught in a vicious circle. Without enlightenment, no perfect control of senses. Without perfect control of senses, no enlightenment. Then what do you do? This is, you may be glad to know that this is the exact language used nearly a thousand years ago by Ramanujacharya in his Gita Bhashya commentary on the Gita. He says this is a vicious circle and therefore, so he makes this as a case for Bhakti, devotion. So there he introduces Bhakti. He says devotion is such a thing where your sense organs are pulled to the divine form of God, the beautiful divine spirit, you know, spiritual music, all of the senses and prasad food. So, all of your senses are nicely caught by God, and they are directed towards God, and then control of the senses becomes much easier. So that's an, this very argument has been used by Ramanujacharya to present a case for Bhakti, for devotion. Good.
Rick says, Gyana sounds like Sankhya. Right, the self is realized and separate from the world. Vigyana sounds like Vedanta. One realizes all is that. Yes, but there's a subtle difference. In Sankhya, consciousness is realized as separate from the entire material world. The material world remains as a reality. In Vedanta, consciousness is realized as I am that, and the material world becomes an appearance, false. If you stress the falsity, it is Jnana. If you stress that same Brahman appears as everything. So when you say Brahman alone is this entire world, you are not making the world as such. You're saying Brahman is real, and the world is nothing other than Brahman in that sense. Then you are stressing the Vijnana part of it. It's a subtle difference, but a big difference, but it's important. The difference is important. The difference would be Sankhya insists on the reality of the world. Prakriti is real, as real as Purusha, though they are connected. Again, I have this voice in my head of my professors and pundits and all who roll their eyes when I say things like they are connected or they are interdependent. They are connected for giving us worldly experience, bhoga and apavarga for experience of the world and freedom of the world, Prakriti and Purusha become connected.
Then Rick says, or Rita's, no, Girish says, or before that, Prabir Basu says, in a traditional sense, one interpretation would certainly be that. Sri Ramakrishna's interpretation would be both would be one would be a paroksha jnana, and one would be a fuller of paroksha jnana.
Girish says, Vijnana, imminence of Brahman sounds like Vishishta Advaita. No, but it's different. In Vishishtadvaita, you have an organic unity of different reals, let's put it that way, and in Advaita, the unity is more is an identity. There's only one reality which appears to be different. More precisely, in the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, there is the reality of internal difference is admitted. The parts of Brahman are really parts, and they're different. We are all different from each other, and we are all different from the insentient world, but all of it is a sentient and insentient part or aspect of Brahman. There's an underlying organic unity which is God. But this is not what is meant in Advaita Vedanta.
Girish says, by definition then no persons who are accomplished in their fields, music, sport can be enlightened because they're highly attached to entangled in. Contrary to that, contrary to that, I'll just take a minute. It is entirely possible for people who are musicians, artists, and scientists to actually become enlightened. It's not guaranteed that they'll become enlightened, you must seek it, that sense must be there. But it is quite possible, probably more than others. Swami Vivekananda says, in fact, Sister Nivedita in her introduction to the complete works, in the introduction, she says, our master told us, religion, science, and art are three ways of realizing this. But one needs Advaita to understand this. It is sort of self-explanatory to some extent, but you will think about it, also cryptic. There are three ways. Religion, what religion will lead you to that. Science can lead you to that, art can lead you to that. But then he says, how is it that possible? Advaita can explain that. You need Advaita to understand it. And it's a little evocative. I'll share just a little bit. Today, I was walking in Central Park. And I met this most remarkable lady. She saw me walking down there and she wanted to take pictures. She was taking pictures of nature. She said, what lovely colors. Can I take your picture? She's not interested in me, she was interested in this dress. So she took a few pictures and then we got talking. Most interesting person. I won't violate her privacy by talking about this. She told me about her life. This is a life dedicated to art, to photography, to poetry, and she was saying that I could have been one of America's leading poets today. And she talked about when I, she asked about the center. She talked about the greats of the past, you know? Let me share one anecdote, you'll understand what at what level we are. When I said the center is just next to the Dakota, close to Dakota, one block down. She laughed and she's quite sprightly, short, she is 86 years old but quite fit. And she spends all her time photographing nature and writing poems. When I mentioned the Dakota, she said, Oh, the parties we have had at the Dakota! And then she talked about Ginsburg having just come back, you know, the beat generation. Having just come back from India, and she had just come back from Rome, and there was a party in the Dakota. I'm sure it must have been thrown by John Lennon or Yoko or somebody. When Ginsburg heard that she had just come back from Rome, and she was working on Italian art, she knelt down and kissed her feet, saying these feet have worked, have walked in the Roman forum or something like that. He said, I'm sure he was high. He was on drugs, and she was very interested in what I had to say, which is that my studies have all have been in Greek and Roman religion. I don't know much about Hinduism. She wrote it all down about Vivekananda and she promised to look it up and call her up after coming back. Very accomplished person. Columbia, Radcliffe, Harvard. And she's a published author, but that's her internet self, but if you look at her life, she says, I have no money. I just say people think I'm this very fancy person, but that is this little which I barely cling on to. I've never earned money and never married, never had children. I spent all my time looking at nature, taking photographs and writing poems. And I felt a certain, I would say detachment from the world and a certain joy and freedom of spirit there. We had a long talk. So it is entirely possible, in fact, highly recommended that some kind of art, or science, or literature, some of the higher pursuits of the mind are very useful for spirituality. But one must be a spiritual seeker. It's not enough to be a writer, or a painter, or a poet, or a scientist, and then are they bound to be enlightened? No, quite possibly they won't be. Both are possible. Good point.