Professor Edwin Bryant Answers: Are Hindu Gods Mythological or Real?

[SPEAKER_08]: Good morning, everybody, and welcome on this gorgeous day.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: We happily welcome, as I'll speak, a today, Professor Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hindu Religion and Philosophy at Rutgers University.
[SPEAKER_08]: Professor Brian received his PhD in Indic Languages and Cultures from Columbia University where his thesis culminated in his first book, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture.
[SPEAKER_08]: Before coming to Rutgers, he taught Hinduism at Harvard University for three years.
[SPEAKER_08]: He has published eight books and authored a number of articles on Vedic History and Culture, Yoga Philosophy and the Krishna tradition and has received numerous awards and fellowships.
[SPEAKER_08]: As a personal practitioner of Bhakti Yoga for over 50 years, a number of them spent in India, studying with traditional teachers, where he returns yearly, professor Brian strives to combine academic scholarship and rigor with appreciation towards traditional knowledge systems.
[SPEAKER_08]: His translation of and commentary on the yoga sutras of Patanjali is specifically dedicated to contributing to the growing body of literature on yoga.
[SPEAKER_08]: His sequel to his book, to this book, entitled Bakti Yoga, Tales and Teachings from the Bhagavad-apurana, also seeks to ground the practices of Bakti in the traditional traditional Krsna, sorry, traditional Krsna-sented framework of the Rindvand devotional traditions.
[SPEAKER_08]: Professor Bryant has translated the Bhagavad Gita with a new addition, including original Sanskrit, Roman ties, transformations, and detailed explanations and commentaries from classical sources.
[SPEAKER_08]: and has been working with his late sister on translating his pen-grin translation of the 10th book of the Bhagavad-Purana into Italian, their mother language.
[SPEAKER_08]: And another book in defence of a God with form is currently in progress.
[SPEAKER_08]: His previous talks here have proven to be amongst the most popular on our YouTube playlist.
[SPEAKER_08]: And he has his own YouTube channel, Edwin Bryant.org, where there is an extensive playlist and videos for free.
[SPEAKER_08]: This, oh, I'm one other thing, he has involved in a charity for the protection of cows in India, which you can google and get more information on.
[SPEAKER_08]: The subject of his talk today is the Hindu gods mythological.
[SPEAKER_08]: We are very happy to welcome you back.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know whose idea that was or the Hindus got into gods mythological and it's going to get into trouble I think today.
[SPEAKER_03]: Let's see what happens.
[SPEAKER_03]: I actually don't know how to translate to the Bhagavad Gita.
[SPEAKER_03]: I started it and I gave up halfway, just got sidetracked, but thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, and we have a guest with us today.
[SPEAKER_03]: Glad to go, pal.
[SPEAKER_03]: So Mrs. Aurora brought her, um, I'd love it, uh, go, pal, deity for a darshan.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, um, it's kind of a new thing in Brenda, and actually, uh, at least I've noticed it for the last 10 years.
[SPEAKER_03]: where bakters will take their, their deities with them and walk around and sometimes in, in, in prams sometimes in a basket, it's quite sweet, it's a sweet tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: After all, if, if one accepts the possibility that Bhagavan can manifested Burti, Murti form, Murti avatar,
[SPEAKER_03]: then it makes sense, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's if there's divine presence then and especially if it's a little it's a little it's a little gopile, it's little gopile you can't leave them alone at home, can you?
[SPEAKER_03]: So like any good mother you have to bring in with you.
[SPEAKER_03]: So she brings, she brings a little gopile with her and I, when I knew she was coming, I suggest that she
[SPEAKER_03]: What I have in mind today, first of all, let's invoke a little help from higher powers and we'll start with a quick invocation.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Greeks have their muses and in the Indian tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: We have the AAS and Suttas Vati.
[SPEAKER_03]: Bios begins the Mahabharata with an implication so we'll follow on his footsteps and then we'll I'll show you what I have planned for this morning and then we'll see what happens.
[SPEAKER_03]: Narayanam, namaskritya, nara chayva, narautamam, daivis, sarasvatiim, vya asam, tatou, jayam, udilayat.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we are for respects to vyas, great author and mother sarasvati.
[SPEAKER_03]: Tatou, jayam, udilayat, then maybe maybe go ahead something to say.
[SPEAKER_03]: I can demand a lot of Karam, and I don't want him to be a fool.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't want him to be a fool.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's my sweet, sweet name.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'll tell you how I love you.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'll tell you how I love you.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'll tell you how I love you.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, put in the Dekaksham, the one with the loader size, there's a good segue into what we're going to do today.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, we're going to focus on typically the term myth is associated with divine, you know, divine beings, manifesting in the world, breaking into human history and space and time as iliadi might put it.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, we'll focus, I want to really focus on divine body.
[SPEAKER_03]: Can God have a body?
[SPEAKER_03]: Is that philosophical here at or even?
[SPEAKER_03]: Is that theologically necessary for a perfect God?
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's going to be our focus.
[SPEAKER_03]: But we'll start with a little background on the term, I don't want this to be too academic, but I'm an academic, there we go.
[SPEAKER_03]: Why did you invite me?
[SPEAKER_03]: So we'll start off with a few words about the Greeks and the usage of the term mythos and logos.
[SPEAKER_03]: Not too much, just giving your heads up.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if you get bored with any particular section, just hang in there for a few minutes, go use the restroom, come back.
[SPEAKER_03]: And we'll be in the next section.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we start with the Greeks, mythos and logos, and then the sort of, you know, the dissonance that the philosophers had with the whole merit traditions, we'll say a little bit about that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Cause remember these terms are not Sanskrit terms.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they are imposed upon Indian traditions.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they come laden with baggage at which a nest you start excavating.
[SPEAKER_03]: You don't see it there.
[SPEAKER_03]: So mythos is actually becomes a derogatory term.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we want to just try to uncover some of that.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then we'll look at where the idea that God cannot have a body that is philosophically incoherent to pause it, that God has a body, where does that start?
[SPEAKER_03]: So we'll look at Plato and Aristotle and St. Greek philosophers, because all of that,
[SPEAKER_03]: And it informs the construction of Christian theology, which then gets transmitted through missionaries and the colonial power into India.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then Hinduism gets ridden through those categories.
[SPEAKER_03]: And with the history forgotten or buried in the midst of time, and even Indians adopt these terms without realizing where they're coming from, terms like mythological, terms like idol, heavily heavily, you know, comes from the Old Testament where an idol is, it's evil, it's Satan.
[SPEAKER_03]: but you look up money at Williams Morty and you're going to get idle and so if you don't know all of that and you look it up or your India, okay, what's Morty and you get idle.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you start using the term idle.
[SPEAKER_03]: Without realizing what it entails to a Christian ear if you go to your friend say hey let's go to the temple what are we going to do there?
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh, we're going to see the idols.
[SPEAKER_03]: bad start.
[SPEAKER_03]: You'd be going alone.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's the idea.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then we're going to look at them.
[SPEAKER_03]: We'll move into issues of epistemology.
[SPEAKER_03]: briefly, and then we're going to look at the Vedanta tradition, and its position on epistemology, and we'll move into then Ramanujah and his response to the heistic Nyaaya, all of this will unpack, and then we'll end up with some Krishna stories, because very interesting how the Krishna stories
[SPEAKER_03]: The barred piranha is an enormously erodite text, there's nothing like it.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, obviously I, it's my tradition, but we can quantify that.
[SPEAKER_03]: We can quantify that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Bottle of piranha has a over 100 commentaries.
[SPEAKER_03]: Next piranha has two.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's quantifiable.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if you look at the impact bugger that Prana has on the aesthetic culture, poetic poetry, everything dance, it's massively influential.
[SPEAKER_03]: I would make a case as the most influential text, maybe Ramayana is somewhat in terms of these kinds of effects it's had on Indian culture.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we'll look at the Krishna stories.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because the Bhagavatam is not just it's Kavya, it's incredible Kavya, which makes it distinct from other paranas, but it's also whoever wrote it was a philosopher and is responding to all the arguments against the coherence of God having a form without engaging philosophy and there's a reason for that, which will touch upon.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so that's the plan see if you get so that's what we're gonna try and fit in and you said we have to like seven a clock this evening
[SPEAKER_03]: So, so the term myth are then, it's origins of the Greek and in the earliest usage of the term, there is no difference between mythos and logos.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we tend to nowadays associate mythos with logos with reason and mythos with fairy stories of the god not true.
[SPEAKER_03]: historically not true.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that wasn't always the case.
[SPEAKER_03]: So in the beginning the terms are used interchangeably.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm not going to go too much into names of all the different Greek philosophers.
[SPEAKER_03]: And in a certain point, then the Greeks are struggling with what to do with the Homeric hymns.
[SPEAKER_03]: And struggling with the immoral behavior of the gods.
[SPEAKER_03]: And, of course, we all know about Indo-European, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: We know that the Greek culture is cognate with Sanskrit.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not that, it's not that Indra is a saint either.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, if you can give, if I have a spare moment, you know, go on Wiki and type in, how did Indra get his eyes out of respect for the ladies?
[SPEAKER_03]: I won't tell you the story, but you can do that in your own time.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, so the moral behavior of the gods,
[SPEAKER_03]: And so then you get this sort of, at a certain point, you get this position as the philosophers emerge.
[SPEAKER_03]: And we'll focus on maybe Plato and Aristotle because they're the big names, but they weren't the only ones.
[SPEAKER_03]: You get a sort of attorney, well, Plato actually accepted the God, it's very interesting, because Plato, he, so, but he used the word mythos.
[SPEAKER_03]: He wasn't the first.
[SPEAKER_03]: And so mythos were these stories.
[SPEAKER_03]: of the gods.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he divided them into two.
[SPEAKER_03]: He said, they're untrue.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're not historically real.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he was able to divide them into those which have moral content.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he said, those are good.
[SPEAKER_03]: They may not be true, but they're good for training kids.
[SPEAKER_03]: He said, good for training our children because they impart moral messages.
[SPEAKER_03]: So those that was good mythos.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then it was bad mythos which all the moral stories.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's interesting because he actually accepted the gods.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that was like a third category.
[SPEAKER_03]: So by the time of Plato, this term mythos, whether they're good stories or bad stories, but they refer to something that's not true, not historically real.
[SPEAKER_03]: And pretty much from that time onwards, even though the earlier period, there wasn't this demarcation between mythos and logos.
[SPEAKER_03]: But by the time of Plato, you have mythos
[SPEAKER_03]: So then, so that's part of the story, so that's how, and pretty much that's how we think of mythology today.
[SPEAKER_03]: We think of it as something that's might have moral, cultural value, but isn't historically real.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if you take that position, you've just eradicated 90% of Hinduism.
[SPEAKER_03]: So be careful of what you're going to sign off on.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because the massive Hinduism is basically Bhakti's stories, it's devotion, real life Hinduism on the ground Hinduism.
[SPEAKER_03]: Obviously you have your intellectual centers of learning, you know, schools of Nyaya.
[SPEAKER_03]: And we have a great being with us today, or event Chakravati, who I had so much respect for, because I met, I've met for the first time, but he's just written some amazing books at one of which, one of which is true with the whole PhD dissertation going on right now in Santa Barbara.
[SPEAKER_03]: at what actually happens at the transitional moment when you go from a mental state to an enlightened state.
[SPEAKER_03]: So whether it's a way to be done to where you're going from this sort of, you know, walking around reciting Mahabhavaka's, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's Arvamidam, Kalubrathman, Sarvamidam, from a method of mental, Mahabhavaka repetition to an actual experience of Anantam Gyanam, Satyam.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, whether it's in the Christian tradition where you put together your multi of a bug of onion, your mind, your concentrate, and all of the sudden it's darsha that dissolves into actual divine presence, there's that eureka moment, if you want to call it that, is there anything that can be said about that?
[SPEAKER_03]: Are we just transitioning from one ontological dimension onto another?
[SPEAKER_03]: What can
[SPEAKER_03]: probably reason can't say anything about that.
[SPEAKER_03]: But if we were to sort of try and push reason as far as possible, what could be said about.
[SPEAKER_03]: So she's doing a dissertation on that thanks to your book.
[SPEAKER_03]: Just so you know, you have a chala somewhere read in her center Barbara.
[SPEAKER_03]: So then quit word about Plato and Aristotle.
[SPEAKER_03]: So they take the position right their rationalists
[SPEAKER_03]: How do you make an inference?
[SPEAKER_03]: Let's think of the Niaia way.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not so dissimilar from all men and mortal such as these as a man, not just some differences.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the classical, this is important.
[SPEAKER_03]: The classical for where we're going end up.
[SPEAKER_03]: The classical Niaia inferences, everybody probably knows, wherever there is smoke.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you see a linker, you see a sign, wherever, in this case, in the classical example smoke, that is the sign of fire.
[SPEAKER_03]: You don't see the fire, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: There are three ways of knowing the fire, of the, at least three, mostly three, Brahmanis are accepted, not by everybody, but it fairly standardly.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you have to see the fire, that's the pressure, so you know there's a fire, so you have a knowledge of a giana, you have a giana episode in the mind, you have a state of mind of a giana of knowing that there's a fire.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can hear about it, some of you can say there's a fire on the mountain, that's the second way.
[SPEAKER_03]: But Nyaia focuses, is the tradition in India, along with Buddhist traditions.
[SPEAKER_03]: that focuses on inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: How do you make an inference, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: This is important when we talk about God's body.
[SPEAKER_03]: You make an inference by you see a sign of the fire and there can be no deviation, the apte.
[SPEAKER_03]: There has to be absolute wherever there is smoke.
[SPEAKER_03]: There always an every instance has to be fire as it's caused.
[SPEAKER_03]: Otherwise it's not a valid inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you have your opponent can come up with one
[SPEAKER_03]: so inference can only deal with empirically perceivable reality.
[SPEAKER_03]: You see empirically see the smoke, which is the linga, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: That's why we have a shiver linga, the linga is the sign of shiver.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's lingas also the genitals, that's the sign of male and female, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Babies born, what's the linga?
[SPEAKER_03]: What's the gender?
[SPEAKER_03]: We look at the genitals, that's the linga.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the shiver linga then is, you know, the word linga.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the smoke is the linga, it's the sign of fire.
[SPEAKER_03]: So when you're operating in the realm of philosophy, actually, and science, you are grounded in empirically perceivable facts.
[SPEAKER_03]: Anything beyond that is not, it does not come under the jurisdiction, either of sense perception or of inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we'll talk a little bit more about that.
[SPEAKER_03]: So they infer that God cannot have a body, why?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because remember, all known bodies, or perceived bodies are made of matter.
[SPEAKER_03]: can't start talking about, they didn't even, they didn't go there, they didn't, it never even crossed, we have found no reference to any possible, like, well, could there be non-material body, could there be a body of such an under, a salgulla prochmark, it doesn't even enter the discourse.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the, a no sh, no can it.
[SPEAKER_03]: nor can it, because that becomes theology, that becomes shoveder, that becomes the third way of revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Greeks didn't have that revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: They had their adherence to Homer, but nothing like revelation, which emerges in the Christian tradition, of course, in India.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, the Greeks, and I'm generalizing a bit, because, you know, when I have time, we can't start naming names.
[SPEAKER_03]: It wouldn't mean anything to most of us anyway.
[SPEAKER_03]: inferred that the god at least cannot have a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: Plato has a pretty vague and, I mean, according to Cicero, useless idea of God's body.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't tell Cicero says you don't have a clue what Plato's talking about is God the damage.
[SPEAKER_03]: Is he the good, the form, the great form of the good?
[SPEAKER_03]: What is Plato's God?
[SPEAKER_03]: Read Cicero is quite funny.
[SPEAKER_03]: An Aristotle is what you hear is where you end up with.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you simply use inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: You end up with Aristotle with the God that doesn't even know the world exists, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So Plato says, okay, there's movement, there's movement, planets are moving, things are moving, so what's pushing it?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right, you can go up the causal chain, but at some point you gotta have a causal mover that isn't moved.
[SPEAKER_03]: And why can't the movement move?
[SPEAKER_03]: Why can't the move move?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because you're committed to this idea of eternality.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if something is eternal, it can't move.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because if it moves, it changes.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: If something moves, it's changed.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's somewhere, it's changed.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if you're committed to the idea, because if God moves, then who moves God?
[SPEAKER_03]: You end up in an infinite regress.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you end up with a God that
[SPEAKER_03]: But he's like a magnet.
[SPEAKER_03]: He attracts the movement of the universe by his, whatever, beauty, no, not beauty, but some are rather he's attractive and because it's like a magnet.
[SPEAKER_03]: So when a magnet doesn't do anything, doesn't move.
[SPEAKER_03]: Just is.
[SPEAKER_03]: And things are attracted to the magnet.
[SPEAKER_03]: Magnet's not responsible.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not changing.
[SPEAKER_03]: So.
[SPEAKER_03]: Aristotle God is the un... you've heard the phrase, the un-moved mover.
[SPEAKER_03]: Where does that phrase come from?
[SPEAKER_03]: Something has to be behind the movement of things.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because that's all you know, all you know is this movement.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, that's where philosophy and science has grounded.
[SPEAKER_03]: This movement had you explained movement.
[SPEAKER_03]: So he ends up, and God can't even be aware of the world, because if you're aware of something then more, the world is changing.
[SPEAKER_03]: If your consciousness is aware of the world, what's a consciousness changing, doing, I just gave it away.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's changing.
[SPEAKER_03]: So Aristotle's God is not aware of the world.
[SPEAKER_03]: So what is he doing?
[SPEAKER_03]: Self-contemplating.
[SPEAKER_03]: Not too different from, you know, Swaruba Vastana with Patanjali, actually.
[SPEAKER_03]: But if you're looking for a God to, you know, to worship and pray to and don't waste your, don't waste, don't bite me buying incense for Aristotle.
[SPEAKER_03]: He doesn't even know you're offering it.
[SPEAKER_03]: Say your money.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, so that's what you end up with though, that's what you end up with if you try to understand God purely through human reason because your reason is to have to be grounded in empirically perceived facts.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, what to do then if something is non-impiracle, for right there you've loaded the discussion, you've disclosed your metaphysics,
[SPEAKER_03]: which is materialism, not shopping in fifth avenue sort of way, but materialism and physicalism that there's only matter.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because of that, and then the idea that God cannot have a body permeates Greek culture, within which Christianity emanates in the Hellenistic Near East, sophisticated culturally and philosophically.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now you have a conflict, because in the Old Testament,
[SPEAKER_03]: Yahweh is very much a bodied being.
[SPEAKER_03]: No question.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yahweh walks around the garden of Eden.
[SPEAKER_03]: He has an artistic book him out recently, just accumulating all the references to God's anatomy.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's no question that the God of the Old Testament, the God of the Bible, is a bodied being.
[SPEAKER_03]: And by the way,
[SPEAKER_03]: Crystic accepted that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Crystic accepted Yahweh is a body-beating.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't think, you know, we should put that out there a little bit more.
[SPEAKER_03]: Which hopefully, you know, which is what we're working on, we're working on this, it's become a massive great tone now.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the first two 300 years and in the Jewish tradition from 1200 years, the Jews hang on to the idea of a body guard Yahweh, a lot longer than the Christians did.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because they're an ancient tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: What's happening in Christianity is, first couple of centuries, right up until the fifth century.
[SPEAKER_03]: Christians believed in a body to God, why did they why would they believe that?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because the Scripture says so.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if you accept the Scripture as divine revelation, then what are your options?
[SPEAKER_03]: So that was the situation and so around this third fourth century you have the emergence what happens actually is and Christian is it's not really taken very seriously it's looked down upon by the Greeks as being philosophical and the impoverished.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, I mean, you know, the story of Christ, right, he's preaching to fish of people, and then that's bhakti, actually.
[SPEAKER_03]: Find that.
[SPEAKER_03]: But it's the same in India.
[SPEAKER_03]: The greatest bhaktas are shoe workers and swords and meat are, and the marginalised to some extent, also great theologians, we can't, we can't essentially say, but there's overlap.
[SPEAKER_03]: But what's happening is that as Christianity begins to being preached, starting with poor in Athens, a conversion is going on.
[SPEAKER_03]: And you start finding people who are trained in Greek philosophy, Greek philosophers converting to Christianity,
[SPEAKER_03]: They want, that's a dharma of theologian.
[SPEAKER_03]: The dharma of theologian is, to systematize text, which are usually not particularly systematic in the first place.
[SPEAKER_03]: but also to give intellectual dignity to a tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's a Dharma.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you get these amazing Greek philosophers like Oregon, in Clemens and Jerome, converting to Christianity and there's no philosophy in the New Testament.
[SPEAKER_03]: Where's the philosophy in the New Testament?
[SPEAKER_03]: So it's God, fine, vaguely framed.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you get the Greeks, these amazing, actually, Oregon is just a, you know, I do my number heart organ.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's just a fabulous character, very, a bit radical.
[SPEAKER_03]: He took Brahmachari to a bit of an extreme and castrated in self, probably a little tamasic moment there and the,
[SPEAKER_02]: If you think of the Gita Gita says, don't touch it, don't touch it.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's time us to torture your bodily organs.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he's a brilliant theologian, but they're more, much more Greek in their orientations.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they become, you know, they become converts, but they bring in their training and schooling with them.
[SPEAKER_03]: So they set about, remember, Christian theology doesn't get really established to my CEO, it's 400 years, 4th century.
[SPEAKER_03]: So within this time period, there's all kinds of communities.
[SPEAKER_03]: and all kinds of discussions about who was Christ is he got himself right so there was that position is he like John the Baptist more I think most Indians would see him as a kind of yogi figure, a kind of you know a charismatic jiva muck to kind of kind of being all of these discussions are going on and they take them finally they get the great councils of Christianity they get they get worked out and one of them is anthropomorphism what are we going to do with the
[SPEAKER_03]: is clearly an anthropomorphic being, so then the Greek spring in Oregon and the Greek converts bring in this philosophy that God can't have a body, it's philosophical and coherent.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now pay attention to the presupposition.
[SPEAKER_03]: All bodies are material.
[SPEAKER_03]: Everything is grounded on that.
[SPEAKER_03]: viral bodies material because that's how inference works.
[SPEAKER_03]: It only works on placebo, but reality all known, perceivable, bodies are material.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're if you're going to posit a body for God, it can only be material.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's going to be challenged when we get to Vaishna with the Dante.
[SPEAKER_03]: Even in a, a derivative of Dante, marginally so in in
[SPEAKER_03]: conventional reality.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, basically, we can call it, I mean basically, the scholar wrote this book called it a assassination of Yahweh's body.
[SPEAKER_03]: It kind of is.
[SPEAKER_03]: And so from that point onwards, then if you debug the anthropomorphize Yahweh, then you end up then speculating, well, what is God then, and you know, can you say anything about God, my monadise, I mean, an abstract point, and then, and that just goes on forever.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because mental speculation is infinite.
[SPEAKER_03]: Philosophy is infinite.
[SPEAKER_03]: You won't truly, you won't find it to philosophy.
[SPEAKER_03]: It might train you to, it gives you intellectual rigor, but you're not going to get truth.
[SPEAKER_03]: Who's that, the history of rational thought, Eastern Westway, is anyone come out ahead?
[SPEAKER_03]: Has anything become established for all humanity?
[SPEAKER_03]: That course not.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Bucky Sutras puts it quite nicely.
[SPEAKER_03]: Philosophy should not be a relied upon because there's unlimited points of view and they're all inconclusive.
[SPEAKER_03]: But, you know, not that it's the bad thing, but it'd be a philosopher, then, I don't know, sell drugs and guns in the third world, so I'm critiquing myself.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, but it's one point we have to give it an intellectual of an oppressor.
[SPEAKER_03]: What are we going to be on our deathbed?
[SPEAKER_03]: Same way, I didn't finish can't, but would it not go June to say?
[SPEAKER_03]: How is that useful at the moment of death?
[SPEAKER_03]: Tell me that.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, um, so therefore God, Yahweh, and it was resistance for two, three centuries, bitter resistance from those who said, what's the point of revelation then?
[SPEAKER_03]: If it's going to get overridden by human reason.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you're going to accept the Bible as revelation, what is revelation?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's revealed, God's revealing his nature.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you accept that, then why are you taking Plato and the Greek philosophers?
[SPEAKER_03]: And basically, overriding, if you believe that the direct word of God in some form of fashion, you're overriding it.
[SPEAKER_03]: What kind of hubris is that?
[SPEAKER_03]: So there was resistance from pious Christians.
[SPEAKER_03]: But at the end of the day, who knows why, maybe the church wanted intellectual dignity?
[SPEAKER_03]: In this, you know, as they're emerging and become trying to become established as a player in the Near East, not easy to do with Plato, and Aristotle and so forth, until you get an emperor on your side, can understand to know, well, then you get some political muscle on your side, then that's another thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, God gets disembodied.
[SPEAKER_03]: But what are you going to do with all of the references?
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm going to vaguely try to keep some structure to this over.
[SPEAKER_03]: Tenancy to wonder all over the three worlds.
[SPEAKER_03]: What are you going to do with your revelation then?
[SPEAKER_03]: Are you going to still imagine your Christian or believing Christian?
[SPEAKER_03]: But what does it mean to be a believing Christian?
[SPEAKER_03]: You believe what you believe in?
[SPEAKER_03]: Revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you believe it, it just took a lot, it will much more resistant,
[SPEAKER_03]: So what are you going to do with the references to Yahweh, all over the place?
[SPEAKER_03]: So a Jewish philosopher who actually made no impact in Judaism, but was massively appropriated in influential, influential,
[SPEAKER_03]: And the Jews have the same problem, they're also trying to, you know, some Jews anyway in Alexandria and places, they're trying to get some kind of intellectual dignity.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he comes up with a legalizing method.
[SPEAKER_03]: that when the you know it talks about God walking it really means he's omnipresent when it talks about God stretching out his hand it really means he's interacting with humans when it talks about God seeing it's not really an eyeball it's God's omniscience and so all the references and there's the hundreds of them wait if you look at this book you'll be amazed every part of the anatomy is mentioned in the Bible genitals everything with with Yahweh
[SPEAKER_03]: So now, so the problem is you want to be a Christian and you want to be a rationalist, you want to sort of look good in this kind of Hellenistic culture and you're getting criticized heavily.
[SPEAKER_03]: And not all of the criticism subservide, but there's a few that have an it's heavy.
[SPEAKER_03]: These Christians, they are philosophically impoverished.
[SPEAKER_03]: You ask them a philosophical question, they go running and say, well, God can do anything.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's the response of a philosophically impoverished mind.
[SPEAKER_03]: God can do anything.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they just had disdained it.
[SPEAKER_03]: So they were getting some serious flight.
[SPEAKER_03]: So phylo then, so then, so phylo then presents a, what seems to him to be a method that can preserve the integrity of the scripture.
[SPEAKER_03]: So yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: But then he provides a method for interpreting it non-literally.
[SPEAKER_03]: And that's the method of allegory.
[SPEAKER_03]: Despite the fact, nowhere in the Bible does it say that you should read the Bible allegorically, nowhere.
[SPEAKER_03]: But nonetheless, this seemed to be like the only possible solution.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you want to on one hand say, well, you're a faithful adherence to the biblical revelation, right, would revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: And in the other hand, you want to, you know, put on a good show in front of the, you know, this sophisticated Greek intellectual milieu.
[SPEAKER_03]: So from that time, pretty much from the 5th century, then you don't see anthropomorphism emerge in any literature, in any sort of church discussion from the 5th century onwards.
[SPEAKER_03]: But 500 years, the idea that God was a body to be in was circulated, was probably the normative one, certainly for us two, three centuries, it was normative.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now, back to the presupposition, all bodies of material, you see voices trying to resist this and say, well, God's bodies are some, the anthropomorphists that were hanging in there.
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh, well, it's some kind of fine matter, or it's some kind of subtle matter, or it's some kind of, you know, fiery stuff.
[SPEAKER_03]: They didn't have the metaphysics to mount a defense of divine form.
[SPEAKER_03]: Had they had the metaphysics, which, of course, one could argue, if a dunted tradition has that, if God doesn't, can't have them, do you see the problems with the material, with material bodyment?
[SPEAKER_03]: A material body first was limited.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right, if God is unlimited, then the body is not going to work very well at all because the body is here, it's not there.
[SPEAKER_03]: You're sitting here, you're not up here.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, limitation.
[SPEAKER_03]: Number one problem.
[SPEAKER_03]: Reduce the ability.
[SPEAKER_03]: all bodies are made apart.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if you separate take off the parts, you don't have the body anymore.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if something has a material body, by definition, a material body consists of parts, and if it's put together, parts are put together, then they can be separated if they're separated, then you don't have the original.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right, famous Buddhist example, the chariot will pull up pull the spokes apart, and you don't have a chariot will anymore.
[SPEAKER_03]: So there are various problems with material body management.
[SPEAKER_03]: Legitimate, everybody agrees on this.
[SPEAKER_03]: Vice-niversal, everybody agrees, God can't have a material body.
[SPEAKER_03]: But the possibility of a non-material body never surfaces in the western, in the, let's call it the Abrahamic.
[SPEAKER_03]: The same problem in Islam.
[SPEAKER_03]: You wouldn't think this now, but there was major voices in Islam that accepted the Old Testament same reason.
[SPEAKER_03]: They had the Old Testament.
[SPEAKER_03]: And most famous of whom was Ibn Hanibal.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he had a very good position.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Christians were like either the Rantapollah and the Pumufahs or, oh no, you know, God can have no body.
[SPEAKER_03]: But Ibn Hanibal,
[SPEAKER_03]: came up with the position, actually, everyone, avation of it would accept.
[SPEAKER_03]: And it was called, be lucky, be lucky, k-f-a.
[SPEAKER_03]: God has a body, because the script just says he has a body, but we don't know how, what that means or how that can be.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's respecting the very epistemic value of revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you override revelation with reason, then you don't, then what's point of revelation?
[SPEAKER_03]: In the Indian tradition, we said three sources of knowledge.
[SPEAKER_03]: One of them is protiakshah, but an apara doesn't matter.
[SPEAKER_03]: It could be higher or lower.
[SPEAKER_03]: It can be protiakshah of the upman or protiakshah of the pot.
[SPEAKER_03]: Inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: You could infer smoke and fire, we can infer there must be an ishwarah.
[SPEAKER_03]: So all of these end words, revelation is words, shruti pramana, argama, shruti pramana, that which is heard.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if you reject that, which fine, but then you're not, then you can't be, then you're not a faithful either to the Abrahamic tradition or the other bit on tradition, then in that case, then okay, fine, go beyond Paris this, nothing wrong with that.
[SPEAKER_03]: but you can't claim or at least it's going to be very hard for you to even with philo, to justify if you really, if you're saying I'm I'm I'm I'm an adherent of the biblical or Vedanta tradition and then you start over writing the words with reason then what if what if you just done?
[SPEAKER_03]: You've undermined the very epistemic value of revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you don't, it once finished.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can do it twice.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can do it 100 times.
[SPEAKER_03]: We'll toss it out then.
[SPEAKER_03]: Or I'll keep it.
[SPEAKER_03]: It might have some moral value.
[SPEAKER_03]: Maybe teach our kids how children had to be good boys and girls.
[SPEAKER_03]: But it doesn't have any ontological value.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, so, okay.
[SPEAKER_03]: So now we're, so now by the fifth century, no more talk of a body of God.
[SPEAKER_03]: Um, a thousand years later, the inheritors of this by that time by the first Christian missionaries, the Jesuits, what actually have early travel as 1213 century, a lot of it was actually the deities.
[SPEAKER_03]: So I don't want to talk about deities, that's another topic for another day, you know.
[SPEAKER_03]: but really it was the deities that has freaked everybody out.
[SPEAKER_03]: Those of you who are not familiar with the Old Testament, they're the graven image, the idol, thou must not have false gods, and all of that heavily imprinted in European, more we don't.
[SPEAKER_03]: We're not allowed to use terms in new humanities, like the European Consciousness.
[SPEAKER_03]: But I'm going to say anyway, maybe our event will forgive me.
[SPEAKER_03]: We're not supposed to essentialize less than the more one in the humanities.
[SPEAKER_03]: First day of school, boys and girls don't essentialize.
[SPEAKER_03]: But actually, it's almost essentialized.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because even in the Western tradition, either you're a believer, and the deity is an idol is a false god, a graven image.
[SPEAKER_03]: got to keep in mind when Moses comes down the mountain with the 10 commandments, the Israelites, what are they doing?
[SPEAKER_03]: They were shipping ball.
[SPEAKER_03]: They were shipping these, you know, baby sacrifice in a golden ball.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's what the Old Testament completely, and you can't project that onto the deities of 2000 miles away.
[SPEAKER_03]: Another time in place,
[SPEAKER_03]: So, but that's what, that's the context of the Old Testament admonition against deities.
[SPEAKER_03]: There were what we would consider barbaric, human sacrifices, burning babies alive in a golden bull, lighting the fire underneath the bull.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, the babies screamed, it would come out of the, the muzzle of the bull and sound like a bull roaring.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's where the biblical admonitions, that's what they're dealing with.
[SPEAKER_03]: So it was the deities that freaked everybody out.
[SPEAKER_03]: They went the early travelers.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they thought they would thought it was Satan.
[SPEAKER_03]: It thought the Indians are not lovely, nice, pious people, and they've been beguiled by Satan.
[SPEAKER_03]: You've got this character Satan who's Dharma is practically to lead people astray and lead people away from God.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, with the advent of, you know, and of course things got a little less satanic in interminology as this, you know, centuries went by.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you had this right away, the idea of a body of God was just a no, no, you couldn't, you couldn't have a conversation.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you were a bison of a, you could talk about Bhagavad Gita, very nice, you know, do your duty, karma, karma, everybody likes that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Do your duty, don't be attached to the fruit, who's going to mess with that, everybody's going like that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Potentially, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Now, you know, not so different from Western mysticism, I mean, the idea, and plus, you know, most Western thinkers accepted a soul of some sort consciousness, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So no problem with yoga suit to the Bhagavad Gita, those kinds of texts, but what's Hinduism?
[SPEAKER_03]: How many people read the yoga suit just before, before Krishna Macharya and Shiva Nanda, made them canonical texts for Western exportation?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right, and it even the detail wasn't what it is today.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now it's become like the canonical book of Hinduism, but it wasn't, it was a Vedanta text.
[SPEAKER_03]: It was part of the Prashstana Triya.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, but what is Hinduism?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's Bhakti, to deities, to the bodied deities, bodied forms.
[SPEAKER_03]: OK, so let's move now into, so let's just have a peek at,
[SPEAKER_03]: of a down to position and you know I'm focusing more on on the vision of a Vedanta which would be Ramanujamadva and later on the 16th century traditions and they had a clear metaphysics right so okay so you have you have in here in the Indian text tradition have Shruti and Smiti
[SPEAKER_03]: You have to work a little hard to make a case for a body guard in the shruti, as a matter of fact, they all focus on one verse, the golden person in the sun, which is in maybe the chandoga, I can't remember, ishopari shad.
[SPEAKER_03]: Issue punisha talks about the the covers but the golden president the son is in an earlier chandorgia So a lot of the attention a lot of the attention is focused on that which is you know, which is doesn't make a fantastic case
[SPEAKER_03]: Because you could use it in a divator sense and just say, well, that's just the effulgent, that's just Brahman, that's a luminosity of Brahman.
[SPEAKER_03]: But why are they focusing on that?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because if you want to be a bit daunting, then you have to find something in Shruti.
[SPEAKER_03]: Actually, the Smriti,
[SPEAKER_03]: is smithy is nothing other than bodied gods.
[SPEAKER_03]: What are the piranhas?
[SPEAKER_03]: The stories of Shiva and Vishnu and Krishna and their bakters and lots of other stuff, Pilgrimichara, but most of it, revolving around bodied god, even Pilgrim, Pilgrimich, you go to a place where bodied god appeared.
[SPEAKER_03]: So pretty much you could probably more or less essentialised or certainly generalised the most of the massive paranic tradition features bodied gods.
[SPEAKER_03]: But interestingly, Ramanujah and Madhava, they don't.
[SPEAKER_03]: They really play the game of being with dungeons.
[SPEAKER_03]: They really focus on the Upanishads and therefore the golden person in the sun becomes
[SPEAKER_03]: So the Vedanta position is you can only know the qualities of God by Shruti, and as the fifth or fourth verse of the Vedanta Sutra, Shastra Yonitvat.
[SPEAKER_03]: that Shastra is the source of knowledge, you can, you know, of Brahmann, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Tatobrahmachignya Suryamadya Suryata, Shastra Yonitva Surya.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, the Vedantans take a hard position that to know Brahmann, you can't know Brahmann by inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: You might know there is a Brahmann.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's very interesting, is this, can I just take a moment and take a little do it detour with Ramanu just critique of Nyaaya?
[SPEAKER_03]: It was quite interesting, because Nyaikas are Ishvavadans, they accept Ishvavadans, they accept the body, they accept God.
[SPEAKER_03]: In their private lives, they're probably shivers, judging from their invocations, maybe Arun will have a better opinion view of that, but the study potters
[SPEAKER_03]: Pots are sort of pitches them as being probably mostly shivers and they can't, you can't, they could have been anything.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now, naikas are on the same team as Ramanujah.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Theists.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the aikas are trying to say, by inference,
[SPEAKER_03]: We can establish that there must be intelligence behind the universe, so it's a kind of intelligent design argument, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: There's no way that this universe could just randomly, that would have been a ridiculous idea, even if they knew about Big Bang.
[SPEAKER_03]: It would have been even more ridiculous if they'd known about Big Bang and the statistical impossibility of the of of of subatomic particles and and and forces.
[SPEAKER_03]: coming together in such a way that this universe manifests, that that would have been absolutely just silly idea.
[SPEAKER_03]: So now I take the position, there must be an ishwara, okay, intelligence, and they don't go any further than that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now you think that would be safe enough.
[SPEAKER_03]: You think, okay, good job, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: They established by imprint, but that's what they want to do.
[SPEAKER_03]: Then when established that there's an ishwara.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he has a different agenda.
[SPEAKER_03]: The niaykas want to just, I guess, Buddhist, so whatever, Samke, most Buddhists, want to establish that there's a great to go.
[SPEAKER_03]: Each one means the person with the most power, is associated with power.
[SPEAKER_03]: And most of them was powerful thing you can do, create a universe, because we only know the universe.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we can only see the most powerful thing, we can conceive of is the creation of a universe, that's what we know.
[SPEAKER_03]: So Ramanu just says,
[SPEAKER_03]: It doesn't disagree that there's an issue.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he's saying your epistemology for establishing that is inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if you use inference, it's going to backfire by your very own method.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you say Ishra is like the potter, a pot needs a potter maker, a potter, he's going to say, using your inference, your method, Ishra must be bodied.
[SPEAKER_03]: He must have a material body.
[SPEAKER_03]: We don't see any disembodied creators.
[SPEAKER_03]: Your neya methodology is based on perception, and everywhere you see a product, a palace, or a pot, it's made by,
[SPEAKER_03]: Some one fine, but Ramanu takes it a step further.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's made by someone in a body, and that body is material.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he says, if you deny, because they're trying to use reason, you're going to end up with a body guard.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then you've got all the problems that the Greeks pointed out.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he's a limited material, but he's a limited.
[SPEAKER_03]: They made a parts which are reducible.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the Indian arguments against body got are actually add, add stuff that the Greeks didn't.
[SPEAKER_03]: Number one, they add, they say this.
[SPEAKER_03]: Um, if God, God, any creates a needs a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: So before creation, you have to have a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: You have to have a body to create, but you haven't created yet, so I can have a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: So then you need another God to make the body of the God who's going to create.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, how is he going to do that?
[SPEAKER_03]: And I see here's a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: So they have an infinite regress argument, which the Greeks didn't actually employ.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the arguments can be a little bit different, all of which pointing to the philosophical incoherence or an acceptability of a bodied God.
[SPEAKER_03]: So Ramannu just saying to Nya, he's not saying there's not God.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's saying, you've got the wrong methodology.
[SPEAKER_03]: You want to know God, you have to do with it until you have it has to be revealed.
[SPEAKER_03]: You cannot arrive at that God through inference because if you use inference, you're going to end up with a bodied God and then you've got everybody shoot it shooting
[SPEAKER_03]: So these are my mom's arguments, my mom's are using it against the whole idea of a god.
[SPEAKER_03]: Anyway, let's get to the good stuff.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we all right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So then the vision of a tradition then, it basically, during on the paranic tradition,
[SPEAKER_03]: God has a body, why?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because it's revealed everywhere.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's in revelation.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Same problem as the Christians.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's revealed everywhere.
[SPEAKER_03]: And nowhere, nowhere does it say you can use allegory.
[SPEAKER_03]: Or when it, when allegories to be used, it's very clearly stated.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's two sections in the, the text I worked with, Bhagavad-gapran.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's very clearly stated.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is an allegory.
[SPEAKER_03]: The merchants in, in, lost in the forest.
[SPEAKER_03]: clearly an allegory and they stated as such, but nowhere else is to say that these stories are mythological, which is what we're supposed to be talking about.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right, nowhere does it say that they are, that they are to be interpreted metaphorically or allegorically.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the Vedantic's come along, but they have a metaphysical response, which was lacking in the Abrahamic traditions for those at the anthropomorphists that try and hang on to the idea, because the Bible said so that God as a body, will Vedanta has the idea of what a normative body will look like.
[SPEAKER_03]: And of course, in Sanskrit, matter is our chit.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the opposite, if that's what material is, and the opposite is our chit.
[SPEAKER_03]: So then the invasion of her theologians proposed, well, the bogalate piranha, the text proposed, it's not that they're proposing it, but they're drawing our attention to the fact that in the piranhas, bogavans body is not made of matter.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's made of chetanar, it's made of chit.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, such itananda, you've heard the term saguna-brachman.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's brachman, what is brachman?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's consciousness.
[SPEAKER_03]: Consciousness cannot be separated.
[SPEAKER_03]: What's the first teaching of the Gita?
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't split it, you can't burn it, you can't divide it to measurable all of that.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, Bhagavan's body is consciousness and not subject to limitation.
[SPEAKER_03]: First of all, because everything is a, according to Invasion of it, the allergy anyway, everything is just the Shakti of that body, in terms of the goonas, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: David, he is Sharguna, my, Mama Maya, this as Krishna says, the goonas, which is property, property is nothing other than the goonas.
[SPEAKER_03]: Mama Maya, it's an emanation of Bhagavan.
[SPEAKER_03]: So in that sense, indirectly, Bhagavan is all pervading.
[SPEAKER_03]: The body, the form, to know which way to be done, is going to have a different position on this, which we can discuss.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, a body made of consciousness is not subject to any of the critiques.
[SPEAKER_03]: And because consciousness is eternal, it doesn't need another God to make it, and another God, and end up in an infinite regress.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, the vision of a contribution,
[SPEAKER_03]: We'll get to that, is that God has a body because revelation, as it does, and if you're going to accept revelation, then that's what you have to accept, and they would point to the Old Testament and say, well, you're on your own secret text, it says the same thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: Have you read the passage of Ezekiel, the prophet Ezekiel, as a vision of God on a throne,
[SPEAKER_03]: being, but all over, that's the most dramatic vision, but there's plenty of visions, God appears to the Israelites and the Red Sea and so on and so forth.
[SPEAKER_03]: So now, so therefore, the question is one of Epistemology.
[SPEAKER_03]: What source of knowledge do you use for what function, for what purpose?
[SPEAKER_03]: If you can see something you don't need to infer or you don't need anybody to tell you.
[SPEAKER_03]: But if something is uproar by definition, non-material,
[SPEAKER_03]: your sense perception and your inferential processes have no access to it.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if you try to use inference and apply it to the nature of God, you're going to end up with Aristotle, with a narcissistic self-absorbed and prime mover, it just sits there, contemplating himself and totally unaware of the world.
[SPEAKER_03]: You want that, you want to go back to the prime mover, put it up on the altar there, right in the middle.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know what a prime mover would look like, but so that's what you end up with.
[SPEAKER_03]: Or you end up like play to a completely according to Cicero, just totally Cicero says, he's confused, he has no coherent position on what God looks like.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's what you're going to end up with if you use reason.
[SPEAKER_03]: or you're going to go and follow some of the Christian fathers and end up with some infinitesimal point or whatever, an abstract concept you're going to end up and it's going to be debated forever and there's never going to be any certainty or general acceptance.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if there is a God and of course discussion is if there's no God, then there's been kind of discussion and then that's not the topic of our talk today.
[SPEAKER_03]: So all of this then gets projected onto the Indian deities that they can't be God because God can't have a body, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: According to that whole genealogy we just laid out because all bodies are material starting with the Greeks right appropriated by the church fathers right then transported over those seas and imposed on India so that a god can't have a body right if you start off with that premise
[SPEAKER_03]: Who's this fish knew that you're encountering then?
[SPEAKER_03]: He's not God.
[SPEAKER_03]: So what was he then?
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, at the beginning, he was Satan.
[SPEAKER_03]: But in a course of time, they told that down a bit.
[SPEAKER_03]: Probably someone said, oh, you're not going to make very cotton many converts if you say that.
[SPEAKER_03]: So get's told down.
[SPEAKER_03]: And we get this word mythological with its prehistory.
[SPEAKER_03]: That if you want to be a little
[SPEAKER_03]: plate, then you would say, well, the stories have some cultural value and moral value.
[SPEAKER_03]: But they ain't real, they ain't true, God cannot have a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: And which point you've just basically totally undermined the vast majority of real life on the ground Hinduism, just devotion.
[SPEAKER_03]: So how to do what to do, so therefore it's important to trace these kinds of histories, also trace the metaphysical presuppositions, what is the metaphysical presupposition that bodies can only be material?
[SPEAKER_03]: Why do you say that?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because I only see material bodies and an inference is parasitic on an empiricism.
[SPEAKER_03]: inference operates.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's predicated.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's parasitic on empiricism.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore what if got, but everybody any see is, it's going to say God is non-material.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's really curious.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay, so Ramanujus, let me finish.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's really curious that
[SPEAKER_03]: See us are able to accept non-impirical qualities of God like Omnipotence and Omnicence.
[SPEAKER_03]: We don't see Omnipotence in a sense perception.
[SPEAKER_03]: We don't see Omnipotence.
[SPEAKER_03]: So they're okay accepting that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Which actually, Real Manuja points out to Nyaaya.
[SPEAKER_03]: He says, you've just broken your own methodology.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because now I say, Naya agrees, Naya also thinks bodies can only be material, which is probably borrowed from my mum, sir.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they accept, OK, so God doesn't have a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: So then the opponent will say, the pull of the park, should the opponent say, he doesn't have a body.
[SPEAKER_03]: How does he create?
[SPEAKER_03]: You yourself, you Naya, because using the very
[SPEAKER_03]: empirically perceived argument that a potter has to have a body to make a pot and you're saying and from that you're saying all products need a product maker and but all all-known product makers have bodies so you've just made a jump because now he then says because now he realizes the problems of positive material body so they say no he doesn't have a body he creates by will
[SPEAKER_03]: We don't see any wheels floating around creating.
[SPEAKER_03]: We don't see any abstract wheels floating around the Cosmos creating, so you have no, so your method of inferring a cause from the effect, smoke, fire from smoke, you have just turned your back on your your own methodology by saying that there must be a creator because all products have a creator, or created things have a creator, all products have a producer, well, all producers have bodies.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you say that he doesn't have the body, you've just destroyed your own methodology.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's from a new disposition, and why is he doing that because he wants to say you can't establish the qualities of God from logic, it has to be revealed.
[SPEAKER_03]: So let's move on and say something about the Bhagavad-Pranay is very interesting because it's almost like, or by the way, the other property that Indian antibodies, the antibody arguments that God can't have a body, the infinite regress argument, did you get that?
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't have a body before creation.
[SPEAKER_03]: You have to have a body to create, but you haven't created yet.
[SPEAKER_03]: So how does God have a body then?
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, another God.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's the infinite regress.
[SPEAKER_03]: The other one is karma.
[SPEAKER_03]: Again, these are two arguments that didn't surface in the Greek traditions.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the karma argument is all bodies of the product of karma.
[SPEAKER_03]: Why?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because all nobody's of the product of karma.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you're going to go with inference, can't just pick and choose, you've got to be a tier tier methodology, otherwise, you're people like Ramanu, just are going to come after you.
[SPEAKER_03]: So all nobody's the native karma, said, so therefore, it's forgot to create and he needs the body.
[SPEAKER_03]: So first, you got the infinite regress problem.
[SPEAKER_03]: You got a second problem.
[SPEAKER_03]: That means God subject to karma.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, that's not a particularly an idea of God that's going to get much traction.
[SPEAKER_03]: Is it?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: So now we have, so therefore the Vaishnava Vedantans are going to say holy scripture.
[SPEAKER_03]: So what do we have?
[SPEAKER_03]: We have the piranhas essentially.
[SPEAKER_03]: Even though they try their hardest to really milk as much as they can from the golden person in the sun, when they're playing the game, when they got the hat of the Vedantan on,
[SPEAKER_03]: But then they take it off and they put their paranic hats on.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they, of course, rubbed these a great boxers.
[SPEAKER_03]: But the bug with thumb, it's almost as if the bug with thumb is responding to these rational arguments
[SPEAKER_03]: But not presenting itself as rational, because it's taking the position, it can only be revealed.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you take the position that God can only be revealed, you don't want to start bringing in.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not that there's not not rational arguments, so you can use them as support.
[SPEAKER_03]: Supporting role.
[SPEAKER_03]: They can support Scripture.
[SPEAKER_03]: They can't surpass Scripture.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is where the nonsense is going to say the Abrahamic traditions have gone astray
[SPEAKER_03]: So the, we don't position then is think about it.
[SPEAKER_03]: If there is a God, isn't it obvious that any kind of God worth thinking about is not going to be, is going to be transcendent.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's going to be beyond, beyond property.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the minute it's beyond property, no pro-critic methodology is going to have access to that being.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's obvious.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, therefore, that being has to reveal himself, herself, and in the case of Bhagavati.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, it's almost like the stories of Krishna include responses to the rationalists without actually formally adopting the rational, inferential process.
[SPEAKER_03]: Your shoulder is nursing Krishna, the idea is if you have a body you're limited and what happens when your shoulder nurse is Krishna and he opens his mouth, she sees the whole universe in the mouth, so that's not a limitation, that's transmitting a message.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's a message against the rationalists.
[SPEAKER_03]: You think a body is limited?
[SPEAKER_03]: Take a little bit of this then.
[SPEAKER_03]: How about this, Lila?
[SPEAKER_03]: And they buy what some love is just deriding the rationalists.
[SPEAKER_03]: Even the Gita, Abha Janantoma, Muta, how about that for a strong term?
[SPEAKER_03]: Manushantanum, Ashritam, Parambhava, Muta, Nanto, the Buddha, that's not very polite.
[SPEAKER_03]: Fools, moha.
[SPEAKER_03]: fools of a gentleman, of a gentleman, the mum.
[SPEAKER_03]: They don't know me.
[SPEAKER_03]: This gator, gator is pretty, you know, kind of an octopus, it's kind of, you know, it's not like the Bhagwatama, which is, you know, Krishna and gobees and all of that.
[SPEAKER_03]: Manushantanum, when I take the human form,
[SPEAKER_03]: And by the way, in the Abrahamic tradition, there's a huge discussion about what does it mean?
[SPEAKER_03]: In much of a day of God is made in the image of man.
[SPEAKER_03]: That triggered a thousand years worth of discussion.
[SPEAKER_03]: What does it mean?
[SPEAKER_03]: And the position now is, well, he's made in the image of man because God is reason, not because of the form.
[SPEAKER_03]: So there's an example that the Bhagavatam is almost playfully kind of
[SPEAKER_03]: dismissing the rationalists' position without even engaging in an inferential process.
[SPEAKER_03]: Take another example.
[SPEAKER_03]: When Krsna is dancing with the gopis, it's not like the gopis are like you got a soup mark and you take ticket number 134 and you wait for your turn.
[SPEAKER_03]: Each gopis has her own Krsna.
[SPEAKER_03]: How is limitation there?
[SPEAKER_03]: Where is the limitation there in form?
[SPEAKER_03]: Because even East Confused, Brahma's Confucius, La Hanganaises, Vishnu, how can this be Vishnu?
[SPEAKER_03]: Is this little toddler's crawling around in the sand, to bring down his Vishnu, and then let's check it out.
[SPEAKER_03]: Let's check this out, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So he steals all the cows and puts them away in a cave by his Maya and Krishna just manifests.
[SPEAKER_03]: All the gopers and all the cows are put in the cave and Christian just duplicates every single calf It exactly the same every single gopa with the flute everything identical and and they go for a whole year It's a beautiful lilla Actually because in Brindavan the mothers of the other gopers
[SPEAKER_03]: They sort of secretly would think, well, wouldn't it be cool, you know, to have Krishna as my child, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't come out and say that, like, I don't lose a child.
[SPEAKER_03]: I wish I had that child.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't come out and say that.
[SPEAKER_03]: But they're kind of secretly, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: They love their kids, but they seriously love Krishna.
[SPEAKER_03]: And it says Krishna did this to allow all of the mothers that bring up and to actually have Krishna as their child.
[SPEAKER_03]: Where's the limitation in that then?
[SPEAKER_03]: or in terms of form and bodyment.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then when Brahma comes back, he's totally confounded.
[SPEAKER_03]: Remember, Brahma is the most, he's the supreme rationalist.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's a rooper made of body.
[SPEAKER_03]: His form is not even like that, it doesn't even have the fired elements.
[SPEAKER_03]: He has to be, he has to be, he's the author, he's the creator, even, forget about play to an Aristotle, Bramai has a form made of intelligence, and he comes down, he's totally confounded, but the heck is going on, he checks in the cave, he's still there.
[SPEAKER_03]: Who is this lot then?
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's the reason.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's the Bhagwan saying as we say literally, to reason.
[SPEAKER_03]: You cannot understand the nature of God with reason.
[SPEAKER_03]: So then he, and then it's a beautiful story, and then you get the Brahma prayers.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then all of those gopers turn into majestic Vishnu forms.
[SPEAKER_03]: And Brahman it says he's like a doll in front of the goddess in the temple.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's just like a puppet.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just like a piece of cloth.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he just does a full and done divider.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's just even more beautiful prayers.
[SPEAKER_03]: He realizes what a fool he's been.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thinking that with his reason, he can test.
[SPEAKER_03]: He can mess with Bhagavan.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the bakwata has these stories.
[SPEAKER_03]: What about when Krishna's mischievous and your shoulder goes and gets the ropes?
[SPEAKER_03]: You know the story?
[SPEAKER_03]: She gets the ropes, she ties it around two inches to short.
[SPEAKER_03]: Get another rope, two inches and all the ropes in the house, two inches.
[SPEAKER_03]: We'll wear the limitation in that then.
[SPEAKER_03]: if body is limited.
[SPEAKER_03]: So it's like the Bhagavad-gitaum is playing with the rationalist saying, you think with your intelligence that you can understand the nature of Bhagavan with your little cause and effect.
[SPEAKER_03]: Mottos such as limitation and reducibility and what bodies can only be, we'll check this out then.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's the that's the that's the position of the Bhagavan
[SPEAKER_03]: So to all of that, but I would like to add an argument, which is made indirectly and let me know what you think and then we can maybe end on that or we've had our 45 minutes, yeah, we have to have a limitation in time, even though, yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: Let's go with Bishop and some.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is nice.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's a nice note to end on.
[SPEAKER_03]: Bishop and some great Christiantyologian came up with the depth with he's trying to prove the existence of God.
[SPEAKER_03]: Actually a bit like in the eye because but I'm going to reformulate his argument.
[SPEAKER_03]: He came up with the definition of God.
[SPEAKER_03]: God is that being Van whom Nothing greater can be conceived.
[SPEAKER_03]: say it one more time.
[SPEAKER_03]: God is that being?
[SPEAKER_03]: Then whom?
[SPEAKER_03]: Nothing greater can be conceived because suddenly greater can be conceived.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, then that other thing is God, then not, not, not you, the God you're proposing.
[SPEAKER_03]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore we have words like omniscient and omnipotent, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So God, we will have some power, but God is omnipotent and basically the definition is with most Indian rationalist, most powerful thing we mentioned is credit universe.
[SPEAKER_03]: Naya would tell you, you have to know everything about the ingredients of what you're creating.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, if you're creating a universe and you know everything about all the ingredients obviously, if you're going to make something, if you're making a bread, you have to know what you're putting in there.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, if what you're making is the universe, then you have to know everything about the universe, we'll let you some other way of saying a miscient.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, now we've got two properties of God,
[SPEAKER_03]: Now, you know, everyone accepts God has infinite qualities, but at least that those two you can derive, perhaps, ramenuja might not accept it, but, you know, with some form of inference.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now, Vishnu Paranas has got his six qualities, just picking out six main qualities.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, they agree with those two, take those boxes of Nysu and omnipotent.
[SPEAKER_03]: Interestingly, his most famous person, there's no one more famous.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because even if you're an atheist, you're still dealing with God, so even if you're an atheist, God is famous.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: What are atheists doing?
[SPEAKER_03]: Trying to try and negate the existence of God?
[SPEAKER_03]: Therefore, the central to atheism, actually.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, it's a fame, knowledge, a ishwaria, so that would be omnipotent.
[SPEAKER_03]: Biggest thing about it, if yours supremely detached, then what?
[SPEAKER_03]: Nothing is power of you.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you're attached to something, that thing is power of you.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you have a desire, that has power of you.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, you're now subservient to that thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, the supreme being has to be supremely detached.
[SPEAKER_03]: Doesn't mean it doesn't love it.
[SPEAKER_03]: It has nothing with love.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just a detachment.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's no, obviously, if you keep going into the theological realm and obviously, Christian is attached.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's another dimension.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's attached to Roger and the Goapies.
[SPEAKER_03]: But that's another whole other sort of dimension almost.
[SPEAKER_03]: But one of the things are six, one of them strengths, which is pretty close to Hwarriya, but strength, balatvam.
[SPEAKER_03]: But the other one is shriy beauty.
[SPEAKER_03]: God has to be beautiful, to be supremely omni.
[SPEAKER_03]: So one could ask Bishop and Selma, what is better, and a beautiful gutter or non-beautiful gutter?
[SPEAKER_03]: What's better, beauty, or you could say, well, I don't, you know, someone here, you ask students, 100 students in Hindu fields.
[SPEAKER_03]: I would say, well, I like ugly people personally, but I generally speak in beauty, I think most people would say, but say, God has to be super in beautiful and beauty in Sanskrit.
[SPEAKER_03]: Rupert is the same word for beauty and form.
[SPEAKER_03]: Where is beauty?
[SPEAKER_03]: We're talking about visual beauty now, not beautiful music.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the,
[SPEAKER_03]: The Sanskrit terms more precise.
[SPEAKER_03]: In English, you could say beauty, not necessarily for visual, you could might want to extend it.
[SPEAKER_03]: A beautiful sound or something.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sanskrit more precise, Rupa.
[SPEAKER_03]: Beauty manifests in form.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if God is to be that being, then whom nothing greater can be conceived, he has to be beautiful.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if he has to be beautiful, then he has to have form, my friends.
[SPEAKER_03]: And this has been understood in the Indian devotional traditions.
[SPEAKER_03]: And of course, then he wants to address all the other problems, infinite forms, non-reducible, or that.
[SPEAKER_03]: But it's just kind of subtext.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the Bhagavad-a-parana especially stresses beauty, because what discretion to do height is majesty.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm nipatin some nissience.
[SPEAKER_03]: He hides that wife for love.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't, how are you going to love?
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, a nipatin on nissient being would be terrified.
[SPEAKER_03]: Or at least you'll be bored, but it's not going to be love.
[SPEAKER_03]: You might be wonder, and you can sit there for all eternity, like Shantabab, this called Shantabab.
[SPEAKER_03]: And that's my form of motion.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'll probably do that.
[SPEAKER_03]: but not a form that the bug with them's interested in.
[SPEAKER_03]: The bug with them's interested in love.
[SPEAKER_03]: And to love you have to hide your majesty, what do what the parents do with the two-year-old?
[SPEAKER_03]: You could be President United State.
[SPEAKER_03]: You go home, you sit down, you play Chuchuchray.
[SPEAKER_03]: You hide your power, you hide your power.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's love.
[SPEAKER_03]: You cannot hide.
[SPEAKER_03]: Arguably you can't have love if there's power.
[SPEAKER_03]: It interferes.
[SPEAKER_03]: And creates fear a lot of the time.
[SPEAKER_03]: it's distance.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not intimacy.
[SPEAKER_03]: Hallelujah.
[SPEAKER_03]: Namaha.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: These are, you know, when Krishna, when you show the sea's Krishna on the universe in Krishna's mouth, she immediately starts going
[SPEAKER_03]: The questioner doesn't want that, so immediately he covers her with yoga Maya and it says she remember his arrays, she picks him back up, she drops him, it picks him back up and it says she returns to her state of mind full of love.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that revelation of majesty destroys the love.
[SPEAKER_03]: The questioner tradition is about love, so
[SPEAKER_03]: So this is the unique feature, and so therefore Krishna hides the majesty hides, but what the bug of a term doesn't hide of those qualities.
[SPEAKER_03]: It hides his omniscience, he's a little kid doesn't you know, he's not manifesting omniscience and nipotence.
[SPEAKER_03]: None of the other qualities, but the one quality that he does manifest is beauty, right through the bug with him.
[SPEAKER_03]: It just goes on and on and on, low the size, low the at this, low the size is so beautiful, it's because it's why.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, partly for meditation, actually.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because if you meditate on God, you have to internalize those descriptions.
[SPEAKER_03]: And in the days before literature,
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, you had to, you know, you're sitting and meditating, you have to recreate that form.
[SPEAKER_03]: And so therefore, and therefore the text is repeating and repeating which normally is the floor Adosh, both in Western literary traditions and in Sanskrit literary traditions, repetitions The floor, unless you, I mean, months would say, okay, finally, you can one of the six things.
[SPEAKER_03]: In months, you repeat to stress, but not like that.
[SPEAKER_03]: not like lotus lotus lotus.
[SPEAKER_03]: And why the lotus anyway?
[SPEAKER_03]: How do you describe God's beauty if you're a poet?
[SPEAKER_03]: If you've had a darshanabhugavan and then you go back and you want to share some of that to encourage people to take to the path of bhakti.
[SPEAKER_03]: How do you describe it?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's non-procritic.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's so good in a Brahman.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's no, there's no, you say Krishna's blue.
[SPEAKER_03]: What does that mean?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not it was it's but you know the closest thing in our human repertoire to what ever Christians color is it's more like this than it is like this.
[SPEAKER_03]: But why the lotus for the poetic
[SPEAKER_03]: Again, essentializing, but fairly essentialized.
[SPEAKER_03]: The most exquisite, pro-critic thing is the lotus petal.
[SPEAKER_03]: For the poet, poet, maybe in the Shakespeare tradition is the red rose.
[SPEAKER_03]: The convention, different traditions, certain conventions.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the lotus is exquisite.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's why you have that Indian art with the eyes like that, like once like Egyptian art.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's supposed to be a lot to sleep.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore that's the best you've got in the round with property.
[SPEAKER_03]: So loader size, loader's everything is an attempt to describe this beauty.
[SPEAKER_03]: So where do we want to end up?
[SPEAKER_03]: The beauty is formed.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore we could end up with a strong statement that forgot to be God.
[SPEAKER_03]: He must have a form.
[SPEAKER_03]: because God must be beautiful.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's a different argument from God must have performed because scripture.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's actually an inferential argument.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm just going against everything I've argued before.
[SPEAKER_03]: I've just said inference cannot establish the qualities of God.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, fine, so I'm contented to myself.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's a coin, deal with it.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: If God, by inference, is to be the most, and by an-cells definition, the most,
[SPEAKER_03]: That being then whom nothing more perfect can be conceived, he must be beautiful.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's not an argument you see in the Bible, which I'm just throwing it out there.
[SPEAKER_03]: And therefore, for God to be God, and we'll finish here, and we'll wait for Dr. Chakravartin's poor-of-the-pructure response.
[SPEAKER_03]: And this you want to say something about Dimms being a
[SPEAKER_03]: in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in a, in
[SPEAKER_06]: Just send it to your name.
[SPEAKER_06]: Hello.
[SPEAKER_06]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hello.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you for your lecture.
[SPEAKER_06]: My name is Anna and I have a question.
[SPEAKER_06]: So I don't mind God to have a Rupa.
[SPEAKER_06]: Let him have as many Rupa as he wants, it's okay.
[SPEAKER_06]: But so for example for those who worship Krishna, he will be manifested as a Krishna for those who worship him as a Jesus.
[SPEAKER_06]: He will be manifested as a Jesus.
[SPEAKER_06]: And it's said that there are so many Rupa's and forms.
[SPEAKER_06]: So, here, my question is not about the form, let him have form, but what about ultimate reality?
[SPEAKER_03]: About what?
[SPEAKER_06]: Ultimate reality.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, that's the way you frame that is in a tweet way, framing it.
[SPEAKER_03]: because which is fine, but let's just be clear of the difference.
[SPEAKER_03]: The advantage of framing this is that there is paramartica, or to my reality, and in the viabahariqa round, there's a creation that must be a create tour, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: And, and, but it's mithya, it's mithya be clear.
[SPEAKER_03]: Be clear about this, because you often hear a sound bite, like, well, you know,
[SPEAKER_03]: Actually, no, I'd wait a bit until it accepts Neubluna Brahmann, because Saga and Brahmann is Mithya.
[SPEAKER_03]: False.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't say they accept both.
[SPEAKER_03]: One is false, and one is real.
[SPEAKER_03]: Jagat Mithya, Brahmann Satya, and in the Advaita tradition, then Isha Ishwara is actually Brahmann reflected in Maya, which you have
[SPEAKER_03]: Ram Nuju to say, haven't even established what my is, the how can they be a reflection.
[SPEAKER_03]: But let's bracket the response to that.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's a, a waiting way of thinking that the world is false.
[SPEAKER_03]: And I'd be clear, a, a way to be done to is a sub school.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's opposed by, all the other of it under traditions is supposed by Nia.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's supposed by Sanke as opposed by yoga.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's supposed by me.
[SPEAKER_03]: Months are as opposed by Buddhism.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's supposed by Jainism, even the Shakta traditions, which are monistic in their own way.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's one tradition, a noble and honorable one, but the response to that, what about ultimate reality?
[SPEAKER_03]: The question implies that the forms are not ultimate reality.
[SPEAKER_03]: Whether you want to say they're mid-tier or some other kind of derived, they have some other derived ontological status than an ultimate, that's a way to be done to position, it's not the position of anybody else.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, in the evasion of a tradition, Sagauna Brahman is eternal.
[SPEAKER_03]: By Kuntu is eternal, Kuloka is eternal.
[SPEAKER_03]: They are ultimate reality.
[SPEAKER_03]: They flip the narrative.
[SPEAKER_03]: They would say Brahman is his jote.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just the Brahma jote.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just the effulgence of God, like the sunlight to the sun.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, I think it's important to not assume that these are derivatives secondary, the form is somehow secondary or derivatives of something higher, some ultimate thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can assume that if you subscribe to the way to be done to metaphysics, but almost all other schools don't.
[SPEAKER_03]: So then you have a conflict, then you have to study, do yes, for the eye, and decide what makes more sense to you, what you wish to subscribe to be a subscript or a metaphysical view, that you cannot, that is not a universal view.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's important to establish.
[SPEAKER_03]: And who is it that's deciding anyway?
[SPEAKER_03]: Some scars.
[SPEAKER_03]: Some scars.
[SPEAKER_03]: Why isn't it way to be done to find a bit under coherent?
[SPEAKER_03]: And
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, and philosophically viable.
[SPEAKER_03]: And why is it the advice you never find it incoherent?
[SPEAKER_03]: And massively problematic.
[SPEAKER_03]: So these are some scars that are going to be making those kinds of choices.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then you end up with another infinite rigorous.
[SPEAKER_03]: Where are those some scars come from or pass like, oh, and then you end up, you can't answer that.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's no answer to that.
[SPEAKER_03]: But all I'm saying is the idea that the forms are not ultimate,
[SPEAKER_03]: is very much embedded in one sub-tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: It is not universal.
[SPEAKER_06]: So, is it like all the forms and Jesus form in the Virgin Mary and Ganesh form Shakti and Krishna and Shiva?
[SPEAKER_06]: They are all like in line and they are all real and they are all got ladies.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: The absolute is infinitely full of form, Guna, Rupa, but everything is made of
[SPEAKER_03]: Otherwise, you have to run into a satcarivard problem.
[SPEAKER_03]: Why is this world have the cause and effect?
[SPEAKER_03]: Satcarivard.
[SPEAKER_03]: Olive oil is an effect.
[SPEAKER_03]: But it has to come from olives.
[SPEAKER_03]: It can't come from oranges.
[SPEAKER_03]: There has to be a connection between the nature of the effect and the nature of the cause.
[SPEAKER_03]: So if you're going to say this world is full of rooper and gooner and qualities, and then you're going to say that the cause of that is no rooper, then where does the rooper come from?
[SPEAKER_03]: Now Shankard deals with it, but saying, well, listen, it's Maya, where's Maya come from?
[SPEAKER_03]: Where do you want to, where's the ontological location of Maya?
[SPEAKER_03]: This is an old problem.
[SPEAKER_03]: that a vision of his voice, the Vedantans have had to do with, and it causes the split into various, I must say, all philosophy's have a problem.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm not picking on the Vedanta.
[SPEAKER_03]: But it's only one thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: Why do you think Ramanujah, here's a commentary, this big, a hundred pages, before he even starts one, one, one, is against the Mahapurva Paksha.
[SPEAKER_03]: Why?
[SPEAKER_03]: That's not the issue.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you follow Sanker, which does accept a real world, but when you're in a state of a subloup of our star-nam, you're in an infinite state of pure consciousness, you know, the wear of the world.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now whether it's there, was never there, is a minor issue.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that's not the issue, the individualization of the upman.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's not the issue.
[SPEAKER_03]: If the world is false or real, is the upman and individual or not?
[SPEAKER_03]: What's the issue?
[SPEAKER_03]: You're going to say that Brahman, Newture and Mudvism of the Invasion of his Beloved, Bhagavan is Maya.
[SPEAKER_03]: Then they come out with six comes blazing.
[SPEAKER_03]: You're going to say that Beloved Bhagavan is also a product of Agyana of R.V.D.R.
[SPEAKER_03]: You've got to fight on your hands, meaning a philanthropic goal.
[SPEAKER_03]: You have a philosophical issue that will never go away.
[SPEAKER_03]: It never has.
[SPEAKER_03]: These schools are trained to this day.
[SPEAKER_03]: It will do P and the centers of learning.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, to the real issue is the, not whether the world is real or false.
[SPEAKER_03]: not whether the upman is vicious, or individualized, or sort of the apaca, because everybody accepts it, sort of the apaca, that is infinite.
[SPEAKER_03]: But the fact that it's infinite, there's only one infinite upman, or can you have an plurality of individual upman's, all infinite, like you can have the plurality of lights, all pervading the same room, but they're all individual.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's a technical issue, who cares?
[SPEAKER_03]: Who cares if the world is real or false when you end for a group of us, and I'm, you know, you know, the way of it.
[SPEAKER_03]: I tell you what's what they kept, what what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what does care about, don't be saying, Bhagavan is me too.
[SPEAKER_03]: because that's their beloved goal of life, for eternity, not just, it's not just a method.
[SPEAKER_03]: In a dream to be done to block this method, purifies the mind, like Vedic ritualism.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, okay, it's, you know, you can sort of say, it's, you know, I mean, I'm pushed to be done, you know,
[SPEAKER_03]: I'll be posthead to how Krishna says that you know people not so smart, but it's you know purifies everybody except that But if you're going to say bhakti's like that, he's just a method and at the end everything dissolves into into Sarva midum kulubrakma, and if you're going to set take that position and you've just you've just included Bhagavan in that category Don't expect to make friends with vice-navis
[SPEAKER_03]: And so that story, you know, is it ever, ever ongoing story, and if I may say one thing, if you really want to study philosophy, don't just immerse yourself in one school.
[SPEAKER_03]: You have to see what is the, what, what, when, when your school is the poor of a park city opposing point of view, what are the other schools saying, then you get a sense of
[SPEAKER_03]: Duryodnastai, your weak spot, they will have, and when you read what other school say about your school,
[SPEAKER_03]: A.
[SPEAKER_03]: You become a little bit more humble, B.
[SPEAKER_03]: You become a little bit more, you know, more respectful to other traditions and see you can have conversations because you can have a conversation with somebody that's convinced that the only that that their point of view is is absolutely in all, you know, correct for all time.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, I think Ramanu just critique of Advaita is a great place to start.
[SPEAKER_03]: A mother of her, he gets pretty fiery, even more so.
[SPEAKER_03]: So therefore, the idea of a reality beyond form needs to be contextualized into a very specific
[SPEAKER_03]: limited sub-school, which is now called, you know, it's expanded, it's clearly an important school.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm not suggesting it's not, but not to assume, because what happens then is it really to be done to get, when you talk about mid-dunter, you know, when you talk about mid-dunter,
[SPEAKER_03]: It's almost assumed you're talking about a dwayne to be done to what are you right and not only is a dwayne of a dunter kind of like sort of the sort of you've taken the role of a dunter writ large but but a dwayne of a dunter a bit under writ large is almost taken the whole role of Hinduism and that's not the case historically.
[SPEAKER_03]: And it's not the case on the ground in here today.
[SPEAKER_03]: It might be the case and exported Hinduism in the West, but it isn't.
[SPEAKER_03]: So these are all wonderful.
[SPEAKER_03]: They all have venerable noble traditions.
[SPEAKER_03]: But let's not blend them all in in some kind of a new age.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sort of one size fits all because one size doesn't fit all.
[SPEAKER_03]: They debated each other for centuries.
[SPEAKER_03]: Maybe it may be nice and convenient to say all of you know everything is one but actually it isn't and therefore It's good good to be clear Okay Yes, yes With we can take we have time for two or mine whatever
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, ma'am is William, and thank you very much for the stock.
[SPEAKER_01]: You said something which I found funny, which is that if you want truth, don't say philosophy, and I should say, if you want absolute truth, let me, let me, can I modify that?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, and I say it for us, we're going to completely agree, but I want to ask about the alternative, which it sounds like is having, you can always do theology instead.
[SPEAKER_03]: right and and crack and then it's given to you.
[SPEAKER_01]: And that's it.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I want to interrupt you.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_03]: But by the way, theologians are all philosophers.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're totally totally grounded in the state of the art of philosophy, whether it's a ramenuture or whether it's a modern-day theologian and apartment of philosophy and Rutgers.
[SPEAKER_03]: They are philosophers.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're going to leverage philosophy as far as it would go, but they understand it's limited.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not the philogens and not philosophers.
[SPEAKER_03]: The absolutely are.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they're going to bring that with them, but they're going to take that extra step, which is realizing what we just said, and then being open to revealed truth.
[SPEAKER_03]: But I'm sorry, I interrupted you.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, that's exactly what I wanted to ask is about your experience with practice, and if you feel comfortable talking about revealed truth and what methods you've used personally and what you've learned through them.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, I'm a buck tariff, all of the brin and oven, devotional tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: And so now I'm retiring.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the only book I'm taking with me is the bucket but piranha's got everything in it.
[SPEAKER_03]: At some point, you have to give enough enough of buddy-vriti.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you pick your canonical source.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you want to take that leap, if you don't, then remain a philosopher and you die.
[SPEAKER_03]: And you won't get more, sure.
[SPEAKER_03]: Because your mind won't be fixed.
[SPEAKER_03]: What's it going to be fixed on?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yummy.
[SPEAKER_03]: What is it?
[SPEAKER_03]: Anti-Carly?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yum, yum, vapy, babam, smudden, anti-Carly, whatever you think of at the time of death, that's your next birth.
[SPEAKER_03]: Of course, along with karma.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, if you're a philosopher, you won't get a mokcher.
[SPEAKER_03]: You might get a good birth if you, you know, it's a venerable pursuit, but you won't get mokcher.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you're seeking mokcher at some point you have to take a leap.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, you use philosophy to discuss with others.
[SPEAKER_03]: to give a rational, a respectable presentation of your tradition.
[SPEAKER_03]: You don't do it in your private life.
[SPEAKER_03]: What are you going to do philosophy for?
[SPEAKER_03]: We, if you have a connection with Bhagavan you, that's it.
[SPEAKER_03]: You do your approaches.
[SPEAKER_03]: You're your journey.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, you do your spiritual practices.
[SPEAKER_03]: In our tradition it's deity.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's worship of the deity.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's Chapa.
[SPEAKER_03]: You take the mantra of your the Rupa.
[SPEAKER_03]: that has attracted your heart.
[SPEAKER_03]: The form of God that attracts your heart.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's Bhagavan coming to you.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's not you.
[SPEAKER_03]: If you open your heart to Bhagavan, Bhagavan will come in the form that appropriate to you or whatever.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sonsgarh is who knows what how that works.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's a hate-to-key.
[SPEAKER_03]: It has no cause.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's grace.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can't get it by yourself.
[SPEAKER_03]: Potentially, you can get by your own ego and willpower.
[SPEAKER_03]: You want a vision of your artman, Serupa.
[SPEAKER_03]: You can do it by share, brood, gritty, clenching of the teeth, nichid, of written eroda, closed down your mechanism, and you can have an experience of your own art.
[SPEAKER_03]: Not Bhagavan.
[SPEAKER_03]: because that would mean you could conquer, you could conquer Bhagavan by your mind, which can't.
[SPEAKER_03]: So how do you get Bhagavan?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's grace.
[SPEAKER_03]: And how do you get grace?
[SPEAKER_03]: You just surrender.
[SPEAKER_03]: You think Bhagavan is impressed with all this Vedanta?
[SPEAKER_03]: You think he's impressed with any of that?
[SPEAKER_03]: All the bhakti stories, the Vedantans are already killed in the great bhakti stories as just idiots.
[SPEAKER_03]: As being trapped by there, there we go.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, if you seek above the practice, the only way to get is to surrender, then Bhagavan will come to you.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if that doesn't seem to you, if...
[SPEAKER_03]: If that, if some scourges of your mind other philosophically, you say, well, why do we need to believe in God?
[SPEAKER_03]: Let matter be eternal.
[SPEAKER_03]: Like, say, what does it say?
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, I mean, there's other philosophical ways of thinking about reality.
[SPEAKER_03]: And if that appeals to you, then that's fine.
[SPEAKER_03]: But if it's obvious to you that there must be a Bhagavan and it isn't you.
[SPEAKER_03]: because that would be so delusional, hardly worth engaging.
[SPEAKER_03]: Then you surrender, what else you're going to do?
[SPEAKER_03]: Can't, when bakters do, they do all this stuff.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yammer's neumas, all of that.
[SPEAKER_03]: But they're not doing it thinking they can conquer Bhagavan.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're doing it to just try to catch Bhagavan's attention.
[SPEAKER_03]: Look at me, I'm doing everything that I can do with my little frame of reference.
[SPEAKER_03]: So I'm doing my job, I'm doing my project, doing all this stuff, and following the numbers.
[SPEAKER_03]: So you're a regular yogi.
[SPEAKER_03]: But you're not doing it thinking that those practices you're going to attain Truth by those practices.
[SPEAKER_03]: You're trying to attract the creeper.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then Bhagavan will reveal, that's the only part, that's the part of Bhakti, it's very different from Gyanna.
[SPEAKER_03]: Gyanna is your own resources, yoga is your own resources, not Bhakti.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's a different category of yoga altogether.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's a categorical mistake to say, yoga, karma, Gyanna, Bhakti are all parts of the absolute.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're not.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're categorically distinct.
[SPEAKER_03]: Gyanna and Gyanna take you to your
[SPEAKER_03]: box is a different thing all together because there's another upman and there's of course you're in a way to then there's a different thing but in any any other tradition of sort of the vision of the traditions shivers sit down to also it's a different category because bugger one is a different category so the traditions that accept bugger one as a different category um... are it are not are it it's about surrender
[SPEAKER_03]: But there's also Bhakti which comes assumed on the gana where you do pull just but ultimately the gold is gana is upman so it's there's no Hinduism has all of these it's hard to make lines and and demarcations but I would make one I would make one I would say there are there's already ways of dividing everything those traditions that take you to your innermost self
[SPEAKER_03]: Whether yourself is a way to be done to, whether it's out of yoga as an individual, whether it's the momentary and to depend on Buddhism, whatever it is, it's yourself, we can put in the category of giana.
[SPEAKER_03]: And those traditions that accept an eternal, other, eternal, not some deflection in Maya, an eternal other, it's categorically distinct.
[SPEAKER_03]: Those traditions are surrender traditions.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, um, that's one way of thinking about it.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's loads of ways of thinking about it.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm sorry, but.
[SPEAKER_03]: Come up here.
[SPEAKER_03]: My dad.
[SPEAKER_03]: But uh, Mahasha, Mahasha, yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: That was, I was terrified that snowmobile would come.
[SPEAKER_09]: It was a very beautiful, very, very beautiful with the beauty of truth, a beautiful presentation, but it was not, and there had to be a bath.
[SPEAKER_09]: It was not, you will see that the bath is not a bath, but you cannot interrupt me.
[SPEAKER_09]: It was very beautiful, but it was not that than which more beautiful cannot be conceived, because the Bhagavatam is more beautiful.
[SPEAKER_09]: So I agree 500% with you in everything that you said.
[SPEAKER_09]: I would like to just urge you to consider three more struti Vedic, not even Upanishadic, Vedic, evidence of God's body, other than the golden person.
[SPEAKER_09]: The first is, forget about the denominations where the Shiva or Shakta, the first is from
[SPEAKER_09]: When Indra goes to, all the gods give up, and Indra faces the formless reaction in Ganobanishad, then there is a description of Uma, who had appears, Uma, Uma, Ima within the Khena.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_09]: Heimawati, and he she is described, Satasminakashi, Stryam, Ajagam, Omaam, Heimawati, Baushobamara, This is clearly an embodied form of God as the Upadhistha, like, she becomes the Guru of Indra.
[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, that's one second.
[SPEAKER_04]: She's not a devil, not a devil, no, no, she's not a devil.
[SPEAKER_09]: I have shunker of talks about this.
[SPEAKER_09]: Secondly, Tljambokam jyajama here.
[SPEAKER_09]: The word Tljambokam means three-eyed.
[SPEAKER_09]: There are three eyes.
[SPEAKER_09]: Eyes are body parts.
[SPEAKER_09]: Very clearly.
[SPEAKER_09]: This is Jajivayatam and very much used all over.
[SPEAKER_09]: Second evidence, third is the most.
[SPEAKER_09]: Anyone who has done as after your Upanayana, one is worship to Shologram, you know the Shologram Shila.
[SPEAKER_09]: This is the Shaliva.
[SPEAKER_09]: with the mantra which is right under your nose of an embodied god, sarshrasinsha, thausam, not aligorekha.
[SPEAKER_09]: The word sarsr may be allegorical, might marking infinite.
[SPEAKER_09]: Sarsr haibed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sarsr haibed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Sarsr haibed.
[SPEAKER_09]: Sarsr haibed.
[SPEAKER_09]: Savumigum, sarvatasptva, atyate stattar-shan-gulom.
[SPEAKER_09]: Right?
[SPEAKER_09]: So these three evidences, I would like you to add to your thing.
[SPEAKER_04]: That is a wonderful gift.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you so much.
[SPEAKER_04]: I have to write them down afterwards.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_09]: Secondly, you have shone courage in entering, as it were, although it alliance then, but that's why the swam is not here.
[SPEAKER_09]: You haven't shown more courage against Advaitants than Swami Vivekananda himself.
[SPEAKER_09]: When he comes back, he gives lectures after, you know, like the Indians, start to recognize that there is a poet called Tagore after he gets the Nobel Prize.
[SPEAKER_09]: The recognised in spite of Sri Ram Krsna's certificate 10 years before, that this is Shiva himself
[SPEAKER_09]: You know, Vivekananda Vivekananda, but India has to wait for it, America and Chicago lecture, that's how we are.
[SPEAKER_09]: So after he comes back, he gives a series of lectures, beautifully edited in a volume called lecture from Colombo to Almura.
[SPEAKER_09]: In one of them, all you have to do to get to,
[SPEAKER_09]: The real Vivekananda's real conviction, like this man, gentleman, was asking you, what is your personal practice?
[SPEAKER_09]: Even Vivekananda's whole apostle, brothers, brothers, monks whom he worshiped, like his teacher, Gurubha, Gurubha, Threshu, about Brahman and their own.
[SPEAKER_09]: But they would have to provoke him.
[SPEAKER_09]: making my angry to speak the real mind of him.
[SPEAKER_09]: So, at one point somebody was telling that you are into to narendra naat dattu, this Vivekananda.
[SPEAKER_09]: This is before America, after Sri Ramakrishna's passing away, that you are constantly telling us about Advaitha and, you know, I am not this, I am not that, you know, like you chidhar
[SPEAKER_09]: Thakur, that is Ramakrishna, was a believer in Bhakti and he had Prima.
[SPEAKER_09]: The implication was, and it's a, I'm not naming that Swamiji, he was also Siddh-Dh-Mabur.
[SPEAKER_09]: But he said to Narayana not, that Thakur was not like you.
[SPEAKER_09]: Here all the, like you said, not just all philosophies, but all the paths and he prioritized the path of love.
[SPEAKER_09]: And they used the word, Prima.
[SPEAKER_09]: You may come on the God-Hankree and he said, this is in Sarzan and there's Lila Prasam law in book.
[SPEAKER_09]: He said, what do you understand about Prima?
[SPEAKER_09]: Thakul had said, only two people in human form had preem.
[SPEAKER_09]: One is Radharani, the other is Mahaprabhu Caitanya.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_09]: This is called Mahabhava.
[SPEAKER_09]: All of you, when you get all emotional in bhakti, you've got bhava, but Mahabhava nobody has.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thakura has given me that Prima, your servant class, go, make it, make it out of tobacco for me.
[SPEAKER_09]: Appara, a tobacco, tobacco, let me smoke that, he got angry because at the end of his life he writes this Bengali poem and he says,
[SPEAKER_09]: Prema, prema, prema, prema, e-matrasar.
[SPEAKER_09]: There is nothing else.
[SPEAKER_09]: He said, this ocean of life is turbulent with different philosophical views, which, by the way, unlike you, Brahma did not cry.
[SPEAKER_09]: He knew.
[SPEAKER_09]: I was just hoping that you will, in this mythological, this talk, you will use two crucial Shastri-kevigences, and you did.
[SPEAKER_09]: One was Avajanantimang Murah, and the other was Brahma's Tuti after his befuddlement.
[SPEAKER_09]: And then he got up and did the sthutti, and in that sthutti, and with this I'll end, he, Brahma, doesn't denounce my profession philosophers, okay?
[SPEAKER_09]: Doesn't say you will not be liberated.
[SPEAKER_09]: He said, like a mother, he is addressing Krsna.
[SPEAKER_09]: said that Kṛṣṇa, you are like a mother in whose womb several children that is fetuses are kicking away and with that kick.
[SPEAKER_09]: They are almost hurting the mother, but you are very happy when they disagree with each other.
[SPEAKER_09]: And they kick at each other because this is what the mother enjoys, because in your womb are all these philosophers.
[SPEAKER_09]: And what you did not end, thank God, is the lotus.
[SPEAKER_09]: It is a mystery, and a deep thing, and the mystery is best understood if one thinks of the last chapter of the Bhagavatam, the Delilah of Markandaya.
[SPEAKER_09]: with the you know the child solving and inside there is eons of world and they are again a child and so on and how do we end with Sri Aurobindo's name, Aurobindo, Aurobindo means lotus and this is not exactly in the Bhagavatam but it is in the tradition we
[SPEAKER_09]: which, by the way, is one of the greatest lady disciples used to see Sri Ramakrishna as this Gopal.
[SPEAKER_09]: Right?
[SPEAKER_09]: So that was, I will not translate, everybody understands, sucking
[SPEAKER_09]: the tow lotus with the hand lotus putting it in the mouth lotus.
[SPEAKER_09]: A baby is found.
[SPEAKER_09]: Kararavindena, Padaravindam, Mukaravinday, Vinayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayay
[SPEAKER_09]: Vivekananda's view, and in that lecture he said, for the West and the rationalist West, and for the missionaries who misunderstood us, I have preached monism, I have preached
[SPEAKER_09]: I have not preached, I will never preach, go pee, pray, and he quotes the most erotic verse about envying the lower lip of, envying the flute because it touches the lower lip of Krishna, and he ends by saying, and he quotes in that, in that, we will come under.
[SPEAKER_09]: the so-called greater Dwighten, who, about whom the popular images of the lower people bhakti, for the ultimate truth listing, just the opposite of this.
[SPEAKER_09]: Aksharad, a pichyottama, is purushottama, and he said, suratavardanum, shokanashanum, svaritavayana, suxtyum bitam.
[SPEAKER_09]: He thought of a rogue, a smart man, a madam, a vithar of fear, not stay out of harm with him.
[SPEAKER_09]: He was, we were kind of in the deepest soul, after that low lip of Krishna, and low lip cannot exist without a body.
[SPEAKER_04]: Beautiful.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you so much.
[SPEAKER_04]: I have to get.
[SPEAKER_04]: I have to write down some of those references.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you so much, Urban.
[SPEAKER_08]: I think we have to have both of you come back and do a full session.
[SPEAKER_05]: That would be good.
[SPEAKER_08]: But I want to thank you.
[SPEAKER_05]: I will sit at the feet and Mahashaya will take the podium.
[SPEAKER_08]: Ed, I know you say you're retiring, but you have to come back.
[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, of course.
[SPEAKER_08]: You have to.
[SPEAKER_05]: All right.
[SPEAKER_05]: Absolutely.
[SPEAKER_08]: So please keep in touch.
[SPEAKER_08]: This was absolutely wonderful.
[SPEAKER_08]: Your enthusiasm took us way into your world.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you so much, sir.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's called, it's called Roger Goaner, but we'll go with it.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Everybody, can we just, everybody,
[SPEAKER_04]: Ehh, shaaam!