You know last time I told you the pressure of materialism towards the seeking of pleasure and then mentioned that the Tattiriya Upanishad speaks of levels of ananda or bliss. Normally the materialist argues that if he is not allowed to go to the extreme end of seeking pleasure something will be missed by him and in that train of argument he appeals that he should be left free to go right to the end of that experience of seeking of pleasure so that he does not feel regret afterwards that he had missed something. Now here is a description of the kind of bliss that is still available which materialists are going to miss. However much he may try to gain through his process of seeking pleasure. Now what are the levels of bliss which are available which have been experienced by the Rishis now these are described here and which are available to one who has gone into his soul and entered into soul experience and this is what is to be presented to whoever wants to know what are the kinds of happinesses which are available and then having seen it this is only what is called shruti. You just listen to this experience. It is not meant for converting anybody. It is only to present to him that here is an experience of the Rishi of the extent of the bliss that is available if one pursues the experience of the soul as against the materialist who says that if he does not pursue his method of seeking pleasure may be that he will miss something out, therefore he says allow me the freedom to pursue my own method and go right up to the end of it. So that I do not have regret afterwards that I missed out something which was available to me and I couldn’t get it, so here is the description of a bliss that will never be available to him even at his best, even if he tries it utmost. This is the kind of bliss which is described which surely is absent, he will never be able to get it, so let us read what Tattiriya Upanishad says about it. I omit the first two lines, you start with behold, third line in the middle.
भीषाऽस्माद्वातः पवते। भीषोदेति सूर्यः।भीषाऽस्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च। मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति।सैषाऽऽनन्दस्य मीमांसा भवति।युवा स्यात्साधुयुवाऽध्यायकः। आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः। तस्येयं पृथिवी सर्वा वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात्। स एको मानुष आनन्दाः। ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः।
स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः।स एको देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः।स एकः पितृणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दः।श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।
ते ये शतं पितृणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दाः।स एकः आजानजानां देवानामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतम् आजानजानां देवानामानन्दाः।स एकः कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दः।
ये कर्मणा देवानपियन्ति। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दाः। स एको देवानामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं देवानामानन्दाः। स एक इन्द्रस्यानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य। ते ये शतमिन्द्रस्यानन्दाः।स एको बृहस्पतेरानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं बृहस्पतेरानन्दाः। स एकः प्रजापतेरानन्दः।श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।
ते ये शतं प्रजापतेरानन्दाः।स एको ब्रह्मण आनन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य॥
स यश्चायं पुरुषे। यश्चासावादित्ये। स एकः।स य एवंवित्। अस्माल्लोकात्प्रेत्य। एतमन्नमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति।एतं प्राणमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति। एतं मनोमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति।एतं विज्ञानमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति। एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति।तदप्येष श्लोको भवति॥
Through the fear of Him the Wind bloweth; through the fear of Him the Sun riseth; through the fear of Him Indra and Agni and Death hasten in their courses. Behold this exposition of the Bliss to which ye shall hearken. Let there be a young man, excellent & lovely in his youth, a great student; let him have fair manners and a most firm heart and great strength of body, and let all this wide earth be full of wealth for his enjoying. That is the measure of bliss of one human being. Now a hundred and a hundredfold of the human measure of bliss, is one bliss of men that have become angels in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of angelic bliss is one bliss of Gods that are angels in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of divine angelic bliss is one bliss of the Fathers whose world of heaven is their world for ever. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of bliss of the Fathers whose worlds are for ever, is one bliss of the Gods who are born as Gods in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of bliss of the firstborn in heaven, is one bliss of the Gods of work who are Gods, for by the strength of their deeds they depart and are Gods in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of bliss of the Gods of work, is one bliss of the great Gods who are Gods for ever. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of divine bliss, is one bliss of Indra, the King in Heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of Indra's bliss is one bliss of Brihaspati, who taught the Gods in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of Brihaspati's bliss, is one bliss of Prajapati, the Almighty Father. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of Prajapati's bliss, is one bliss of the Eternal Spirit. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. The Spirit who is here in a man and the Spirit who is there in the Sun, it is one Spirit and there is no other. He who knoweth this, when he hath gone away from this world, passeth to this Self which is of food; he passeth to this Self which is of Prana; he passeth to this Self which is of Mind; he passeth to this Self which is of Knowledge; he passeth to this Self which is of Bliss. Whereof this is the Scripture.
यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते। अप्राप्य मनसा सह। आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्। न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति। एतं ह वाव न तपति।किमहं साधु नाकरवम्। किमहं पापमकरवमिति।स य एवं विद्वानेते आत्मानं स्पृणुते।उभे ह्येवैष एते आत्मानं स्पृणुते। य एवं वेद। इत्युपनिषत्॥
The Bliss of the Eternal from which words turn back without attaining and mind also returneth baffled, who knoweth the Bliss of the Eternal? He feareth not for aught in this world or elsewhere. Verily to him cometh not remorse and her torment saying “Why have I left undone the good & why have I done that which was evil?” For he who knoweth the Eternal, knoweth these that they are alike his Spirit; yea, he knoweth both evil and good for what they are and delivereth Spirit, who knoweth the Eternal. And this is Upanishad, the secret of the Veda. Together may He protect us, together may He possess us, together may we make unto us strength & virility. May our reading be full of light and power. May we never hate. OM Peace! Peace! Peace! Hari OM!
So this is the charter of the discovery of the soul and this is the bliss. You need to be gods yourself to go into heaven to have that bliss, even here if by learning the Veda, by knowing the true knowledge, if the soul attains to a stage where desire does not touch him then all his bliss is his.
Now let us come back to …this is only because I promised last time that there was a statement in the Taittiriya Upanishad where what is available to man is described in the field of happiness. This is the conquest of happiness. Now I said that we shall now enter into dialogue with the materialist and I said first of all there are two basic propositions of the materialist which I described last time. First of all I had said that a materialist has an easier field, where he can simply kick the football and prove that matter exists, so he has a very easy field to prove, you don’t need to argue in a long, long , long train of reasoning. A mere kick of the football is sufficient to prove matter exists. You can’t deny the fact that matter exists, you open your eyes and you see matter, matter exists. The second argument of his was that what you call consciousness, is simply a result of the functioning of physical organs, therefore what is primary is not consciousness but the movement of organs which are physical. So his argument is that consciousness is the product of the physical movement of organs,—so consciousness is not original, it’s a product. As in the example which I had given—the steam is the product of piston movement not the other way round and the materialist friend is a rustic as I said the last time who stands at the platform, looks at the engine and is convinced that piston is the cause of the steam and he doesn’t have the patience to wait for your argument by which he can be taken into the engine and he can be shown that piston itself is the result of the force of steam, therefore he commits a mistake of judging only from outside and being too much in a hurry to do something else. He doesn’t have time even to look into further argumentation. So first of all we have to tell the materialist in our dialogue—please wait, do not merely stand outside the engine, you go inside the engine. I will try to show you something else. Normally the materialist is not ready to entertain even this kind of a statement. He is in too much of a hurry, but sometimes rationalists believe and they want to convince you that they are rationalists. Now that is the starting point where you can have a dialogue. The moment he says look I am materialist but I am a rationalist and the moment he says rationalist you have a kind of a hook, then you can ask a question: what do you mean by rationalism? Because now he is put into a dock, what does he mean by rationalism? His answer is a rationalist is one, who accepts any beliefs when it is proved. It’s a very simple answer that a rationalist is one who holds or accepts the belief when it is proved. So the word proving is a very attractive word and the whole world today, everybody. Whenever there is a question of argumentation about anything which is connected with rationalism it is always connected with this idea of the proof, so a materialist says that my position is based upon rationalism because it is based upon a proof. Fine, then I ask him, proceed with your proof so as I said that his field is very easy he can simply kick the football and says here is matter. You can see it therefore I have proved matter exists. Now I turn to have a dialogue with him. All that you have to prove or you have proved, your case is finished. He said, yes. My case is proved. You just open your eyes and see me kicking the football. This is matter. Is it all that you want to say that matter exists, nothing more than that? Then gradually when I put my question several times he adds one word to his statement, which is very interesting. He has proved matter exists then he says, matter alone exists. Now this is a very important qualification, a materialist is not one who merely believes that matter exists. If that was his position there is no denial of this fact. You need not disagree with him, no argument with him. The sting of materialism is the statement that matter alone exists, and even what we call consciousness is nothing but a consequence of matter. It’s a result of the movement of physical organs, so if somebody says what is materialism, a true statement of materialism is that matter alone exists. Fine, we shall come back to this statement a little later.
I again have another statement of a dialogue. What is the proof that matter exists and matter alone exists. Your physical perception opens your eyes, when your physical senses open then they give you evidence of what exists. Fine, I do see the football I can’t deny the fact. I can’t deny that matter exists, but when I go to a physicist who is a master of the knowledge of matter he tells me what this football is, what this matter is and surprisingly he tells me that this is not what matter is what you see this is what the physicist tells me matter is not what you see. This is something which is composed of a number of atoms, which we are not able to see at all. Physically you are not able to see these atoms which are there but the physicist tells me there are atoms and asks the question do you see the atoms. Your first proof of matter was that you can see by your physical senses. Can you see by physical senses the atoms, this is more difficult for the materialist to prove that you can see atoms physically. Now he moves farther that even these atoms are not what they appear to be. First of all matter is not what it appears to be. Even atoms which are still remoter are not really what they are. Atoms can be still further analyzed and in each atom you find a big solar system. There are nucleuses around which there are so many electrons which are moving with a tremendous speed and all this is nothing but energy which physically cannot be seen at all that is certain. The energy which is here in all this matter is something which you cannot see physically at all, therefore now the materialist has to change his position. His first proposition was that what you see physically is a proof of what exists. When I bring him up to this point now he has to change his position. He has to say that although energy cannot be seen. Energy is the presupposition on the basis of which all that you physically see can be explained. Although energy cannot be seen, it is that energy which you have to assume to be existing in order to explain what you can see physically.
Fine, therefore now this is his one line of proposition, one of the remotest lines of his argument. But how do you know that energy is the ultimate assumption that there is nothing beyond energy. Is there any way by which you can show that that is the only ultimate assumption on the basis of which all that is here can be explained? So, his answer is so far this is all that I have done. My homework is up to here whether there is something beyond it or not, at least I have not been required to enquire further because this farthest I have gone, but now he is really tired already you have gone far enough and if you still persist a question do you have still—how do you say that energy is the last point of the assumption on the basis of which you can explained this matter, so he says if I go farther I will come back to you till that time let me be now left with what I have. This is where the materialist ultimately stops in his argument, when you have a dialogue with him he stops at this point. This is one kind of a trajectory, our journey with the materialist, then he comes back again with you and you can start another trajectory with him or a dialogue. He had said that when you open your eyes you see matter. Now even on that ground my argument is, do you see that matter alone exists? There is no doubt about the fact that matter exists and I would not dispute with that fact—matter exists, but you do not see anywhere that matter alone exists. To make a statement that matter alone exists you should claim that you have seen everything in the world. All that can be seen before you can make a statement that matter alone exists, it is not sufficient to say that whatever you see is matter …quite true, so far whatever you see is matter, how do you come to the conclusion that matter alone exists. Now again he is tired because then you might say that well he says that what I have seen is this, so until I have seen everything don’t come to me and discuss this question so this the second line of trajectory where the dialogue stops. Now there is a third line of trajectory with him. Come back again. You said in the beginning that physical organs give you the evidence of matter, therefore you conclude that physical organs are the means of evidence and knowledge. Is this all that you want to say? So when you press him he will make another statement that is that physical organs are the only means of knowledge just as in the other case he had added the word alone matter alone exists. Now he makes a further statement that physical organs are the only means of knowledge, so again you have to ask him the question: how do you know that physical organs are the only means of knowledge? Have you examined all kinds of evidence, all kinds of means of knowledge then having done all that have you come to the conclusion that these are the only means of knowledge? His answer is so far my knowledge is derived from physical senses, that is fine.
Now you happen to be one of those anxious teachers who want to convert people. So they want to convert the materialists, so they say all right we want to have dialogue with you, you may not like to have dialogue with me but I want to have dialogue so that I want to talk to you, uplift you to take you out of this materialistic groove, which is wrong…all right if you want dialogue with me you are allowed to talk to me, but remember I do not want to talk to you that is the starting point. This is how your position is…in the beginning. There is no other way of making you weak, so this is one of the methods of making you weak right from the beginning saying I don’t want to have dialogue with you. If you want to have a dialogue with me, fine….come along, so now you start a dialogue with him and you say you know there is soul, there is spirit, there is transcendental, there is invisible, there are miracles, unexpected things happen in the world. So, he shows no sign of response because he is not in dialogue with you, you want to bring about a point where he can start a dialogue. Now you make all your great statements. All are finished now your statements—there is soul, there is spirit, there is transcendent, there is miracle, there are unexpected things that happens, incredible things that happen, but he shows no sign at all of having being moved at all then when you repeat the statement, he doesn’t show any sign at all of any response at all then ….and say do you understand what I tell you. He said no, I don’t understand. This is his greatest weapon. He says I don’t understand at all soul, spirit, transcendental, incredible things. I don’t understand any one of these things at all. What you say at the most we might say is to me Greek and Latin, but even Greek and Latin when you learn Greek and Latin makes meaning, so he says it is not even Greek and Latin, it is purely abra ka dabra. In no language it can have any meaning. It is purely what you are saying is simply noise that I admit you are making a noise, I can see that. The world soul, spirit all these words are making noise, but makes no sense to me at all, therefore he says therefore he says all that you are saying is nonsense in the real-sense of the term non-sense not merely in a pejorative sense. Not that you are thrown out, he simply says that what you are saying is nonsense. He stands aloof like Himalayas, immovable, you can’t change him now. There was some chance of a dialogue but now dialogue is also not possible. Now you are wondering as to how to move this. You are a good teacher, you want to teach him. You want to give a message to him, but he simply says that when you give a message, he says that it makes no sense to me at all. He does not even understand, therefore doesn’t dispute with you. He doesn’t say the soul does not exist. He doesn’t say spirit does not exist. He simply says, I don’t even understand, therefore I don’t even have a chance of disputing with you, you will argue with him if he understands and say it doesn’t exist because then you can ask for a proof of non-existence then the task becomes difficult but now it is such an easy thing.
Now you are therefore in a great difficulty as to how to converse with him on your pet subject, which you really want to go ahead with, how to deal with it. Then you ask him don’t you feel that when I know something and you do not know something, don’t you feel that there is some inadequacy. Don’t you see that. I think I understand you say you don’t understand, but he is immovable he says I don’t really understand make me understand then I can at least argue with you or go ahead with you but make me understand then you ask him a question—tell me what is your definition of understanding? It is good way of opening the dialogue. When he says what you are speaking is nonsense in a certain sense he has given you a final disproof and thrown you out of the court but if you are clever you will ask him. Fine if he is nonsense, tell me what is sense? Therefore there is point of having a dialogue now. It’s a linkage of a dialogue. Tell me what is sense? Now he is obliged to answer. He can’t say even this I don’t understand because he himself has used the word nonsense. The fact that he has used the word nonsense he knows what is sense. In comparison with which what you are saying is nonsense, so ask him, what is sense? So he thinks over the question and comes like with an answer, no words have sense. This is the first answer no words have sense. You are using words soul, spirit and all that so his first answer, no words have a sense, but words derive a sense in themselves they have no sense. All words are nonsense all are aabra ka dabra, but words derive their sense from experience. Whatever is experienced make sense, fine, this is a good progress in dialogue. He has come out with a statement that what can be experienced is sense then you ask the question that all that you can experience is necessarily sensible. Say Yes, but all that is sensible is not necessarily true, so he makes a further space for you to dialogue. He makes a distinction between all that can be senses or experience and all that is true or not true. Why does he say this because if he doesn’t say you will trap him so before he tells you in the very beginning, before you trap him? I see that a stick which is straight when it is put into water, I see it bent so the word bent stick makes a meaning, its sensible. I see a bent stick but it doesn’t mean that bent stick is true of the stick. The truth of the stick is that it is straight. Now before you point out this experience and prove him somewhat weak. He himself starts by saying that I make a distinction between that which is sensible and that which is true. Fine, then what is the definition of true? The definition of true he says is that which is verifiable, in the case of the bent stick, it is bent only so long as you don’t verify it. When you take it out to verify whether it is really bent or not, you find it is not bent so that which is verifiable is true. Fine, very good. You have made good progress in dialogue then you go forward. What is the meaning of verifiable, what is verifiable? Now here again he comes to a difficult terrain. He has to take great care to see that you don’t trap him because he knows you are quite an adversary, quite powerful in your own way, but he doesn’t want to be trapped. So when you ask the question what is verifiable? So he says in the first place that which is again and again physically seen—is verifiable, that which is again and again what is called objective. You see it, I see it, he sees it several people when they all confer and they come to the conclusion that yes we all have seen that is called verifiable. Fine, but why do you say that only that which is verifiable in physical perception is called verifiable. Now it is at this point that he is really cornered. If he says that physical senses are the only means of knowledge then he knows your argument. How do you know that physical means are only means are the only means of knowledge, so he won’t make that argument. This is where the latest materialism stands, you might say. He has still not responded to your question. The dialogue in the world with a materialist stands here. The first dialogue is over, although many people are still making the dialogue of the first kind, but more advanced make the second kind of dialogue which I have presented to you. They have still not responded to your question. Now if you tell them, now this is a third category of dialogue, the second grade philosophers do not answer this question, they are still waking to answer your question. They have not been able to find an answer. There is a third category of materialists, who say that we should not limit ourselves only to those experiences which are physically verifiable, they admit. But he asked you the question. I grant that you may have some experiences which are not physical, but tell me what is it that you are experiencing? Now you are thrown again into the same device. You say I experience soul and then he says I don’t understand what you are saying. He repeats the argument of the second grade philosopher and says, I don’t understand. What you are saying then you tell him that what I am saying is somewhat quite different. When you say it makes no sense to you, fine. It makes no sense to you because you are accustomed so far to only one kind of sense, namely physical verification. Now you have admitted that physical verification is not the only thing, he says, yes—that is true. Would you like therefore to enter into a field which is not physical, so he says look first of all I don’t have that patience because I am very busy with what I am doing now, but still, if you are very insistent being a friend I will have a dialogue with you so go ahead I will spend some time with you in a friendly chat then you argue and point out that look my dear friend that you are basically seeking a proof in terms of physical verification but I also know that because that proposition is not sustainable you have at least prepared with me that you are prepared to admit that there is some other way of knowing things, other ways of verification, but before I proceed further tell me an answer to one question which I will put to you. I will make a very direct statement that soul, spirit words which are not understood by you are supra-physical, they are not physical. Do you agree with the proposition that the supra-physical cannot have physical proof?
Do you admit with me that if somebody says show me the invisible, would it not be irrational. You have agreed that you are rational, all of you are rational then would you not agree that when you say show me the invisible, is it not irrational. You are demanding the physical proof of something which I declare are supra-physical.
Now this is a thing, how can it be denied. If I say that there is something supraphysical and if somebody says show me it is really a rustic argument. A villager who does not understand his argument, show me the invisible, I am saying it is invisible. He said show me. Do you agree that in asking the physical proof of supra-physical you are irrational? Fine on this question he has got to admit your position. If it is really supra physical you can’t have physical proof therefore my demand of physical proof is itself beside the point. He says all right I grant it, but show me the invisible. Isn’t it now it is a fair argument this is a good dialogue—show me the invisible invisibly? Now you see the dialogue is coming to a very narrow path. Now for you is a very big task because now for you the moment of truth has come for you. Until now you were only arguing with him to bring him out of his errors, but now may be that you will be found in an erroneous position when he probes into you. By granting, simply show me invisibly the invisible, so your first answer will be that there is an experience, there is an inner experience in which I see, what is not normally seen by physical eyes—for example, I see vision. I close my eyes and I see various kinds of visions. I see colours, I see numbers, I see figures. This is invisible seeing invisibly, it’s a fact, not only that but I find in these experiences something quite remarkable, so his answer is, you know when you close your eyes and when you see there are only after-images. You have seen a physical object, having seen that physical object when you close your eyes; you see the same object continuing for some time. This is called an after image. Say of course, this experience I have myself. You’re closing your eyes and seeing something I have also experienced. This is all that you mean by invisibly seeing invisible this is all that you see isn’t. Oh! That is nothing. It’s only an after image. It’s purely a physical impression continuing for sometime this is what you called invisible. It is true that when you close your eyes that object is not before you but it is simply an impression of the physical object on the physical organ which is persisting for some time. Where is your grand victory of something that you ever spoke about transcendental and all that. Now answers saying no my dear friend tell me what is an after image tell me what is an after image. Can after image be sustained for quite some time because the images that I see, when I close my eyes are not really after images because I know what is an afterimage and I also know what my vision tells me and one distinction between the two is that after image remains only for a short time and after that is gone it can’t be repeated. You can’t have after image, one after image then again repetition of after image another same time, third time after image. Where else the visions that I see are not of that kind. I have seen a figure when I close my eyes that figure I don’t see at all I see something quite different, which I have not seen just now that I see, this is where he finds it difficult now. You have given a good answer that there are experiences which are not of the type of after images. So he comes up with another argument and he says maybe that this is your personal idiosyncrasies of your brain. Your brain is such it rattles with some of the images of yesterday or day before yesterday or something other. It is a very special kind of subjective experience. Now this is a big argument in regard to subjectivity. This is as far as my knowledge is concerned all my knowledge is objective. My verifiable principle implies that what I state is experienced not merely by myself is experienced and shared by many other people. Then only I declare it to be knowledge but now you are coming with a subjective experience and subjective experience a mad man may see hundred lights. It doesn’t mean a hundred lights exist. If you are drunk, you might see several things which are not there at all; it's purely subjective. It has nothing to do with the world as it is, or reality of any kind whether visible or invisible. Even if I grant it is pure imagination, pure hallucination, pure theory of invisibly seeing invisible is the theory of hallucinations and that is where he dismisses you finally. Now what is the answer to his question where the third dialogue stops at this point. He would agree that there may be an invisible perception of the invisible he may grant, but if your invisibility seen by invisible means is going to be only subjective then it can be dubbed or stigmatized to be nothing but pure hallucination, having very little value as far as knowledge is concerned. So this is the time for materialism against you, at this stage. You now come forward and say that my dear friend let us not dismiss the argument at this point. Continue with me. This is where the materialist normally puts off his hand not by any argument. He just puts off his hands. He does not have patience with you now and he feels that I have already been victorious against you. I have disproved you. All your experiences are hallucinations, subjective, unverifiable in any objective manner. Now what more do you want to ask me about besides I have got a lot of other things to do you are just taking away my time. I had for the sake of argument I had just allowed you to argue with me. I conceded some points of yours also, but now what further. Normally, this is a third point at which the dialogue of the present time has stopped. The materialist is not prepared to go farther in the dialogue; he has thrown you out of the court according to him. Now you go back to yourself and ask yourself, you want to teach, however how to teach? You have to be sure on your own that truly what you are saying is not hallucination. He has dismissed you as somebody subject to hallucination, but you want to be sure on your own, true, it is not hallucination. On what terms do you believe that it’s not hallucination?
There are three grounds on your side on which you can still show that it is not hallucination. Even in your subjective experience you have hallucination and you can detect whether it is hallucination or not. Even in your subjective experience. It is not that only in objective experience there are hallucinations and you can detect whether it's hallucinations or not. Even in your subjective experience you have hallucinations and you can distinguish very well that this was hallucination and this is a real experience. You know fire lights being seen by you in a drunken condition and fire lights being seen by you not in that condition but which are not seen by others they are invisible to you. Invisible to the others and yet you can make a distinction between the two. In other words you might say that there is in the subjective experience a capacity to distinguish between hallucination and the real experience. Now, how do you make a distinction when you can repeatedly perceive identity? It is a new concept I am introducing now. When you can perceive identity subjectively then you can say that when the same thing is seen identically again and again then you can say it is true as distinguished from a hallucination which can be seen sometimes but they are not repeatedly identical in the case of hallucination. This experience of identity is one of the most fundamental things in the field of knowledge. In fact some of the materialists have been able to perceive this point. This is another group you might say of materialists. Bertrand Russell for example belongs to this group, the best type of materialist you might say, who says that there is one experience which you cannot objectively verify but which nonetheless is true or even it is objectively verified. Even in physical terms later on but the real proof is in pure subjectivity. What is that experience? It is an experience of recognition. How do I recognize that this is Sarita whom I had seen yesterday? What is the proof that this is the same Sarita which I had seen yesterday. I recognize her very well. Now remember this is a very deep question because basically I recognized you, in my subjectivity that that whom I had seen yesterday who is not before me, therefore not physically seen by me now, so that whom I had seen which I have now only subjectively know, is not objectively known now, is a same as the impression that I have received now from outside which is also my subjective perception and I am tying up these two perception objectively and subjectively I know that this is the same as that one identity. Bertrand Russell accepts that there is one experience he says materialism cannot explain. He admits very clearly. He wrote a book called ‘Analysis of Mind’ in which he tried to show that all that you see, all that you experience can be physically verified. Purely on materialistic terms, but having done all kinds of analysis he comes to this experience of recognition and he says I have not yet found a materialistic answer to this experience of recognition. Of course he says one day I will find out that is another matter but so far at least he says I am not able to find a physical answer to this question.
Question—It does not respond to remembrance?
True, but what is remembrance precisely it’s purely subjective. Your verification is subjective and yet I believe it is true, it's not hallucination. A subjective verification which gives you a standard of truth, so merely saying it is subjective and there is no argument. Actually speaking it may be argued that all knowledge is basically subjective. Fundamentally all that you are perceiving even from outside, even if five people see the same thing each one perceives subjectively. It is my subjective consciousness which understands what is objective, which gives credence to objectivity but that is all based upon subjectivity. Agreement of my subjectivity with your subjectivity is understood by whom. By your subjectivity and my subjectivity therefore subjectivity has a capacity of understanding what is objective and therefore what is true and what is not true. You don’t need to have a physical proof for saying whether it is true or not. A subjective capacity exists. Now this is a proposition, which opens up a field for a new enquiry. Once you grant this some materialist can see this point as Bertrand Russell has to say but although he still says I will find out a materialistic answer in future which during his lifetime he couldn’t. There are two or three questions on which he said that I will find out materialistic answers to those three questions, but until the end of his life he could never. In any case this is the one door on which now you have a better field and you can say now you institute an inquiry now when you institute an inquiry you find something very interesting, but to start with let us take a very simple example. We all have the experiences of chauffeurs who drive our cars. On what grounds do you allow your driver to drive your car in which you are seated? The only ground is that he has a judgment which is subjective, which he knows is true subjectively and you know that it is true. If you did not believe that his judgment is true you will not allow a driver to drive at all. Now on what ground do you believe that his judgment is true? There is a further ground that he has got to be sincere in his perception. That means you know that if somebody is insincere he can perceive wrongly but if he sees sincerely he will perceive rightly. You know that if he sees insincerely he will himself get killed, if he sees insincerely he himself will get killed. But you know that if he sees sincerely his judgment, his perception would be really the right perception, therefore what is your criterion of believing that your driver will drive rightly, that he cannot but be sincere. Preservation of life being such a tremendous feeling in us that he cannot even play with insincerity. He cannot say let me drive just like that for the sake of play. Even that is dangerous, he will die, he will crash, therefore the one criterion in subjective matters, whether something is true or not is sincerity. A sincere perception…..
Question: Is it the unification, is that the reason?
The basic point according to Vedanta is that there is only one reality that is the reason why we can see all this. We can share everything because there is only one reality and the important point is that even materialists when they come to the experience of recognition they see this proposition of identity. The experience of identity is so fundamental, but this is the real Vedantic answer actually because reality is one, the knowledge of the one is inherent in the one. Because there is nothing else because the one is conscious, if it was not conscious then again this would not happen. The very nature of one is conscious. The one being one and the one being conscious the one recognizing one identical and therefore inevitable and indubitable it can’t be doubted. In fact that is the only standard of truth indubitability, if there is anything which is indubitable it is the knowledge of the one that exist alone which knows which is conscious and therefore can know itself. It’s the only proposition which is really you might say subjectively or objectively that is the only reality, only truth.
Now this is the domain in which materialist has still not entered. We are now obliging him to enter into it. So our argument is that all his arguments are based upon ignoring a large field of enquiry into which many people have made a great entry and also journey. Fine, this is only the preliminary statement, you go farther and you find that as you enter into that domain you find so many experiences which have a system, a mere hallucination has no system. You can’t have a system of hallucinatory experiences, systematic. You enter into this and you find a system of experiences. When I see the blue colour and I examine my consciousness, I find illumination. When I see green colour, I find I had in my consciousness—a vital consciousness. There is a system and whenever this happens this happens, so you have in this field a system of experiences and such a system that you can also develop criteria by which you can say this can’t be, this can be. If somebody says oh! I was extremely happy. I have got heavenly delight and then he says I saw everywhere green, green green. If he says so you can be sure that he has not heavenly delight. He says two statements—I was in heavenly delight and I saw everything green, green, green. You can be sure he had no heavenly delight because green is the symbol of the vital experience, so it is true that he had a great vital experience but not the heavenly experience, so there can be criteria by which you can judge always a subjective field, but you can judge, so first judgment is sincerity, which you can judge also. Whether somebody is sincere or not can also be judged, at least your own sincerity you can judge if not somebody else’s. Whether you are truly sincere yourself or not can be judged by you by your inner sincerity. You do know when you are not sincere; you do know when you are sincere. At least we all have experiences, when we are sincere and when we are not sincere. This is subjective, but which has a criterion and which can be proved to be true. Secondly, you have a system of experiences which can give you further criteria of what is right and what is wrong. Thirdly, if you have farther experiences, you can go out of your body. You can jump into what was subjective into a world which is now objective as much objective as you are here walking into this physical world. There are extraordinary experiences of going out of the body and you go on perceiving things not with your physical eyes, not with your brain. Brains cells are no more used there at all and it’s not brain cell at all working. When you come back again you remember that you had gone out, you have seen certain things then of course your brain may be at work, but that knowledge that you possessed that time it was not a result of a brain cell. So, there are experiences in which brain cells are not involved and therefore no physical organ is involved. Therefore, to say that consciousness is connected with the physical organ that fundamental proposition of the materialist is now negated, that physical organs are not the only instruments of knowledge. And then you find that there are not one supra-physical world but there are several supra-physical worlds. There are inter-connections of them. You can send a message to one supra-physical world to another supra-physical world and all that we speak of the soul, spirit is connected with this large field. When we say spirit, spirit is what? Spirit is a large field. Word is very simple, therefore we may think that it is simply a little flame, but that is not so. Spirit is more than universal. The whole universe is lesser than the spirit. It is more than universal. So that tremendously vast in which so many communication are possible and communication from there upon the physical, this is another point that if you enter into this domain you find experiences of such a nature that it has even physical effects. If the materialist is prepared, if he is a real inquirer then he will enter into this field. Now Sri Aurobindo says that fortunately a materialist of the highest kind is an inquirer. If he was not an inquirer it would be a hopeless case although he resists and resists quite a lot therefore we have several degrees of materialism presented, but there are who are prepared and who can enter into it. In fact many of us ourselves are materialist and we are prepared to enter into it if there are real facts. I think most of the spiritual seekers are as materialistic as anybody else. It is not as if they want to believe somehow. They don’t believe in dogma, they do not believe in aptawakya. They would not even say that because I have faith I enter—No. they have entered into a field where experiences of inner state of sincerity have brought them certain kinds of knowledge which can’t reject. It’s impossible to refuse. This is the ground on which you can say that we have arrived at the fundamental basis of a hypothesis that not matter but consciousness may be the real reality. The steam may be the reality not the piston, this is the ground. That consciousness may be anterior to this physical world. The physical world is the world which is itself a resultant of consciousness and not their way round. I think we shall stop here today but some of the last portions of this dialogue we shall continue next time.
Question—Consciousness is only the nature of reality, so we have got him only up to consciousness?
At least that much we shall still go farther into the nature of consciousness and see how it is real. Identity of consciousness and reality, but with regard to materialism we still need to dialogue further, so that we shall come to it next time.