Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
Last week’s talk “Nature is not Spiritual” had some people objecting to that truth and insisting that ultimately nature is an energy of Krishna and so is spiritual and that it all “one”.
So, I thought I need to address these points as they are very important.
Some of the verses I quote are as follows:
‘Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.’ – Bhagavad-gītā 7.4
‘Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.’ – Bhagavad-gītā 7.5
‘All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.’ – Bhagavad-gītā 7.6
One who is enlightened in self-realization, although living within the material body, sees himself as transcendental to the body, just as one who has arisen from a dream gives up identification with the dream body. A foolish person, however, although not identical with his material body but transcendental to it, thinks himself to be situated in the body, just as one who is dreaming sees himself as situated in an imaginary body. – Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.11.18
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
bhagavān iti śabdyate
Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān. – Bhāgavata Purāṇa 1.2.11
“‘I, jīva soul, am of the same nature as Brahman.’ – Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 1.4.10
nityo nityānām cetanaś cetanānām
“‘The Supreme Lord is the one supreme eternal entity amongst all eternal entities, and the fundamental conscious being amongst all conscious beings.’ – Śrī Kaṭhopaniṣad, 2.2.13
Aum Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya
So this evening we are going to talk upon the topic which I’ve put as, “So, you think it’s all One?”
The reason that I’m speaking on this topic, it was sort of inspired by some questions or slash comments rather, that came up in the last week’s talk that we did, where the subject was “Nature is not Spiritual,” and there was obviously somebody that disagreed with that idea. So I want to address some of the comments which they made.
Before I get into that I’d just like to maybe let people know that the comments section, on the live feed that we do, is not really the best venue or an appropriate venue to engage in serious discussion. Number one, it’s going on while we’re doing a live feed, so I can’t be there answering anything. It’s going to be whoever’s monitoring things for me, and who will be trying to do their best to respond, knowing how I generally respond to things.
As a general principle we really welcome serious discussion. We’re not closed at all to serious discussion. It’s just that, that forum is not very appropriate. Number one, most people have got their little avatars and some fake name. They don’t actually reveal their identity, so it’s a little bit challenging dealing with someone that’s not going to be brave enough to reveal who they are, which I think is kind of important if you want to have a serious conversation.
The other thing is, I don’t mind if things are challenging, if somebody is asking a challenging question, as long as it’s a question. What becomes a bit difficult is if people are making statements of fact, without actually knowing themselves whether what they’re saying is factual or not. And so just as a general—as a proposition, if you would like to challenge, and even debate, I have no issue with that whatsoever, but I would ask you to maybe open up a channel of communication. Either you can message me on Facebook, or you can email me at [email protected], and put forward any things. I don’t mind if people want to do that anonymously. I’m kind of okay with that. That’s okay. But I do ask that when we engage in discourse that it is civil, and it’s respectful. So if somebody does want to dig deeper, or they have concerns, or they have difficulty embracing some of the things that I might be presenting, then please do feel free to reach out. You will be welcomed even if you completely disagree, that’s fine.
I would like to add that whatever we’re presenting here is not a product of my mind. It is not a product of my own thinking or anything. We follow a system of what is called parampara. Parampara is the passing on of spiritual truth from spiritual master to disciple, who then passes it on in turn to their own students or disciples. This is a very ancient tradition, and it goes back many thousands of years in our lineage. And it is really important that if I am going to attempt to share anything that I’ve received, that it is completely in line with what’s called the siddhanta, the philosophical conclusions of our parampara, or our sampradaya, our lineage.
So I’ll just now go to a broader thing. One of the things that I know just from observing my life much earlier on, and people now: we have this tendency, just the human mind, and the way it works, it’s a characteristic, that we tend to want to espouse what people put forward as “their view.” And we have to embrace the reality that what is my view of something, is not necessarily the same as presenting the truth of a matter. We really have to look at the source of where these ideas are coming from. Many people, they’ll visit the internet and watch a video here, and something there, or read something here and there, and pick up a book here and there, and just read bits and pieces, and kind of extract what they—what appeals to them, without really often knowing who—where the idea has actually come from and what are the qualifications of the person presenting the idea.
Just because somebody is reputed to be a teacher or guru, it doesn’t mean that they necessarily are. This is not a democratic thing where a bunch of people get together and decide they’re all going to accept this, and it is now the truth, just because somebody has a title, like a swami, or a who knows what, whatever, some—or a reputation that that validates what it is that they are saying. There is really a need to trace out the source of the idea and how it has come to be, before we start just embracing it.
There is also this tendency that we have, a human frailty, that if I like an idea, then I really identify with it; and if somebody points out that there is some fault or flaw in that idea, I feel that somehow or other I’m being attacked, rather than being able to step back and objectively—not subjectively, objectively—listen to what’s being presented, and then look at this idea I have, and try to analyse it without emotions, or feelings of, “Oh this is mine,” or, “I like this,” getting in the way. Because if we go down that route, we will have tremendous difficulty actually discovering what is the truth.
So one of the comments that I got last week is: “
“Nature is Krishna’s energy, therefore it actually is spiritual. Everything that belongs to God is spiritual. Why do you think yogis would always go to the forest, to get in touch with the Supreme One?”
So it’s kind of—the first thing I’d like to do is invite the person that made the comment, to go back to, and listen to the talk. Because it’s like, there’s been a whole bunch of stuff that’s fyeooo [mimes something flying over his head] just flown by, and has not really been addressed.
So there were a couple of verses which I did quote from the Bhagavad-gita, which we’ll now look at again now. And the three verses that we’ll look at, two of them I did quote, were from the 7th chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, and the 4th through to the 6th verse. So the first one is:
“Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together these eight constitute My separated material energies.”
So there is a Sanskrit word which I’ll draw your attention to, and hopefully we can get the slide up on the screen here. The word bhinna, which means separated. it’s a separated—and the word prakrtih refers to a material energy, a subordinate or material energy. So this word bhinna is a Sanskrit word. It is used in the sense of being separated; can also mean something that is split off from, or broken or shattered, or that’s divided into parts. But this idea of being detached, something that is detached or separated. So the reference to the material energy, not as a spiritual energy, but as a material and separate energy.
And then in the next verse it says:
“Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior energy.”
So I’ll just draw your attention to a couple of words. One is apara which means inferior; and so talking about exploiting the inferior energy. And then the word param and the next one jiva-bhutam. So param means superior or greater, and described as the jiva-bhutam; the jivas, meaning the living entities. So right here in Krishna’s own description of His energies as being the living being, and the material energy, one of them He describes as inferior, and being exploited by the other energy, which is superior. So He’s not at all placing them on the same level and saying they are exactly the same, and they are both spiritual. It’s not saying that at all. In fact, He’s saying the opposite.
So in the next verse it says:
“All created beings have their source in these two natures. Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.”
So if we look at that in connection with the comment that was placed, that, “Nature is Krishna’s energy…”—absolutely correct, “…therefore, it actually is spiritual.” No, that is incorrect. Krishna does not agree with that idea. I mean, you are quoting that everything that belongs to Krishna is spiritual, but Krishna Himself doesn’t agree with you. He actually puts forward something that’s opposite to what you’re putting forward. So when you say, even Krishna, whom you quote as an authority, is saying that everything is spiritual, no, that’s—He doesn’t state that. He states the opposite to that.
I’ll read another verse in this regard from the Bhagavata Purana, and it’s actually a really pretty amazing verse, and it points out this reality also.
“One who is enlightened in self-realization, although living within the material body, sees himself as transcendental to the body, just as one who has arisen from a dream gives up identification with the dream body. A foolish person however, although not identical with his material body, but transcendental to it, thinks himself to be situated in the body just as one who is dreaming sees himself as situated in an imaginary body.”
So the idea that’s been propositioned in the comments section, was that everything that comes from Krishna is spiritual. And if everything was ultimately equally spiritual, then there would be no question of the living being being transcendental to the material body, because they’re both spiritual, and they’re both one, which is something that was later stated by the same person. And this is a false idea, that’s not actually supported in the Vedas. There is a oneness, but there is also simultaneously a difference, and there is a need to embrace this.
Caitanya Mahaprabhu put it forward with the aphorism, acintya bhedabheda tattva. Acintya means it’s inconceivable. It is beyond the ability of the mind to conceive. Bhedabheda means a oneness and yet a difference, that things can be one, but also simultaneously they are different; and that, we don’t see that in the material world, but from the spiritual perspective this is a philosophical principle, that one not only can, but should embrace.
So it’s true that everything belongs to Krishna, but because everything belongs to Him it doesn’t make everything spiritual. There is a lack of understanding of the distinction between these different energies.
I think it’d be good for this person to revisit that talk. I mean you’re asking, “Why do you think yogis would always go to the forest, to get in touch with the Supreme One?” If you think that the Supreme resides in the forest, and not in a house and the city, that is an illusion. That’s not true at all. What is the difference between the wood in a house and the wood in a forest? It’s still the same material if you analyse it. But what you have not yet grasped, is the portion where I spoke about this other subtle energy, that permeates the material world. And it has three forms: the mode of goodness, the mode of passion and the mode of ignorance. And different types of environments affect human beings and other living beings more, in a more pronounced way in one of those forms.
So generally, city dwelling is—the effect, or influence of the mode of passion is stronger, because you’re surrounded by people who are expressing all kinds of desires to engage in material life, and to seek enjoyment. The sages went off to the forest to avoid people, not because the forest is inherently spiritual, but they did not want to be exposed to things which are greatly distracting. It is a wrong notion for you to think they went to the forest because the forest is more spiritual. No, God is equally present everywhere. He’s equally present in a brothel, as He is—or a pub, as He is in the forest. That is a fact. But one place is far more conducive to be able to meditate upon Him, and to be more focused in meditation.
So this sort of brings us to the other subject that’s connected to this, the idea of energies and the energetic. In Sanskrit energy is called shakti, and the source of energy, or the one that is generating or producing energy, is called shaktiman. So God is known as the Shaktiman, and His principal energies, or shakti, they manifest initially in a form that is called the swarupa shakti, which means the energy of that Personality of Godhead. This energy is then manifest in three categories. So all of these multifarious—and there are limitless energies, and they’re all addressed and spoken of in the Vedas— are manifest in three principle categories.
The first is known as the cit shakti, or it can also sometimes be referred to as the antaranga shakti. In English we would refer to this as the internal energy. The internal energy is the spiritual realm or the spiritual dimension.
Then the second extension or category of energy is known as the jiva shakti, or sometimes referred to as the tatastha shakti, or the marginal energy. These are all the living beings who are energies, yes, of the Supreme Lord, and they are different from the cit shakti.
The third energy that is manifest is called the maya shakti, or sometimes it is referred to as the bahiranga shakti, or it’s also called the external energy. So this is the material manifestation.
And so you have three uniquely different energies. They are all arising from the source, the Shaktiman, but they are different in character, they have completely different characteristics, and they serve completely different purposes.
The original manifestation, the source energy, called the swarupa shakti,
“…the inherent qualities of the of the swarupa shakti are fully manifest in the cit shakti, or the internal energy. The inherent qualities are minutely present in the jiva shakti, and they are perversely reflected in the maya shakti.”
So this is a really extraordinary idea. The material manifestation, while it is the energy of the Lord, it is considered a perverted reflection of another spiritual reality. It manifests characteristics and qualities that are opposite to what are inherently spiritual. For example, the material energy has the nature of being temporary and constantly changing, whereas that which is spiritual, both the other two energies, the spiritual energies, are eternal and unchanging. So we see the material energy is exactly the opposite.
And if we analyze it on a deeper level, as the great sages have done, it’s quite astonishing to see how these different characteristics are pervertedly reflected. I mean the idea of perverted reflection is very interesting. It’s like when you stand in front of a mirror. If I had a mole or a pimple on my right cheek, then I look in the mirror, that mole or pimple would now be on my left cheek. It would be complete opposite. So this is what is meant by a perverted reflection. The material reality, which is a temporary and changing reality, is considered a perverted reflection of another spiritual reality.
Then there was a—somebody made a response to that initial thing that was written by that person, the comment, and their response to that was,
“The appearance changes but not the essence. This is advaita, which means it is all one transcendental manifestation of Krishna.”
And again I have to completely disagree. Where do you have this idea? Where did you get it from? I know the origins of the advaita philosophy, advaita vedanta. It was a philosophy that was proposed in the 7th century by an extraordinary personality. His name was Adisankara or Sankaracharya, who put forward this idea, which was taking a Buddhistic idea, and presenting it as if it was a Vedic idea. But what he presented is actually not fully aligned with the ancient Vedic teachings.
You are proposing that the material energy is spiritual, because it’s all one. Sankaracharya who presented the advaita philosophy, doesn’t agree with that idea. Even he disagrees with you. The person that you’re quoting, as being where the idea comes from, he disagrees with you. The problem is when we—you know they have a saying, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” It’s like when you catch a little bit of something, an idea, and it’s actually not properly understood, or not fully understood, and then it becomes a gross misrepresentation of what was being put forward. So Sankaracharya does not agree that the material energy is one in all respects with Krishna. He says it is not. It is actually non-existent.
The Vedas do not teach that. They say that, yes, it is one of Krishna’s energy. It is yes, one with Him, since it is part of Him. But it is not a full manifestation. It is like a perverted reflection of another spiritual reality.
These ideas may be a little difficult to comprehend, and may take some time to understand.
So you use this word advaita, and non-dual. The word advaita; the root is dvaita, which means dual. And when you put a in front it means non-dual; advaita. This word was used by Sankaracharya one way, but was used in the Vedas in a completely different way. They did not have the same understanding.
The term duality, if we look at this word dual or duality, it’s used in two primary ways in the Vedas. One is that it is a characteristic of the material world. Everything in the material world exists as a duality. You cannot have heat without cold, happiness and distress. Everything exists as part of a duality. That is the characteristic and nature of the material world. And so in the Vedas when they spoke about non-dual, they meant non-material. It is not something that is originating from the material world. So that which is spiritual is referred to as advaita, but when they use that term, they mean that it is non-material. It’s not part of the duality that is a characteristic of the material energy.
The other way that it is used—there were some very ancient great saintly spiritual personalities, great yogis, massive thinkers, who proposed the use of the term duality, to explain the difference between the soul and the Supreme Soul; the atma and the param atma, the difference between brahman and Parabrahman, that there was this simultaneous oneness yet difference. The living being, because it is a spark of God, it has many of God’s qualities and characteristics, but because of the infinitesimal size, the qualities are likewise infinitesimal, very tiny, very small. And so this reference to dvaita was connected to this appreciation of these transcendental differences.
We also have, like the Vedas, they speak that the highest truth, or God, or the Parabrahman, has three aspects, simultaneously has three aspects, or three different manifestations, or three ways in which God realization can be experienced. So these three features were called Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. So in the Bhagavata Purana there is this verse, and I’ll put it up here:
“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.”
And I’d bring your attention to the highlighted word, advayam. So this is the root, advaita, adva. Adva is the root. And it is describing three distinctly different things that are simultaneously one thing, that there is no duality here, that it is one transcendental truth or reality.
In the material conception this does not work. You can’t—things cannot be different and the same, at the same time, generally speaking. And so the idea that’s often used in the advaita philosophy, is fundamentally a material idea, because it is not embracing the Vedic teaching, or truth of the inconceivable simultaneous oneness, and yet difference. This is known as acintya bhedabheda tattva.
So then after, I think a second response was made to this person. They reiterated,
“Aham brahmasmi. Krishna says ‘Who can deny, all one, no duality. The highest realization of truth.”
Well, you know, we have done—dealt with it. Firstly, it wasn’t Krishna who said “aham brahmasmi.” It is a Vedic aphorism that is found in the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad in the 1st pada, the 4th chapter, the 10th sloka, where it says this “aham brahmasmi,” that, “I am brahman,” or “I am spirit” is often how it is translated.
The problem is, if we try to say that this is proof of no duality, then why are they saying, “I am. I am Brahman.” If you and I don’t exist as individuals, we are all one, then how can I say, “I am”? Because as soon as I say that, I am making myself distinct and different from you, and from Krishna, and from others. And so you’re quoting a Vedic aphorism without understanding what the Sanskrit is actually saying. If the meaning is that we are all brahman, they would not say “I am Brahman.”
The sense of self actually exists in the liberated stage of self-realization. This self of “I am” is the ego, in English, what they would use. But when the sense of “I am” is applied to the false body, that is the false ego. When the sense of self is applied to reality, that is the real ego. This is actually a really big subject.
But what has been stated here in this Upanisadic verse, is that I, the jiva soul, am of the same nature as Brahman. There’s a difference between that, a vast difference, than saying “I am Brahman,” although that is often the way things are presented. More accurately it is, I am of the same nature as Brahman. And it definitely doesn’t point to any oneness, if I am going to say “I am.” If that concept of “I” and being “I am whatever,” is entirely false, then how can you say that “I am Brahman,” because Brahman is unfalse, but the “I am” is false. So “I am Brahman” is kind of saying Brahman is false. It’s just not logical.
So this is—means there is not a good understanding.
The distinction between our identities, our own individual identities, and the identity of the Supreme Soul is confirmed repeatedly in the Vedas.
“nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam”
…which means the Supreme Lord is the one supreme eternal entity amongst all eternal entities, and the fundamental conscious being amongst all conscious beings. So this is from the Katha Upanisad. These are—and is also found in the Svetasvatara or the Mundaka Upanisad.
So there is so many misunderstandings. The world is filled with teachers and books, who are presenting snippets of impersonal philosophy promoted by Sankaracharya, but it’s been wildly distorted and misrepresented from what was originally propounded, and the ideas do not hold up to validation against the Vedic teachings, nor to real logic.
I will just read another thing here because it’s from the writings of Srila BhaktivinodeThakur, who compiled many transcendental writings in the 18th—in the 1800s, the 19th century. And one of his works he did in a narrative form, where he took so many Vedic teachings, and presented them in the way that common people can more easily understand, and he had in this portion two characters; Vrajanatha, and then he was speaking with a great saintly personality Raghunath das Babaji.
So Vrajanath says,
“One of my teachers taught me that a spiritual fragment of Brahman, the Supreme, became engulfed by maya, and was thus transformed into the jiva.”
So this is the proposition that Sankaracharya put forward, that you have this undifferentiated ocean of spiritual energy known as Brahman, and somehow or rather, and it’s unexplained how it happens, but a portion of it kind of breaks away, and falls under the influence of another energy, an illusory energy called maya. And because of the influence of this maya, that fragmented part of Brahman takes on an individual identity; and this is all illusion.
One of the problems with the teachings of Sankaracharya, while he talks about maya, he does not say where maya has come from, whether it is a product of Brahman, which it cannot be, because it’s, after all, illusion, and not spiritual truth. So it’s like where did that one come from?
But continuing to read.
“He gave the example of the sky, which is the borderless ether, until it is captured within a boundary, for example, the portion of the sky enclosed within a pot. Similarly, he said, ‘The jiva is by nature Brahman, but when his Brahman nature is covered by maya, Brahman then becomes the jiva.’ What is the correct understanding of this?”
So he’s proposing, and the example is given, and this is often used, even by Sankaracharya, when you look in the vastness of the sky, there is no borders to it, there’s no definition to it. But if I take a pot and I cover it, part of the sky that’s manifesting everywhere is now trapped in this, and there is this border. And if I open it, break it, the sky now merges back into the ether, the sky. And this is what they try to use to explain this idea of oneness, of absolute oneness.
So Raghunath das Babaji responds.
“This is simply the mayavadi view.”
So this word mayavadi is—maya means the illusory energy, vada is a philosophy, and a person who follows that philosophy there is a vadi; so the philosophy of maya. Maya is the one creating the individual existence.
“How can the maya-shakti [this maya energy] even touch Brahman, who is fully transcendental?”
Whoa, that’s a serious question. How can something inferior cover and contain something superior?
“Further if one believes that Brahmana is latent, unmanifest energy without shakti, then how can the maya shakti even exist to approach Brahman?”
So this is one of the philosophical points of Sankaracharya, in this idea of advaita, or oneness, that the Brahman has no shakti; it is simply latent. There is no shakti there. So if it has no shakti, how can it manifest maya shakti? And if it hasn’t manifest it then where has it come from? Because the only reality is meant to be Brahman, in their philosophy.
“Furthermore, how may maya be assertive, when she has no independent potency and will? Brahman can never be deluded by maya’s shroud of illusion. In addition, if one admits that Brahman is endowed with cit shakti, how then can the maya shakti, an insignificant shakti compared to brahman and cit shakti, how can it defeat the cit shakti and create the jiva out of Brahman?”
So it’s just incomplete. It’s illogical; if you can follow that train of thinking.
“Brahman is immeasurable and indivisible. How then can Brahman be fragmented, and fill up pots like some mundane material like gas? It is a totally unacceptable conclusion, to say that maya can influence Brahman. Maya is completely uninvolved in the process of creation of the jiva soul. In spite of the minuscule size of the jiva, he is of the nature superior to maya.”
So that’s probably a bit much for a lot of people. It’s a pretty profound spiritual point.
Like I say—I mean, if somebody really wants to ask a serious question, or even debate, seriously debate a point, you’re going to have to dig a little bit deeper than just some idea that’s been pulled off the internet, or from some book that some swami or so-called yogi, or whatever, has thrown out there as being the truth. We have to be a little bit more serious than that.
Trying to hammer home a point: This person has said,
“The Panca Tattva has Advaita Acharya in your disciplic line. So you disagree with Advaita from Parampara?”
Just like, I didn’t know how to respond to that, because it’s so nonsensical. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to offend you but please if you—I have been a practitioner and studied this philosophy for over 50 years, and for you to sort of like, just in an abstract way pull some little thing, that you think you understand—I mean if you had ever read any of the teachings of Advaita Acharya, you would know that his name Advaita doesn’t mean this monistic idea of—the monism idea of everything is one under the sun, but it speaks to the spiritual oneness and the harmony of the Supreme Lord and his manifestation of different incarnations, how they are non-different. And Advaita Acharya himself, in a most strong manner, preached against, and debated, and taught against this monistic philosophy. And just because his name is Advaita, and you are taking that to mean oneness in the way Sankaracharya is pointing out, that because he is in my lineage I should agree with your interpretation? And it’s just like, it’s not the way to understand.
So for the person that put forward the question, I really don’t want in any way, to cause you pain or embarrassment, or anything like that. And please do not take offense at my words. You, I deeply care about. And because I care about you, I need to address the erroneous conclusions, that you have taken on board, that in some places are not even in a line with what Sankaracharya taught. Like the idea that the material energy is spiritual. It’s all spiritual. No, Sankaracharya was strongly against that idea. You would be—
So we need to go a little bit deeper with things. We are not all one, and yet we are one. We are one spiritual energy, but we are eternally distinct individuals. Nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam, that the eternal conscious beings are eternally, eternal conscious beings. There are different grades and types of energies of the Lord. There are those three principal categories, which I mentioned, that have different characteristics, and should not be only considered as one. There is a oneness but there is also simultaneous significant distinctions.
So, for the average folk that might have been a little bit, a bit of a nosebleed going on here. (laugh) It’s like, “What the hell?” (laugh) Aah! I tell you, even though we generally present things in a hopefully, somewhat simple way, the depth, and the profoundness of the Vedic teachings are absolutely extraordinary. But I will leave it with that.
And having dealt with this issue I think in the next week, I’ve been wanting for some time to talk a little bit about the idea of leaving comments, this whole thing with social media, and how that device is corrupting people mentally, and spiritually; and how that is happening; and how we are even oblivious to the effect and influence of all this manipulation. It’s just through something as simple as, “Please leave a comment below. We really want to hear from you.” What a liar. They don’t want to hear from you. And then the effect that it has on everybody when they start leaving comments and reading other people’s comments. It’s all designed to destroy people’s discrimination and intelligence, reduce us to just reactive animals, not dignified human beings.
Anyway, we’ll deal with that next week.
Thank you very, very much, and we’ll chant. I think I will chant the maha mantra.
So thank you very much for joining us. And if the person that made the comments slash questions which I attempted to address, if you want to go deeper into things please do reach out, and I am extremely willing to share with you the great wonders of the Vedic teachings.
So for everyone, thank you so much for allowing me to spend time with you, and we will see you all again next week. Haribol.