Ask Swami with Swami Sarvapriyananda | May 5th, 2019
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 тра 2019
- Questions for future talks can be sent to: askswami@vedantany.org
Q&A session lead by Swami Sarvapriyananda as part of a spiritual retreat at the Vedanta Society of New York on May 5th, 2019.
► To support Vedanta Society of New York: bit.ly/SupportVedantaNY
List of Questions with Timestamps:
0:36 - Difference between the ego and the witness. Is consciousness a creation of the brain.
24:34 - Difference between the views that the universe never existed vs the universe is brahman. If we are one consciousness, why do we react differently in different circumstances.
39:18 - If I do not “exist”, how do I approach the demands of the world.
47:18 - How is it possible to attain God while living in the world? How do I choose a guru? Is enlightenment possible without mantra diksha?
56:47 - Distinguishing between vairagya (dispassion) and tamas (darkness). How to practice non-injury but still protect ourself?
1:08:20 - Are your tendencies from past life part of a bigger purpose in the universe?
1:19:40 - What is Advaita Vedanta’s standpoint on karmic liability that leads to rebirth?
1:27:05 - Difference between Jnanindriyan and Buddhindriyan.
1:32:00 - Do Sat, Chit, and Ananda refer to the same thing?
Web: vedantany.org
Soundcloud: / vedantany
iTunes Podcast: bit.ly/vedanta-talks-itunes
Google Play: bit.ly/vedanta-talks-google-play
ABOUT VEDANTA
Vedanta is one of the world’s most ancient religious philosophies and one of its broadest. Based on the Vedas, the sacred scriptures of India, Vedanta affirms the oneness of existence, the divinity of the soul, and the harmony of religions.
ABOUT US
Vedanta Society of New York is affiliated with the Ramakrishna Order of India. In fact, this is the Order's first Center started by Swami Vivekananda, in 1894. It was a historic event, for the seed of the world-wide Ramakrishna Movement was sown here in New York over a century ago. Swami Sarvapriyananda is the present Resident Minister and Spiritual Leader of the Vedanta Society of New York.
List of Questions with Timestamps:
0:36 - Difference between the ego and the witness. Is consciousness a creation of the brain.
24:34 - Difference between the views that the universe never existed vs the universe is brahman. If we are one consciousness, why do we react differently in different circumstances.
39:18 - If I do not “exist”, how do I approach the demands of the world.
47:18 - How is it possible to attain God while living in the world? How do I choose a guru? Is enlightenment possible without mantra diksha?
56:47 - Distinguishing between vairagya (dispassion) and tamas (darkness). How to practice non-injury but still protect ourself?
1:08:20 - Are your tendencies from past life part of a bigger purpose in the universe?
1:19:40 - What is Advaita Vedanta’s standpoint on karmic liability that leads to rebirth?
1:27:05 - Difference between Jnanindriyan and Buddhindriyan.
1:32:00 - Do Sat, Chit, and Ananda refer to the same thing?
Gratitude. Thanks.🙏.
what happens to the consciousness when the body dies?????
@@NeidhardtMatthias only physical body dies
1111112 âq1
You say there is one pure consciousness. Rest are reflected consciousness it means it is not real then how subtle body and causes body remain immortal. It is also said
Swami is one of the great men of our time. I'm a Christian, but I truly
love this man's teaching. May the LORD bless and keep him and the WISDOM of Vedanta..!
Bro Hinduism is for all 😊🕉️
Crystal Clear Answers --- without even a trace of confusion! And what a delight to listen to Swami Sarwapriyananda!
right
this guy is brilliant. love his synthesis of eastern and western philosophy/thought
Swami, please increase your frequency in Public. We need you here. I feel to be with You throughout my small life. And if you create a Facebook page, we could interact with You more often. It's said that Guru will find his True disciple. But it's like I have found You. Namaskaram Guru 🙏 🙏🙏 We need your presence more on online platforms .
It's truly wonderful to listen to Sarvapriyanand ji and the clarity and wisdom with which the answers are put is so inspiring!
We bow down at the lotus feet of SwamiJi !
🙏🙏🙏...
The realization that all existence is an appearance in our consciousness brings eternal peace Sat Chit Ananda
it's so great and wonderful to have access to Swami's teachings on internet. Thank You Swami
Swamiji’s each word is gold
Pranams Swamiji ❤
Wonderful explanation about Advaita Vedanta 🙏🙏
I bow to your feet Swamiji 🙏🙏
This is a eye opener lecture👏👏
This was EXCEPTIONAL!!! Im so very appreciative for this! information! Thank you to everyone involved with this video. Thank you, Swami.
Outstanding, thank you, Swamiji. (Regarding the question near the end, I feel so much better since I stopped believing in Reincarnation. Yes, Vasanas may migrate from body to body, but there is no individual associated with those Vasanas, because there are no individuals - there is only Brahman. Full stop.)
The answers both morally and spiritually enlighten me.
Jay Thakur Jay Maa Jay Swamiji.
Another precious talk to uplift us spiritually. Thank you VNY. Pranam Maharaj.
Nothing could be more clearer..Thankyou Swamiji for all that you are..
Swamiji is the Oasis to a thirsty mind... 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Pranam swami ji
Very profound wisdom. Thankyou Swami Ji ❤
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti!
Pranam swamiji 🙏
Pranam Swamiji.. Thank you so much for making this available to anybody who wants
Thanks Radhika you have asked a wonderful question I think most of the seekers with worldly and family duties had this question in mind and the answer given by Swamiji was just I was looking out for
Superb! This should.in letters as a extra reader in all schools and also available as audio. Thank you Swamiji, for existing, being and bliss-spreading! Sri Ramkrishnaya Namath!
Thank you Radhika for asking this question!!!
हरिःऊँ, प्रणाम, स्वामीजी.धन्यवाद.you always give clarity.pl.guide me always on my spiritual path.Eager for ur DARSHAN.Radhika, u asked my Q.thank u u too
My Goodness what a straight Break through for Spiritual Problems
King of Discernment and Logic.
Brahman manifest
Most insightful absorbing and interesting session. Thank you so much for making it easy to understand and also with determination reach the goal. Most of the doubts cleared.Thank you so much Swamiji. Truly Blessed to listen to your answers.
Namaskaram Guru 🙏 🙏🙏 🙏🙏 🙏
So much of wisdom
Awesom!
Pranams Swamiji.immence gratitude for your explanations.🙏
Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna Jai Sri Ramakrishna
This is an exact copy video or a repeat of a previous question and answer session! But I am grateful for the brilliant answers offered by Swamiji. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much
amazing Swami
That thou art swami
Music to my ears... 🎼🎶🎸
pranam maharaj
🕉🕉🕉👌🏽👍🏽🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾fucking brilliant
Everything is Sri Ramakrishna.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Consciousness is a fridge🙏
🙏🏻🙏🏻
🙏
Swamiji previously in one of your videos you mentioned about a fact that anything that can influence matter has to be matter by itself. Then how come consciousness not being matter illumines the experience(which is basically brain activity)?
Swamiji,
How do little insects form inside sealed bags of food grains/ flour (suji, moong dhal etc). How is life generated from matter? Thank you.
Swami, you are a blessing! Thank you!🙏
Swami, please visit us in the Netherlands :-)
Swamiji’s lecture on “gospel of shri Ramakrisha”, can please please please upload 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Pranam swamiji, How did non-matter become entangled in matter? Is that maya? which seems like non-matter is entangled in matter but it never really is but it only appears to be?
Those asking questions should be concise and to the point. There seems to be too much "background noise" , from those in the audience asking Swami a question.
Swamiji Pranam!
Mind is thinking or thinking itself is mind?
Pl explain.
Swami, you often use the analogy of the clay pot. A clay pot is really just clay, but clay can be reduced to the five elements. The elements can be reduced to the three gunas. The gunas are only prakrti, and prakrti is only the Mahashakti/Adishakti. My question is: are Shiva (consciousness) and Shakti different in the sense that Shakti is an appearance within Shiva, or are the two actually one and the same thing, meaning that the two exist as one?
YogiLonnie
There is no two. Only one and one alone. Milk and its whiteness, water and its wetness, it is one not two. The One that is, when we think of That as attributeless (what we call as Shiva) and it’s unlimited power or all potential possibilities (what we understand as Shakti) to manifest all these appearances are not two but the one alone. Shiva and Shakti do not exist apart from each other. It is That One alone. In That, because of its own power appears “I” and I’s world. It’s the same Self in which and by which appears Yogilonnie, Lonnie’s question, this answerer, the answer. It appears as the confusion and the cessation of all confusion.
🙏🏽🌺
Please make video on Avadhut Gita
Dear Guruji i want to ask if Consciousness includes belief in God's and if latter is mandatory or it can exist without belief in God!
Is there any video available of talk 'Vivad' between Swami Sarvapriyananda ji and any Swami ji from ISKCON ?
Consciousness other wise conscioness of self existence never arise from any other matter than consciousness just like a wave of water in the ocean never arise from sands likewise our self or consciousness of self existence never arise from the material things like body and mind
Since Atman and Brahmn are universal and absolute, are conscious alien beings also Atman and Brahmn?
Thanks for the answer.
Dear Vedanta NY,
There is a question in my mind. Please tell me how to ask it to Swami Sarvpriyananda. Is there any email Id which Swami himself accesses personally?
You may please email your questions to AskSwami@vedantany.org to be included in a future session. Namaste .
Worthy 🕉 Jehovah God bless you Jesus with all liveing creachers lion young bull face of a man and eagl worthy of worship 🕉
Pranam Maharaj Ji, I was a RK mission student for 10 years. By the grace of Thakur, Holy Maa, Swamiji's Devine words and Advaita Vedanta for many years I understand only pure consciousness exists and that's the reality for everybody. I also know time and space only exists in a waking/dreaming world but one question continuously troubles me and that is why this existence? if I am one with God then who created GOD and how this entire process started ??? I know pure consciousness I not affected by time but still whats the purpose of this creation?? this long evolution process billions of living and non-living things etc. why all this??? sometimes this question troubles me so much that it feels I want to get this answer right here and right now otherwise this will continuously effect me. can you please clear my doubt? Pranam Maharaj Ji
I had heard swamiji talk about a similar question as yours. I am paraphrasing what he said. You asked why creation? Essentially what you are asking is - why causation?? Everything has a cause. This creation has a cause and you want to know why this cause? Now examine the question "Why causation?" If you examine, you will notice that you expect an answer such as "BECAUSE so and so". You want the answer in causation!. In asking the question "why causation" you are already assuming there is no alternative to causation. So this question cannot be asked in the first place. Contemplate on it, and I hope it will start to make sense to you.
@@snehap2235 Hi, I have asked the question why but maybe I did not expect any reason for creation. The only question which bothers is what's the purpose? why this purpose /creator is stated in a different way in different religions.like in Hinduism its god Bharmba, in Islam Alla is the creator. Also, it leads to another question when anybody is enlightened then he has realized the truth that this world is false and that realization is same for all and still there are a difference of opinions between different enlightened persons if they belong to a different religion. why??
maybe pure consciousness manifested here (on earth ) will change things here.maybe our actual relationship to matter will be understood or known differently than we in general now experience it. kind regards
Refer to his video , called maya. It is discussed in detail.
@@richa4i01 Already seen that video but here question is different
Universe is present only when there is mind. In absence of mind there is no universe. Hence it is an object and not Brahman
That's step#1 of AV. In step#2 the object i.e. the universe exists, but is just an appearance, an appearance of Brahman. So, everything is brahman.
According to my Master GOD is the real Guru and the Guru will guide you to GOD.
GOD has no mind so a Guru is sent to help us to realise GOD
Pranam swamiji,If bliss is Brahman then are non living matter non Brahman, so is there something other than Brahman also? Thanks
Brahman is just a word for universal consciousness. Nisargadatta maharaj said what we call matter is consciousness itself.
what happens to the consciousness when the body dies?????
nothing, why?
Swami ji dhog. is ness is in me and you but I am not saying to swami ji
30
Natural study if geography and space
Detect and break spy satellite radiation pollution system around our earth never keep its dangerous in future life
Develop radiation pollution tracker app.
God bless hari
Turiya...
Can a dead body have consciousness?
Body doesn't have conciousness you/me self is pure conciousnes. Conciousness or not, everything is Brahman.
Is breath concsiousness? Is breath Brahman or the self
He has a lecture on panchkosha, there he talks about "prana" aka life force or can be experienced as breathing. You're not that too. You're even subtler, subtler than the mind, intellect, subtler than the ego too.
Atman is translated breath, thats why i Believe that breath is the self. The self has to be in our perception. The self isnt far away
@@sdma4775 Breath is loosely translated as "Pranah" rather than Atman. Atman is the witness consciousness. It witnesses the waking state, it witnesses the dreams, it witnesses the blankness of deep sleep as well.
only mind and body need breath....
Nevermind inner subjectivity or consciousness: Why should the problem of "what it is like to be" something be a problem only for consciousness? Presume that there was an ant with no consciousness. Or presume there was a philosophical zombie human, who was pregnant. Or presume there was a piece of metal.
A scientist can objectively study the abilities of the ant, or study details of pregnancy, or study the propensities of the metal for being attracted to magnets. And the scientist can ask, "What would it be like for me to be that?" Not implying there is an inner dimension, or subjectivity, or a consciousness, to those things. Just that the scientist recognizes there are some things in the world which are distinct from him and which he is not.
The scientist doesn't have the abilities or drives of the ant. The scientist doesn't have the ability to become pregnant. The scientist isn't likewise attracted to magnets as the piece of metal is.
There is a term "haecceity" from medieval scholastic philosophy. From Wikipedia: "the discrete qualities, properties or characteristics of a thing that make it a particular thing. Haecceity is a person's or object's thisness, the individualizing difference between the concept "a man" and the concept "Socrates" (i.e., a specific person)."
So even if we presume that all humans are philosophical zombies, the "problem of haecceity" would remain. Even though there is Diogenes and Socrates, who can externally, objectively be recognized as Diogenes or Socrates, a Socrates can ask, "What is it like to be a Diogenes?" And a Diogenes can ask, "What is it like to be a Diogenes?" And a typewriter can ask, "What is it to be a spoon?" And a spoon can ask, "What is it to be a typewriter?"
It is not that there is any subjectivity or inner world or consciousness to the zombie Socrates and the zombie Diogenes, or the spoon and the typewriter. It is that a thing is only itself and cannot possess the property of being a different particular thing. So it can neither "know" intellectually what it is to be a different thing, but it also cannot intrinsically "know" what it is to be a different thing, as if knowledge of a property just came along for free by having that property. So, a spoon "knows" what it is to be a spoon, and not a type writer, and furthermore it only "knows" what it is to be this spoon, and no other.
Of course, all of these things can be studied objectively: the zombie Diogenes and the zombie Socrates, and the spoon and the typewriter. But for even non-zombie humans, who have consciousness, this could be studied objectively. We can ask, what in their brain constitutes their consciousness, and since that phenomena has its own haecceity, anyone can ask, what is it like to have THAT consciousness rather than my own? Similarly, anyone can ask, what is it like to have THAT liver rather than my own, as this is presumably not something that can be "intrinsically known" by virtue of you not yet possessing that liver.
The problem of consciousness should be to investigate how neurons and neurochemicals and brain phenomena give rise to what we call feelings. How the physical can lead to the non-physical. Like how a physical computer can lead to the "non-physical" Minimize and Maximize and Close buttons. The problem of consciousness shouldn't refer to the difficulty of one being being unable to know what it is like to be another being. This is the problem of haecceity more generally. Similarly, the Minimize button can never "know" what it is to be a Maximize button. This isn't because of the Minimize button's lack of intellect, or because of the difficulty of reducing the "non-physical" Maximize button to the physical computer, or because the Maximize button has some rich inner life and subjectivity called consciousness. It is because of the problem of haecceity. That something cannot intrinsically "know" what it is like to be another thing, because it necessarily lacks that other thing's haecceity property.
I wonder if the sanskrit term for haecceity is lakṣaṇa (लक्षणा). You might be entertained by the discussion on adhyāsa (अध्यास) in the Brahma Sutras.
The consciousness you're referring to and what he refers to is different. You're talking atmost about the ego, or mind. He talks about "existence", which is the essense of metal, zombie human, spoon or socrates. "What's it like to be" is the tool through which we can realize the absolute.
If I understood your comment correctly, I don't think the question of "what is it like to be xxx" is to be understood in the literal sense. Yet it attempts to offer a simple way for anyone to grasp how "hard" the hard problem of consciousness is. My understanding of why this question is raised is to point out the seemingly impossibility of explaining subjective consciousness (or qualia, or phenomenal experience) using objective concepts.
Patanchali wrote that the inner dweller, becomes a vritti, at times.......this must be the: FLOW-state of mind.
(1.4. Otherwise he is of the same form as the thought-streams)
You can claim that no engineer in the world would say their machines possess consciousness or awareness, but I bet you that some roboticists honestly do believe their robots possess such things, but they are humble enough not to claim so because they consider their field to be "robotics" and not "philosophy of mind."
How offensive it is for you to suggest that machines cannot suffer! To think that there are or could be machines which suffer to a much greater magnitude than any human could, and you would just deny their suffering because they don't look like you!
For you to even think that other humans suffer is to take a position on "the problem of other minds" and against "solipsism", which contradicts your attitude here that only that which is objective cannot possess suffering. If suffering is in the mind, and the mind is objective (as opposed to the consciousness, in Advaita), then you are no more justified in assuming other people suffer than you are in assuming that robots can't suffer. Your bias toward living things is showing because you're a living thing, and because your worldview is shaped by ancient religion rather than modern science.
Pardon me for not being impressed that Ed Witten is puzzled by consciousness, as he is not a philosopher of mind, but instead is a physicist. Likewise, Michio Kaku's understanding of free will based upon quantum nondeterminism is sophomoric. Likewise, Richard Dawkins' old view, (before being changed by Sam Harris), that "morality" wasn't a real objective phenomenon in the Darwinian world, was sophomoric. And the answer here is the same in all three cases: because these men are scientists, not philosophers, talking outside of their field, about that which they know nothing about. If I had a nickel for every time a scientist sounded like an idiot regarding philosophical matters, I would be rich, from Lawrence Krauss alone.
You go on and on about David Chalmers, as if he were the only philosopher of mind in existence, but you never say a word about all the other philosophers of mind who vehemently disagree with him. You are making what is tantamount to an appeal to authority. Ed Witten said this and David Chalmers said that, so I'm going to quote them because it reinforces my ancient views! (Without a peep about their substantive opposition!) This is not a fair presentation of all the material! Maybe you should stop researching those that support your view, and start trying to better understand those who oppose your view!
You are right (enough) to answer the question of why different people react differently if we have the same consciousness, by saying that we have different minds. But what is implicit in the question is that consciousness or "the conscious mind" is what's responsible for behavior! But sometimes our bodies behave and our consciousness catches up later, as is in the case of reacting to catch a ball. You do not first consciously detect the ball before catching it. Your catch the ball, and then you trick yourself into believing you were consciously aware of it coming at you before you reacted to catch it, when in actuality the conscious awareness aspect was late and secondary, but retroactively applied with a false timestamp.
You ask whether the deep sleep of different people or animals is the same or not, suggesting that because they are qualitatively the same then they are numerically identical. This is like saying that if there are two cartons of eggs each with 12 eggs in them, then really they are the same carton of eggs because they are quantitatively identical. The reality is a deep sleeper in America and a deep sleeper in India are TWO separate instances of deep sleepers, as real as the two cartons of eggs are distinct.
Your handwaving here to suggest that "you" are the consciousness, (which Advaita supposes is still there even in deep sleep), is also inaccurate. You ask, "Where did you go? Did you disappear when you fell into deep sleep?" You are implicitly assuming what is called the PERSONALITY theory of personal identity. Even if you hold that personality is of the mind, rather than pure consciousness, what is clear is you're holding first-person conscious experience to be what identifies people. But this is just ONE view of personal identity. Another, perhaps much stronger view, is called the BODY theory of personal identity. This says that you are your body, which provides a perfectly clear account of how "you" remain even through deep sleep. You'll try to foolishly handwave this away by saying that our bodies are always changing, or that our bodies are different as adults than children. This would be to ignore the sophistication of a body theory holding that the body is a dynamic and changing thing, where identity is held over time by closeness to the previous neighboring instance body. Here is a simple philosophical thought experiment which may convince many to BODY theory from PERSONALITY theory, depending on their philosophical intuitions: There is a cloning or a teleportation machine which creates a clone of "you". This clone thinks just like you, looks just like you, shares your personality, reacts similarly in similar scenarios, and so forth. But is it YOU?! Imagine your clone is being tortured, while you are not being tortured. This seems highly suggestive that this clone is NOT you, but is something very much like what you are. So you can see that your identity is dependent on the instance of your body, not on your personality or "first person subjective experience or consciousness."
I previously mentioned haecceity. Another philosophical term that may be relevant here is: "indexicals." These problems don't even require mentioning consciousness! The problem of identity is famously illustrated with "The Ship of Theseus." For the sake of argument, let's assume that ants have no consciousness, and are philosophical zombies. How are ants distinguished then? By their bodies!
You are right to say that intelligence, (or at least some forms of intelligence), do not require consciousness! But you can't go from distinguishing intelligence and consciousness to concluding that consciousness is IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE in machines! To do so is not only wrong, but it is offensive. It is denying the real consciousnesses and perhaps the real sufferings of future conscious machines which would be more conscious than you could ever hope to be with your primitive and awfully-limited meat brain! (Your meat brain, which is evolved from apes', and not designed by God.)
Your philosophy is so incoherent! If "being" is all that there is, and "being" is synonymous with "bliss", then there should be no room for suffering at all! That is offensive, to dismiss real suffering as mere Maya, but when you get confronted you sophistically say, "Oh, Maya is real too as an expression of the power of Brahman," or some such nonsense. Furthermore, if suffering is permissible to be found in minds as opposed to consciousnesses, and minds are objects according to Advaita, then you should similarly allow that robot minds can possess suffering, since Consciousness being identical with Brahman (being vast) is supposed to suffuse and infuse every part of reality! So consciousness is IN metal the same as it is in all living creatures and in all inanimate matter in the universe, according to YOUR view which YOU espouse! You can't consistently claim that consciousness is everywhere, but that it is not in the metal which composes the object minds found in robots!
It is also ridiculous to think that consciousness is in rocks, or whatever, because that's simply against all linguistic use of the word consciousness.
You also put forth a sophomoric and WRONG view of ontology, where only the substance or matter of a thing is real, but its form is not. Famously, that the "clay" is what is real, and the "pot" is imaginary. Who are you to give higher priority to substance over form? Let economy decide. The ontology you espouse is tantamount to claiming: There is no such thing as software, only hardware. And you justify this by asking someone to try to provide you the software apart from being on hardware. Well, hate to break it to you Swami, but you pay separately for the software and hardware. And also, there are experts in different fields: computer engineers produce hardware, and computer programmers produce software. Ontologically, software is different than hardware. Software is comprised of instructions of inputs and outputs, whereas hardware is comprised of configurations of metal or whatever. As it can reasonably been seen that software and hardware have distinct existences, so too should we give credence to the existence to the "form" of a pot, even if it cannot be realized without a substrate.
Similar to what I said above, if I had a nickel for every time you inadequately presented philosophical material, I would be rich. The difference between you and Lawrence Krauss, though, is that Krauss's mistakes can be excused due to ignorance because philosophy is not his field; whereas you ought not make so many elementary mistakes or so inadequately present opposing views, as you are too familiar with philosophy to do that. Since I can clearly tell that you are too educated in philosophy to do such a dismal job of presenting opposing views, I can only assume that dishonesty is the reason for it as opposed to ignorance. For shame, Swami! Once again, for shame!
You go on like a broken record with all your nonsense. Perhaps you could enlighten us with a discourse on UA-cam.
sounds like u are married to a robot....how is it working out?
"But what is implicit in the question is that consciousness or "the conscious mind" is what's responsible for behavior! "
consciousness is not the consciuos mind.....
lot of things are wrong or misunderstood here.......also its advaita, not swamis personal view.....also, yes , he quoted others, u cant quote them all.......
🙏