Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati Transcript

Interview with Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati

Summary:

  • Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati is a dedicated teacher of Advaita Vedanta and a Hindu monk residing in Mumbai.
  • She is a direct disciple of Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati, having completed an intensive 3.5-year course in Vedanta and Sanskrit.
  • Swamini ji holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy and has a background as a psychologist.
  • Her work includes teaching Vedanta courses, hosting the ‘Vedanta – The River of Wisdom’ podcast, and authoring the book ‘You matter – Insights from Vedanta’.
  • She has contributed to the spiritual and social welfare of street children, positively impacting their lives.
  • Swamini ji emphasizes self-mastery and self-discovery in her teachings, aiming to enhance meaning and connection.
  • Her interview was recorded on May 21, 2024, discussing her journey and contributions to the spiritual community.

Rick: Welcome to Buddha at the Gas Pump. My name is Rick Archer. Buddha at the Gas Pump is an ongoing series of conversations with spiritually awakening people. We’ve done over 700 of them now and if this is new to you and you’d like to check out previous ones, please go to batgap.com and look under the interviews menu where you’ll see the past ones organized in several different ways. This program is made possible through the support of appreciative listeners and viewers. So, if you appreciate it and would like to help support it, there are PayPal buttons on every page of the website. What else? We have a team of volunteers who help with various things, like all of our interviews are being proofread so that we have accurate transcripts of them, both on the website and as subtitles on YouTube. So, if you’d like to help do that kind of thing, get in touch. And we have an AI chatbot these days and it is gaining greater wisdom as we feed it with useful information. In fact, we just acquired a library of 1,700 spiritual books, both well-known ones, like the Bible or the Upanishads or whatever, and also very obscure and rare, hard-to-find books. We’ll be loading all those into the data corpus of the chatbot, so that should even make it better. My guest today is Swamini Brahmarajnananda Saraswati, PhD, who mercifully refers to herself as Swamini B. She has dedicated her life to serving the Vedic tradition by teaching Advaita Vedanta. She is a Hindu monk who currently lives in Mumbai, India. She is a teacher, podcaster, writer, and creator. She offers regular Vedanta courses online, a weekly podcast, insightful videos, workshops and retreats in India and abroad. Her teachings range from the depth and breadth of self-mastery to self-discovery. She is the author of You Matter, Insights from Vedanta. Swaminiji teaches three core courses at Hindu University of America. She has a PhD in philosophy and her thesis is on the role of Ishwara in Advaita Vedanta. It will be published soon as a book. We’ll be talking about her thesis during this interview. She’s a direct disciple of Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswati, having studied Vedanta, Sanskrit and Vedic chanting at Arsha Vidya Guru Kulam in a residential intensive three-year course in Coimbatore and Rishikesh, India. She studied with Swami Brahmavidananda for about 12 years while balancing her work commitments. Her last leadership role was as the country head in India of an international organization which positively impacted the lives of 50,000 street children and she was formerly a psychologist. Okay, so your book, Swaminiji, starts with a personal story. The chapter is entitled “How Jesus Saved Me and Led Me to Vedanta”.  So let’s talk a little bit about your upbringing, your education, your background and what led you to decide to become a monk.

Swamini B: So I studied in a convent school in Mumbai and I was very inspired by the nuns, their life of service and their cheerfulness and by the way they were devoted to Jesus. So perhaps unconsciously or consciously I started to look up to them and started to read the Bible furiously, the New Testament. And although I was born as a Hindu Brahmin, my family was not particularly religious then. And I started to find some answers in the Bible because the usual, I would say preteen angst, caught me. So what’s the purpose of my life? Why am I here? Why are people the way they are, etc., etc. And so, in my preteen rebellion, I once declared to my grandfather, “Hinduism is all rubbish. I want to convert to Christianity.” And he was quite shocked. And he asked me a very sensible question. “So what do you know of Hinduism?” I said, “Oh, the rituals, they’re all rubbish. And there’s nothing meaningful there. It’s all superstition.” So then he said, “You have the right to criticize something only if you have understood it. It’s very obvious to me you haven’t understood Hinduism”, and that statement has stuck with me to this day. Of course, soon after he bombarded me with books by Swami Vivekananda and J Krishnamurti, Osho, and the works and I was probably like 11, 12 or something like that. So I read a lot, I was a voracious reader anyway, and some of it made sense and some of it did not make sense and so I thought that, you know, if I can’t figure out God then maybe I should figure out human beings and then I veered towards psychology and then I ended up doing clinical psychology. My clients were doing quite well and I got very disillusioned with modern psychology because, you know, perhaps it was arrogance, perhaps it was intelligence, I don’t know but I was doing pretty well. I could manipulate my thoughts, behavior, everything. I was a high achiever but I found that the framework of modern psychology was a pathological framework in the sense that there’s always something wrong. You know there are always core issues that need to be addressed and if everything is fine, then maybe you are in denial. You know things like that and it just made me feel like a manipulator of sorts. So around that time, you know, a lot of grace happened and I walked into a workshop by my initial guru, Swami Brahmavidanandaji, and as I got exposed to Vedanta, I just from the first class itself, I knew I was home because he did not encourage us to believe anything and I was a skeptic and relied a lot on logic and reason. He could answer each and every question of mine and then soon after I met my main guru, Swami Dayanandaji, and around then I knew that this is what I would devote my life to. Like I knew I had been there before and it just felt like home but then I had a very deep desire to serve, and especially India. So I was anyway working with street children. In fact, a lot of the lessons of life I’ve learned from them.

Rick: The street children mean they’re orphans and they’re just living on the street?

Swamini B: A lot of them are abandoned or have been neglected and yes, they’re living on the street and they were living on the railway stations.

Rick: Just begging?

Swamini B: Yeah, begging, doing some odd jobs and basically struggling with life and not wanting to return home. So a lot of work around their rehabilitation and looking for options for them and I wanted to serve that cause. So I did that for a good 15 years. Although I wanted to devote my life to Vedanta then I knew that I had to work on myself because the suffering of the kids, I could not understand it as Mithya then, and we‘ll talk about what Mithya is and all of that, and so then, you know, when I felt like okay that journey was complete. So been there, done that! and then my guru also was very keen that I continue doing the seva work so when he announced finally a course, you know an intensive course that he was doing, then of course I jumped at the opportunity and then I never looked back. And then, you know, he had his Samadhi or what we say passed away in 2015, and you know I was one of the few people to whom he gave Sannyasa to, like initiated me into monkhood before he went at least from the physical body and so I consider myself deeply blessed. So the presence of Guru and Grace and my Grandfather in the initial years, those three G’s, have played a very important role in my life and that’s really how I became a monk, which is actually dropping all roles anyway.

Rick: Great. I know that in general Hindus are very, what’s the word, ecumenical, very broad-minded, all-inclusive and you know, you’ll see altars in a Hindu home that might have pictures of Buddha and Jesus and, you know, all saints from different traditions on them. And in my own case, I mean, if it hasn’t been, it’s been a while, but if I ever encounter a religious fundamentalist, I’ll start talking astronomy with them. And I’ll say, “Do you realize that if there’s one advanced civilization, and only one in each galaxy, there are probably 2 to 10 trillion advanced civilizations, each of which have numerous religions, each of which probably think they’re the only one, or the only valid one, and you know, get into things like that. But that seems to be the mindset of at least, you know, broad-minded Hindus, and Hindus do tend to be more broad-minded in my experience than those in other religions, although of course there are fanatics in every religion. But in any case, you know, what is your, what are your reflections on what I just said, and what are your feelings about Jesus as compared with what you felt when you were in the Catholic school?

Swamini B: Yeah, see, I can look upon Jesus as a manifestation of God and I really believe that he saved me. And you know, the thing about Hinduism, particularly Vedanta, is that we can accommodate all forms and we can accommodate all manifestations because everything is sacred. But I would reject the assumption that one manifestation is more superior than the other. It just doesn’t make logical sense to me. It’s absolutely fine for all to have their valid forms of worship and all forms of worship are valid but to say one form is more superior to the other and therefore to hell with that other form or you will rot in hell. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

Rick: Yeah, you’re a psychologist. To me it seems just a manifestation of egotism, you know, that kind of a self-reinforcement or aggrandizement, you know, my way must be the best thing, otherwise why would I be doing it? So, and if mine is the best thing, then everybody else’s is lesser than mine, that kind of attitude, which is not a God’s eye view of things, in my opinion.

Swamini B: Yeah, that’s it.

Rick: Yeah, so Vedanta. I mean, a lot of people these days have heard of Vedanta, who wouldn’t have heard of it 50, 60 years ago, largely through the influence of Ramana Maharshi. But then, of course, Vivekananda came to the US in 1895, I believe it was, and there was the, and began establishing centers around the country. But I think a lot of people’s understanding of Vedanta is influenced by what is now called Neo-Advaita. And Advaita Vedanta, of course, is a flavor of Vedanta. And Neo-Advaita, if you go to one of their lectures, you might hear things like, “Oh, you’re already enlightened. You don’t need to do practices. Practices will only reinforce the sense of a practicer, and there actually is no practicer because you don’t exist, and the world is an illusion, and you don’t need a teacher, and yada, yada, yada.” So I think that contrasts quite extremely with your orientation and other Advaita Vedanta teachers that I admire, like Swami Sarvapriyananda. So what would you like to say on that topic?

Swamini B: Yes I think you know people who got into the Neo-Advaita space, they are all well-meaning people, you know, and I respect them for their desire to know and wanting to do something about it. But the way in which it has grown as a movement is so against the traditional approach and it’s even against Ramana Maharshi’s approach. Like, of course, you know, they will cite, Ramana Maharshi didn’t have a guru, therefore I don’t need a guru, but they don’t account for his punya karma, you know, over lifetimes.

Rick: Explain that term.

Swamini B:  Punya karma as in, so we believe that all that I’m experiencing in this life is a result of my karma, both in this lifetime as well as previous lifetimes. So, we understand that there are, there have been many many births before this. So, Ramana not having a guru but then looking upon Arunachala the mountain and also meditating for 12 years. With the same neo-Advaitins, ask them if they would be willing to meditate in a cave for 12 years. You know, so it’s like you want the fruits but you don’t want to put in the practice related to it and Ramana was very prayerful. He recognized the presence of God very much and in fact his works, you know Upadesha Saram, not so much Sat Darshanam but Upadesha Saram definitely talks about worship to God as worship and seva to the entire world, like serving the entire world but Neo Advaita doesn’t emphasize that at all! And you know the fundamental statement of Vedanta, that is Tat tvam asi, you know, the shortest statement but holding such deep meaning ‘That you are’ so pointing to God and then, all the meaning that it reveals. Well that statement is referring to God because ‘That’ as a pronoun referring to something that is perceived as remote and so it’s like you reject that. It’s almost like a buffet approach. You know you pick and choose what you want and you reject the system and the process that makes this teaching firm and grounds you. So there is something very short-sighted about the approach and I feel very sad that a lot of people have been damaged. In fact I’ve had to counsel a lot of people who have been through Neo-Advaita and then have come to Traditional Advaita and have been so refreshed and healed because of the teaching and the tradition and so on and so forth. And even you know I think there’s a lot of spiritual bypassing as well like you rightly said. It’s almost like an escape from the world, escape from responsibilities, and one thing Neo Advaita is very good at is what we call ‘Tvam pada vichara’, you know that inquiry into who you are. So they are very good at arriving at ‘I am that consciousness’ or rather ‘I am the witness of all that I see, perceive, experience and all of that.’ So, that’s pretty good. But then it’s just one half of the equation and obviously there is no equation then. So, I pray and wish that they are blessed, you know, because the initial blessing got them to Vedanta, but then they need to complete that pathless journey.

Rick: Yeah, I think maybe some of them have a little bit of the attitude that you had when you were young with all that complex falderal, you know, with all the gods and the goddesses and the strange symbolisms and the elephant heads and all this stuff in Hinduism is like, “We don’t need all that. Let’s just cut it down to the bare bones.” And there’s one popular Neo-Advaita teacher who even dismisses the notion of karma and reincarnation, because he says reincarnation implies the sense that there is some entity that could reincarnate and there is no such entity. So, it really is a, they have kind of like thrown out the baby with the bath water, something.

Swamini B: Yeah, that’s right. Absolutely right. And you know, why should we take his words to be true? Because, you know, then he’s just promoting, he or she is just promoting a cult. And in traditional Vedanta, we always, you know, the guru is nothing without the Shastra.

Rick: In fact, Shastra means..

Swamini B: Shastra, meaning the scriptures, like Vedanta, the text. Of course, that was oral tradition until it became a text, so to speak. So, you know, unlike academia where you are wanting to contribute to innovation and new research and stuff, for us as traditional teachers, our fidelity to the tradition is most important and we really have to get out of the way. You know, I mean, there’s no scope for my creativity so to speak because we recognize the scriptures, which are words of God himself, to be so perfect and so exquisite that we just need to unfold and just allow oneself to be the channel for it.

Rick: Okay um, I tend to agree with you, but I have a couple of devil’s advocate questions to ask you on that. One is, of course, other religions also say that their scriptures are perfect, like the Bible and the Koran and stuff, but a lot of these are, you know, a hodgepodge of things that were collected and other things were thrown out, which might have been good to keep in, and, you know, there are inconsistencies and contradictions and so on and so forth. So, one might level the same accusation at the Vedic scriptures. I want to let you address that before I go on with my devil’s advocacy.

Swamini B: Yeah, yeah. So, I think the seed of the vision of oneness that Vedanta talks about, I’m sure it’s there in all religions, but with Vedanta, the teaching tradition has been preserved. So, like for instance, my guru, Swami Dayanandji, he created almost 400 teachers, right? And so there is a very systematic, thorough teaching methodology because the vision is that you are complete in and of yourself, you know, you are Purna and the way in which the methodology is applied is also so thorough because we follow Adi Shankaracharya and so it can be replicated and a lot of people can see the truth as it is. So, I would just invite people to try and then see if the claim remains a claim or it is reality for them. Okay. Yeah, because I don’t think we are dogmatic in any way. We’re not even claiming that Vedanta is better that Christianity or Islam or whatever. It’s like if you are seeking the truth, then you have to open your eyes, you can close your eyes and then you can say no, no, no, please give me a guarantee that you will see. And I will only say, well, unless you open your eyes, you can’t see. So, you have to give it a shot.

Rick: Yeah, okay. And then, you know, I’ve read a fair amount of the Vedic literature. Obviously, I’m no scholar and I don’t, I only know a few Sanskrit phrases, I don’t understand Sanskrit, but, you know, there’s some things in there that make you cringe. I mean, like, for instance, the Manu Smriti, there are some punishments in there that would be illegal in any civilized country today. They are just horrific. And so, you know, when you see something like that, you wonder, well, you know, if this is like that then can I take it all with a grain of salt and not necessarily take all these scriptures as the gospel truth because perhaps some corruption or misinterpretation or mistranslation or some other problem has entered into it over the centuries.

Swamini B: Yeah, see Manu Smriti is more in the context of dharma and there is another smriti called Parashara Smriti written by sage Parashara and he says that I am more applicable in Kali Yuga which is the duration that we are in right now in the cycle of time as compared to all other Smritis. So Smriti including Manu Smriti is to be interpreted and if we’re talking about how to live a good life you know values, attitudes, understanding God, Bhakti, the vision of oneness then it’s best to stick to Bhagavad Gita and then the Upanishads. Manu Smriti is for people who want to go a little deep into the Dharma and but then it is to be learned with a teacher because contextualization is very very important and also understanding that we are not living in a Vedic society. So then, what you know, understanding the principles and seeing how best they apply is very important and that is best done with a teacher rather than studying it by oneself.

Rick: Okay, well I won’t keep pressing them on as to any point, but there are some things in there that are pretty sadistic. So, and maybe they are somehow applicable in some other age or something like that. I don’t know. Another theme that relates to all this that I discuss at length frequently with a friend of mine who used to be into all this stuff, but now considers himself an atheist, but is very sincere and very intelligent, is that how can we approach this knowledge in a scientific fashion? Because, you know, science has objective methodologies and replication and so on. If someone finds some information, they can say, “Okay, here’s how I found it. You guys see if you can find it in the same way.” And either his finding gets confirmed or rejected and so on. We build knowledge that way over time as a society. But the kind of knowledge that you and I are discussing, in our opinion, I think, yours and mine, is the highest, the most precious knowledge one could gain, but it kind of lacks the objective, the ability to investigate as objectively or as empirically, perhaps, as scientific knowledge. It’s just a subjective experience, and you could not necessarily tell by looking at a person what subjective experience he is having, nor can he just convey it to you in words. Or, you know, now he could say, “Okay, do X, Y, and Z for the next 15, 20 years, and you may have the same experience I’m having.” And some scientific experiments do take 15, 20 years or even longer to, you know, complete. So to what extent do you feel that your approach to knowledge could be amenable to the scientific method? And as part of your answer, you could say, “To what extent do you feel like scientific thinking could augment or supplement the subjective approach to knowledge and vice versa. The subjective explorations you and I are interested in, how can they enhance or fine-tune or guide modern scientific inquiry?

Swamini B: Right. Yeah, so let me surprise your friend and say that Vedanta is not scientific. Okay. You probably zone out. But let me explain. So, the fundamental assumption in science is that matter is reality. Right?

Rick: Well, yes. Although there are some people who are…

Swamini B: Quantum physicists are saying that. But that’s like more, you know, more recent. Right. Whereas Vedanta says consciousness is reality. Consciousness, that is you, is reality. Now, from that fundamental assumption have come the methods. So matter, if matter is reality, definitely matter is experienced by me, I should be able to measure it and rightly so and therefore things are known to be only by perception. So perception is my means of knowledge, what I see, what I hear, what I taste, what I smell and so on. And Vedanta is another means of knowledge. So maybe I need to speak a little bit about epistemology here.

Rick: Yes, please. Yes.

Swamini B: Science rests on the means of knowledge of perception. If I don’t see it, it probably is not true. But then atoms also cannot be seen. But then we have, you know, with our…

Rick: We can detect.

Swamini B: We have fine-tuned our means of measurement and now we can say, oh, there are atoms and there are particles and so on and of course that’s helped humanity tremendously. So I’m all for science and all for scientific development but science rests on perception and it rests on inference. So I don’t need to cut your body open but through x-rays and stuff like that and you know I can figure out medical diagnosis that oh if you have a stomach upset then these are the likely reasons, I don’t need to cut open your stomach, so inference plays a role. Then, there are two, three other methods or means of knowledge like comparison and presumption and cognition of absence. So, you know, is Irene here? So I will say no because I don’t see her. So there is cognizing of absence but it’s not perception because I cognize absence of an entity. So these being the five means of knowledge, we recognize Vedanta as the sixth means of knowledge. While science is resting on perception and inference, Vedanta is or rather the Upanishads are revealing what perception and inference cannot. So therefore, that you exist, that you are consciousness, science will never get to it. Why? Because consciousness is not matter and science is measuring matter. Of course, now science is saying that oh well, there is no event without an observer and so you know particle behaves you know like a wave sometimes so you know there is that element of subjectivity so to speak coming into science but largely it’s a study of objects whereas in Vedanta, because it is based on the sixth means of knowledge, so telling me things I cannot figure out by perception and inference. So the fact that there is karma, that it yields good results, you know what we call punya and paapa, invisible good results and invisible not so pleasant results, that you know people go through experiences of happiness and sorrow based on karma, that there is a swarga, heaven-like place, that certain rituals will give you certain results, that meditation will give you X Y Z results even though you’ve been trying for many years so you know what your goalpost is and of course the nature of all forms and consciousness and the fact that there is Ishwara, all of that is revealed by Vedanta which is another means of knowledge. And it’s based on things that we cannot figure out. So unless science is able to prove that Vedanta is not a means of knowledge, then we can crown science as the undisputed king or queen. But, you know, so we just recognize that science is excellent for the world of, you know, dealing with matter and perception and inference and we use science to the extent we can, but for understanding consciousness, we recognize Vedanta as a pramana, as a means of knowledge. And they can, they are flirting with each other very nicely and they can walk hand in hand as well, but one cannot replace the other.

Rick: Okay, now of course I think science would say that, you know, their ultimate game is, the ultimate aim is to really understand the universe from top to bottom. You know, just everything that exists, they would like to understand it. And there have been scientists who have said that, well, if we can’t investigate it scientifically, it doesn’t exist, which is rather arrogant, I think, because obviously science doesn’t know about a lot of things. Anyway, and science has chipped away at territory which used to belong, at least in the West, to the Church. Astronomy, for instance. I mean, people were burned at the stake for suggesting that the stars might be other suns like our own and might even have planets around them. And, you know, now we accept that sort of thing. But I think, you know, many scientists would agree with what you just said, which is that there are things outside the realm of scientific methodologies, which may always be outside the realm of them, and maybe we’ll just have to leave those things to the religious people. But then, you know, hardcore, a lot of scientists would tend to dismiss all those things as fantasy. And yet, you know, I think you and I are in agreement that those things are every bit as real as the material stuff that science studies, just more subtle. And so I guess the question is, maybe the human nervous system is a scientific instrument that has the capacity for subtlety that man-made material instruments don’t have and may never have. And perhaps we could use, perhaps Vedanta and similar approaches could be understood as the utilization of this subtle instrument, the nervous system, mind-body system, to investigate all these subtle realities. And perhaps we can do that in an empirical, verifiable way, just as we do with scientific instruments for the material realm. What do you think about that?

Swamini B: Well, if one is looking at the nature of the Atma, yeah? So Atma is I consciousness. Then it cannot be seen, it cannot be inferred. And you know, it takes one wise person to recognize another wise person. So even, if we say, let’s try and find out some neuropsychological or physiological correlates of so-called realization, we’re still operating in the realm of ‘matter is reality’ and I’m going to try and enter through the back door of measuring or trying to desperately find some correlates. So you know at the fundamental assumption itself matter is reality, consciousness is reality, there itself there is a seeming divergence. So then of course one can study and one continues to study, I mean like I only knew a biology, like 40 years ago and now this psycho-neuro-immunology, epigenetics and all of this, all these wonderful sub-branches, and you know science is doing a fantastic job in trying to be more subtle in its, you know, measurement and understanding the human condition and so on and so forth, but it’s still resting on matter is reality. And so, like for instance, Sakshi, like meditative states can be measured and they have been, you know, over so much, so many years. But to posit that, you know, one will be able to have, you know, like how there’s a lie detector, one will be able to detect if a person is self-realized or some such, I think science will never get there.

Rick: Maybe not. I mean, there are people studying that and, you know, claiming to identify EEG patterns in people who, you know, say they have realized the self or that they maintain pure awareness during sleep and things like that. But of course, that doesn’t tell you anything about the subjective experience, just as measuring EEG during dreams doesn’t give you any idea what the person is dreaming. You know, you don’t have the experience. Okay, well I don’t want to dwell on this too much, but it interests me. And because, you know, science has been the sort of standard means of gaining knowledge in recent centuries. But obviously the world is kind of a mess. And a lot of that is due to science. I mean, nuclear weapons and environmental degradation and other things. And so, you know, one wonders, could there be something missing in the scientific approach that, if added, could render science more benign and, you know, balance out the imbalance that has been created? And I believe that what you’re presenting here is that something. But it has to be sort of presented in a way that is kind of palatable, perhaps, to the modern mind, so as to be accepted widely and applied. Personally, I do think that spiritual development is the much-needed panacea for the world’s problems, and that all these problems are just manifestations of the mindset of billions of people, and if that mindset were more healthy and more spiritualized, then those manifestations would be much more desirable, you know, much more positive.

Swamini B: Yeah, I would think that the framework of Dharma and also dwelling on, I am the witness of all that I experience and perceive, I think these two elements could come into the scientific method as well.

Rick: Define Dharma, I don’t think you’ve defined that yet.

Swamini B: Yeah, so Dharma is, I mean it has layers of meanings but one meaning we can all go with for now is the universal framework of values and so I was happy that you mentioned about some of the damage that science has caused, perhaps not intending to or perhaps intending to, because ethics were not followed, you know, because of greed and whatever else you know, the need to acquire and so on, or test, you know, like so much of testing on animals has happened. And so many animals have been destroyed because of our selfishness as a human species. So I would think, you know, even if we don’t get to consciousness, just applying the framework of universal values – that I don’t want to be hurt, you don’t want to be hurt, I want to be accepted, you want to be accepted. You know, just basic common sense in our approaches in science, I think, is almost non-negotiable. It’s not even optional now.

Rick: Yeah. Okay, let’s talk about God for a while. So, as we were discussing earlier, some people who perhaps have looked into neo-Advaita, I haven’t heard much mention of God and the whole notion of God be considered outside the realm of that study, that focus. But God is very much a part of Vedanta as I understand it. And you did your whole PhD thesis on God or Ishvara in Advaita Vedanta. And I guess one question I’ll start with is that, you know, I’ve kind of been taking classes with Swami Sarvapriyananda for a few years and studying Vedanta Sara and some of the Upanishads and he’s described a number of times, or I think Vedanta Sara does too, that in Advaita Vedanta, Ishvara or God is considered to be kind of a product of the inherent quality of Maya within Brahman. And that to me kind of relegates God to a secondary status it seems, where, you know, God himself or itself is has somewhat of an illusory nature given birth to by Maya. And so let’s talk about that because I’d like to understand that more clearly and I do have a bit of a doubt about that assertion.

Swamini B: Sure, so Maya is most misunderstood in Vedanta. So, but to help, as I understand Maya, I’d like to consider Michael Jordan. Okay?

Rick: So who’s a great basketball player in case some people are not aware.

Swamini B: Yeah. Right. So, I just did a search as to who’s the greatest sportsman in the US and his name popped up. So I’m familiar with his game. And, so what we understand is that he has also been awarded – you call it the Presidential Medal of Honor?

Rick: There is such a thing. Maybe he got it.

Swamini B: Yeah. So he got it from Barack Obama and I believe that that is the highest civilian honor that the U.S. presents to its citizens. So anyway, to receive the award, Michael Jordan is invited. Now, for what? For his contribution to the game and what he’s done for the country. Now if I were arguing, I would say, well, you know, it was his ability to dribble and to score and to shoot into that net, you know, that basketball…

Rick: The basket.

Swamini B: Yeah, and the basket. Yeah, that’s the word. So, so why is this entire being being invited? You know, because surely only his hands and maybe his brain and motor coordination should be awarded. Why is the entire being, being awarded? And that’s the thing about Maya. You know, so where there is Shakti, where there is power, where there is this capacity, where there is this unique ability, there alone is the being. So, Maya by no standard is illusion. In fact, we have to stop translating it as illusion. Maya is… the best translatable is Maya. You have to just understand it and use the word Maya. So therefore, where the capacity is there itself, the being is, where, you know, Michael Jordan’s abilities are, there alone the being is. Where Maya Shakti is, the ability of Brahman, because Maya Shakti is inherent in Brahman, so Brahman the limitless, there alone Brahman is. I don’t think Ishvara is relegated to second status by any standard because Brahman, along with maya shakti, which is inherent, just gets the name Ishvara but they are not two entities. You know, like Irene may refer to you as darling and then somebody else refers to you as Rick, and that doesn’t make you two. So, you are one person and you’re being referred to by different names and that’s exactly the point. So what is the nature of Ishwara? You know, the one with maya shakti and who’s all powerful and all-knowing and so on, happens to be Brahman, but with reference to the world gets the name Ishwara. So, in relation to the function and the role that is being played, you know that’s the whole manifestation of this grand Maya shakti, we use the word Ishwara or God or Bhagavan, and the unchanging nature of this entity with all its shakti is Brahman the limitless. So just like clay and pot, you know, that clay gets the name pot because of the form and the function but continues to be clay. So there are no two, there’s only one.

Rick: Okay, so you use the phrase maya shakti as if they’re synonymous and my understanding of the word shakti is, it’s like energy or potency and so what you’re saying is that that potency is inherent in within Brahman. Yes? And that that gives rise to the manifestation of the universe and would you also equate Maya, Shakti and Ishwara as three synonyms or are they slightly different.

Swamini B: Yeah, I would say Brahman with Maya Shakti is Ishvara.

Rick: Okay, so Ishvara then is sort of more than the sum of its parts, so to speak, which are Brahman, Maya, and Shakti. Is that correct? No. So, Brahman can’t have parts. I mean, Brahman is the totality, right?

Swamini B: That’s right, absolutely right. But Brahman with Maya Shakti gets the name Ishvara in the context of the world. So, you know, manifesting the world and so on and so forth.

Rick: Right.

Swamini B: So, there is no Shakti separately. Maya is Shakti.

Rick: Right. And there’s no Maya Shakti separate from Brahman. You say Brahman with Maya Shakti, which makes it sound like there’s two different things together.

Swamini B: Yeah. I’m so glad you picked that up, but I wanted to clarify that this is just a matter of language. Right. Maya Shakti is inherent in Brahman, you know. And so, Maya Shakti cannot exist without Brahman at all, because if I say Maya shakti with Brahman I almost I’m giving equal reality to both which doesn’t exist.

Rick: Right yeah so we haven’t even we should perhaps define Brahman to do that and then we’ll continue with this.

Swamini B: Right yeah so Brahman the word is Sanskrit and it comes from brh so the root, which means the big, so then the question is how big, you know so it’s like the big, which has no limits because you know the way we use the word big depends on the noun that precedes it. I could say ‘big’ mosquito, I could say ‘big’ mountain uh but the context and the meaning would be totally different. So here we are talking about that, the ‘Isness’ that is you, that has no limits, that has no boundaries, and that is Brahman, and that is consciousness. Because if I say it’s is-ness, then you will think, “Oh, it’s inert.” No, no, no. You are very much conscious and consciousness and existing in all three periods of time with no limits, no boundaries. This is how you have always been. And this is how the world has always been. And this is how Ishvara has always been. But of course, we’re having fun in this world of names and forms.

Rick: Okay, so we have Brahman. Brahman is big. It’s in fact so big that there’s nothing other than that. It’s the container of everything. There’s a saying Brahman is the eater of everything. And so, and then we’re saying that Shakti or Maya are sort of intrinsic qualities of, or in components as it were of Brahman, although it doesn’t have parts, so they can’t really be considered components, but they’re part of its nature, we could say. Yes, and um, okay, I don’t know where I was going with that. Oh, yes, another definition I’ve heard of Brahman, of course, is Sat Chit Ananda, absolute, you know, consciousness, bliss. So consciousness is in there, and you just mentioned that, and bliss is in there. And so, all these qualities are like, you know, intrinsic or inherent within this totality of which there is nothing else. That is the totality of everything. Consciousness, bliss, energy, intelligence, perhaps we can throw in that one. And that’s what we are.

Swamini B: That’s right.

Rick: Okay, obviously that contrasts rather sharply with most people’s experience, but what you’re saying is this can be your experience.

Swamini B: Yeah, so what I’m saying is that this pursuit of moksha, right, what you just¦

Rick: Whenever you use a term like that, please define.

Swamini B: Oh yeah, yeah, thank you for reminding. So, moksha is again a Sanskrit word and it means freedom from a sense of bondage and mark my words ‘sense of bondage’ it’s not.. the bondage is not real. If it was real I would never be free of it and if I was not bound that there was no there would be no need to be free of anything. So we recognize this is a very distinct pursuit in addition to all other human pursuits. And why should anyone care about Brahman? Right? So I already have a name and let’s say, you say, ‘oh you’re Brahman’ and so what’s that gonna do for me? Then we need to really understand or do the right diagnosis of the human problem, which is that, no matter what I do, where I go, what I have, I have this pervasive sense of ‘I am not enough’ and this is not a psychological problem. This is not a problem of some inferiority complex or a self-esteem issue. That ‘I am not enough’ stems from identification with this form which of course is limited, this body-mind, and therefore, I will never be enough if this is all that is my reality. But Vedanta comes along and says that ‘you are not limited, you are the limitless.’ So the nature of the pursuit is one of self-discovery. For every other pursuit, I don’t have money, I can try and get it. So we will call it an apraaptasya praptihi – that what I don’t have I am seeking or I don’t have a partner, that’s an example, and I want a partner. So again, you know, I don’t have and therefore I want, But in this strange pursuit, I am already what I seek. So I already am the limitless Brahman, who as though has been given this prosthetic suit of flesh and bones and blood and tissues and so on and so forth. So then why is it that I don’t know? Well, I don’t know because I am ignorant of my true nature, and all the various disciplines of knowledge only point to some aspects of me. So physics has a certain standpoint, okay, that you’re all energy, biology may have some other standpoint, the vulture may say, okay, this is my food. So different standpoints, but Vedanta says that what the fullness that you are seeking, it happens to be you! And so it’s a strange pursuit because the pursuit is from ignorance to knowledge. And so, when Vedanta says you are Brahman well that’s what I want! Because through all my pursuits I am seeking fullness and even though Jerry Maguire may say ‘You complete me’ and all the women in the world swooned, the completeness that we are seeking, we want it to be there at all times, in all places, in all situations. Nobody says that, you know what? I want to be happy just for like two minutes a day and nobody complains that I’ve had my quota of happiness for today. No more! I just can’t take it. Please give me sadness, nobody does that. So we are at home when we are happy, in the sense, we are not seeking. So what we are really seeking, is freedom from seeking, although on the face of it we are seeking we want xyz whatever that is, but we want to reach a stage where we are free from seeking and Vedanta reveals that you are the sought! That that limitlessness, which is really fullness, which means that you have no boundaries that is who you really are and that’s why it becomes relevant to me and all of humanity and whoever else is seeking. So it is, you know, you come home when you recognize this because the human heart is such that it will not settle for it. You cannot convince, you cannot say no it’s okay ,you know, ‘you win some you lose some.’ If there is sadness in my life, okay I will accept it. No one you know reconciles with it, nobody gives up. Everybody’s trying to seek something or the other which will seek to complete them, you know, and so that I am subject and that everything else is an object. Vedanta reveals that you are the basis of both the subject and the object. The so-called subject is just this body experience which is experiencing the world of objects and so on but in every moment of happiness when that fusion takes place then I am free from seeking. It’s like, you know, probably when you go for a walk in the woods, you’re not looking around at the trees and say, you know what? I think your branch is not aligned properly or the sky should be a little more purple today or the crickets should stop making noise. You’re just so in harmony with everything and you don’t want anything to be different and in that moment there is experiential oneness because you don’t want anything to be different, you’re not seeking and that’s exactly the truth of Vedanta. That you are in harmony with the world, you’re not seeking, you don’t want anything to be different, you just drop whatever resistances there are and you do whatever you can, of course, but you recognize that the nature of the object is that consciousness, the nature of the subject is consciousness, there was never any two.

Rick: Yeah, this thing you said about the search and the seeking reminds me of another Neo-Advaita slogan, which is “Give up the search.” And that one sounds to me like saying to a thirsty man, “Give up the thirst,” or to a hungry man, “Give up the hunger,” but without actually giving them than the water or the food. So it’s a kind of a useless instruction in my opinion. But, in any case, would it be true to say that the reason we have the feeling that we’re not enough, or that we’re seeking, or that we want this and we want that, is ultimately that we, in some deep intuitive sense, know that we are Brahman, you know, we are the totality, we are the completeness. And so we’re unsatisfied with little trifles and trinkets that life is offering us. We know on some level that there’s something more. As I once heard a teacher say, it’s like a king who knows he’s a king on some level and he can’t really sit comfortably anyplace unless he finds his throne.

Swamini B: That’s right, absolutely right. See, you know, whenever anyone hears Vedanta, the reason it resonates with them is because they are self-evident. You know, I know I am. It’s non-negatable. It cannot be dismissed. What I am, I’m not sure, but that I exist, I already know that, you know, and even without verbalizing it, you know, without using language, I exist, and it is about that self-evident being that Vedanta is revealing the truth. So because it is the truth, therefore Vedanta reveals it. You know I am not dependent on Vedanta to reveal that I exist. Because I exist, I can be exposed to Vedanta and then learn what my true nature is, which is limitless. So it’s partially known and, because it’s partially known, I make mistakes. You know the typical rope and snake analogy. If it was bright daylight I would not make a mistake. I wouldn’t think that that the rope is a snake, but because it’s dusk, it’s not complete darkness because if there was complete darkness, I wouldn’t make a mistake. But it’s semi-darkness or rather it’s dusk time and so that rope is perceived as a snake, and there was never a snake in the first place, but ‘I’ is partially known and on this ‘I’ there are lots of projections because of my own ignorance. So it’s like somebody who, you know, in the name of method acting, you know, acts in a play and he’s acting as a beggar and he had told his fellow actors, you know, just slap me really hard before the play began. So his, you know, co-actor slapped him really hard and he fell down and then he woke up in the hospital asking fundamental questions, ‘Who am I, Where am I’? And then he looked at himself and he saw that he was dressed in the garb of a beggar. He said, “Oh, I’m dressed in the garb of a beggar. I must be a beggar.” And so it’s like, you know, you see yourself, okay, I seem to have this human body and all, ‘I must be a human being.’ But ‘I am’ is so self-evident. And so, but we make errors because we don’t know our true nature. And so, Vedanta resonates with us at a very deep level. And that’s how the search begins.

Rick: I saw a video on your YouTube channel, which was animated, and it was about a young man who was a seeker. And I guess maybe he was an atheist or something to begin with, and he was very confused. But then he kind of got interested in studying Vedanta. And then he went through various stages as he went along. You know which video I’m referring to?

Swamini B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. For sure.

Rick: Maybe you could just, we can actually send a link, put a link to it on your page if you want. Maybe, but maybe could describe those stages like, you know, you and I have been talking about Vedanta for the past hour and people who perhaps never really thought about it much say, okay, sounds great. What do I do? You know, what is it? Step one, step two.

Swamini B: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Thank you for that. So, yeah, so the way I see it is that we all start with being at the stage of a ‘victim’. Why me? Why did this happen to me, etc., etc. childhood so on and so forth and, from that stage we move to being a ‘survivor’. So now I’m more in touch with some of my capacities, maybe I’ve had some good role models or some teachers along the way or I just figured out that okay I need to get my act together and then as I identify myself as a survivor, I can move to being an ‘achiever’. So a lot of us sort of straddle between being a ‘victim’ sometimes and then ‘survivor’ sometimes and then ‘achiever’ but then once you’ve pushed the boundaries and try to achieve things in the area of health and pleasure, your relationships are good, making decent money, career is okay. Then there is some seeking that begins that, is that all that there is to life like I ticked all the boxes, I’ve been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, took the selfie, posted it on social media, is that all? And then is the seeking and the seeking is like a shopping phase. So you’re trying out different things and a lot of recommendations get made and ,while one tries all that, one is still operating on the assumption that I and the world are different because the diagnosis of the human problem hasn’t been done. So, I could say, oh you know I’m traumatized and I need healing, that’s one diagnosis. So like that there could be many other diagnosis like that but only when the seeker recognizes that no matter what I do and how much I earn or travel, am I really just this human being and is the end of my life, death? Like, after all that I have done I’m just going to return to dust? So I read this very nice thing, ‘Dust if you must, but know that you will return to dust.’ So referring to people who are obsessive about cleaning and dusting. So anyway, so the seeker has to transform into a knower because only then like if I know that the problem the human problem is one of ignorance and well I could chant the mantras, I could levitate, I could have a spiritual experience but every experience, external or internal, by its very nature starts and ends. And what is the truth of each and every experience? And the seeker then transforms into the knower and therefore the pursuit of Vedanta can begin because until then one is just shopping around or if one comes as an achiever to Vedanta, then you say, okay tell me which are the books to study. If people take 12 years I will finish it in one year so you’re on an achievement trip but actually Vedanta is not meant for an achiever. It’s for an achiever who’s seen the limitations of achievement because Vedanta is not here to replace pursuits of wealth and dharma and pleasure and so on. So it’s more about the inquiry and then so yeah so the stage of the knower then the knower as the knower starts to understand the nature of the world and how magnificent this world is along with its maya shakti becomes a contributor, becomes a spiritual warrior ,that I am in harmony with the world, I act according to laws of nature, I understand this world is a manifestation of God and I do everything in service of this world and God and I’m learning more about myself and in time, you know, as one prepares oneself and qualifies so to speak for Vedanta, eventually one becomes the master having gone through the tradition and so on and so forth. But you never seek to be a master in the first place, you’re just one is just struggling to deal with one’s human condition and this transformation of the seeker to the knower is very important because otherwise one can shop around and get a lot of information but personal transformation wouldn’t have happened because the seeker to knower transformation also rests on recognizing that I can be in harmony with the world only when I align with dharma, because all laws of nature including laws of karma, are a part of this manifestation and so if I rub against the tree I will get rubbed in the process, you know, so uh because our cravings and aversions are so strong, then learning to be in the world in harmony requires me to align myself with dharma again and again. Because, suppose if someone hurts me, the immediate tendency is to have himsa, is to hurt that person back. So maybe, you know, we use our tongue to lash out and to be sarcastic and humiliate and so on and so forth. And just a simple value of ‘ahimsa’ is very difficult to practice. So, living in the world, with these universal values, based on reciprocity, one just lives a very happy, content and cheerful life and then of course you inquire into what the nature of life is and so on. So yeah that’s the so-called transformation of the survivor or rather the victim all the way to the master and then it’s all doable in this lifetime.

Rick: So the becoming the knower almost sounds like the culmination of the process, but you kind of made it sound like a preliminary step.

Swamini B: For Vedanta it is, yes.

Rick: It’s preliminary?

Swamini B: It is.

Rick: Oh.

Swamini B: Preliminary or I would say it’s optimal step.

Rick: Optimal meaning, well optimal means ideal.

Swamini B: Meaning, yeah, yeah, although I avoid using the word ideal because then it creates a gap. So, what I mean is that Vedanta requires sadhana, like some practices, and it requires study. That’s what I mean. So, as a knower, then it involves the study of the text with the guru and so on and so forth.

Rick: So you haven’t necessarily achieved self-realization when you say knower. You just mean that it’s a kind of an initial awakening where you… Well what is it exactly? Usually when you say knower it implies to me self-realization.

Swamini B: Yeah, so if I’m the knower, am I Brahman or am I the knower of Brahman? If I say I am the knower of Brahman, that means Brahman is something other than me, right? Yeah, that’s why I’m not using it in that sense. I mean knower, as in that I have understood the diagnosis and this is the approach, that I am exposing myself to Vedanta and allowing the means of knowledge to do its magic because pretty much, you know, knowing Vedanta is not knowing another subject matter but it is just shedding ignorance. You know, very much like how the sculptor sculpts in stone so the let’s say, if it is Ganapati or David, you know Michelangelo, it’s already there in the stone and what the sculptor is chipping away is what is not David or what is not Ganapati. So really the chipping away is recognizing that all that I thought was absolutely real, it is not that, it exists in the world, it has its dependent reality, but that is not what defines me because what defines me cannot be negated ever. What defines me exists in all three periods of time. And so, because it’s a process of chipping away, therefore the status of being a knower extends for a length of time until one becomes a master.

Rick: Yeah. Okay. So you could say like, just to use an analogy that came to mind, you’re in a pitch dark room, you strike a match. All right, oh, I can see the room. But obviously, the room isn’t fully illuminated. There might be a lot of things in the room that you can’t see clearly, but at least you can see something. So when you say the knower, you’re saying some kind of initial waking up that then kind of, on the basis of which you continue to progress.

Swamini B: That’s right, that’s right. Yeah. And it’s chipping away of identities, because we somehow believe that identity is reality, but identity is just an idea in one’s head. And of course it has definitely some functional reality for sure, but when we are looking into the inquiry, that what is it that cannot be negated about you? What is it that always exists about you? Even in deep sleep and so on, then you know, you are free of all identities, really. Although you fill up all of them.

Rick: Okay, I’m going to ask you more about what you teach and what people would do if they and took your courses, but before we do that, while we’re on this topic, the thought just came. One time at a science non-duality conference, I moderated a panel on the direct versus the progressive paths. And there are people who advocate the direct path, which is, as I understand it means you can just sort of directly realize your true nature and you’re good, you know? Whereas progressive is more like, all right, stage by stage by stage, you purify, you clarify, you improve your life. And my attitude toward it is that it can be both because you can sit in the first day of practicing meditation and have a glimpse of pure consciousness, so that’s direct, but it doesn’t mean that you’re done. You can spend the rest of your life purifying and clarifying and integrating and so on. And ironically, one of the guys that was in that particular panel discussion who was giving me a hard time about my progressive perspective, ended up going out and teaching and pretty much crashed and burned and just retreated from being a teacher because it didn’t go well for him.

Swamini B: Good for his students.

Rick: And good for him that he had the wisdom to step back and not persist. And so anyway, what do you think about that whole debate about the direct versus progressive approaches?

Swamini B: Yeah, so knowledge is direct, it’s immediate, and it’s those flashes of insight that sustain one in the pursuit. But the problem with most of us is we are not able to hold on to that insight because of our identities and what we believe to be absolute reality. And you know, years and lifetimes of conditioning and therefore, you know, the way I look at it is, Vedanta includes both self-mastery and self-discovery that you can’t be doing the self-mastery for eternity because what is the goal of this self-mastery? It’s like one of my batch mates, American batchmates who was in our course, who had been a yoga teacher, she actually said, “I’ve been doing yoga for 30 years, but what do I do with a mastered mind?” Right?

Rick: With what?

Swamini B: So, I was just trying to imitate the American accent. What do I do with a mastered mind?

Rick: Mastered mind. In other words, if I master my mind, what do I do?

Swamini B: What do I do with it? And that’s really why she came to Vedanta. So because you know the self-discovery requires that I have a mind that is willing to go with the words of the teacher of whatever is being unfolded and not react to it and not say no.. but why analyze because of course analysis is important, but am I able to go along with the words and say yes that’s true that’s true it’s not about me yeah that is it I am that limitless. So unless there are flashes of insight, one will not have the motivation to work on it and so what you’re talking about the progressive approach is really all the sadhana and all the practices that are required to be ready and to be, you know, to be a true receptacle so to speak for that knowledge. At the same time if you just say that it is direct then, you know, one cannot hold the vision. If you say it’s progressive then one will have burnout or one will say but, you know, until when? Because the goal is not in sight. So I think both of this needs to go hand in hand and a traditional teacher will focus on both, because it takes such grace to have come to Vedanta that it would be a shame if somebody were to give up because the teacher was not able to help the person at whichever stage the person is. So yeah.

Rick: Yeah, one of my teachers used to use an analogy of dyeing a cloth in India where they take the white cloth, dip it in the let’s say orange, what’s that color, ochre?

Swamini B: Yeah

Rick: Dip it in the ochre dye then take it out and bleach it in the sun and oh my god, it’s losing its color sitting in the sun. It’s almost colorless again, but no, take it and dip it again and then bleach it again. Dip it bleach it back and forth until eventually it will stay fully bright ochre even if it’s in the bright sunlight. And so he used that as an analogy for you know experiencing pure awareness or whatever, samadhi, in meditation and engaging in activity and then it seems to wear off. But then you do it again seems to wear off and you just keep doing it and eventually it stabilizes so that it doesn’t matter what’s happening, it’s there. It’s not a matter of thinking about it or holding on to it or believing in it or anything.

Swamini B: That’s right.

Rick: Yeah, so that to me is kind of a nice illustration of direct and progressive. Directly ochre and then progressively colorfast.

Swamini B: Yeah, yeah.

Rick: Okay, so back to your course. So you offer some online courses. Let’s say a person were to take those. What would they do? I mean, would you give them some, what would you give them as homework to do, you know, in between the classes?

Swamini B: Yeah, so you know, to teach Vedanta, like there is a certain kind of infrastructure required and by that I would generally prefer to meet the person at some point in time, you know, within the first three months of the person joining the course. So what typically happens in a course, it will be like a one hour class. Before actually anybody approaches me for a course, I would rather that they listen to my podcast and see if they can relate with me and also invite questions from them and if indeed they can relate to me and the subject matter seems interesting, then it’s best that they join a Gita course, you know like a Bhagavad Gita course. Then what happens in a typical course would be, I chant the verses and I explain the meaning, it’s pretty much on zoom, and so that’s one bit of the course. But the other thing would be to talk to the person and see where the person is at a psychological level and how the person is applying the teachings of karma yoga and so on you know in one’s life and also, you know, what specific help the person needs. I would recommend a mantra practice, I would recommend a puja practice, and most of all I would focus on the quality of relationships the person has with the rest of the world. I would emphasize that to a great extent. My guru, you know, once we asked him, “How do we know that we know?” You know, it’s a typical question, right? And he thought for a while and we, you know, we were guessing that he might possibly say, oh once you have studied these texts or etc. etc. and he said you know you know when you’re growing in your compassion. I would like to see that in you know of course in myself as well as in the students as they are growing in their compassion and so basically it’s a relational thing and then of course we invite a lot of questions from the students. I would encourage them to have dharma as the basis of their life and then to see how more of values can come into all aspects of one’s life. I would encourage them to you know have a respectful relationship with five sets. Are you familiar with Pancha-Maha-yajnya? You know, these five sets of, really it’s so beautiful and so profound. So what we understand the Vedic tradition is that each of us is related to five sets of relationships. So, one, is of course neighborhood, community, society, you know so Manushyaha people and therefore we do what we can for them. The second are our ancestors, Pitras. So my parents and great-grandparents and whatever else you know from both sides. That I’m here because of them and you know I’ve inherited their genes you know and maybe j e a n s also and so how best might I reveal or honor them. So, then set of practices for honoring and acknowledging their role in my life. The third set of relationships is with different deities who are sort of heads of departments of different processes that are all presiding over laws of nature. The fourth is my relationship with the givers of knowledge, so teachers, gurus, rishis, acharyas, any domain of knowledge including this self-knowledge. And fifth is with the plants and animals and the environment. And we recognize that you know the problem of feeling isolated and disconnected is because we do not know that we have, that we are connected always to all these five sets of relationships and every day according to whatever is my capacity if I am able to do something for each of these sets. I would definitely feel a lot more connected, I would be doing my dharma, I would be fulfilling some of my responsibilities to all of these sets and most importantly, I would be living a life of connectedness. So yeah these are some of the things that, you know, one would do if somebody was able to join to learn.

Rick: Okay, so I think in my introduction I read that you offer these courses in the context of Hindu University of America. Is it exclusively through that or also other ones? Yeah, so on my website, you know, arshavidyananda.in. So yeah, I offer generally most courses there. Hindu University of America, there are some two or three courses that I do and whenever else I get invited, I offer them.

Rick: And do you do them in the evening India time so it would be morning in the US or afternoon in Europe?

Swamini B: Yeah that’s right evening India time.

Rick: Now you mentioned mantra and puja, do you actually impart a mantra to people over Zoom?

Swamini B: If they need it and if I think it’s appropriate then, yes.

Rick: As an individual one on one kind of thing?

Swamini B: Of course, absolutely. So that is only if they need it.

Rick: If they don’t have one, would you say that they need one?

Swamini B: Yeah, I would say so. But before that, maybe the tongues need to roll. So I would maybe suggest some devotional verses initially. And also, they have to be able to demonstrate that they can keep up the commitment. It’s all like a case to case basis because I do have one to one sessions with the students depending on when they request for it.

Rick: And puja, you teach them how to practice, how to perform a puja? And a puja, define that in case.

SWAMINI B: Right, yeah. So again, this is so profound and so beautiful. So this is, you know, just like we celebrate birthdays and we have rituals. One could say ‘oh I have love for God in my heart and why should I do? Well, then for the same reason, why would you want to wish someone and why would you want to celebrate someone’s birthday? So it’s a formal process of relating to God and one form of God and so then the question arises – What can I offer God when he or she has everything? and so to represent it symbolically, recognizing that the five building blocks of this world are space, air, water, fire and earth, we have symbols of each, and so it’s a very loving action. Space we will symbolize it, you know, symbolized by flowers and then for air we will chant some mantras or we will light incense. For water ,of course you offer water and for earth you offer like fruits or cooked food which is made fresh, and then for fire you offer a flame and so it’s like, you know, what is yours I am offering unto you. And, you know, a loving action invokes a lot of love in a person and that’s really how puja is a very beautiful process to invoke the devotee in oneself. So, devotee is basically a loving person who recognizes that I’m always connected to God and that love only deepens because it’s because of that love that you want to know more about God. It’s like if you love another person you want to spend more time with that person. You want to know more about that person and the same principle applies in one’s relationship to Bhagavan as well.

Rick: Yeah, I used to teach transcendental meditation and we would do a puja before we initiated each person or in the process of it and if you taught 20-25 people in a day you’d do a lot of pujas all day then you know you really got high as a kite by the end of that. It was very nice. Okay, so now keep in mind what I said before we started which is that if there are any particular topics that you want to be sure we should discuss you can just bring them up otherwise I’ll just keep bringing things up but I don’t want you to miss out on anything you want to talk about. So another thing that I’m thinking, you mentioned karma yoga I know, of course, we’ve mentioned the term karma quite a bit. Now, it’s interesting to consider what the mechanics of karma might be, because– and there’s all kinds of implications. But I’ll just say what I understand very briefly and then let you elaborate. But karma, of course, means action. And usually people, when you use the word, they mean, oh, yes, something’s coming back to you. John Lennon wrote, “Instant Karma’s Going to Get You.” and as a result of your actions, as you sow, so shall you reap. And people might wonder how in the world that could be organized. You know, like what if there’s a plane crash and 300 people die? How does the karma of that all get organized? Or you know, what about the Holocaust in Germany? How could that karma have come to all those people in such a way? And you know it either it such thoughts tend to make them either disbelieve in the whole thing or to feel that you know, there couldn’t be a God because why would a God allow such things to happen? So I don’t know, just discuss that idea for a while in a way that might help people come to terms with those kinds of questions and doubts

Swamini B: Yeah, so ‘karma’ is a Sanskrit word and it comes to us from the Veda It’s a willful action or action born of choice, done by human being only. Our dogs would be doing so much for us but they are not doing karma, they are doing actions. So only human beings can do karma and every karma, a willful action, has results, visible results. So I help someone, the person gets helped, visible result. There is also an invisible result called Punya, which means that the result is invisible and it’s sitting in some sort of fixed deposit waiting to fructify. If I harm another person, of course visible result is a person got harmed, but the invisible result is Papa. So again, some sort of fixed deposit, which is sitting there, waiting to fructify. Now the Veda tells us and there’s no way we can figure this out on our own, that the punya and papa, you know, these, you know, brownie points and sort of debit points, they just don’t sit there, they fructify at different points in time in each person’s life. And the Punya, you know, the brownie points will fructify as experiences of happiness and papa or the so-called debit points will fructify as experiences of sorrow.  And everyone’s life is this really deeply interconnected matrix. And Bhagavan Krishna cautions in the Gita, don’t try to analyze karma too much because it’s very very complicated but of course we will want to. We will persist and we will try to understand karma. So now when it comes to collective karma, whether it’s a holocaust or you know, collective suffering. Yeah, that’s right. So it has to do with the collective karma of people. And so then the question is, well, how could God allow this kind of suffering? Well, we are imputing a motive to God, because we think God is like our uncle, and maybe we need to understand God a little bit more. So I think the simplest analogy would be, like suppose if I am the creator of a video game and there are so many people playing the game and I create the game, there are rules there and you could harm someone, you could help someone, and you’ll get points accordingly and you are free, you have freedom of choice within the game. So you will do certain things, you or anyone will do certain actions and then will get the points or will fall down the ladder, let’s say. And then we cannot blame the guy, the person who created the video game. Because with freedom of choice, I chose to play the game, I chose to help x y z and maybe I chose to harm someone else and according to my actions I experienced certain consequences. So can the video game creator be taken to court? That because you gave me free will and because of you I got inspired to abuse my free will and harm someone, therefore you are responsible. It doesn’t make sense. So that’s really how we want to understand karma. That we want to make the most of the free will and the choice that we have been given to make a life that is very meaningful for us. And you know one of the things I have found in working with traumatized people, street children, so on and so forth, is addressing ‘why me’? Only karma can do this. You know modern psychology can help to sort out your emotions and maybe some cognitive reframing and taking responsibility of one’s life doing xyz whatever you know making the most of your life. But then, ‘Why did this happen to me?’, there is no answer until the law of karma steps in. And the law of karma helps me make sense that, okay, if I am suffering it is because of some adharmic action or some harmful action that I did which did not align with dharma. Can I blame myself? No, I don’t know under what circumstances I did that. What best can I do? Well, I can make amends if I can or I recognize that I am flawed in that sense and I will align with dharma again and again because that is what makes me happy, and I can be of service to people who are suffering. So, karma just makes one so proactive and so dynamic and willing to serve the world because you don’t really know what all karma people have been through and everyone is having their own sort of spiritual journey and struggling in it. So we do what we can with our karma.

Rick: Yeah, I like to think of karma not as merely a punishment and reward system. Yeah, not punishment reward but more like a learning mechanism and if you could zoom out to the bigger picture, if you could sort of have a God’s eye view of it, then every little thing that happens is what needs to happen for your further evolution.

Swamini B: That’s right.

Rick: Now, of course, you know, immediately someone could say, “Oh, how about the children in Gaza, having buildings collapse on the high, that seems so heartless and glib to just say that’s somehow further evolution.” Those are tough questions. But, you know, if you kind of accept the premise that the entire universe is a big evolution machine, and it’s not all peaches and cream, you know, it can be very difficult in the course of our, the soul’s journey, which is vast and long, then, you know, everything God does is for the best. Again, that would really raise people’s hackles in some cases, but I’m afraid that’s the way I see it.

Swamini B: That’s true, that’s true. I mean, and actually speaking, we are responsible for our karma and you know the fact that we are allowing suffering to continue is also abuse of our free will. You know, it’s like we’re always looking for someone to blame but our silences and the extent to which we engage, all of it is contributing to our collective suffering. Like all of us went through the pandemic and we were all meant to collectively suffer, so to speak, but a lot of people looked upon it as a blessing as well.

Rick: I walked a few thousand miles in the woods during it. Not bad. How about free will? I mean, you’ve mentioned a lot in the last five minutes. There are people like Sam Harris, I don’t know if you’re aware of Sam Harris and other people, who argue very eloquently that there is no such thing. If you had a conversation with Sam Harris, let’s say, and he’s giving you all these really intellectual points about free will not existing, what are some points you’d use to respond?

Swamini B: So I would fall back on the traditional example of a cow being tied to a pole. And for some people, the length of the rope to which the cow has been tied, it may be five meters. And that is the extent of the cow’s free will. That within those five meters, the cow can move around and so on, but free will is not absolute. It is relative. And some other cow might have a rope which probably extends to 25 meters and so the cow can go all over and then you know hang around with other cow communities and do a lot more with free will as compared to this cow which has just got five meters to move around in, and so the extent of one’s free will also depends on the karma that the person has. And here karma, I’m talking in terms of karma deposits. So you, like some people, you know, how come they are born with a golden spoon and then there are some don’t have a spoon, you know, and so on and so forth. So free will is not absolute, it is relative, And it differs from person to person.

Rick: Yeah, I like that. I like the cow analogy. I sometimes use the word wiggle room, you know, on the spectrum of possibilities we have a certain range, a certain amount of wiggle room, and according to how we use the free will within that limited range that we have, we either expand our range or narrow it. So like, let’s say, addictive drugs. Let’s say we have a tendency to take an addictive drug. We’re going to sort of get more and more addicted if we keep taking it, which means less and less free will. Although, but if we on the contrary, if we make efforts to overcome the addiction, we’ll gain greater and greater freedom and less and less bondage to the drugs. That’s just one example, but I think it applies to everything.

Swamini B: That’s right. That’s right. Yeah.

Rick: Okey-doke. So here’s a point. We’ve got about almost half an hour left, so we can cover a few more points in the remaining time. I presume no questions have come in, Irene. Oh, she just sent one. Let’s see what that is. OK, there it is. Oh, yes. And there was one in my notes that someone sent in the other day. So I’ll ask you that, too. But this is from someone named– speaking of dogs, I’ve had one on my lap for the last half hour, just put him down. So this is from a fellow named Dave Reed. He said, “I did not agree with your– Excuse me, I did not disagree with your comments about karma. However, I think there’s a more helpful way to look at it. Rick said karma is action, which is true, but karma is what is, quote unquote. In other words, it is the totality of all action, or at or in all times, places, and circumstances. This is liberating because I, quote unquote, am not action nor result. I am existence, awareness, limitless fullness. Do you agree?

Swamini B: I think terms are getting confused here. Karma cannot be considered as limitless because karma is an action that is to be performed by a person. And this has got nothing to do with my interpretation or anyone’s interpretation. It is what is revealed in the Veda. So, of course, I have the creative license to use karma in whichever way I want, but it’s not true to the meaning that is revealed in the Veda. So perhaps what the person is intending is for karma, karma perhaps means Brahman for the person. So then it all fits in.

Rick: Okay, good. Here’s another question that came in the other day from Dev Maskarandhas. He asks, “Should an Advaita teacher worry about leaving a legacy? I have heard some teachers say they wish someone would carry out their work after they are gone.”

Swamini B: Right. So, as a traditional Vedanta teacher, I only teach what has been taught to me, you know, through the lineage. And there is a lot of admiration and gratitude for the lineage. At the same time, I have nothing new to add or subtract. So as someone who has devoted my life to the lineage, to the teaching tradition, I definitely would like it if the teaching tradition is preserved because just like I was helped and blessed by the tradition, people who are seeking, you know, I hope that they are blessed by the tradition. And so I don’t see my legacy or, you know, as different from Advaita Vedanta or the tradition’s legacy. So would I want it to continue? Most definitely. Is it entirely in my hands? Not at all. So it’s all in this play of whatever is unfolding and I would like to believe that the students who have learnt with me also develop or see the value of this tradition and so they will keep it going because the tradition in that sense while it is personal it is also impersonal. It’s a life of freedom and the vision is also that you are free. So the committed ones in the lineage, they will take it forward. You know, I’m not particularly concerned about my legacy because there is no ‘my legacy’ independent of the legacy of the tradition.

Rick: Yeah, yeah. So you consider yourself to be a spokesperson for an ancient lineage. In fact, you have some pictures behind you of gurus going back to ancient times, and you’re just a spokesperson for that lineage and doing your best to represent it, and you’re not adding anything to it that needs to be added. Although, obviously, we do need to translate these ancient lineages into modern terminologies and concepts so that they are applicable to the current society. that takes a little bit of doing.

Swamini B: That is the responsibility of every teacher to make it contemporary and address the students of that time. Because otherwise, you know, it would be like, you know, I won’t say talking Latin and Greek, but if we’re talking another language, which doesn’t apply, so that doesn’t make sense. Yeah.

Rick: Okay, so dharma, my understanding of the word dharma is, and you can correct me or embellish it, is that it is, if it refers to individual action, like one’s individual dharma, it means that behavior which would be most in tune with the force of evolution for that individual in their life. So, if I’m performing my dharma, it’s going to be most conducive to my evolution and also most harmonious with everyone I influence and if I’m out of Dharma, then, you know, it’s going to be the opposite to that. It’s going to retard my evolution and perhaps harm other people. And there’s that verse in the Gita, you know, because one can perform at one’s own Dharma, the lesser in merit is better than the Dharma of another. Better is death in one’s own Dharma, the Dharma of another brings danger. So, in light of that concept, you know, you and I were talking before the interview that I’ve gotten very interested in the idea of ethics on the spiritual path and helped to establish an organization to promote that called the ‘Association for Spiritual Integrity.’ And, you know, the motivation to establish that with some other friends is that it’s seen, the appreciation of that seems to have been lacking in contemporary spirituality to a great extent. And even in ancient, I mean, even in representatives of some ancient traditions who have come to America and then, you know, behaved very unethically. And so, I feel that that’s important for so many reasons. For, even for one’s own personal evolution, it’s going to be, you know, if one behaves unethically, it’s like trying to fill a bathtub without plugging the drain, so the water just keeps draining out as you blow it in. But it also has karmic implications, you know, in terms of our, the impact we have on others. If we’re a spiritual teacher, for instance, and then we take advantage of our students in certain ways, that’s gonna come back to us as a spiritual, you know, sooner or later. And often it’s sooner, and a lot of these teachers get in big trouble, but also later. So, why don’t you reflect on your feelings about the importance of ethics on the spiritual path, and we’re not discussing this in some kind of moralistic, preachy, you know, holier-than-thou kind of way, or just it’s really very practical and concrete in terms of if we’re sincere about our spiritual growth, I think this is something we need to take into account.

Swamini B: Yeah, before we talk about dharma, the Vedas map all of human pursuits into the pursuit of wealth, pursuit of pleasure, so Artha, Kama and then dharma and moksha. So moksha this you know pursuit of freedom from a sense of bondage and often dharma is mentioned as the first. So it would be Dharma, Artha, Kama as in this universal framework of ethics which is a guiding framework for the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of pleasure and whatever else.

Rick: That’s nice. Usually it’s third but at first makes a lot of sense

Swamini B: Absolutely because what is it that separates me from an animal? Because Dharma is based on common sense. It is just based on reciprocity. So let’s say there is a two-year-old child who’s playing with her doll. The doll falls down and she picks up the doll and wipes away the doll’s tears and she’s heard her parents say, ‘don’t cry’, and all of that and so then she babbles that you know, don’t cry, and one will say okay maybe she’s learned through imitation but the child has not gone to any counseling course to learn empathy. the child just knows that, ‘If I fall I get hurt, if doll falls, doll gets hurt.’ So Dharma is just common sense and it is based on reciprocity. It’s like a terrorist who will, you know, hold a gun to your head and say tell me the truth and what an irony right. So here he is all set to harm you but he still wants to know the truth, and so we are all wired for Dharma, we are all wired to do the right thing and it is based on reciprocity. So I did a podcast episode on this also, that our feelings have more to do with dharma than we think. So, if you think of the last time when one was hurt or one was upset it’s likely that dharma of the situation was not upheld. So if the person perhaps, you know, maybe rejected one’s views or was brash, you know, so just the dharma of politeness of the situation of basic courtesy or mutual respect was not upheld and that’s what made people upset. So the problem with modern psychology is that we focus so much on our feelings and emotions but not we don’t make the connection to the fact that values have been violated in most situations and that is what results to this natural feeling of being slighted or offended or hurt or ridiculed or whatever that is. So I don’t take a moralistic stand on dharma at all because I believe it is common sense and it is it is this gift of Bhagavan that we have all been given that we can relate to all of you know different cultures, different religions, different nationalities with the basic framework of dharma. You know there is no Indian Dharma and American dharma. You just instinctively sense certain values and you act accordingly. So, I mean, understanding one’s specific dharma is related to a dharma of a situation and we all kind of instinctively know what is the right thing to do. Maybe tempers are raging in, let’s say, an argument and that although that’s happening, the dharma of the situation demands that all of us are polite and uphold mutual respect while we state our each other’s points and so on and so forth. So, by aligning with that again and again, I rise above the limitations of the given situation because generally I’m always wanting to assert and strengthen my ahankara. I want to strengthen my ego because I am looking for a need for significance and this ego or ahankara, you know, my self-concept is enhanced by my cravings and aversions. I want things to be certain way, I want life to be a certain way and so on and so forth. So when ahankara recognizes, I mean the self-concept, that I serve Dharma and Dharma to me is doing the best in this given situation for the well-being and happiness and growth of all concerned. So that’s a wonderful perspective to have, that’s always keeping the big picture in mind, and when one moves in that way, then we would say that that person is very mature and this is necessary in all realms of life. Like this is foundational and therefore I would say this is foundational for spirituality and ethics and business and everything else, parenting, and unfortunately, you know, spirituality or methods and techniques and even just even the teaching of Vedanta, you know, people just focus on the text and because the background is not there or the tradition is not there, the infrastructure is not there, unfortunately the world over, Dharma has not been focused on enough. And so I would also think that a lot of these scandals unfortunately have happened because basics have been forgotten, you know, like dharma cannot be forgotten, that’s like bread and butter of everyday living.

Rick: Yeah, a couple of thoughts on that. One is that you mentioned that dharma could be first in the four things, which is makes a lot of sense. And there’s, there’s a Sanskrit, I forget the Sanskrit, you might know it, but the English of it is the means collect around Satwa. And then there’s also Satwa Meva Jayate, but I think that might be a different one.

Swamini B: Yeah, Satyam eva Jayate, that’s right.

Rick: Yeah, maybe that’s the one. And so like, if you know, if you have Dharma as the foundation, then your pursuit of Kama and Artha and Moksha will be facilitated.

Swamini B: Ethical, absolutely. Yeah, it is the foundation. I mean that’s really how it is taught, you know, traditionally that any kind of pleasure like for the say, you know, Swami Chinmayananda ji would say this wonderful thing. He would say, you know, that the length of the tongue is just about two inches and odd and there are no taste buds in the gullet like esophagus and all the way down to the stomach and so how would one justify killing an animal for the sake of these few taste buds, knowing that there’s no taste whatsoever, no taste, no flavor, no nothing and it’s going down your throat. I mean, you know just to highlight this bit about dharma you know, yeah yeah. So one thing I want to say is that, I mean dharma, definitely, if it’s the basis then the way I pursue wealth will be ethical. I will sleep peacefully at night and a lot of the hurt regret and guilt that we face is because we have not upheld dharma. Even the relationships that I will pursue will be based on loyalty and reciprocity. So, if you know Kama is the goal, like if pleasure is the goal, I can justify anything and everything. If dharma is not the foundation of it and so, say, oh I’m just exploring my sexuality and so what about it and etc. And then if one just asks a simple question you know what you’re doing, would it be okay if your partner would also do the same and then the person will just sort of withdraw from the conversation. Because it’s like, you know, the mirror of Dharma is just being held to one’s face. And the beauty is the voice of Dharma is in everyone’s heart. So, Dharma is not a religious mandate, and we also recognize that Dharma is pervaded by God. So, by doing my Dharma, I am also serving Bhagavan, not for his sake, but for my sake.

Rick: Yeah. Yeah. On a related note, and we don’t have to talk about this a lot, especially if it makes you uncomfortable, but you were a psychologist, and there have been so many scandals where either Indian teachers coming to the West or staying in India or Western teachers, and of course the Catholic priest scandals, so many situations where I don’t think that a lot of these people, when they started out, would ever have imagined that they would end up doing some such things. And perhaps it’s that in some cases, they grew up in ashrams and were in a protected environment and didn’t undergo certain personality development, which they might have in a more worldly environment or something. And then they get to the West, and there’s all these temptations coming at them, and they succumb to them. And it almost seems like the rule rather than the exception. And it really disillusions a lot of people. So, causes a lot of heartbreak. So, you know, as a psychologist and also as a monk and a spiritual teacher, and as a very compassionate person, you know, what do you think about that phenomenon? And what could possibly be done to minimize it going forward?

Swamini B: I think people should have sharp antennae.

Rick: Sharp what?

Swamini B: Antennae, you know.

Rick: Antennae, yeah, like a grasshopper or something, right?

Swamini B: To spot teachers who build cults around them. Yeah. Yeah. And, and also to check if the guru belongs to a lineage. That’s very important. You know, if the person is self-proclaimed teacher, especially if the person had some great visions and whatever else and was unique and was the only unique person to be blessed, then we want to be alert to all of that. I think like I mean for the future, like for people who are seeking, it’s good to check if the person belongs to a lineage, if the person has no other agenda but your growth. If it seems like the person has some other agenda then please run away. Or just have the freedom or muster the freedom and the courage to talk to that person. If the person is receptive and is willing to see your point of view then I think that the person is treating you with respect. In terms of the scandals that have gone by, they’re extremely unfortunate and have happened due to many reasons. I would just say that either they were not grounded enough or they misused their power. Yeah, it’s just very sad. I mean, what can one say? You know, at the same time, for people, for potential students, it’s important to not confuse the teaching with the teacher, you know, and not give up on studying or not give up on learning, because that would be very, very unfortunate and I have seen some of this happen that, you know, we just have this one life at least what we know of and we cannot allow a situation to define our approach to learning. So I would just encourage people to again, you know, to explore but to be very alert and cautious as we explore.

Rick: Yeah, I have a quote from the Dalai Lama and that I could, I won’t look it up right now but basically he says that if a teacher is misbehaving like that, bring it to his attention. Say, “We feel you’re off the mark here.” And if he is unwilling to listen, then take it to the newspapers. It shouldn’t be allowed to continue. And unfortunately, what often happens is students sit there and the teacher is getting a little bit, going more and more off the rails, and they think, “Well, this guy’s supposed to be enlightened and I’m not, so maybe this is crazy wisdom and I’ll just keep sitting here and then the whole thing becomes more and more bizarre and cult-like and you know a lot of people…

Swamini B: One cannot give up one’s reasoning. Yeah, you know and sometimes we maybe, because of the charisma of the teacher and also because of the need for validation, you know, because I find a lot of people actually they may not even be looking for teaching. They’re just looking for acceptance and validation and maybe they get a little bit of that and so it’s like, you know, I want to be liked and therefore how can I ask a question? And if a teacher is saying, ‘You must believe everything I say’, then I would say that’s not the right person at all.

Rick: Yeah, and of course they have their friends there and there’s peer pressure and it’s just this group mentality that develops. But anyway what you said about discernment or discrimination, I think you should used those words, and just a little bit of self-sufficiency. I mean, we don’t want to be total rebels where we’re unwilling to sit and listen and be open to what a teacher has to say. But on the other hand, we shouldn’t be lemmings. You know what lemmings do, they follow each other off the cliff.

Swamini B: Yeah.

Rick: Yeah. Anyway, it’s a problem in today’s spirituality. And I hope it’s one that will mature out of more as a collective endeavor.

Swamini B: Yeah, also, you know, we’re going to what is called Kali Yuga, which is the last, you know, like we recognize time to be cyclical. So this phase is a phase where there will be a lot of adharma, you know, a lot of people acting unethically, and a lot of disasters, and people in senior positions or positions of power abusing their power and so on. So by no means am I justifying it, but I’m just saying that this is a sign of things to come. It’s going to get even worse. Actually, we are in the golden age. You know, surprise, surprise, but we are in the golden age of this of Kali Yuga.

Rick: Yeah. Jesus warned of beware of false prophets. Now of course Sri Yukteswar, Yogananda’s guru, had this whole different, you know, Jyotish analysis about what yuga we’re in and all that stuff. I interviewed a guy about that, Joseph Selby, and he thinks we’re actually coming out of Kali Yuga now, going into Dvapara or something. I have no way of knowing what he’s saying, but in any case, I mean, we can all individually at least be in Sat Yuga, despite even if we’re in a jail cell, regardless of our surroundings, we can do that.

Swamini B: Right. Yeah, for sure, for sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Rick: Okay, so this has been great. And I’m sure this, like I told you before we started, I wish these interviews could be like 10 hours or something because there’s so much we could get into, but it’s just a smorgasbord. It’s a taste. You don’t have to eat everything on the table. Get a sampling of the person. And so anyway, I’ve really enjoyed my sampling of listening to you over the last week or so and reading your book. And I’ll put up all the necessary links on your page on batgap.com so that people can get in touch and take your courses and whatever else you have to offer.

Swamini B: Thank you, Rick. It’s been a joy. It’s been a pleasure. And I really admire this Seva that you’ve been doing for so many people over so many years. It’s admirable and lots of prayers.

Rick: Well, it’s a lot of fun. I mean, I taught meditation from the time I was like 21 years old and did that for a long, long time. And then I just kind of got into, you know, earning some money and paying off a house and that kind of stuff, crawling under people’s desks, hooking up their computer wires and whatever needed to be done. But then this thing came along, the idea to do this, and all the stuff I had been doing, the meditation and the computer work and the search engine optimization and all the other things fed right into this. And so it was like, okay, now you get to use all that, all that learning and, you know, get back on more of an explicitly spiritual endeavor. So it’s been a real blessing.

Swamini B: Yeah, it’s been a nice journey, yeah. Like you’re using all the gifts that you’ve been given.

Rick: Yeah.

Swamini B: Yeah, which reminds me, actually, there are two things I want to just quickly say.

Rick: Sure.

Swamini B: So, you know, we spoke about maya shakti then so this Shakti is not out there, it’s the Shakti, the Shakti as an energy or power that is present with all of us at every moment, so the power to know, Jnana Shakti anything and everything, the power to do, so just like an ant can crawl if you know the ant spots let’s say a brownie crumb and then let’s say the ant gets there and then finds that the crumb is too heavy, another ant might come along and they may seek to collaborate. So there is the power to know, the power to do and the power to desire the crumb and all of this is a gift. So it’s a gift given to us by God and that all of us have these powers at any given moment and we can make the most of it. And the second thing I wanted to add about God, because we didn’t quite define God, and who better than God himself to define himself in the Veda. So he does say that I am both the material as well as the intelligence. So and that’s why I think Hindus have no problem in recognizing every form as sacred. So you are sacred, I’m sacred, everyone is sacred and like this body is a temple because there’s a deity sitting in everyone’s heart and so mountains can be sacred, rivers can be sacred, trees can be sacred because all forms are sacred, they are pervaded by the presence of God. And this body-mind, you know, which is all intelligence and is just magnificent, exquisite piece of work, that intelligence is pervaded by God and the material also is pervaded by God. And so, you know, recognizing that even if I don’t get to the vision of Vedanta in terms of ‘I am God’, the identity, I could still get to the understanding that I am a manifestation of God because I am sacred.

Rick: Yeah. I’d like to leave at that.

Rick: We were talking about science earlier. I think science has actually given us tools to make this even more evident. Like if you look under a powerful microscope at a single cell and realize the complexity of a cell. And they say a single cell is more complex than the city of Tokyo. And just all the stuff that’s going on there, which obviously can’t be happening through some random chance or something like that. You’re seeing a display of infinite intelligence. And we have trillions of them in one body. And then every little thing, your glasses and the moon and just everything if you looked if you zoomed in like that, you would again see this incredible display of creative intelligence, infinite intelligence, and you can kind of extrapolate out to the whole universe and realize well the whole thing is like this ocean of intelligence that we’re just like fish swimming in and uh it’s all god that’s right.

Swamini B: My guru would say, There’s no one god or many gods. There’s only god.

Rick: Yeah, that alone is. Great. Well, that’s a nice vision to end on, I suppose. So thanks so much for your time and it’s been wonderful getting to meet you. If I ever get to India I’ll stop by and visit and uh, we’ll stay in touch and you know work on some of the ideas that we’ve that we’ve been talking about

Swamini B: Thank you, Rick. You are such a blessing to the world and my prayers for all your work.

Rick: Thank you and likewise. And thanks to those who have been listening or watching. I’ve only been doing two interviews a month for the last year or two because of Irene’s health situation, primarily. We just want to have a little bit less intensity going on. Naturally I’ve filled my time with other forms of intensity, AI chat bots and stuff. But anyway, two a month. And so the next one will be released in a couple of weeks. And if you’d like to be notified when new ones are released, sign up for the email list and, you know, explore the website. We hope to redesign the website pretty soon, so you can look forward to a pleasant surprise one morning when you tune into it. And there’s no end in sight that I can see, so we’ll just keep at it. Thanks for everything, Swamini, and thanks to those who’ve been listening or watching.