" What are! "

" Which want to be proved or established through the medium of this book. This is the first question which you must answer. "

" Yes. From your answer, I will extract some points. "

" You must clearly tell me whether your philosophy belongs to dwaitha or adwaitha. You must tell me in those terms only. "

" Then what is it called? "

" Okay. I know that. "

" …which we want to reveal or establish. "

" Is it that God and Jeeva are bheda and abheda? "

" Then write that God and Jeeva are bheda and abheda. "

" Now, the second question. According to the truth revealed by you, is jeeva inferior to God at any stage? Does he become identical with God anytime? "

" Does the jeeva become identical with God? "

" Third question. According to your theory, he must have been identical with God before embracing the stage of ignorance. "

" Okay. Make the statement using my question. "

" From your answer it is clear that God himself got into the embrace of ignorance.” "

" Without his knowledge and becomes inferior without his knowledge… "

" Then what is the truth? "

" You must write that jeevathma is only temporary and empirical. It is a joyful play of God. Then what does this verse mean? "

" So according to what you say, this wonderful game, I will call it a game, begins with perfect God and imperfect jeeva. Is it right? "

" No, it is imperfect jeeva. If jeeva is perfect, why should he be killed by God? The game begins with perfect God and imperfect, ignorant jeeva. "

" It is imperfect for you. I will tell you in my way. You can answer. "

" Then what is it? You must tell me. "

" Then another question arises. When God id all perfect, from where does this avidya come? "

" So God is not One. There is God and avidya also. Is it like that? "

" Then what is the position? Who created avidya? Who created a part of himself embracing avidya? "

" That is true. So Avidya is also created by God. It is also a part of himself Isn’t it? "

" It is a part of God’s consciousness. "

" So it means that God created a scoundrel and also mothered the scoundrel. God became a scoundrel and also mother of a scoundrel. "

" What is his joy in becoming a scoundrel? Next question. Give me some examples. "

" There is one man and no drama here. "

" So that scoundrel also must have been God. Is it so? "

" Now the question is what is his joy in becoming a scoundrel? He became a scoundrel as a part of the play. He says ‘he is a scoundrel, so I am killing him.’ ‘Paritranaya….’ He created himself and caused destruction (vinasa) of himself. "

" Then explain this verse. It is not my question. God created a scoundrel and caused destruction of that scoundrel. The term used in Gita is ‘vinasa’. You cannot substitute any other word. He caused vinasa of that scoundrel. Underline vinasa. "

" What dies vinasa mean? "

" Destroy,destruction. "

" What does vinasa mean? "

" But there is no shield because there is only one who is all knowing. "

" Don’t talk about jeeva, only God. There is no jeeva, only God. "

" That is play. Isn’t it? "

" If there is only one God, there is no jeeva, no creation. "

" That is what I say. Please note does that there is only one God and no creation. "

" Then there is no creation, no jeeva. "

" Then there is no incarnation of God. You must include that also. "

" If there is no creation in existence, why should God come? "

" Empirical or anything else! There is no vyavahara, there is only God. "

" And God created a drama for his own enjoyment according to you. "

" He himself used the term vinasa. It means that fellow is not to be seen again. Ravana died. There is no second Ravana. That is the meaning of vinasa. "

" No. The original jeeva is not there. Actually the state of Ravana does not exist. It is removed, once for all. "

" So God creates a Ravana, removes and again creates him. "

" What do you mean by Ravanathwa? All right, Rama creates Ravanathwa and kills that ravanathwa.. "

" Once Ravanathwa is removed, it cannot exist again. "

" You say removal, not creation.Removal is transcient. But removal did not take place. "

" So he created Ravanathwa. "

" And the man who enjoys and embraces Ravanathwa himself…. Are you sure about this? He creates Ravanathwa, rather he becomes Ravana and then he becomes Rama so that he kills himself. "

" Please note this down. "

" He creates Ravanathwa, he also creates….embraces…He himself embraces Ravanathwa and becomes Ravana.. "

" And becomes Rama. "

" And kills himself. "

" There is no empirical? There is only one man. "

" Then one man became many… "

" If he is making himself into many, it is empirical. Is it so? "

" Empirical is not right. There is either true or false, no controversy. "

" There is only truth or lie. "

" I don’t think that you clearly followed what I said. When one puts and again contradicts, it means that it is not contradiction. It is normal state. God became a scoundrel. God is a killer of a scoundrel and God. All the three exist. This means thee things which actually took place because there is no empirical. Empirical also must be truth. It is part of that. When there is a drama when there is a picture; nose, hands, fingers, head, everything is real. Otherwise it is not a picture. "

" There must be only two… "

" That which is and that which is not! "

" There is only one man, no second person. That one man creates some nuisance. He himself becomes a scoundrel and then becomes rama. Ahe kills himself or Ravanathwa. When Ravanathwa goes, Ravana also goes. That is the drama. "

" He is killing scoundrels. Creating it, embracing it and becoming a scoundrel…. "

" Then write that he created scoundrels and He himself became a scoundrel. "

" And kills himself as Ravana. "

" Is this true? "

" When everything is true, where is the question of being empirical? "

" There is a picture. Every part of the picture is true. Nothing is false… "

" Only one God. "

" I say that there is God and nothing else. "

" That God is avidya and a scoundrel.. "

" Then from where did scoundrels come? "

" No jeeva, there is only God. You cannot talk about jeeva. "

" So there is only God. "

" Then where is your book? It is meaningless. "

" If there is nothing but God, there is no drama. When there is no drama, there is no need of your book. "

" I am saying that the book is for persons to read, understand and follow. Nobody will follow like this. When only God is present, he wants himself. ‘I am a scoundrel. I am creator. I am Rama. I killed myself because I am a scoundrel.’ You write the book in that way and read it yourself… "

" There is no other person really. "

" Don’t talk of world. There is no world. There is only God. You cannot create anything except God. See, everything is God and God only exists. You should not talk of anything else. "

" No. Don’t follow that. There is no Gita. "

" Sruthi also does not exist, only God exists. There is only one God. If you create scriptures in addition to God, then your adwaitha is gone. "

" You said that is only one God. "

" I say that there is only one God. You cannot talk of anything else because that has been accepted. Otherwise you must say it is not one God, there is God plus something else. "

" No. There is God. Then why do you want another thing? Is it no God, nil God or zero? "

" Drama is effect only. We are seeing only the effect. His will is his own, within him, in the effect. There is God….. "

" Will is not separate from God. Your will is not separate from you. "

" Don’t talk of will. There is no separate will. You are separating God and his will. They are not two things, only one. If you talk about will, there is no adwaitha. You are creating a new factor, namely will. "

" Don’t quote scriptures. When there is only one God, there is no Vedas or Gita. Is there anything other than God? "

" What is that something? Is it a part of God? Then do God as well as opposite of God exist? "

" Then follow that. There is only one God and nothing else. That means no scriptures, no Gita, no Ravana, no Rama- these never existed. "

" Then note down that Rama, Krishna, Vedas, Gita never existed. Only God. "

" For whom is this book being published? There is no one other than God. "

" Not those. Don’t create others.. "

" There is no ‘those’. There is only one God. In philosophy, you must maintain absolute consistency. Consistency should not be broken. Now the consistency is only God, nobody else. If you talk of anything else, God is gone. "

" God alone exists. "

" Realisation to whom? "

" Is there another person? "

" God and incomplete man? "

" So God is gone! "

" You say God and incomplete man "

" Absurd. Don’t use the word empirical. What I mean is there is no God and no scoundrels. "

" That means one man (God) imagines so many things. Every thought of God is real. Do you agree with this truth? "

" God is real. Every little thought or movement is real. Nothing is false. Then is avidya real? "

" When avidya is real, one who embraced avidya also must be a scoundrel. That is also real. "

" You must write that Rama is real, ravana is real and God ia also real. All the three are real. "

" The killing is also real "

" So you admit everything now. What is remaining? We are not interested in the origin. This is the story. Once upon a time there was a God. He created scoundrelism. He also created a jeeva who embraced scoundrelism and became a scoundrel. Very good! God came as Rama. That Rama killed this scoundrel. From that time, there is no scoundrelism. In that case, there must not be a second scoundrel. It is a one time act. There can’t be a second time because he is already killed. Once he is killed, there is no question of his coming back. He killed Ravana, so Ravana is gone. Repetition will not take place. But it happened here! We are thinking of so many. Ravan and Kamsa are among the many others. But all that is false. "

" Which is eternal drama? He killed once, killed what… "

" Is it removal or reestablishment? "

" So the drama is created but has some irregularities. It has no consistency. That is the drama! "

" You call it infinite, we call it inconsistency. "

" Why not? What is inconsistency? "

" No, that is not what I mean. What does inconsistency mean? "

" Not true or false; inconsistency means inconsistency. You cannot create a new language. We must follow the existing dictionary. "

" Not only statement, it is everything. Your thoughts; your life; the world should be consistent;…. "

" Ideal or not. He is God and everything must be consistent. "

" There is no avidya. "

" If you admit there is avidya, there are two – God and avidya. Otherwise, don’t talk of avidya. What do you say? "

" Maya becomes incomplete! By whom? "

" You are picking out trigunas. There are no trigunas; only God. "

" Then write that there is God plus…There is not only God but also trigunas. The trigunas came out of him. So he himself became trigunas. He himself became a scoundrel; he himself became a Ravana, a Rama… "

" They do not exist. "

" Only One is absolute. There is only God. No talk of anything else. No empirical, no absolute…. "

" No talk of empirical. There is no empirical. God is one! "

" You are bringing in new term. You mention One and bring new terms. God is only One. Quite right. I agree. "

" Absolute or not, there is only one point. He is absolute; he is everything. He is only one! Then why talk of empirical and absolute? They are not two things. Are two Gods present, empirical God and absolute God? "

" Not world. That also came from God. Isn’t it? So empirical God and also real God… "

" Did the world come from him or does the world exist along with him? "

" There is no creation. There is only one God. That is consistency. Argument should be based on absolute consistency. Don’t be inconsistent. Then the whole thing becomes….Now tell me. Is there only one God or anything or anyone other than God? Don’t talk of empirical or absolute. There is only one God. When there is only one, these other things will not come. "

" So only one thing is existing! Now tell me. "

" So there is one God and existing too. He is happy. Is God happy or unhappy? "

" Then you are telling there is one God about whom you know nothing. Why should you feel…. "

" There is no world. There is only God. "

" Again….I don’t want anybody’s statement. There is God and God alone. "

" Don’t mention world, empirical, good or bad. No other thing exists except God. Atleast write that there is only God and nothing else. That is the position. "

" Nothing else. You cannot talk about anything else. Then where is the need of the book? "

" That’s what I say. "

" No book, no talk and no argument. "

" I tell you that it becomes only silence. There is no question that you have not seen silence… "

" That means everything in over. We are where we began. There is no book. What is creation? Nothing. "

" No book, no talk, no enjoyment, nobody to enjoy. "

" How do you know that there is enjoyment? "

" How do you know? "

" But there is only God, no Sruthi. "

" I don’t agree. You are again bringing in a second factor. "

" Don’t talk of a second factor except God. "

" You brought in God plus Sruthi. Two cannot exist. Consistency is lost. "

" I am not thirsty "

" He is also speaking "

" There is nothing else. Why do you talk of Sruthi. There is only one God. You have no right to say how and what he is because there is no witness. Is there any witness that God exists? "

" When there is only one god, there is no one to witness. "

" Not statements, facts. There is one God about whose existence there is no witness. If there is a witness, the second comes into the picture. So there is one God and no witness. So the statements in Sruthis cannot be relied upon. "

" Who makes the statement? "

" So there is a second one. "

" If there is one and only one God, we cannot….existing or not. There is no witness to say God exists. "

" No question of we; there is only one God. There is no witness because he will become a second person. Who do you know that there is only one God? "

" Again Sruthi, again two…I don’t agree "

" But you brought in two. One God means one god only. That is consistency. "

" If you say Sruthi, consistency is gone. "

" There is no Sruthi; only God. You are bringing a second factor. You say God and bring in Sruthi. I don’t agree. If there is only one god, where did Sruthi come from? "

" We are not giving up Sruthi. There is no Sruthi at all, only God. "

" That is my point. Who tells you that God exists? Where is the authority? If there is an authority, it means that there is somebody other than God. "

" Yes. "

" Silence is only correct. "

" Who? "

" To tell whom? "

" Let him tell. Why are we bothered? If he tells himself, how are you involved? "

" Like a madman, he will sit in aroom and sing that he is God. We are not related. "

" You must not mention Sruthis because there is only one God. "

" Accepting Sruthi means accepting God and a witness. That is the defect. There is no witness to endorse that God exists. Except God himself. When there is nobody to vouch, is it right to say that God exists? Is he really there or not? "

" Accepting Sruthi means accepting God and a witness. That is the defect. There is no witness to endorse that God exists. Except God himself. When there is nobody to vouch, is it right to say that God exists? Is he really there or not? "

" There is no witness, only God. My question is how do you know that God is present. Give me a straight answer.” "

" Sruthi means witness. My fear is that we agree to witness, we agree to existence of two. Adwaitha is lost. That must not happen. We must think alike. Let him be alone. Why do we worry? "

" I have 600 books on dwaitha and adwaitha. I read all of them. I made notes at the bottom of the page. When I read all those books, the thought struck me whether he who exists is one or two. If he is one, then where is the proof because a second one cannot tell about him? There must be some witness to tell that he exists. There is no witness but he is present. That is why some Sruthis mention that God is silence. Do you want to see them? "

" God is silence. Mounam vyakhya’. Dakshinamoorthy garu, the guru of Brahmavetthas told me that during initiation of Brahma vidya. Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanat kumaras came there. He asked them to sit down and close their eyes. Then he left. Later they also left. He taught them and they felt that they understood! All of them left. What does this mean? They explained how absolute is. There is no listener or speaker in absolute. Then who is present? If we say somebody is there, it is a danger. There is no witness. What is the proof to say that God is there? That is the danger faced by adwaitha. If there is a witness, there is a second person. Without witness, it is difficult to prove God’s existence … "

" If you want to agree, you can agree. "

" No second person, only God. "

" Sruthi means second. It is witness. In a court, witness is as important as judge. Here, there is no case if there is no witness. That is my problem. My head is half baked with this concept. "

" I don’t mean because of you. I can show you so many books. This point must be sorted out. If he is only one, he will take care; we need not bother. The problem arises if he is not one. Who is the second one? Since when does he exist? What is the relation between them? We must tell everything. If there are two, there are so many questions to answer. I have 25 questions to be answered. Who are you? From where did you come? What is your status? Are you half spirit, one quarter spirit…. "

" Sankaracharya did not do anything. "

" Arobindo said ’whoever says that jagath (world) is midhya (illusion) either does not exist; or if he exists, he may be the biggest fool. Because how can the world exist till eternity? Jagath, the so called midhya is exists till eternity. I can prove this. What happens when the tree dies? In what form is the tree? A seed! The seed again takes the form of a tree; again seed; again tree. Since how long is this happening? Since eternity! When it is present since its origin, how can you call it illusion? Can anything which continues to exist eternally be an illusion? Eternity cannot be illusion‘. That is what Arobindo explained. He stressed that the statement Jagath midhya is false. The man may not be exists at all! "

" Jagath is not midhya., it is existing. Vriksha-beeja, Vriksha-beeja, Vriksha-beeja (tree and seed). The world is till eternity in one of these two forms. So you cannot say that God exists. This is seed and this is tree. The seed exists in the tree. The seed becomes a tree. In this way, the world exists till eternity. There is no question of midhya. He said that sankaracharya was wrong. No person could say what he did to sankaracharya! He is no more to defend him. He either did not say that or is a fool if he said that. Either we admit that Sankaracharya is a fool or he does not exist at all. The argument is over. I don’t think that sankara is a fool; he is a great man. "

" What is midhya when everything is before us? Is the tree an illusion? Is the person who made the statement an illusion? If tree is not an illusion, then how can the seed be illusion? If both tree and seed are not illusion, then the third generation (tree) is also not illusion. Since eternity, tree and seed are present. There is no illusion. That is Arobindo’s argument. It is very well presented. You might have read his book. "

" That book is supposed to be his master piece. Jagath is not midhya. It exists since eternity. That is the sentence he used. Again absolute, empirical… "

" I admit Sruthi. I admit God. I admit me. I admit this book. That is my position. Because there are different shades, I will argue on anybody’s side. In the meanwhile this commentary…. "

" Nobody can answer that. "

" The most important question in Mahabharata is considered to the fifth Veda. This is the conversation between a Yaksha and Yudhishtir. ‘If you answer my questions correctly, I will revive all your brothers. If you don’t reply, I will kill you. God gave me that power. Think carefully before you reply.’ He asked Yudhishtor about God’s tattwa. ‘How to realize God? We don’t know whether he exists or not. How to know that he is really present?’ That is the same question which we are discussing now. ‘Tarko apratishta. Nobody succeeded with arguments. It can neither say that he exists or not. So don’t refer to arguments. Sruthiayorbhinnaha (Scriptures are many). Though you speak from Sruthis, they are not authority.’ The same applies to you also. "

" Sruthiayorbhinnaha(Scriptures are many)! We don’t know whether God is there or not, whether he has a form or not, whether his nature is good or bad. Sruthi tells in this way and that way also. So a great salute to Sruthis. It differs (binna) with itself. So it is not the authority. When it is differing, it cannot be the authority. "

" If it does not differ (abhinna), then we can agree. That is why I asked you whether it is same or different. The Yaksha posed this question to Yudhishtir. ‘Dharmasya tattwam nihitham guhaya.’ Fine, let us ignore Vedas and arguments. What about scriptures on dharma? Can we follow them? Till date nobody knows clearly what the scriptures on dharma say. Then how can you believe them? Dharma tells you to respect your elder brother’s wife. Another dharma tells you to marry her when your brother dies. It says he is like her son if her husband is alive. On one hand, it preaches that he should respect her like a mother; on the other hand it says to marry her. What is this? So it is difficult to understand their meaning. So no arguments; it is a fact that Vedas have discrepancies….. "

" Yes. A very significant sentence. Follow the path of Mahatmas. That is the highest dharma. There is nothing beyond this. Follow that path blindly, without any fear. "

" This book is of no use to you. Some books emphasize that God is not present. Ramachandra Rao, a lawyer wrote a book that God is not there and distributed them freely. He wonderfully developed the concept that God is not present with scientific reasoning. I gave an answer to his questions. I said I would give him rupees 10000 if he can tell me why he made the statement that there is no God. I kept the money ready and asked him to prove his statement. The cheque is ready but he did not reply so far. "

" This also is like that. How can we say he is not present? We need a witness. But we cannot mention about a witness. When we are saying there is no God at all, then what will the witness do? Nobody can prove it. "

" In the same way it is difficult to prove that God alone is present. "

" Nobody could do it so far. "

" No mathematics, no science, no physics. They are minor things. Mataphysics or anything else! Finally it is Sruthi to say whether he exists or not. "

" I agree. I am telling you that I agree.” "

" Unless I tell like that, you cannot argue. How will my argument stand? If there is no Sruthi, there is nothing. There is no proof. Sruthi proves that there is God and you must believe Sruthi. Both are true. Based on this, the Gita says ‘Yat sastravidhimutsrajya varthathe kama karatha na cha siddhi mavapnothi na sukham na parangathihi.’ That is scripture! It is Krishna’s idea. Effectively, there is only one scripture, Vedas. All others emphasise on rituals. They are not acceptable. It has sense and nonsense. It is better to stay away from them. We cannot enter a dense forest and come out. You argument and mine is the same. God is existing since eternity. There is nothing new. But that cannot be proved substantially unless there is a witness. That Super witness which is equal to God is only the Vedas. Vedas is apourusheyam, not written by man. That is the most important point. If the book has an author, it is an author created object. A created object cannot be witness to the uncreated object. That’s why Vedas are an uncreated object. Vedas are uncreated and impersonal; that’s why we must accept them. That is how everybody id forced to accept them. There is no escape. "

" Then mention this point on the first page……Not a question. This is what I think. Who are you to deny? This question is so deep and so eternal that it is difficult to answer without witness. But with witness, it becomes two and adwaitha is lost. God cannot be absolute. Something else is present. But we will not accept a second thing. If another is not there, who will tell whether the first is there or not? Nobody! God only is present. He will not say anything because he is silent. So it ends with a zero. It begins with zero and ends with zero. "

" Again, it is relative. "

" It is relative. There is no doubt about that. It is not absolute. "

" For that matter, define a straight line. It is that which has only length and no breadth. No breadth means it does not exist. When we say no breadth, it means the line does not exist. This is also like that. It has no beginning or end. "

" Once Mother gave me darshan and spoke only one sentence. ‘Our link is eternal’ and disappeared. That one sentence is guiding me. Eternal link! The eternal object embraced the empirical. If you leave empirical, eternity remains as it is once again. That is what finally happens. "

" We are maintaining a silent mind. The thoughts strike and disturb the state of silence. These thoughts are maya. When the thoughts stop, the mind attains silence. When the mind is in silence, rays of divine knowledge will reach you. The real picture will be clearly visible to you. That is the higher picture, the reality. These thoughts must go. But they don’t leave so easily. The thoughts of so many ages form layer upon layer of impressions. "

" When you have outward vision, these external impressions will keep on forming on your mind. Silence is impossible. "

" The main reason for his downfall is worldly life. There are many objects that attract the senses and challenge them. We receive those vibrations. There is another truth. A kind of current emanates from every human being; law of psychometry. Every jeeva gives and takes. When a good man and bad man meet, mutual currents are transferred. The bad man must become good and the good man must become bad, at least a little. That can’t be helped. This is known as aura circulation. "

" Brahma and Shiva also saw beautiful women and descended to the level outward vision. Vishwamitra did the same. You must remain in inwardness most of the time and never leave Mother’s bhava. We must live such a life. That is your aim. If you surrender to Mother, external vision will not harm you. Each one should be in a state of absolute silence with devotion and concentration and have a vision of Sovereign Sri Radha, the highest truth. Attaining Radha bhava means attaining Her darshan. Aparokshanubhavam!! "

" God + Prakruthi= Virat purusha "

" It is scary to see Virat purusha – thundering, beating….He follows nature. So jagathbhav + God = Virat purusha. "

" Sure. Absolutely true. "

" I have to accept; I will accept.” "

" I always accept what is there. "

" I think it goes to the world. "

" It will go to the world one day. "

" Poornamadhaha poornamidham….where is greater mathematics than this? "

" There is no higher mathematics than this. That is infinity. "

" The glory of infinity must be developed. "

" Tadaikyathi bahusyam prajayaiyethi. This infinite has come out of the world. "

" Oh yes. "

" I am hungry. You too must be hungry. "