Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
all this, thus statistically you come to know this must exist
And again by simple reasoning, presumption, you come to appreciate this must exist etc.,
all these, any varieties of means of knowledge, you use and you come to know that this exists, that exists
And if you say God exists, there's a creator and that creator exists, again, by a certain means of knowledge
It is indirectly, you accept, a certain belief,
so God exists, thus you, again, accept by a means of knowledge
Now, I ask this question, "Do you exist?"
You have to come up with an answer. "Do you exist?"
You can never give, there are only two answers possible, you know.
One is 'I exist' or 'I don't exist'.
I exist, do you exist? Yes or no?
You know, Yes or No? These are days of two answers only, it's all binary days. Yes or No?
Yes!
If you say I exist, yes!
So do you exist? 'I exist' - when you say,
is it, 'Probably, I exist' - you say? Or, 'For certain, I exist' - you say?
Probably heaven exists,
but do you say 'I exist, probably?'
No, that means, 'I exist, for certain', that's great.
Now, how did you come to arrive at this existence; Self-existence?
How do you say that I exist? There should be some means of knowledge
You see your body,
you see what happens in your mind,
there seems to be someone, you, who looks at the mind,
and who seems to be conscious of the eyes
and what is seen by the eyes
Now, similarly how do you come to arrive
at the existence of yourself to say "I exist"
How do you do that?
It's a big magic
How do you do that - 'I exist?'
It's not a belief,
there's no probability here
and so, but at the same time
that 'I exist, you say',
on what basis?
On what ground, by what means of knowledge?
I would say, by perception
By perception, that means, you perceive, like you perceive the flower here
You perceive the 'I' by the senses
Can you say that? You can't say that!
Because, the senses perceive varieties of objects
because there is 'You!'
'You' exist
Using the senses, through the senses, 'You' come to, senses themselves don't say or hear
So you are behind these senses.
Through the senses, with the help of the senses,
otherwise, through the means of knowledge, let us call it perception, you say, "This is a flower"
Therefore perception, listen,
the perception presupposes you.
You means 'I', presupposes you,
even before you come to see, you are.
In fact, you are not an object of your eyes.
The 'I ' doesn't jump out of yourself and stands there for the eyes to see.
The eyes are not 'I', Okay? The eyes are for the 'I'.
And therefore, the 'I' cannot be. What I say by the word 'I'? 'I exist'.
That 'I' cannot be an object, objectifiable for the sense organs
Okay?
Neither 'I' is heard or touched or smelled or tasted.
In other words, 'I' is not an object of your perception.
If it is not an object of your perception,
then do you infer? But inference also requires certain basic data
You require, in fact, even higher mathematics
All abstract things, disciplines of knowledge
all of them have their roots, their basis, in simple perception
Without perception there is no... knowledge, any other knowledge, any initial knowledge is not possible
So inference, presumption and so on, all of them
depend entirely upon the basic data gathered by perception
How do you say that I infer?
On what basis? If you say, I infer - I exist!
You know that French philosopher started his inquiry saying, so he said,
"I think, therefore I am"
He only started with that, it's not that he ended with that
He started "I think therefore I am"
In fact, conclusively, he put it the other way,
'in fact, I am, therefore I think'
If thought inference, so how do you infer?
You can say, "I am married, therefore I must exist"
That's a good inference, 'I am married, therefore I must exist'. Why?
Because, women are very smart
They don't marry dead people
So, we have certain postulates,
Women are very smart and they don't marry dead people
So, since this woman married me, I must exist!
No, that's not true. That's not true, Sir
In fact, you yourself say, she married because you existed
and she also knew minimum qualification on your part
is that you know that you exist.
You always said "I love you"
that means 'I exist'
Before you make the statement, I love you, 'I' exist
'Me' - the existent being, has love for 'you'. That's the meaning for 'I love you'
Me - the existent being - who has love for you
So, I love you - that 'love' is not a verb anyway, I told you
And therefore, Me, the existent being, has love for You .That is the real meaning of that sentence
Now therefore, you can't say that I exist before marriage
Definitely you existed before, I mean, I exist because I am married, you can't say, you existed before marriage.
After marriage, I don't know
But definitely before marriage, you did exist
And so I would say, I exist, because of what?
You cannot say, because I have memories, I exist
You existed even before you collected all your memories
and therefore, I exist, therefore, I have memories
I exist, therefore, I am ignorant
I exist, therefore, I have knowledge
I exist, therefore, I have love, I have other emotions
I exist, therefore everything
And so, that 'I exist' does not involve any means of knowledge. Understand?
You can understand, that there is only one thing in this world,
in this universe,
you can use the word creation; (सृष्टि) sṛṣṭi
in this (जगत्) jagat, in this world,
there is only one thing that is not arrived at by a means of knowledge
and that is You.
If the Self has to be, the existence of the Self, that is You,
if that has got to be, again, known through a means of knowledge,
then you know,
any means of knowledge, being a means, requires a person who uses the means
Any means, by the very fact that it is a means
proves that there is a subject who wields the means
Therefore, in a piece of knowledge, if I can call it a piece of knowledge,
there is, these three things are there, one is:
one is,
that the Knower,'I', when 'I' becomes the Knower.
Knower 'I'.
A Sanskrit word -
what's the word, come on, one of you read...
(प्रमाता) pramātā that's why this dash, (प्रमाता) pramātā Okay.
The other one is, 'Knower', then the next one is, this is 'I'.
Then there is the object of Knowledge, (प्रमाता) pramātā
Then there is an object of knowledge, we call it as object- Known!
Known, in Sanskrit, we call it as, what is that?
(प्रमेय) prameya
What is to be Known - (प्रमेय) prameya
This is (प्रमाता) pramātā, (प्रमेय) prameya
The Swami is standing here, what it is, (प्रमेय) prameya,
Who is the (प्रमाता) pramātā? You, you are (प्रमाता) pramātā
This is (प्रमेय) prameya
But then, this word is (प्रमेय) prameya
This word also is (प्रमेय) prameya not (प्रमाता) pramātā. This word is (प्रमेय) prameya
Means the standpoint of your knowledge now, what you have understood as a thing to be known, you read this word (प्रमेय) prameya
Now, how do you see the swami standing?
How do you know that there is a word here - 'Object?'
So this (प्रमाता) pramātā and (प्रमेय) prameya are to be connected
The connecting link is called, what?
The means, the Knower, Known, then I would say the means of knowing
The means of Knowing, the means of Knowing
In Sanskrit, we will call it as, so, what is that? (प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam
(प्रमाता) pramātā, (प्रमेय) prameya (प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam
So, if these three are there, then what we call (प्रमा)-pramā Knowledge. Let's not worry about that
(प्रमाता)-pramātā, (प्रमेय)-prameya (प्रमाणम्)-pramāṇam
(प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam is, that (णम्) ṇam there is called means, really, speaking in Sanskrit, so (प्रमा) pramā (करणम्) karaṇam,
So (प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam, Okay?
And therefore, the means of Knowledge, the means of Knowing is (प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam
Now look!
Swami is standing here is (प्रमेय) prameya
How do you know? My eyes are there, (प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam, I see
Who is seeing, (प्रमाता) pramātā, I see
I am asking, that I exist
I exist
The Swami exists (प्रमेय) prameya ,
because you are (प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam
Now, I exist,
How do you say that?
I exist, how do you say?
Then you require for 'I exist', that 'I' is existent
So the Swami exists. Object exists
Because, I have a means of knowledge.
I am here using the means of knowledge, know that there is an object existing
That's neat. Now, that 'I exist', how do you know?
If we have to know,
the existence of yourself,
by a means of knowledge, you require what, again? Another situation. The situation will be,
there should be, this 'I' become what? I become an object,
then another 'I' should be here,
and then what you require?
(प्रमाणम्) pramāṇam, you require the means
Then you require a means,
Okay?
Now we have to ask, this 'I' exists or not?
This 'I' - exists or not? Exists. How do you know?
You require a means of knowledge.
If you require a means of knowledge, it becomes what? Object
Then you require a means of knowledge,
requiring a subject
We will get into what? A regression.
And you know what will happen? You see the Swami and then,
I started, I triggered
You know without talking, by talking I trigger
But without talking, you just happen to perceive the Swami,
the Swami triggered off this Trinity inside
What is that?
So we have to now arrive at the Swami. Swami stands here
For this knowledge, what will happen?
There should be, it should be going on
Going on. Because, you have to arrive at the existence of 'I' first.
before you know, 'I' know the Swami.
'I' see the Swami
Therefore the 'I' must be first established,
And for to say, I see the Swami,
you must necessarily go on, go on and on and on...
all that you happened to do was, happened to open your eyes and see the Swami
Now you are busy, so, inside it goes on, when will it end?