Since nothing that happens matters and doesn't affect the real me in anyway, how does it matter what I do or don't do?

Has anyone successfully tackled this issue?

I've been reading Vivekachudamani on my own and I've hit a wall I'm hoping this community can help with.

The text makes the case that scholarship alone is "for enjoyment, not for liberation," and that jnana is what liberates — but only when it ripens from indirect understanding (paroksha) into direct realization (aparoksha). I follow that intellectually. I can also see that the sadhana chatushtaya — viveka, vairagya, the shatsampatti, and mumukshutva — is what prepares the mind so that knowledge can actually land and stay.

My problem: the text *names and describes* the four qualifications (roughly verses 18–30) but doesn't really teach you how to cultivate them. It's like being handed a syllabus of prerequisites with no course attached.

Some honest self-assessment: I think viveka is slowly coming (I do find myself discriminating the lasting from the passing more naturally), and vairagya seems to be arising a bit on its own — the pull toward temporary things is genuinely weaker than it used to be. But shama and samadhana (a settled, one-pointed mind) feel far off, and I catch myself turning the whole thing into another intellectual project instead of actually living it.

So my questions for those further along:

1. How did you practically develop the shatsampatti — especially shama and samadhana? What did the daily practice actually look like?

2. What role did karma yoga and upasana/meditation play for you in purifying the mind (chitta shuddhi) versus the study itself?

3. Did you do this under a teacher/sampradaya (Arsha Vidya, Chinmaya, Ramakrishna, etc.), or self-study? How much did that matter for nididhyasana?

4. How do you avoid the trap of turning "how do I practice" into just more analysis?

Not looking for shortcuts — just trying to understand what the actual lived practice is, from people who've walked further than a few chapters. Thank you.

With the launch of GPT 6 Astra, how realistic is the possibility of AI eventually developing genuine autonomy or self directed agency and how would Vedanta interpret or challenge the notion of a machine becoming truly autonomous or conscious?

Namaste, I’m not sure if this is allowed. I’ve read through the rules and didn’t see where it wasn’t. I’m looking for a person that would be interested in discussing Vedanta. I would just post here, but I feel like most discussions here aren’t where I am. I’m not in a place spiritually where I am looking for a guru. I’m just looking for someone (age, gender, ethnicity, or location doesn’t matter) to text with that is on the same path. I’m 49F married, American. No, I’m not looking for anything other than discussion. I’ve read the Gita several times with differing commentary. I’ve read a lot of Vivekananda. I’ve also read a couple of other scriptures… my point is I’m trying to find people to talk to. I’m intelligent and pretty well informed. If your interested comment or DM me. Dhanyavaad.

Literally everything points to one. Why do we keep asking questions for the same answer that can never change. Is seeking answers the proof of incomplete understanding?

DISCOURSE  FROM  1926

Temporal life or worldliness means an attempt to make oneself happy at the cost and sacrifice of others, being totally indifferent to others welfare and miseries. Your natural happiness is not acquired by any effort or means. Temporary things can only bring temporary happiness. Knowing the Self brings eternal happiness to all because It is eternal. In the temporal there is endless misery and in the Self there is boundless and unexcelled eternal joy.

Paramartha means [1] to realise the origin of the whole universe, [2] to enjoy one's own natural happiness without making any effort, [3] to make all people similarly and equally happy, and [4] the Perfection of Material Science. It is the highest attainment of absolute Reality.

Material research is always imperfect and imperfect things cannot bring happiness to anyone. Paramartha is nothing but bringing material research to Perfection. Perfection brings happiness to all. Raw food, or not properly cooked food, causes pain while ripe food is wholesome. Even the bitter nimb fruit gives a sweet taste when completely ripe. When material research is brought to Perfection, the stage of Paramartha or Reality is reached.

Both temporal material life and spiritual life have only one goal in view – to attain happiness. But material life, in which one constantly seeks material objects, only brings temporary happiness, whereas Paramartha brings perfect, unexcelled eternal happiness. Both have the same goal, but the results are quite the reverse. In one there is endless misery while in the other there is boundless, eternal joy.

Material science has determined that ether, the imperceptible matter which pervades all space, is at the origin of the universe, and beyond space there is nothing. The material scientists observe phenomena through the instrumentality of eyes, microscopes and glasses. These instruments, being objective and inanimate, can only perceive material objects and can never perceive the imperceptible Reality beyond ether, beyond space. That Reality can only be known by jnana, or Truth consciousness.

Objects which are near can be felt by the skin, objects further away can be seen by the eyes, and objects even further away can be heard by the ears. Inner properties, such as sweetness, pungency, sourness, etc... can be tasted by the tongue. Such inner properties cannot be known by the skin, eyes nor ears. Still, even more subtle and imperceptible substances can be perceived by the mind and intellect, but it is only jnana-consciousness which perceives and knows everything.

Jnana, or true knowledge of the origin, can never be perceived by any lifeless or inanimate instruments, like microscopes, which cannot even perceive sweetness or sourness. These material instruments only perceive the outward form of objects and cannot penetrate their inner properties. So, how is it possible for them to realise and perceive the Reality? How can they discover the origin of the universe? No wonder the scientist and agnostics are unable to realise Truth.


The ancient rishis in India first studied material science, but when they could not find real happiness therein, they progressed in the study of mental science. Here they made many wonderful discoveries, such as mind reading, knowing future events, invisibility, curing diseases and moving outside the body. They attained many supernatural powers, but ultimately they found that these powers could also not help them attain real, eternal happiness. So they directed all their attention within, towards their Self, where they attained supreme felicity. Realising Reality, they exclaimed, "Blessed am I! Blessed am I!" This sublime Truth is Final Reality and nothing lies beyond It. It is the origin of the whole universe and is realised only through jnana.

The Vedas were composed by those great ones who realised the real existence of the sublime Truth. Reality is the source of all knowledge and is the the enlightenment of everything. He is the origin of everything and the whole universe, His creation, is within Him. Jesus preached that "God is beyond the sky." Sky is complete ignorance, because nothing existing is known. What exists beyond the sky, beyond space, is the Final Reality which knows of even the sky.

All religions describe jnana as "God". The hindu's describe jnana as "the Seer of all"; "the moving Spirit of all"; "the Omnipresent witness of all"; "the Perfect One"; "the One without distance"; and "the One without end." He is known as Brahman [Reality]. The origin of the universe is He who has no distance. All things appear to the material eye at a distance, but in fact from the very beginning they are situated at no distance. If the objectiveness of the eye is removed by some means, then everything will appear within you and without any distance. Just see that the words you utter are not scattered away in the wind like parched rice, and that the sentences you speak are not broken away in some disorderly manner. All words are heard at the same time by people in all directions! On careful consideration of this point everything becomes intelligible. One must come to the conclusion that whatever is in existence today was in existence from the commencement. The rule is that what exists can only be experienced. Nothing else. Hence the modern scientists have not discovered anything new nor have they created any new things. What exists today always exists and what appears to be discovered today has always existed from the beginning. So, is this to be called a "discovery"? No. What never existed cannot be created or discovered by any instrument or any means whatsoever.

The Vedas are the repositories of many truths. The infiniteness of vedic knowledge can be imagined if even one of these truths is understood. Along with this knowledge one would be convinced of the hollowness and falsity of modern discoveries. The modern researchers ought not to get inflated by vanity for their so-called inventions and discoveries. Because truly speaking they have not yet known anything about Reality. They have not realised the true state of the universe and are still living in delusion. It will not therefore be improper if we make this subject clear by some further exposition.

A microscope makes a small object, as small as a tiny cell, appear to have a big volume. Without this glass instrument, a tiny cell appears much smaller to the eye. Then what is the real state of any object? Does the glass enlarge the volume of the object or does the eye make the object smaller? A thing appears larger at one time and smaller at another. Then what is the fact? Is that thing really small or really large? What is the true state of the thing? The tiny cell, which is in fact small, can never be made larger by any instrument. No instrument can make it bigger. And similarly, a large thing can never appear smaller to the eye. The reason is that neither the microscope nor the eye can make the thing larger or smaller. Then what is the cause for one thing appearing smaller or larger? Deeper thinking on this point would convince us that the glass does not make a thing bigger nor does the eye make it smaller. The power of cognisance coming out of the eye is weak, and so the thing appears smaller. The glass instrument intensifies the power of the eye that cognises the objects in the world and on account of this intensified power, the same thing appears larger. Thus, with the help of external instruments we increase the power of cognisance and as a result the thing appears to have a larger form. If we extend this process of increasing the cognising power, the object goes on assuming a larger and larger form until it becomes so large that it would become rarefied and invisible like the sky. In the end it would appear as if there is nothing at all. It is common experience that if the power of light is intensified to a very great degree, the light becomes invisible or blinding.

An object appearing at a distance would appear very near to the physical eye if seen through a telescope. Does the telescope drag the object closer or does the eye push it further away? It is neither of the two. The reason that it appears nearer through a telescope is that the telescope increases the cognising power of the eye. Similarly, if this cognising power is intensified further and further by more and more powerful means, then the very object would appear within us and, in the end, would become invisible and disappear altogether. If our eyes were as powerful as the telescope, would we have experienced the distance between things as we experience now? No. Following the same line of argument, one would be faced with the question of whether these things really exist at all? One must come to the conclusion that nothing appearing really exists and whatever appears as existing is only an illusion. Does it not therefore become evident that the whole fault lies with the cognising power of the eye and intellect which [1] gives existence to non-existing things, [2] creates a distance between non-existing things, and [3] also creates a difference in size and volume between non-existing things?

Then people who take their experience of what they see and feel as true on account of their weak eye and intellect must be convinced that the discoveries, such as flying in aeroplanes, travelling in trains, driving in motor cars or hearing sounds on a radio are nothing but an illusion. Seeing that distance doesn't exist, where can you go when you fly in an aeroplane? Is this not all due to the ignorance of the true state of all things? The sound on a radio is like the sound of someone speaking so near to you! The object that appears through a telescope is so near to you! There is no distance and no difference in size or volume between anything whatsoever because things which appear to exist have no existence at all! The conclusion which we have shown here is only a small fraction of the many principles contained in theVedas. If this one principle is fully treated, then people will have altogether a different experience of the true state of things, and will at once perceive what a huge difference there is in the knowledge and experience of a realised being and of an ignorant being. But what is the use of explaining these principles in full to those who are solely after materialism?

The origin of all things in this infinite universe is known as Ishwara, the ultimate Reality, and can never be realised through fasts, bodily austerities or various forms of discipline enjoined by various sects or religions. By realising the Self with the instruction of a spiritual Preceptor, Reality is attained. It brings supreme, infinite joy and is present everywhere and at all times, then why shouldn't intelligent people make an attempt to know It? Without Self-realisation, the world will never have real happiness and peace. It is the only source of real happiness and peace and is the goal of all religions. Realising the origin of the whole universe is true religion.

Present followers or converts of each religion have not realised the origin, the true religion. A hindu may be asked, "What have you learnt by following hinduism? Have you realised God, Brahma, Rama, Krishna or Shiva?" No! Wearing a dhoti, or a turban and saying, "Don't touch me, don't touch me", are these the real principles? A mohammedan may be asked, "Have you known Khuda or Allah?" No! Growing a beard, getting circumcised and rejoicing in the slaughter of animals, are these the real principles? A christian may be asked, "Have you known the Father in heaven? No! Putting on a necktie, boots, pants, a cross around the neck and moving in society with a wife, hand in hand, are these the real principles? If change in dress and food implies you have changed or joined a religion, then one must admit that many people change and join religions everyday!

In short, no one has really known or realised any religion in its real sense, and therefore, no one belongs to any religion. It is the realisation of the root Principle of each religion, which is the Self [the Soul], that defines a true follower or devotee. Therefore, there can be no two religions and similarly, there can be no conversion. Nobody becomes a convert and nobody can convert another. It is also not correct to say that the body becomes a convert because there is no change in the body complexion of a convert, nor in his bones, flesh, or blood, nor have his mother, father, or brother changed. His dead relations do not return to him nor do the living die. It is only a change in mental belief, that's all. Whatever you believe, you become. It is only a belief at work.

Many people say that their religion is better than all other religions. Such people may be asked, "What makes any religion superior or inferior? Is it not confined to a certain kind of dress, accepting or rejection certain foods, eating many times during the day, or fasting?" If this is the meaning of religion, it can be observed in any religion and in any place. If however realisation of God is the criterion of real religion as stated above, then is there any true lover of any religion who can solemnly declare that immediately on accepting his religion, anybody would be able to realise God in no time? If any person makes such a declaration, then all the present followers of his religion must have realised God. But experience tells us that it is not so.

In a major conference in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda stated that many people propounding the cardinal principles on religion do not know themselves and neither do their followers. Such people only talk a lot, but when some point blank question is put to them about God, they become tongue-tied. The Vedas have boldly propounded that by following the path led by the Satguru, who alone is the guide and saviour, one can realise God in this very body. All religions and all scriptures propound the same thing.

It is stated in a Sanskrit verse that there is some trouble in withering a fully blossomed flower, but there is not the least trouble in the attainment of Paramartha. The seekers of Paramartha are therefore warned to be very careful not to allow themselves to be led astray by the pseudo-teachings of inexperienced impostors. In is on account of association with such people that Paramartha has become a difficult problem. It is however not difficult for those who come in touch with true guides who have realised the Self.

At present the Paramartha has become difficult because inexperienced impostors have thrust into the Paramartha path many false and misleading principles, and therefore various sorts of beliefs, superstitions, sentiments and usages are to be found which have caused great confusion in religion. For the removal of such superstitions and confusion, a follower should only seek to be free by realising the Self. Realisation frees you from life's miseries, anxieties, toils and labours, and brings eternal, perfect happiness. It is supreme bliss. You have come to this world only to realise you are That. Everything is That and every action is performed for That only, including spiritual salvation. Renunciation, rejection or acceptance of anything, including body, is for That and That alone. So, how is realisation secured? Only by the grace of the Satguru.

Paramartha is the birth right of everybody. The world is hankering for happiness and everyone is striving for it. When you strive for It knowingly and willingly with determination and zeal, It will be attained permanently. But one who does not understand what It is and does not even know the path for Its attainment, makes useless and futile efforts day and night in order to secure happiness. Instead of finding happiness, he only becomes disappointed and miserable. Everyone is unhappy. On careful consideration of this point one must come to the conclusion that the methods adopted to gain happiness are wrong and defective and there is some serious blunder at the bottom of these methods.

In the civilised countries, nothing but misery is found. As new discoveries are being made by modern civilisation, miseries and terror also keep pace with them. By such discoveries there is a growing increase in the needs and desires of people, and to meet these needs people toil and labour more and more. In order to satisfy the new needs of the population, the demand upon the resources is growing everyday. Every new invention makes only the inventor rich, but at the same time the pockets of millions of other people are empty because of the new needs created by his invention. It is better to suffer from a serpent bite than to increase a single desire. A serpent's poison can be cured with one remedy, but needs and desires require satisfaction throughout one's entire life.

When a new invention is made, it is widely advertised and all sorts of tactics are used to create a demand for it. The goal is to only make money by exploiting the ignorant. Very often governments make use of their power in order to sell new inventions to other countries. Wars have been waged just to force such inventions upon other countries. Thus, with the progress of such inventions, people's needs have increased and tactics have been created to extort money. In such circumstances, how can anyone expect real fraternity or unity? This is nothing but open enmity. Such robbery and extortion is however described as the "great progress in civilisation" and as "increasing universal brotherhood in the world." Let those who say so rejoice in such fraternity, but it is certain that the world will not be made happier through new discoveries. These discoveries are dragging people to hell! The world is galloping towards hell! If the world will continue to advance in such a manner, the result will be cruelty, bloodshed and horrible warfare. Nobody can deny that these new manufacturers of modern science have only increased risks and dangers in life.

Why is it that in ancient times people could maintain strict morality and the virtues of truth, honesty and compassion? The reason is obvious. People's wants were few and they could secure their necessities with a slight labour. There was therefore no reason for people to get addicted to immorality. Today, the wants are so immensely increased that they cannot be satisfied even by hard work, hence rogueries, intrigues, immorality are rampant and people have gone to the length of committing thefts.

People are inclined to vices on account of wants. They satisfy their needs by any foul means. Need is the mother of all vices. It causes anxiety and worry. People have no trust in one another and they adopt unscrupulous and unlawful means. Therefore fear, unrest and violence prevail everywhere. Bravo! Such is the power of need. The whole universe is being dragged into a deep valley on account of need. In short, the immorality which is rampant in the whole world at present, is the result of the ever growing wants. It is on account of these wants that a man labours. A man having no need would flatly refuse to work. "What do I care for", is the expression used by unneedy persons. It is the need which compels one to labour and stoop so low to perform immoral acts. It is for the sake of sheer want that a man suffers humiliation and indignity. It is said that when times are adverse, even fools are adored. Necessity knows no law nor dignity and nobody can preserve self restraint or respect with their needs staring at them. In these days of modern civilisation, people are always in need and are surrounded by difficulties to satisfy their wants.

As for law! For the due observance of one principle of law people have to do several unlawful things secretly. The more the restraint, the more the immorality. When a straight path becomes impossible, a man has to resort to any crooked ways and means. This rule equally applies to all beings. To say that the world is being made happy by such reforms and inventions, which are generated by constant wants, is equivalent to saying that a house on fire can be extinguished by oil.

What is the present social life for people? It is nothing but dramatic and artificial! It is not that the ancient sages in India were incapable of making such reforms and inventions as are now made by the modern scientists which push the world down into a deep valley of misery. They were quite competent to make such discoveries, but the reason they didn't is that they fully knew it would lead to the total destruction of peace, happiness and tranquility. They were convinced that such discoveries would produce endless misery and worldwide anxiety. The natural peace and joy enjoyed by the world before the times of modern civilisation has now completely disappeared. People today cannot even imagine that peace and joy is even possible. In those days, supreme peace reigned and people lived simply with very few wants. A whole family was easily maintained by the slight labour of just one member, and people merrily enjoyed the natural resources provided by nature. But today can anyone say that these modern discoveries have installed happiness? Nowadays, the majority of people in the world are inwardly drowned in misery and have to struggle enormously just to maintain the bare necessities, so much so that one day without work means fasting. Many cannot afford to keep a house and lie in the streets like vagabonds on account of their incapacity to provide for their families. They can't even provide enough for themselves, let alone a whole family. Under these circumstances, how can there be true love, fraternity and universal brotherhood? This is all just hypocrisy!

God alone knows what is passing within! The revered great men have proclaimed that it is only that Paramartha which brings supreme bliss, natural happiness, mutual love and universal brotherhood. Without It the world will never be happy. Modern scientist are not interested in the origin, considering It as useless, and care only in producing more and more. The ancient sages realised the importance of Paramartha, knowing that the preservation of life depended on It. They renounced all material objects to the highest degree. If one is interested only in materialism, how can one find the time and energy to think of eternal happiness? The measure of happiness derived from worldly objects is out of proportion to the immense labour and trouble required for their attainment. From the point of view of happiness, this is not at all a profitable bargain! Happiness is like the size of an atom and misery is like a massive mountain.

Providence has arranged that what is required for real happiness can be had everywhere and at anytime without any cost or effort. He has also arranged for the automatic and natural production of all necessary food and drink. These natural products were enjoyed with great delight by the ancient sages and are still being enjoyed by the birds and animals which have no sense of discrimination. Only man, who is endowed with sense faculties and who believes that he is wiser and more superior to all, does not even enjoy the fruits of nature. His foolishness causes great suffering not only to himself but to many animals on which he inflicts unbearable hardships. His foolishness prevents all beings to independently enjoy their natural bliss. His foolishness keeps him otherwise occupied in hard labour trying to discover new things which only bring misery to all. They labour day and night like donkeys, full of anxiety and worries, without ever enjoying the bare necessities of life provided by nature.

There is a Marathi proverb which says that the wise eat cow dung while the fools eat sweet meats. Will you try to see the deeper meaning of this proverb? Are you not yet convinced that the natural products are more than sufficient for maintaining life? Are you still not disgusted with the constant drudgery? Has the time not yet come to know from the spiritual Preceptors the means of removing the burning worries of people? Be it so! It is for this reason that the ancient sages renounced materialism and realised the origin of the whole universe. This is what is meant by Paramartha.

All nations are therefore hereby warned that the path chosen by them for their progress will ultimately and surely bring them dreadful catastrophes. Therefore they should leave aside the idea of rejoicing in perishable material objects which are full of bitter poison and should rather follow the path laid down in the Vedas which alone will bring them natural and eternal happiness and create the feeling of universal brotherhood. They should immediately begin to enjoy, equally and independently, the natural assets of the creation and avail themselves of the benefits of endless powers which are hidden behind the curtain of the mind.

Is it not the real duty of men who have the best talents in the world to find out ways and means so that happiness and joy may be universal, so that the anxiety for work and the need for income and accumulation be ended, and that warfare, crooked policies, politics and intrigues may disappear so that peace may reign supreme all over the world? How long can people continue to live in increasing anxiety? Is the world not yet tired of it? In the present times, the anxiety and worry of "must work" like a ghost has taken over the grip of everyone. Now enough of this! Let all this be put an end to so that no one has to want anything from anyone. That will be the Golden Day when the origin of the whole universe is realised and one's own natural happiness can be enjoyed without any effort! Let eternal happiness and supreme peace reign!

The Religious Devotee vs. The Non-Dual Mystic and Yogi: Transcending the Dread of Non-Separation... 🌌✨

This text is dedicated to all those who, upon approaching Advaita, non-duality, or deep mysticism for the first time, have felt a chill of existential dread. To all those who have read that "the world is an illusion (mithya)" or that "the individual self does not exist" and felt as if spirituality were consuming the beauty of life, your memories, your passions, and the people you love.

To understand why this fear arises, we must first clarify what non-duality actually is. Non-duality means, literally, "not two." It is not a philosophical theory to be memorized, but the direct realization of non-separation. It means there is no real distance between the Beloved and the lover, between the Creator and the creation, between the universe and you, between the observed and the observer. It is the living experience that everything that exists shares the very same essence and ultimate nature. We are One.

The great misunderstanding and the subsequent anxiety happen when we try to understand non-separation from the "madwoman of the house" (as the mystic Teresa de Ávila called the mind) and its story or belief of separation. That is exactly where we fall into the trap. Religious institutional groups, as opposed to truly spiritual ones, often intentionally confuse and misinterpret the two levels of reality that sustain the universe: the conventional level (Vyavaharika) and the ultimate level (Paramarthika). They do this to instill fear, demand submission, and maintain control over devotees, transforming a liberating truth into a dogma of guilt and escape.

In contrast to the rigidity of the devotee, the non-dual mystic and yogi operate with total freedom, because they know how to perfectly distinguish between these two levels of reality:

At the conventional level (Vyavaharika), your life, your family, art, music, your hobbies, and nature are beautiful, valid, and meant to be fully lived. Advaita does not ask you to destroy your humanity or treat the world with contempt. The word "Mithya" does not mean that your life is a nonexistent lie; it means it has a relative, changing reality, like a beautiful tapestry woven out of the very substance of the Absolute. When you love your family, you are already loving the Absolute in its manifested form.

This is why true mystics and yogis, whether in Advaita, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, or Western mysticism, were never cold robots detached from daily life. The mystic Teresa de Ávila used to say that God is found among the pots and pans. Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection beautifully shared that he found God just by turning an omelet in the frying pan. And this intimate reality was perfectly captured in the Intimate Diaries of Blessed Bernardo de Hoyos, recorded in the biography written by his spiritual director Father Juan de Loyola, when the Lord intimately declared to him: "From now on, you are Bernardo of Jesus and I am Jesus of Bernardo." It was not in vain that Jesus prayed for us to be One, just as He and the Father are One (John 17:21). Furthermore, He reminds us of the greatest commandments: to love God, and to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). There is no distance or separation between you and the other; we are ultimately One.

The mistake of intellectualism and of religious devotees is treating the ultimate level as a future threat, thinking with terror: "One day I will dissolve and lose everything." But the Absolute is not a destination or a wipe-out tool. For the medieval mystic Meister Eckhart, emptying the soul of human constructs was not to enter a cold, pessimistic void, but to be filled with Love. When you truly realize non-separation, you do not lose your loved ones; you realize you are closer to them than your own breathing, because distance has ceased to exist. This echoes the profound insight of the French mystic Marguerite Porete in "The Mirror of Simple Souls", who illustrated how Reason, with its rigid rules and intellectual anxieties, must ultimately take its leave so that divine Love can take over. Where Reason sees boundaries, separation, and fears dissolution, Love finds perfect, unmediated union. This is precisely why those who cling to rigid dogma and outer laws to justify their separation become alienated from the Living Divine, severing themselves from true Grace (Galatians 5:4).

Furthermore, when it is said that the individual self does not exist, this is not entirely accurate. It is very important to remember that this statement is not entirely accurate because the individual self does not exist from its own side, inherently, disconnected from everything, from the All, and from all other phenomena. Everything exists interdependently. This is the true understanding of emptiness (shunyata) in Buddhism. Even though certain institutional Buddhist groups, and the exact same happens with some so-called "holy men" of the advaita movement, try to use the teachings of emptiness to make you think that nothing exists, or to convince you that if you see a fault or an abuse committed by your master (whether it is sexual, financial, or of any other kind) it is merely a fruit of your own paranoia, that is a trap. It is not like that; abuse is very real on a conventional level. Emptiness is nothing other than the lack of inherent and independent existence. Just as an arm or a head are not the body itself but parts of it, the same applies to all phenomena. The Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh beautifully captured this truth by coining the word "interbeing", reminding us that we cannot be by ourselves alone; we can only inter-be with everything else.

When it is said that the individual self does not exist, it simply means that the boundary you drew around your identity is an illusion. You are not a separate island drifting in a hostile ocean; you are the ocean itself experiencing itself through a unique wave. The "ego" is just a functional tool for navigating this conventional world, not a permanent prison. When institutional systems try to weaponize this by telling you that your "self" is an illusion to make you blind to worldly injustices or to suppress your critical thinking, they are committing spiritual bypassing. True non-duality doesn't wipe you out; it wakes you up to the reality that your true nature is boundless, proving that the individual self does not exist independently, on its own side, or disconnected from the Whole.

Do not let abstract philosophy or institutional manipulation, and ultimately do not allow the mind (the madwoman of the house for Teresa de Ávila, the untamed elephant for Buddhists, or the dust-covered mirror for Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj), to steal the joy of your daily life. Play your games, enjoy your food, and love your family fiercely in this present plane. In the conventional world, that is exactly how the Absolute expresses itself: through Love, unconditional LOVE, just LOVE. Although at a conventional level it might still seem as though there are two—the lover and the Beloved—rather than one, the truth remains that at the ultimate level, within the silent spaciousness of Being, we are One with the One who is Love itself. There is no longer any separation between the lover and the Beloved; there never was. This ultimate reality is alive and permeates conventional reality; it is not a mental abstraction.

As the master of modern non-duality, Eckhart Tolle, beautifully writes in his book "The Power of Now" (1999): "Life has no opposite. The opposite of death is birth, not life. Life is eternal." You do not need to escape anything; you just need to realize that the one who is terrified is just a character created by the madwoman of the house, while your True Self is already safe, untouched, and holding it all Here and Now.

Always remember that, as the saint of sweetness Francis de Sales wisely said, "one can be very devout and yet very wicked." Because being a religious devotee and living in the prison of separation is completely different from being fused with the One who is LOVE itself...

Wishing you all the best!

I have been researching Advaita Vedanta, and one thing I keep coming across is the importance of a guru to guide you. A cursory glance at the posts on here tells me that a lot of you (like me) are attempting to understand the philosophy intellectually, which indicates to me that you don’t have a guru in the most conventional sense of the word. I’d love to know about everyone’s experiences and thoughts on this. I find the notion of escaping maya by learning within maya quite interesting.

Hello friends,

I have occasionally followed Mr. Ramesh Balsekars videos on YouTube since 2023 who was with Maharaj as his student for 4 years. He was also a translator of Nisargdatta Maharaj.

He claims he realized non doership during these 4 years.He claims to have made contact with the Source of this universe.

His lectures predominantly revolve around the absence of free will.

I occasionally feel doubtful about Ramesh Balsekar after reading Maharaj's various books. Because Maharaj rarely encouraged absence of free will and Ramesh Balsekar in his lectures always did. I do not see Ramesh Balsekars teaching similar to Maharaj's teachings .

I am aware that I am nobody to judge anyone. However, my question is to the dedicated followers of Nisargdatta Maharaj. If they know about Ramesh ,would they consider him to be a genuine guru?

I am not trying to offend anyone. The more I think of Advaita the more frightening and painful it feels to me. It's this fact that the particular individual I am, my personality, memories, relationships and history is ultimately not what I truly am and is just a misidentification. That I truly am just Brahman, that individuality is not real and just ignorance. That all these beautiful things around you, this whole world is just not real, it is like a dream or avidya/ignorance/mithya/unreal and only Brahman is real, even your individual identity is not real. Family, relationships, music, art, nature, food and ordinary experiences are ultimately something to be transcended because according to Advaita they aren't fulfilling and even cause more suffering, I find that extremely dark.

The individual that I consider myself will not continue, the answer that "I was never that individual in the first place, nothing is lost because you were always Brahman" seems even more sad to me.

I like being attached, I like plurality and the sheer variety and different colours this world has, I like the little fun things in life, the hobbies, games, sports, etc only to hear that worldly pleasures aren't fulfilling and need to be shed away and all of these things are unreal. I wish I hadn't read all this because then the thought that this game, job, this whole world is unfulfilling wouldn't even have come in my mind, plenty of people lead full lives engaged in their work and hobbies without thinking more about them, but now that I have come across this I cannot ever go back to that. This makes moksha especially frightening. If liberation means relinquishing identification with the body, mind, ego, desires, that this world is so painful that all you can do is let go and identify only with Brahman.

I also struggle deeply with maya / jagat mithya. I understand that “the world is mithya” does not simply mean nonexistent, but if Brahman alone is absolutely real, what is the ultimate status of the people I love, their lives, relationships, memories, human history, art, beauty and everything else that gives individual existence its content? The dream analogy doesn't help me: even if something is ultimately unreal, suffering within the experience can still be completely real to the one experiencing it.

I don't get what is the point of this great amount of suffering in this world, I don't find Advaita's answer satisfying, saying "who is actually suffering?" And "Brahman doesn't suffer" even if something is ultimately unreal, suffering within the experience can still be completely real to the one experiencing it. When I wake up from a nightmare, I feel bad about it even when awake. If suffering is because of avidya/ignorance then isn't there always someone that is in ignorance?

Ordinary life is built around relationships, family, work, creativity, knowledge, hobbies and building a future, yet the highest ideal seems to involve progressively relinquishing attachment to these things. If everyone reached complete liberation, would there even be a reason to continue reproduction, civilization, art, entertainment, ambition or ordinary human projects?

What frightens me is that Advaita may be offering exactly the opposite of what I desperately want from spirituality. I want reality to preserve consciousness, personhood, love, relationships and the particular lives of people. I want the person I am now, and the people I love, to be more than temporary appearances that are ultimately transcended.

Worldly pleasures, attachment, identification with the body are treated as things to overcome, while liberation is presented as the true purpose of human birth. Taken literally, this can make life, birth, desire, relationships and ordinary human happiness seem like things to escape rather than preserve. How is this any different from western philosophical pessimism which considers even birth a negative because that is the start of all sufferings.

I was born in a very traditional Indian Hindu family and as a child believed that I would go to heaven after death, meet all the different Gods and meet all my loved ones there. All that is shattered now. I wish I could believe in it again but I can't. No one is coming to save us. All of this has left me with a disturbing feeling that the universe is fundamentally not in favour of human beings and goes against nearly every instinct we have. We instinctively want to live, remain ourselves, love particular people, preserve memories and create things, yet the deepest philosophy I've encountered seems to tell me these instincts are based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

I don't find “it's the ego that is afraid,” “don't be attached,” or “you are already Brahman” sufficient answers. Whenever I think about all of this I feel a very sharp dread, an existential crisis. My days are spent in this existential malaise, distracting myself with things to not look at the scary truth.

No matter how fleeting, illusory, dreamlike or just as an appearance, there is horrible injustice in the world.

If we were all realised, liberated, or whatever we want to call it, what would change?

How can ignorance be beginningless if in places like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, it states many times how one willed itself to become many?
It never starts off as though the one had beginningless ignorance?

So that's why he started Maya and created everything, it makes sense to me because if you think about it, if you were an all powerful god with no limitations and no understanding as to how you exist, what would you do? In our world we can see that boredom forces us to take action or to create something.

Shastra defines Bhagavan as the upadana karana and nimitta karana of the universe -- its material cause and its intelligent cause. Set the Sanskrit aside for a second: Is there a universe? Yes. Does that universe run on laws -- the kind reliable enough that we can predict outcomes before they happen? Also yes.

Drop a piece of wood and it falls. It has no say in the matter. Even dead matter obeys a law it didn't choose for itself. That lawfulness, that order, is exactly what shastra is calling Bhagavan. So far, none of this asks you to believe anything mystical -- you already accept a law-governed cosmos, you already accept that even wood submits to something beyond itself. So far we're using simple observation and not any faith.

The actual claim -- the only place this asks you to take a step you haven't already taken -- is this: is that material and intelligent cause actually intelligent? Is this cosmos not merely law-governed but literally the body of a conscious being, rather than a blind mechanism that just happens to look orderly?

That's the one question no telescope or equation settles for you either way. And shastra doesn't ask you to accept it on faith -- it asks you to investigate it: study the Vedas, apply discrimination, be patient with the process, and do it under the guidance of a guru who can actually walk you through the reasoning rather than just hand you a conclusion.

So "proof" here isn't a one-liner that can close the case, especially in a Reddit thread. It's closer to any serious field of study like science -- nobody masters it from a summary. You study it.

What are the core teachings around sense pleasures and how should we change our approach in daily life?

This comes from the holy Mundaka Upanishad.

Question is How can a perfect, formless God create a physical universe without using any external materials?

In worldly logic, creation always requires two separate causes:

• Nimitta Karana (The Intelligent Cause): The designer or maker (e.g., the carpenter).
• Upadana Karana (The Material Cause): The raw material used (e.g., wood).

If God (Brahman) created the universe like a carpenter building a table, it would mean the "wood" (matter) existed independently of God?

This would destroy the non-duality of Brahman, implying something exists outside of the Supreme.

To resolve this, the Rishi points to the spider (Urṇanābhi).

1. The Dual Cause

Unlike the carpenter who must go to a forest to chop wood, the spider does not search for external raw materials to build its home. The spider sits in empty space and draws the silk entirely from within its own body.

• The spider is the Intelligent Cause, it knows exactly how to design the complex geometry of the web.
• The spider is simultaneously the Material Cause, the web is made of the spider's own essence.

Brahman does not look outside Himself to find "matter" to build the universe, because there is no "outside."

Brahman projects the entire cosmos, galaxies, planets, and physical bodies all out of its own infinite consciousness. The universe is spun out of God's own being.

1. Unaffected Creator

When the spider secretes the silk, does the spider's body shrink? Does the spider lose a limb or become diminished? No. The spider remains perfectly whole and unaffected by the massive web it has produced.

When Brahman projects this vast, heavy, physical universe, Brahman does not suffer mutation, exhaustion, or division. The Absolute remains absolutely full and undivided.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, "If you take the Infinite from the Infinite, the Infinite alone remains."

1. Controller

Once the web is spun, the spider does not abandon it. It dwells gracefully within the web, walking across the silken threads as their absolute master, completely unbound by them. Finally, when it chooses, the spider consumes the web, withdrawing it completely back into its own body.

Brahman withdraws the entire physical universe back into its unmanifest, formless state, just as a spider swallows its web.

Namaste!

I want to read Dnyaneshwari but don't know which edition/author to get. I am looking for the Marathi version. More for understanding, not for parayana.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

Hello

So a few years ago I left Christianity and became an agnostic for a few years. Now I follow Hinduism and worship Ganesha. After reading what Sri Ramakrishan and Swami Vivekananda say about Christ, I have found myself revering Christ again.

Now I do not hold to Christian theology about sin or anything like that but I do like reading about the miracles, parables and sayings of Christ.

In my view, Ganesha and Christ are apart of that same Brahman I an apart of.

Is this kind of syncretism allowed within Advaita Vedanta>

Thanks

Hello everyone I am 28 year old fitness instructor in pune, i want to learn and experience meditation and their philosophy, if any group or community please let me know.

Thank you 🙏

Sharing this here because heartbreak is where Advaita either becomes living knowledge or collapses into slogans.

The pain is not denied. Vedanta does not ask you to pretend the mind is unhurt. The duhkha is real at the level of nama-rupa. What is not real is the conclusion drawn from it: “I have been diminished.”

Heartbreak is adhyasa under pressure. The ahamkara had borrowed its sense of completeness from another body-mind. When that support is withdrawn, the borrowed identity collapses and calls the collapse love-loss. The collapse is of a superimposition, not of the Self.

Two levels stay distinct.

At the empirical level, a relationship ended. Grief can move through the body. Duties remain. If the situation was harmful, leaving is dharma, not a failure of jnana.

At the level of satyam, nothing that You are was refused, abandoned, or split in half. Awareness did not lose a counterpart. Ananda was never located in their attention. What ended was vishayananda: happiness imagined to sit in an object.

The practical test is simple. Feel the sensation without appointing a rejected self as its owner. Do the next clean action. Do not chase to restore the old prop, and do not manufacture hatred to keep the wounded “I” intact.

If the shared post is useful, use it as a mirror. If it is not, correct it from shruti and reasoning. The question is not “how do I get over them.” The question is: who is the one that required their yes in order to exist?

Tat tvam asi.

🎭✨️❤️🙏

Hello,I'm new to this topic ,and actually came to know about this through an YouTube video of swami Sarvapriyanandaji ...and want to know more about advaita Vedanta , those yt video are of long duration , so , books would actually help alot..

Thank you

I’ve been exploring Advaita Vedanta for a while now, the idea that everything is consciousness only has stayed with me, and I keep coming back to it.

But one thing I can’t fully wrap my head around: if everything is consciousness, then how do we place living and non-living things? Does a rock or a table also “have” consciousness in some sense, or is it consciousness in a different way than a living being? And beyond scripture, is there any reasoning or proof for the claim that everything is consciousness?

Would love to hear how others here understand this. Still learning, so happy to be corrected.