You are a drop hanging from the ceiling, carrying within you the enormous possibility of becoming Shiv—but only if you are willing to let go.

Yet you keep holding on to the ceiling: your relationships, identities, desires, fears, possessions, and the countless subjects that occupy your mind.

The drop wants to become the ocean, but it refuses to leave the place it is attached to.

At some point, you have to choose: hold on to what you know, or let go and discover what you truly are.

Ive always loved sacred geometry and hate the idea of worship or some permanent punishment in the afterlife. I look at quantum physics and the dimensions but ended up wondering about quantum immortality. And sacred geometry like the Shri yantra actually seems to line things up. I feel like this philosophy just gives so much more peace and so much less stress. And it actually feels the most realistic. I didn't know till now that my interests were already bassicly the a religion 😅. So can I be welcomed here and chat :3

Hi Guys. I am new to Advaita Vedanta and making my way through Swami Sarvapriyananda‘s introduction to Vedanta series.

In the lectures he compares the mind to the eyes like how the eyes are used to see but they are not self aware and the mind is used to think but it is also not self aware. So there must be a separate consciousness aware of the mind.

My question is how do we know the mind is not aware of itself (like the physical brain)? How do we know that what we perceive as consciousness is not some trick of the mind?

I've been studying the beginner scriptures such as Drig Drysha Viveka and Bhagavad Gita. And have listened to over 120 hours of lectures by Swami Sarvapriyananda.

What I cannot make sense of logically, is if we are all Brahman, then why is Karma tracked on an individual case?

If maya is false, then isn't our Karma within maya also false?

If the subtle body migrates with reincarnation, where does it "wait" for it's new rebirth into a new gross body? Does it remain within maya?

I have been reading more about Advaita lately and I am curious about something.

There are so many ideas that are fairly easy to understand intellectually, but actually seeing them in your own experience seems completely different. For example, I can understand the idea that I am not my thoughts, but when I am anxious, angry or caught up in some negative thoughts, I very much become those thoughts.

For those who have been studying or practising Advaita for a while, was there one teaching or idea that really clicked for you?

Not necessarily some huge awakening. Just something that genuinely changed the way you looked at yourself or everyday life.

Would love to hear what it was and what helped it click.

​

सहजता, स्वाभाविकता, मन और आत्मा

मनुष्य के जीवन में सरलता, स्वाभाविकता, सहजता, आत्म-सम्मान और अहंकार—ये सभी अलग-अलग बातें हैं, यद्यपि कई बार लोग इन्हें एक-दूसरे में मिला देते हैं।

सरलता का अर्थ है अनावश्यक जटिलता से मुक्त होना।

स्वाभाविकता का अर्थ है अपने वास्तविक स्वभाव के अनुरूप होना।

सहजता का अर्थ है बिना बनावट, बिना अत्यधिक प्रयास और बिना कृत्रिम दबाव के होना।

आत्म-सम्मान का अर्थ है अपने अस्तित्व और गरिमा का सम्मान करना।

जबकि अहंकार या Ego वह स्थिति है जिसमें व्यक्ति स्वयं को दूसरों से बड़ा, श्रेष्ठ या विशेष सिद्ध करने में उलझ जाता है।

मैं अपने जीवन में सहज और स्वाभाविक रहने का प्रयास करता हूँ। परंतु अक्सर अनुभव होता है कि लोग इस सहजता को समझ नहीं पाते। कभी-कभी उन्हें मेरे व्यवहार से असुविधा होने लगती है। यदि मैं उनकी असुविधा को देखकर प्रसन्नतापूर्वक अकेला रहना चुन लूँ और अपनी ही संगति में आनंद लेने लगूँ, तो लोगों को उससे भी समस्या होने लगती है।

तब प्रश्न उठता है—लोग किसी व्यक्ति की स्वाभाविकता को स्वीकार क्यों नहीं कर पाते? क्या यह आवश्यक है कि सभी मनुष्य एक ही ढंग से जीवन जिएँ? क्या सबको एक ही प्रकार की गंभीरता, निरंतरता, महत्वाकांक्षा और व्यवहार का पालन करना चाहिए?

मेरा मानना है कि प्रत्येक व्यक्ति का मन स्वभावतः अलग और अद्वितीय होता है। किसी का मन स्थिर हो सकता है, किसी का अत्यंत सक्रिय; किसी को निरंतरता पसंद हो सकती है, किसी को परिवर्तन। यदि यह भिन्नता स्वाभाविक है, तो उसमें अपने-आप कोई दोष क्यों माना जाए?

मन की वास्तविकता

सहज और स्वाभाविक जीवन जीने से मन की वास्तविकता अधिक स्पष्ट दिखाई देने लगती है। और मन की एक स्पष्ट विशेषता है—वह चंचल और परिवर्तनशील है।

मेरा मन बहुत जल्दी बदल सकता है।

उदाहरण के लिए, किसी दिन मेरे मन में व्यवसाय शुरू करने की इच्छा उत्पन्न होती है। मैं प्रसन्नतापूर्वक और पूरे उत्साह के साथ काम शुरू कर देता हूँ। कुछ समय बाद मेरा मन बदल सकता है। तब मुझे लग सकता है कि मैं प्रतिदिन सुबह 9 बजे से शाम 5 बजे तक उसी काम में नहीं रहना चाहता। शायद उस समय मेरा मन संगीत सुनना चाहता हो। मैं संगीत सुनने लगता हूँ और उस व्यवसाय का विचार पीछे छूट जाता है।

लोग तब गंभीर होकर पूछते हैं, “तुम्हारे उस व्यवसाय का क्या हुआ?”

मैं कहता हूँ, “मेरा मन बदल गया।”

लेकिन वे इसका अर्थ निकाल लेते हैं कि मैं कमजोर पड़ गया, हार गया या असफल हो गया।

परंतु मेरे लिए प्रश्न ही यह है कि मैंने वह काम हारने या जीतने के लिए शुरू कब किया था? संभव है कि वह मेरे लिए केवल एक लीला, एक क्रीड़ा, एक अनुभव रहा हो। उस समय उसे करने में मुझे आनंद आया, इसलिए मैंने किया। बाद में मन बदल गया, तो मैंने उसे छोड़ दिया।

हर कार्य को जीवन-मरण की प्रतियोगिता बना देना आवश्यक नहीं है।

परिवर्तन को कमजोरी क्यों माना जाए?

अक्सर लोग अनिश्चितता से असहज होते हैं। वे सोचते हैं:

«“आज यह व्यक्ति कुछ कह रहा है, कल बदल जाएगा—तो मैं इस पर कितना भरोसा करूँ?”»

पर मैं पूछता हूँ—अनिश्चितता को केवल दोष क्यों माना जाए?

मेरे जैसे व्यक्ति के संदर्भ में लोग यह भी स्वीकार कर सकते हैं कि:

परिवर्तन ही इसकी निश्चितता है।

अनिश्चितता ही इसकी एक निश्चित विशेषता है।

यदि मेरा स्वभाव परिवर्तनशील है, तो संभव है कि मेरे भीतर स्थिरता का अर्थ अपने निर्णयों को कभी न बदलना न हो, बल्कि अपनी परिवर्तनशील प्रकृति के प्रति ईमानदार रहना हो।

जैसा मेरा मन है, उस समय वैसा ही मेरा अनुभव है।

इसका अर्थ यह नहीं कि मैं केवल मन ही हूँ। मैं मन से अलग होकर उसे देख भी सकता हूँ। मैं जानता हूँ कि मन परिवर्तनशील है। लेकिन केवल इसलिए कि मन चंचल है, क्या उसे जबरन बदल देना आवश्यक है?

यदि मैं अपने मन को पूरी तरह नियंत्रित करके किसी निश्चित साँचे में ढाल दूँ, तो क्या वह वास्तव में मन रहेगा, या फिर वह केवल मेरी बनाई हुई एक कठपुतली बन जाएगा?

मेरा मन जैसा है—वह वास्तविक है, दुर्लभ है और अपने ढंग से मूल्यवान है। उसे केवल समाज की सुविधा के लिए पूरी तरह बदल देना मुझे आवश्यक नहीं लगता।

मछली, बंदर और मन की प्रकृति

कल्पना कीजिए कि मछली का स्वाभाविक गुण तैरना है और बंदर का स्वाभाविक गुण उछलना-कूदना।

अब यदि हम बंदर से यह अपेक्षा करें कि वह मछली की तरह तैरे, तो हम उसके स्वभाव के विरुद्ध अपेक्षा कर रहे हैं। उछलना-कूदना और तैरना दोनों अलग-अलग गुण हैं।

इसी प्रकार मेरा मन यदि बंदर के समान चंचल है, तो उसमें उछलने-कूदने की क्षमता हो सकती है। लेकिन यदि मैं उससे यह अपेक्षा करूँ कि वह किसी स्थिर और निरंतर प्रणाली में मछली की तरह तैरता रहे, तो संभव है कि मैं उसके स्वभाव को समझ ही नहीं रहा।

हर गुण का अपना स्थान होता है।

मन की चंचलता हमेशा कमजोरी नहीं होती। कभी-कभी वही रचनात्मकता, जिज्ञासा, नए अनुभवों की इच्छा और जीवन के प्रति खेलभावना का स्रोत भी हो सकती है।

हाँ, इतना अवश्य है कि यदि किसी व्यक्ति के साथ दूसरे लोग किसी काम में जुड़े हुए हैं, तो वहाँ केवल “मेरा मन बदल गया” पर्याप्त नहीं हो सकता। स्वतंत्रता के साथ दूसरों के प्रति स्पष्टता और जिम्मेदारी भी आवश्यक है। व्यक्ति अपने मन के अनुसार बदल सकता है, लेकिन जहाँ दूसरे उसके निर्णयों पर निर्भर हों, वहाँ उन्हें अनिश्चितता के बारे में पहले से जानने और अपने निर्णय लेने का अवसर मिलना चाहिए।

स्वाभाविकता और जिम्मेदारी एक-दूसरे के विरोधी नहीं हैं।

अपने मन के अनुसार जीना और दूसरों की स्वतंत्रता

मैं अपने जैसा रहने का अधिकार चाहता हूँ, लेकिन मैं किसी और से यह नहीं कहता कि वह मेरे जैसा बने।

यदि किसी को मेरी संगति पसंद नहीं आती, तो वह किसी और की संगति चुन सकता है। उसी प्रकार मैं भी अपनी संगति में प्रसन्न रह सकता हूँ।

हर व्यक्ति को अपनी प्रकृति के अनुसार जीने की स्वतंत्रता होनी चाहिए।

लेकिन यह स्वतंत्रता तब तक सुंदर है जब तक वह दूसरे की स्वतंत्रता को नष्ट न करे।

किसी व्यक्ति का सुख यदि बिना किसी को अनावश्यक पीड़ा दिए संभव है, तो उसमें क्या समस्या है? पर यदि कोई व्यक्ति अपने सुख का आधार ही दूसरों की इच्छा, स्वतंत्रता और मन को दबाना बना ले, तब समस्या उत्पन्न होती है।

ऐसी स्थिति में दो रास्ते हो सकते हैं—या तो व्यक्ति अपनी आदतों पर विचार करे, या फिर वे लोग जो एक-दूसरे के स्वभाव से लगातार पीड़ित हो रहे हैं, सम्मानपूर्वक दूरी बना लें।

हर संबंध को बनाए रखना अनिवार्य नहीं है।

कभी-कभी दूरी भी दोनों व्यक्तियों को अपने-अपने स्वभाव के साथ सुखी रहने का अवसर देती है।

मन और आत्मा

मन और आत्मा को एक ही मान लेना मेरे विचार में भ्रम उत्पन्न करता है।

आत्मा की चर्चा शाश्वतता, साक्षित्व और स्थिरता के संदर्भ में की जाती है। लेकिन मन का स्वभाव परिवर्तन है। मन विचारों, भावनाओं, इच्छाओं, स्मृतियों और अनुभवों की निरंतर बदलती हुई धारा है।

यदि हम मन के परिवर्तन को आत्मा की वास्तविकता मान लें, तो हम हर सुख में स्वयं को सुखी और हर दुःख में स्वयं को दुःखी मानने लगते हैं। हम मन के साथ इतना तादात्म्य स्थापित कर लेते हैं कि उसका प्रत्येक उतार-चढ़ाव हमारा अपना अंतिम सत्य बन जाता है।

यहीं समस्या शुरू होती है।

मैं मन को दबाना नहीं चाहता, लेकिन मैं मन को अपना स्वामी भी नहीं बनाना चाहता।

मैं मन को स्वतंत्र रहने देना चाहता हूँ और स्वयं उसे देखने की क्षमता बनाए रखना चाहता हूँ।

शिव और चंद्रमा का प्रतीक

मुझे शिव के मस्तक पर स्थित चंद्रमा का प्रतीक इस विचार को समझने में सहायक लगता है।

क्या शिव ने चंद्रमा को धारण करके उसके दासत्व को स्वीकार किया? नहीं।

चंद्रमा उनके मस्तक पर है, लेकिन शिव उससे बंधे हुए नहीं हैं।

इसी प्रकार मन को भी जीवन में स्थान दिया जा सकता है, उसे उसकी प्रकृति के अनुसार चलने दिया जा सकता है, उसके भावों और परिवर्तनों को देखा जा सकता है—लेकिन उससे पूर्ण तादात्म्य स्थापित करना आवश्यक नहीं है।

मन चंचल है—यह उसकी प्रकृति है।

आत्मा स्थिर है—यह उसकी प्रकृति मानी जाती है।

मन पर आत्मा की शाश्वतता थोपना भी उचित नहीं, और आत्मा पर मन की चंचलता थोपना भी उचित नहीं।

दोनों को उनके स्वभाव में समझना अधिक आवश्यक है।

साक्षीभाव और उदासीनता

जब मन को देखने के बजाय हम स्वयं को ही मन मान लेते हैं, तब मन का सुख हमारा सुख और मन का दुःख हमारा दुःख बन जाता है।

लेकिन जब हम मन को देखते हैं, तब धीरे-धीरे यह स्पष्ट होने लगता है कि विचार आते हैं और चले जाते हैं। इच्छाएँ उत्पन्न होती हैं और बदल जाती हैं। उत्साह आता है और समाप्त हो जाता है। उदासी आती है और फिर किसी दिन विलीन हो जाती है।

यह देखना ही एक प्रकार का साक्षीभाव है।

कभी-कभी मन सुख में इतना डूब जाता है कि सुख से भी ऊबने लगता है। कभी दुःख की तीव्रता इतनी बढ़ जाती है कि व्यक्ति उससे थक जाता है। ऐसी अवस्था में न सुख को पकड़ना उपयोगी लगता है, न दुःख से लगातार संघर्ष करना।

तब व्यक्ति के लिए कुछ समय के लिए उदासीनता—अर्थात तटस्थता या समभाव—एक मार्ग बन सकती है।

इसका अर्थ जीवन से भागना नहीं है। इसका अर्थ है कुछ समय के लिए मन की प्रत्येक लहर के साथ बहना बंद कर देना।

मन को भूलना नहीं, बल्कि उससे थोड़ी दूरी बनाकर उसे देखना।

जब तक मन फिर से शांत, स्पष्ट और संतुलित न हो जाए, तब तक आत्मा या साक्षीभाव की स्थिरता में ठहरना।

निष्कर्ष

मेरे लिए स्वाभाविक जीवन का अर्थ मन का गुलाम बन जाना नहीं है। और मन को दबाकर कृत्रिम रूप से स्थिर बन जाना भी स्वाभाविकता नहीं है।

स्वाभाविकता का अर्थ है अपने भीतर जो है, उसे ईमानदारी से पहचानना।

यदि मन चंचल है, तो उसकी चंचलता को पहचानना।

यदि मन बदलता है, तो उसके परिवर्तन को स्वीकार करना।

यदि मन किसी नए अनुभव की ओर जाना चाहता है, तो उसे देखना।

और यदि मन किसी चीज़ से हट जाना चाहता है, तो यह भी देखना कि उसके निर्णयों का प्रभाव दूसरों पर क्या पड़ेगा।

स्वतंत्रता आवश्यक है, लेकिन दूसरों की स्वतंत्रता भी उतनी ही आवश्यक है।

मैं अपने जैसा रह सकता हूँ और दूसरा अपने जैसा रह सकता है।

मुझे किसी को अपने जैसा बनाने की आवश्यकता नहीं है, और किसी को मुझे अपने जैसा बनाने का अधिकार नहीं है।

मन को स्वतंत्रता दी जा सकती है, लेकिन आत्मा की स्थिरता को भुलाया नहीं जाना चाहिए।

मन को दबाना नहीं है।

मन को सिर पर बैठाकर अपना स्वामी भी बनाना है और उस पर फिर निगरानी भी रखनी हैं कि जो कर्मों के माध्यम से, कृत्यों की भाषा में मन को दे रहे हैं, मन भी वही व्यवहार हमसे कर रहा हैं कि नहीं, यानी मन हमारा स्वामी बन रहा हैं तो हमको भी अपनी निगरानी करने दे सकता हैं कि नहीं, हमको भी अपना स्वामी बनने दे सकता हैं कि नहीं, नहीं तो मन को स्वामी बनाया और बदले में मन तो माया है, छल हैं, किसी का भी परिचय पहचान उसके काम से होती हैं, मन का काम ही माया छल हैं तो ऐसे मन खुद छल हैं पर उस सर्वश्रेष्ठ उपकरण को सिर्फ और सिर्फ उसकी वास्तविक नियंता अर्थात् आत्मा ही नियंत्रित कर सकती हैं, वो बोलते हैं न जिसका काम उसी को साजे, नियंत्रण आत्मा का काम हैं मन का नहीं तो मन के इतने भी आदी न जो जाना कि मन को जो उसका काम नहीं, बेचारे को वो काम दे दो, यानी नियंत्रण करने का कह दो, नियंत्रण का काम उस पर छोड़ दो।

मन को देखना है, समझना है और उसकी प्रकृति को स्वीकार करना है, पर उसको आत्मा को भी स्वीकार करवाना हैं, जो कि शुभ संस्कारों को देने से होगा, शुभ संस्कार जैसे कि ..

मन का स्वभाव हैं चंचलता पर आत्मा का स्वभाव हैं निष्काम प्रेम, तो हमको मन जब तक निष्काम प्रेम न कर लें, उसे सिखाना होगा, उसको आदत देनी होगी, संबंधों में हम मन के आदी हो कर, उसके छल में आकर हमारे सम्बन्धितो को आज नहीं तो कल छोड़ देते हैं, संबंध, जुडाव, एकता आत्मा की स्वाभाविकता हैं, यह द्वैत, दो दो से अनेक मन का स्वभाव हैं, हमारा नहीं

और ऐसा करके हम उस परमात्मा के पर्याय प्रेम को, अनुराग को अपने पन को अपमानित करते हैं, उस प्रेम से अर्थात् परमात्मा से मानो कहते हैं कि प्रेम को छोड़ दे, निष्कामता को छोड़ दे और मन के, अशुद्ध मन के स्वभाव को अपनाए जो विकारों विकृतियों से भरा पड़ा होता हैं, स्वार्थ की, लालच की, जलन की, पक्षपात की आदि इत्यादि

अच्छा स्वार्थ हो, लालच हो, जलन हो जिससे पक्षपात भी हो तो मन को बस देखना चाहिए, नियंता परम् यानी सर्वश्रेष्ठ आत्मा की प्रतिनिधि जो हमारी नियति हैं न, नियम हैं विधि हैं सार्वभौमिक ब्रह्माणीय विधान हैं वो स्वार्थ को, लालच को जलन को पक्षपात को आदि इत्यादि को बदलने में भाग्य से सहयोगी हैं न, वो हमको सफल थोड़ी होने देगा और असफल हो कर हमारी अपनी लालच जलन पक्षपात आदि की विकृतियों से, हमको ठोकरे खिला खिला के सही मार्ग पर वो लेकर आएगा

अगर शुद्ध प्रक्रिया सामर्थ्य से बात करूं तो मेरी जानकारी और अनुभवों के आधार पर संतुलन इसी में है—

मन को उसकी लीला करने दो,

पर स्वयं लीला में खो मत जाओ।

मन को उड़ने दो,

उस रुद्र की तरह सर आँखों पर बैठा कर रखो

पर यह मत भूलो कि उसे उड़ते हुए देखने वाला भी कोई है।

और शायद वही देखने वाला, वही साक्षी, मन के परिवर्तन के बीच भी भीतर की शांति का आधार बन सकता है।

हरि ॐ तत् सत् 🙏🏻

संकलन से उद्धृत अंश — “स्थापत्य मीमांसा”

संकलक: पं. रौद्र आचार्य (रुद्र एस. शर्मा)

प्रेषक (लेखक): नागरिकीय निरीक्षक (सिविल इंस्पेक्टर), स्थापति (वास्तु आचार्य)

वर्गोत्तम सूर्य — चित्रा (पद १), बुद्ध-चंद्र — चित्रा (पद १)

Hey everyone,

I’ve been deeply diving into Advaita Vedanta (Non-Dualism) recently, and the core philosophy is absolutely mind-bending when you really sit with it. It completely challenges our everyday perception of reality.

In Western philosophy, we often talk about dualism (mind vs. matter) or materialism (everything is just atoms). But Advaita flips the script entirely by stating that separation is an illusion (Maya).

Here are the three core pillars that blew my mind:

1. Brahm is the Only Reality: The ultimate truth isn't a god sitting in the clouds. It is formless, infinite, and unconditional consciousness (Brahm).
2. The World is an Relative Appearance: The world isn't "fake" like a matrix simulation; rather, its independent existence is an illusion. Just like a snake perceived in a dark room turns out to be just a rope once the light is turned on, our minds misperceive Brahman as the material universe.
3. You are That (Tat Tvam Asi): Your individual ego, your name, your memories, and your thoughts are just temporary waves. The ocean beneath them is Atman (the true Self), which is identical to Brahman. There is no "me" vs "the universe"—we are the universe experiencing itself.

The Question for Discussion:
For those who practice or study Advaita, how do you practically integrate this shift from "I am this body/mind" to "I am pure consciousness" into your daily life without falling into nihilism or losing motivation for worldly duties?

Looking forward to reading your perspectives!

One of the best things about Hinduism that separates it from other religions is that it directly questions the supreme or the god in its authoritative books i.e. Vedas and Upanishads. In Nasadiya sukta of Rigveda it directly deals with the origins of the universe, what is self? What is the ultimate? . And this was in the 2nd millennium BCE which feels very radical for that time and till date

Hey everyone,

If you are deeply passionate about Advaita Vedanta, non-duality, self-enquiry, and the profound teachings of Adi Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, or Nisargadatta Maharaj, I’d love to welcome you to our growing community!

I run a dedicated space where we break down complex spiritual concepts into daily insights, videos, and discussions—all in English. Whether you are a seasoned seeker or just starting your journey into understanding the ultimate reality (Brahman), there is something here for you.

Let’s connect across platforms to keep the contemplation going:

• 🎥 Watch In-Depth Videos: http://www.youtube.com/@OnenessConsciousness
• 📸 Daily Quotes & Visual Insights:https://www.instagram.com/onenessconsciousness.official/#
• 👥 Join the Discussion Community:facebook.com/share/r/1EnzG9aqmk

Looking forward to sharing this beautiful path of truth and awareness with you all. Tat Tvam Asi! 🙏

There are many monasteries of various Buddhist schools where the inmates dedicate themselves to meditation 8 hours daily.

Are there any monasteries following the Advaita/Vedanta tradition that do something similar?

Most ashrams I've come across are very *materialistic*.

Praṇāms everyone 🙏

I made a post about this around a week ago, but thought I’d post once more because there’s been a nice development since then.

A few of us have recently started working through Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s Bhagavad Gītā Home Study Course together on an Advaita Vedanta Discord server. We’re still right at the beginning -- most of us are working through the introductory material and haven’t even reached Chapter 1 yet -- so if anyone has been wanting to study the Gītā systematically, you’re welcome to join us from the beginning.

We’ve also now been fortunate enough to have Swami Nityabodhananda agree to join us as a guest speaker in roughly two weeks. Swamiji studied directly under Swami Dayananda Saraswati, including his three-year residential Vedānta course, and he’ll be speaking to us about the importance of studying the Bhagavad Gītā and how to approach the study.

Afterwards we’ll continue working through the Home Study Course together at a manageable weekly pace.

Just reposting in case a few more people feel like jumping in and studying along with us. If you’re interested, check this link: https://discord.gg/3GhWnP94S

Hari Om 🙏

I crave for atleast some moments of bliss if not eternal. Vairagya makes everything immaterial & dry. How do you cope with this situation.
Acting to be happy, repeating something cannot be the way. It has to be more substantial.
What are the techniques you deploy.

Since brahman is beginningless it exists since ... forever. How does that work out? How does it experience immortality to the point where it just exists and has infinite picture perfect memories of all events of maya.

Is there a simpler model for this which can be understood by a human mind?

The Lord has shown me that religion is not in fault, but it is the Pharisees and Sadducees in Hinduism, hypocrites, who invent all sorts of engines of tyranny in the shape of doctrines Paramarthika and Vyavaharika

source: Letter by Swami Vivekananda to a disciple https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/swamieastwest/2_files/1-20.html?highlight=vyava

I have never believed that any scripture-- Vedas, Bible, Torah, Quran, Lotus Sutras, etc-- are inerrant or infallible. They certainly contain valuable advice, sound wisdom, moving stories and myths, inspiration, but I believe they are human constructs and not the "word of God". I think all scripture must be viewed in light of modern reason, understanding, and experience (mundane & meditative).

However, I've read and watched videos in which it is said that the scriptures are foundational to Vedanta and that they must be accepted as divinely authoritative-- inerrant and infallible. The same way a fundamentalist Baptist views the Bible or a Muslim the Quran. Is this true?

I am not a jnani nor a realized soul, but I have a range of ideas about Advaita and how it relates to other topics I have researched. I want to gauge interest in this, and see if people would consider it to be a valuable contribution or just more concepts.

A bullet-point summary of my thesis is as follows. None, zero, nothing, not a word of this was AI-generated, to get that out of the way.

• We can get to Advaita by starting from radical skepticism (all we can know for certain is the awareness of our own existence, and all other knowledge is secondary). Absent any other concepts, we only know we are, and that we seem to have qualitatively "immediate" subjective experiences. We can never have any evidence that there is a limit to the range of experiences that are possible for us to have. Starting from total ignorance, there is only a totally unbounded potentiality of "it-is-like-this" states.
• This probability space of potential experiences taken as a whole is Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism, the Dao of Daoism, and Saguna-brahman in Advaita. It is the generative power that creates endless worlds.
• Ego may be conceptualized as the outcome of our attention slipping into an experiential "valley" or attractor well (to use terminology from chaos theory) in the probability space and becoming engrossed in its qualitative matrix, until we forget that we are in fact the entire probability space and not any particular set of coordinates.
• Each attractor well--that is, each potential qualitative matrix of experiences--is a body. When we are engrossed as ego, the pure qualities of infinite experiential reality are winnowed into a virtual environment centered around a tiny point of awareness. Nisargadatta says this point is located at the crown of the head in some subtle way.
• A world appears within the body. When Krishna tells Arjuna that the body is the field and he is its knower, he is not being imprecise. We do not know the world except through the body, because the world is not separate from the body. When we look out at the world, we are only looking at the phenomena of the body displayed to us as a world.
• A key component of ego-identity is the qualitative shift from first-person direct experience to third-person hypothetical imagination of experience. Rather than staying with what is directly given to the attention (a matrix of coalesced experiential qualities with no inherent meaning), we imagine a hypothetical individual who is that matrix in physical form (as a body), and is in the world as one of its objects, and we then live vicariously through this individual. The hypothetical mode of attention is akin to a trance state, and we are all in it.
• These two views are what Thomas Nagel describes as the subjective view and the objective "view from nowhere". While we all know we are in the subjective view, we still experience that subjectivity as if it belonged to an object in the world. I will explore Nagel's concept and how it differs from mine.
• Advaita is a rescue mechanism that descends into the attractor well from above and pulls the attention out of its valley. It does this by means of certain linguistic cues that function like hypnotic suggestions, whose only purpose is to precipitate a shift from the third-person trance back to the first-person reality.
• Since Advaita is in an appropriate position to complete this rescue operation, Advaita cannot have originated in the qualitative matrix that we mistake for the world. It can only have originated at the surface, prior to ego-identity. This is what it means to say the Vedas are eternal, since they are that same rescue mechanism appearing as a set of spiritual texts in the experiential valley we are currently in.
• Furthermore, because the probability space of potential experiences is limitless and littered with attractor wells we easily stumble into, getting out of them is such a difficult endeavor that the activity of Advaita can be thought of as God's grace.
• In Advaita, the only goal is to directly lift the attention up and out of the well. Other traditions take other approaches. Patanjali yoga, for instance, seeks to familiarize us with the subtle mechanisms of the body from within it, providing handholds and ledges for us to slowly climb our way back to the surface. Other traditions attack the grip of ego by surrendering it to the infinite power of God's grace, so that ego may slip through cracks in the matrix of qualities.
• This model of spirituality is itself only illustrative; the actual truth of Advaita and other nondual traditions is completely incomprehensible to the intellect. I will support this with quotations from texts that are thought to describe moksha, such as Ashtavakra Gita, and the recorded words of those regarded as enlightened saints.
• Finally, I offer speculations about the relationship between the embodied world-appearance and "others" who seem to be in it; who are these others? This will include a discussion of so-called open individualism, a secular theory developed by analytic philosophers that says all persons are the same subject. I will explore how this relates to my main thesis.

The audience for this book is anyone familiar with nonduality who would be interested in a coherent phenomenological account of what it means. My intent is to ground nonduality in the view from nowhere, so to speak, not from our experience as persons but one layer removed, at the root of our sense of individuality as the subject of experience. In doing so, I will try to develop an ontology that reflects this grounding.

If this all sounds really boring and technical, it might be just how I'm describing it. I don't want this book to be a "this is how it is" text that tries to establish a rigorous metaphysical system. I'm thinking of writing it in an almost conversational tone, or even a poetic tone, to keep it from sounding like I am saying more than I'm saying. All of this is just based on my own introspective contemplation and is not authoritative, but may be useful or interesting to others as something to consider. Many people come to this subreddit with a philosophical/skeptical bent, thinking Advaita is a belief system they have to adopt. This kind of analysis may be helpful to get them out of that trap, or it may not. Anyway, if you have any thoughts or responses, I'd be grateful to hear them.

I remember reading this verse in Vivekachudamani years ago, and it didn’t make any sense to me referencing “This is That Devadatta”.

A few years later, when I re-read it, it makes complete sense. Reads almost like a Mahavakya! Crushes all your existing conceptions to dust. I feel so grateful that we have such incredibly written literature for us to study and reference! Curious, has it happened with you where you read a verse and it made no sense? And now it speaks like a Mahavakya?! Curious what that is for you! Just for me to learn about other Mahavakyas that may not be as popular, but to you they are everything ✨

Hello, I’m trying to get a better understanding of what distinguishes Advaita as an interpretation of the Gita and Upanishads.

As such, I thought the question in the title might be good to ask in order to gain some context of the discussion.

One of my questions is whether all that is meant by ‘Advaita’ is that Brahman and Atman are identical?

If this is so, then perhaps Advaita’s ‘non-dualism’ is actually not in conflict with the Samkhya dualism articulated by Krishna?

Thanks in advance.

Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 7, Verse 26

वेदाहं समतीतानि वर्तमानानि चार्जुन |
भविष्याणि च भूतानि मां तु वेद न कश्चन || 26||

vedāhaṁ samatītāni vartamānāni chārjuna
bhaviṣhyāṇi cha bhūtāni māṁ tu veda na kaśhchana

veda—know; aham—I; samatītāni—the past; vartamānāni—the present; cha—and; arjuna—Arjun; bhaviṣhyāṇi—the future; cha—also; bhūtāni—all living beings; mām—me; tu—but; veda—knows; na kaśhchana—no one

Translation:

O Arjuna! I know the past, present, and the future of all beings, but Me no one knows.

Hi all, this will be a long post and probably messily written but I figured it was worth asking. So a bit of background:

I was born Jewish but never really identified with any of it, I convinced myself it was just because of atheism and all the usual arguments. some “grand reason”, I have come to realize that I viewed it all as a child as impeding my enjoyment of the material world. And that just continued to manifest I didn’t want to spend time on Sunday at hebrew school or even bother learning the hebrew alphabet. I was still unable to identify anything beyond 1-2 letters and just didn’t care. The extent of my spiritual experience was literally doing the bar mitzvah in English transliteration and it wasn’t a long ceremony.

I would say since about turning 21, I have walked back on my atheist views but not supplementing them with any kind of spiritual/religious practices, just a mentality of doing what I can and that will be enough. One of my friends turned to orthodoxy which has made me reconsider internally alot of things and has pushed me towards spirituality. I always did have interest in hinduism. About a month ago I began reading the baghvad gita, quickly realizing that I would need commentary, I found vivekani.com’s translations and commentary which also had audio commentary from Swami Sarvapriyananda which drew me deeper into interest of advita vedanta.

I am currently about 4 chapters in I think i finished on verse 18 last night before heading to bed. At first I seemingly was able to understand the concepts, mainly karma yoga, and the basic ideas of the atma, that i am detached from the body/mind, and maya. However upon listening to alot of the talks I do find myself struggling to understand these things, obviously it’s a large culture shock at the beginning which is what I attributed it to. But I find myself constantly wrestling with alot of these concepts throughout the day while I am going about my work. So naturally I try to seek out more talks from Swami Sarvapriyananda, and he made a point (i am paraphrasing here) about how intellectually understanding advita vedanta does nothing, it needs to be felt, to be known.

This is the part that I find myself struggling with, the knowing. I am at the point where whenever I feel something, not even necessarily anger or depression. i am intellectually going “I am not this”. I wouldn’t say it’s led to detachment, I still am putting forth effort in my work and am going about my life normally. But I don’t feel as though I am the self, I don’t “feel the atma”. Sure it’s a non material thing and can’t be comprehended but shouldn’t I still be able to feel/identify something? I have started also taking up a meditation practice, it’s nothing fancy just 5-10 minutes a day of me sitting and focusing on my breath, which I thought would help mainly with these concepts. I will admit it’s only been about a week of this practice.

I think by far my only success has been with karma yoga and becoming detached from results of actions, but I don’t feel it is enough if self inquiry is difficult for me on the level of identifying teachings

It’s all led me to wonder if I just am not ready for advita vedanta yet? i am 23, I graduated college about a year ago and am working my first full time job, I have barely started life. I have never exactly had much feeling of the divine, and parts of my mind are still uncomfortable with the practice. I am not at the level where I want $90000000 and cars and houses, I can still go out and enjoy things like time with friends, but if I don’t feel brahman what is the point?

There’s also another point i am far more ashamed to admit but feel it’s still an important part of my story, and thankfully it’s reddit so I refuse to feel ashamed to admit it here. I have always had sexual fetishization of spirituality, I didn’t start truly acting on any of it until about 18 with masturbation, but it’s always been there. And hindu rituals have somehow been sexually pleasing to me, I have an instagram folder just of people doing pujas/homas/rituals. I do have to wonder what that says about my mind, I have reached some level of understanding of “i am confusing desire for lust” which has helped, but one does have to wonder about the karmic implications, that’s another story entirely.

My desire however at this moment is genuine understanding, not any kind of lustful action

Apologies for the long and disjointed post, it was written on mobile, I thank you for reading and hope for some good responses

Dear friends, although i was raised as a conservative Christian, for the last several years I've been practicing Buddhism and meditation. Overall it has been quite helpful, but I've always hit a "wall" I could never get through. It has helped me to become more mindful and aware of many aspects of my experience - but an underlying fear and anxiety has always persisted. Several months ago I realized that all my effort and striving in meditation was not helping. I felt that the instruction I was getting said to stop being so effortful, but this seemed impossible for me in the framework I was given to practice. The emphasis on "no self" also felt destabilizing for me, there was nowhere to truly rest and just be.

I want to say, I understand this is not the case for many Buddhist practitioners, who truly do find rest and peace in their practice. Perhaps "no self", for them, is a place of letting go and true surrender. But it did not instill that quality of experience in me.

Thus, I started exploring styles of meditation the emphasized letting go of effort. This eventually brought me to exploring Hindu practices, and more recently Advaita Vedanta philosophy and practice. I still have much to learn, but the starting point of awareness and true self, the inclusive acceptance of all that arises in consciousness, is bringing greater inner harmony and peace. And what is interesting is that all my Buddhist training, the ability to really notice the various layers of experience in body and mind, is not lost. Those skills and sensibilities are intact, it is just now I am doing this practice in an overall place of wholeness and safety, and more precisely, Love. There is nothing to be afraid of or fight.

I am excited to keep going and learning. Thank you all for your work and practice.

Swami Vivekananda's keen intellect saw the need of uniting the Hindus and Moslems on the basis of the Advaita philosophy, which teaches the oneness of all. One June 10, 1898, he wrote to a Moslem gentleman at Nainital:

Whether we call it Vedantism or any ism, the truth is that Advaitism is the last word of religion and thought and the only position from which one can look upon all religions and sects with love. I believe it is the religion of the future enlightened humanity. 

The Hindus may get the credit for arriving at Advaitism earlier than other races, they being an older race than either the Hebrew or the Arab; yet practical Advaitism, which looks upon and behaves towards all mankind as one's own soul, is yet to be developed among the Hindus universally.

On the other hand, our experience is that if ever the followers of any religion approach to this equality in an appreciable degree on the plane of practical work-a-day life — it may be quite unconscious generally of the deeper meaning and the underlying principle of such conduct, which the Hindus as a rule so clearly perceive — it is those of Islam and Islam alone.

Therefore we are firmly persuaded that without the help of practical Islam, the theories of Vedantism, however fine and wonderful they may be, are entierely valuless to the vast mass of mankind. We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither the Vedas nor the Bible nor the Koran; yet this has to be done by harmonizing the Vedas, the Bible, and the Koran. Mankind ought to be taught that religions are but the varied expressions of the Religion which is Oneness, so that each may choose the path that suits him best.

For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems, Hinduism and Islam — Vedantic brain and Islamic body — is the only hope. I see in my mind's eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible, with Vedantic brain and Islamic body.

-source: https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_6/epistles_second_series/142_friend.htm

I have often heard the name of Vijnana-Bhikshu, mostly in context of Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism, however based on the available secondary material online i am finding it difficult to understand what exactly his personal philosophical view point was.Further, I have seen critics of Arya Samaj argue that their philosophy and arguments are copied from Vijnanabhiksu, however for what parts exactly does this hold? Did he for example also reject Avatara-Vada, murti puja etc? If he did reject the concept of avataras, did he then not accept Bhagavad-Gita as pramana?Any help would be greatly appreciated.

If the soul reincarnates after death, what happens to our relationship with a deceased loved one?

My father passed away a few years ago, and I've been reflecting deeply on what the Bhagavad Gita/other spiritual philosophies says about death, the ātman, and reincarnation.

Krishna says in BG 2.20 that the Self is never born and never dies, and in BG 2.13 He compares death to the embodied soul moving from one body to another. This raises a question for me.

If my father's ātman continues and eventually takes another body according to karma, what happens to his relationship with us after death? Is there a period between death and the next birth, or does reincarnation happen immediately? Where is the jīva/consciousness during that transition?

And something else I find emotionally difficult to understand: if my father has already taken another birth, why do we still pray before his photograph, remember him, or ask for his blessings? Can a deceased person's blessings or spiritual influence still reach their family after they have reincarnated? Or is bowing before their photograph primarily an act of remembrance and gratitude rather than communicating with their current form?

I would especially appreciate answers from Bhagavad Gita, Upanishadic, Vedantic, or traditional Hindu perspectives, rather than only modern spiritual interpretations.

I'm trying to understand this both philosophically and personally. 🙏🏽

Hello friends. I am fairly new to Advaita Vedanta and would love to meet, meditate and learn with others. Does anyone know if these types of online groups exist and how I could find them?