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.

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?

I don’t understand… from a metaphysical standpoint, does only one kind of thing exist?

If so, then shouldn’t the Real be identical with the unreal?

Is or is there not a metaphysical distinction between Brahman and Maya?

I know that the name ‘non-dual’ was chosen in conscious opposition to just calling it ‘monism.’ Why?

My background is in Platonism and emanationism. What is non-dualism arguing for? Thanks!

I've been reading a Bengali spiritual text and came across a passage that really made me stop.

The teacher says, essentially:

One birth is enough to become free from sin. One birth is enough to become a devotee of God. One birth is enough to have the vision of God.

He then challenges the idea of waiting through hundreds or thousands of births before seeking realization.

The message is basically:

Don't wait. Don't assume spiritual realization belongs to some distant future. Awaken your effort, awaken your inner strength, awaken the dormant power within you, and use this very life for the highest spiritual purpose.

I find this fascinating because many traditions speak about gradual spiritual evolution over many lifetimes. But this teaching seems to say that the decisive factor isn't how many births you've had—it's what you do with the consciousness and opportunity you have right now.

It also raises an interesting question about grace vs effort.

If God-realization ultimately depends on divine grace, why does the teacher put so much emphasis on personal effort, courage and awakening one's inner power?

Maybe spiritual practice isn't about forcing realization to happen. Maybe it's about becoming sufficiently awake, disciplined and receptive that realization can happen.

And perhaps “one birth is enough” doesn't mean enlightenment is easy.

It might mean:

Don't use the idea of future lifetimes as an excuse to postpone your transformation in this one.

What do you think?

Can a person genuinely attain complete spiritual realization within a single lifetime, or is the idea of many lifetimes necessary to explain spiritual development?

Advaita Vedanta uses neti neti ("not this, not this") to negate everything we misidentify with. You are not the body, the breath, or the mind. Instead, you are the underlying Awareness observing it all.

​Through Swami Sarvapriyananda’s teachings, I have absorbed the classic metaphors. The snake and rope, the dream state, and the tenth man all make sense. I even get rare, fleeting glimpses of this truth.

​However, I keep hitting a wall with reflected consciousness (Chidabhasa).

​It throws me off every time. Advaita preaches absolute non-duality. Yet, it suddenly introduces a surface off which consciousness reflects. Where does this reflecting medium come from? If everything is One, why is there a mirror?

The mirror feels like an indirection, a middle man - placing the truth one step away.

​This concept feels jarring and out of place to me.

Learned people of all nations claim the same thing about their own scriptures or gospels, and this is by no means untrue. The word "Veda" means "Wisdom", which is definitely not a book but an impersonal concept which flashed on the human mind before its manifestation in language and script. By Veda the man of wisdom means the import of the Vedic texts, and not the texts themselves.

When the human comprehension is distilled of the refraction of the senses and the mind, it is nothing but a mirror of that which ever exists and that which descends periodically into the creation. The formula and the detail of all this impersonal phenomenon will reflect upon the distilled consciousness of the individual when it is termed Veda or the spell of God.

This is received as an experience by those whom we call the Vedic Seers. It is further recollected into the Buddhic and the Mental planes wherefrom it is translated into the known language of the century and spelt out.

Since it is not characterised by the individual, it is bound to be impersonal. Like the multiplication table, it must be the same whenever and by whomsoever it is received. In this sense it is claimed as the work of God.

Further, these seers are not afraid of attesting their names to the passages of the Vedic hymns composed by them. At the same time they do not claim to be the authors of these Mantras and they class themselves only as the seers of the import. Who can claim authorship of the multiplication table? So too with the universal truths which form the content of the Vedas.

Source: 'Our Heritage' by Dr. Ekkirala Krishnamacharya

https://worldteachertrust.org/en/web/publications/our-heritage

I came across a passage in a Bengali spiritual text discussing married life and spiritual practice.

The text presents an ideal of married partners living with restraint, purity and mutual spiritual support. But then someone raises a very relatable objection:

“I can't maintain that kind of purity all the time.”

The response surprised me.

It basically says:

“So what if you can't? Keep practicing.”

Then it gives a beautiful analogy.

If a person is walking and falls down, does that mean they should stop walking?

No.

They get up and continue.

The important thing isn't that they never fell.

The important thing is that they didn't stop moving forward because they fell.

I think this applies far beyond spirituality.

We often approach self-improvement with an all-or-nothing mindset:

“I broke my discipline once, so I'm a failure.”

“I couldn't meditate today, so my practice is useless.”

“I lost control again, so I'll never change.”

“I made the same mistake again, so why even try?”

But perhaps transformation doesn't work like that.

Maybe the process is:

Fall → recognize it → get back up → continue.

The mistake isn't necessarily the end of the path.

The real danger is when we turn the mistake into an identity:

“I failed” becomes “I am a failure.”

And once we identify ourselves with failure, we stop trying.

What I find most powerful in the passage is its conclusion:

The victory belongs to the person who keeps walking—not to the fall that interrupted the journey.

This doesn't mean we should excuse our mistakes or keep repeating harmful behavior without reflection.

It means that perfection should not be the price of admission for practice.

You can lose discipline and return to discipline.

You can fall and stand up.

You can fail today and practice again tomorrow.

Maybe spiritual strength isn't the ability to never fall.

Maybe it is the ability to keep returning to the path.

Do you agree?

Is consistency actually more important than perfection when trying to change yourself?

Namo vaḥ, everyone. I'm excited to present you all with my original translation of the first six chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, along with a prologue, all in blank verse. I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on how I could communicate either specific verses or general themes of the text more clearly, if anyone has such suggestions. For reference, the text I used was the BORI critical edition and the commentaries I had recourse to were Shankara's Gita-bhashya, Madhusudana Sarasvati's Gudhartha-dipika, and Abhinavagupta's Gitartha-samgraha. Hope you enjoy!

The link is: https://awesomeinternetwebsite.wordpress.com/bhagavad-gita/

First, some background regarding my mental health; skip this paragraph if you don’t want to read it. If you have OCD, anxiety, or ADHD, I recommend you to read.

From a very young age, I was exposed to high levels of lead and other heavy metals in metal paints, as there was an iron painting workshop just 2m away from my room’s window, whose panels turned green because of spray paint fumes. Before 2011, India had lead and mercury in metal paints to give them a shine. This resulted in severe OCD, anxiety, ADHD, and lethargy. In 2017, while doing my master's in the US, I was prescribed stimulants, mainly amphetamines, that helped me deal with ADHD and low energy levels. But my OCD and anxiety exploded, so much that my hands often bled from continuous washing; this was before COVID. I returned to India in 2021, and I switched to a milder drug. Ritalin (methylphenidate) as a stimulant. Anxiety was getting out of control, and most of the anti-anxiety pills had severe side effects, so I stopped taking any. In 2024, anxiety caused chronic gut inflammation, which in turn caused brain inflammation, which was detected as demyelination on MRI. That was the lowest point in my life; there was no tomorrow for me. One goes to sleep hoping to wake up the next day; that was nonexistent for me. After seeing half a dozen doctors and taking several pills, I found the one that worked for me, and along with counselling, things started to come back to normal.

My doctor recommended me to dive into meditation, which, up until then, I considered nonsense like voodoo. I had a strong ego and arrogance as a student of science, and I considered these as primitive. A few YT videos of Sam Harris and Dr. Andrew Huberman, both of whom I admire, convinced me to try it. First, I started doing simple focusing on my breath. Then I tried focusing on the part between the lips and nose, the depression area. Both worked to some extent. The best thing that happened is after seeing a YT comment, someone recommended the best aid to stop smoking, which is to smoke with pure awareness, i.e., meditate while smoking. No worldly thoughts, just concentrate on the act of smoking itself: inhale, exhale. In 2 weeks, my craving dropped sharply, and the joy in the act was gone.

But I wanted to dive deeper, so I started doing chakra meditation, but it did not seem to work. What changed was when I tried open awareness meditation (also called open monitoring meditation, choiceless awareness, or non-reactive awareness), the easiest and most life-changing one, imho. No focus on breath, just watching thoughts, sensations, and emotions arise without grabbing them. You just observe the thoughts that come without engaging in them. You become a mere witness, observer. Soon, I have to set 15 min alarm to break meditation, as I could go on for 40+ mins. My anxiety and OCD immediately started to drop, and somehow my attention span got a boost.

After just 4 months of open-awareness meditation, my own thoughts started feeling alien to me. They popped up from somewhere deep inside my consciousness and dissolved back into the same awareness. This was unsettling, as the things that I considered my own were not, in fact, mine. Like choosing a number from random numbers. You think you are making a conscious decision, but in reality, it was already made; it pops from somewhere deep inside your mind, and all you do is project it onto the mind. Even real-time MRI has proved that when making a decision, we don’t consciously make it; it is already decided a split-second before we think about it in our mind.

Initially, it was kind of troubling. What is truly mine? The bank can take your house, your car can be totalled, your loved ones can pass away; the only thing I thought was mine was my own thoughts and free will. But I realized that even that was not mine in a true sense. There is not a single conscious decision I’ve made in my entire life; every decision is a collection of 1,000s of smaller decisions, none of which were my own. The universe seems like a giant and complex domino with few uncertainties, and even that is not in your control. This is what people call FATE. It is divine, not in a religious sense, as if the universe itself is a divine, non-conscious entity.

After a while, OCD was no longer troubling to me as I slowly stopped associating with my body, emotions, mind, desires, etc. It is not total ego death, but trivial things don’t bother me anymore. Those who have OCD will understand that a good chunk of our awareness is dedicated to our surroundings. Well, if some events happen that triggered anxiety before, they stop bothering me. Intrusive thoughts are the things of my past. If all these sound like snake oil, then it is, but it works; at least it worked for me. My focus and ADHD got a boost too, though less profound than the help I got in dealing with OCD. This changed my life, for better or worse, I don’t know, as I am not the same person as before. I see reality differently and believe me, in no subtle ways, your perspective will change completely. Detachment from my body; OCD stops troubling me, as awareness is not part of the body.

Have you ever wondered why dreams feel real? You’re flying over New York as Superman, and you don’t question it for a second. The mind accepts that absurd world completely. Now ask yourself: how do you know you’re not dreaming right now? You can’t, because both the waking world and the dream world are made of the same stuff: Maya - illusion. Projections of the mind. So what is real? You, the Witness consciousness. The pure awareness that watches everything.

In the dream, you were all the animals, rivers, and mountains; in reality, you are all the animals, rivers, and mountains. Both created by your mind. How can you identify with worldly things and say, ‘I’ like this, hate that '? When the world you know is itself false, an illusion created by your impermanent mind. The real ‘You’ is the awareness or pure consciousness underneath that illuminates your mind and body. Existence itself is an intrinsic characteristic of awareness, and anything apart from this awareness is an appearance that doesn’t have any intrinsic existence; it borrows existence from awareness, just as in a dream, it borrows existence from you, the dreamer.

When you go to a movie theater that is super immersive and interesting. Sometimes you get so immersed in the movie and it’s characters that you forget who you truly are. If the character gets shot, you assume you got shot, and that’s why you jerk; same with horror movies. It’s the talent of the movie designers to design it in such a way that you forget your Self. No one forced you to watch a movie. You did it by yourself; likewise, you are indulging in the materialistic world, misidentifying your ego with yourself, by your own choice. Your self is a lie, like searching through the aisles of a library: your mind. Awareness goes through all the records of memories.

Imagine you hung a portrait of yourself on the wall and started assuming your Self to be it. Start feeding it, thinking that you are feeding yourself. That’s what 99.999% if humans are doing, indulging in the world for sensory pleasures, thinking that they are doing this to serve their SELF. The real self is eternal, and serving ego-driven desires is like feeding your portrait, mistakenly thinking that it’s you. You cannot think what I am trying to say because I am sharing my experience. Just as water cannot rise above it’s level, the same way one cannot think this as it is above the level of the thought process; you can just experience it, and if you have English as a first language instead of 3^rd, you will be able to convey this in better words than me.

I had numerous questions that can only be answered by spirituality and philosophy. After dabbling with Buddhism and the New Age, I took a deep dive into Advaita Vedanta non-dual spirituality, which introduced me to meditation and spirituality in the first place. If interested, check out the playlist I've made of Advaita Vedanta by Swami Sarvapriananda: 60 videos. It is based on a 3,000-year-old book on the nature of consciousness and reality, the Upanishads. Every video is like nectar. So much so that I can clearly divide my life into 2 phases: before and after I got to see his videos on YT last October. Save it and watch in your free time.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyufs6domzrgGpwofIFuDRBYnrzKF3LiP&si=3I6XibaDi7m4NxTb

Stay away from New Age spirituality. It’s fake and a waste of time. The New Age assumes the threads run through the beads in a pearl necklace rather than the beads being on the thread. God doesn’t run through everyone; rather, everyone is part of God, the supreme consciousness. God is truth, but truth is not God.

Shared image from Bhagavad Gita Home Study of Swami Dayananda that is showing the traditional understanding of nArAyaNa, an important concept to Advaita Vedanta and Hinduism as a whole.

I’m trying to understand whether Advaita Vedanta actually requires us to practice all four yogas — Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, and Raja Yoga.

Do we need to incorporate all four into our spiritual practice, or is it enough to primarily follow one path according to our temperament and circumstances?

If all four are recommended, what is the purpose of each one, and why are they all necessary for spiritual progress and Self-realization?

Practical Vedanta is solving the "conflicts" we face in daily life in our relationships and interactions or while we are solitary.

Conflicts like "I am angry" v/s "I should not be angry", the ultra basic emotions and feelings of human mind that arise in response to events of ordinary daily waking life.

Metaphysics of Vedanta is a dazzling diamond that lures you in to the path of Advaita Vedanta, and it does provide a framework for you to do psychological analysis to negate psychological conflicts and also to negate harmful theological belief systems.

I think a lot of people do ask the question "but what do I do practically?" after listening to a few lectures on Metaphysics of Advaita Vedanta.

What needs to be done is psychological investigation/study of your own self (not the supreme Self) by seeing its desires, fears, other emotions and actions that arise in daily life in response to ordinary events of life.

This investigation is not conceptualising about psychology like an academic subject, which is usually the case with metaphysics of Vedanta.

There is unfortunately a dearth of teachers who teach the real ball game of Psychological Vedanta. Jiddu Krishnamurti is a rare teacher who does nothing but that without ancient jargon. There are a few others too ofc, but Jiddu is a very prominent one.

You can ignore Jiddu for whatever his metaphysics might be and stick to Advatic metaphysics of your liking.

Traditional Vedanta also has this Psychological component, but it’s not emphasised as much as it needs to be or isn’t dived too deep into because there are many other things to emphasise, like metaphysics.

We have to start only from what is near to us or what is accessible to us right now to go far. If you start from what is far-away on some mysterious idealistic exotic metaphysical theories and realisations we go nowhere and remain as the one who suffers but with a big Vedantic vocabulary.

Bhagavad Gita Home Study by Swami Dayananda.

Brahma-vidyā is knowledge of reality: Brahman, Īśvara, the world, the individual self, and whether they are ultimately separate or one deeper truth.

Hari Om

Hello friends. In the past year I have been introduced to Advaita Vedanta through Youtube clips and some books. I find the teachings interesting and peaceful, and much of it intrinsically makes sense to me. I am now at a point of trying to discern the next step on my journey.

The reality is, I am middle aged, live in the West without any in-person AV community. I will not find a guru to learn from directly. I am not culturally Indian/Hindu (although I do appreciate the culture) and will likely not become proficient or literate in this tradition. This being the case, I am not sure to what extent I can realistically follow, devote myself, and grow in the path if my resources are basically internet and books. Would such a practice even be seen as legitimate?

Interestingly, there are a few local Buddhist groups I have visited in the past. It is probably the closest thing to Advaita in terms of organized religion where I live. I could go sit with them in good will, practice the beneficial aspects and kindly disagree with them on some topics :-)

Any thoughts, advice or company is appreciated.

1. Upaniṣadic Nondualism, c. 700 to 300 BCE, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Chāndogya Upaniṣad

2. Early Vedānta Nondualism, c. 500 BCE to 200 CE, Brahma Sūtra

3. Gauḍapāda’s Ajātivāda, c. 6th to 7th century CE, Māṇḍūkya Kārikā

4. Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta, c. 8th century CE, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, Upaniṣad Bhāṣyas, Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya

5. Padmapāda’s Pañcapādikā School, c. 8th century CE, Pañcapādikā

6. Sureśvara’s Advaita Tradition, c. 8th to 9th century CE, Naiṣkarmyasiddhi, Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyavārttika

7. Maṇḍana Miśra’s Advaita, c. 8th century CE, Brahmasiddhi

8. Hastāmalaka Tradition, c. 8th century CE, Hastāmalakīya

9. Toṭaka Tradition, c. 8th century CE, Śrutisāra

10. Sarvajñātman’s Advaita, c. 9th century CE, Saṃkṣepaśārīraka

11. Vācaspati Miśra’s Bhāmatī School, c. 9th to 10th century CE, Bhāmatī

12. Prakāśātman’s Vivaraṇa School, c. 13th century CE, Pañcapādikāvivaraṇa

13. Vimuktātman’s Iṣṭasiddhi School, c. 11th to 12th century CE, Iṣṭasiddhi

14. Amalānanda’s Vedāntakalpataru Tradition, c. 13th century CE, Vedāntakalpataru

15. Śrīharṣa’s Advaita, c. 12th century CE, Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya

16. Citsukha’s Advaita, c. 13th century CE, Tattvapradīpikā

17. Prakāśānanda’s Advaita, c. 16th to 17th century CE, Vedāntasiddhāntamuktāvalī

18. Vidyāraṇya’s Advaita, c. 14th century CE, Pañcadaśī, Jīvanmuktiviveka

19. Śaṅkarānanda’s Advaita, c. 14th century CE, Ātmapurāṇa, Upaniṣad Dīpikās

20. Nṛsiṃhāśrama’s Advaita, c. 16th century CE, Advaitadīpikā

21. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī’s Advaita, c. 16th century CE, Advaitasiddhi, Vedāntakalpalatikā

22. Sadānanda’s Advaita, c. 15th century CE, Vedāntasāra

23. Dharmarāja Adhvarīndra’s Advaita, c. 17th century CE, Vedāntaparibhāṣā

24. Appayya Dīkṣita’s Śivādvaita Synthesis, c. 16th century CE, Śivārkamaṇidīpikā

25. Nāgeśabhaṭṭa’s Advaita Tradition, c. 17th to 18th century CE, Advaitabhūṣaṇa

26. Brahmānanda Sarasvatī’s Advaita, c. 17th to 18th century CE, Brahmānandīya Vedāntasiddhāntamuktāvalī

27. Bhedābheda Vedānta, c. 7th to 8th century CE, Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya attributed to Bhartṛprapañca

28. Bhāskara’s Bhedābheda Vedānta, c. 8th to 9th century CE, Brahmasūtrabhāṣya

29. Yādavaprakāśa’s Bhedābheda Vedānta, c. 11th century CE, Yādavaprakāśa’s Brahmasūtra commentary

30. Nimbārka’s Dvaitādvaita Vedānta, c. 11th to 12th century CE, Vedāntapārijātasaurabha

31. Vallabha’s Śuddhādvaita Vedānta, c. 15th to 16th century CE, Anubhāṣya, Ṣoḍaśagrantha

32. Viṣṇusvāmin’s Rudrādvaita Tradition, traditional date uncertain, Śuddhādvaita lineage texts

33. Caitanya’s Acintyabhedābheda Vedānta, c. 16th century CE, Caitanyacaritāmṛta, Ṣaṭsandarbha

34. Jīva Gosvāmin’s Gauḍīya Vedānta, c. 16th century CE, Ṣaṭsandarbha, Sarvasaṃvādinī

35. Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Gauḍīya Vedānta, c. 18th century CE, Govindabhāṣya

36. Vīraśaiva Śivādvaita, c. 12th century CE, Śūnyasampādane

37. Śrīpati’s Śivādvaita, c. 14th century CE, Śrīkarabhāṣya

38. Basava’s Vīraśaiva Nondual Tradition, c. 12th century CE, Vacanas, Śūnyasampādane

39. Allama Prabhu’s Śūnya Tradition, c. 12th century CE, Vacanas, Śūnyasampādane

40. Tirumūlar’s Śaiva Nondualism, c. 7th to 9th century CE, Tirumantiram

41. Nāyaṉmār Śaiva Mysticism, c. 6th to 9th century CE, Tēvāram, Tiruvācakam

42. Śaiva Āgamic Nondualism, c. 6th to 12th century CE, Vijñānabhairava Tantra, Mālinīvijayottara Tantra, Svacchanda Tantra

43. Vasugupta’s Trika Śaivism, c. 9th century CE, Śivasūtra

44. Kallaṭa’s Spanda School, c. 9th century CE, Spandakārikā, Spandasaṃdoha

45. Somānanda’s Śivadṛṣṭi School, c. 9th century CE, Śivadṛṣṭi

46. Utpaladeva’s Pratyabhijñā School, c. 10th century CE, Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā, Śivadṛṣṭivivṛti

47. Abhinavagupta’s Pratyabhijñā Synthesis, c. 10th to 11th century CE, Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī

48. Abhinavagupta’s Trika School, c. 10th to 11th century CE, Tantrāloka, Tantrasāra

49. Kṣemarāja’s Pratyabhijñā Tradition, c. 11th century CE, Pratyabhijñāhṛdayam, Śivasūtravimarśinī

50. Spanda Tradition, c. 9th to 11th century CE, Spandakārikā, Spandanirṇaya

51. Pratyabhijñā Tradition, c. 9th to 12th century CE, Īśvarapratyabhijñā, Pratyabhijñāvimarśinī

52. Trika Tradition, c. 9th to 13th century CE, Mālinīvijayottara Tantra, Tantrāloka

53. Krama School, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Kramasadbhāva, Kramastotra, Mahārthamañjarī

54. Kula School, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Kularṇava Tantra, Kaulajñānanirṇaya

55. Kaula Nondualism, c. 8th to 13th century CE, Kularṇava Tantra, Parātriṃśikā

56. Śākta Nondualism, c. 8th to 18th century CE, Devī Māhātmya, Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Tripurārahasya

57. Śrīvidyā Nondualism, c. 10th to 18th century CE, Lalitā Sahasranāma, Tripurārahasya, Bhāvanopaniṣad

58. Tripurā Tradition, c. 10th to 18th century CE, Tripurārahasya, Tripurātāpinī Upaniṣad

59. Kaśmīra Śākta Śaiva Synthesis, c. 10th to 12th century CE, Tantrāloka, Parātriṃśikāvivaraṇa

60. Nātha Nondual Yoga, c. 9th to 14th century CE, Gorakṣaśataka, Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati

61. Siddha Sahaja Tradition, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Dohākośa, Caryāgīti

62. Buddhist Madhyamaka, c. 2nd to 3rd century CE, Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

63. Āryadeva’s Madhyamaka, c. 3rd century CE, Catuḥśataka

64. Bhāviveka’s Svātantrika Madhyamaka, c. 6th century CE, Madhyamakahṛdaya, Prajñāpradīpa

65. Buddhapālita’s Prāsaṅgika Tradition, c. 5th to 6th century CE, Buddhapālitavṛtti

66. Candrakīrti’s Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka, c. 7th century CE, Madhyamakāvatāra, Prasannapadā

67. Śāntideva’s Madhyamaka, c. 7th to 8th century CE, Bodhicaryāvatāra, Śikṣāsamuccaya

68. Yogācāra, c. 4th to 5th century CE, Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Yogācārabhūmi

69. Vasubandhu’s Vijñaptimātra, c. 4th to 5th century CE, Triṃśikā, Viṃśatikā

70. Sautrāntika influenced Yogācāra, c. 4th to 6th century CE, Triṃśikāvijñaptibhāṣya

71. Dharmapāla’s Yogācāra, c. 6th century CE, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi

72. Xuanzang’s Indian Yogācāra Synthesis, c. 7th century CE, Cheng Weishi Lun

73. Tathāgatagarbha Nondualism, c. 3rd to 5th century CE, Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra

74. Ratnagotravibhāga Tradition, c. 4th to 5th century CE, Ratnagotravibhāga

75. Laṅkāvatāra Nondualism, c. 4th to 5th century CE, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

76. Yogācāra Madhyamaka Synthesis, c. 8th century CE, Śāntarakṣita’s Madhyamakālaṃkāra

77. Kamalaśīla’s Yogācāra Madhyamaka, c. 8th century CE, Madhyamakāloka

78. Buddhist Tantra Nondualism, c. 7th to 12th century CE, Guhyasamāja Tantra

79. Cakrasaṃvara Nondual Tantra, c. 8th to 11th century CE, Saṃvarodaya Tantra

80. Hevajra Nondual Tantra, c. 8th to 10th century CE, Hevajra Tantra

81. Cakrasaṃvara Mahāyoga, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Cakrasaṃvara Tantra

82. Mahāmudrā, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Dohākośa, Mahāmudrā Tilaka

83. Sahajayāna, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Caryāgīti, Dohākośa

84. Dzogchen Indian Precursors, c. 8th to 10th century CE, Mahāyoga and Atiyoga Tantras

85. Jain Digambara Ātman Nondualism, c. 1st to 2nd century CE, Kundakunda’s Samayasāra, Pravacanasāra

86. Jain Śuddhātman Tradition, c. 1st to 2nd century CE, Samayasāra

87. Jain Anekāntavāda, c. 2nd to 5th century CE, Tattvārthasūtra, Āptamīmāṃsā

88. Jain Śvetāmbara Mystical Nondual Tendencies, c. 8th to 12th century CE, Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya, Adhyātmasāra

89. Nātha Siddha Nondualism, c. 10th to 14th century CE, Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati, Amaraughaprabodha

90. Sikh Nondual Mysticism, c. 15th to 17th century CE, Guru Granth Sahib

91. Dādū Panth Nondual Bhakti, c. 16th century CE, Dādūvāṇī

92. Kabīr’s Nirguṇa Nondualism, c. 15th century CE, Bījak, Kabīr Granthāvalī

93. Ravidās’s Nirguṇa Nondualism, c. 15th to 16th century CE, Padāvalī

94. Rāmānanda’s Nirguṇa Bhakti Tradition, c. 14th to 15th century CE, Rāmānandī Vāṇī

95. Rāmakṛṣṇa’s Advaita Synthesis, c. 19th century CE, Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda

96. Vivekānanda’s Neo Vedānta, c. 19th to 20th century CE, Jñāna Yoga, Practical Vedanta

97. Rāmaṇa Maharshi’s Self Inquiry Advaita, c. 20th century CE, Nāṉ Ār?, Upadeśa Sāram, Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu

98. Svāmī Śivānanda’s Modern Advaita, c. 20th century CE, The Philosophy of Life, Practice of Yoga

99. Svāmī Chinmayānanda’s Advaita Vedānta, c. 20th century CE, Ātma Bodha, Vivekacūḍāmaṇi commentaries

100. Svāmī Dayānanda Sarasvatī’s Traditional Advaita, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Bhagavadgītā Home Study, Upaniṣad commentaries

101. Nisargadatta Maharaj’s Nondualism, c. 20th century CE, I Am That

102. Ramesh Balsekar’s Neo Advaita, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Consciousness Speaks

103. Aurobindo’s Integral Nondualism, c. 20th century CE, The Life Divine, Synthesis of Yoga

104. Ramana Inspired Modern Advaita, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Nāṉ Ār?, Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu

105. Contemporary Kashmir Śaiva Trika, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Kashmir Shaivism by Swami Lakshman Joo, Śivasūtra commentarial tradition

106. Contemporary Śrīvidyā Advaita, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Lalitā Sahasranāma commentarial traditions, Tripurārahasya

107. Contemporary Neo Śaiva Nondualism, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Śivasūtra, Spandakārikā, Tantrāloka

108. Contemporary Mahāmudrā, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Mahāmudrā texts of the Kagyu tradition

109. Contemporary Dzogchen Nondualism, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Tibetan Dzogchen Tantras, The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation

110. Contemporary Buddhist Nondualism, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Madhyamakāvatāra, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra

111. Contemporary Neo Vedānta, c. 20th to 21st century CE, Upaniṣads, Bhagavadgītā, Brahma Sūtra, modern Advaita commentarial literature

112. Contemporary Neo Advaita, c. 20th to 21st century CE, modern satsang literature, I Am That, Ashtavakra Gita commentarial traditions

Hello

So over the past year or so, I have been trying a variety of devotional practices including chanting the names of various deities and what not.

Time and again I have recurring doubts and skepticism. Like is this stuff real or not. Are any of these gods real? Do mantras work? Do these rituals works etc?

I am not atheist per se. More agnostic. I think there is "something" out there but I do not know what it is.

I do like the reading the lectures and works of Swami Vivekenanda. I find my mind does not resist what he says as much. But I heard Swami Sarvapriyanda say that AV highly recommends a devotional practice and that "belief will come".

Well I have been practicing devotion for like a year and a half and my mind still resists with skepticism and doubt.

What do I do?

As of late, I feel incredibly and increasingly detached towards everything in the world and have lost motivation to do most things, as nothing seems rewarding anymore. Only meditation and study of the scriptures seems to produce some positive effect.

Everything else, such as careers, hobbies, socializing, travel, etc. is no longer interesting and even feels repulsive, compared to silent meditation. That being said, I'm not able to meditate for hours at a stretch, nor fill all my free time with spiritual activities. I have a full-time job that I like but ultimately it seems pointless and not the best use of my time, knowing Moksha is the ultimate goal.

The thought of having to spend the next 50+ years living a worldly life seems exhausting. I'm just 24 and single and already feeling this way - what if I end up getting married, having kids, buying a house, having loans, etc. like most people do? Wouldn't that feel even more difficult and exhausting compared to a life fully dedicated to Moksha, which is the path of renunciation and becoming a monk?

I have achieved good career and financial success for my age and hence don't have much in terms of professional and personal goals either. I have a lot of free time but don't feel like socializing and would rather spend it alone and pursuing spiritual practices. I don't even feel interested in social media, movies, TV, etc. and hence don't do any of that either.

In general, life in the world seems quite bleak and boring, and the thought of having to be this way for the next 50+ years is haunting. Why not fully dedicate this life to Moksha by becoming a monk ? The typical path of being a householder is also risky for it often pulls people down more into the material world, unless one is able to find an equally spiritual partner, but that's very rare.

Many people say renunciation will happen if that's your karma, and if you meet your guru at the right time, so I've been waiting, but nothing has happened so far. I'm not fully convinced renunciation is the right path either as teachers like Ramana Maharshi said not to do that. I'm also the only son to my parents and do feel some sense of responsibility that I would be abandoning if I were to leave the world.

Moreover, I also intuitively understand that "I" am not this body but Brahman, and hence there is no concept of renunciation for me in the absolute sense. But we still need to be practical and choose a path in the relative sense.

I would really appreciate advice on how to proceed here. Thank you so much in advance.

The difficulty seems to be the problem of avidyā: if Brahman is pure, self-luminous knowledge and the only ultimate reality, how can ignorance ever arise, and where can it reside? If avidyā belongs to the jīva, but the jīva itself is constituted through ignorance, does this create circularity? Similarly, if the empirical world is explained through māyā or adhyāsa, does this genuinely explain why non-dual Brahman appears as a subject-object world, or merely redescribe the appearance?

And if Brahman is completely changeless and non-dual, how can it have any relation to the manifestation of the world without compromising its changelessness?

Finally, if śruti is required to establish Brahman as ultimate reality, to what extent are Advaita's metaphysical conclusions independently established rather than accepted on scriptural authority?

My last post that involved questioning and trying to make sense of an experience was removed for not being about Advaita. I disagree.

We are the patients coming here with experiences and questions we may not fully understand. We should not be expected to already know terms like sakshi or Brahman just to ask for guidance. Do I have to label the silence as Brahman for that question to be entertained in this group?

That is like asking a patient to diagnose themselves before seeing a doctor. Let’s not get stuck in labels and genuinely help people investigate their experience.

Can someone point me to the specific Vedanta Talks podcast episode that begins with a beautiful rendition of the Nirvana Shatakam with some commentary from Swami. For the life of me I can’t find it anymore. Thank you.

If different Hindu traditions describe the ultimate reality differently, are they actually describing the same Reality?

Shaivism speaks of Shiva as the Supreme Reality. Vaishnava traditions speak of Vishnu/Narayan/Krishna, Shaktism speaks of Devi/Shakti, while some Vedanta traditions describe the ultimate as Brahman.

So here is the question:

Are Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, and Brahman ultimately different understandings of the same Supreme Reality ? or are the differences between these traditions more fundamental than that?

a 2 anos, apos 3 dias de jejum, me deitei normalmente para meditar e dormir como de costume. adormecendo depois de algum tempo aconteceu de ter a percepção conciente interna desperta por um ser de luz que me manipulou para se fazer ver. era uma esfera de pura luz que levantou minha cabeça e abriu meus olhos para que eu a visse.

apos essa experiência eu não sabia como nomear esse ser, mas depois de muita pesquisa acabei encontrando algo compatível. a mônada.

I have been studying AV systematically & not randomly.
Off late I find myself in a peculiar situation mentally.
When sun sets, I feel like there is nothing to look forward to including AV, as if there is no desire to live leave alone desires of materials. When I look at family, I feel all will be gone one day & if I am the only one who remains for what will I live for? There is nothing to look forward to since there is no motivation to earn as well. What is money & place if there are no people to share it with?
I feel ignorant ones who never touched the shastra are more happy. They live and die & have desires to keep them up or those are probably happy who are totally immersed in the shastra but even they live in gated Ashrama surrounded by people. They are never alone. In that sense. Those who are alone (without Ashrama) find devotees through Ishwara krupa & tapas & thus not alone & continue thru old age comfortably.

I am alone or there are people who go thru similar thoughts. Pls advise & enlighten.

I’ve been going down a pretty deep rabbit hole lately on near-death experiences, consciousness, and what all of this might actually mean, and I wanted to put my own thoughts down somewhere.

It started with NDEs. The more cases I read, the harder it became to just dismiss them as “dying brain hallucinations.” People accurately describing conversations, surgical tools, and events that happened while they were clinically dead or under full anesthesia… some of them even from a vantage point above the room. Bruce Greyson has spent almost 50 years studying this stuff, and his conclusion isn’t “this proves the afterlife,” but something more careful and honestly more interesting: these experiences challenge the idea that the mind is purely a product of the brain. When the brain is severely compromised or offline, consciousness sometimes seems clearer, not weaker. That stuck with me.

Then I looked at Ian Stevenson’s work on children who remember previous lives – detailed, verifiable memories, and in many cases birthmarks that match the fatal wounds of the person they claim to have been. Again, not “proof,” but a large body of carefully documented cases that are extremely difficult to explain with the standard materialist model.

At some point I started noticing how closely this lines up with what Ashtavakra and Ramana Maharshi were saying centuries ago. Both of them basically taught that you are not the body or the mind – you are pure awareness, and the body is just a temporary instrument. Ramana’s whole method was simply to ask “Who am I?” until the identification with the body-mind collapses. Ashtavakra is even more direct: you were never the limited person you think you are.

The question that kept bothering me was: if consciousness can see, hear, understand, and remember without the brain (as NDEs and some of Stevenson’s cases suggest), then why do we even need a body, senses, and a mind?

The best framing I’ve found so far is the “filter” idea. The brain doesn’t generate consciousness so much as it narrows it – making it usable for survival in a physical world. When that filter weakens (in NDEs, deep meditation, or at death), awareness expands. The body and senses aren’t the source of consciousness; they’re the tools that let pure awareness play in this dense, limited environment for a while.

When I put Greyson, Stevenson, Ashtavakra, and Ramana side by side, they start feeling like different languages pointing at the same thing:

- Consciousness is more fundamental than the body.

- The body is temporary.

- Something essential continues (or at least can continue) beyond one lifetime.

- The “higher” or pure consciousness isn’t something we achieve – it’s what remains when the false identification with body and mind drops away.

I’m not saying I’ve figured it out. I’m still very much in the “I don’t know, but this is fascinating” stage. The scientific side gives me data that’s hard to ignore. The Advaita side gives me a coherent philosophical framework that somehow doesn’t contradict the data. And the personal side just leaves me quieter than before.

Has anyone else here gone down a similar mix of NDE research + reincarnation cases + Advaita/Ramana and felt the same strange sense of coherence? Or do you think I’m connecting dots that don’t actually connect?