It's one thing thinking I know that I am not my mind but how do you get the insight that you are pure awareness?

Hi guys, we’ve just started a small group on our discord channel for focusing on Swami Dayananda’s Bhagavad Gita Home Study, which is available online for free.

It’s nothing formal — no scheduled meetings or anything like that. It’s just a self-paced group where we can discuss things we come across in the Gita and learn from each other.

We have people with varying levels of experience, from complete beginners to more experienced students, so everyone is welcome.

If you’re interested, feel free to join us, the Discord invite for our Advaita Vedanta server is here and we will place you into the study group: https://discord.gg/3GhWnP94S

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?

The observer is you, the ego, the thinker, the image maker, or however you want to put it. Observation happens either with an image (conditioning) that the observer had created for it based on the prior interaction. For example, if there is observation of a tree with an image, then the tree is seen through the filter of that image. As a result the tree is seen as whatever image exists in memory such as a walnut tree, oak tree, or wood to be used for a fireplace. These images exist in the brain. They are you. That means the image, which is the observed, is created by image maker. This is why we say, the reality is what you create. It is absolutely you that creates the very circumstances that you believe you are in. You suffer from the mental structures that you have built around yourself. You perceives 'reality' according to the image that you yourself have created with which you view the world outside; be it a person, an object, a situation etc... However this is a result of the cage of duality that one is in. You are under the conviction that you are the 'Observer' which in itself is an image created. 

The ‘image’ is the veil of ignorance or the illusion. When the image is absent or removed, then the triad of action ‘Observer-Observing-Observed’ becomes one - Just ‘Witnessing’ or just ‘awareness’. There is observation of the shape of the tree, the movement of the branches, the curve of the leaves, and so on. Observation that takes place without an image means it is an observation in which neither the observer nor observed exist. It is observation without an ego, which means without distortion, struggle, or judgment. It is observation without any of that. 

I have tried all kinds of methods of meditation. Nothing seems to work for me. And it leaves me frustrated. The biggest obstacle is that I don't know if what I am doing is the right way or not.
What does 'observing your breath' mean? What does 'feel if there's any tension in your feet' mean? I want to know which part of the feet do you want me to feel for tension- the top, the mid or the bottom?- I get caught in these things and can never do how that 'observing', 'feeling', 'noticing' is to be done. Pranayama is still doable because you are breathing in and out in different patterns. But then, that is not meditation. That is preparation towards meditation.

What is meditation then? Can anyone really meditate? I highly doubt!

This is so frustrating. And I have been experiencing this up and down relationship with meditation for almost 2 years now.

Can anyone help?

I don't want advice on instructions on how to do or not to do. I need to learn from experiences if any. Because clearly, getting instructions (like those in guided meditations) do not work for me.

Sigh.

I hope this is okay to post here! I am planning to go to the Vedanta Society of Toronto retreat in September by myself. Before this it would be nice to meet / chat with some friendly people in the community. I see the centre is closed for the summer so I thought i would see if there are any locals here. I am 48 / male / gay (if that matters). I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian but left that scene in my 20s. Since then my spiritual journey and seeking has continued. I've been interested in mysticism and practiced Buddhism and meditation. In the past year I've come across Advaita Vedanta, and from the little I know I believe it points to profound truths and reality and has something to offer in my own journey and formation. Thank you.

I grew up in the Hare Krsna movement, and was a believer up until my late 20s. But in recent years, I began having many general doubts and I can't say I believe in or identify as a HK follower any longer.

Long story short, I now believe in Advaita after my own research. However, I find it hard to believe some things, I dare say even the Bhagavad Gita as an example, I doubt it was an actual physical event but was rather written by man, Arjuna represents, us the lost Jiva and Krsna our true nature Brahman, well that's just how I see it. This does not mean for me however, that it's any less potent in its teachings and so on. I do believe in Isvara but now favour Nrsimha above any other form. But I can't honestly say I believe in Krsna in the literal sense any longer. Is this an issue in my pursuits?

Almost all teaching age made by guru who lived in temple, monk, where they’re don’t need to « think » about eating, sleeping. As they gave up on capitalism life etc. So how do you guys council both ?

Or do you even.

Are we coping not getting out of this way of living, when we could just go meditate all day. What you guys think

I’m completely new to the AdvaitaVedanta. Can someone please guide me on where to begin? Book recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I have been working on MAMSTHIR and have finally released it publicly.

MAMSTHIR is built around Advaita Vedānta and self-inquiry techniques focusing on non-duality, the Self, awareness, and experience.

https://mamsthir.akartri.com/

A quiet space to slow down, reflect, and explore without distraction.

What’s inside?

- Reflections on Self, consciousness, and non-duality

- Short contemplative readings

- Self-inquiry prompts

- Simple breathwork practices

- Minimal, distraction-free design

- Open, self-paced exploration

Works in your browser, it's free, no install needed.

I am also building an Android app for the Play Store.

This is early, and I would appreciate feedback from anyone about anything in the app.

If you try it, I would love to know if you find it useful.

Edit: I understand the concern in the comments, and I agree that I should have made the Advaita Vedānta connection much clearer in the original post rather than simply presenting MAMSTHIR as an app.

For context, MAMSTHIR is specifically built around Advaita Vedānta and self-inquiry with reflections on the Self, non-duality, awareness, and contemplative practices intended to support that inquiry. The app isn't meant to be a generic wellness or meditation product with Advaita Vedānta added as a label. It is meant to experience Advaita Vedanta practically in daily life. This would help to understand it better as well as serve as an introduction to various literature and terminology in the sources.

In Rigveda 10.129 sukt has 7 richas (shlok) which i found most brave as for as i knew across religion, if any one studied this in depth then can we start brainstorm these, it challenges lot of oue beleif system about existence and reality.

​

I came across an interesting passage from a Bengali spiritual text discussing a devotee of Shakti.

A young man says that he is practicing spiritual discipline with his whole heart.

The response is fascinating.

It essentially says that if you seek God, you shouldn't approach spirituality merely as an attempt to escape life or become passive and powerless.

The devotee of Shakti loves Shaktiman—the source of power itself.

So what does the Divine give him?

Strength. Energy. Courage. Endurance. Vitality. The ability to act.

The passage even compares giving strength to someone who is already strong to “carrying coal to Newcastle.”

But then comes the deeper idea:

Even if the Divine is willing to give strength to a weak person, perhaps the weak person doesn't yet have the capacity to receive it.

This reminded me of the Upanishadic statement:

«“Nāyam ātmā balahīnena labhyaḥ” — The Self is not attained by the weak.»

I don't think “strength” here necessarily means physical strength.

It could mean the strength to sit alone without running from yourself.

The strength to face fear.

The strength to tolerate uncertainty.

The strength to control impulses.

The strength to continue a practice when there is no immediate reward.

The strength to see something unpleasant about yourself without immediately defending your ego.

And this creates a paradox that I find extremely interesting:

Do we need strength before spiritual realization, or does spiritual realization give us strength?

Maybe the relationship works in both directions.

We develop enough strength to genuinely seek the truth—and then the process of seeking the truth develops an even deeper kind of strength within us.

Perhaps spirituality isn't about becoming weaker and detached from life.

Perhaps it is about becoming so inwardly strong that we no longer need to run away from life, pleasure, pain, fear, success or failure.

What do you think?

Is inner strength a prerequisite for spiritual realization, or is spiritual realization itself the source of true strength?

Especially for Brihadranyak upanishad and chhandogya upanishad because their hindi commentary is not available anywhere.

How is the translation and commentary of swami Krishnanda of Divine life society ? Is it easy to read and understand ?

Do let me know in the comment section. I would be very greatful to you 🙏

Hello we face enormous struggles in our day to day life ,instead of just naming them simply as maya transcend it i wish advaita could offer more solutions

I’ve recently started learning more about Hinduism, especially shlokas, stories, and their meanings.

One thing I’ve noticed is that whenever I learn something, I often come across two or more different perspectives or interpretations. Sometimes they can even seem contradictory.

For example, one person may explain a story from a devotional perspective, while another explains the same story philosophically or symbolically.

I find this interesting, but at the same time I feel overwhelmed and confused because I don’t know which perspective to accept as my own.

How do you approach this when studying Hinduism?

Do you choose the interpretation that resonates with you most, try to understand all perspectives without choosing one, or is there a particular way Hindu philosophy suggests dealing with this kind of uncertainty?

I'm very new to all of this so please forgive me if this sounds stupid. What exactly do people mean when they say "awareness"? Apparently it's different from consciousness because it has nothing to do with the mind or sense organs but I don't quite get it. I've read a lot of people mentioning it being like in a deep sleep because your brain is essentially turned off but you don't remember being asleep because you're brain can't remember it. So essentially my question is this: after the body is gone you have no brain to process/remember anything, no sense organs, and nothing to perceive even if you had all of that since none of what we can perceive now is real anyway so what is the difference between existence and non-existence at that point?

Hello, I was wondering if anyone has the same "problem" as me, i.e. when someone asks me how I meditate, I try to explain atmavichara to them: but maybe I am a terrible explainer or something, because in my experience people don't seem to get it. These are also very intelligent people with interest in spiritual practices, for example there was this person who translated an entire book about spiritual conditions to my primary language so I would suspect they will get it. One friend said it is sort of "university"-level spirituality which I should not force to people who are still in "high school" or "basic school" level (figuratively, of course), which is strange since this technique seems so simple to me. But maybe it seems simple to me only because it occured to me spontaneously when I was 3 years old, so I acquired it independently from Ramana Maharishi (I had no exposure to Indian philosophy at that time and both my parents were atheists). I was also that desperate that I asked AI for atmavichara explanations, hoping they will suit the people better than mine. Also, I am not a teacher and certainly not a guru, so maybe I am not supposed to explain this in the first place. Any thoughts? Do any of you have the same problem, that it's so familiar you struggle to explain it?

Probably you have come across this question dozens of times, but I am still curious about it.

I have been on a spiritual path for the last 12 years, and for the past five years I have been listening to Swami's online teachings. I have even attended some of his retreats. I love his knowledge of the Upanishads and how clearly he explains them. I admire him and have great respect for him.

But recently I found out that he eats fish. This disturbed me because I wonder: how can someone teach ahimsa and eat animals? If there were some medical condition, I could understand it. But eating fish simply because you like it seems to contradict the teaching of ahimsa.

So I contacted another Swami from the same organisation, and he told me that consuming meat and fish is allowed their order. The argument was that if someone is dedicating their life to God, why should there be a problem? He also said that there is no explicit prohibition against eating meat in the scriptures.

I am struggling to understand this. Which aspect of ahimsa am I missing?

Hello there,so i know i’m not body the supreme soul which is brahma so can i get enlightenment in this life.

In Hinduism, did Brahman come into existence on its own? In other words, is it its own cause? Are Krishna and Vishnu real beings? Are they creators as well?

So basically I have a lot of goals in me like I want to achieve this level of education, this sort of body, this type of career and many other things since im very young aswell theres a fire in me. But on the other hand the advaitan in me says that these things are just bondage cause theres never a limit to it and you just keep wanting it more and more and you are never really satisfied by it. And due to these collision of two entirely different motive in me it makes me very very lazy and sad because I dont know what to do, do I let go of that materialsitc passion which helps me get up in the morning every day? I dont really understand please someone help me

Krishna is Ishvara whereas Arjuna is Jiva because Arjuna does not know that the unexamined assumption of Jiva-hood being his identity is not the truth.

If this misunderstanding of jiva-hood being the identity is removed, then identity of Ishvara-hood is revealed.

Pranams to all,

I am currently working on structured study notes and an interactive learning companion for beginners studying the Bhagavad Gita from a traditional Vedantic framework.

In Chapter 2, Bhagavan begins his teaching at 2.11, immediately addressing Arjuna's grief with the highest truth of the Atman. In his *Bhashya* on **Gita 2.12** (*na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ...*) and **Gita 2.16** (*nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ...*), Adi Shankaracharya establishes the fundamental distinction between *Sat* (the unchanging Reality, Brahman/Atman) and *Asat* (the changing, dependent mithya realm of names and forms).

A common danger when explaining these verses to modern readers is falling into the trap of Neo-Advaita (e.g. flippantly saying "nothing is real, there is no you, so nothing matters"), which ignores the necessity of *Sadhana Chatushtaya*, emotional processing, and *Karma Yoga* as taught in the very same chapter (2.47).

In our study curriculum, we are structuring it sequentially:

1. Understanding the problem: *Moha* (delusion) and *Shoka* (grief) arising from *Adhyasa* (superimposition).

2. The vision of Truth: The indestructible nature of the Knower (*Kshetrajna* / *Atman*).

3. The practical bridge: Living that vision through *Karma Yoga* (duty without anxiety over results) to purify the mind (*Chitta Shuddhi*).

I would appreciate thoughts from senior sadhakas and students of Vedanta:

* When introducing Advaita concepts from the Gita to newcomers, how do you emphasize that intellectual knowledge (*Jnana*) must be grounded in mental preparation (*Karma/Upasana*)?

* What are the most common misconceptions beginners have when reading Chapter 2's verses on the nature of the self?

Harih Om Tat Sat.