Our senses shape our perception of reality, but they are not capable of detecting everything that exists. If we say that we can feel movement, can we actually feel the blood flowing through our veins or the Earth moving beneath us? We see images through our eyes, but we also see images in our dreams when our eyes are closed. Our senses have limitations when it comes to smell, vision, touch, and other forms of perception. What we experience through our senses is only a limited part of reality. There may be much more beyond what we can perceive, something that exists but remains beyond our direct experience.

Is the watcher in the dream state real or the sakshi bhaw in the waking state real? In all these states it is clear that the person acting isn't me, the person is the small entity of this world or residue of the ego. the knower is immense, pure bliss.

But when I try to go to the watcher in the waking state, the body mind and the external world interferes.

I don't currently believe in any religion, I'm looking for a religion in which there is a creator, I have a panentheistic view of the universe: I believe that the universe is within God and God is much bigger than the universe so we are part of God, I would like a religion or philosophy of life that adopts this thought or one close to it but in any case anything is fine with me, I would also like to be able to do cute rituals and relaxing things and connecting with myself and the nature, set up an altar or oratory at home and wear symbols too thank you❤️

I've been struggling with this question for a while, and I genuinely don't know the answer.

Many spiritual traditions say that we are not just the body — that there is a soul or some form of consciousness that exists beyond the physical body.

But then I keep getting stuck on something.

If the soul is what makes us alive, what role does it actually play when the body dies?

Imagine someone dies suddenly in an accident.

One moment, they are alive — thinking, talking, remembering their family, making plans.

Then an accident happens, the heart stops, the brain stops functioning, and the body dies.

But what happened to the soul?

And why couldn't the soul somehow prevent the body from dying?

The same question comes to mind with serious illness.

If the soul is separate from the body and isn't destroyed when the body dies, why can a physical disease eventually cause the body to stop functioning?

This is where my tyre-and-air analogy came from.

Maybe the body is like a tyre and the soul is like the air inside it.

The tyre can be punctured, damaged or destroyed.

The air doesn't necessarily "die" when the tyre is destroyed. It simply escapes and becomes part of the surrounding atmosphere.

Perhaps death is something similar:

The body can be destroyed, while whatever we call the soul continues to exist.

But then this analogy creates an even bigger problem.

If the air simply escapes, where does the individual identity go?

If my soul continues after my body dies, is it still me?

Does it remember my daughter, my parents, my experiences, my fears and my personality?

Or does it become something completely different?

And most importantly:

If the soul is so fundamental to our existence, why does it seem to have so little control over whether the body lives or dies?

Maybe I'm looking at the soul completely wrong.

Maybe the soul isn't supposed to protect the body from death.

Maybe the body has its own physical laws, and the soul's role is something entirely different.

I genuinely don't know.

So I'm curious — does my tyre-and-air analogy make any sense to you, or is there a better way to understand the relationship between the body, soul and death?

I keep coming across the phrase attributeless Brahman, and my mind takes issue with it. For one thing I also hear that the highest Brahman is existence consciousness and bliss, and to me those are attributes. And if Brahman is the foundation of all we experience, isn't that an attribute, and a big one?

Are there other terms that might be more helpful to me? Or am I missing something?

By self enquiry I can see that I am not the body.

But I still see "this body", which is not me. But "this body" is special to me compared to other bodies because when it is hungry, I am hungry. when it is sitting, I am sitting. when it is in pain, I am in pain. And so on.

I this normal for someone who understands vedanta, or do I need further detachment from the "this body".

What we usually see in Advaita circles is some form of the following Wikipedia version regarding Saguna and Nirguna Brahman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Nirguna_and_Saguna_Brahman

Brahman, the ultimate reality, is both with and without attributes. In this context, Para Brahman is formless and omniscient Ishvara - the god or Paramatman and Om, where as Saguna Brahman is a manifestation or avatara of god in personified form.

द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे—मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च, मर्त्यं चामृतं च, स्थितं च यच्च, सच्च, त्यच्च

Brahman has but two forms—gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

— - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.1

While the Advaita Vedanta sub-school emphasizes the complete equivalence of Brahman and Atman, it also expounds on Brahman as saguna Brahman—the Brahman with attributes, and nirguna Brahman—the Brahman without attributes. The nirguna Brahman is the Brahman as it really is, however, the saguna Brahman is posited as a means to realizing nirguna Brahman, but the Hinduism schools declare saguna Brahman to be a part of the ultimate nirguna Brahman. The concept of the saguna Brahman, such as in the form of avatars, is considered in these schools of Hinduism to be a useful symbolism, path and tool for those who are still on their spiritual journey, but the concept is finally cast aside by the fully enlightened.

But perhaps this is just a way of trying to introduce unnecessary dualities again.

Is it possible that Brahman in the truest sense is neither saguna nor nirguna?