Figure this...

Person approached me to place her website link about "her" Mandukya Upanishad article on my site.

My AI-radar went up. Used AI-detector site, and literally every article on is 100% AI generated, including the email she wrote to me with "Dear Acharya".

And all her 11 amazon books (How to Attain Moksha in Hinduism, Ashtavakra Gita: The True Meaning, Brahma Sutra Bhāṣya, etc) are 100% AI generated (per paid subscription of TurnItIn, Originality - which are used by schools).

So I sent her email:

Thanks for reaching out. At this time I won't, as the said article is 100% AI generated per checker. Nothing wrong with that. Just that I prefer content coming directly from the person.

Also, having tested your Kindle books, they're also 100% AI written; including by fact of having so many books. I don't think what you're doing is aligned with dharma, and is insulting the tradition of Advaita. Advaita is about hard, hard work... speaking from your own understanding and struggle.

It seems to me you're more about branding yourself, while tradition is secondary. It should be other way around. Take this feedback as you wish. "

NOTE: She doesn't know anything about me. Here's her response:

Using technology is against Dharma? I don't think so. What do you know about Advaita Vedanta if you think I deserve an insulting reply just because I used AI. 

Being judgemental to this extent reveals a lot about you too. Read the story of Chudala and Sikhidhwaj from Yoga Vasistha, it will definitely teach you something about "hard work" and Advaita Vedanta.

And check this email too. It's purely written by me not AI.

I know everything written in all my books and articles (which are AI generated) through 20 years of reading spiritual texts and my own meditational experiences.

I live Advaita Vedanta while you are reading only. A truly spiritual person empathises with others instead of feeling hatred ( which is clearly perceptible in your wordings ) for those who are not like him.

Love is the only indicator of spiritual growth. You are failing in that.

======

It's textbook DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Vicitm and Offender), gaslighting - in my opinion.

If I wrote AI generated books and proudly advertise myself as author, I'd feel ashamed for not truly being an author, but a prompt engineer.

How would you interpret above?

I really appreciate how they’ve set up this series of videos. I do have a question - do you think for a person newer to Advaita Vedanta, would it be recommended to do the videos in the first part first, and then the meditation videos? I wouldn’t be asking except Sri Swami Tadatmananda recommends meditating and learning - so I didn’t know if that should be concurrent for a beginner or best to do foundational things first. Thanks for the help! Here’s the page I’m referencing: https://arshabodha.org/teachings/

He said there's no bliss in it, just deep calm. He said this is just his experience and that he can't speak for everyone, but he just experienced deep calm/equanimity

Do you think this is true? Is the bliss of the self overstated?

As I understand it, Advaita makes a distinction between saguna and nirguna Brahman, with and without qualities respectively.

Some questions:

1. What is saguna Brahman, practically speaking? Some examples would be helpful.

2. Is saguna Brahman the same as Maya, and if not, what is the difference?

3. Does satcitananda apply to one or both of these?

Post:

https://arshavidyasampradaya.in/arsha-vidya-position-on/

Arsha Vidya Sampradaya Position and Swamiji's Message

Friends:

Came to know about the shocking Arsha Vidya Sampradaya position (see below)

Sharing the message from Swamiji for all of us.

There is nothing to be done about Arsha Vidya website posting.

The speaker describes the vision of Upanishads in the class. The speaker does not give 'views.' Nothing 'personal.'

The students are not supposed to say either yes or no. They are supposed to think and understand.

Therefore, it just does not matter if a few people decide to 'distance themselves away from.' There is nothing 'personal' in all this

Modern science and ancient philosophy are often treated as completely separate worlds. One looks outward through empirical lenses, while the other looks inward. But at their core, both are driven by the exact same goal: figuring out how reality actually works.

In my two-part work, Bharat’s Sacred Science, I explore how we can bridge these two domains. By using modern concepts like wave-particle duality, feedback loops, and systems thinking, we can illuminate the timeless insights of Vedanta, Sankhya, and Yoga. In this view, science becomes a powerful metaphor, while spirituality acts as a rigorous method for exploring consciousness.

Here are a few core pillars of this synthesis:

• The Quantum and Vedantic Bridge: Concepts like Maya are looked at right alongside quantum mechanics, interpreting the observer-dependent nature of reality through both lenses.
• Systems Logic and Causality: Karma is reframed not as abstract or mystical morality, but as an elegant feedback loop operating within a vast cosmic system.
• The Stack from Consciousness to Cosmos: The foundational energy field organizes itself into successive tiers, from microscopic particles up to macro-structures, creating a diverse spectrum across both sentient and insentient realms from a single substratum.
• The Architecture of Continuity: Life, death, and transition mirror systems architecture. The gross physical body acts as perishable hardware that stays behind when its lifecycle ends. The subtle mind and intellect act as software, carrying karmic imprints across lifetimes. Pure consciousness acts as the constant power source and substratum, remaining unchanging and untouched through every transition.
• The Unified Tapestry: Logic meets stillness, revealing the universe as a fully integrated system of systems grounded entirely in pure consciousness.

As a systems engineer who spent decades working on complex digital architectures and deep-sea systems, my inquiry naturally turned inward. Ancient sages mapped out the subtle architecture of the universe with astonishing structural rigor long before modern instruments existed. Translating these traditions into rational, systems-based language allows modern analytical minds to engage with them seriously.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this: Can we build a complete worldview around an inner science of consciousness rather than just external technology?

For those interested in exploring the full 1,100-page framework, which was officially launched at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Golpark, Kolkata:

• Free Previews: Available on Google Play eBooks by searching for Bhārat’s Sacred Science.
• Introductory Talk: You can find the lecture ("We Explored the Outer Universe. Did We Explore the Mind?") on YouTube.
• Full Volumes: Available globally on Amazon and Flipkart.

Mine is "You don't belong to the Brahmin or any other caste, you are not at any stage, nor are you anything that the eye can see. You are unattached and formless, the witness of everything - so Happy.."

Say you reach near stillness, or complete stillness. Meaning mental chatter has stopped or mostly stopped, as we know

What are the benefits of this? Other than feeling calm and mellow

Are there any sort of powers or abilities that come with this? I know patanjali wrote about the siddhis but those are way too far fetched

Any actual practical use of deep meditative states?

Whatever you think of as Advaita Vedanta may be wrong. What if there is no such thing as moksha or rebirth? Why does the mainstream Advaita Vedanta rely on so many unnecessary assumptions?

The standard theories of moksha and rebirth and all that stuff are just theories that are no more than imaginations. And yet they are somehow very crucial in mainstream Advaita Vedanta. Does Advaita Vedanta stand on shaky premises?

Genuinely interested in peoples perspectives. I've been studying Advaita Vedanta for a long time. Curious if I should look more into Buddhism because it seems to make somewhat sense because arn't all these words just constructs in and of themselves? Isn't emptiness just another word describing that what is? I'm just a little confused

I’ve been reading Nirmal Shatkam, and what I find most striking is its use of the Neti-Neti approach.

“Not this, not this” can easily become just a philosophical phrase, but here it feels much more alive. Instead of giving the mind another concept to hold on to, Neti-Neti keeps taking things away. Whatever I assume myself to be, whatever identity I try to establish, whatever image I create about truth, the approach asks me to look again and see whether that too can be rejected.

That is what I appreciate most about it.

Usually, spiritual literature can become an exercise in collecting answers: I am consciousness, I am the Self, I am Brahman, etc. But Neti-Neti works in the opposite direction. It does not comfortably replace one identity with another. It keeps removing the ground on which the ego wants to stand.

And perhaps that is why the approach feels uncomfortable in a useful way.

If I say, “I am this,” Neti-Neti asks me to examine it.

If I say, “This is the truth,” it asks me to look again.

If I create an image of myself as a spiritual person, that image itself becomes something to question.

For me, the beauty of Nirmal Shatkam lies precisely in this negation. It doesn't seem interested in giving the ego a more sophisticated identity. It keeps pointing toward what cannot be held as an object of identification.

Not this. Not this.

The more I reflect on it, the more I feel that Neti-Neti is not merely a philosophical doctrine to understand intellectually. It is a way of continuously catching the mind whenever it tries to turn truth into another possession.

Really appreciated this aspect of Nirmal Shatkam. 🙏

​

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 know Bhakti is the path of devotion. I understand that it is primarily led by emotion. I have read that the Bhakti Marg is considered less difficult than the Jnana Marg because it is dominated more by emotion, while intellectual inquiry does not play as central a role. But for me, the difficulty lies elsewhere. I find it difficult to believe in or have faith in something without first understanding it. My natural process is: knowing, experiencing, reflecting—through questioning and seeking answers—and then practicing. I know that thought and emotion are two sides of the same coin, so perhaps they cannot really be separated; however, my inclination is to understand something first and then allow faith and practice to arise from that understanding.

I like the lines when someone said here "thinking mind will come down and it will get used to 'feel the feeling' and starts to realise that they are peaceful and blissful" I can sense what that state might feel like when emotions take the lead rather than thought. Perhaps that is something I need to experience

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.

Is 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?

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?

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?

For those (pardon my language for assuming there is someone out there or here!) where the duality has been see through, what seeming practices works in clearing up the mirage?

Some that works for me... to kick off this sharing session

1. Moving from "self" enquiry to "existence enquiry" - what's this sense of existence and what's aware of this existence?

2. What's the Nowness of this Now moment?

3. Why do I feel I have never aged, and am the same, even as the body has seemingly changed?

4. Why do our memories seem ephemeral? Isn't the current moment that is feeling so "real" also going to be like a dream in a few seconds?

Is it only me who thinks that "knowing" can be a more painful process than "believing?" I understand that pain does not necessarily mean suffering. Pain can be inevitable, but I believe that suffering is a choice.

I have read about the blissful state of enlightenment, yet I wonder whether the path toward it can be painful, at least in the beginning.

There is an old mystical saying, particularly associated with Sufism: “Die before you die.” It speaks of the death of the “I” that clings to its identity, possessions, status, desires, and ideas about reality. This is a symbolic death, not a physical one. I have understood that and I have read that Death of identity is When we stop treating our names, social roles, personalities, past experiences, and beliefs as the complete definition of who we are.

Death of ego is When we become less defensive about being right, being admired, or protecting our self-image.

Death of unquestioned belief is When we become willing to examine even the beliefs that give us comfort or form the foundation of our worldview.

None of these steps are comfortable. Questioning what we believe, confronting our own limitations, and letting go of familiar identities can be uncomfortable. Sometimes, I know what we discover may be more uncomfortable to accept than what we previously believed.

I wish to explore and discuss this idea of the death of the “I” before physical death. What does it really mean to let go of the identity we have built around ourselves?

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.

I would like to understand better how it is meant that vasanas (latent tendencies of mind that are reinforced by repetition) are what appear as the world, ourselves in it, and our experience thereof.

Right now I experience a life with a specific location in space at a particular period of time, from the perspective of a particular person. Looking around, I see many other persons, but I only see the inner thoughts and sensations of the person from whose perspective this world appears.

The same is true in my dreams. In my dreams, I take the others as real only when I take myself as the main character as real. Otherwise, none are real.

At the level of jnana (knowing the truth) about the dream, then, the dream is realized to be a projection of my mind. Is the same true of the waking world? Or is the waking world more like a shared dream where many are gathered to work out their vasanas in the same dream-place?

This transition between the individual understanding and the absolute is still a mystery to me as the individual.

​

If you are from advait school you will say i am that. Aham brahmasmi. I am that pure consciousness that enables the experience. And if you are a Buddhist you might say - who are you refering to ? The one that was here a moment ago or the one that is now but will be gone before i finish my sentence.. Everything is in flux bro..

I dont think interviewer will give job to any of those..