Swami Tadatmananda is a subtle light shining above the dark forest of our mind, so we do not feel lost when we see the venerable Swami's beacon of wisdom guiding us out of that forest into the bright fields of understanding.

One of the greatest videos you have ever made! It delighted my heart to hear so many profound questions from viewers!

The inner experience vs. outward behavior! 😮

That was packed! 🙏 Thank you, Swamiji for creating this video. I already know that I will revisit this numerous times. Very helpful! 🙏

I have HUGE amount of respect for him🙏

Namaste SwamiT 🙏 thanks

🙏 Thank you Swami ji.

Beautiful. Thank you Swami.😊

प्रणाम स्वामी जी 🙏🙂

Thank you Swami J for making videos, it gives people like I the possibility to watch over and over, each time there is always something to learn.

Pranam, Swami 🙏 Thank you for these explanations and answers. Very helpful!

Marvellous explanation Swamiji my pranam 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Thank you so much, Swami ji ❤ Thank you for your patience in explanation of all the complexity of this theme 🙏

Lovely and very insightful specially the reflected consciousness part. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your teachings, you have a gift to explain all details in simple and comprehensible manner!!!

Shanti, shanti, shanti 🙏

❤ v grateful

Thank you Bindhu 🙏🕉️

1:55. Chitt 2:42. SCA 3:30. Anand 3:53 4:08. Anant 5:30. Chitt. Chetna. 8:54 9:15 👌 10:15 10:45. ❤. RXXXXX 12:00 13:05. 👌 14:45. Shifting metaphors from ☀️ to pot vrutti 16:00 RXXXXX 16:50. RXXXXX 18:33. Unchanging cs 19:25. Illusions 21:00. Sakshi 22:22. Shifting cs/mind? 23:07. Reflected cs. RXXXXX 24:32. RXXXXX

Pranam Swami ji

Pranam Guruji 🙏

🕉

pot vritti metaphor is fire

❤

Awesome video! Thanks. Question: if I am pure Atman, that is to say God, then whom shall I pray to? To myself?

@gurugeorge I think the reason even the expression “Being,” is not used is because it also expresses duality, as in “being and non-being.” Ultimately, this Brahman cannot be expressed in any ideas or words because it is beyond all polarities. That is why the metaphors are only pointers or a “jumping off point,” into Brahman gyana. When this point arises where language and ideas are abandoned (they are mutable and are of the mind) it’s pretty safe to say that the Buddhist idea of Sunya and the Hindu idea of Purna are equivalent. If you want to hear more, there are some podcasts from Arsha Bodha Center Archives, teaching the different Upanishads (pretty in-depth) that you might enjoy. 🙏

जय श्री राम

🕉🕉🕉

Should someone focus on achieving greatness workwise or is that a thought too?

Technically the sun is not stationary. It is also rotating on its axis and revolving around the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. I study space weather and the sun, so I felt compelled to mention this. Just adding clarity, but I do understand the point being made regarding the idea of a stationary sun nonetheless. 🌞🙏

@halcyon2864

2 ай бұрын

Are you showing of your knowledge in astronomy? Ask yourself this question :Is it my ego at work? 😊 With loving kindness 💜 Tat twam asi 🙏

@WildAlchemicalSpirit

2 ай бұрын

@@halcyon2864 there is probably an element of ego, I've been really excited about it and so I am passionate and like talking about it. Don't you think it's really fascinating, though, that we're not only rotating around the sun but that the sun is rotating around the Milky Way, which is also moving through space? It's amazing in my perspective. 🤷🏼‍♀️🌞🙏🌌

@halcyon2864

2 ай бұрын

@@WildAlchemicalSpirit Yes the world of plenomena is amazing, God's Lila or Divine play at work. And do you know also that the Milky-way is moving towards Andromeda galaxy at 250000mph ??😊

@WildAlchemicalSpirit

2 ай бұрын

@@halcyon2864 I did not recall the exact speed offhand. We are really cruising through the cosmos! 🥰

@halcyon2864

2 ай бұрын

@@WildAlchemicalSpirit Yes indeed, even us sentient beings also "cruising" from life to death and death to life in Maya's realm or God's Lila. With loving kindness 💜 🙏

🙏 Please someone tell me, when do we say Atma and Atman?? Both exactly the same or is there a distinction? Thank you, with loving kindness 💜 Pranams Swamiji 🙏🙏🙏

@dangem5022

2 ай бұрын

Ha! Oh yeah. I'd like to know the answer to this too 😂

@rsr9200

2 ай бұрын

The terms Atma and Atman are used interchangeably (to refer to our essential nature) in the English translations of some of the Upanishads by authorities on Advaita Vedanta such as Swami Dayananda and Swami Gambhirananda. However, if I correctly recall Swami Tadatmananda’s advice on the usage of these terms, we must say "Atma" and not “the Atma”, although both "Atman" and “the Atman” may be fine. Also, since the term atma (with lower case a) is used in some contexts in scriptures, such as the Bhagavad Gita, to refer to our body or our mind, it is best to say Satchitananda Atma if we want to avoid ambiguity when we are talking about our essential nature. Of course, since I am not an authority on Vedanta, I invoke my right to err on this subject!😀

@halcyon2864

2 ай бұрын

​@@rsr9200🙏 Thank you for the explanation, a bit clearer now, same thing with Brahma and Brahman I suppose. Tat twam asi 🙏😊📿

@dangem5022

2 ай бұрын

@@rsr9200 For clarity purposes I think you are right! 🙏 It's just weird for me to say or type Atman sometimes because, in my childhood days, there was this Ultraman cartoon and my silly mind somehow linked Atman to that 😂 But I agree, with atma being used for body sometimes, Satchitananda Atma is as clear as it gets. 🙏No wonder Eskimos have dozens of words for snow. They live and breathe snow! So I think it's a good thing to ponder this question 🙏Thank you @halcyon2864!

@rsr9200

2 ай бұрын

@@halcyon2864 Well, on Brahma vs Brahman, again we must note the context in which the term Brahma is used. As used in the Upanishadic phrases “sarvam khalvidam brahma”, “ayam atma brahma” and “satyam jnanam anantam brahma” the terms Brahma and Brahman are interchangeable. However, the term Brahma as used in the Uddhava Gita verses covered last week (e.g., verse 8-20) by Swamiji, the term Brahma is used to refer to Brahmaji aka Lord Brahma, the creator of the universe.

I understand that mental objects are the form that can take consciousness in our mind. They are not 2 separate things. But what about material objects? Are they some form of consciousness as well?

@pramodm3540

2 ай бұрын

Manifestation of consciousness on the physical plane.(Insentient) Like the tar (bitumen) sedimentation at the bottom of a petroleum distillation plant. All other valuable "entities" are at higher levels.

Swamy ji how is consciousness different from atma?

@dangem5022

2 ай бұрын

That would depend on your definition of consciousness my friend 🙂If the definition you use is the medical term as explained here: 6:32, then it's very different 🙂But if you follow the teachings of Vedanta and use its definition of Consciousness as your own Inner True Nature(which is discoverable), then it's the same as Atma. 🙏

@rajarajachola08

2 ай бұрын

@@dangem5022 🙏

Nice lecture from the POV of Advaita Vedanta. However, for me the so called consciousness is an inexplicable, limitless and all pervading energy. Whenever we try to describe it with words such as the venerable master here does, I feel it leads to more confusion than clarity. This disappears as soon as we incorporate our latest human scientific knowledge of date for a clear understanding of the topic under discussion. For example, we come to know HOW DEATH BECOMES LIFE under certain conditions as brilliantly explained by a transplant surgeon in his book of the same title. So, there is in fact no real difference between DEATH and LIFE as we humans know which is THE meaning of CONSCIOUSNESS - an inexplicable, limitless and all pervading energy - that we fail to grasp and end up discussing endlessly in such forums. 🙏

@WildAlchemicalSpirit

2 ай бұрын

Yet, the discussion is still healthy, helpful, and worth having. Some things are simply like this. Similar to the koan which is generally paradoxical in nature or without a specific answer, yet it still provokes thought. Questions that we don't have the ability to fully answer in mere words may still bring benefits through the simple contemplation of them.

@pradipmishra3135

2 ай бұрын

The discussion, in my view is not out of context, as words like reflective consciousness and witness consciousness are all vedantic terms of same unchanging limitless consciousness. Swamiji has very lucidly explained these terms , which points to same unchanging limitless consciousness you are talking about. With discussion on consciousness, the reality is not going to be diluted, as i understood from your comments, rather it establishes more profoundly the uniqueness of nondual limitless consciousness which we can relate through different terms.

Should we say that Atma in thuraiya stage is our true self/consciousness

@dangem5022

Ай бұрын

Turiya isn't a stage nor a state of the mind like waking, dreaming, and deep sleep my friend. It's more of a classification of what is beyond those three states. But what is beyond those three states of mind is what actually encompasses all of them. And that is Atma, which is also another name for our True Nature or THE Consciousness with that big C. 🙏 Hope this helps. 🙏There are also couple of videos linked in the description that explain this in more detail 🙂

@nitulbhatt8735

Ай бұрын

@@dangem5022 That is exactly I mean. Turiya is a state described as “ adrishtam, avyaivaram, agrasham, alakshanum, avaipadam “ That stage beyond other states is true Atma. Thanks

Sometimes thoughts and activities of the mind is seen separate from consciousness and sometimes as the same as consciousness. This is what makes advaita confusing and complicated swamiji.

Do we exist because of the existence of cosmos? Or the comos exists because we exist to experience the cosmos ? Lets say, there is no life form in the entire cosmos to experience the cosmos ; in that case the cosmos still exists or it ceases to exist as there is no one to experience it .?

Swamiji i have a doubt The doubt: if Brahman is all pervasive and THE UNIVERSE then does Brahman get altered in the big crunch. This contradicts the fact that Brahman is unalterable you had also mention in one of the video that MAYA is just a power that lies in Brahman which gives non-dual Brahman the power to become dual.

The problem I think I see with this is that Advaita has to rely on the duality of the metaphor of consciousness as revealer or illuminator and object as temporarily illumined, in order to establish the immortality of consciousness, but yet it admits later, in its final form of non-dual expression, that the metaphor is not fully correct. In that case, why not discard the middleman altogether and just stick with Being - with (something like) the idea of existence as such being eternally self-shining, and "for" no-one? (Perhaps this kind of reflection is why the Buddhist line of thought separated from the Atma line of thought, if that is indeed what happened?) There's an intermediate position where consciousness is like a fridge light, but I think that "choppy" sense of consciousness is obviously unsatisfactory. Just leave consciousness-talk in the realm of behaviour and responsiveness that you talked about - the public, verifiable, third person language, where there's no problem about privacy - and stick to Being/existence talk for the higher level. In that sense then, the presence of one's body/mind mechanism is the means by which objects exist in one of the infinite possible ways they could exist (one wants to say "become aware of themselves," which gets part of the idea across, but again is a damned metaphor with its own problems :) ), or in the sense of J. J. Gibson's concept of "affordances", the interposition of one's body/mind is the means by which objects are afforded the chance to exist in a particular way (rather as the rainbow one sees is objective, not subjective, yet each person's rainbow is a different rainbow, and that rainbow's unique expression in the context of each person's body/sensory mechanisms and position in space/time). In that sense, then, nothing is "illumined" by consciousness, there is no "consciousness with a big C," rather the contents of consciousness are simply the sheer _existence_ of a collection of objects (Buddhist skandha, "heap") that could never have come into existence without the presence of that bodymind, at that time and place. (I don't know if you're familiar with the "Spread Mind" theory of the philosopher Riccardo Manzotti, but he ventures into this sort of territory, it's a proper duck/rabbit perspective shift into a different way of expressing nonduality.)

@WildAlchemicalSpirit

2 ай бұрын

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. Specifically, the part about "the contents of consciousness." The contents ARE consciousness. Thus, there are no contents. Existence alone is not consciousness, either. Nonexistence is just as much a part of consciousness as existence is. They are inseparable. Existence is a state of being and non-existence is non-being, but by not being, consciousness doesn't just disappear, only the awareness of it. A rock may not know it is a rock, yet that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is consciousness as well, just in a different state of awareness. Experiences are all aspects of the same thing and that includes no experience, but the experiences alone aren't consciousness. They are expressions of it and consciousness is something that can be expressed infinitely or remain unexpressed. Either way it is unchanged.

@gurugeorge

2 ай бұрын

@@WildAlchemicalSpirit You can only get to the conclusion that existence and non-existence are both "contained" in consciousness by first leaning on the duality of perceiver and perceived. (Thing is, I am; thing is not, I am.) But when you ditch that and move to the non-dual level, how can you still rely on a determination that depended on the truth of duality? To me it just gets silly when the concept of consciousness has to be mangled to include rocks, etc,. better to just leave the concept of consciousness as a fairly narrow concept, tied to public, third person observable reality, and specifically to organisms that navigate their way around the world (the tiger is hunting its prey; the cop asks the dazed victim, "how many fingers am I holding up?"). When we're talking about what Reality is in the ultimate sense, we don't need that "parochial" concept, because we must necessarily _start_ with a non-dual understanding of Reality that has no room for something being conscious of something separate from it.

@WildAlchemicalSpirit

2 ай бұрын

​​​​@@gurugeorge Alright, well you are certainly entitled to your own beliefs. I myself come from a perspective of panpsychism, I see all of Reality as consciousness, as well as non-reality because there is no separation between them. Only the perception of it. Everything under the sun, and every non-thing under a non-sun is connected, not divided. Duality is an illusion. Because we live in a universe governed by laws of polarity, which we are immersed in, it can be hard to break free from dualistic thinking. So, to me it makes sense that the first approach in the teaching would work from within this paradigm before it would go on to illustrate how that in itself is still incomplete and that, to deepen understanding, you must take it a step further to realize that the duality is like two ends of one single string. The two ends are not separate, and in fact are interdependent and inseparable from one another.

@WildAlchemicalSpirit

2 ай бұрын

​@@gurugeorge To put it another way, consciousness itself is not a revealer, awareness is. Awareness reveals consciousness to the mind and body so that it may be known and experienced. Without awareness, consciousness remains, but your mind and body do not know or experience it.

@rsr9200

2 ай бұрын

Appreciate your Buddhist perspective on Advaita Vedanta. As an Advaitin, I would add that the terms Being, is-ness, Existence (absolute existence), Consciousness, Brahman, and Atma are used interchangeably in my tradition as alluded to in this video. What is presented in this video is just a flavor of the pedagogy used in Advaita Vedanta to convey its message. There are other Advaita Vedanta pedagogical techniques (or prakriyas), which may be found in other videos on this channel, where our true nature as Being receives more prominence. As an aside, I would like to pose the following question to you to gain a better understanding of Buddhism. An enlightened person in my tradition would have no hesitancy whatsoever in making the following assertion “I am suffering-free Brahman aka Atma aka Consciousness aka Being aka Existence”. Now, in the incomplete sentence “I am suffering-free ……” what word (or words) may an enlightened Buddhist add to complete that sentence?

Does advaita talk about inner light? That is the most important part. If someone has inner light, he has everything. The presence of light is the tell sign of true divinity. I wonder why it's not talked about it by most. It's the practical and anything else are labels terms or optional. They are just ideas and theories. Knowledge never leads someone there except genuine heart or karmic life. No science nor theology leads there, neither intellectualisation of inner light. This is the crucial element and most often it's not seem to be found. So everyone copy books and repeat the same stories and labels of Tao.

Some nice basic teaching. But once again there is that 'person' dressed in those orangey robes. Why? Where did this come from? Is it because it was the only colour they had at the time from saffron? So why keep up the 'tradition' the 'conditioning'. All beliefs and concepts need to go and then what is left? Consciousness remains as THAT infinite 'Energy' of All That Is. Until Consciousness is Transcended, IT will always be a 'point'. (Please drop the 'swami' too).

@dangem5022

2 ай бұрын

Why not? Would keeping them cause suffering? 🙂🙏Although I am curious as to why the color orange is used. That has crossed my mind not too long ago. 🤔

The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: In modern times the computer age has made it possible to get an even more accurate idea of what CONSCIOUSNESS is. To begin with, consciousness is not the same as absolute Awareness, because consciousness is based on JUDGMENT: the comparison of differences, without which one cannot PERCEIVE: differences between light and dark, distance, size, shape, color, etc. etc. Pure absolute Awareness actually SEES (not perceives), and there are NO differences in The Absolute, which is Reality. Consciousness exists only within maya, for CONSCIOUSNESS IS AWARENESS AT A LESS-THAN-INFINITE SAMPLING RATE. And once samsara is complete, you will return to absolute Awareness: an INFINITE sampling rate, where form does not exist because The ALL is infinite and eternal. AMEN.

Ah, so then meditation is like the needed calming conditions for your bucket of water (body/mind) to reflect the sunlight (consciousness) in the stillest possible manner, with the least disruption from the vrittis, so it may reflect the sunlight the most accurately. 🤔🪣☀️

@dangem5022

2 ай бұрын

That's a nice way to put it my friend 🙏If you are new to the channel and interested in meditation, Swamiji has this playlist of a wide range of meditation techniques to try ourselves. It's a wonderful guide as it suggests trying different techniques for us to find out which best suits us to "calm the waters". It's called the The Inner Journey 🙂

@deanyanko3326

2 ай бұрын

yes not in the whirlpool of thoughts. OM.