You echo exactly what I feel... Swamiji, you have become my virtual Guru already... I sincerely pray I will get to learn from you personally in this lifetime and help me enlighten... I offer my deepest respect and koti koti pranam...

Truly .

Can't express in words how much I resonate with this comment! Purely extremely grateful🙏

me too

@@johnk8174And me

Me too

Big ditto🙏🙏

Thank you for these words. I am very interested in incorporating this meditation into my practice and have been trying to get these words put together from Swami Sarvapriyananda's teaching. This helps a lot. I wonder if the Retreat on Loon Lake are any different from this presentation of Drg Drsya.

Yes waiting eagerly for Part 9. Please do the needful!!

+wannabe withgod No, the mindfulness differs in many ways. As swamiji explained already: Mindfulness : Let the thoughts come up and settle down, that is it. while over here it is: let thoughts come, don't concentrate on them, concentrate on the witness of thoughts. Hope this helps :)

+Gurender Singh yes, sometimes I wonder why Lord Buddha did not teach his followers to trust in God. Buddhism seems somewhat shallow to me because of this fact despite the profound knowledge it propagates about the human mind. Can you tell me more about it?

+wannabe withgod Yes you are absolutely right, it is like: We(Sanatna Dharma) say, there is chariot and the operator of chariot as well. Body,mind + Pure Consciousness(Atman) While Buddhism says: There is chariot but no operator, hence no Atman. They deny the existence of Atman i.e Brahman..while come to think of it, from perspective of our teachings they are denying "existence Absolute" itself, I don't exactly know on what grounds they say so.. since i am not much in Buddhism but one thing is for sure, Buddhism because of this, had faced multiple defeats in debate with some of the Great Acharyas, like Adi Shankara, Mandana Misra ETC. Lord Bhudda use to say, beyond mind it is Void, Void, Void.. i.e Nothingness.. taking this into consideration, it is like to us that the whole universe emerges from Nothingness.. therefore not acceptable, i have tired thinking from Buddhism perspective also, To prove that there is "void" is much harder than proving that there is "Atman or Brahman", in case of Atman or Brahman, no efforts are required(when realized), it is "we" ourselves, "we" are that "I" but Buddhism denies it all. Well to me, overall, the final Goal of both of the Dharmas are same, i.e Moksha or Nirvana, however, if you are looking for "better logical path", then the Sanatna Dharma holds upper Hand, no doubt in that. :)

+Gurender Singh You may be right, several paths to reach the same goal, Nirvana, Moksha, realization of Brahman.

+wannabe withgod Yes exactly.. Pick up the one you find most suitable & that is pretty much it :)

I am aware Swamiji may not read this or reply to this. But if anyone who can help here or share thoughts, please do.

Hello, you can write to swamiji in Vedanta Center in NYC as they have session on Q & A with Swamiji once a month or so. Apart from that my basic understanding is as follows: although our essential self is Brahman, we have to perform our transactional self roles (husband, father, employee, student etc) to the best of ability. One example swamiji has used previously is we know the sky is not really blue, but we continue to notice the blue colour and appreciate it even after this knowledge. Or we know that there latitude and longitude are imaginary but we use it flights, gps etc. also, as swamiji has said previously if we don’t differentiate in daily life Brahman in shape of a car will us, Brahman in the shape of pedestrian crossing the road lol. The idea is understand and notice the oneness but continue in our daily life. It helps overcome worry and sadness. I hope this helps. Good luck on your journey!

Nothing is impossible

Shivam Khanna did u understand what I wrote❓

Madhukiran Attivilli Yes, I understand it’s difficult to contemplate how to be aware of the awareness or realise the light through which all thoughts or objects are being reflected, since this would be a function of the brain.

Shivam Khanna Not difficult. It’s impossible. Awareness (or consciousness or Brahman) is beyond mind and helps the mind to be conscious of objects (including thoughts). Now, when I wanna be aware of thought, firstly... to be aware of a thought is a mind’s decision, and so is a thought... which means the original thought that I wanna be aware of is already gone. After a while, the 2nd thought also will be gone from mind... and if I succeed in being aware of thoughts, it actually means I’m left with a still mind (or no mind) with nothing running in the brain. This would be a fantastic achievement, but technically this doesn’t represent being aware of a thought. It is just a phrase that spiritual teachers use. Since our mind is a single cpu, either there can be a thought or no thought... it is not feasible to be aware of a thought, technically. When awareness is seen as a noun, it represents Brahman. When awareness is seen as a verb, it represents the mind.

Shivam Khanna Writing my just written long msg in a compact way... a thought is a highly transient object... unlike a sight or sound or smell or taste or touch. It is technically not feasible to be aware of a transient thought.

You have used 'I' nearly seven times in your statement. find out who this 'I' is. It is inquiry not meditation. If one knows one's true self it results in the understanding that the "I" is not limited to the body/personality but in fact it is infinite awareness which is the real 'I"

There is a difference between knowledge of something and empirical experience of that something. You have the knowledge that you are consciousness but to get the actual experience of it you should meditate.

The term meditation implies in the normal sense, meditator, meditating on an object. In inquiry it is not so. Just recognise subjective awareness and hold it. In this process, the difference between 'janana' and 'vijnana' ( knowledge and experiencing that knowledge) merge. It is not a subject recognising an aobject. Both are same. therefore the difference you mentioned does not arise

Important question 🤔

Chandramouli Ramachandr

+Pranab Mukherjee the Sat-chit-ananda is one and the same thing only, the thing is different names.. think it like this: Existence is consciousness is Bliss itself, they are not different, they(rishis) named them differently to make people understand the concept. :) Now existence, Consciousness & bliss being same thing brahman is outside as well as inside too therefore it is the same brahman everywhere. Hope it helps.

+Gurender Singh Thanks. Let me rephrase the qs. How pure existence and pure conciousness are non dual? if I say ' Conciousness exists', then existence appears as conciousness. It is also true in subjective term, ' pure existence only exist in my conciousness only. How these two also desolves into Brahma?

+Pranab Mukherjee Yes, see, what you are doing is you are separating Consciousness part from existence part. It is like you are trying to separate h2o molecules from water .. did this helped? Now, think, See, existence, Consciousness & Bliss are one and the same thing, like water. How far is water from being H20 molecules, how far is Clay from Clay pot? that far is Existence, Consciousness & Bliss from Brahman, it is brahman itself, different names are given because brahman when expresses itself at certain place acts as existence(outside), on the other place(inside) acts as Consciousness, on certain place acts as Bliss.. But this does not make brahman mixture of 3 separate things.. it is the nature of brahman itself. Those above 3 things are one & the same entity.. just the description is given with 3 different words to make people understand of the concept "Brahman". Try to apply these on your real life. How far is existence from Consciousness from Bliss itself? it is not. it is one. that one is Brahman. Like: We sometimes use to say, This world is from Maya which is from Brahman, now, that does not meant that, Maya is different from Brahman which is cause of world, No, it is one and the same thing, Brahman. The difference arises, when it is perceived by someone for "understanding" part, when it is done i.e realized, then one comes to know that indeed, everything was Brahman at first place. Hope this helps :)

+Pranab Mukherjee some people have become yogis and have written Upanishads by their contemplation, no doubt all is consciousness.......doubts exist yes, ultimately they will vanish if u become enlightened, ofcouse still i didn't achieved it yet ;)

Please watch other lectures.

First realize yourself and then you can do anything you want..it's just a play. :)

Subtle body. But the subtle body as well as the heaven and hell are both Brahman.

+Dalia Chattopadhyay Existence Consciousness Bliss is you yes but that is brahman at first place. therefore you are brahman in your real nature.. more over, everything is brahman too therefore no Dvaita. it is like, we are mistaking Brahman for world, like: Mistaking rope for snake, snake was never there, it was our ignorance regarding the rope, rope is rope, does not matter whether you mistake it for snake, garland ETC. Similarly, Brahman is brahman, no matter how you see it, world, dreaming or deep sleep state, it is brahman itself, mistaking brahman for anything does not affects it and that brahman everything. it is inside you, it is you, it is outside, it is everything :) Hope it helps.

+Dalia Chattopadhyay As per the text and lecture, there is no "me". What you call "me" or "I" or ego is just reflected consciousness. This is just a process or methodology to reach the final realization that there is nothing but Brahman. If there is anything other than Brahman then Brahman is limited. If it is limited then it is perishable. There is no you, me, us and them. This is the highest realization, the end game. This is my superficial understanding. Anything deeper you have to go to the pros ( consult any swami in the RKM order).