First attempt at Advaita self-enquiry at 18,I created a visual model of laziness and the witness. Looking for feedback.

First attempt at Advaita self-enquiry at 18,I created a visual model of laziness and the witness. Looking for feedback.

Hi everyone,

I'm 18 and recently started practicing self-enquiry inspired by Advaita Vedanta. Instead of only reading about it, I tried observing my own experience and created a simple diagram to understand how laziness seems to work in my mind.

My current idea is that laziness or procrastination appears like a wave it simply arises in mind The wave brings thoughts like "I'll do it later" along with the attraction toward comfort or immediate pleasure.

If I automatically follow the wave, the task gets postponed, I experience temporary pleasure, and the habit seems to become stronger. Then, when another similar situation appears, the next "wave" feels even more convincing. So I visualized laziness as a repeating loop rather than as my identity.

To represent self-enquiry, I drew an eye ("I") to symbolize the sākṣī (witness). The idea is that instead of fighting the wave or identifying with it, I simply observe it. By seeing it as a passing mental event rather than "me," I can choose to do the appropriate action instead of reacting automatically.

I know this is only my first attempt, and I'm sure I've mixed my own observations with psychology and Advaita in ways that may not be accurate. I'm not claiming this is a correct explanation of Advaita—it's just a model that helps me investigate my own mind.

I'd really appreciate feedback on a few questions:

Does this fit with the Advaita idea of the sākṣī, or am I misunderstanding it?

Am I unintentionally treating awareness as a separate object?

What parts of this model would you improve, simplify, or correct?

Thanks in advance. I'm here to learn, not to defend my model.

u/HardWork017 — 4 days ago

Is major social change usually achieved through peaceful protest, violent resistance, or a combination of both?

When I look at history, it seems like some movements succeeded through nonviolent methods, while others had both peaceful activists and more militant groups operating at the same time. Is there any evidence that one approach is generally more effective than the other, or is change usually the result of multiple forms of pressure working together? I'm curious about what historians, sociologists, or political scientists think about this.

reddit.com
u/HardWork017 — 21 days ago