✨Ishavasya Upanishad , Verse 6

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥

Transliteration:

यः = One who; तु = indeed; सर्वाणि = all; भूतानि = beings; आत्मनि = in the Self; एव = alone; अनुपश्यति = sees; सर्वभूतेषु = in all beings; च = and; आत्मानम् = the Self; ततः = then; न = does not; विजुगुप्सते = feel disgust.

Translation:

One who sees all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, feels no disgust toward anyone.

.

.

When the verse says at the end as a conclusion that “feels no disgust toward anyone”, its indicating towards a target - “sameness” which is not only referring to “similarity” here, but also being “one” with all the beings. That is the target where the verse is aiming at! 

Obviously it’s referring to a state which currently one is not in contact with because currently we are here.. and we are right now not established in being one with all.. right? And also if that “oneness” would have been the present condition, then it wouldn’t have been the “target” where the verse is pointing towards. So, therefore surely it’s something which hasn’t been reached yet.. but holds a potential as a possibility.

So, start from where you are! Start from right now..

The verse is saying “Strat from near, not far!” 

Start from the ego self - ie., Who am I? - The ego!

Later, it may turn out  that the ego is not there or hollow.. but, right now who are you - "the ego."

So whatever ego can perceive, its definitions are always related to boundaries. Therefore being an ego, one can’t “bypass” these boundaries. We are right now also speaking from within that ego boundary only. Maybe we are hallucinating.. who knows? But, that is our reality as a fact right now. Isn’t it? And in this hallucinating dream, we suffer.. Therefore while remaining in the dream, one cannot discard the dream. If we analyse the pattern in which this verse is written, then its designed in such a way so that the reader/seeker can “approach” the saint as a “target” via this verse and therefore, the starting point then can’t be the target itself. One can’t approach the saint being the saint itself.

Two possibilities are always there for the ego as two extreme ends: 

1. self preservation 
2. self liberation

The ego can be located anywhere between these ends, but it can never stay in any of these extreme ends fully forever. For eg. even when you are intoxicated, you are not fully lost. Somewhere deep within, you can still feel that light.. the light of “detoxification” that stays awake.

So, what is this semi-awakened state which you can refer to as ego’s dream here? What is it? It’s a self-referential closed system which no-one else apart from you can certify. Only the dreamer knows it. But for the dreamer, it’s completely real.

So, the ego is a special class/category wherein it’s both “real” & “un-real”. 

Does the ego exist? - Well! Yes it does.. Does the ego do not exist? - Well! Yes it does not. Neither does it exists.. nor does it don’t exist!

And once the ego slowly starts moving away from its dream, it gradually starts perceiving itself as hollow.

Therefore, the ego is not to be dismissed as “ontologically absent”. It’s a new ontological category altogether which exists and also do not exist at the same time.

So, now if you analyse the whole verse “One who sees all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, feels no disgust toward anyone”, you have to remember the golden rule which is applicable to all the verses whenever you want to analyse them and ie. to ask yourself after looking at the verse that if it's at all said, then “For Whom? & By Whom?”

.

.

So now, there are 2 levels of Separation defined in this complete verse:

  ‣ 1st Level ~ Psychological (which gives meanings, stories & narratives).

  ‣ 2nd Level ~ Physical (which deals in forms).

➖ The 1st level of Separation is completely psychological which you can correlate with the framework’s “psychological ego” concept. Some part of our own identity is linked to this. The ego is saying “I am the owner of the pen. You take this pen away and something inside me will break..” It feels like an inner loss to the ego. It’s the “psychological ego” which is creating this difference here. When the psychological ego retreats, material becomes material.. no narratives or stories remain.. no differences remain. One stops seeing the difference where there’s not. This “oneness” do not superimpose differences. This is the first kind of Liberation wherein one perceives events as events.. some event will surely happen and will keep on happening - but not to the ego.. not to me!

When the verse says “One who sees all beings in the Self”, it means now the ego cannot separate between material and material. The body is still there, but its differentiation tendency to make differences is gone. Now cloth and cloth is same for you.. but, there is no ‘brand 1’ cloth and ‘brand 2’ cloth which are two different things with different narratives for you. The narratives associated with them has dissolved. Now, “truth” has been separated from "false".. and as there is infinite false which is still remaining, so now you don’t want to waste further time in separating “false” from “more false” as its gonna be endless then.

➖ The 2nd level of Separation is when the verse says “and the Self in all beings”. You can correlate this separation with the “physical ego” concept of the framework. Till now we said that “object 1(material 1)” and “object 2(material 2)” are allowed to have separate existence right? We said that yes the options in the form of varied materials/objects will be there.. but it will be just that the psychological narrative/story which the ego associate with them will vanish - so that was what we defined as to be the 1st level of separation. We said that “Yes! the stories associated with the perceived objects have vanished, but I can still see innumerable differences.. it’s just that they have become inconsequential now”. But, what the verse is pointing out here is even more brutal.. it’s even more piercing! Its saying that “‘object 1’ and ‘object 2’ are granted independent existence until the body has independent existence” ie., even this difference is perceivable by me because the body is there into a particular physical form. If the body wouldn’t have been there, then no differences would have remained.

Because the ego takes ‘its body’ as real, that’s why it also takes the “universal objects” as real. Otherwise all the objects you see will loose the authority they have. For eg. instead of a real mug, if a projected imaginative mug is imagined by me here in this blank space right now, then I can give equal amount of importance to that imaginary projection as well.. because at the end, it resides to my memory only as a story right?

So, now you can sense to analyse a bit that whatever we see could be nothing but just an “apparition” ie., it all appears but not necessarily real.. just a phenomenon you see!.. A kind of laser show where the wall is just apparated as a barrier made out of some unknown high-tech technology and that’s why maybe the hands are getting stuck? Well! Who knows? We don’t!! 

.

.

That’s why the framework do not touch the domain of “physical ego”. Because it will be absurd to do so.. to comment on something which is not perceivable. That’s why the framework deals with liberation from the “psychological ego” only. Because thats what is sovereign to the ego.

But, that’s also true that once the psychological ego retreats, the physical ego also subsides gradually in understanding. One lives.. but, one also know a bit that it's all not what it is appearing exactly to be. It’s all just happening to me.

These rules which the verse is trying to express doesn’t just apply to spiritual stories but to all the stories in life. Everything that is happening is a story which you need to study like a mirror! Life itself is a great teacher.. provided you don’t look life as an object but as a phenomenon experienced by you. It’s “your” presence which is living all these stories. Life is otherwise dead.. but you gave it life by your presence.

.

👉🏻 Do you think we truly live as lively beings or we just project death in our lives instead?

The above question from the Gita Exam is portraying one of the famous quotes of Swami Vivekananda where he stated that the world is a grand moral gymnasium in one of his lectures on Karma-Yoga, which was delivered in New York in the winter of 1896. 

The exact full text which he quoted was “The world is a grand moral gymnasium wherein we have all to take exercise so as to become stronger and stronger spiritually."

It’s a very different perspective to analyse the world when compared to the spiritual teachings of other famous spiritual teachers who were then present along with him in his era. Even now when we usually perceive spirituality, we think that the “world” is something to be ignored of.. or something to get detached from. It rarely strikes our mind that we can even use this world in a right way and still seek our spiritual learnings. Maybe true spirituality isn’t about leaving worldly stuffs.., but to actually understand and make use of it rightly. 

If we seek AP Framework’s teachings under this context then, it also does not recommend to step aside from the world. But instead, it talks about the potential possibility of a “vertical axis” - an ascension wherein one is not prescribed to leave any relationship with worldly objects.., but to ascend one’s consciousness making right relationships to those objects.

.

💡What do you think Swami Ji is trying to express through his quote? 

Did he mean “The hardship in the world is proportionate to your readiness - the more prepared you are, the more resistance you're given” as Option A suggests, or did he mean “One don’t move into a gym and live there, instead use it and leave” as Option B suggests?

Or do you think “The world should be treated as one's home once a person learns to use it correctly” as Option C suggests?

Even Option D “The world only serves those who consciously choose to treat it as training rather than as reality” is sounding to make sense..

Or maybe the last Option E “The world is full of friction, obstacles and people who oppose you. That friction isn’t malicious; it is precisely what builds strength” is correct?

Even multiple options can also be correct!

.

👉🏻 Do select and write your assumed answers in the comment section below!

*Note: I will soon write the correct answers via my comment after getting sufficient responses. 

.

Source:  The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1

🍁Tao Te Ching - Chapter 16

Go beyond thoughts. 

Let your heart remain untouched.

Watch the turmoil of beings, but also observe their return to the source.

Every separate being in Prakriti returns to the common source;

and it is in returning to the source that serenity lies.

Not knowing the source itself is confusion, and suffering.

It is in knowing your source that you naturally become-

tolerant, disinterested, amused, kind-hearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king.

Immersed in the wonder of the Tao -

you can deal with whatever life brings you,

and when death comes - you are ready.

.

While understanding this whole flow of Non Duality, sometimes we engage with pure knowledge based texts like the writings of Bhagavad Gita, Shunyata Saptati from Acharya Nagarjuna, Upanishads, etc.. and then sometimes we are with the Bhakti movement saints who have expressed their songs and verses through love like Saint Kabir, Baba Bullehshah, Saint Rumi, etc..

Now all these are different streams of spirituality from all across the world, and its easy to incorporate 3 kinds of executions in the attempt of imbibing with them all:

1. Start promoting only “1” particular stream your entire lifetime.
2. Start promoting 10 different kinds of streams.
3. Reject all the streams of spirituality and turn a rebel.

The 1st category can be called as “The Traditional Way”. This execution is very easy to implement, just choose any particular stream of spirituality and somehow enter into it and start following its norms as it is, as its cultural tradition demands to be shown in public. And people willing do it.. maybe to become the owner of that tradition. And then if one happens to become the owner of that tradition, then all the monasteries and hermitages related to that “particular” tradition will start giving you insane amount of respect for promoting them blindly. There’s nothing “unique” here.. there’s nothing “fresh” here. It’s like whatever the Guru(the primary teacher of that tradition) commands you to do, you are required to do it as it is and even the words of this so-called “primary teacher” is not unique. Even he teaches the same words to his disciples which his Guru commanded him to copy and chant. So basically, the first category is the “Supermarket” of tradition. This is next level of bigotry intensified.

The 2nd category can be called as “The Liberal Way”. This execution is even more crazier. It does not want to stay committed with any of the streams.. According to it, entering deep in one stream is  like unsavoury. Because for them savoury do not lie in one flavour as they want to extend their engagement in too many flavours, and then they label it under the tag of “liberalism”. They think they are the diplomatic liberals showing extra inclusivity to all. They think they are somewhat different than the first category.. but actually they are not! It’s not true liberalism which they happen to promote, but it’s actually “expansionism”. How con blabbering nonsense about one particular stream be different than blabbering nonsense about 10 different streams? This is not being different from the traditional way, but it’s actually becoming even more ambitious towards nonsense.

The 3rd category can be called as “The Revolutionary Way”. This execution is the most absurd way anyone can indulge in. Here, the person claims all of the ever known spiritual streams to be false. One rejects everything ever created by humanity in the name of wisdom. One declares “I am now rejecting all the streams of wisdom and here onwards I will not listen to any of them..” And if you ask them “Why?”, then they will say “Because now onwards, I will listen to only myself.. As I am the god!” According to them, Bhagavad Gita preach discrimination against women and Upanishads preach moral inequality creating human class identification. But the funny thing is that, the people to whom this so called rebels claim their rejections, have themselves not read any of these scripture fully ever. The biggest problem with people under this category is that instead of leaving the ignorance related to wisdom, they reject wisdom itself.

All of these above 3 categories have one thing in common - “Neither of them have understood any steam of spirituality.. they just want to execute without understanding any of them fully to the core!”

Now, what you want to do? Should we also engage in any of the above categories, or is there a 4th way possible?  

Is there a missing link here? Can you see it? Isn’t their one “key” possible to unlock this very “core” understanding of these ever known spiritual streams? Is there a possible way to unite them all towards one single essence? Perhaps, Yes!! It’s Indeed possible.. and the “framework” is the key. Maybe you can call this key as the “तूरीय” key which can unlock the way beyond all the three known states of consciousness. That’s why this is the “fourth” way - the key!

The 4th way doesn’t advocate you to reject all or accept one.. no!! Neither it instigates you to return back from the surface doors of the wisdom’s temple without even trying to enter the “core” hall just because the temple premises were covered with filth and ages of dirt.

But instead, its asking you to enter the very core of this temple so that one can know of the diamond.. the diamond which is the true source of all the light which ever reflected back from any of the spiritual streams. Maybe then this will be true “Non Violence”.. to respect and unite the light of all the known streams without dividing them and then fighting in the name of protecting any specific stream of light. After all no stream can be different if it’s reflecting the same light right?

Now, the point is.. that the ego which is used to identifying itself with multiple labels of identities saying “I am X”, “I am Y”, etc, will that make truce with accepting only one light as the way of execution? Maybe it will be difficult.. very difficult!

So, thats why Lao Tzu is saying “Every separate being in Prakriti returns to the common source; and it is in returning to the source that serenity lies.”

When he says “Go beyond thoughts”, then he doesn’t mean to be “thoughtless” here as that is impossible until the body is alive.., but instead he is saying “Go beyond body..” as you are the ego who is not body and hence, cannot be satisfied by the body whether through bodily imaginations or through bodily activities. There’s a dimensional difference here. Something which is not the body can’t get satisfied with something of the body’s dimention right.

And when he says “Let your heart remain untouched”, then he means “Don’t even dare to claim or touch the heart being yourself”. The highest is not for touching or romance.. it simply can’t be known. So be in your mortal limits! Be humble.

The problem with all the other three ways is that they want to continue their movements within the domain of horizontal axis only. None of them aspire to ascend towards the vertical axis.. And the vertical axis is the true dimention towards which one should keep on moving via your own dissolution.

.

👉🏻 Which way do you think can be the biggest threat or friend to the fourth way?

 

Ishavasya Upanishad Chapter 1, Verse 1

ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् । 

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ॥

Translation:

All this, everything that moves in this world, must be pervaded by the Highest. Consume after renunciation. Do not covet anyone’s wealth.

.

This is one of the most famous verses of the entire Vedantic corpse where the scriptures are very surprisingly prescribing consumption. When seen from a normal perspective, it feels pleasing after reading these words and even the least interested person towards learning scriptures can turn towards learning them ferociously. Because after all, what a common man seeks for is “pleasure of consumption”.. 

On the contrary, if you try to enter in the understanding of this verse from a “sane” perspective, then something fishy can be sensed, because the sages are not that insane to prescribe consumption to the whole crowd of people after knowing their core default deviations from love towards wisdom. So what is the missing link here? Whats that which the sages wanted to communicate to us through this verse? Is it something fishy?

Acharya Prashant is exactly taking our attention towards this “missing link” here through his commentary over this verse. He is saying that whenever one starts to understand the true meaning of this verse and come across with the term “ईशावास्यमिदं (i.e, everything belongs to that ‘Ish’)”, then it should be understood as “Everything do not belong to me”. Because, the ego acts as a “toll-collector”. Even though its non-existent, but still it starts labelling everything to be its own. It starts projecting ownership on every object which crosses its way or which shows even a slightest possibility to fulfil a bit of it’s desire.

Maybe thats why in the verse, before reaching towards defying the “morality tag” from minimal true consumption, the sages are giving a big disclaimer by saying “everything that moves in this world, must be pervaded by the Highest” because they very well know that even if they utter the word “consumption”, ego will pounce upon that word and covet it by projecting its misinterpreted ownership over its misunderstood understanding.

So, here when the sages are saying “Consume after renunciation”, then they are referring towards a thinned out ego who is no more becoming a toll collector between the nature and the body. It’s actually getting one with universe in that sense. Its saying “Neither this entire perceptible reality nor even I belong to myself..”, instead its able to understand now that the entire nature including itself belongs to प्रकृति(nature). So, the sages are prescribing this line to that kind of ego.

.

👉🏻 What strikes your mind, when you listen to this prescription of consumption by Upanishadic sages?

Shrimad Bhagavad Gita – Chapter 13, Verse 18

ज्योतिषामपि तज्ज्योतिस्तमस: परमुच्यते ।

ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं हृदि सर्वस्य विष्ठितम् ॥

Translation:

It is the source of light in all luminous objects. It is beyond the darkness of Maya. It is knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the goal of knowledge. It is situated in the hearts of all.

.

This is one of the verses of Bhagavad Gita from Acharya Prashant's older Bhagavad Gita commentaries compiled up together. Although right now in his latest updated commentary of Bhagavad Gita, he hasn't reached that far up to explaining this verse, but still there were few lines from the old commentary, which stayed with me..

Firstly, when the book said: "One will make oneself understand knowledge(वह स्वयं अपना बोध करेगा)..", it really impacts a lot when the the reader reads such line that too from a religious text because mostly when it comes to religion, then there is this popular notion that religion snatches away all the "consent" from you and makes you sectarian. Especially when it comes to Bhagavad Gita, these kind of allegations are very popular wherein the book is being blamed to make one dogmatic.

But on the contrary when you encounter such lines, it feels quite different. Here the author is not promoting any kind of patronization, but instead he is pointing out towards a "sovereignty" where everything is left upon the reader's own choice.

Secondly, when the book further added: "True understanding is not to further add any knowledge over you, but its actually to get rid of all that is already known(अब कुछ जाना नहीं, बल्कि जाने हुए से आज़ाद हो गए।); so here a beautiful understanding is been expressed wherein the author is pointing our attention towards all the "knowledge" that is already accumulated by us in the form of beliefs, dogmas, known behavioural patterns, etc. He is saying that true understanding(बोध) is not to be in flow with the mess which already you have put over yourself so much. But, its actually to get rid of all that mess in the very first place.

Maybe thats where real wisdom wants to pull us all.. towards one's very core - towards the heart.. where nothing is known or fixed. But, the path crosses through choices of one's own real-time sovereignty.

Maybe the translation of this verse will get updated further in later years once the present teaching commentary will reach there.. but, one thing is for sure that the heart cant be reached by taking support from any other "object" outside. As it's the sole responsibility of the "subject" to reach there.. and keep on reaching there!

👉🏻 What do you think is this "heart" according to you?

Often when we encounter the field of Psychology, then we think that its a domain tagged completely under the stamp of "science". Whenever we come across with people dealing with anxiety or stress and that person happened to be a "rationalist", the first thing which comes to our mind is to recommend him/her to a "Psychiatrist" or a "Psychologist". We never bother to even consider recommending wisdom texts or any "Philosopher" to that respective person.

In this video, you will encounter the words of a famous Psychiatrist and Psychologist - "Carl Jung" who once collaborated to work even with the well-known psychologist - Sigmund Freud. Through his words, you will be able to figure our very clearly how even he is talking about the "uncertainty" of knowing the complete self as per human's capability.

He is defining a term "unconscious" in his interview clip referring it to be the complete "self" that is not knowable to human perception but still connected to the ego in terms of its unconscious responses.

Now if we consider many philosophical branches as mentioned in the video like "eastern philosophy of Bhagavad Gita", "Christianity", "Stoicism", "Socrates' Philosophy", etc. then, even they have mentioned indirectly or directly about this connection of ego with its highest possibility. So in definite terms, we are not certain about this concept at all, as this "self" is unknowable as per science and even as per many philosophies too.. but, certainly there is one similarity which both psychology and philosophy is pointing towards - that is to turn within.

Its not merely a coincidence that famous scientists and psychologists are stopping at this very edge of the source of the ego or the observer. Maybe its the bridge.. the bridge having a potential path to walk over towards one's higher self! Who Knows? Does anyone know?

Obviously not!! Because its unknowable..

But, the fact is that still you cannot deny it, because you are there.. You are the proof!

👉🏻 What do you think about this bridge? Do you think the bridge exists?

.

Full Video Source: https://youtu.be/PUUPUzSrwM4?si=HcwAPCppg6lrARE9

The above short video is a clip from a reaction video on one of Acharya Prashant's sessions from his UK tour where he explained a very famous verse(1.3.28) from the "Brihadaranyaka Upanishad" relating it with the meaning of true core Indian values.

The verse states:

(Original Sanskrit Text)

असतो मा सद्गमय ।

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय ।

मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय ॥ 

(Transliteration)

asato mā sadgamaya

tamaso mā jyotirgamaya

mṛtyormā amṛtaṃ gamaya 

Its amazing to notice how this whole verse is unfolding a strong movement.. Its not pointing towards any ordinary movement which one can just read, sing and digest easily for entertainment purposes like any other normal lyrical song. No!!

But it's actually portraying the path of a "real movement" which is not just a mere literal ordinary utopian fiction engraved on paper but its showcasing us a potential which is very much possible in our real lives if understood honestly with right intent.

So, when the verse says "असतो मा सद्गमय(asato mā sadgamaya)", its expressing a prayer done to the whole existence including the one for whom this existence is stating "I pray to move myself away from all that is false" ie., I pray that I choose to move away from the false whenever that false centre instigates me to be like it or to follow it's footsteps. I pray to not to fall prey of it.. I pray not to get tempered by all those fake sources whoever are pulling me away from the truth towards that false centre to become their prey. I pray to that untouched point within me to make me firm on my choice to be able to continuously move away from falsehood.

When the verse says "तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय(tamaso mā jyotirgamaya)", its again highlighting the seeker's grief of how he/she loops back to fall towards one's own darkness instead of looking into the effects that how badly this darkness betrays one's joy. So, one is praying constantly to one's higher self to move one's present self which is sticked by darkness to move apart from it towards that higher self of light. One knows that right now the situations are not alright and the proof of that acceptance is the effects of darkness making one to suffer. Hence, there will be only one way to bypass that suffering.. i.e., to constantly un-choose all that lead one to this suffering.

The last line is giving a final push to one's curiosity when its saying "मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय(mṛtyormā amṛtaṃ gamaya)", its defining a movement of continuous ascension where the present dark self is actually dying towards a re-birth of a fresh higher self and also praying gratefully again to its risen personality to again die and ascend continuously towards a yet another more higher self. This process of continuity is defined to be as immortality ie., to ascend continuously away from all that is lowly that deserves to die towards a higher possibility.

👉🏻 Can you see the timelessness of these verses even now? Can you see how these verses hold true even now as they were when they were documented so many years ago?

Acharya Prashant's British Parliament speech full video link: https://youtu.be/uTAnWPe-PEk?si=bN2rEZM0KaZKOYUx

Reaction Video link: https://youtu.be/GnVwpffWhoI?si=vlnxG5lErpEBrsVl

✨Ishavasya Upanishad, Verse 5:

तदेजति तन्नैजति तद्दूरे तद्वन्तिके।

तदन्तरस्य सर्वस्य तदु सर्वस्यास्य बाह्यतः॥

Translation:

That moves. That is motionless. That is distant. That is near. That is within all. That is outside all this.

This is probably, one of the most beautiful verses from the Upanishad corpse. Although it appears to be simple.., but it invites us for a far more deeper enquiry.. portraying a lack of complexity where there’s nothing extra to be craved for. There’s nothing extraordinary here.. it’s simply inviting us to just come over by saying “It’s yours for the taking!”

Very few statements of wisdom attracts us with this kind of simplicity where it says “That moves.. that moves not.. that’s distant.. yet so near!”

So, when the verse mentions “That(तत्)” then obviously.., it’s referring to the “truth” here! And that’s how all the enquiry begins from the point of view of “the ego”. So, the ego will refer the truth as “that” when it starts the enquiry from itself. Starting is necessary because it can’t look at itself, so this becomes the compulsion and this is also the only way to start.

If ego would have looked at itself, then the rishi(sage) was not needed. But, the ego is a bad judge of itself, so that’s why its looking over itself is not sufficient.. it doesn’t work. Ego’s preferred route is outward.. to chant some outside's story.. some phenomenon, etc. Hence, for explaining truth through the verse, the sage is taking ego’s preferred route to make the ego(you) come to a point not preferred by ego(you).. Here lies the genius of the teacher! Now, the sage is getting playful.

If the sage is really worth his name, then the ego will be brought back to itself.

According to the ego, the truth is an “object”.. something which it can hold of or can be held in it's palm. So, the sage is saying “Yes! Truth indeed is an object!”, so that the ego won’t drop out in the middle of the verse itself. The sage hence furthermore adds “Truth is indeed an object with special characteristics like, it moves and at the same time it doesn’t move at all.”

So, now after listening to the sage, the ego will start to scroll and search through its database to find out this “special” category of object called “truth”.

Till this time, the ego has already awarded a certificate to the sage as finally someone could tell it the final characteristics of the “truth”.. so although it couldn’t find such a special category of object after searching for long hours, still it cannot revoke the certificate now from the sage as it has already awarded him. So now, the ego tries to think a bit more.. but gets nothing! So, finally it agitates and says “I CANNOT!”.

And, the moment the ego says “I CANNOT”.., the sage says “Yes Exactly! This is the TRUTH that you CANNOT define it in any way.

Then the sage further adds “How can you know ‘something’ which is not at all a ‘thing’?” For something to be known, first of all it has to qualify the characteristics of being a thing. That’s why “truth” cannot be known by the ego.

The entire purpose of wisdom literature is to make the knower look at itself.. because, its the “inability” of the ego to not to be able to know the truth.. hence, the verse expresses an inability not falseness.

Now, the question that arises is “Even after saying ‘I CANNOT’, the ego still can survive being the ‘incapable ego’!” So, after this point of ego’s declaration, there should be “silence”.. without any furthermore “words”.

Now, the ego should enquire to itself "If there are only “objects” in the universe, and my existence depends on the “universe”.. and “truth” is not an “object”, so “Is this Universe even true?”.. And if the universe isn’t true then, even 'I' who is completely dependent on this universe is true? Do I even exist?

Now, this will be silence for the ego.., the ego is now left with only silence when the verse ends!

So what started as the search of “Objective Truth” for the ego, ended up circling back to it by showcasing it’s “Subjective Falseness”.

Principle of least action in classical physics states that a physical system naturally follows a unique path through space and time where a calculated value called "action" is taken into account to track this path & the trajectory of this path between two fixed points is the one for which this action is minimum. Classical physics advocates the “minimum action” as to be the only possible requirement for any trajectory of matter to move from point A to point B.

On the contrary, if we examine the ‘Principle of Action’ via Quantum Mechanics, particles do not strictly follow a single path of least action. Instead, Richard Feynman’s path integral formulation shows that a quantum particle simultaneously explores every conceivable path between an initial point and a final point, each weighted by a complex probability amplitude.

👉🏻 Quantum Physics further elaborated the above action phenomenon to be behaving in two ways:

1. Constructive Interference: Where the phase of the action changes slowly for the interacting matters, causing the wave contributions from adjacent paths to reinforce each other constructively.

2. Destructive Interference: Where the rapid fluctuation of phases between the adjacent paths of the involved matters causes these paths to interfere destructively, canceling each other out to a net probability of zero.

We often label Science and Philosophy to be two different paths of exploration altogether, and we justify that argument by constraining science ‘only’ to objective local rules. We think that if some particular set of functions are operating in the objective reality through a set of ‘pre-defined’ way, then its ought to repeat itself every time with the same set of results. But, in this whole process of justifying objectivity, we often neglect the subject.. we ignore the fact that the holistic reality is not bereft of the ‘subject’. We forget that if we truly want to explore the results and nature of reality as a whole, then we are required to take the subject ie., the ‘observer’ in serious consideration because if we examine the whole structure of the reality, then there lies two ends: the object and the subject. So obviously, one can’t just ignore the subject and keep on exploring the objects and still label the experiment to be unbiased. The moment one ignores the subject in any experiment, the facts of the experiment is violated.

As modern science is advancing further, results of experiments done in quantum particles are bringing us more closer towards the ‘subject’, the one observing and keeping track of the experiments. So, it’s not merely a coincidence that when initial philosophers tried to explore this reality and tried to critically think over the nature of reality, then they related things to the ‘one’ experiencing that reality. 

Maybe the results of tracking the "paths" mentioned above are too then ‘Subjective’ depending on the one observing!

Since the time of our birth, we see this world in this particular 3D shape only; but we never enquired "Why we see this particular shape at all?"

Maybe the way we are perceiving this reality depends on some particular factors which we never bothered to analyse. Isn't is interesting that 'our body' and the way this 'reality' appears belong to the same pattern.

It can't be a mere coincidence that each and every visible thing in this entire universe appears to be in a particular dimensional structure. This observation is not so 'casual'.. but, it actually opens up the door to many embedded questions related to reality itself.

One of such questions is expressed in the above "Gita Exam Questionnaire"!

The exam is still going on.. and the results are not yet out!

Let's see how many of you can choose the "right" answers. I will share the correct answers' list in the comment section, once the results are declared.

So C'mon!! throw your estimations 👇🏻

😌 And also, it's a special exam because this time it's entirely based on the AP Framework.

It feels as if Jung was also a deep thinker along with understanding the human psyche.

We have been told since ages by everyone to just bow down blindly in front of 'societal norms' and patronage without asking any 'questions' to the commanding authorities.. we have been told to adjust in front of old patterned family advocacies and rules which have been already set for us by our so-called behavioural commanders. But, you know what! this is exactly the 'trigger point' from where the most famous and beautiful literature of Hinduism emerged!

The "Bhagavad Gita" known to be as one of the peak literatures of Vedanta Philosophy emerged from this very point of "skepticism" wherein Arjuna - one of the main protagonists expressed his dilemma to "Sri Krishna" who was his core mentor and friend. He expressed how he is confused between choosing from his 'family' and 'truth'.

This was not just any ordinary dilemma which Arjuna asked.. but its actually the core of everything! Nothing great can emerge if we didn't show the guts to break already existing frozen and well established patterns. If anything is not alright in our lives, that means whatever we have been doing so far was not correct.. otherwise why the suffering still persists! The presence of suffering reveals that the old choices were not correct, which makes questioning even more important.

Sri Krishna doesn't portray the presence of merely a 'person', but he reflects the presence of a 'potential'.. the potential of our own lower self which can break the lowly patterns of its old life to create something fresh.

Freshness cant be relished from patronage, but it has to be exercised.. it has to be chosen by our own questioning and daring to step forward with that choice no matter whoever is on the other side to stop us from moving forward towards its path.. whether its our own family or our own 'lower' self.

Full Video Source: https://youtu.be/ce0RBJfmsjk?si=Kj0cf3giQqR2RHTP

The ‘Big Bang’ ~ a phenomenon which caused this whole visible universe to emerge from a single huge eruption, a kind which no one would ever be able to even think of if ‘someone’ like us would have been there at that moment to even analyse it. It occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

The first phase of the event is famously known as the ‘Planck Epoch’ where the whole eruption made this universe to emerge in just ‘10⁻⁴³ seconds’. During this hyper-dense and extremely hot stage, all matter, energy, space, and time were created, and the four fundamental forces of nature (Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear Force, and the Weak Nuclear Force) unified as one.

️Now the curiosity arises: "How can this impossible event even take place for real?"

Is it reality or just a sort of imaginary fiction story which some scientists portrayed on their own!! Isn’t it like ‘magic’ that in just a time span of 0-10⁻⁴³ seconds, this whole universe emerged. The phenomenon didn’t even stopped there, it’s still unfolding itself every moment.. the universe is expanding itself every moment.. and interestingly, ‘we’ are also a part of this unfolding. Strangely! if that huge magical eruption wouldn't have happened out of nowhere, then we all wouldn’t have been here to even read this story of creation. Similarly, if you wouldn't have been here to read/narrate its story, then there would have been no universe either. Its as if this entire creation is dependent on your own 'choice' of observing it and vice versa.

Maybe that’s what we need to analyse in our ‘self’ too that ~ everything can change no matter how worse a situation is appearing to be right now. It’s just that we need to execute that ‘one choice’ by manifesting the self's ‘sovereignty’.

If you read the works of many modern & ancient philosophers, then they have multiple times emphasised that how your single decision can push entire events of your life into immensely different directions. Apart from philosophy also, if you consider the recent data of modern science, then many experiments done in the fields of Quantum Physics have also shown how the presence and behaviour of a single ‘observer’ can cause the entire experiment to change its results according to the state of that respective observer.

The Big Bang is not just a vague event of the past which is just an eye candy to our imagination, but it actually unveils many questions in front of us which we never dared to ask! It reveals a ‘possibility’.. a possibility of something entirely new to emerge from nowhere!! And this new possibility demands no huge amount of time to be manifested, but just only few fraction of seconds. It entirely depends on the ‘chooser’ as both Philosophy & Quantum Physics suggests us. Its on the chooser to decide whether he/she wants to make that possibility become reality for themselves or not.

The observer who will ‘choose’ the change to flow freely will encounter the flow in it's reality, and the observer who won't choose that particular change will miss that opportunity to turn the events of his/her life from getting changed forever.

What do you want to choose?