Sure sir. Thank

Thank you sir. As a beginner in Vedanta, the term Paramatma sounds more powerful than Jivatma to me. Hence the question. Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you sir. I am kind of getting the idea. However I continue to be intrigued by the question "Existence principle is eternal and always there. Hypothetically, if we were to withdraw the existence principle from just one chair, what would happen? Based on your explanation of consciousness principle pervading only living things, does Atma then mean existence plus consciousness?

Would it be correct to say that consciousness principle pervades through a living being in the exactly same way as it pervades through a non living thing?

Thank you sir. Still not entirely clear. But I am trying to understand. Let me rephrase my question.. When a person dies, he loses chetna and the impact or change is detectable by our senses. We can see he is not breathing and hence conclude that the enlivening principle is absent. But in case of existence principle, is there no way to see the impact?

Thank you sir.

Thank you sir. I understand what you are saying. However I am also confused. I have a few further questions. 1. If meditation is an effect and something which 'happens', then what is term we must use for the Meditation described in Chapter 6? Is it Dhyana? Is there an English word for this? 2. Closing eyes and observing thoughts - since this is not meditation. What is the correct term for this?

Ok. I am still not entirely clear about this Sushupti - I had a good sleep Samadhi -I was in Samadhi We need the 'I' in Samadhi as well. isn't it? If not, then who was in Samadhi..whose state is stored in the chitta?

Thank you sir

Does chitta mean memory here?

Thank you Sir. Does this mean even a Gyani or Jeevan Muktha has Ahankara? If Ahankara is simply displaying the knowledge of a person, does it mean it is same in all?

Thanks for sharing this.This was not an impulsive question and I am not being very critical here. It is a question which has come to my mind many times. Given the spiritual sadhana can be very long, I often wondered how one will know he has not lost his way in training his mind.

Thank you sir

Thank you

Thank you Sir

I am fairly new to Vedanta.Here are my thoughts on this: There is one aspect of us which is responsible to think and take decisions and perform actions. I guess I don't know the exact term in Vedanta which refers to this aspect. Maybe sukshma shareera or let's call it our lower self. This lower self has a karmic account associated with it which has debits and credits going into it. As long as the balance of this account is non zero, the lower self must remain in this world. So, it's not the atma which is moving from one body to other, it's the lower self which takes another body. The Atma just enlivens that new body as it does with everything else. It is present always and everywhere and it's the same for all

Thank you sir. Yes it is a bit hard to digest but also a good concept to understand. Thanks again

Thanks again. Same question regarding ability of Brahman to initiate action In Chapter 4 , when Krishna says Yada yada hi.... He makes a promise to manifest in a human form to establish dharma when there is a need From your previous post, I understand that transitioning from unmanifest to manifest is not necessarily creation. But monitoring the state of dharma and taking a decision to trigger the manifestation to uphold dharma is an action. Although this is a selfless action and can be treated equal to inaction, it still demonstrates the ability to do something based on certain events. So, if Krishna is talking about Brahman here, then Brahman is capable of action..right? A similar statement in Chapter 9, Ananyas Chintayantho mam...Yogakshemam Vahamyam Here too Brahman makes a promise which I think needs action. Please could you explain how to understand/interpret this?

Thank you sir. Thanks for the detailed information. The last few lines with the summary is very helpful. Some further questions: 1. Would it be correct to say that, at the start of creation Maya, with help of Brahman, began to evolve/unfold and at one point of this evolution, the human being came into existence purely with the intelligence within the Maya and borrowing consciousness from Brahman? 2. Maya has evolved from Brahman himself and this event preceded the creation process. Is this correct? 3. The intelligence which gives/decides karma phalam is also a part of Maya?

Thanks a lot sir. I am referring to the chapter 12 Creation from the Introduction to Vedanta. Here it is stated that "The study of cosmology begins with two beginning less principles of Brahman plus Maya" Now, for the creation to happen, Brahman needs to give chetna or life or consciousness to Maya. Is that correct?So, my question is, who triggered this addition operation of Brahman plus Maya. Is it Brahman himself? If yes, then if Brahman is same as Atma, then why do we call Atma as incapable of doing anything by itself as it triggered the creation of the universe?