"The Subtle Art of Losing Yourself - Full Life Changing Documentary"

[V Subrahmanian]

https://youtu.be/9KArWcMldPM?si=BYE6EvGxc8C76X3l 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

Very well made documentary. I was at peace listening and seeing it fully.

However, from the standpoint of the advaita forum, it will help if our members can critically analyze these types of presentations on fundamental questions, whether they are consistent with Vedanta, whether they pretty much say all that is to be said in the matter, whether they are saying things we consider misleading/wrong, and so on. Its hard to say because the general approach is positive and friendly, overlapping with common themes and questions; but then why Vedanta if the same is reached through Western philosophy, Tai Chi, and an immersion in the natural world? I am not simply complaining or wanting something to be faulted; I like it but also am concerned whether therein lies the danger - that key distinguishing things get muddied over in the "everyone knows and says the same things in different ways".

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 10:21 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://youtu.be/9KArWcMldPM?si=BYE6EvGxc8C76X3l 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te24iY-my4%3D9Ahb5AQM9%2Bu6RaK9E4rto0st1bjD8JeGy5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

but then why Vedanta if the same is reached through Western philosophy, Tai Chi, and an immersion in the natural world?

 

• I don’t know what is there in this talk.  But standard justification of vedAnta followers ( or who believes that jnAna / mOksha is possible ONLY through vedAnta shravaNa, manana & nidhidhyAsana) is even if they don’t know anything about veda/vedAnta they (the realized ones through some other non-traditional practices)  must have studied the same in their previous janma/s and the result is materialized in this janma that might be through some other means…So traditional stand of must do shravaNAdi sAdhana of vedAnta vAkya is not bargained here 😊

 

"everyone knows and says the same things in different ways".

 

• ekaM sat viprA bahudA vadanti is the shruti vAkya…the catholic approach towards the truth in this way (bypassing the more conventional traditional method) is more evident even within the modern day vedAnta institutions 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 10:28 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

Very well made documentary. I was at peace listening and seeing it fully.

However, from the standpoint of the advaita forum, it will help if our members can critically analyze these types of presentations on fundamental questions, whether they are consistent with Vedanta, whether they pretty much say all that is to be said in the matter, whether they are saying things we consider misleading/wrong, and so on. Its hard to say because the general approach is positive and friendly, overlapping with common themes and questions; but then why Vedanta if the same is reached through Western philosophy, Tai Chi, and an immersion in the natural world? I am not simply complaining or wanting something to be faulted; I like it but also am concerned whether therein lies the danger - that key distinguishing things get muddied over in the "everyone knows and says the same things in different ways".

Bhaskar ji has given an explanation according to tradition. We have the famous 'Ishvara anugrahaat eva pumsam advaita vasana'  - the proclivity to know the advaitic truth is solely due to Ishwara's grace.  Wherever the person is, if their mind seeks the truth and they are sincere, they will be led to it. Ramana Maharshi answered a questioner: 'Various names for one Ishwara exist across different cultures, but the Atma remains the same, free of all those labels.  One must transcend such external references.'  Only theistic dogmatic systems steadfastly hold on to attributes for the Atman and God. Other systems, however, teach that the Atman is free of any attributes. Someone whose mind is drawn to the latter type of enquiry is not seen as un-Vedantic. Sureshwaracharya's statement: 'The means by which one arrives at the Atman is the best means for that individual.' And there is no limit to these means.'  The Vedanta is one such codified means. Philosophically, Shankara refuted Buddhism while acknowledging that Buddhists had come very close to Vedanta by accepting that everything is nothing but consciousness.  He said, "Only Vedanta teaches the eternal, unchanging Consciousness, and it can't be reached through *tarka* (reasoning)."  

Warm regards

subbu
   

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 10:21 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://youtu.be/9KArWcMldPM?si=BYE6EvGxc8C76X3l 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te24iY-my4%3D9Ahb5AQM9%2Bu6RaK9E4rto0st1bjD8JeGy5w%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-p-uMtb_2KQTPeRqzfE3qbqTEHSdt_Wkv3idXLPh6xB1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji, Subbu-ji,

I want to be clear that I am not suggesting something is flawed about this video, in terms of motivation or understanding. It is not a formal philosophical discourse but approaches the topic of self-enquiry in an eclectic manner and as a general query for all of us in our search for meaning and happiness. None of this is a problem. Let them have sravana and manana from wherever and however and come to some spiritual path directed to realizing the ekam Sat.

Even if, let's say, some such speaker or author plagiarizes from Vedanta and re-packages as universally enquired and revealed truths, quoting from here and there, and so on, that does not endanger Vedanta. Our business and challenge in such circumstance is to know what we are saying, precisely and clearly, that we can apply viveka to the knowledge presented by others and be able to tell where it aligns with Vedanta, and where it deviates. So I look at a video of this sort as potentially material for compare/contrast against Vedanta. If the author makes a statement, can we take the content of that statement and find support in our pramanas, or is it negated explicitly? Is there a context that our tradition recognizes in which that statement is regarded as valid? If we are unable to do this, then it means we have not understood Vedanta sufficiently, that someone can make a truth-statement on the topics in the scope of Vedanta, and we cannot say one way or another where and how to connect it back to our sources. 

So, as a general principle, if the external source is not rooting itself in our pramanas, then we have to be alert and careful and a worthwhile project for a forum like ours to analyze it with reference to Vedanta rather than assume casually that it is all aligned.

There were two places I recall where I stopped a bit

Around 22:50, he says ~ "knowing oneself itself does not suffice"

and elsewhere, ~ "the only thing that is constant is change".

Both these can and should give a Vedantin a pause. Then we have to try and look for the context and see if the statement can be justified in Vedanta in the intended context of the speaker, or whether he is making these statements based on an understanding that is incomplete or antagonistic to fundamental truths of Vedanta. That takes work from our side. Or at least, we should frame it for ourselves in a context recognized within Vedanta, and move past it after that. For instance, "knowledge of self does not suffice to be established in peace" - maybe that is to suggest a difference between jnana at the sravana level and jnana-nishta/sarvatma-bhava at the experiential level - and the latter is what we have to reach. And "the only thing that is constant is change", of course it is jarring to me because the Self is the constant in my books. The making of "change" into constant (like real) is out of the nastika world-view, not the emphasis rooting the Vedantin. But here too the statement can be put into "common parlance" territory and not necessarily an anti-atma philosophical plug by the speaker. But to establish that, we would have to work harder analyzing the other statements. (Or we just take the documentary in a light manner and move on; which is what we will do anyway.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638D3C9D8F765FCE80011A484EE2%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Putran ji,

Your thoughts are quite well placed.  Regarding change being the only constant, I recalled Shankara making that exact statement three times in the Brihadaranyaka, KaTha and Mandukya Upanishads.

प्रतिक्षणमन्यथात्वमापद्यमानं    -  Every moment it (the world/body) becomes different from what it was before...(about change) and the Manisha Panchakam verse 3:  śaśvannaśvarameva viśvamakhilaṁ niścitya vācāguroraḥ: 

Meaning The entire universe, although appear to be continuing, is perishing and forever changing.

regards

subbu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o8ynW1RQvm8m5O9EckyHjub4EeG7j8mZd-AJXtBJVydQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Around 22:50, he says ~ "knowing oneself itself does not suffice"

 

and elsewhere, ~ "the only thing that is constant is change".

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

We would have not scratched our heads to evaluate these statements from speaker had it been from some traditional speaker is it not??  We would have easily aligned these statements with the vedAnta  teachings since we have the firm conviction that speaker is speaking in a traditional way as he is an orthodox traditionalist (saMpradAyavit) 😊   

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Likely yes and your comments explain why. It is because the traditionalist in your scenario is a sampradayavit and the speaker in the documentary is not. When your mother gives you food, you don't wonder about its good or bad or whether she will compromise your health for ulterior reasons. When a stranger gives you the "same" food on the road side, or even at a hotel, you are justified in being more cautious and recommending for others to exercise more caution; you don't give as much benefit of doubt for a funny taste or what may not be in your best health-interest. You have to consider separately what may be the ingredients, the hygiene, etc.

Likewise if the speaker is a stranger to sampradaya, then he may infuse in his speech naastika or dvaita motivations and constructs, ingredients that are hard to discern behind the cover of "sameness" because he does not root the generic statements in clear Advaita/Vedanta. So we have to exercise more caution; that is the thought.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

My approach in these cases is very simple prabhuji.  If the speaker is NOT the knower of tradition and if he is not openly claiming that he is representing any classical school of thought which is backed by shruti etc. then evaluation or veracity of his talks is not at all necessary.  Just take good things from his talks leave something sounds nonsensical.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

Likewise if the speaker is a stranger to sampradaya, then he may infuse in his speech naastika or dvaita motivations and constructs, ingredients that are hard to discern behind the cover of "sameness" because he does not root the generic statements in clear Advaita/Vedanta. So we have to exercise more caution; that is the thought.