Why it is arbitrary to think that I am inside the body looking out - Swami Tadatmanandaji

 

This is a summary of  a portion of Swami Tadamanandaji's lecture on Viveka in which he points out why it is arbitrary to imagine that you are located inside the body, looking out as it were.

The idea of being "inside the body looking out" is arbitrary because this sense of location is merely a side effect of your sense organs, particularly sight.

The argument is developed by suggesting that:

• It is a Side Effect of Sensation: Just as identifying the body as "me" is arbitrary because it is based on the presence of nerves (sensation), the sense of being located inside is an equally arbitrary side effect of your sensations.
• The Primacy of Sight: As human beings are highly visual, the sense of being a conscious being behind the eyeballs looking out into the world becomes primary.
• Loss of Sensation Eliminates Location: To illustrate the arbitrariness of this location, Swami Tadatmanandaji suggests a thought experiment: if you were blind, deaf, and your entire body was numb head to toe, you would have no physical sensations. If asked "Where am I?", you would have no sense of location whatsoever, demonstrating that your sense of location is entirely due to your senses.
• The Swapped Senses Example: In a hypothetical scenario where a scientist could swap the nervous impulses from your eyes with someone else's, the moment the switch was flipped, you would feel like you were instantaneously transported to their location, simply because you were seeing what their eyes picked up. This shows that the feeling of being located is entirely dependent on where the sense input (like sight) originates.

Taking the 'I' to be the body is absurd and arbitary

 

We feel that ‘I am the body’.  Swami Tadatmanandaji shows this sense of I, who is the conscious observer, being the body is absurd, as it based on presence of nerves in the body, which cause sensations that are known – and even though the sensations belong to the ‘known’ category they cause one to take the body to be I, who is ever the knower and never the known.  

Swamiji gives three hypothetical examples are to demonstrate the absurdity of taking the I to be the body, when in fact I is ever the conscious observer the knower:

1. Nerves Growing into Clothing: Swamiji imagines taking a medication that causes nerves to grow from the skin and into the clothing, such as an orange cloth. If the nerves pervaded the cloth, touching it would feel exactly like touching one's arm, making the cloth feel like "me". The absurdity is that if one identified as "white" based on skin color before the medication, one would then have to say, "I am orange," because the orange cloth now feels like part of the self.
2. Numbed Lip at the Dentist: When Novocaine makes the lip numb, it feels like a "foreign object attached to your face". This illustrates that the sense of "I-ness" in the lip is merely due to the presence of sensation, proving that without nerves, a body part ceases to feel like "me".
3. Arm Falling Asleep: If you fall asleep on your arm and it becomes completely numb, upon waking, you touch it and question, "Whose arm is that?". The body part is physically present but does not feel like "your arm" because it is totally numb, showing the absurdity of taking I to be the body merely based  on the presence of nerves.

Thus taking I to be the body is not based on logic, it is purely arbitrary.

Advantage of having healthy detachment towards the body

 

The advantage of having a healthy detachment towards the body, which is gained through ātma-anātma viveka (Self vs. non-Self discernment), is the elimination of suffering.

The key benefits include:

• Eliminating Suffering: Detachment allows one to distinguish between pain (a physical sensation) and suffering (the emotional response to pain, such as resistance, resentment, frustration, or depression). A person with detachment can experience pain without the associated suffering.

• Achieving Objectivity and Pragmatism: It provides a very objective and pragmatic view of the body. If the body is ill or broken, the detached individual deals with it practically, saying, "just fix it," treating it like a broken table or chair.

• Preventing Emotional Degradation: Detachment helps prevent deep depression and emotional breakdown when faced with serious diagnoses, such as cancer. The speaker notes that medical studies have shown deep depression can make future treatment less effective; therefore, objectivity aids in a better medical outcome.

Fostering Better Care: Detachment does not mean indifference or neglect (e.g., "who cares? It's just a body"). Instead, by viewing the body as a precious gift from Ishwara (God) for which one is the caretaker, it motivates one to take care of it even more carefully than one would one's own possession, such as a borrowed car.

Summarized from Swami Tadamanandaji's talk on Viveka in the Introduction to Vedanta series

Satsang - Swami Tadatmanandaji answers questions on pain and suffering - Week 3

 

These satsangs are unlisted on Youtube - meant for the 6 months course students who have questions after listening to the talks. In this blog we see Swamiji's answering questions on pain and suffering.

Q. What is the difference between emotional pain and suffering?

A. Excellent question. In the in the videos you watched, I made the point that Vedanta frees you from suffering. Vedanta cannot free you from physical pain or emotional pain. As long as you have a body, you will be subject to physical pain. As long as you have a mind, a heart, you will be subject to emotional pain. Can you imagine if someone is enlightened, does it mean if you pinch the person, they won't feel pain? Silly. Okay. So we understand you become free from suffering through gaining enlightenment through the discovery of your true nature as pure consciousness. So in this context, the questioner asks what's the difference between emotional pain and suffering?

Emotional pain is… just let me try maybe try to explain it with a with an example. Suppose you lose a loved one. We've all been through that of course. When you lose a loved one, you feel tremendous grief. Emptiness. That grief, that emptiness, that sense of loss is emotional pain.

What is suffering, however, is completely different. When you lose a loved one and then you say, why did that person have to die? Why did God let that person die? How can I go on living without that person? Oh my gosh, this is horrible. This is terrible.

What I've just described is an example of suffering. To go back to those videos, I've said pain, physical pain, emotional pain is what you experience. Suffering is your negative response to that pain. It's possible to lose a loved one, to experience that grief, that sense of loss without the emotional pain.

I think in one of the videos I gave the example of my own guru having lost a close friend and experiencing the pain of loss without any suffering. Here's an even better metaphor. We all know what it is to be sad and to suffer as a result of sadness. But look at this… when you go to a really sad movie, you cry. You may cry. You certainly feel sad. But look at that. The sadness you feel in the movie and the sadness you feel in real life, it's the same sadness. It feels the same.

Well, then what's the difference? You actually enjoy the sadness in the movie theater and at home that sadness makes you feel horrible. Why? In the movie theater, you don't have all that negative reaction to sadness. It's an emotion and you even enjoy that emotion in the movie theater. But at home (meaning your own sadness), you feel threatened by that feeling of sadness. You feel that that sadness robs you of peace and contentment which is a false conclusion. These teachings are strong enough to get rid of that false conclusion so that even at home you can experience sadness without being threatened by that feeling of sadness.

 Why should we be threatened by our emotions? Normal human emotions. We shouldn't be threatened by them.

 Q. In many lectures we hear that atma is not affected by pain. In theory it sounds great but the physical body does experience pain and is hard to ignore

That atma is not affected by pain, that's a correct statement but I'd like to refine that statement. Atma is not affected by pain is a philosophical statement. Something called atma is not affected by pain. And as we made it very clear this is not a philosophical discussion we're engaged in. It's a spiritual pursuit we're engaged in. So instead of saying that atma is not affected by pain really  I am not affected by pain. My essential nature as pure consciousness is not affected by pain. In making this kind of shift of our perspective then we avoid letting this fall into a philosophical discussion.

Then the questioner goes on to ask in theory it sounds great but the physical body does experience pain and is hard to ignore. Wait a minute. Your body doesn't experience pain. You experience pain. The pain may originate in your body. The pain may originate in your mind and your emotions. But you experience that pain. Not your body.

And then she goes on to say because we are not enlightened, we experience that pain. So how do we understand and overcome the pain that our physical body feels again?

Your body doesn't feel anything. You feel pain. And how do you overcome that pain? You don't. And as long as you have a physical body, you're going to experience pain. As long as you have emotions, you're going to experience emotional pain. So what you overcome is not pain. What you overcome is suffering.

As long as you're alive, you will experience pain, but you need not experience suffering. And that's the goal of it.

Q. I have a question regarding the statement pain is inevitable,  suffering is optional.

A. I presume I made that statement in one of the videos.  The questioner says I accept that suffering depends on our response to pain.

Perfect. Suffering is your negative response to pain when you feel threatened by pain. That response is suffering. And the question is, can we really choose a response to pain? If suffering is your response to pain, can you choose not to suffer? Suffering is not a matter of choice. Actions are a matter of choice. You can choose to stand up. You can choose to sit down. But you can't choose whether or not to suffer. Freedom from suffering is not a matter of choice. It's a matter of understanding. In particular, it's a matter of discovering your true essential nature to be pure consciousness -pure consciousness 

Vishnu Sahasranama - Bhishma answers Yudhishthira's first question

 

पवित्राणां पवित्रं यो मङ्गलानां च मङ्गलम् ।
दैवतं दैवतानां च भूतानां योऽव्ययः पिता ॥ १६॥
pavitrāṇāṁ pavitraṁ yō maṁgalānāṁ ca maṁgalam, 
daivataṃ daivatānāṃ ca bhūtānāṃ yo’vyayaḥ pita. (16)

 He who is the purest among the pure, the most auspicious of all that is auspicious; the supreme Lord of all devatās and the imperishable Father of all beings.

In this life, it is virtually impossible to avoid causing injury to others, whether through acts of commission or omission. Such actions, which result in hurting others, inevitably earn us unfavorable results or pāpa. To neutralize these effects, our scriptures prescribe various purificatory rituals. We are enjoined to perform our nitya-naimittika karmas—the daily and occasional obligatory duties—to neutralize the effect of those actions. There are also specific means of purification, such as bathing in the sacred Gaṅgā, observing diverse austerities (tapas) and vows, and the offering of charity (dāna). While all these are considered pavitra or pure, each is effective only in neutralizing a particular type of pāpa.

Among all the various means of purification, the grace of Lord Nārāyaṇa is considered the most efficacious. This divine grace is invoked through diverse sādhanas: by meditating upon Him (dhyānam), visualizing Him in a specific form, singing His infinite glories (kīrtanam), offering vocal praise (stuti), performing worship (pūjanam), or through constant remembrance (smaraṇam) and prostration (praṇāma). In whatever manner one relates to the Lord, He blesses the devotee and neutralizes all pāpas. It is He alone who empowers these purificatory karmas with their innate capacity to cleanse. Thus, He is extolled as pavitrāṇāṁ pavitram, the purest among the pure.

Furthermore, it is solely through His divine grace that a seeker is led to the Guru, who provides the means to dispel self-ignorance—the fundamental source of all impurities and the very root of bondage. By the grace of both Īśvara and the Guru, one recognizes that one’s essential nature is identical to that of the Lord. This recognition neutralizes the effects of puṇya and pāpa, thereby resolving the cycle of becoming. Once this self-ignorance is removed through knowledge, and one recognizes that one’s true nature is non-doer, there remains no further need for the performance of purificatory karmas.

To establish the absolute purity and divine nature of Īśvara, Śaṅkara cites various verses from the Purāṇas. A few pertinent examples are provided here:—

हरिर्हरति पापानि दुष्टचितैरपि स्मृतः ।
अनिच्छयाऽपि संस्पृष्टो दहत्येव हि पावकः ॥

Even if those with a wicked mind happen to remember Hari, He neutralizes their pāpas; for, even when touched inadvertently, fire will surely burn. 

ज्ञानतोऽज्ञानतो वापि वासुदेवस्य कीर्तनात् ।
तत्सर्वं विलयं याति तोयस्थं लवणं यथा ॥

Knowingly or unknowingly, by singing and understanding the glories of Vasudeva, all papas get dissolved, just as the salt crystal put into water gets dissolved. 

 Maṅgalānāṁ ca maṅgalam — Śaṅkara observes that maṅgala refers to happiness, the means to attain it, or that which reveals it. Among all such auspicious things, the Lord is the paramam maṅgalam, the most exalted auspiciousness, whose very nature is Ānanda. The Śruti serves as the pramāṇa for unfolding the diverse means to attain happiness; it reveals the nature of true sukha and is therefore recognized as the most auspicious. 

While the Śruti is indeed maṅgala, that which is truly to be known through the Śruti and whose very nature is paramānanda is the real Maṅgala, and that is Īśvara. Ordinarily, we observe that every auspicious end merely serves as the beginning of another episode, continuing as an endless serial. However, when one is with the Lord and no longer separate from Him—that is, one with Īśvara—then there is no further cycle of birth and death. The serial comes to an end; therefore, He is Maṅgalānāṁ Maṅgalam.

daivataṃ devatānāṃ ca — He is the Lord of all devas, the supreme deva, existing in absolute excellence through His self-effulgent nature and other divine glories. 

Seeking to understand the one supreme deity, Yudhiṣṭhira posed his inquiry, to which Lord Nārāyaṇa is revealed as the daivatam devatānām, the Sovereign of all gods. As the antaryāmī Paramātmā and the very essence of sat-cit, He resides within all devatās such as Indra and Varuṇa. Every devatā functions under the inexorable divine Order that is Īśvara. It is through His grace alone that they possess the capacity to fulfill their cosmic roles; thus, as Parameśvara, He is indeed the Ruler of all rulers and the God of all gods.

bhūtānāṃ yo’vyayaḥ pitā —  He is the imperishable Father, the progenitor of all beings, who remains ever-free from all change and decay. This identifies the divine Being alone as the one supreme deity in the world. While all bhūtas are subject to vyaya or loss, the entire jagat will eventually resolve and dissolve into Parameśvara, who is avyaya. Being the ultimate cause of everything, He does not undergo any vyaya, change, or loss, nor is He subject to death. He is the Father and Mother as well—the efficient cause (nimitta kāraṇa) and the material cause (upādana kāraṇa) of all beings, elements, elementals, and various bodies. He is the eternal Father of all; while we may lose a local, physical father, we can never lose Īśvara, for He is changeless.

To reveal that Īśvara is indeed one without a second, Śaṅkara cites from the Upaniṣads

एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा।
कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च॥ 

He is eko devaḥ—there is but one supreme Deity, Parameśvara, who is one without a second. Having projected the entire universe, He resides within all beings, concealed as it were—sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ. While the word "hidden" might suggest a specific location, the scriptures clarify that He is both immanent and transcendental by saying  He is sarva-vyāpī, the all-pervasive reality, and sarva-bhūtāntarātmā, the inner Self of every being. He resides in every form yet remains ever transcendent. He is the karmādhyakṣaḥ, the one who presides over the divine laws of cause and effect and serves as the Giver of the results of all actions. As the sarva-bhūtādhivāsaḥ, He is the adhiṣṭhāna or basis of all existence. In His essential nature, He is recognized as sākṣī cetā kevalaḥ—the non-dual Witness who is pure caitanya, and nirguṇaḥ, free from all attributes. For if He were endowed with attributes, He could not be truly non-dual. This indeed is the svarūpa of Parameśvara. 

To further establish the non-dual nature of the Lord, Śaṅkara cites an additional verse from the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.

यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै।
तह देवंआत्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुर्वै शरणमहं प्रपद्ये॥ 

He is the one who brought forth Brahmā-jī at the dawn of creation and entrusted the Vedas unto him. While He remains ever transcendent and unconditioned by location, He is that very deva who is ātma-buddhi-prakāśa, seated within our buddhi and illuminating it with His self-effulgence. Unto Him, as a mumukṣu, I truly seek refuge and surrender.

To reveal that the Ātmā is identical in all beings, Śaṅkara cites various verses from Upaniṣads such as the Taittirīya, Kaṭha, and Īśāvāsya. He further references the Bhagavad-Gītā to establish that no difference exists between the jīva and Īśvara. Drawing from the Purāṇas as well, he illustrates that the one Lord assumes diverse names and functions, and that these sacred texts also proclaim advaita as the absolute truth. 

In the Harivaṁśa, Lord Mahādeva declares: 

अहं त्वं हि महादेवः त्वम् एव अहं जनार्दन।
आवयोर् अन्तरं नास्ति शब्दैः अर्थैः जगत्पते॥
नामानि तव गोविन्द यानि लोके महान्ति च।
तान्येव मम नामानि नात्र कार्या विचारणा॥

O Janārdana! I am indeed you, and you, the all-pervasive sarvaga, are myself. Within these three worlds, there exists no distinction between us, whether in name or in essential meaning. Whatever exalted names you possess, Govinda, are mine as well; in this truth, there is no room for doubt or further analysis. Adoration offered unto you is truly sevā performed for me, and whoever harbors dveṣa toward you, truly directs it toward me.

In his commentary, Śaṅkara observes that one may perform a purificatory bath within the very lake of the mind.

यस्मिन् देवाश्च वेदाश्च पवित्रं कृत्स्नमेकताम् ।
व्रजेते तन्मानसं तीर्थं तत्र स्नात्वाऽमृतो भवेत् ॥

The Ātmā as it obtains in the buddhi is revealed as the mānasa-tīrtha. It is in this Ātmā alone that the devatās, the Vedas, and the sacred Smr̥tis attain absolute purity and oneness. By taking a bath in this sacred mānasa-tīrtha, one becomes amr̥ta, thereby resolving all limitations and gaining immortality.

ज्ञानहृदे ध्यानजले रागद्वेषमलापहे ।
यः स्नाति मानसे तीर्थे स याति परमां गतिम् ॥

The individual who immerses himself in the tīrtha of the mind—that lake of jñāna whose waters comprise meditation upon the Lord—neutralizes the deep-seated impurities of rāga and dveṣa. Such a seeker attains the paramā gati, the supreme goal from which there is no return.

ॐ अपवित्रः पवित्रो वा सर्वावस्थां गतोऽपि वा।
यः स्मरेत् पुण्डरीकाक्षं स बाह्याभ्यन्तरः शुचिः॥ 

Whether one is apavitraḥ (impure) or pavitro (pure), and regardless of the state one has attained—sarvāvasthāṃ gato’pi vā—the individual who simply remembers Puṇḍarīkākṣa, the lotus-eyed Lord, becomes sanctified both within and without.

 

 

Satsang with Swami Tadatmanandaji - Question Answers - Week 2 (3)

 

Q. If consciousness is all pervasive then can we conclude that inanimate objects like rocks are also conscious, but to a much lesser degree.

A. That's a good question, and it shows something  a little subtle. In an inert object (Swamiji points to a plastic bottle with water in it) - we said, consciousness is all pervasive. So, consciousness pervades my body, my brain. Consciousness pervades me, this individual. This individual being that you call Swami Tadatamananda. What about this bottle of water? Consciousness also pervades this bottle of water.

How could you keep consciousness out of an inert object like a bottle of water or a rock. But here's the issue. Consciousness is present in me. Consciousness is present in this bottle of water. Is consciousness more present in me and less present in the water?

It might seem like that. But take the example of space. Space is all pervasive. Is space more present in some locations and less present in other locations?  Is space  more powerful in some places and less powerful in some places. That doesn't make sense. Space as a fundamental reality has a certain uniformity to it. Right? Space is uniform. So, if consciousness is a uniform fundamental reality, the consciousness in me and the consciousness in this bottle should be identical. Not more present in me and less present in the bottle, but equally present in me. Equally present in the bottle.

On the other hand, if you call me, ‘hey Swami’, I'll respond to you. If you say, ‘hey bottle’, the bottle won't respond to you. That's not due to the presence or absence of consciousness. It's due to the fact that this this thing (pointing to himself) has a mind and senses and faculties and this (pointing to the plastic bottle) doesn't.

So there's a fancy word we you talked about it briefly in the last class- sentiency. Sentiency describes the ability of an organism to interact with its environment, to respond to its environment, to be aware of its environment. Because I have a mind and senses, I am a sentient being. Because this bottle does not have a mind or senses, it is not a sentient being.

On the other hand, consciousness is equally present in in both. So important to understand the nature of consciousness.

With that in mind, we spoke before, about  ‘at the moment of death’. We've said that there is an entity that leaves the body  at the time of death. And that entity is not atma. I said atma cannot leave a body at the time of death because it's all pervasive.

If there is a body of a deceased person, is consciousness present in that dead body or not? Well, consciousness is all pervasive. How could you keep consciousness out of the dead body? You can't keep consciousness out of an inert object. You can't keep consciousness out of even a dead body. That's what we mean when we say consciousness is all pervasive.

------ 

Q. Happiness, sadness and other emotions are defined in Vedanta as vriitis,  as temporary mental modifications. Why then is atma specifically defined as anandanda? Could you please clarify the distinction between ananda as our essential nature and happiness as a mental state?

A. Happiness, sadness, etc. they are vrittis. They come and go. Ananda is usually translated as bliss.  (Swamiji says about “Could you please clarify the distinction between ananda as our essential nature and happiness as a mental state?) And that's exactly the right question.

There is a distinction between ananda as your essential nature and happiness as a transient mental state.

We say atma is sat chit ananda - chit consciousness, sat- real, unborn, uncreated, unchanging and ananda.

And here we have another one of those bits of confusion based on a word like ‘soul’. Ananda also gets confused because in English we conventionally translate it as bliss.

 And here's the problem. We only we generally think of bliss as an experience. Right? You have a blissful experience when you eat your favorite food, maybe your favorite kind of ice cream.

You have a blissful experience. That blissful experience takes place in your mind, right? It does. And being a mental event, that blissful experience in your mind,  is revealed or observed by consciousness.

So why do we say that consciousness is ananda? Blissful experience belongs to the mind not atma.

So here we deal with one of the tricky language issues. When we use the word ananda to describe atma, it is such a problem, that when you read Sanskrit commentaries on various vedanta texts and scriptures ,a commentator will say satcitananda – ananta. After the word ananda they'll add the word ananta. Ananta means limitless.

And the commentator will add the word ananta after the word ananda to make sure that you know that when we say atma is satcitananda, we're not saying atma is a blissful experience. We're saying that atma is  (pause) - you know the English word bliss only is used for experience. There's a translation problem here. We could say there is no English equivalent for ananda.

The  Sanskrit word ananda has no exact translation. Of course, it becomes problematic because in Hindi, you know when you have some nice food and you enjoy it, you say, "Oh, I enjoyed it so much." So in Hindi, the word anand is used as an experience in vernacular language.

When the word ananda comes in this technical Sanskrit expression satchitananda atma in that expression ananda does not mean a blissful experience. So we can't translate it as bliss. Then what word shall we translate it as? We don't have an exact word for it. But I can give you some hints.

When, in meditation when your mind becomes perfectly silent and consciousness alone remains present,  atma alone remains present in deep meditation -that atma present in deep meditation is satcitananda.

So what is present in deep meditation?  That’s conscious and sat. So, sat-chit -unchanging consciousness, unborn consciousness, eternal consciousness, is present. And that eternal consciousness is full, complete, content, perfect. These are words that come close to the meaning of ananda.

Ananda comes close to  the English words fullness, completeness, perfection, contentment. These words come close. No exact translation but these words come close.

So that ananda is your true nature. We say atma swarupa  -your swarupa means your essential nature. Atma svarupa is ananda. Ananda in the sat-chit-ananda, but ananda in the sense not in the sense of bliss.

Atma svarupa your true nature is ananda in the sense of being full, in the sense of being complete, in the sense of being perfect, in the sense of being utterly beyond any kind of suffering.

So this is a language problem. Ananda in the expression such an atma ananda does cannot be translated as bliss because in English bliss is an experience but we're talking not about an experience which belongs to the mind. We're talking about such ananda atma, the experiencer.

 Om Tat Sat

Satsang With Swami Tadatmanandaji - Question and Answer - Week 2 (2)

Continuing the question and answers sessions of Swami Tadatmanandaji.

I am not posting the video here as it is an unlisted video. Instead here is a transcription more or less of the Satsang - some interesting questions of students  answered here. 

Q.  ‘Consciousness  is the same in all beings’. Then why do we have separate experiences? What is that gives these beings their individual distinctiveness.

A. (Swami Tadatmanandaji)  And  just allow me to fill in a little the backstory of that statement. It works like this.

You are a conscious being. Okay?

Your consciousness, how  tall is your consciousness?

How wide is your consciousness?

What is its shape?

What is the form of that consciousness?

And you'll probably say, "No, consciousness doesn't have height or width or shape or size." Okay?

That which has no height or shape or width or size has no dimensions. If it has no height, it doesn't have the dimension of height. If it has no width, it doesn't have the dimension of width. If it doesn't have dimensions, it's dimensionless. Dimensionless means boundaryless. Boundaryless means limitless. Limitless means all pervasive.

This is a good example of how Vedanta takes you from what is self-evident consciousness, then takes you further, to discover the full true nature of that consciousness.

Consciousness because it has no size or shape,   is dimensionless, boundaryless, limitless, all pervasive.

Therefore, the questioner says consciousness is necessarily the same in all beings. If consciousness has no edge or boundary, how do you separate one consciousness from another?

Often space is given as a metaphor for that which has no boundary. Space pervades the cosmos. Can you have two spaces? You can't differentiate one all pervasive space from another all pervasive space, one infinite space from another infinite space.

For this reason, what the ancient rishis discovered and taught is that there is but one consciousness which is boundaryless, limitless and all pervasive. Therefore, the consciousness present right now in your experience and the consciousness present right now in my experience are one and the same consciousness.

Of course, that begs the question, why do we have separate experiences?

And the answer to that is  consciousness reveals the activities of your mind, (pointing to the listener) over there). Consciousness reveals the activities of my mind over here. And it's due to the difference of our minds that our experiences are different.

Oh, something very fundamental that I haven't mentioned and must mention. Experience takes place in your mind and is revealed by consciousness.

What is experience? Experience is the sum total of all your thoughts, everything you see, hear, taste, smell, and touch and all your emotions. The sum total of all that is what you call experience. And all of that takes place in your mind as mental activities, as vrittis.

So even though the same consciousness reveals the activities of your mind and my mind (which is different from yours), it's one and the same consciousness. Our experiences are absolutely different because our minds are different.

 Answering the question what is it that gives these beings in their individual distinctiveness? And the answer is mind. Consciousness revealing the activities of your mind creates your distinctive unique experience. Consciousness revealing the activities of my mind creates a different distinct experience that I'm having.

Q.  Is chitta the same as atma?

A. Chitta is a common word for  mind or a mental faculty. So chitta is not a synonym for atma. Chitta is a mental faculty.  

Q. What is soul?

A. I have used Gemini Ai to summarize Swamiji’s answer to this one. And that is given below.

The term "soul" is described as a source of confusion due to its vague, varied definitions, with the speaker's teacher, Swami Dayananda, specifically avoiding its use. The text distinguishes the all-pervasive, non-traveling Atma (limitless consciousness) from the "soul," which is commonly used to describe the entity that reincarnates [1]. Proper spiritual understanding requires precise terminology, distinguishing Atma from concepts like Chitta (mind) and Prana (life force).

Q. So if the same consciousness is aware of your thoughts and my thoughts why don't I know your thoughts why don't you know my thoughts.

A,  Before I answer that question, we should acknowledge the fact that thank goodness we don't know what everyone else's thinking. Can you imagine how difficult it is to deal with your own mind? Suppose you had to deal with the contents of everyone else's mind simultaneously. What chaos that would be! Fortunately, that's not the case.

When you say ‘if consciousness your consciousness and my consciousness are the same so why don't I know your thoughts’ tell me that question is asked by whom? Where does that question arise?  Does atma have a question or does your mind have that question? We haven't discussed it thoroughly.

Atma doesn't have questions. Atma being a fundamental unchanging reality, atma doesn't have questions. On the other hand, minds have lots of questions obviously. So when you ask why don't I know your thoughts, that question is in your mind. How can your mind know my mind? Your mind is stuck. Your mind is associated with your brain and your body. My mind is associated with my mind and my body. So here's the idea. The one who's asking the question is associated with a particular mind. That's why you when you say why don't I know your thoughts that's why.