Atmavat: Similarity Without Losing Difference
The verse “Atmavat sarvabhuteshu yah pashyati sah panditah” has always appeared to me more practical than a simple statement of non-duality. The important word is “vat”, which means “like” or “in the manner of”. It does not say that all beings are literally ourselves. It says that the wise person sees other beings as like himself. To me, this itself contains a meeting point of duality and non-duality. The difference between oneself and others remains, but a fundamental similarity is recognized. Pure non-duality, when taken to mean that all worldly distinctions should simply be ignored, is not always practical in ordinary life. We have different capacities, functions and levels of expression. Human beings, animals and other living beings are not identical. A bus and a car are also not identical, yet they have basic structural and functional similarities. In the same way, all beings can be regarded as fundamentally similar without pretending that every difference has disappeared. This preserves our distinctive human capacities while preventing those differences from becoming a justification for cruelty or indifference. We can act according to our position and responsibilities while still considering others as we would consider ourselves. That, to me, is a practical form of wisdom: difference is preserved, but fundamental equality is not forgotten.
Spiritual Awareness Needs Energy
Such awareness is not always effortless. To keep contemplating other beings as like oneself while performing demanding worldly activities requires some mental and inner energy. I see two possible ways of making that energy available. One is to work slightly below one’s maximum capacity so that some attention and energy remain free for contemplation. The other is to cultivate greater inner energy through Tantra and spiritual practice so that contemplation can continue even while worldly activity proceeds at a fast pace. In my own life, I have experienced the second situation more strongly. There have been periods when increased inner capacity seemed to allow me to work at a high pace without completely losing the contemplative perspective. In advanced age, however, I feel that the first method may become more suitable. There is no need to maintain maximum worldly speed all the time. Slowing down a little can itself become a wise way of preserving space for reflection. The two approaches are also not mutually exclusive. One can increase inner capacity and still avoid unnecessary expenditure of energy.
Bhakti, Discipline and the Loss of Freedom
This understanding also shaped my reaction when I recently met a professional colleague who is a committed member of the Hare Krishna Hare Rama tradition. He follows many strict regulations: avoiding onion and garlic, observing fasts on Vaishnava holy days, completely avoiding non-vegetarian food and alcohol, attending large religious ceremonies and listening daily to Bhagavatam through an app. There is nothing inherently wrong with such discipline when it comes freely from devotion and understanding. Regular practice is valuable in spirituality just as it is everywhere else. My concern begins when one fixed lifestyle becomes the standard for everyone, or when surrender and egolessness are identified mainly with obedience to prescribed rules. A person can certainly become less ego-centred through devotion, but one can also remain egoless while using logic, philosophy, independent thought and ordinary worldly intelligence. Giving up reasoning merely to demonstrate surrender may become another form of identification. Transcending intellectual pride is not the same as abandoning intelligence.
I have also noticed that some strongly organized devotional groups can become so attached to their own path that they praise bhakti as superior and look down upon other approaches. To me, this misses an important fact: people are at different levels, have different temperaments and may need different methods. Not everyone can or should be forced into one lifestyle, belief or practice. A collective spiritual community can provide companionship, discipline and shared learning, but it should not replace individual understanding. The real danger is not group practice itself but the loss of personal discernment within the group.
A Mala Should Support Practice, Not Replace Choice
This became very concrete when my wife recently went to a temple where Bhagavatam katha was being held. Malas were being distributed, and people were being asked to promise that they would use them daily without fail and also listen to Bhagavatam regularly, perhaps even every day online and through reading. I refused such a commitment directly. There is nothing wrong with receiving a mala or maintaining a daily practice when one personally understands and accepts it. The problem, for me, is making a sacred object into a vehicle of obligation. A practice can be invited, voluntarily accepted and sincerely followed, but it should not have to be imposed in the name of holiness. I also wondered whether such promises might be followed up or monitored, although the incident itself does not establish that surveillance was actually intended. My basic objection was simpler: what is the value of losing personal freedom in the name of spirituality? Discipline is useful when it grows from the heart and from one’s own understanding.
Different Religions, One Fundamental Basis
From there my thinking goes further. I do not see the different religions and sects as fundamentally separate systems. Their external forms differ greatly, but I see a common underlying spiritual force in all of them, which in the Kundalini framework can be understood as Muladhara Shakti. This is why I do not understand Tantra merely as sexual practice. Tantra, in a broader sense, concerns methods, techniques, worship, disciplined practice and systematic transformation. Different religious systems may therefore look completely different on the surface while working upon a common underlying human and spiritual foundation. The car, scooter and bus look different, but each has an engine that performs the fundamental work of movement. In the same way, different religions may use different symbols, scriptures, rituals and methods while engaging the same deeper force in human existence.
This also explains why I resist sectarian superiority. If the same underlying force is present in all, then the external vehicle should not be mistaken for the engine itself. One tradition may use devotion, another meditation, another prayer, another ritual, another philosophical inquiry, yet all may be working upon overlapping foundations of attention, emotion, consciousness and transformation. This does not mean that all religions teach exactly the same doctrines or that every practice is equally useful. Their historical and theological differences are real. My point is that difference in external form does not necessarily mean difference at the fundamental level.
The Whole and the Part: From the Emerald Tablet to Sharirvigyan Darshan
This view also connects with the ancient microcosm-macrocosm principle: what is found in the whole is reflected in the part, and what is above is related to what is below. Whatever exists in the Sahasrara or brain in the form of religion, sect, emotion, faith or intellectual belief has its fundamental basis in Muladhara. The same Muladhara Shakti rises and expresses itself in different forms at the intellectual levels of the Ajna and Sahasrara chakras, giving rise to diverse religions, sects, beliefs and spiritual philosophies. These differences are like the different bodies of cars, scooters and buses, all built around the same fundamental engine. In the same way, different religious practices and systems are different expressions of the same underlying force of Muladhara Shakti. The Emerald Tablet expresses a famous version of this correspondence. The popular holographic analogy points in a similar direction, although I would not claim that modern holographic physics literally proves that every part contains the whole universe. Its value here is as an analogy for recurring patterns and correspondence across levels. My own framework in Sharirvigyan Darshan takes the body, consciousness and larger reality as related through such correspondences. From this perspective, human spiritual systems can also be understood as different expressions of deeper common principles.
The important distinction is between personal experience, traditional teaching and philosophical inference. My personal experiences can be reported directly, while traditional Kundalini and Tantric teachings can be examined in their own context. My understanding goes further from a simple common-sense observation: whatever form spiritual feeling takes—devotion, prayer, meditation, surrender or contemplation—it depends upon the cleansing and refinement of the mind. I see this mental cleansing as primarily connected with the ascending movement of Muladhara Shakti. The same underlying force may therefore be active throughout different spiritual paths, even when its upward movement is not consciously recognized. In intensive tantric practice, this movement can become sufficiently strong and perceptible to be experienced more directly. From this perspective, the common Muladhara basis of different religions is not merely an abstract comparison but a philosophical synthesis arising from the shared process of mental purification and spiritual development.
Unity Without Uniformity
The idea that connects everything for me is that similarity does not require identity. Atmavat means like oneself, not literally oneself. The microcosm may correspond to the macrocosm without being identical to it. Different religions may share a fundamental spiritual basis without having identical beliefs or practices. Spiritual practitioners can share the same human potential without being forced into the same lifestyle. Discipline can support freedom when it is consciously chosen, but it can undermine freedom when obedience itself becomes the goal.
Perhaps the most practical form of spirituality is therefore not to erase all differences or to make everyone follow one system. It is to recognize what is fundamentally common while allowing the surface differences to remain. The deeper unity does not require uniformity. It requires understanding.
