The Indian spiritual tradition offers a radically different, pragmatic perspective: ultimate spiritual reality is fundamentally an experiential science (Anubhava). A Gujarati commentary on Mīrā’s spiritual philosophy states this directly:

પથના ભેદ પથિકો નહીં, પથ-વિવેચકો કરે છે
(Devanagari) पथना भेद पथिको नहीं, पथ-विवेचको करे छे
(Romanized) Path-na bhed pathiko nahi, path-vivechako kare chhe
The differences between paths are drawn by those who analyze paths, not by those who walk them.

When a practitioner deepens their internal practice (Sādhanā), the mechanics of consciousness do not need to be intellectually compiled before they are felt. They unveil themselves organically from within. Because this wisdom is lived, it naturally flows out in whatever language the practitioner speaks. It requires no artificial translation, nor does it depend on specialized technical jargon to validate its authenticity. Nowhere is this phenomenon more clearly illustrated than in the life and poetry of the 16th-century poet-saint Mīrābāī, known throughout this piece by her familiar short form, Mīrā.

Mīrā did not author formal theoretical treatises, nor did she engage in scholarly debates. Yet, her regional devotional songs contain precise, high-level descriptions of advanced yogic states. She did not study these internal states in a library; she articulated them directly from her lived experience. In doing so, Mīrā demonstrated that the deepest states of consciousness are not locked away in academic vaults. They are part of an organic, living tradition that speaks directly to the common seeker.

Photo Credit: Meerabai Wikimedia Commons

Deep Dive: Understanding the Terminology: Pad, Pāda, or Bhajan?

While contemporary audiences often refer to Mīrā’s songs as Bhajans (a broad, general term for devotional hymns), in regional literature and classical poetics they are formally categorized as Padas (also written as Pads).

Derived from the Sanskrit Pāda (meaning a verse, stanza, or metric foot), a Pad is a specific short, lyrical poem structured for music and singing in regional dialects (Gujarati, Rajasthani, Braj Bhasha). Unlike long formal epics or technical treatises, Padas were composed in the everyday language of the common populace. Passed down orally across centuries through singers, wandering mendicants, and communal village gatherings (Satsangs), Padas functioned as vital educational vessels. They carried metaphysical insights, subtle yogic maps, and spiritual mechanics directly into the daily rhythms of mainstream society.

Read more

There is a pattern showing up across yoga teacher trainings and wellness courses right now: take a sacred Sanskrit term, strip out everything it originally meant, and use it as a label for a nervous-system state. Shiva becomes shorthand for freeze. Shakti becomes shorthand for fight-or-flight. Somewhere in the middle, a course gets sold as “ancient wisdom for trauma healing.”

The tools underneath this such as somatic work, trauma-informed movement, aren’t the problem. They have real value on their own. The problem is what happens when you wrap them in Sanskrit and sell the wrapper as the substance. You end up with something that isn’t classical yoga and isn’t clinical trauma care either. It just borrows the authority of both while delivering neither.

To see why that’s a real problem and not just a semantic one, it helps to start with what Shiva and Shakti are actually doing in the traditions that use them.

What Shiva and Shakti actually mean

Subscribe now

In Kashmir Shaivism and Shakta Tantra- the traditions where this polarity is the central metaphysic : Shiva and Shakti aren’t two forces balancing each other out. They are two aspects of one reality, the way fire and its heat aren’t really separate things.

Shiva is Prakasha : unattached, unchanging consciousness. The silent witness behind everything. Shakti is Vimarsha: the dynamic power through which that consciousness manifests, sustains, and dissolves the world. One is stillness, the other is the capacity to become anything at all and neither exists without the other.

Worth being precise about where this framework actually lives, since precision is the whole argument here. Samkhya doesn’t use Shiva and Shakti at all; its categories are Purusha and Prakriti. Advaita Vedanta centers on Brahman and Maya, and while it acknowledges Shakti as Brahman’s inherent power, it doesn’t organize itself around a Shiva-Shakti pairing. The Prakasha-Vimarsha language specifically comes out of Kashmir Shaivism, from thinkers like Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta. So this isn't "classical yoga philosophy" in general, it's the specific vocabulary of one school. That's already wrong before trauma theory even enters the picture.

And here is what none of the source texts do with it. Not the Yoga Sutras, not the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, not the Shiva Sutras or the Spandakarika. None of them use Shiva and Shakti to diagnose a psychological state. There is no verse defining “over-Shiva” as perfectionism or emotional shutdown. No passage treating “over-Shakti” as burnout or urgency. These are cosmic principles describing how the universe comes into being, collapsing them down to coping mechanisms doesn’t modernize them, it just misreads what they were ever talking about.

How the substitution actually works

So how does a course end up calling this “trauma-informed Shiva-Shakti yoga”? The mechanism is pretty simple once you see it. Take the real clinical vocabulary - polyvagal theory, somatic experiencing, the fight/flight/freeze/fawn language that comes out of 20th-century Western psychology and swap the terms. “Parasympathetic shutdown” becomes “Shiva.” “Sympathetic overdrive” becomes “Shakti.” Then market the result as ancient wisdom, or as “textually accurate classical yoga.”

Call it dharma-coating: using sacred vocabulary as a finish coat over something else entirely. It shortchanges everyone involved. Students looking for classical yoga get a rebranded version of Western therapy instead. Students who actually need trauma support get an instructor who now sounds qualified to hold real psychological wounds because the Sanskrit lends a kind of borrowed authority that a 50 hour certificate wouldn’t earn on its own. That borrowed authority is exactly where the risk starts.

Where this actually causes harm

Trauma work takes years of clinical training, supervised practice, diagnostic skill, the kind of expertise licensed psychologists and certified somatic therapists spend a career building. A short course on “Shiva, Shakti, and trauma” doesn’t produce that. It produces a vocabulary. And handing someone a vocabulary instead of training, then pointing them at students with severe PTSD or developmental trauma, is genuinely dangerous not as a hypothetical, but as a foreseeable outcome of the setup itself.

Here's how it plays out. A student with real clinical trauma gets told their nervous system freeze is an "over-Shiva imbalance." They don't get clinical intervention, because the instructor isn't trained to give it. They don't get traditional spiritual practice either, because that was never really on offer — the Sanskrit was doing marketing, not teaching. When the framework fails to resolve something that deep, the failure gets pinned on "yoga."

The Sanskrit was doing marketing, not teaching. Critics point to the story and say yoga is unsafe, yoga fails trauma survivors, when what actually failed was never yoga at all. It was a pseudo-therapeutic hybrid wearing yoga's name.Telling the real thing from the marketing

Line these three up side by side and the difference stops being subtle. Classical yoga is aimed at moksha, treats Shiva and Shakti as cosmic categories, and requires years of lineage-based study - trauma relief was never its promise to begin with. Clinical therapy is aimed at nervous-system regulation, has nothing to do with Shiva and Shakti at all, and requires an actual license. The concoction sits in between, borrowing the vocabulary of the first and the promise of the second, backed by neither’s training. That gap is the whole risk. Blending traditions isn't inherently wrong. This particular blend just hides how little real training actually stands behind it.

Where that leaves things

Modern trauma-informed movement has real value. Classical Indian metaphysics has real depth. Neither needs to borrow from the other to justify itself, and mashing them together doesn’t strengthen either one, it just obscures what’s actually being offered.

Trauma care needs real clinical training. Classical yoga needs real engagement with its texts and its actual goals which were never about nervous-system regulation in the first place. Let each stand on what it actually is. Sacred names aren’t marketing hooks, and a nervous system in crisis deserves more than a Sanskrit label.

I know I am not the only one who's noticed this. If you've seen it too, I would love to compare notes.

Every tradition has sacred places. Most modern practitioners even those who have spent real time in India, treat them like historical or cultural sites. You go there, you admire the atmosphere, you take in the history, and you leave. It’s something you go to see. That isn’t how the Indian tradition views a Tīrtha. The difference here isn’t just about cultural style or aesthetics; it’s a fundamental disagreement about what the location actually is.

Subscribe now

What the Term Actually Means

In Western translations, you will often see Tīrtha rendered as a “crossing place” or a “ford.” While the Sanskrit root tṝliterally means “to cross over,” applying a physical river-crossing metaphor to modern writing often misses the mark. In traditional practice, a Tīrtha is understood as a Sandhi-Sthāna, a precise junction point where physical reality and subtle reality overlap. It’s a functional doorway where quiet, deep states of mind are far more accessible than in everyday environments. The core claim is straightforward: these places don’t feel quiet or powerful just because they look nice, or because tourists have faith in them. The claim is that the physical site itself has been structurally changed.

How a Place Becomes a Siddha-Kṣetra

The tradition describes these locations as Tapo-Bhūmi or Siddha-Kṣetra - ground that has been continuously charged by intense practice (tapas) and realized awareness over centuries. When thousands of practitioners sit, meditate, and do sādhana in the exact same spot for generations, they leave a tangible imprint on the environment. The space itself becomes an active support for practice.

The tradition generally groups these sites into a few distinct categories:

Nadī Tīrthas (River Systems): Rivers like the Gaṅgā, Yamunā, Sarasvatī, Godāvarī, and Narmadā. They aren’t held sacred because of their scenery. The water and the surrounding land are viewed as living channels that hold the subtle momentum of thousands of years of continuous practice.

Purāṇic and Avatāra Sites: Locations tied to historical and textual records places where an avatāra lived, or where a master attained realization. Places like Vārāṇasī, Vṛndāvana, and Rāmeśvaram are seen as spots where the barrier between human effort and divine presence remains exceptionally thin.

Traditional Insights for Visitors

If you treat a Tīrtha like a sightseeing destination, you miss its actual function. Here is how traditional texts and teachers suggest approaching a Siddha-Kṣetra:

Stop Sightseeing, Start Sitting: A tourist stays on the outside looking in. A practitioner uses the space. When you arrive, the primary task is to quiet your mind and pay attention to the environment rather than rushing to take photos or inspect architecture.

Leverage the Tapo-Bhūmi: Because the space is already quieted by centuries of prior effort, your own sādhana whether that is simple breath focus, japa, or silent seat work will feel surprisingly frictionless compared to doing it at home.

Respect the Junction: Approaching a Sandhi-Sthāna requires dropping analytical noise. Treating the site as a living center of awareness (Caitanya-Sthāna) allows you to step out of your head and actually benefit from being there.

Visiting a Tīrtha isn’t about collecting experiences or marking off a map. It’s an opportunity to let the accumulated momentum of a space do the heavy lifting for your practice, provided you slow down enough to let it in. The tension between treating these sites as mere cultural heritage versus living spaces of practice is growing every year. If you’ve spent time doing sādhana at a Tapo-Bhūmi, I would be curious to know what your experience was like - how do you navigate visiting a Tīrtha amidst modern crowds, and did you feel that shift in your practice immediately?

Om Tat Sat

Trupti

Photo by Richard Pasquarella -Unsplash

Subscribe now

The Myth of Novelty

As a sādhaka (practitioner), you don’t need a new yoga every day. You need to become new every day.

To practice is to return to the same canvas with:

• Renewed sincerity to face yourself.

• Discipline to show up when the novelty fades.

• Humility to realize you are always a beginner.

• Awareness that transcends the world’s demand for the “next big thing.”

Yoga is not failing as knowledge. What is failing is our consumer culture when we package an inner discipline as a commercial product and expect it to satisfy an endless appetite for newness. The practice has not lost its power.

The real question we have to ask ourselves is this: Have we lost the patience to let it transform us?

Traditional Essentials: Time-Tested Practices for the Sādhaka

If you want to move away from the consumer cycle and anchor yourself in yoga as a living tradition, try integrating these daily essentials. They require no special gear, no subscription, and no novelty, only your presence.

1. Anchor in Brāhma Muhūrta (The Sacred Hours)

Traditionally, the period between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM (roughly 1.5 hours before sunrise) is considered the most auspicious time for practices like meditation, prāṇāyāma, or self-reflection. The mind is naturally still, the world is quiet, and the collective atmosphere is free from the chaotic energy of the day. Even 15 minutes in this window can anchor your entire day.

2. Prioritize Śauca (Clarity of Space and Mind)

Before you sit or step onto your mat, cultivate external and internal purity. Clean your immediate environment, wash your hands and face (or take a bath), and consciously leave your digital devices in another room. By physically separating your practice from your daily distractions, you signal to your mind that you are entering a dedicated space.

3. Commit to Niyama (Consistency over Intensity)

A 15-minute practice done daily with total sincerity (abhyāsa) is infinitely more transformative than a grueling 90-minute class done once a week. The goal is to build a steady, uninterrupted momentum. When practice becomes a non-negotiable daily rhythm like brushing your teeth, it bypasses the fickle negotiations of the mind.

4. Practice Īśvara Praṇidhāna (Surrendering the Results)

Commercial fitness culture is transactional: we expect a specific physical or emotional payout for our time on the mat. Traditional practice asks us to release this attachment to the outcome. You show up to do the work, and then you lay down the expectation of what the practice “should” give you today.

5. Close with Svādhyāya (Self-Study)

Traditional practice does not end when you roll up your mat. Take three to five minutes afterward to sit in silence and observe the shift in your state of being. Notice any resistance, peace, or mental chatter without judgment. This self-study bridges the gap between what you do on the mat and how you live off it.

We do not need a new path. We simply need to walk the one we have with undivided attention.

When the noise of the wellness market gets too loud, what is the one quiet, unchanging practice that always brings you back to your center?

If you feel called to share your reflection, I would be glad to read it in the comments below. Let us keep this space steady, honest, and quiet.

Om Tat Sat

Trupti

The word comes directly from the Sanskrit root śram (श्रम्), which means to exert, to labor, or to make a dedicated, conscious effort. In Sanatana Dharma, life is not a single, static line. It is divided into four distinct phases, four specific fields of work, specific Dharma, and specific legitimate pursuits that belong to that phase and no other.

The four are:

· Brahmacarya: The stage of the student.

· Gṛhastha: The stage of the householder.

· Vānaprastha: The stage of the forest-dweller (gradual withdrawal).

· Sannyāsa: The stage of complete renunciation.

This is not a competitive spiritual ladder with Sannyāsa at the top as the only place worth reaching. It is a map of a complete human life with four distinct phases, each requiring a different orientation, each preparing the ground for what comes next.

Subscribe now

Each Stage and Its Work

Brahmacarya is the stage of formation. The student lives with a teacher, studies the tradition, and develops the foundational disciplines of body, speech, and mind. The celibacy associated with this stage is not moral repression; it is the conservation of vital energy (vīrya) in service of focus and intellect. You are building and refining the instrument. This takes full attention.

Gṛhastha is the central stage and the tradition is unambiguous about this. The householder is the foundation of the entire social and spiritual order. Every other āśrama depends on the householder for sustenance. The student is fed, the forest-dweller is supported, and the renunciant is maintained. The Gṛhastha pursues all four Puruṣārthas - Dharma(duty), Artha (wealth), Kāma (pleasure), and Mokṣa (liberation) simultaneously. This is not a lesser pursuit of liberation. It is the most demanding, intense, and purifying one.

Vānaprastha begins when the householder’s direct responsibilities naturally thin, children are grown, and the primary work of sustaining a family is largely done. This gradual withdrawal is not abandonment or running away to a physical jungle. It is a recognition that your internal orientation is shifting from outward worldly engagement to inward preparation and deeper contemplation.

Sannyāsa is complete renunciation not a rejection of life, but a total surrender of remaining attachment to outcomes, roles, and personal identity. The Sannyāsin seeks nothing from the world and asks nothing from it. The tradition places this at the very end because it requires the complete psychological maturity that the previous stages built. Trying to jump here early without that maturity is usually avoidance, not liberation.

The Problem With Disconnected Ethics

When the structural reality of these stages is ignored, Sannyāsa-oriented values are routinely forced onto people who are firmly in the Gṛhastha stage of life. Renunciation, absolute detachment, and non-attachment to outcomes are held as universal ideals regardless of where a practitioner actually stands. This creates a severe diagnostic problem. A twenty-five-year-old householder is encouraged to practice non-attachment in ways that belong to a completely different stage of life. The result is deep internal confusion: people try to live by an ethics designed for a stage they have not reached, leading to spiritual bypassing, or intense guilt about pursuing their legitimate worldly aims, or both.

The Āśrama framework offers a direct, demanding truth: the Dharma of your stage is the right practice for where you are. Gṛhastha Dharma with full engagement with family, livelihood, community, and relationship is not a spiritual compromise on the way to something better. It is the appropriate field of effort for that phase. Attempting Sannyāsa ethics while in Gṛhastha produces neither good householding nor genuine renunciation.

Reclaiming Precision

Most seekers are Gṛhasthas- householders with jobs, relationships, mortgages, and social obligations. The tradition has a complete, sophisticated framework designed exactly for this. It does not ask the householder to practice as if they were a wandering monk. It asks them to practice as what they are fully, honestly, without the guilt of not being “further along.” Knowing which āśrama you are in is not a limitation; it is precision. It tells you what the work actually is, what the legitimate aims are, and what you are genuinely preparing for. You are using the right map for the ground you are actually standing on.

The Āśrama as a Living System

The āśrama system was never a rigid, mechanical sequence. The tradition acknowledges exceptions those who enter Sannyāsa early because renunciation is their genuine orientation from the beginning. But these are exceptions, not the norm. Claiming Sannyāsa to escape unresolved worldly problems is not liberation; it is avoidance. The far more common confusion runs the other way: people who are genuinely in Gṛhastha treating it as a lesser, unspiritual stage to be endured until they can “practice properly.” This misses the entire point. Gṛhastha done well—with full engagement, honesty, and absolute care for your responsibilities, is as transformative as any other āśrama. The field is different, the duties are different, but the depth of what is being asked of your consciousness is exactly the same. Each āśrama is a full field of labor. That is what the root śram means. You are not waiting for the real spiritual work to begin. You are already in it.

Words & World continues regularly. If this one meant something, pass it on.

Om Tat Sat

Trupti

The Rigveda does not open with a narrative of cosmic genesis, an abstract philosophical discourse on reality, or a distant deity. It opens with the mechanics of heat.

The first hymn of the oldest living text in the Indic civilization addresses Agni. The layout of this initial verse outlines a functional process through four specific technical capacities assigned to fire: purohita, ṛtvij, hotā, and ratnadhātama.

• Purohita combines puro (in front) and hita (placed). It designates that which stands at the boundary line, acting as the primary point of contact and mediator between two states of matter or consciousness.

• Ṛtvij means acting in structural compliance with ṛtu (the seasonal or cyclical timing) and ṛta (the overarching cosmic order). This implies that systemic transformation cannot occur via chaotic heat; it must follow natural law.

• Hotā is the functional invoker derived from the root hu (to pour into a flame). It represents the active catalyst that draws the elements into the field of transformation.

• Ratnadhātama is the superlative form of the bestower of ratna (luminous assets or optimal systemic outputs).

When these terms are read as an integrated framework, they describe a specific input-output system: an element is offered, Agni processes it, converts its state, and returns a refined byproduct of a higher order. This is the operational layout of the Vedic yajña (sacrifice).

The historical misinterpretation of this architecture lies in treating it purely as external ritualism. As analyzed by Sri Aurobindo in The Secret of the Veda, the Vedic language uses structural homologies where physical descriptions match internal psychological states. Agni represents kratu (क्रतु, from √kṛ, “to do”), the targeted processing force and conscious intent within the human system. It is the drive that prevents stagnation by continually converting raw experience into structural growth. This metabolic and psychological blueprint is the exact foundation inherited by both Yoga and Ayurveda.

The External Separation Framework

During the nineteenth century, European Indological analysis applied a linear historical framework to these texts. This methodology assumed a progressive evolution from primitive nature worship to abstract logic. Consequently, scholars categorized the Rigveda as basic pastoral poetry focused on material acquisitions like rain and livestock, while treating later texts like the Upaniṣads and Yoga Sūtras as separate, detached philosophical movements that rejected the Vedic root. This categorical separation enabled the modern commercial extraction of these sciences. By decoupling the practices from their systemic framework, the global market isolated individual elements to serve specific consumer niches.

Figure 1. Commercial extraction fragments a single integrated architecture into three detached consumer categories.

This extraction altered the baseline definitions of the practices:

Read more

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

This needs to be said plainly because the English use of the…

Read more

I am starting a new section called At the Source.

If Word & World looks at the language through which yoga and Indic traditions are explained, At the Source turns our attention to the texts themselves.

Many of us learn about yoga through teachers, workshops, training manuals, social media, or modern books. There is nothing wrong with that. Traditions have always been taught through explanation and interpretation. But something subtle happens when the original sources are rarely revisited. Over time, we begin to know the ideas mostly through summaries rather than through the texts that first expressed them.

This section is a small attempt to return to those sources.

Subscribe now

In At the Source, each piece will stay with a single passage - a verse, a sūtra, a poem, or a short teaching and read it slowly. Sometimes that source may come from widely known texts like the Bhagavad Gītā or the Yoga Sūtras. At other times it may come from devotional poetry, saint traditions, regional literature, or commentaries that have shaped the way these teachings have been understood over centuries.

The goal is not to produce academic commentary. Nor is it to turn every line into a complicated philosophical analysis. The intention is simpler than that: to pause long enough with a text to hear what it is actually saying.

Many traditional texts are written in very compact forms. A sūtra may be only a few words long. A verse may look simple on the surface. A poem may sound like a devotional expression. Yet within those few words there can be layers of meaning, assumptions about practice, and insights that become visible only when we slow down and look carefully. A single line can sometimes hold more than a long explanation. This section is meant to create space for that kind of reading.

Sometimes we will look closely at the wording of a verse and notice how a particular term shapes its meaning. Sometimes we may explore how a passage is commonly interpreted today and how its original context adds something important. And sometimes the exercise will simply be to sit with a line that has been repeated for generations and ask what it might reveal when we read it again with fresh attention.

The sources themselves will vary. Some pieces may come from classical Sanskrit texts that many yoga students already recognize. Others may come from bhakti traditions, saint poetry, or regional literature that carries these teachings in everyday language. Traditions grow and travel through many voices, and At the Source will reflect that diversity.

What will remain constant is the starting point: the text itself.

Rather than beginning with a broad theme and searching for quotations to support it, each post will begin with a source passage and let the reflection grow from there. In that sense, the text leads the conversation, not the other way around.

At the Source will appear on the first Thursday of each month. Each post will stay with a single passage and make space for a slower, more sustained reading than the pace of most online conversations allows.

There is something refreshing about returning to the sources in this way. It reminds us that many of the ideas we discuss today were originally expressed in very direct, carefully chosen words. Sometimes we discover that the text says exactly what we expected. At other times we find that it says something slightly different from what we assumed.

Either way, the experience of reading closely brings us back into contact with the tradition itself.

And that is really the spirit behind At the Source.

It is not about collecting quotations or proving interpretations. It is about taking a moment to sit with a line, a verse, or a teaching and allowing it to speak in its own voice before we move on.

Because sometimes the clearest way to understand a tradition is simply to listen again to the words that formed it.

At the Source begins soon.

Om Tat Sat
Trupti
SattvaSpired | Yoga in Essence

Before Dharma, the Ṝgveda gives us a prior concept - Ṛta. It is the cosmic order that underlies all of manifest reality, the way things move when nothing is obstructing them. The sun rises, the seasons turn, the river goes to the sea - none of this is upheld by agreement or choice. It simply is. Ṛta names that inherent order. Dharma is what happens when conscious beings, human beings, in particular bring their action into alignment with it. In the Ṝgveda, Varuṇa is the guardian of Ṛta. He is the one who perceives when the order has been violated, when someone has stepped out of alignment. A ṛṣi who has acted against the order does not go to Varuṇa with arguments or reasons. He goes with honesty, acknowledging what he did, asking to be restored. There is no negotiating with Ṛta. You either move with it or you do not.

Read more

The English word applied to them is “mythology.” This places the Purāṇas alongside the Greek and Norse mythologies sounds culturally valuable but not held as true by anyone. This is not what the Indic tradition has ever said about them.

The word itself

Purāṇa comes from purā means ancient, from before. The word itself appears in the Vedas. The Atharva Veda (XI.7.24) names Purāṇan alongside the ṛc and the sāman. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (7.1.2) and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.4.10) both place Itihāsa-Purāṇa as the fifth Veda. The Purāṇas are not outside the Vedic corpus. They are part of it, in a different form.

Prabhu-Saṃhitā and Suhrit-Saṃhitā

Swami Sivananda, in All About Hinduism, draws a distinction that is useful here. He calls the Vedas Prabhu-Saṃhitās (commanding treatises), the speech of a sovereign. The Itihāsas and the Purāṇas he calls Suhrit-Saṃhitās (friendly treatises), the speech of a well-wisher. This is not a classical śāstric category from a primary text. It is his articulation, and it names something real about how these two bodies of literature operate. The Vedic mantras command the ritual. They instruct and prescribe. The Purāṇas convey the same dharma through narrative, the life of a king, the fall of a sage, the descent of an avatāra. The listener receives the teaching through attention to a story rather than through ritual injunction. Both carry the same knowledge. They address it to different capacities of reception.

Read more

What Itihāsa means

If you have read my earlier essays on Śruti and Smṛti, you know the Vedic framework classified every text by what kind of knowledge it carries and what authority it draws from. Śruti was received, not composed apauruṡeya, not of human authorship. Smṛti was composed by human beings steeped in Śruti, for specific ages and conditions. Itihāsa is testimony, the category of text that says this happened, in this world, to these people, with these consequences. The Rāmāyaṇan and Mahābhārata both carry this designation. They fall under Smṛti in the broader classification, pauruṡeya, of human composition, but within Smṛti they form their own distinct category. The Mahābhārata names itself the fifth Veda in the Ādiparvan. What Śruti established in the most refined register of understanding, Itihāsa carries into the conditions of actual human life.

Subscribe now

What changes when these texts are called mythology

When the Mahābhārata is read as mythology, the war at Kuruṣetra becomes a metaphor, Kṛṣṇa becomes a symbol of the higher self, and Arjuna becomes the spiritual seeker working through doubt. Everything becomes an archetype. The Bhagavad Gītā is chapters 25 through 42 of the Bhīṣmaparvan, the sixth of the Mahābhārata’s eighteen books. Most people who have studied the Gītā have never been told this. It is a conversation that happens at a specific irreversible moment inside a specific war. Arjuna has trained his entire life for exactly this. He looks across the field at Kuruṣetra and sees his teachers, his grandfather Bhīṣma, his uncles, people he loves arrayed against him, and cannot raise his bow. Kṛṣṇa’s teaching arises in response to this exact meltdown, with the armies standing, at a moment that cannot be undone.

The Gītā extracted from the Mahābhārata is a different text from the Gītā inside it. The philosophy is the same. The condition that produced it is gone. Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, and Madhva all wrote their commentaries on the Gītā within the full Mahābhārata framework. None of them treated it as a standalone philosophical poem.

Read more

Subscribe now

What Smṛti includes

The category is considerably larger than most practitioners realize, and it helps to understand why before looking at what falls inside it. The Vedas are an extraordinarily precise body of knowledge transmitted orally, in specific sounds, specific meters, specific sequences that could not be allowed to drift even slightly across generations. To transmit something like that faithfully over thousands of years, you need supporting sciences; grammar so the language stays exact, phonetics so the sounds stay correct, etymology so the meanings do not get lost, a calendar so the rituals tied to the Vedas happen at the right time, and procedures so they are performed correctly.

Read more

Subscribe now

What the word means

Śruti comes from the Sanskrit root śru to hear. To hear something that was already there. To receive something that was already there. Not to compose. Not to reveal in the way a prophet receives a divine message. To hear something that was already there.

The Vedas: the four collections of Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva along with the Upaniṣads that emerge from them, carry the designation Śruti. They are apauruṣeya not of human authorship. No sage composed them. No deity dictated them. The ṛṣis who are associated with them are called dṛṣṭas (seers) or more precisely, receivers. They did not generate this knowledge. They received it.

For a Western reader, the immediate instinct is to reach for a familiar framework. Was this like Moses receiving the Ten Commandments? Was it vision, prophecy, divine inspiration? The answer is no to all of these. The Abrahamic idea of revelation involves a personal God communicating to a human recipient. Apauruṣeya means something fundamentally different. It means this knowledge does not belong to anyone. No individual owns it, authored it, or stands behind it as its source. It was there before the ṛṣis heard it and it remains there still.

A closer analogy, though still imperfect, is mathematics. When a mathematician discovers a theorem, we do not say they invented it. The relationship between prime numbers existed before anyone found it. The mathematician became the person whose mind was refined enough to perceive what was already operating. Apauruṣeya is something like this except applied not to physical laws but to the deepest laws of consciousness and reality.

Read more

Something does not add up, and I think most practitioners quietly know it. The generation spending the most time and money on wellness yoga classes, meditation apps, breath work weekends, supplements, sleep trackers, cold plunges is also the generation reporting the worst mental health. Not slightly worse. Notably, measurably worse. And the gap is not closing.

McKinsey’s 2025 Future of Wellness report, which surveyed over 9,000 consumers across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and China, makes this visible in plain numbers. Nearly 30 percent of Gen Z and millennials say they are prioritizing wellness significantly more than they were a year ago. They drive 41 percent of all annual wellness spending in the United States, despite being only 36 percent of the adult population. They are the most engaged, most invested wellness consumers in history. And yet, in the same survey, 40 percent of Gen Z respondents report feeling almost always stressed, nearly double the rate of the general population. Their mental health needs remain, by their own account, largely unmet. Lululemon’s State of Mind report adds something that stings even more: 61 percent of respondents say they feel overwhelming social pressure not to be well, but to appear well. The practice, for many people, has become a performance. And the performance, it turns out, is exhausting.

You could spend a long time explaining this through the usual suspects social media, economic anxiety, the general state of the world. All of those are real and worth taking seriously. But there is another explanation, one that yoga offered long before anyone was selling wellness as a lifestyle, and it is more uncomfortable because it points directly at the practice itself. Maharshi Patanjali, compiling the Yoga Sutras roughly in the fourth or fifth century CE, identified what he called the kleshas, the root causes of human suffering. Ignorance was first, but close behind it came raga, which is usually translated as attachment or desire. Not attachment to bad things, note. Attachment itself. The compulsive reaching for outcomes. The clinging to results. The need for the practice to produce something you can measure, feel, or show. And the more urgently you reach, Patanjali argued, the more agitated the mind becomes because the reaching itself is the problem, not the thing you are reaching for.

The antidote he proposed was vairagya (non-attachment). This word gets misunderstood constantly. It does not mean indifference. It does not mean you stop caring or stop trying. It means you practice without making the result the reason you showed up. You do the work and then you release your grip on what the work should produce. Maharshi Patanjali paired this directly with abhyasa, the word for consistent practice, in Sutra 1.12. The two belong together. Effort and release. Practice and non-attachment. He was explicit that you cannot have one without the other and still be doing yoga in any meaningful sense.

What the wellness industry has been selling, very successfully and very profitably, is abhyasa without vairagya, effort without release, practice as self-improvement project, movement and breath and meditation all conscripted into the service of becoming a better, calmer, more optimized version of yourself.

That is not what the tradition was describing. And if the data is any indication, it is not working particularly well either.

The harder question this raises is not about the industry. The industry will do what industries do. The harder question is for people who actually practice, who actually care about what yoga is and what it asks of them. Because the pull toward making the practice about results is not just a marketing problem. It is deeply human. We come to the mat because something hurts, or because we are afraid, or because we are looking for something we cannot quite name. That is fine. That is a legitimate reason to begin. But at some point the practice asks you to stop treating it as a means to an end, and that shift is genuinely difficult to make. It requires sitting on the mat on a day when nothing opens, nothing shifts, nothing feels better and staying anyway. Not because you will feel better later. Just because you are there.

The Global Wellness Summit’s 2026 trends report, interestingly, is beginning to sense this from the inside. It describes what it calls a cultural pivot away from optimization, a growing awareness that “optimization without integration is proving costly.” It talks about moving toward “regulation over results, sensation over scores.” That is not a bad instinct. It is also, more or less, what Patanjali was pointing at roughly 1,600 years ago. The tradition had already done this thinking. It had already named the trap. The question is whether modern practitioners and the teachers and studios serving them are willing to actually engage with that teaching rather than simply borrow its vocabulary while keeping the optimization logic intact. Wellness language can absorb almost anything, including the language of non-attachment, and sell it back as a more refined form of self-improvement. The only defense against that is knowing what the teaching actually says and holding yourself to it honestly.

More practice is not the answer. Neither is less practice. The answer the tradition offers is the same one it has always offered: practice without clinging to what practice should give you.

That sounds simple. Anyone who has actually tried it knows it is one of the most demanding things the tradition asks. Yoga stood at this crossroads long before the industry arrived. The question is whether we engage with what it actually taught or keep borrowing the words. That is what this section is for. Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe so you don’t miss what’s coming next.

A philosophical darśana works the same way. It is a complete vision of reality what the world is, what a human being is, what causes suffering, and what the path out looks like that you enter, practice, and let work on you over time. Every darśana comes with practice built in, because the problem these traditions address is not that we are thinking incorrectly. It is that we are seeing incorrectly. You cannot fix seeing with thinking alone. This puts darśana in a different category from what the English word philosophy suggests. Philosophy is a project of the mind argument, analysis, conclusion. Darśana is a project of perception. The goal is not a better position. It is clearer sight.

Subscribe now

Read more

It is not a political name. It was not created to mark a border or administer a territory. It is a civilizational name, one that holds within it a particular understanding of what this land is, what it asks of those who live within it, and how the practices that arose here are meant to be held. That it remains present today is significant in itself. The Constitution of India opens with it: India, that is Bhārat. A modern nation choosing to root itself in a name thousands of years older than the nation.

Before any of the philosophical texts were written, before the traditions had names, this land was already known to the ancient world. Mesopotamian records speak of a trading civilization they called Meluhha, ships arriving from this coast, whole communities of Meluhha people living in Mesopotamian cities, a professional interpreter employed full-time to work between two worlds. Carnelian from Gujarat, teak from the western coast, lapis lazuli travelling south from a trading colony in what is now Afghanistan. We do not know what those people called their own land. Their script has not been deciphered. But the civilization was already flourishing, already in conversation with the ancient world, long before it settled on a name for itself.

Subscribe now

I. Why this matters

Why does this matter for a series about words in the yoga tradition? Because one of the most persistent misunderstandings about yoga is to give it a starting point that is far too recent. It gets traced to the Yoga Sūtras, or to the Śramaṇa movements, or to the Ṛgveda as though each appeared from nowhere, and as though the Ṛgveda itself was a beginning rather than a layer within something much older. The civilization that eventually named this land Bhāratavarṣa was already flourishing, already philosophically alive, already known to the wider world before any of these texts or movements emerged. That depth of continuity is part of what the name carries, and part of what gets lost when the name is replaced.

Today, yoga’s origins are increasingly described using the term South Asian. It sounds careful, academically precise, respectful of multiple national identities. But South Asia is a contemporary geopolitical category, assembled from nation-states whose borders were drawn largely in the 20th century, in many cases through partition, violence, and displacement. It is not the framework within which yoga was developed, transmitted, or understood. Applying it to a tradition thousands of years old is not neutral. It is a substitution and what it substitutes matters, which is what this essay is about.

To understand what Bhāratavarṣa names, it helps to look at all the names this land has carried, because each one is a different way of knowing it and each one, if followed carefully, opens into an entire world of history, philosophy, and lived understanding.

Read more

I am starting a new section called Word & World.

The idea came from something I keep noticing in conversations around yoga and Indian traditions: many misunderstandings begin not with the practice itself, but with the words used to describe it. The language around yoga is everywhere now, yet the meanings behind those words are often far less clear than they appear.

Sometimes the issue begins with translation. A Sanskrit term gets matched with a quick English equivalent, and while that translation may capture part of the meaning, it rarely carries the full depth of the original. Words like dharma, karma, bhakti, or even yoga itself often fall into this category. They are familiar enough that people feel comfortable using them, but the world of meaning they belong to is much larger than a single translation can hold.

At other times the opposite happens. Instead of using the original word, people avoid it entirely. Sanskrit terms are replaced with modern language that feels more accessible or neutral. Yoga becomes “mindfulness,” bhakti becomes “devotional energy,” and dharma becomes “purpose.” These shifts are not always wrong, but they quietly reshape how the tradition is understood.

Subscribe now

There is also a third situation that is becoming increasingly common. Modern labels are introduced into conversations about yoga and Indian traditions, often carrying assumptions that were not originally part of those traditions. Words like caste, nationalism, religion, appropriation, or even spirituality are used as if their meanings were universal and self-evident. But these terms come from particular historical and cultural contexts, and when they are applied too loosely they can create more confusion than clarity.

All of this made me realize that language itself deserves closer attention.

That is the purpose of Word & World.

This section begins with a simple premise: words are not just tools for communication. They carry entire frameworks of thought. A single term can hold assumptions about how life works, what practice is meant to achieve, how knowledge is transmitted, and how a tradition understands the relationship between the individual and the world.

When the word changes, the framework often changes with it.

Take the word yoga. In many places today it is used almost entirely in reference to posture practice. Yet in classical sources the word carries a much broader meaning involving discipline, transformation of the mind, and ultimately liberation. When the word is used in a narrower sense, the path it describes also begins to look narrower.

The same is true of words like bhakti, which is often treated simply as emotional devotion, even though the traditions surrounding it involve philosophy, theology, and rigorous practice. Or dharma, which is frequently translated as “duty” or “purpose,” while in many texts it refers to the sustaining order that holds both individual life and society together.

These differences may seem small at first, but over time they shape how people understand the tradition as a whole.

This section is not meant to be a dictionary or a technical glossary. Instead, each piece will take one word and stay with it long enough to explore the world it belongs to. Sometimes that word will be Sanskrit. Sometimes it may come from regional traditions, devotional literature, or philosophical texts. And sometimes it may be a modern English term that has become part of the conversation around yoga today.

The goal is not simply to define the word. The goal is to understand what comes with it.

Where does the word appear? How has it been used historically? What assumptions does it carry? What changes when it is translated, simplified, or replaced by another term? And what happens when that shift begins to influence how people practice or interpret the tradition?

These are the kinds of questions Word & World will explore. New essays in Word & World will be published every Sunday.

The series will begin with a short opening arc called The World Before Yoga. These first few posts will explore several foundational words that describe the broader intellectual and cultural landscape in which yoga traditions developed. Only after that will we turn to the word yoga itself and the vocabulary that surrounds it.

After that opening arc, we will turn to a series of Sanskrit terms that frequently appear in conversations about yoga, words many readers will already recognize, but whose meanings often run much deeper than their everyday usage suggests.

Because in the end, language is never just language.

The words we choose shape how traditions are explained, defended, criticized, and practiced. A small shift in wording can open deeper understanding, or it can quietly redirect an entire conversation.

That is why this section begins here.

With a single word.

And the world that comes with it.

Word & World begins soon.

Om Tat Sat
Trupti
SattvaSpired | Yoga in Essence

Read more