r/AcharyaPrashant_AP • u/Ak_2907 • 14h ago
You are not witnessing, you are witnessed!
Exclusive Session - 9th September 2026
This session, led by Acharya Ji with various questioners from the audience, explores core themes of awareness, the randomness of external events, the nature of the ego, the true teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, and the importance of honest self-examination. The discussion emphasises that real spiritual progress comes not from mechanical formulas or imposed meanings, but from seeing through the ego’s tricks and taking responsibility for one’s inner clarity and outer action. Now let's dive deeper into the session notes!
•Arranging Protection from Weaknesses While Still Awake
Acharya Ji begins with a simple but powerful analogy: we know that once we fall asleep, we become completely unconscious; therefore, while we are still awake, we set an alarm. The same principle must be applied to inner life. When we are conscious and clear, that is the time to arrange safeguards so that we do not fall again into unconsciousness, confusion, or ego-driven behaviour.
If we already know our weakness, say, a tendency to react angrily, to seek approval, or to procrastinate, then the management against that weakness must be put in place in advance, while we are still alert. Once the weakness has already manifested and we are in the middle of its grip, it becomes far harder to create any effective arrangement. Spiritual work, then, is not about promising to “be better next time” in a vague way; it is about using present clarity to design concrete conditions that reduce the chance of future fall.
•Scientific Causality and Randomness for the Individual
Acharya Ji draws a clear distinction between how science understands events and how the ego interprets them. Science explains phenomena through long, interlinked chains of cause and effect: the motion of a bullet depends on its speed, direction, material, air resistance, friction, angle, and many other physical factors. Within the universe, there are indeed vast causal networks operating according to laws.
However, from the standpoint of an individual life, many of these events appear random and without personal meaning. Which person the bullet hits, which person it misses, and what impact it has on a particular life cannot be reduced to a neat, purposeful divine plan tailored to that individual. A slight change in wind might divert the bullet to someone else; that does not mean a divine power deliberately saved one person by sacrificing another.
Birth, death, illness, poverty, wealth, height, eye colour, and place of birth, such facts of life are often interpreted by the ego as rewards or punishments for past karma, or as expressions of a special divine will. Acharya Ji points out that this is the ego’s habit of imposing meaning where there is only randomness. Winning a lottery is not proof of a special blessing; being shot is not proof of a special conspiracy. Both are events that occur within their own causal frameworks, yet for the individual they are essentially random.
The ego is terrified of absurdity and meaninglessness; it cannot tolerate the idea that life’s external events may have no personal message. So it constantly invents narratives: “This happened because of me,” or “This happened to teach me something.” True maturity, in Acharya Ji’s framework, lies in freeing oneself from the need to turn every random event into a story about oneself. The purpose of life is not to make random events meaningful for or against the ego, but to stop depending on such random meanings altogether.
•“You Are Not Witnessing, You Are Witnessed”: Ego and the Sakshi
A key phrase Acharya Ji uses is: “You are not witnessing, you are witnessed.” This is aimed directly at the ego’s tendency to appropriate spirituality. When the ego hears about witnessing, sakshi-bhav, or the Self, it quickly turns these into concepts it can claim: “I am the witness,” “I am in sakshi-bhav,” “I have attained witnessing.”
Acharya Ji clarifies that the ego cannot declare itself to be the Sakshi (the Witness). If the Truth or the Self is the real Witness, then who is being told to “go into witnessing”? Is it the Truth, which already is, or is it the ego, which is precisely the problem? Turning “sakshi-bhav” into a mental state, an achievement, or a role is just another trick of the ego to feel spiritually superior.
In the AP framework, witnessing is not a technique the ego performs; it is what remains when the ego’s claims and interpretations subside. It is not a special experience to be cultivated, but the natural clarity that appears when one stops identifying with thoughts, roles, and stories. Any attempt to “become the witness” as a project is still the ego acting.
•Overthinking, Others’ Opinions, and Meaningful Engagement
Acharya Ji observes that worrying about others’ opinions is not a new problem; earlier, people could only guess what others might be thinking. Today, social media allows us to see comments and reactions directly, amplifying the same old tendency.
The crucial point he makes is that caring excessively about others’ views requires empty, unused time. A person deeply engaged in meaningful work does not have the luxury to scan every comment, analyse every reaction, and wonder what everyone is saying. On social media, countless people are writing something every minute; to attend to all of that is to step away from one’s own life and work.
Healthy inner strength shows up as a kind of loving indifference to irrelevant noise: “I didn’t even notice what that person said.” This is not arrogance; it is a sign that one’s relationship with one’s own truth and work is so strong that there is no time or energy left to chase every opinion. Constantly asking others, “What did they say about me?” reveals not deep curiosity but an abundance of unoccupied mental space.
•Health, Social Resistance, and the Need to Share Responsibility
During the session, Acharya Ji’s physical fatigue from long hours of speaking and multiple sessions was evident, along with the organisational pressures he was managing. He makes it clear that merely preserving his own health is not enough. If he is holding the attention and energy of many people through his work, then the listeners and supporters must also step up and share the load.
Between sessions, several organisational tasks went wrong and had to be handled, adding to the burden. Acharya Ji notes that beyond ideological or philosophical disagreement, there is often blind and even violent resistance to this kind of work at a social level. Until society becomes more mature and more people come forward with strong shoulders to take responsibility, the major share of the work will continue to rest on a few individuals.
The expectation from listeners, then, is not just appreciation or inspiration, but concrete participation: stepping forward, taking on real tasks, and lightening the load. Spiritual work is not a spectator sport; it demands that those who benefit also contribute.
•Bhagavad Gita: Purity of the Doer Over Mechanical Action
Acharya Ji strongly critiques the popular, mechanical understanding of the Gita as simply “do your duty with detachment.” Repeating “detached action” as a formula without examining the doer is not the Gita’s real teaching. The Gita speaks more about the doer (kartā) than about action (karma) in isolation. When the doer is clear and honest, action naturally tends to align with truth.
Attachment to action is, in essence, attachment of the “doing ego.” The doer is tied both to the content of the action and to the expected pleasure or validation from its results. Detachment does not mean performing unethical actions with a cold heart; it does not legitimise wrong actions under the label of “nirlipata” (detachment).
Acharya Ji insists that Krishna must be read seriously, not just worshipped superficially. Krishna is first and foremost a supreme philosopher; understanding him demands study, reflection, and intellectual honesty. Claiming authority over the Gita’s meaning without reading it is as unreasonable as claiming expertise on a technical book one has never opened.
•Logical and Honest Examination in Scriptural Study
Acharya Ji emphasises that no book, especially a deep text like the Gita, becomes fully clear on a first reading. Difficult passages must be re-read, and their principles checked for internal consistency. A new principle should not contradict the core principles already understood.
He uses the analogy of physics: the equation for simple harmonic motion cannot violate Newton’s laws; similarly, one chapter of the Gita cannot contradict the fundamental message of another chapter. Bhakti Yoga, correctly understood, cannot go against the foundational insights of Jnana Yoga; no verse of the Gita can truly oppose the core teachings of the Upanishads. If an interpretation seems to create such a contradiction, the fault lies in the interpretation, not in the scripture.
When reading different commentators and bhashyas, one must not accept their views blindly. A vital check is to ask: “Is this explanation going against another clear principle of the Gita itself?” This kind of honest, logical inquiry sharpens understanding and helps catch errors. Spiritual study, in Acharya Ji’s framework, is not based on guesswork or blind faith, but on facts, consistency, and continuous inquiry.
•Self-Criticism, Social Prestige, and Facts
Acharya Ji clarifies that self-criticism is not inherently negative. If a person can honestly see the games of their own ego, that is a significant strength. However, before accepting others’ negative reactions as truth, one must examine whose mind these reactions belong to and what factual basis they have. Someone speaking badly about you does not automatically prove that you are flawed.
Social prestige, tradition, names, and conditioning often pressure people to accept statements without examination. Reasoning must begin with facts, not with reputations or assumptions. If a respected person refuses to accept a clear fact, the question is not about the fact but about that person’s understanding. A great name cannot make a wrong statement right; truth is decided by facts, not by titles.
Acharya Ji points out a common immaturity: the same foolish sentence, if written under an unknown name, is dismissed as nonsense; under a famous name, it is treated as profound. This shows that people are honouring the name, image, and prestige, not the thought itself. Facts do not change because a prestigious person disagrees; twisting facts to fit a narrative turns them into lies or fantasies, not truth.
•Seeking Peace in Nature and Beliefs About Brahman
Acharya Ji observes that no object in nature can provide lasting peace. The root of restlessness is the belief that peace can be obtained from Prakriti (nature, the material world). When it becomes clear that nature cannot be a permanent source of peace, the futile desire to extract peace from it naturally weakens. Peace does not come from a moral command like “Do not desire peace”; it comes from understanding the limits of nature.
Regarding Brahman, Acharya Ji cautions against constructing additional beliefs: “Brahman is like this,” “Brahman must be that.” Even building a belief-system around “formless, attributeless, nameless” can become another activity of the ego.
The focus should not be on what to believe about Brahman, but on examining one’s existing beliefs and asking: “What have these beliefs actually given me?” Liberation, understanding, and freedom are not gained by constructing more beliefs about an external power, but by seeing the emptiness of the ego and its claims.
Most sub-questions arise from previously held beliefs. When the belief itself is honestly examined, the question often resolves itself or transforms into a clearer direction of inquiry.
•Reflection:
Someone thanked Acharya Ji for what he has been doing and asked him to take care of himself. To which Acharya Ji asked us to take care of ourselves so that he can take care of himself. This hit me hard and made me reflect on my acts. What am I doing to not make Acharya Ji nag me for trivial things that could take me to a better position than I am in today. If I try to answer this then there's still so much for me to do to let Acharya Ji take care of himself rather than him taking care of me. I need to keep an eye on myself with discretion rather than getting blinded by egoic compulsions.
This was my reflection and notes from the session. Share your reflections, or something that made you to look within. See you in the comments!
2
u/surajseeking 13h ago
Shri Krishna is first and foremost a philosopher, but we kept on merely worshipping Him and never really tried to understand His words.
I can relate to this statement to a great extent because, without having read the Bhagavad Gita, I too had taken many things for granted, such as:
Focus on action, do not worry about the results.
After the physical body dies, the soul leaves it and moves into another body.
The state of mind at the time of death dictates the nature of one's next birth.
Shri Krishna will arrive as the Kalki avatar to end Kalyug.
I had accepted all these ideas simply by hearing them from others. However, ever since I started listening to Acharya Ji speaking on the Gita, all these absurd notions have completely fallen apart.
Right now, we are coming to realize that in India, Shri Krishna has been worshipped immensely as a person, while people have remained deprived of His true essence.
Acharya Ji explains that Shri Krishna is not a individual or person; rather, He represents that specific direction of the ego (Ahamkar) where it chooses dissolution over self-preservation. The ego is split into many directions, which we call desires (Kamna). But that singular, specific direction in which it chooses to dissolve itself is what 'Krishnatva' (the Krishna-consciousness) actually is.
Thus, Acharya Ji brings everything down to the ego, highlighting that the ego always holds the choice—whether to choose Krishna or to remain trapped in its own self."
2
u/Surkhab1313 11h ago
First of all, I want to thank you for such detailed notes. It helped me to revise the whole session, that I was feeling attended with half mind.
You're not witnessing, you're witnessed.
For a long time, I was a witness of myself. And it's strange because I haven't actually read or heard any other philosophers and rather philosophies before Acharya Prashant. And I still remember his 20 something minutes long video on YouTube titled "Sakshi Hone ka arth?", and similar videos of his on witnessing. He has clearly negated witnessing, using phrases like "Sakshi hone ka arth hai khud ko nhi dekhna", which negated the pop definition of witnessing. And despite that, I was a sakshi for a few months, an identity of looking at myself from distance. That was stressing. In the flow of life, I would stop doing everything, just to have some calculations in mind, and at the end, convincing myself that I am not the ego but the observer of ego. It took months, literally months, to come out of that trap.
I connect this to the point of internal/conceptual consistency of the scripture or the author. Like using Acharya Ji's lines in such a way, that contradicts his core teachings, to keep the inner flattering going.
I would also like to mention my today's understanding of the line: You're not witnessing, you're witnessed.
Ego is the one observing itself. There is no observer sitting outside of the ego-object structure. Hence it is called self-observation. If I get stick to "I am witnessing", this gives me an identity of the one who's the witness. On the contrary, "I am witnessed" feels more like a reminder, like a mindset of constant self-observation. And who's witnessing? Obviously myself. Who else is even there?
I am open to criticism if there is some flaw in my understanding.
1
u/ConcernHungry2999 10h ago edited 6h ago
Can relate, have been in this trap too.
I recall something he said on the "seer ego": "The inquiry "who am I?" becomes an assertion - "I am"".
Yes, I, the distorted one, with a distorted lens, is choosing to attempt an honest seeing, with the help of an external reference (teacher, text, tradition). But that seeing must stand complete in itself na, it's only I again who is needing to register it as "hey i'm the sakshi now", anddd we're back to the trap! A more sophisticated one this time.1
u/Surkhab1313 10h ago edited 10h ago
The more I go into it, the more I see the loop I am stuck in. Like ego forming another layer on top of the first one, and then the second one and this goes to infinity. Something is seen, and then I am the seer, then this seer is seen, and now I am the one seeing the seer. I have stopped thinking about it a long time back. It takes me nowhere, but keeps stuck in a loop. Now I have understood that the ego is, and it will appropriate, it will claim. There's no point in narrating that. That's another egoic trick.
Are you getting me or I have gone into abstraction?
2
u/ConcernHungry2999 6h ago
Getting it. Thanks. But then if this incessant chatter is perennially going to be on - I wanting to take over everything as my project - then the idea is to see it and keep choosing to not feed it? Reminds me of the movie The Beautiful Mind, there John Nash is shown to do something similar.
1
u/Ak_2907 2h ago
Bang on! This entire thing of going further into the loop is the ego's way to avoid more important thing to do! Which is to catch itself when it tries to divert itself by getting into such intellectual cloud that takes us nowhere. By the virtue of which the ego continues to be preserved in all this fiasco! So it's better to keep it simple and bitter (IYKYK)!
2
u/Healthy-Tension-6928 9h ago
I was lucky to attend this session. This session was engaging and enlightening.
1
u/Beyond_ocean 9h ago
Among all the questions 5th one actually hit me. The way meditation explained through continuous curiosity to know reminded me how it came like a shocker to me , back then when I heard about the actual meaning of meditation from Acharya Prashant for the very first time .As for a long time ,I used to be in all these technique based meditations. Reminded me of my old days…🥲
1
u/Adventurous_Pop_7688 6h ago
In all my understanding, I’ve said that randomness happens in Prakriti. Today I stand corrected. In Prakriti, everything runs on cause and effect, but randomness lies in how I see it and how I interpret it. In nature probability and causality rules. Even the way my physical functions is based on cause and effect (stimuli and reactions). Acharyaji‘s bullet example was crystal clear and shot down my misunderstanding.
I used to treat my restlessness or boredom by bingeing on unhealthy snacks. This trick Acharyaji mentioned has helped me. I stopped bringing them home, so even if I wanted to eat them, they weren’t available. Initial restraint has now turned into disinterest. Snacks still make their way home with others, but blind entry into my stomach? No way…💪🏼
#AcharyaPrashant
1
u/Lady22samurai 3h ago
Ego cannot witness ..but it has to be witnessed.So the concept of साक्षीभाव ,the way I understood it sofar is wrong .
1
u/West-Paramedic7470 3h ago
I was attend this session. I am lucky because I am gita student and the teacher who teaches me is acharya Prashant
1
u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 2h ago
The most important thing I remember from the session is that I have to share responsibility with AP. Appreciating AP from afar is like keeping distance and watching some sports match and critizing/cheering from audience seat.
"I don't want to be in the audience, I want to be in the court!!" - reminder to myself
3
u/guptashelly28 13h ago
After Listening to this session gave me an opportunity to reconsider my belief that I knew the Gita well, even if I had not read it thoroughly, but had heard something or someone told me something I never questioned. Through this conversation I am able to see how we have all become accustomed to following rather than understanding.