There is no God outside of you that could be found, approached, or worshipped

As long as one assumes that God is something separate, something “out there”, one remains within separation. Prayer, devotion, asking for help or grace all presuppose this division.

This statement is a worldview articulated centuries ago by Prakashananda Saraswati, an Indian philosopher and teacher who most likely lived in the 15th or early 16th century. I recently came across his perspective and spent some time engaging with it more deeply. I want to share a short overview here as a possible point of reflection.

Prakashananda belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Unlike devotional or religious movements, this tradition is not concerned with belief systems, rituals, or the worship of a personal God. Its focus lies elsewhere, on the question of what is ultimately real.

According to Prakashananda, there is only one reality. This reality is not a being, not a creator figure, not a higher entity standing apart from the world. In Indian philosophy it is often called Brahman, but the name is secondary. It can just as well be described as fundamental being, absolute consciousness, or the underlying principle from which everything arises. What matters is this: it is not separate from us.

From this perspective, everything we normally call “the world” has no independent existence of its own. Bodies, thoughts, emotions, objects, nature, time and space all exist and function, but they do not stand on their own. They are appearances, expressions, or objectifications of this one underlying reality.

The same applies to the human being. What we usually experience as “I”, personality, biography, thoughts, emotions, belongs to the level of appearance. The true self, according to Prakashananda, is not individual. It is identical with the reality that underlies everything. In classical terms this is expressed as Atman is Brahman. In simple language: what you are at your core is not separate from the foundation of the world.

This is where the initial statement becomes clearer. If reality is one and undivided, then the idea of a God outside of oneself becomes problematic. As long as God is imagined as something external, something to be reached, approached, or addressed, separation is already assumed. Prayer, devotion, worship, and the hope for grace may offer emotional comfort or structure, but they operate entirely within this framework of division.

Prakashananda did not reject religious practices out of hostility or rebellion. His reasoning was simpler and more precise. Worship always implies two: the worshipper and the worshipped. As long as this structure remains intact, separation remains intact. From this point of view, genuine insight cannot arise through devotion to something conceived as other.

The path he represents is therefore not a path of belief or obedience, but one of understanding. It consists in carefully examining everything one takes oneself to be. Whatever can be perceived cannot be the ultimate reality. Not the body, not thoughts, not emotions, not any self image. What remains is not a new object to grasp, but pure awareness itself, not as an idea, but as direct recognition of what has always been present.

Prakashananda most likely did not leave behind written works of his own. What we know about him comes from philosophical debates. He is regarded as a consistent representative of radical non duality. His position is sober, precise, and free of religious ornamentation.

What makes this perspective striking even today is its timelessness. It comes without promises of salvation, without moral demands, and without spiritual staging. It does not claim that the world is wrong or illusory in a trivial sense. It simply states that the world is not ultimate. Liberation does not mean reaching something new, but letting go of the assumption of separation.

Perspectives like the this are not limited to a single tradition. Variations of this view can be found in Advaita Vedanta, certain schools of Buddhism, Neoplatonism, parts of Christian mysticism, and in philosophical traditions that describe reality as one undivided ground rather than a personal deity standing apart from the world. Interestingly, modern physics, especially field theories and aspects of quantum physics, also describe reality not as separate objects, but as expressions of underlying fields or unified processes. Ultimately, however, no system can decide this for anyone. Each person has to sense for themselves whether this way of seeing resonates inwardly, clarifies something essential, or simply does not.

✨🫶🏼✨

4 comments