Puja appears to be a ritual with rules. Specific mantras in specific order. Offerings placed in specific locations. Precise gestures at precise moments. For a practitioner focused on form, puja becomes: Can I perform this sequence correctly? Did I miss a step? Did I say the mantra at the right moment?
The teaching inverts this entirely: Puja is not about correct form. Puja is about creating atmosphere — a consortium of thoughts, a field of presence in which the deity becomes recognizable.1
This doesn't mean form doesn't matter. It means form is the vehicle for presence, not the point itself.
In the speaker's teaching, puja creates a "galaxy of thoughts" — a specific configuration of consciousness. This is not poetic language. It is functional description.
When you invoke Kali with her specific mantras, assign her to specific body locations (niāsa), visualize her specific form, chant her specific names, make offerings in her specific sequence — you are creating a thought-ecosystem in consciousness. All these elements together generate a recognizable presence.
The deity is not external. Kali doesn't arrive from somewhere else. Rather, through the specific arrangement of ritual elements (mantra, visualization, gesture, material offerings), your consciousness organizes itself in a particular configuration. In that configuration, Kali becomes recognizable to yourself. You know her. She knows you. The presence is real because consciousness has arranged itself to support that recognition.1
The atmosphere is the point. Not performing correctly. Not completing the sequence. The presence of the deity in consciousness — that is what puja accomplishes. Everything else is the technology for creating that presence.
If puja is about atmosphere creation rather than rule-following, then variations in sequence are legitimate as long as they serve presence.
Some practitioners prefer:
Are these all "correct"? From a rule-based perspective, no. One sequence is right; others are wrong.
From an atmosphere-based perspective: If the variation produces genuine presence, if the deity becomes recognizable to the practitioner, if the consciousness shifts into alignment with that form — then it works. The variation is legitimate not because the rules permit it, but because it serves the actual function of puja: presence creation.1
This is radical. It means practitioners have permission to adapt their puja based on what produces genuine atmosphere for them, not on inherited form. But it also carries responsibility: you must be honest about whether your adaptation produces presence or whether you're simply doing what's easy.
The living exemplar of this teaching is Sri Ramakrishna. His puja at the Kali Temple was legendary not for speed or precision, but for presence.
Historical accounts describe: Ramakrishna would spend hours in puja. What was he doing? Not rushing through a checklist. He was singing. Dancing. Praying. Sometimes weeping. Sometimes sitting in profound stillness. The puja would extend far beyond what "proper form" requires because his consciousness was in such depth with Kali that the formal sequence became almost secondary.
Later, after the formal puja ended, he would spend more hours with visitors in satsang (holy company). The puja hadn't concluded when the mantras finished. It continued through conversation, presence, transmission of consciousness itself.
The teaching: Puja is not the twenty-minute ritual you perform. Puja is the quality of presence you establish and maintain. The formal sequence is the foundation. But the actual puja extends as long as presence extends. It ends when the connection ends.1
This is why many contemporary practitioners feel their puja is "incomplete" — they finish the formal sequence but their consciousness hasn't shifted. They performed the form without creating the atmosphere. Ramakrishna shows the opposite extreme: the atmosphere is so profound that the form almost becomes transparent to it.
The tension is real: Puja needs structure (form, sequence, repetition) to work, but puja serves presence, not form.
The solution is not to abandon form (pure presence-seeking without structure collapses into vagueness). The solution is to use form intelligently:
This is the razor's edge. Too much focus on form = ritualism without meaning. Too little form = vague spirituality without technology. The balance is: form used consciously, in service of presence.1
One detail in Ramakrishna's practice: his puja was not only mantras and prescribed gestures. It included singing, dancing, and spontaneous prayer.
This reveals something: The "prescribed" parts of puja (the mantras, the offerings sequence) are not the puja. They are the framework. Within that framework, the actual presence is created through devotional expression — which for different temperaments looks different.
For some, it's tears. For others, it's ecstatic movement. For others, it's intellectual devotion (praising the deity through reasoned contemplation of her nature). For others, it's playful intimacy (the bhakti of treating the deity like a beloved friend or child).
The prescribed form holds these expressions. But the expressions themselves are what generate atmosphere. A person who chants all the mantras perfectly but without any emotional or devotional expression has form without presence. A person who sings and cries and dances with genuine devotion but whose formal sequence is imperfect has created presence within an imperfect container.
The traditional answer: Learn both. Master the form. Cultivate the devotion. Let them inform each other. The form contains the devotion. The devotion animates the form.1
Nishanth Selvalingam presents puja as simultaneously: a precise technology requiring correct form, and a consciousness practice where form is transparent to presence; a sequence to be completed, and an atmosphere to be inhabited; rule-based (certain mantras at certain moments), and responsive to moment (sing when moved to sing, bow when moved to bow); Ramakrishna's exemplary model (spending hours in puja, extending through satsang) is presented as both unique to him and universally instructive. The tension is not resolved but inhabited as the proper way to practice: structure as servant of presence, not master.
Creative-practice: Technical Mastery and Expression — A musician masters scales and technique (form) so that expression becomes possible (presence/atmosphere). Without technique, expression is formless. Without devotion to expression, technique is empty. The puja operates identically: formal mastery enables genuine devotional presence. A jazz musician who abandons form produces incoherence. A jazz musician who obsesses over form produces mechanical music. Both technique and spontaneous expression together create music.
Psychology: Ritual as Consciousness Technology — Puja as "creating atmosphere" reveals ritual's actual function: organizing consciousness into recognizable configurations. Neuroscience increasingly shows that repeated ritual sequences (form) do alter neural patterns and consciousness states (presence/atmosphere). The form is the container. The atmosphere is what the container holds. Both are necessary.
History: Institutional Religion and Mysticism — The tension between form-following and presence-seeking appears throughout religious history. Institutional religion emphasizes form (correct doctrine, correct practice). Mysticism emphasizes presence (direct experience). Tantra claims to resolve this by saying: correct form, practiced with presence-orientation, produces the direct experience. The form is not a substitute for experience. The form is the technology for accessing experience.
If puja's actual function is to create atmosphere rather than to perform form correctly, then you cannot judge puja from the outside. A formal observer watching someone's puja cannot tell whether it's creating presence or not. The only measure is: does the practitioner's consciousness shift? Do they emerge from puja altered? Is the deity present to them?
This means puja cannot be standardized or evaluated by external criteria. This is uncomfortable for traditions that want to codify "correct practice." It means gurus cannot enforce uniformity. Two practitioners doing "the same puja" might be doing entirely different practices if one is creating atmosphere and one is following form.
The implication: puja is more individualized and more difficult than following a manual suggests. It demands honesty about whether you're creating presence or performing routine.
On atmosphere: Is "atmosphere" a subjective experience (your feeling of presence) or an objective reality (an actual energetic/consciousness field created by the ritual)? If subjective, how do you distinguish between imagined presence and actual presence? If objective, how would you measure or verify it?
On variations: How much variation can you introduce before "puja" becomes something else? If you remove the deity entirely and just perform the sequence to your own consciousness, is that still puja? At what point does adaptation become abandonment of the form?
On teaching: If puja's function is presence and form is secondary, why do teachers spend so much time teaching form? Why not teach presence directly? Is form necessary to teach presence, or is form itself sometimes the obstacle?