ātman & individual soul

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

regarding ātman & individual soul

I wonder if there are any opinions on this matter. Many times people think of 'soul' as that life force in us , the animating principle.

For some such as the Sāṅkhya-s ( the ones following the Sāṅkhya¹ philosophy/darśana of the muni Kapila) consider the soul
person-by-person adding up to many Selfs on this good earth.

Another view is that of an ātman that pervades all - ātatam आतत or that which spreads, extended or stretched. But what does it pervade ? - all śarīra. This śarīra शरीर means body, but also means 'that which is easily destroyed or dissolved' .

No doubt our body meets this definition, yet it also can apply to all forms of 'bodies' on this earth and in creation ( as I see it) not just the family of man.

This ātman आत्मन् in the kaṭha upaniṣad is considered the Imperishable , the best abode and is considered the substance that pervades (ātatam). The 20th śloka or vallī of the 2nd adhyāya (chapter) says the following:

Smaller then the smallest and greater then the greatest the ātman abides hidingly in all beings (jantu¹).

So we have life force that animates and brings life, we have individual SELFs, and we have this one Universal Self…

Any opinions on this ?

praṇām

words

Sāṅkhya is sometimes written sāṁkhya सांख्य meaning to a number - in this case 24 or 25 ( some say 23 +1 or 24 +1 )
tattva-s or the elements that define for all of creation That is, twenty-three of which are evolved out of prakṛti the primordial Essence some call the 'first-Producer' e.g. buddhi , ahaṃkāra , the five tan-mātras , the five mahā-bhūtas and mana-s, etc and the twenty-fifth being puruṣa or Spirit.
jantu जन्तु - offspring; a creature , living being , man , person & also used collectively e.g. ' everybody '

[Hiwaunis]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

regarding ātman & individual soul

I wonder if there are any opinions on this matter. Many times people think of 'soul' as that life force in us , the animating principle.

For some such as the Sāṅkhya-s ( the ones following the Sāṅkhya¹ philosophy/darśana of the muni Kapila) consider the soul
person-by-person adding up to many Selfs on this good earth.

Another view is that of an ātman that pervades all - ātatam आतत or that which spreads, extended or stretched. But what does it pervade ? - all śarīra. This śarīra शरीर means body, but also means 'that which is easily destroyed or dissolved' .

No doubt our body meets this definition, yet it also can apply to all forms of 'bodies' on this earth and in creation ( as I see it) not just the family of man.

This ātman आत्मन् in the kaṭha upaniṣad is considered the Imperishable , the best abode and is considered the substance that pervades (ātatam). The 20th śloka or vallī of the 2nd adhyāya (chapter) says the following:

Smaller then the smallest and greater then the greatest the ātman abides hidingly in all beings (jantu¹).

So we have life force that animates and brings life, we have individual SELFs, and we have this one Universal Self…

Any opinions on this ?

praṇām

words
Sāṅkhya is sometimes written sāṁkhya सांख्य meaning to a number - in this case 24 or 25 ( some say 23 +1 or 24 +1 )
tattva-s or the elements that define for all of creation That is, twenty-three of which are evolved out of prakṛti the primordial Essence some call the 'first-Producer' e.g. buddhi , ahaṃkāra , the five tan-mātras , the five mahā-bhūtas and mana-s, etc and the twenty-fifth being puruṣa or Spirit.
jantu जन्तु - offspring; a creature , living being , man , person & also used collectively e.g. ' everybody '

Pranam,
I often think about this very subject. I have read many explanations of the soul. The one I like the most is " I am the Soul". I am aware of my existence, although I am intangible and infinitesmial (unseen).

It helps me to understand by seeing the body as some sort of machine that has been programmed to think, act and react in certain ways. I believe by being introverted I am able to re-program my behavior for the benefit of spiritual (atman) awareness. I have no real proof of what I believe only my personal experiences.
Namaste
Hiwaunis

[Hiwaunis]

Pranam,
I often think about this very subject. I have read many explanations of the soul. The one I like the most is " I am the Soul". I am aware of my existence, although I am intangible and infinitesmial (unseen).

It helps me to understand by seeing the body as some sort of machine that has been programmed to think, act and react in certain ways. I believe by being introverted I am able to re-program my behavior for the benefit of spiritual (atman) awareness. I have no real proof of what I believe only my personal experiences.
Namaste
Hiwaunis


Pranam,

Although I see myself as a soul (and sometimes this is difficult) I have an even harder time seeing others as souls. Are we individual children of Maha Atma or are we characters in the imagination of Maha Atma (and therefore we do not exist)? I wish I knew.

Hiwaunis

[DavidC]

In Sanskrit are there differences between 'atma' and 'atman?' Does one imply individual and the other universal? I am a student of Theosophy, which says so-called individual atma is one with universal atma--sort of like Advaita Vedanta--but I am having some trouble using the terms with some Buddhists. If one of the terms really means universal--like Buddha-nature--I would like to be able to explain it to them.

[Ekanta]

To Yajvan: I see it like Im the saksi (witness). I can’t go beyond that. I can identify with body, mind, ego etc but I will still "witness it". Then according to which ID people have there are different views and different paths. We can speak a lot of this but I leave that to someone else.

To dchmelik: Tathāgata-garbha or Buddha-nature means Buddha-essence… so what is this Essence (embryo)?

I would say like this to the buddhists: “Dharma" - from Sanskrit root dhri, to "uphold" or to "sustain" ultimately refers to the one who it supports the entire world. It refers to the basic nature of a thing… which is the essence. The essence in Buddhism is Buddha-nature and in Hinduism atma.

Now if we put this together we find that Dharma means seeing the essence in all and acting accordingly… So there is no contradiction between Buddha-nature, atma or dharma.

Buddha said anatma (no atma). However, Atma can mean “self” also. And there are two selves, the real (essence) and the current ID taken by the essence. A practical way to explain it is as follows: “Aham” [I/witness] think “I am body/ mind” etc “Aham-kara” [I-maker/ego]...
When Buddha said “anatman” (no-self) he meant no “Aham-kara” (no false self).

And yes Buddha did verify the permanent essence:
“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” (Buddha, "Udana 8.1 -8.3")

Well thats my first post… I didn’t have time to go into your original post too much Yajvan. Hope that’s ok anyway.

[atanu]

And yes Buddha did verify the permanent essence:
“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” (Buddha, "Udana 8.1 -8.3")

Well thats my first post… I didn’t have time to go into your original post too much Yajvan. Hope that’s ok anyway.

Kudos. Else what would the embodied teacher Buddha meditate on and with what? If Buddha teaches the truth then that truth itself is the substratum.

Om Namah Shivaya

[DavidC]

[...]So there is no contradiction between Buddha-nature, atma or dharma.[...]

I would like to agree, but the next thing they told me (paraphrased) is 'Buddha-nature is not atma' and implied it was more like 'human nature,' which could meant the personality of any human. So, Shakyamuni, Quan-yin, Amithaba, etc, all have their own 'nature' like own 'individuality.'



And yes Buddha did verify the permanent essence:
“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” (Buddha, "Udana 8.1 -8.3")[...]

Even though Buddha-nature might not be relevant, this quote helps. I saw the Udana on http://accesstoinsight.org/ but have not found a complete version. It is one of the next things I would like to read. It supports that atma still exists. I wonder what Buddhists would say: maybe that it is not as important as the Dhammapada or that this was altered. I have also read that the Bhagavad-gita was altered in The Bhagavad-gita As It Was.

Of course any really esoteric philosophy has the idea of atma. It makes sense because of induction. There is a life consciousness upadhi, mental consciousness upadhi, so it makes sense there is consciousness beyond that, and we call it soul upadhi and atma. It makes sense there is consciousness beyond that ad infinitum. Otherwise reality would be finite. Maybe the universe is finite but reality is not: there are apparently other universes. If there was no higher consciousness to evolve to there would be little point in any lower consciousness. Eventually all consciousness in the universe in pralaya will evolve into its creator but then the creator might evolve into the consciousness of many universes, and next time it will create more consciousnesses to repeat the process. The reincarnation cycle may be a corollary of this.

[atanu]

I would like to agree, but the next thing they told me (paraphrased) is 'Buddha-nature is not atma' and implied it was more like 'human nature,' which could meant the personality of any human. So, Shakyamuni, Quan-yin, Amithaba, etc, all have their own 'nature' like own 'individuality.'



Even though Buddha-nature might not be relevant, this quote helps. I saw the Udana on http://accesstoinsight.org/ but have not found a complete version. It is one of the next things I would like to read. It supports that atma still exists. I wonder what Buddhists would say: maybe that it is not as important as the Dhammapada or that this was altered. I have also read that the Bhagavad-gita was altered in The Bhagavad-gita As It Was.

Of course any really esoteric philosophy has the idea of atma. It makes sense because of induction. There is a life consciousness upadhi, mental consciousness upadhi, so it makes sense there is consciousness beyond that, and we call it soul upadhi and atma. It makes sense there is consciousness beyond that ad infinitum. Otherwise reality would be finite. Maybe the universe is finite but reality is not: there are apparently other universes. If there was no higher consciousness to evolve to there would be little point in any lower consciousness. Eventually all consciousness in the universe in pralaya will evolve into its creator but then the creator might evolve into the consciousness of many universes, and next time it will create more consciousnesses to repeat the process. The reincarnation cycle may be a corollary of this.

Namaste DavidC,

You can read the above in the accesstoinsight site.

As repeated several times, AtmAn is 'that wherefrom rises the mind' or 'thence the mind' or 'herefrom the mind'. Atman gives rise to mind and the lifeforce. Lifeforce ever remains singular one. But the mind, which is one to begin with, wills many minds. Souls are such many minds.

The power of awareness is not inherent in these minds. Atman never takes birth though it appears to do so. Thus:

“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” (Buddha, "Udana 8.1 -8.3")

is not different from the knowledge of AtmAn in essence.

However, one may note that the word AtmAn by its meaning: at and man, reveals much more than any scripture can.

One simply has to trace the origin of of one's thoughts, which comprise the mind. That only is the goal. All flowery scripture is to attract devotees and keep them engaged for sometime.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

regarding ātman & individual soul

I wonder if there are any opinions on this matter. Many times people think of 'soul' as that life force in us , the animating principle.
This ātman आत्मन् in the kaṭha upaniṣad is considered the Imperishable , the best abode and is considered the substance that pervades (ātatam). The 20th śloka or vallī of the 2nd adhyāya (chapter) says the following:

Smaller then the smallest and greater then the greatest the ātman abides hidingly in all beings (jantu¹).

So we have life force that animates and brings life, we have individual SELFs, and we have this one Universal Self…

Any opinions on this ?


Yes this question comes back to me again and again.
If the individual atma is just a projection and no real existence then whole creation make no sense to me, what would be the point of mukti, whose mukti? Surely God is not bound so there is no question. So who is this Individual self?

I am guided by Bhagvat Gita where in Bhagvan Krishna speaks of the nature of jiva that occupies this body, that it is eternal that it is not slain and the death is of the body only.

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah

evam buddheh param buddhva
samstabhyatmanam atmana
jahi satrum maha-baho
kama-rupam durasadam

The senses are said to be superior (to matter or the body), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind, and sah (Atma ) is superior to the intellect. (3.42)

Thus, knowing the Atma to be superior to the intellect, and controlling the mind by the intellect (that is purified by Jnana), one must kill this mighty enemy, Kaama, O Arjuna. (3.43)

Above clearly speaks of individual atma, who is bound by Kaama

Same example is given Katha upanisad 1.3.10/11
“Beyond the sense organs are the objects of sense. Beyond them is the mind. Beyond it is the brain or intuition. Beyond that is the great soul .

“Beyond that great soul is the unmanifest divine. Beyond that is the Purusha (the all knowing and all pervading Atma). There is nothing beyond the Purusha. That is the end. That is the supreme.”

Upanisad also speaks of two birds on the tree one is enjoying the fruit and the other who is a witness.

In Gita chapter 15 Krishna further explains
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

Jiva in the body is My eternal indivisible fragment indeed. Gets bound (or attached, and is called Jeevaatma) due to superimposition or association with the six sensory faculties, including the mind, of perception. (15.07)

Of course my friend Atanu ji will remind me that the Eko Atma is indivisible.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad,



If the individual atma is just a projection and no real existence then whole creation make no sense to me, what would be the point of mukti, whose mukti? Surely God is not bound so there is no question. So who is this Individual self?

Yes, that is a valid question. This has been explained as : It is the nature of the Atman which is though One but appears as many in waking & dreaming states ... like the many waves in the same ocean.


I am guided by Bhagvat Gita where in Bhagvan Krishna speaks of the nature of jiva that occupies this body, that it is eternal that it is not slain and the death is of the body only.

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

This is what I also thought when I read BG in my teens. However, after studying Upanishads & works of Advaita Gurus, I revisited those verses again and I found :

In the whole BG, the Atman is always expressed in singular number & never in plural. Why ? BhUtas (beings) have been used in plural but not the Atman. Moreover, let's see these verses from BG :

"AvInashi to tadviddhi yen sarvam idam Tatam" (2.17)====> This AvinAshi is used in singular number here too. So, AvInashi is one.

"Nitya sarvagatah sthanurachaloayam sanAtanah" (2.24)===> These are the qualities used for Atman. "Sarvagatah" means which is present everywhere. Unless it is One only, how every Atman be present everywhere at the same time ?

Sthanuh & Achal ====> Which doesn't move. If it takes birth, dies & goes to heaven & hell & moves when in a body, how can it be called "Sthanuh" and "achal" ?

"SarvabhutasthamAtmAnam sarvabhUtAni chAtmani l
Eekshate yogyuktAtmA sarvatra samdarshanah" ll 6.29ll

Seeing (same) Atman in all beings & all beings in (same) atman ====> is it possible if there are many Atmans ?

"Aham Atman gudakesha sarva bhUtashaya sthitah" ====> I am the Atman in the heart of all beings. ====> Is it possible if Atmans are many ?


indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah

evam buddheh param buddhva
samstabhyatmanam atmana
jahi satrum maha-baho
kama-rupam durasadam

The senses are said to be superior (to matter or the body), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind, and sah (Atma ) is superior to the intellect. (3.42)

Thus, knowing the Atma to be superior to the intellect, and controlling the mind by the intellect (that is purified by Jnana), one must kill this mighty enemy, Kaama, O Arjuna. (3.43)

But it is true even if Atman is One. It doesn't change the situation.



Same example is given Katha upanisad 1.3.10/11
“Beyond the sense organs are the objects of sense. Beyond them is the mind. Beyond it is the brain or intuition. Beyond that is the great soul .

“Beyond that great soul is the unmanifest divine. Beyond that is the Purusha (the all knowing and all pervading Atma). There is nothing beyond the Purusha. That is the end. That is the supreme.”

It doesn't say that all are essentially different. If that is true then there will be "sense organs", "mind", "brain", "intuition", "soul", "unmanifest divine" & "Purusha" having independent existence. This talks about the presence of various levels of relative existence within Prakriti.


Upanisad also speaks of two birds on the tree one is enjoying the fruit and the other who is a witness.

Yes, it does create confusion to some extent & so does this verse from BG :

"Dwavimau purushau loke khsarashchakshar eva cha" (BG 15.16) which talks about two purushas. However there cannot be two Purushas in essence otherwise it would refute the Upanishads & BG in other places.

See this verse :

"UpdrashtanumantA cha bhartA bhoktA maheshwarah l
paramatmeti chApuykto dehesmin purushah parah :" ll BG 13. 22ll

In this body this Purush is none but Atman itself & that is the witness, sustainer, "enjoyer" and the supreme God.

"Avibhaktam cha bhUteshu vibhaktamIva cha sthitam l
BhUtabhartri cha tajgyeyam grasishnu cha prabhavishnu cha ll BG 13. 16ll

The above verse clarifies in no uncertain terms that the One appears as many and that itself is the creator, the sustainer & the destroyer.



In Gita chapter 15 Krishna further explains
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

Jiva in the body is My eternal indivisible fragment indeed. Gets bound (or attached, and is called Jeevaatma) due to superimposition or association with the six sensory faculties, including the mind, of perception. (15.07)


If it is taken literally, then this whole creation is just God broken into infinite pieces into infinite beings ===> then God becomes divisible. Then it cannot remain "same" whole. God will be only a chunk of original God (before creation) & there is a chance that God becomes zero at some point of time !

This dilemma is removed only on understanding Advaita nature of Atman.

OM

[atanu]

Pranam all

Yes this question comes back to me again and again.
If the individual atma is just a projection and no real existence then whole creation make no sense to me, what would be the point of mukti, whose mukti? Surely God is not bound so there is no question. So who is this Individual self?

I am guided by Bhagvat Gita where in Bhagvan Krishna speaks of the nature of jiva that occupies this body, that it is eternal that it is not slain and the death is of the body only.

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah

evam buddheh param buddhva
samstabhyatmanam atmana
jahi satrum maha-baho
kama-rupam durasadam

The senses are said to be superior (to matter or the body), the mind is superior to the senses, the intellect is superior to the mind, and sah (Atma ) is superior to the intellect. (3.42)

Thus, knowing the Atma to be superior to the intellect, and controlling the mind by the intellect (that is purified by Jnana), one must kill this mighty enemy, Kaama, O Arjuna. (3.43)

Above clearly speaks of individual atma, who is bound by Kaama

Same example is given Katha upanisad 1.3.10/11
“Beyond the sense organs are the objects of sense. Beyond them is the mind. Beyond it is the brain or intuition. Beyond that is the great soul .

“Beyond that great soul is the unmanifest divine. Beyond that is the Purusha (the all knowing and all pervading Atma). There is nothing beyond the Purusha. That is the end. That is the supreme.”

Upanisad also speaks of two birds on the tree one is enjoying the fruit and the other who is a witness.

In Gita chapter 15 Krishna further explains
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

Jiva in the body is My eternal indivisible fragment indeed. Gets bound (or attached, and is called Jeevaatma) due to superimposition or association with the six sensory faculties, including the mind, of perception. (15.07)

Of course my friend Atanu ji will remind me that the Eko Atma is indivisible.

Jai Shree Krishna


Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Advaita scripture teaches "No one is ignorant and no one is seeking Moksha". This seems impossible and since this is Gaudapada Karika, so it is not digestible to many. But the following should be digestible:

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.

--------------------------

Though we keep saying "I am not the body" etc., but for all practical purpose we associate and firmly associate the intelligence of "I am" with inert matter only.

Once this association of "I am" with inert matter such as body or mind is completely effaced, only the Brahman will be known to exist. Then and only then it may be clear that there indeed is no individual who is ignorant and seeking Moksha.

Hope the above explanation clarifies a bit more.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Onkara]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Advaita scripture teaches "No one is ignorant and no one is seeking Moksha". This seems impossible and since this is Gaudapada Karika, so it is not digestible to many. But the following should be digestible:

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.

--------------------------

Though we keep saying "I am not the body" etc., but for all practical purpose we associate and firmly associate the intelligence of "I am" with inert matter only.

Once this association of "I am" with inert matter such as body or mind is completely effaced, only the Brahman will be known to exist. Then and only then it may be clear that there indeed is no individual who is ignorant and seeking Moksha.

Hope the above explanation clarifies a bit more.

Om Namah Shivaya

This is very good. Thank you, Atanu.

I have a question based on a thought which follows from my understanding of your post. I would be grateful for a reply.

To elaborate further, when I know that I am not the body (or about to know) I ask myself, why does the body exist, what is its purpose? The answer is that it exists to experience the world through its senses.

So I will then know that it is through the body that I experience the world, which is Brahman Itself. There just appears to be many (bodies), due to ignorance (and Maya) when All is in fact Brahman.

Question: Is this or a similar explanation above of the reason for the body in the scriptures i.e Upanishads or Bhagavad-Gita, please? Perhaps this answer is not Traditional Advaita which I offer above. I would be pleased to know and be corrected.

Yours respectfully, Snip.

PS: This is my first post, I have done searches here and read posts so have replied, if you feel this is covered in another post which I may have missed then I am happy to be direct to it.

[Khatri]

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance,
--------------------------
Om Namah Shivaya

Where does this darkness of ignorance sit? What is its source? Is the source Brahman?

[atanu]

Where does this darkness of ignorance sit? What is its source? Is the source Brahman?

Namaste Khatri,

Where does the beginningless karma reside?

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

To elaborate further, when I know that I am not the body (or about to know) I ask myself, why does the body exist, what is its purpose? The answer is that it exists to experience the world through its senses.

So I will then know that it is through the body that I experience the world, which is Brahman Itself. There just appears to be many (bodies), due to ignorance (and Maya) when All is in fact Brahman.

Question: Is this or a similar explanation above of the reason for the body in the scriptures i.e Upanishads or Bhagavad-Gita, please? Perhaps this answer is not Traditional Advaita which I offer above. I would be pleased to know and be corrected.




Namaste snip,

I think your understanding is more or less alligned with Advaita Vedanta, which holds that desire is the beginning of creation and ignorance of another fuels the desire. This has support in Brihadaraynaka Upanishad and Satapatha Brahmana. However, Svet. Upanishad holds the reason to be secret. Some Gurus say that as the eye cannot see itself without a mirror, Brahman also needs a mirror. This also has support in Braihadaraynaka Upanishad, which says that this world is honey for Brahman. All beings are honey for Him and to each other.

Whatever be the cause or non-cause, the important thing, IMO, is that it is one existence.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Khatri]

Hello atanu,


Namaste Khatri,

Where does the beginningless karma reside?

Om Namah Shivaya

I don't know.
Are you saying that ignorance resides outside of Brahman and is beginningless? So then in actuality there are two entities: Brahman and ignorance?

[bhaktajan]

Atanu is so poetic!!! [below is yet another rhetorical question]:

"Where does the beginningless karma reside?"

Is that the same as asking, "Where does the beginningless avidya reside?"

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by atanu http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=33263#post33263)
"No one is ignorant and no one is seeking Moksha". This seems impossible and since this is Gaudapada Karika, so it is not digestible to many. But the following should be digestible:

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.


In-regards to: What is the difference between "there is neither being nor non-being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists."

What is the difference between "being & non-being" vs. "Exist & non-exist"?

Also, If Atanu & Bhaktajan, live and are distined to re-births since time immemorial until the end of time ---why is the Source of Souls not considered an Absolute non-changing Person, in contradistinction from the Jiva-atams' plight? Since it is written in the Vedas as such.

[atanu]

Hello atanu,
I don't know.
Are you saying that ignorance resides outside of Brahman and is beginningless? So then in actuality there are two entities: Brahman and ignorance?

Namaste Khatri,

That is why I asked "Where beginningless karma reside?". Is karma one entity and Brahman another? Shri Krishna teaches "Arjuna you are not the doer". Yet, we know that karma is beginningless. The questions are different from Jnani's vantage and from our vantage. And answers will never be comprehensible from our view.

For example, when in a dream dinner does anyone know that the cake one is eating is made up of consciousness?

Om Namah Shivaya

[Khatri]

Hello atanu,


Namaste Khatri,

That is why I asked "Where beginningless karma reside?". Is karma one entity and Brahman another? Om Namah Shivaya

I don't know about karma and Brahman but I was asking about the source of ignorance.

What's the source of ignorance? Does ignorance reside in Brahman or outside it?

[bhaktajan]

unata,

What's the source of ignorance? Does ignorance reside in Brahman or outside it?

Also, If Atanu & Bhaktajan, live and are distined to re-births since time immemorial until the end of time ---why is the Source of Souls not considered an Absolute non-changing Person, in contradistinction to ignorance?

[atanu]

Hello atanu,
I don't know about karma and Brahman but I was asking about the source of ignorance.

Namaste,

I request you to answer my query: Is karma one entity and Brahman another? VA holds that karma is beginningless. Since Jivas constitute the body of Brahman and Jivas are not independent, then who is responsible for karma -- such as rape, war, murder etc.?

I have already answered my part from:

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.


Om Namah Shivaya

[Khatri]

Namaste,


Namaste,

I request you to answer my query as well: Is karma one entity and Brahman another?

Om Namah Shivaya

Like I said, I don't know.

Your quote of svet. raised a number of questions in mind. Where does ignorance come from? What is its source? Does it exist separate from Brahman? Looks like you don't know the answer to these questions either.
Thanks for the discussion.

[Khatri]

Namaste,

I request you to answer my query: Is karma one entity and Brahman another? VA holds that karma is beginningless. Since Jivas constitute the body of Brahman and Jivas are not independent, then who is responsible for karma -- such as rape, war, murder etc.?


Sorry, I don't know what is VA.



I have already answered my part from:

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.


Om Namah Shivaya

This is the quote that raised questions in my mind.
'"When" there is no darkness of ignorance' implies that there is sometimes darkness of ignorance.

What's the source of this darkness of ignorance?

Brahman exists when there is no darkness of ignorance implies that Brahman does not exist when there is darkness of ignorance.

[atanu]

Namaste,
Your quote of svet. raised a number of questions in mind. Where does ignorance come from? What is its source? Does it exist separate from Brahman? Looks like you don't know the answer to these questions either.
Thanks for the discussion.

Namaste,

How can I know? I do not know the next moment and I do not remember beyond recent past. How can I know wherefrom avidya?

Also neither Shankara defined the nature of Avidya nor Ramanuja defined the source of karma. But Svet. Upanishad indeed says that vidyAvidya is rooted in the highest Brahman. vidyAvidya is Sarvesvara to clear minded and deep dark sleep to dark minded.


But, why does one want to enquire into falsity, when one knows that in truth, only Brahman exists? Why does one enquire after that which is not True? Why does not one see the Vidya in vidyAvidya?

Om Namah Shivaya

[bhaktajan]

Oh unata,

How can I know?* I do not know the next moment and I do not remember beyond recent past.--[?] How can I know wherefrom avidya?*

*Veda-mata spoke of all such things.
Looks like it's Time for the prodigal son to return the earliest favors, as every good putra is expected to.

[atanu]

Namaste,

Like I said, I don't know.

Your quote of svet. raised a number of questions in mind. Where does ignorance come from? What is its source? Does it exist separate from Brahman? Looks like you don't know the answer to these questions either.
Thanks for the discussion.

Namaste Khatri,

On the other hand, if you wish sincerely, contemplation on the question "Who has the ignorance?", in the light of the following will show you the answer.

Svet. Upanishad 4. 18

When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
------------------------
It is not possible appease a dream hunger by a bread from the waking time. And from within dream, it is not possible to asceratain the nature of the dream bread.

Thanks for the deep question.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Devotee ji



Yes, that is a valid question. This has been explained as : It is the nature of the Atman which is though One but appears as many in waking & dreaming states ... like the many waves in the same ocean.




I am afraid this does not satisfy me, as I understand eko Atma is sat chit anand under no circumstance it can be deluded, non of the states can affect the paramAtma.

Unlike the waves(I ack. It is nice example) we are talking of sentient beings who are conscious, who is deluded who is seeking Mukti from the real pain and suffering that we all feel. Athato Brahma Jijnasa. Therafter(now) Therefore an enquiry into Brahman. ....

Brahman is not deluded to seek itself, so question remains who is deluded?



In the whole BG, the Atman is always expressed in singular number & never in plural. Why ? BhUtas (beings) have been used in plural but not the Atman. Moreover, let's see these verses from BG :

Here I have no problem since it is not proving anything, besides Krishna is explaining Gita to Arjun, a singular person so not surprised if singular term is used and then when he takes off Bhutas, the sentient being, that it is enough for me, the acknowledgement that there is more then one being. Just as if someone take a dip in ocean one would see a lot of variegated life form. And Lord Krishna explains this in chapter nine.

By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.9.4



"AvInashi to tadviddhi yen sarvam idam Tatam" (2.17)====> This AvinAshi is used in singular number here too. So, AvInashi is one.
"Nitya sarvagatah sthanurachaloayam sanAtanah" (2.24)===> These are the qualities used for Atman. "Sarvagatah" means which is present everywhere. Unless it is One only, how every Atman be present everywhere at the same time ?

I think we are all getting carried away starting with a base then we try fit everything accordingly, to my simple mind the whole topic of chapter two, is about humans, its body which is perishable and the indestructible nature of living force that pervades this body.

Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22)

Weapons do not cut this Atma, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. (2.23)

This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. (2.24)

The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging. Knowing this Atma as such you should not grieve. (2.25)

If you think that this (body) takes birth and dies perpetually, even then, O Arjuna, you should not grieve like this. (2.26)

Because, death is certain for the one who is born, and birth is certain for the one who dies. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable. (2.27)

All beings, O Arjuna, are unmanifest before birth and after death. They are manifest between the birth and the death only. What is there to grieve about? (2.28)

Some look upon this Atma as a wonder, another describes it as wonderful, and others hear of it as a wonder. Even after hearing about it no one actually knows it. (2.29)

O Arjuna, the self that dwells in the body of all (beings) is eternally indestructible. Therefore, you should not mourn for any body. (2.30)
　


"SarvabhutasthamAtmAnam sarvabhUtAni chAtmani l
Eekshate yogyuktAtmA sarvatra samdarshanah" ll 6.29ll
Seeing (same) Atman in all beings & all beings in (same) atman ====> is it possible if there are many Atmans ?

This is not difficult to understand, to see parmAtma in everyone and understanding that everyone reside in it.



"Aham Atman gudakesha sarva bhUtashaya sthitah" ====> I am the Atman in the heart of all beings. ====> Is it possible if Atmans are many ?

Can you quote the verse number please.

ParmAtma is all pervading JivAtma is pervaded what is so difficult to understand.
　


But it is true even if Atman is One. It doesn't change the situation.


Yes it does, for a start the eko Atma you talk about the ParmAtma, is never deluded nor does it have to overcome Kaam.
　


It doesn't say that all are essentially different. If that is true then there will be "sense organs", "mind", "brain", "intuition", "soul", "unmanifest divine" & "Purusha" having independent existence. This talks about the presence of various levels of relative existence within Prakriti.

What I am seeing in those statement a clear differential between us bonded being and the supreme Brahman, we owe our minute independence from that supreme, we reside within him/her.

What you are suggesting is that brahman has those relative existence and thus suggesting that sat chit ananda is under the influence of avidhya at certain levels.
　
　


Yes, it does create confusion to some extent & so does this verse from BG :
"Dwavimau purushau loke khsarashchakshar eva cha" (BG 15.16) which talks about two purushas. However there cannot be two Purushas in essence otherwise it would refute the Upanishads & BG in other places.


I can not dispute what Krishna is saying doing so would be tantamount to saying he is wrong, beside my understanding of the verse is slightly different but that besides the point Lord Krishna further says and I quote

uttamah purusas tv anyah
paramatmety udahrtah
yo loka-trayam avisya
bibharty avyaya isvarah

Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Lord Himself, who has entered into these worlds and is maintaining them.



"Avibhaktam cha bhUteshu vibhaktamIva cha sthitam l
BhUtabhartri cha tajgyeyam grasishnu cha prabhavishnu cha ll BG 13. 16ll
The above verse clarifies in no uncertain terms that the One appears as many and that itself is the creator, the sustainer & the destroyer.
While I respect your realisation where does it say he appears as many?

This is one translation that I read I am sure there are others and I quote

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.16)
I think it is clear, no need for me to elaborate.
　


See this verse :
"UpdrashtanumantA cha bhartA bhoktA maheshwarah l
paramatmeti chApuykto dehesmin purushah parah :" ll BG 13. 22ll
In this body this Purush is none but Atman itself & that is the witness, sustainer, "enjoyer" and the supreme God.

Previous verse speak of

The Prakriti is said to be the cause of production of physical body and organs (of perception and action). The Purusha (or the consciousness) is said to be the cause of experiencing pleasures and pains. (13.20)

The Purusha associating with Prakriti (or matter), enjoys the Gunas of Prakriti. Attachment to the Gunas (due to ignorance caused by previous Karma) is the cause of the birth of Jeevaatma in good and evil wombs.

So it is clear there is two entity in this body the small self and the ParmAtma who is the witness just as the two birds on the tree.
　
　
　

　
　


Jiva in the body is My eternal indivisible fragment indeed. Gets bound (or attached, and is called Jeevaatma) due to superimposition or association with the six sensory faculties, including the mind, of perception. (15.07)

If it is taken literally, then this whole creation is just God broken into infinite pieces into infinite beings ===> then God becomes divisible. Then it cannot remain "same" whole. God will be only a chunk of original God (before creation) & there is a chance that God becomes zero at some point of time !

For this I will quote only this
oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate



This dilemma is removed only on understanding Advaita nature of Atman.

Atman has no dilemma so whose upadhi is this?

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji


Advaita scripture teaches "No one is ignorant and no one is seeking Moksha". This seems impossible and since this is Gaudapada Karika, so it is not digestible to many. But the following should be digestible:





Svet. Upanishad 4. 18
When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman (Sadashiva) alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.

I find above statements contradictive somewhat

On one hand no one is ignorant and no one is seeking Moksha on the other hand when there is no darkness of ignorance,
suggest to me there is darkness of ignorance at some point.
　


Though we keep saying "I am not the body" etc., but for all practical purpose we associate and firmly associate the intelligence of "I am" with inert matter only.

That I agree, we are so entangled with this body it is a challenge, most advance yogi would find difficult to overcome. This is the avidhiya of the self, call what you like this self is real and it is it’s upadhi as to who am I?

now tell me can Brahman ever be in this sorry state?



Once this association of "I am" with inert matter such as body or mind is completely effaced, only the Brahman will be known to exist. Then and only then it may be clear that there indeed is no individual who is ignorant and seeking Moksha
　
Hope the above explanation clarifies a bit more. .

It seems that this inert matter is having a big influence on this “I AM”

Jai Shree Krishna

[Khatri]

Hi Atanu,

What's the source of the ignorance? Where does it sit? Does it sit in Brahman? or Does it reside outside of Brhaman?

We can leave other matters of shankara, VA, ramanuja, karma, contemplation on who has ignorance etc. for another thread. For now, I am trying to understand What exactly is the source of ignorance.

Sorry, my questions were not to attack your worldview but to gain more understanding of the quote you provided. Looks like you haven't thought about this question or are satisfied just knowing that since shankara didn't answer it and since ramanuja does't answer the karma question that it is okay not to enquire about the source of ignorance.

[atanu]

Hi Atanu,

What's the source of the ignorance? Where does it sit? Does it sit in Brahman? or Does it reside outside of Brhaman?



Namaste Khatri,

I think, I have been specific. If it is not clear then it is my fault. vidyAvidya is the nature or a state of Brahman alone, as there is no second. Some minds polarise vidyAvidya into avidya and some minds do not interpret and remain merely the Seer.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Onkara]

Thank you Atanu for your earlier reply. I am humbled by your refined intellect!
Your answer to ignorance has been specific (for me).

Ignorance exists in Brahman - All exists in Brahman. I would like to add a little from my experience in hope it helps.

Ignorance can be approached by the aspirant as that missing information which is stopping us from knowing Brahman. Ignorance (avidya) is not a thing, like a disease, it does not exist accept as a way of explaining that we still have something to understand. Like the word “space” we know it exists but we cannot physically grasp space, a child has to come to understand what “space” is in their own time. This is why the aspirant must to study and contemplate the scriptures and mediate.

In my experience I believe it to be detrimental if the aspirant at the early stage of investigation is left feeling that there is a riddle which must be solved. This sensation is perhaps unavoidable in the beginning so the initial and most important part is to study and contemplate the scriptures and mediate. The aspirant, in my opinion must recognise that they are learning ideas and information to help them to know, these are ideas which can be left to one side when Brahman is known. Brahman will show Itself when the aspirant reaches that stage (of grace).

When the aspirant reaches a point where they have studied enough, they will then know Brahman as Knowledge Absolute and themselves as Brahman.

This is my above experience; I need to return to study to confirm what conforms above as traditional Advatia Vedanta. In fact this fine tuning of the origin of ideas is along the lines of what I am trying to confirm for myself by participating on this forum and I would welcome input and guidance.

Kind regards, Snip

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
On one hand no one is ignorant and no one is seeking Moksha on the other hand when there is no darkness of ignorance,
suggest to me there is darkness of ignorance at some point.

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Khatri and me had a discussion on this.Darkness of ignorance covers the mind, when it is immersed in desires, which makes Pragnya mold as per the desires.


That I agree, we are so entangled with this body it is a challenge, most advance yogi would find difficult to overcome. This is the avidhiya of the self, call what you like this self is real and it is it’s upadhi as to who am I?
now tell me can Brahman ever be in this sorry state?

It seems that this inert matter is having a big influence on this “I AM”

Jai Shree Krishna

You are correct when you say " It seems that this inert matter is having a big influence on this “I AM”". Bhagwan Shri Krishna also says: "Indivisible but apparently divided in bodies ---".

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanuji


Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Khatri and me had a discussion on this.Darkness of ignorance covers the mind, when it is immersed in desires, which makes Pragnya mold as per the desires.

Yes i noticed that, it is good to know i am not the only one having this doubts.
Still your statement does not answer my question and every new answers brings fresh queries.

The mind is inert, it does not desire, the living force(call this what ever name) desires, mind is not subject to karma, so who is this that is in ignorance?




You are correct when you say " It seems that this inert matter is having a big influence on this “I AM”". Bhagwan Shri Krishna also says: "Indivisible but apparently divided in bodies ---".

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Are you accepting that the matter is higher force?

Besides how is this related to as what Bhagwan Shri Krishna is saying.
this avidhya is not off the dead matter but the sentient being, that is what i am saying.

Jai Shree Krishna

[bhaktajan]

Is "IGNORANCE" an absolute?

Is "avidya" an absolute?

Is "sambhutimcavinasha" an absolute?

[devotee]

Namaste all,

I think there is a problem in accepting that Avidya originates from Brahman itself. I shall quote the following verse from Svetasvatara Upanishad :

Svet. V-1: Ignorance leads to the perishable. Wisdom leads to immortality. Entirely different from these is he, the imperishable, infinite, secret, Supreme Brahman, in whom exists wisdom as well as ignorance, and who governs them both.

May be that helps.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

First of all, please accept my limitations & understand that I cannot explain Ataman to you or anyone ( as it requires authority -- Katha Up.). I am trying you to explain how I understood it and my be that helps.



I am afraid this does not satisfy me, as I understand eko Atma is sat chit anand under no circumstance it can be deluded, non of the states can affect the paramAtma.

Atman is eko, no doubt. But is has four parts/states. The three states have only relative existence as stated in Mandukya Upanishad. There is delusion in the first two states though in fact there is no one who is deluded. The individuality is because of delusion ... it has no absolute existence.


Brahman is not deluded to seek itself, so question remains who is deluded?

No One.


Here I have no problem since it is not proving anything

It proves but we must contemplate on each word carefully. Let's take a model of duality i.e. There is Supreme God & there are many beings each having an eternal, imperishable JivAtmA & Supreme God pervading the entirety. Let's also keep in mind that Lord Krishna wants to explain to Arjuna that no one is really dying & that there is no point in grieving over "death" of anyone.

Now, verse 2.16 to verse 2.30 is focussed on explaining the above.

2.17 : He talks of the Avinashi (the imperishable) which pervades the entire universe. ====> If he is really trying to say that the JIvAtma is AvinAshi, then it would to conclusion that JivAtma pervades the entire universe !

2.20 : He says that this Atman doesn't take birth & doesn't die. ====> If he is talking about Jivatma, then it would conclude that JivAtma has independent origin !

2.24 : He mentions that this Atman is nityah, Sarvagatah, SthAnuh & Achal ====> If he is talking about Jivatma, then JiVatma becomes all pervading & non-moving !

Let's keep in mind that Bhagwan knows what he is talking about & he won't even a single word without fully knowing its implications. There is no superfluous word in what he says. So, it is important to understand the implications of each word that he says otherwise it won't be possible to understand him correctly.


I think we are all getting carried away starting with a base then we try fit everything accordingly, to my simple mind the whole topic of chapter two, is about humans, its body which is perishable and the indestructible nature of living force that pervades this body.

OK. But let's examine this thinking on what he says. If this model passes the test then there is no problem.


Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22)

Weapons do not cut this Atma, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. (2.23)

This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. (2.24)

The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging. Knowing this Atma as such you should not grieve. (2.25)

If you think that this (body) takes birth and dies perpetually, even then, O Arjuna, you should not grieve like this. (2.26)

Because, death is certain for the one who is born, and birth is certain for the one who dies. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable. (2.27)

All beings, O Arjuna, are unmanifest before birth and after death. They are manifest between the birth and the death only. What is there to grieve about? (2.28)

Yes, but is not many Atmas but one only which is apparently perceived as many as the reflection of moon in waters kept in many pots.


Some look upon this Atma as a wonder, another describes it as wonderful, and others hear of it as a wonder. Even after hearing about it no one actually knows it. (2.29)

Doesn't this verse exhorts us to take this concept of Atman more seriously ? The dualistic model is simple. Why say such a verse if that model is valid ?


O Arjuna, the self that dwells in the body of all (beings) is eternally indestructible. Therefore, you should not mourn for any body. (2.30)
　
Correct but that self in essence is Self only.



"Aham Atma gudakeshah sarva bhUtashya sthitah" ----Can you quote the verse number please.

It is 10.20.　

While I respect your realisation where does it say he appears as many?

This is one translation that I read I am sure there are others and I quote

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.16)

If it is undivided it remains One & when it is divided it has to become many.


For this I will quote only this :

I shall post the translation here :

"That is whole; this is whole;
From that whole this whole came;
From that whole, this whole removed,
What remains is whole."

This is a wonderful quote because if this is understood then there is no need to read any scripture at all !

Let's analyse this verse :

What can really be called PUrnam ? It doesn't talk about PUrna person or a thing. It talks about PUrnam which makes it not limited to any object. This PUrnam must encompass everything otherwise it can't remain pUrnam. There can't be anything outside it .... not even space. But it talks about two PUrnams ! If there are two PUrnam then actually none can be PUrnam as a PUrnam cannot allow anything outside it by definition. Now another PUrnam is taken out of the first PUrnam & what remains is again PUrnam ! This is an impossibility unless it happens only apparently ... unless there was One Purnam to begin with ... there are apparently two or many PUrnam apparently coming out of the One PUrnam ... & as this all is happening only apparently ... the One PUrnam remains unaffected.

---------------------------------------

I shall close by quoting these verses from Upanishads :

VI-viii-7: ‘That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even That all this world has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O Svetaketu.’ ----> Chamdogya Upanishad

16. That which is the Supreme Brahman, the soul of all, the great support of the universe, subtler than the subtle, and eternal – that is thyself, and thou art That. -----> Kaivalya Upanishad
17. "That which manifests the phenomena, such as the states of wakefulness, dream and profound sleep, I am that Brahman" – realising thus one is liberated from all bonds. -----> Kaivalya Upanishad

OM

[devotee]

"Om pUrNamadah pUrNamidaM pUrNAt pUrNamudacyate
PUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamEvAvashiSyate"

This opening verse from IsAvAsya Upanishad is extremely wonderful expression of Truth. Swami Dayananda Saraswati has given a wonderful detail explanation of this verse in this link : http://www.advaitin.net/Discussion%20Topics/purnamadah%2520shanti-patha.pdf

[atanu]

Namaste all,

I think there is a problem in accepting that Avidya originates from Brahman itself. I shall quote the following verse from Svetasvatara Upanishad :

Svet. V-1: Ignorance leads to the perishable. Wisdom leads to immortality. Entirely different from these is he, the imperishable, infinite, secret, Supreme Brahman, in whom exists wisdom as well as ignorance, and who governs them both.

May be that helps.

OM

Namaste Devotee,

Exactly and Thank You.

The word used in Svet. Upanishad is vidyAvidya, which is neither vidya nor avidya.

Turya is not touched by avidya or vidya. But the so-called beings, of the vaisvanara state and also possibly of the Tajjassa state perceive the vidyaAvidya (Pragnya Ghana) as dark deep sleep. Only the Jnanis know the Pragnya Ghana VidyAvidya to be Sarvesvara.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Pranam Atanuji
Yes i noticed that, it is good to know i am not the only one having this doubts.

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Devotee has given a detailed answer. Doubts exist because there is superimposition (confusion) about the identity of thinker (who exists only in the waking state) and Atman, which is Truth-Knowledge-Bliss. Doubts will never go when the perception is based on only the waking experience that I am this body-mind and I am deluded.

You surely will ask "Who is this thinker?" There is surely another who is called bhandAsura (the fake demon). Brahman nature is Sat-Chit-Ananda. The fake demons nature is thoughts.

Brahman is not the thinker. Thinker is someone else -- who has existence only in the waking state.

I leave you with a question "Who is the thinker? Where does he go when You are in deep sleep?"

In another way. The outgoing mind sees many waves (beings) but the meditative inward looking mind sees one ocean.

In another way. Purusha has thousand (infinite) heads but Purusha is One.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji devotee ji and all

I thank you for your input, I have traversed this discussion many times unfortunately for me I always hit this stumbling bloke. I keep asking this question, who am I, whose upadhi is this? and I keep saying surely it is not of Brahman, please tell me if I am wrong in presuming this.

Then I ask my self whose karma is it, who is transmigrating from one body to another?

Different levels or the different state I.e waking, dreaming etc does not satisfy me because God is always conscious of all the levels, nor does BnadhAsure as you put it fake demon make any sense to me,by the way does bandhasure mean fake or bonded?
　
I have no desire to change your perceptions of Brahman nor do I claim to know who that is, my desire is to find that from my own sadhna which very little, what I believe is no one can put this on the plate for us, with a little endeavour and his/ her Kripa, we will all realise that which we seek.
Athato Brahma Jijnasa. Therafter(now) Therefore an enquiry into Brahman. ....
I shell now bow out of this discussion for the time being.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji devotee ji and all

I thank you for your input, I have traversed this discussion many times unfortunately for me I always hit this stumbling bloke. I keep asking this question, who am I, whose upadhi is this? and I keep saying surely it is not of Brahman, please tell me if I am wrong in presuming this.

Then I ask my self whose karma is it, who is transmigrating from one body to another?
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad JI,

But these are good questions and at least I am in a no better position than you.

Let the following speak (the following account is of necessity shortened by me and does not reproduce the talk fully).

24th January, 1938
Grant Duff: Bhagawan, two books Maha Yoga and Sat Dharshana Bhasya, both teach your teachings but in opposite ways. The former book is condemned in the latter, which curiously claims that even after destruction of ego, the individuality is retained.

Ramana: What is to be done? The upanishads say: Brahmavid Brahmaiva bhavati (Knower of Brahman beco,mes Brahman). There are more than one Brahmavid at one time. "Are all of them the same? Are they not separate?" So ask some persons. They look to the bodies only. They do not look to the realization. There is no difference in the realization of Brahmavid. That is the truth. But when the question is raised from the standpoint of the body, the reply is necessarily bound to be "Yes, they are different". This is the cause of the confusion.


Though we keep saying "I am not the body" etc., but for all practical purpose we associate and firmly associate the intelligence of "I am" with inert matter only.


The outgoing mind sees many waves (beings) but the meditative inward looking mind sees one ocean.


Regards and Best wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

[Onkara]

Pranam Atanu ji devotee ji and all

I thank you for your input, I have traversed this discussion many times unfortunately for me I always hit this stumbling bloke. I keep asking this question, who am I, whose upadhi is this? and I keep saying surely it is not of Brahman, please tell me if I am wrong in presuming this.


Hi Ganeshprasad
In my experience it is difficult to answer this problem with thoughts and thinking. It is in the nature of the mind to propose questions and answer them with analysis. It can be become like a tiring conundrum. My humble advice, and I am taking a risk to make these assumptions not knowing you well, is to witness the thoughts arising and disapearing in yourself, like clouds passing in the sky. Try not to get caught up with thoughts to solve upadhi or if it is wrong to think of oneself as Brahman. These concepts can be left and investigated at periods you dedicate during the day.

I appreciate this is not a deep philosophical answer but those above are very good and I wish you well.

A small stream can always be traced back to its sauce.
Respectfully, Snip.

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,



I thank you for your input, I have traversed this discussion many times unfortunately for me I always hit this stumbling bloke. I keep asking this question, who am I, whose upadhi is this?

That is a wonderful question & that one constant enquiry can lead to Self-realisation - so says Ramana Maharishi.


and I keep saying surely it is not of Brahman, please tell me if I am wrong in presuming this ? Then I ask my self whose karma is it, who is transmigrating from one body to another?


This is a very serious question & this bugs me too as it bugs you. However, my understanding is this :

Whoever is asking question is in waking state. As long as it remains in waking state, it can't 'experience' one-ness .... that is the nature of the Brahman in the waking state. Now from this waking state we mix the Truth of the Fourth state .... this has to lead one to confusion. Atman has wonderful characteristics ... there is none which can be a model of Atman. So, there is need to be patient & there is a need for a very deep contemplation.

I shall explain with the following everyday experience we have :

Last night in my dream, I saw my brother, my sister, one of my close friends moving in park. My sister wanted to have the beautiful rose from that garden. So, my brother went to get it ... I almost shouted to stop him but he didn't listen & plucked the flower. Then suddenly we heard a cry & saw that a snake has bitten my friend ! etc.etc.

Now let's examine this dream :

Science says that it is the impressions on my mind which creates a dream & it is the mind which writes it & plays this drama for keeping us asleep. Fair enough. Now, there must be a doer, as mind without "I" cannot claim to be the doer. So,
a) it is "I" which writes the dream. It is "I" which decides the roles of everyone in the dream.
b) But there are many "I"s in the whole process. The real writer of the story & role decider is dreaming as a witness & is not really affected by anything happening in the dream. There is another "I" which is a part of the drama being played out & he is affected by whatever is happening within the dream.
c) Then every character has a different "I" of his own. None of the characters behave as per wishes of the "I" who is the writer or even the "I" which is in the dream. Neither the participating "I" of the dream nor the dreamer himself is aware of what the different characters are going to do the next moment. Why ? Just think of it. The sister, the brother & also the snake don't act as per wishes of the dreamer or even the participating "I" in the dream. Why & How ?
d) Now, who are those characters in essence having different 'I's ? Whose "I"s the other characters are using ? i.e. what is the 'I' which is there in the sister or the brother, the friend or the snake ? There is no other "I" except the "I" of the dreamer. So, there can't be anyone except the dreamer himself. So, what is happening ? The one "I" of the dreamer acts as many "I"s in the dream apparently acting independently each one having a completely different identity & role. How has this been possible ?

I don't how this has been possible because this defies any logic we have from our experience within this waking state. But this seemingly impossible is actually possible & there is no doubt about it because we have experienced it.

That is the wonderful characteristics of Atman. It is unique ... there is none in this world which can be compared with it. That is why it is called, "Achintya" ... you can't even have a thought of it which can describe it.

Atman is one. He is the individual self in the waking & the dreaming states when the reality is not perceived. He is the Lord/Bhagwan in the third state which is the origin & end of all beings in the first two states. But in reality this indescribable untainted Atman is what it is in the fourth state which can be described only through negation.

May be it helps even if a little.

Pranam & best wishes ....

OM

[chandu_69]

In my experience it is difficult to answer this problem with thoughts and thinking

From his posts and his scholarly command over scriptures

ganeshprasad ji didnt appear to suffer from any difficulties.His posts are lucid , and to the point with scriptural references and clarify and remove any confusions.

When he said


many times unfortunately for me I always hit this stumbling block...

The stumblimg block he was referring to is, his reluctance to further demolish confused thoughts.

I dont want to write anything more in this thread.

[atanu]

From his posts and his scholarly command over scriptures ganeshprasad ji didnt appear to suffer from any difficulties.His posts are lucid , and to the point with scriptural references and clarify and remove any confusions.


Namaste chandu

I agree.



When he said: The stumblimg block he was referring to is, his reluctance to further demolish confused thoughts.

I know Ganeshprasad Ji for more than 4 years. I am sure he is above finding confusion in others.

There is no demolition of the understanding that knowing of advaita Atman Brahman has to be as advaita and as Atman. There is no demolition of the understanding that knowing of indivisible Brahman, which resides in every heart, cannot be accomplished by a part in khanda (divided) mode.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Om
Aitareya Upanishad
III-i-2: It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of mind, retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-activities, hankering, passion and such others. All these verily are the names of Consciousness.


III-i-3: This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), together with the small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs – to wit, those that are born of eggs, of wombs, of moisture of the earth, viz. horses, cattle, men, elephants, and all the creatures that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.


III-i-4: Through this Self that is Consciousness, he ascended higher up from this world, and getting all desires fulfilled in that heavenly world, he became immortal, he became immortal.
-----------------------------
My brother who is a physicist tells me "Brother, in reality there are no discrete particles such as protons or electrons. But there are probability fields."


Actually there is no discrete being separate from all other beings. All this is consciousness and numerous kinds of fields (khetra) within consciousness. Consciousness is akin to an unlimited ocean. Ishwara field abides with consciousness as the full; and being full, it has no desire. Ishwara is also khetra jnani -- the knower of all fields.


There are many other fields with varying vasanas within consciousness abiding at various locations. For example, at the crest of a wave, looking at bigger waves and fearing; or at the juncture of ocean and the rising wave and not knowing which way to go.


Only when the consciousness abides as pure consciousness, without becoming something else, the indesructible advaita will be clearly known.


Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Om

Aitareya Upanishad
III-i-2: It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of mind, retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, mental suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-activities, hankering, passion and such others. All these verily are the names of Consciousness.


III-i-3: This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), together with the small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs – to wit, those that are born of eggs, of wombs, of moisture of the earth, viz. horses, cattle, men, elephants, and all the creatures that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.


III-i-4: Through this Self that is Consciousness, he ascended higher up from this world, and getting all desires fulfilled in that heavenly world, he became immortal, he became immortal.
-----------------------------
My brother who is a physicist tells me "Brother, in reality there are no discrete particles such as protons or electrons. But there are probability fields."


Actually there is no discrete being separate from all other beings. All this is consciousness and numerous kinds of fields (khetra) within consciousness. Consciousness is akin to an unlimited ocean. Ishwara field abides with consciousness as the full; and being full, it has no desire. Ishwara is also khetra jnani -- the knower of all fields.


There are many other fields with varying vasanas with consciousness abiding at various locations. For example, at the crest of a wave, looking at bigger waves and fearing; or at the juncture of ocean and the rising wave and not knowing which way to go.


Only when the consciousness abides as pure consciousness, without becoming something else, the indesructible advaita will be clearly known.



Om Namah Shivaya


And on close contemplation of the above, the reason why a sadhaka should submit only to the highest and the fullest will be clear. No consciousness field, except that of Mahesvara, who is able to drink the vilest of poison for the sake of all, is free from pride, jealousy or insecurity.

The inhabitants of these lower fields will not leave the sadhaka in full peace.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

RV HYMN LVII. Ksetrapati (Trans. Griffith)

1. We through the Master of the Field, even as through a friend, obtain What nourisheth our kine and steeds. In such may he be good to us.

2 As the cow yieldeth milk, pour for us freely, Lord of the Field, the wave that beareth sweetness, Distilling meath, well-purified like butter, and let the Lords of holy Law be gracious.

3 Sweet be the plants for us. The heavens, the waters, and full of sweets for us be air's mid-region. May the Field's Lord for us be full of sweetness, and may we follow after him uninjured.

4 Happily work our steers and men, may the plough furrow happily. Happily be the traces bound; happily may he ply the goad.

5 Suna and Sira, welcome ye this laud, and with the milk which ye have made in heaven Bedew ye both this earth of ours.

6 Auspicious Sita, come thou near: we venerate and worship thee That thou mayst bless and prosper us and bring us fruits abundantly.

7 May Indra press the furrow down, may Pusan guide its course aright. May she, as rich in milk, be drained for us through each succeeding year.

8 Happily let the shares turn up the ploughland, happily go the ploughers with the oxen. With meath and milk Parjanya make us happy. Grant us prosperity, Suna and Sira.

Om Namah Shivaya

[brahman]

नारायण नारायण










ॐ

[kd gupta]

Where does this darkness of ignorance sit? What is its source? Is the source Brahman?

Namaste Khatriji
Brahmanji of this forum has told that it is better to contact trainees than to contact the chiefs.
Atma and individual soul are the same.
Ignorance resides in intelligence of the body and not in Brahma [ parmatma ] , and not in jivatma also.
Goswamiji has written that Ignorance also resides in deluded mind, which is away from the attraction of proper shruti knowledge.
Deepshikha sam juwati tan man jan hosi patang.
Ramcharitmanas is in Awadhi language so I translate it as..
O my deluded mind, do not be the insect towards[ tan ]the flame [ juwati ] of the burning lamp [ deepshikha ] .

[atanu]

Pranam Devotee ji

Atman has no dilemma so whose upadhi is this?

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste ganeshprasad ji,

I think, there is some confusion regarding Atman and 'man' (mind)'. Although, I know that this dillemma cannot be resolved until experiencing the distinction between the Mind (which knows and thinks) and the Atman (which is the source of the mind and which is mere Existence-Intelligence-Bliss but yet not a knower and thinker; there is a reason why Shiva is bholenath and Vishnu is smart).

But let me try.

From the same Atman arises the Mind that is Isa (bird which does not eat anything) and another restless mind, whose name is craving, Jiva -- the darting toungue of fire. Jiva and Isa are different, yet they are both nothing but Atman. This much only is advaita, which never proclaims that Isa and Jiva are the same. It only says that the Atman-Brahman is without a second.

Some confusion also arises because most (vaisnavas) pay great importance towards rulership and thus confuse Atman with Prajapatis. Prajapatis and we poor jivas have same Atman, but hugely different functionalities. The Self is not the ruler directly.

Isa Upanishad

8. That (Self) is all-pervading, radiant, bodiless, soreless, without sinews, pure, untainted by sin, the all-seer, the lord of the mind, transcendent and self-existent. That (Self) did allot in proper order to the eternal Prajapatis known as samvalsara (year) their duties.

Om Namah Shivaya

[DavidC]

Namaste DavidC,

You can read the above in the accesstoinsight site.

As repeated several times, AtmAn is 'that wherefrom rises the mind' or 'thence the mind' or 'herefrom the mind'. Atman gives rise to mind and the lifeforce. Lifeforce ever remains singular one. But the mind, which is one to begin with, wills many minds. Souls are such many minds.

The power of awareness is not inherent in these minds. Atman never takes birth though it appears to do so. Thus:

“There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed.” (Buddha, "Udana 8.1 -8.3")

is not different from the knowledge of AtmAn in essence.

However, one may note that the word AtmAn by its meaning: at and man, reveals much more than any scripture can.

One simply has to trace the origin of of one's thoughts, which comprise the mind. That only is the goal. All flowery scripture is to attract devotees and keep them engaged for sometime.

Om Namah Shivaya

Om Shanti, Atanu,

I have printed out some stuff at Access to Insight and have looked at part of Udana, though I think there is no one complete version there. I agree with you, though I would also call buddhi the soul or mind, because it is based on atma(n,) which is universal and not so individual. However, soul is also any/all consciousness and your argument to trace thoughts is the same as mine would be.

What Buddhists that deny atma-buddhi rely on is manas-rupa. That is interesting it is the lower mind, but I think if I tried to discuss this again they would try to change definitions and be absolutist deniers, though they admit they should not do that because of the tetralemma and going beyond it. They think going beyond it just has to do with the tetralemma part 'not true' and by going beyond they can just say 'not true because beyond tetralemma is relativism and so everything is not true.'

I think the problem is also they are too wrapped up in worldly existence/consciousness. They think everything has to be intellectual. However, if it is true that Tibetan tulkus and the way of finding reincarnations does not rely solely on the intellect then the intellectual Buddhists are wrong. I guess Theravadins have some arguments for intellectualism, some Mahayanis do not really care, and some Vajrayana followers think there is no purpose for it. They do not understand swabhavakaya or its kayas.

I may have only ever realized the mind, though to the extent I know it is (conditionally) eternal. I may be smart/'spirtual' but have never seen any evidence for spirit other than mental luminescence that shows consciousness (spirit) is eternal. That makes spirit reasonable even though I never had siddhis. I saw it is a fact siddhis could work from the undifferentiated consciousness, but maybe even that does not prove spirit. The only thing is if there was a being beyond human. Maybe Buddhists would just say that is a being like a human but it just has siddhis.

I think the best explanation is that infinite dimensions can exist, and since that is true they must or the idea would not be in a dimension that had the property of induction (towards infinity) within thought. Then materiality is three-dimensional and either the prana, manas, or atma is in four dimensions, and beyond are more dimensions ad infinitum. Mathematics does not have such an in-depth tradition in the East, so Westerners that learn Eastern Philosophy often ignore part of Western culture. I think if a Buddhist monastic learned Western math like geometry/dimensions/physics they would agree on this.

atma-buddhi · spirit-soul; jiva (individual soul)
kaya · vesture of a Buddha
manas-rupa · mind-form; manas and mind of forms
swabhavakaya · consciousness vesture of a Buddha

[atanu]

Om Shanti, Atanu,

I have printed out some stuff at Access to Insight and have looked at part of Udana, though I think there is no one complete version there. I agree with you, though I would also call buddhi the soul or mind, because it is based on atma(n,) which is universal and not so individual. However, soul is also any/all consciousness and your argument to trace thoughts is the same.

What Buddhists that deny atma-buddhi rely on is manas-rupa. That is interesting it is the lower mind, but I think if I tried to discuss this again they would try to change definitions and be absolutist deniers, though they admit they should not do that because of the tetralemma and going beyond it. They think going beyond it just has to do with the tetralemma part 'not true' and by going beyond they can just say 'not true because beyond tetralemma is relativism and so everything is not true.'

I think the problem is also they are too wrapped up in worldly existence/consciousness. They think everything has to be intellectual. However, if it is true that Tibetan tulkus and the way of finding reincarnations does not rely solely on the intellect then the intellectual Buddhists are wrong. I guess Theravadins have some arguments for intellectualism, some Mahayanis do not really care, and some Vajrayana followers think there is no purpose for it. They do not understand swabhavakaya or its kayas.

I may have only ever realized the mind, though to the extent I know it is (conditionally) eternal. I may be smart/'spirtual' but have never seen any evidence for spirit other than mental luminescence that shows consciousness (spirit) is eternal. That makes spirit reasonable even though I never had siddhis. I saw it is a fact siddhis could work from the undifferentiated consciousness, but maybe even that does not prove spirit. The only thing is if there was a being beyond human. Maybe Buddhists would just say that is a being like a human but it just has siddhis.

I think the best explanation is that infinite dimensions can exist, and since that is true they must or the idea would not be in a dimension that had the property of induction (towards infinity) within thought. Then materiality is three-dimensional and either the prana, manas, or atma is in four dimensions, and beyond are more dimensions ad infinitum. Mathematics does not have such an in-depth tradition in the East, so Westerners that learn Eastern Philosophy often ignore part of Western culture. I think if a Buddhist monastic learned Western math like geometry/dimensions/physics they would agree on this.

Thank you DavidC,

Thanks and regards for your scholarly post. Sanatana Dharma has a simple solution Neti-Neti. Anything perceivable, inferrable, or speakable is not the beginingless truth.

Om Namah Shivaya

[DavidC]

Thanks and regards for your scholarly post. Sanatana Dharma has a simple solution Neti-Neti. Anything perceivable, inferrable, or speakable is not the beginingless truth.[...]

Om Shanti, Atanu,

So, neti-neti also refers to the Udana quote about the unborn atma?

I guess dimensions are inferrable, but so is atma, though one can also call both beginningless. Actually in pralaya atma is not manifest, right? Never mind, I guess that does not matter--since I guess it is still there. Dimensions would also have to be there, since they are abstract. Saying you can infer them is sort of a weird thing, because they are an idea that has to do with the universe whether someone infers it or not. So, I am wondering if anyone else thinks dimensions are a useful idea.

I guess some Buddhists might say there is a problem that atma is in a finite dimension--or they might say it is a problem that there are infinite ones. Perhaps they would be right if there is a problem you can only perceive finite ones, but it seems after the mind, atma and Adi would have to have infinite dimensions. So, neti-neti also helps if you cannot perceive those, because atma even on its lowest dimension is unborn. Advaita helps me clear up these ideas.

adi · 'first,' particularly the first loka (world--plane) in the universe
atma · spirit
pralaya · dissolution or when something such as the universe does not exist

[atanu]

Om Shanti, Atanu,

So, neti-neti also refers to the Udana quote about the unborn atma?

I guess dimensions are inferrable, but so is atma, though one can also call it beginningless. ------

Namaste DavidC,

This is a bit tricky. Before anything can be inferred, the one who will infer is a pre-requisite. And before inferring, THAT ONE must proclaim "I am". So, the birth happens.

I suppose, that without experiencing Samadhi, all this remains inference. It is useful yet not the revealer of the unborn. Only, the Samadhi is.

Om

[smaranam]

Namasté

regarding ātman & individual soul

I wonder if there are any opinions on this matter. Many times people think of 'soul' as that life force in us , the animating principle.

For some such as the Sāṅkhya-s ( the ones following the Sāṅkhya¹ philosophy/darśana of the muni Kapila) consider the soul
person-by-person adding up to many Selfs on this good earth.

Another view is that of an ātman that pervades all - ātatam आतत or that which spreads, extended or stretched. But what does it pervade ? - all śarīra. This śarīra शरीर means body, but also means 'that which is easily destroyed or dissolved' .

No doubt our body meets this definition, yet it also can apply to all forms of 'bodies' on this earth and in creation ( as I see it) not just the family of man.

This ātman आत्मन् in the kaṭha upaniṣad is considered the Imperishable , the best abode and is considered the substance that pervades (ātatam). The 20th śloka or vallī of the 2nd adhyāya (chapter) says the following:

Smaller then the smallest and greater then the greatest the ātman abides hidingly in all beings (jantu¹).

So we have life force that animates and brings life, we have individual SELFs, and we have this one Universal Self…

Any opinions on this ?



Namaste

QN: Whose Upadhi is it ?

Advaita Ans: The one who vanishes into thin air (ceases to exist) as soon as this qn gets answered !
The circle that keeps shrinking till it reaches its centre (Paramatma = circle with radius of zero implying no material qualities)
The fruit-eater bird that flew away , ashamed at its own existence as compared to the one of the witnessing bird.... as the witnessing bird looks on...


Dvaita Ans: The jiva-ray of the Brahman-Sun. Here, what state of consciousness is the ray in ? Can the rays of the Sun tell themselves from other rays ?
If her consciousness is Aham Brahmasmi, then its clearly the awareness of being the omniscient Brahman'. The ray has all the properties , qualities of the Sun, , same frequencies, same all, hence shares the Ananda of the Sun, blends with the whole Sun, not 'her self' anymore.
OR
She can see just herself and the Whole Sun and not be aware of any other rays.

-----------

The Abolute Truth is ONE without a second, yet multifaceted, multidimensional, and can also be multicolored , multiflavored.
Hence multiple perspectives.

[I]The beauty of Advaita is that it is all-inclusive and has no rival, no complement, no OR , no AND - its Advitiya.

When the mind goes on its own crusade, the AntaryAmi lets it lead , but walks alongside.
If the mind turns to Him, He watches out for her, holding it as it stumbles, or whisking it aside as it is about to bang headlong into something.
The trick is to let the AntaryAmi lead.
He has plans for us (we the prakruti). Could have something up His sleeve too. At one point in life, if we believe X, He makes way to allow for the mind set to hold firm ground.

Those who find Advaita absurd today, may be set for a Dvaita experience , and who knows, it may not seem as absurd tomorrow. If not , its dvaita all along.

Its evident that the Almighty is providing all these facets.


From what i see , each embodied person perceives their own Vaikuntha / Goloka / Blissful ekAnta - at least while embodied. As the example of characters in the dream shows, all the others and all paraphernalia , (other than the devotee and God) could very well be their own creation ?

The real I can always be many (like characters in a dream), but its really one.

~~ The real I can always be little devotee and big God ~~ although really one.

The real I can just be. Consciousness, Non-mithya, intransient, most steady, permamnent, shAsvat , non-varying.

PraNAm

==================

Terms

Upadhi imposition or limitation. An upadhi is external; an extra limitation or qualification
on something. It can also be viewed as as a disguise or vehicle for true reality, both defining
something and limiting it. For example, the body of a man or animal is the upadhi of its spirit.

antaryAmi The inner Self, all-pervading AtmA, inner Guru, Guide, Master, Witness, Companion, SuperSoul
advitiya One without a second
mithya transient, non-permanent, hence in this context, not real.
shAsvat eternal