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 (jantu&#185.

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
~~~~~~

Namast�

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 Sāṅkhya� 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 (jantu�).

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
~~~~~~

Namast�

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 (jantu�).

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