Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: ātman & individual soul

  1. #51

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Khatri View Post
    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 ] .

  2. #52
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    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
    Last edited by atanu; 09 October 2009 at 11:44 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  3. #53

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    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
    Last edited by DavidC; 15 November 2009 at 12:51 AM. Reason: added definitions for reference for unusual words

  4. #54
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
    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
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  5. #55

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    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

  6. #56
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
    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
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  7. #57

    Re: ātman & individual soul

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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 ?
    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 [individual] 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.

    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
    Last edited by smaranam; 23 December 2009 at 03:10 PM. Reason: Defined Terms
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •