Is Ishwar the Same as Atman?

[Satyamavejayanti]

Idk its your dir i was asking a question. Is it Brahman?

Sorry, my mistake,

I dont think Atman is the SAME as Brahman/Ishwar/OM ect.

as for the actual substance or the make-up of the Atman and Ishwar, I dont know what they are..

Al i can infer is that they cant be the Same.

 

[Shântoham]

Good to know, it is rare that i get my view across and someone actually understands it. Dhanyavad

Namaskāram

It’s quite easy to start an argument or a debate – in the name of proselytism or personal gain – but instead of doing that I prefer to familiarize myself with other people understanding. So, thank you Satyamavejayanti for taking the time to explain yourself to me. May Bhagavān grace and our actions lead us to the final understanding.

I assume it could be neither existent or non existent, i think that the first few words of the first mantra of the Nasadya Sukta explain something similar, as Prakriti (un-conscious) was undefinable formlessness, Atman was not engaged in it so it was neither Sat nor Asat. but the presence of a witnessing consciousness itself proves that the un-conscious exists.

It’s good enough for me.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Hi,

I have few questions:

Not that I am doubting the authenticity, but I would like to know the source of the samas/definition of atma that's quoted (as apnoti sarvam vyapanoti). I tried to search, but I could not get it.

Namaskāram

Ātmā in Advaita Vedānta is a significant word with four definitions – each revealing a particular aspect. These definitions are derived from four different Sanskrti roots – अत्तीति आत्मा, आप्नोतीति आत्मा, आदत्ते इति आत्मा, and so on. This is from Liṅga Pūraṇa 1.70.96 –Vidyāraṇya Svāmi analyzes this verse elaborately in Anubhūti Prakāśa.

यच्चाप्नोति यदादत्ते यच्चात्ति विषयानिह् ।
यच्चास्य सन्ततो भाव: तस्मादात्मेति कीर्त्यते ॥

Yaccāpnoti yad ādatte yaccātti viśayān-iha |
Yaccāsya santato bhāvas-tasmād-ātmeti kīrtyate ||

Yat = That which
Āpnoti = obtains
Ca = and
Yat = that which
Ādatte = absorbs and pervades
Ca = and
Yat = that which
Atti = eats, enjoys
Viśayān = (all) objects of enjoyment
Iha = in this world
Ca = and
Yat asya = that from which
Santato bhāvaḥ = the world (derives) its continuous existence,
Tasmāt = for that very reason
Kīrtyate = (it) is named
Ātmā iti = as Ātmā.

// Since It pervades, absorbs, and enjoys (all) objects in the world, and since from It the world derives its continuous existence, It is called Ātmā. //

I second your viewpoint on the rest of the post except for the wave, ocean analogy (probably because I did not understand your intention behind the usage).

If you have trouble understanding the basis of Advaita Vedānta there are several excellent sites you can visit to familiarize yourself with the topic.

Pranāms

 

[Pleroma]

Is Ishwar the Same as Atman? What are your views.

I dont think Ishwar to be the same as Atman, they are separate.

Do you see Atman as Jiva or Brahman?

Ishvar and Jiva are separate in a relative sense but the actual truth is everything is Brahman.

Sankara's and Buddhist methodology: epistemic, not ontological negation

Sankara's method of 'neti, neti' (‘not this, not this’) is also often misunderstood. In it the sheaths or upadhis are supposedly rejected one by one as 'not-self' in order to reach the Self. Guadapada, his predecessor, had often, in fact, as previously mentioned, been accused of being a 'crypto-Buddhist' as the dialectic used by him was nearly identical to that of the Madhyamikas. However, the doctrine of the five sheaths in the Tittireya Upanishad, which forms part of the material which Sankara drew from, never once mentioned negating a sheath as not real or as not-self. Rather, the method of analysis there was wholistic, in which one successively realized each sheath as the Self, incorporating each in turn within the other, until nothing was known apart from the bliss of the Self. Sankara used a provisional negation, an epistemological method of negation, yes, as a first stage to find the self apart from the world, which some have interpreted as ontological negation, looking for an essence apart from that which was not real. But, in non-dual truth, there is no such separated essence per se, as nothing is not-real or known apart from the Self. The Self is the negation of a negation, realized in the second stage of the Vedantic approach where the world is known as Brahman. That is, Sankara would use 'neti neti' to strip away one's attachment to everything perceivable; then, when one had become so detached, he would ask one to reintroduce the negated elements into the one Self. "Brahman is real, the jiva is mithya (neither real or unreal, that is, apparent or relatively real), the jiva is Brahman' is how the formula actually read. The emphasis on 'neti neti' was more on negating the limits on the Self rather than trying to negate or eliminate the world. For even after realization of the Self, the sage would still see the world of duality like other men, only as not apart from the Self and this not objectively real in itself. Sometimes Ramana Maharshi, for instance, would say things that implied that for the sage whose jiva-hood was gone there was no world, thus misleading some people into an incorrect view of non-dualism.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Pleroma;3177123]Do you see Atman as Jiva or Brahman?

I think Atman and Jiva as describing the same entity, but not Brahman.

Ishvar and Jiva are separate in a relative sense but the actual truth is everything is Brahman.

I think that Ishwar and Atman are similar in some regards, but the Atman/Jiva is pervaded by Brahman/Ishwar, because Brahman is Omnipresent but not Jiva.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Not that I am doubting the authenticity, but I would like to know the source of the samas/definition of atma that's quoted (as apnoti sarvam vyapanoti). I tried to search, but I could not get it.

However, taking the above definition for granted, in this context atma seem to refer to the consciousness, since it is the consciousness that is pervading. The soul is of the size of the tip of the hair - Svetasvatara upanishad (with such a small size, it is kind of localized, but pervades through the entire body via consciousness). Just like the sun and the sunshine. Similarly, contextually, the sarvam refers to the kshetra (field) and in case of our 'self', it is our own body. Coz, we can experience only our feelings, we cannot "actually" experience something totally outside our body, mind and intellectual zones - since it is beyond the scope of "our" realization.

sarvam = everywhere
vyapanoti = spread

Therefore, ātmā or living entities are "spread everywhere".

Accepting this, there is no conflict/contradiction between the various scriptures. However, if we accept the incorrect interpretation that ātmā is "all-pervading", then we cannot explain the definition of ātmā as 'atomic', which is clearly stated in the vedic scriptures - Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.9) and Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9).

Thus, the conclusion is:

There are innumerable atomic souls which are spread everywhere.

This is confirmed as below.

keśāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatāḿśaḥ sādṛśātmakaḥ
jīvaḥ sūkṣma-svarūpo 'yaḿ
sańkhyātīto hi cit-kaṇaḥ​

"There are innumerable particles of spiritual atoms, which are measured as one ten-thousandth of the upper portion of the hair."[Cc. Madya 19.140]

:namaste

 

[En'me]

I think Atman and Jiva as describing the same entity, but not Brahman.



I think that Ishwar and Atman are similar in some regards, but the Atman/Jiva is pervaded by Brahman/Ishwar, because Brahman is Omnipresent but not Jiva.

Dear Satyamavejayanti,

Whether you look at it from the Advaitic or Dvaitic perspective, the Atman does not equal Jiva. Jiva is an embodied, local, formfull, eternal soul (Atma) as per Dvaita and Jiva is the embodied, pervasive, formless, eternal self (Atma) as per Advaita, but in neither schools of thought does Atman = Jiva.

I respect your views, obviously, but the difference of opinions presented in this thread, in my opinion, steams only from attachment to action which is later trying to be justified, i.e., experiencing a certain religion and indentifying with it and then later presented with knowledge which may oppose said religious convictions instead of firstly researching said religion, with all it's branches on a whole and then indentifying with the original or most logic part (or, in many cases, rejecting in completely as well).

The reason why I follow the Advaitic perspective, is, because from my objective intereference and contemplation, it seems to put the princil parts of the Vedas which are not coded in meaning, the Upanishads, in the proper light, interpreting them without bias.

The Mahavakyas are very clear:

Aham Brahmasmi: I am Brahman.
Ayam Atma Brahma = The Self is Brahman

Just my two (BILLION :areyoucra) cents. :cover:

 

[Maya3]

Shantoham,
Do you have a link for good advaita sites?

Maya

 

[atanu]

I think Atman and Jiva as describing the same entity, but not Brahman.

Do you mean to say that Brahman is devoid of atman?:no:

 

[Shântoham]

Shantoham,
Do you have a link for good advaita sites?

Maya

Namaskāram

Yes – I will PM you.

Pranāms

 

[Vrindavana Das]

The reason why I follow the Advaitic perspective, is, because from my objective intereference and contemplation, it seems to put the princil parts of the Vedas which are not coded in meaning, the Upanishads, in the proper light, interpreting them without bias.

I respect your opinion and belief in the Advaita philosophy.

From the perspective of learning, could you please help me understand the Advaita explanation and interpretation (word-to-word, if possible) of the below Upniṣads verses:

Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.9):

bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate​

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul."

In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) the measurement of the atomic spirit soul is further explained:

eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo
yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā saḿviveśa
prāṇaiś cittaḿ sarvam otaḿ prajānāḿ
yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa ātmā​

"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."

:namaste

 

[En'me]

I respect your opinion and belief in the Advaita philosophy.

From the perspective of learning, could you please help me understand the Advaita explanation and interpretation (word-to-word, if possible) of the below Upniṣads verses:

Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.9):

bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate​

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul."

In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) the measurement of the atomic spirit soul is further explained:

eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo
yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā saḿviveśa
prāṇaiś cittaḿ sarvam otaḿ prajānāḿ
yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa ātmā​

"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."

:namaste

My conversion to Advaita from Acintya Bheda-Bheda is fairly recent and I cannot offer true Advatic perspective on the mantra of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.

However, my general understanding is that the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad does indeed place importance on bhakti and Saguna Brahman and holds Ishvara as the highest goal, not the Atman/Brahman. Because of this I would say your translation of said verse is completely correct.

The only dillema that seems to appear between Hindus of different opinions and schools of thought, is that some would while others would not count the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad as Mukhya, or primary, as it happens with other Upanishads that were not commented on by Shankara.


The translation of Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) is from Advaitic perspective a tiny bit different and I'm pretty sure that you know by now hehe, but the first sentence of 'your' translation is not included in 'my' translation:

"This subtle Atman should be known with the purified mind into which the Prana with its fivefold aspect has entered. The mind is pervaded completely by the functions of the Pranas together with the powers of the senses. In this purufied mind this Atman is revealed."

-Translated by Swami Krishnananda

Oh yeah, props on designing your posts. I find myself copying your style.

P.S.: I have no knowledge of Sanskrit and no sources from which to draw a step by step, word by word translation. As I said previously, I form my views based on my observations, indicating that I'm limited even though I might be objective.
​

 

[Iti oj]

ive tried following this thread and im just confused

 

[En'me]

Well, it's just basically people expressing their views on the topic?

Tell us what you don't understand, I'm sure people will love to answer your questions.

 

[Madhuri]

ive tried following this thread and im just confused

Nothing about Hinduism is simple or easy.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

My conversion to Advaita from Acintya Bheda-Bheda is fairly recent and I cannot offer true Advatic perspective on the mantra of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.

However, my general understanding is that the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad does indeed place importance on bhakti and Saguna Brahman and holds Ishvara as the highest goal, not the Atman/Brahman. Because of this I would say your translation of said verse is completely correct.

The only dillema that seems to appear between Hindus of different opinions and schools of thought, is that some would while others would not count the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad as Mukhya, or primary, as it happens with other Upanishads that were not commented on by Shankara.


The translation of Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) is from Advaitic perspective a tiny bit different and I'm pretty sure that you know by now hehe, but the first sentence of 'your' translation is not included in 'my' translation:

"This subtle Atman should be known with the purified mind into which the Prana with its fivefold aspect has entered. The mind is pervaded completely by the functions of the Pranas together with the powers of the senses. In this purufied mind this Atman is revealed."

-Translated by Swami Krishnananda

Oh yeah, props on designing your posts. I find myself copying your style.

P.S.: I have no knowledge of Sanskrit and no sources from which to draw a step by step, word by word translation. As I said previously, I form my views based on my observations, indicating that I'm limited even though I might be objective.
​

Appreciate the inputs.

I must confess though that, I too am confused now.

Speaking only of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, it mentions the soul to be one-ten thousandth the size of tip of hair - an infinitesimal atomic spark. If I accept that same atomic soul to be the all-pervading Infinite Brahman, then I am contradicting the Vedic scriptures. Is it not?

:namaste

 

[En'me]

Appreciate the inputs.

I must confess though that, I too am confused now.

Speaking only of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, it mentions the soul to be one-ten thousandth the size of tip of hair - an infinitesimal atomic spark. If I accept that same atomic soul to be the all-pervading Infinite Brahman, then I am contradicting the Vedic scriptures. Is it not?

:namaste

As it often happens, so am I.

To your second part of the post I say, to answer I would have to delve into defining what the Vedic scriptures are or which scriptures are considered Vedic, what does the word "Vedic" mean, etc. and you would probably do the same, respectively. I will not do that because it would derail the topic and would not really get us anywhere new, in my opinion. I mean, do you really want to go into that?

I still believe that Saguna Brahman = Ishvara which is Narayana present in the hearts of all living beings as ParamAtma and Nirguna Brahman being the substratum of it all.

That's pretty much it. What else can I say?

 

[Shântoham]

sarvam = everywhere
vyapanoti = spread

Therefore, ātmā or living entities are "spread everywhere".

Namaskāram

The terms Āpnoti and Vyāpnoti derive from the verbal root Āp. Grammatically and etymologically there is no room for confusion. How do you derive “spread” from it?

Pranāms

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Namaskāram

The terms Āpnoti and Vyāpnoti derive from the verbal root Āp. Grammatically and etymologically there is no room for confusion. How do you derive “spread” from it?

Pranāms

Āpnoti = आप्नोति = gets/attains

brahma-vid āpnoti param, tad eshabhyukta, satyam jnanam anantam brahma​

Whoever realizes the Supreme Brahman attains to Supreme felicity. That Supreme Brahman is Eternal Truth (satyam), Omniscient (jnanam), Infinite (anantam). [Taittiriya Upaniṣad 2.1.1]

I cannot not see the relation of āpnoti with Vyāpnoti. Sorry!

Also, could you please provide the complete verse and the source.

:namaste

 

[Shântoham]

I cannot not see the relation of āpnoti with Vyāpnoti. Sorry!

Namaskāram

It’s not a problem if you cannot see a simple verbal declension. Maybe this can help: आप्नोति (आप्) व्याप्नोति (वि- आप्) both Cl. 5 P. However you did not answer my question. In post # 46 you stated that Vyāpnoti means “spread” – I asked you how you derived such a definition.

Also, could you please provide the complete verse and the source.

Post #43.

Pranāms