-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Ishwar the Same as Atman?
- Thread starter Satyamavejayanti
- Start date
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
namaste,
This is my point of view, not any specific school, i try not to associate myself with a specific philosophy.
Yes, and i respect every single one of these opinions, even yours.
Im not too familiar with the Upanishads, only read them once over, maybe i need to do more reading on them.
No argument there, it is a amazing philosophy.
OHM TATH SATH
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
i dont mean that at all, all im saying that I think that Brahman is different from Atman, they are not the same thing.
Plus Brahman does not have a Atman in the sense that because she (Ishwar) is know as Parmatman.
If Brahman has a Atman, then what is his Body made of which houses the Atman?
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Shântoham;3183110 said:
Good for you that you can see. I, on the other hand, believe that time is a precious commodity.
The word comes from the root verb vyApnoti - meaning, pervades.
You can find it here
Apnoti = आप्नोति = gets
You can find it here
That asides, would it be okay with you if we discuss scriptures and not the rules of grammar?
Thank you.
Ātmā = Jivātmā and Parmātmā. Jivātmā and Parmātma, both are spread everywhere. They pervade everything - earth, water, sky....everything. This is the way we should understand the use of word 'pervades'. Dualistic view.
However, if you take the monoistic view and say individual jivātmās are Infinite Brahman which pervades everything, then it becomes incorrect interpretation of the word all-pervading. That is why I used the word - spread.
I have quoted three scriptures - Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad and Śri Chaitanya Charitamrta to explain the spirit behind use of word 'pervades' for individual jivātmās.
Maybe it will help if I rephrase and say that an infinitesimal atomic spark cannot be infinite Brahman. If I deny the atomic size of a soul (jivātmā
, then I am defying the Vedic scriptures like the ones cited above. I am not a Vedāntin then, I am a covered atheist.:namaste
AdityaMookerjee
Member
They are identical. Ishwar, Brahman, Atman, are identical, because one agrees, to a humble believer in God like me, to the different points of view, if I believe in one point of view, and I can see, that others believe in the same point of view, but express it differently. Avatar's have realized the similarity in the same way, but have actually experienced what the other points of view are, as they are seen by others. Sri. Ramakrishna says, that one must have passionate love for God, and he is an Avatar. I have found, that if you feel feel true reverence for God, and even if the emotion is not very intense according to me, or not intense at all, one feels that trying to increase the intensity is being dishonest, to the perception. The fact is, the feeling increases by itself, naturally.
Shântoham
Vedantin
Namaskāram
First let me say that I wasnt attacking you I was really wondering how you came to that specific derivation. You dont need if you wish to consider all my post addressed to you as an attack. After all with all the happiness you derive from your chanting your interactions with others should be no less than delightful. I always wondered why the ones that suggest to other people how to be happy are never too happy themselves.
Vrindavana Das wrote: I, on the other hand, believe that time is a precious commodity.
Someone that posts 902 posts in less than 9 months have plenty of time in his hands.
Vrindavana Das wrote: The word comes from the root verb vyApnoti - meaning, pervades.
Both आप्नोति and व्याप्नोति derive from the verbal root आप् in the case of व्याप्नोति it is वि + आप् the meaning of the verbal root आप् is clear and unambiguous therefore the derivation of spread is at the very least curious.
Vrindavana Das wrote: That asides, would it be okay with you if we discuss scriptures and not the rules of grammar?
Your request is somewhat baffling. First all the Scriptures I know are in Sanskrit and they are structured by the rules of grammar. In fact I could not even read the Scripture if first I didnt study the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar are used by all the Ācāryas to unlock the meanings of Śāstra so how can we discuss the Scriptures without involving the rules of grammar? Second you argued the very same topic with Atanu-ji on a different thread without reaching any meaningful result. Why should we repeat the same pointless exercise? Isnt time a precious commodity for you? Third I feel there would be no purpose served in our discussion in view of the following points: 1) Advaita and Dvaita differ completely in interpreting Śruti passages, 2) Advaita admits a Vyāvahrika Satya and Dvaita does not, 3) Advaita admits a Mithyā Vastu that is Sad-Asad Vilakṣaṇa, Anirvachanīya and Dvaita does not admit such a Vastu. With these fundamental differences there is no point in our discussing since all possible discussions would fail to reach any meaningful result.
Vrindavana Das wrote: Jivātmā and Parmātma, both are spread everywhere.
That which is spread everywhere cannot be all-pervasive. You use spread in the sense of distribute, disperse, scatter, disseminate. That which is infinitesimal is by its very definition located and it can be distributed, dispersed, scattered, disseminated. That which is all-pervading space, for example can only be one unfragmented and it cannot be distributed, dispersed, scattered, or disseminated. It contains all within itself without being affected by what it contains and it is in and through everything it contains.
Vrindavana Das wrote: Maybe it will help if I rephrase and say that an infinitesimal atomic spark cannot be infinite Brahman.
We agree on this one as what is infinitesimal and located cannot be all-pervading.
Vrindavana Das wrote: If I deny the atomic size of a soul (jivātmā
, then I am defying the Vedic scriptures like the ones cited above. No only your reading and interpretation of them.
Vrindavana Das wrote: I am not a Vedāntin then, I am a covered atheist.
In your mind you can be whatever you like my grumpy friend but I can only smile at the idea of an atheist in disguise (of a theist, I presume).
Pranāms
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Friend, I can answer all the points. However, as we speak different languages, that would lead us to a dead-end yet again.
The common thing is that in your philosophy, you are striving to give up vanity, negativity etc. to achieve that Brahman. I too am practicing to give up anger, envy etc. to satisfy the Supreme Lord.
In simple words, abnegation of negative cannot happen by force. Detachment from worldly things etc. will come automatically with a higher positive taste. A person, who relishes a dry loaf will automatically develop distaste for it on getting the higher taste of pizza. Without the pizza, by force he will not be able to give up the dry loaf. That higher taste is derived by attachment and service to the Supreme Lord in my philosophy. That positive aspect is missing in your philosophy. And that is the fundamental difference in our philosophies.
The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Kṛṣṇa are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyā [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root. [NoI 7]
If at the end of the day you could not accept the other living entity as same as you - Brahman and I could not accept him as a part and parcel of Supreme Lord then, have we achieved anything?
An excerpt: Bhaja Govindam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This composition is a reminder that the author, Adi Shankara, who is often regarded as a stalwart advocate of the Jnana Marga (Jnana Yoga) or the "Path of Knowledge" to attain Mukti, yielded to none in appreciating, indeed enjoining the Bhakti Marga (Bhakti Yoga) or the "Path of Faith/Devotion" to the same goal, and as C. Rajagopalachari put in his commentary, "When intelligence matures and lodges securely in the heart, it becomes wisdom. When that wisdom is integrated with life and issues out in action, it becomes devotion. Knowledge which has become mature is spoken of as devotion. If it does not get transformed into devotion, such knowledge is useless tinsel."
:namaste
The common thing is that in your philosophy, you are striving to give up vanity, negativity etc. to achieve that Brahman. I too am practicing to give up anger, envy etc. to satisfy the Supreme Lord.
In simple words, abnegation of negative cannot happen by force. Detachment from worldly things etc. will come automatically with a higher positive taste. A person, who relishes a dry loaf will automatically develop distaste for it on getting the higher taste of pizza. Without the pizza, by force he will not be able to give up the dry loaf. That higher taste is derived by attachment and service to the Supreme Lord in my philosophy. That positive aspect is missing in your philosophy. And that is the fundamental difference in our philosophies.
syāt kṛṣṇa-nāma-caritādi-sitāpy avidyā-
pittopatapta-rasanasya na rocikā nu
kintv ādarād anudinaḿ khalu saiva juṣṭā
svādvī kramād bhavati tad-gada-mūla-hantrī
pittopatapta-rasanasya na rocikā nu
kintv ādarād anudinaḿ khalu saiva juṣṭā
svādvī kramād bhavati tad-gada-mūla-hantrī
The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Kṛṣṇa are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyā [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root. [NoI 7]
If at the end of the day you could not accept the other living entity as same as you - Brahman and I could not accept him as a part and parcel of Supreme Lord then, have we achieved anything?
An excerpt: Bhaja Govindam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This composition is a reminder that the author, Adi Shankara, who is often regarded as a stalwart advocate of the Jnana Marga (Jnana Yoga) or the "Path of Knowledge" to attain Mukti, yielded to none in appreciating, indeed enjoining the Bhakti Marga (Bhakti Yoga) or the "Path of Faith/Devotion" to the same goal, and as C. Rajagopalachari put in his commentary, "When intelligence matures and lodges securely in the heart, it becomes wisdom. When that wisdom is integrated with life and issues out in action, it becomes devotion. Knowledge which has become mature is spoken of as devotion. If it does not get transformed into devotion, such knowledge is useless tinsel."
:namaste
Shântoham
Vedantin
Namaskāram
Lets start this post on a positive note thank you for not turning this thread in another pointless discussion. And thank you for understanding that Dvaita and Advaita speak a different language and therefore no meaningful dialogue is possible between the two.
The rest of your post unfortunately falls on deaf ears for a number of reasons. First unless you have studied Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher you cannot tell me what is or isnt missing in Advaita. All you can do is verbalize your ignorance of Advaita. In fact, if you even understood the term Advaita you wouldt write I am striving to achieve Brahman since the attempt itself is a negation of Advaita.
Second unless you have studied Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher you cannot tell me what Advaita gives or gives not to an Advaitin. All your talk of higher and lower taste is nothing but further verbalization of your ignorance of Advaita.
Third unless you have studied Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher you cannot tell me what role Bhakti has or has not in Advaita. You can only speak of Bhakti from the prospective of Dvaita. The Upadeśamṛta may be Śāstra for you but it is not Śāstra for me.
You can quote C. Rajagopalachari as much as you like but unless you spoke directly with him and asked him what he meant when he wrote what he wrote you cannot quote him to me to make a point. Because your point would be influenced by your Dvaita understanding and C. Rajagopalachari was an Advaitin. So, if you want to understand what he meant you need to study Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher.
Short of that you can only verbalize your ignorance of Advaita.
Pranāms
Lets start this post on a positive note thank you for not turning this thread in another pointless discussion. And thank you for understanding that Dvaita and Advaita speak a different language and therefore no meaningful dialogue is possible between the two.
The rest of your post unfortunately falls on deaf ears for a number of reasons. First unless you have studied Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher you cannot tell me what is or isnt missing in Advaita. All you can do is verbalize your ignorance of Advaita. In fact, if you even understood the term Advaita you wouldt write I am striving to achieve Brahman since the attempt itself is a negation of Advaita.
Second unless you have studied Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher you cannot tell me what Advaita gives or gives not to an Advaitin. All your talk of higher and lower taste is nothing but further verbalization of your ignorance of Advaita.
Third unless you have studied Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher you cannot tell me what role Bhakti has or has not in Advaita. You can only speak of Bhakti from the prospective of Dvaita. The Upadeśamṛta may be Śāstra for you but it is not Śāstra for me.
You can quote C. Rajagopalachari as much as you like but unless you spoke directly with him and asked him what he meant when he wrote what he wrote you cannot quote him to me to make a point. Because your point would be influenced by your Dvaita understanding and C. Rajagopalachari was an Advaitin. So, if you want to understand what he meant you need to study Advaita for a consistent number of years under a competent Teacher.
Short of that you can only verbalize your ignorance of Advaita.
Pranāms
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Continuing the positive streak - I am glad that even though it may be with a caustic additive – the communication is there.
As for the rest of the post, please be assured that I am not telling you what Advaita has and what it does not have. That would be vanity. I quoted Advaita authority Ādi Guru Shankarāchāryā. Also the commentary of C. Rajagopalachari.
Seeing an old grammarian wasting the last days of his life contemplating the rules of grammar, the poem – Bhaja-Govindam burst out from the lips of Śankarāchāryā. He did not tell him to follow the rules of Advaita philosophy. Why?
Similarly, when Parikśit Maharāj was to die within 7 days by snake-bite because of a Brāhmana’s curse, Śri Śukdeva Goswāmi did not tell him to practice meditation or jnana or fruitive work etc. He asked Parikśit Maharāj to hear the transcendental Pastimes of Supreme Lord – Śrimad Bhāgavatam. from the perspective of a saint, both cases of a person nearing death is an emergency situation. They instructed to worship Kṛṣṇa.
To see this simple truth, I just need to be willing and open. I do not need to be a devotee, a fruitive worker or a yogi or to study Advaita philosophy for consistent number of years. That would be equivalent to re-condition myself to 'interpret meanings' instead of becoming free from material conditioning and see things as-it-is.
Śri Śukdeva Goswāmi, who advised and narrated Srimad Bhagavatam to Parikśit Maharāj was already established in nirviśesa brahman. Meaning, he was a self-realized soul, established in the bliss of Brahman. He renounced the pleasure of Brahman. This is possible only when one gets a higher taste – like I said in my earlier post.
Śrī Śaunaka asked Sūta Gosvāmī: Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī was already on the path of self-realization, and thus he was pleased with his own self. So why did he take the trouble to undergo the study of such a vast literature? [S.B. 1.7.9]
Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī:All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls. [S.B. 1.7.10]
:namaste
As for the rest of the post, please be assured that I am not telling you what Advaita has and what it does not have. That would be vanity. I quoted Advaita authority Ādi Guru Shankarāchāryā. Also the commentary of C. Rajagopalachari.
Seeing an old grammarian wasting the last days of his life contemplating the rules of grammar, the poem – Bhaja-Govindam burst out from the lips of Śankarāchāryā. He did not tell him to follow the rules of Advaita philosophy. Why?
Similarly, when Parikśit Maharāj was to die within 7 days by snake-bite because of a Brāhmana’s curse, Śri Śukdeva Goswāmi did not tell him to practice meditation or jnana or fruitive work etc. He asked Parikśit Maharāj to hear the transcendental Pastimes of Supreme Lord – Śrimad Bhāgavatam. from the perspective of a saint, both cases of a person nearing death is an emergency situation. They instructed to worship Kṛṣṇa.
To see this simple truth, I just need to be willing and open. I do not need to be a devotee, a fruitive worker or a yogi or to study Advaita philosophy for consistent number of years. That would be equivalent to re-condition myself to 'interpret meanings' instead of becoming free from material conditioning and see things as-it-is.
Śri Śukdeva Goswāmi, who advised and narrated Srimad Bhagavatam to Parikśit Maharāj was already established in nirviśesa brahman. Meaning, he was a self-realized soul, established in the bliss of Brahman. He renounced the pleasure of Brahman. This is possible only when one gets a higher taste – like I said in my earlier post.
śaunaka uvāca
sa vai nivṛtti-nirataḥ
sarvatropekṣako muniḥ
kasya vā bṛhatīm etām
ātmārāmaḥ samabhyasat
sa vai nivṛtti-nirataḥ
sarvatropekṣako muniḥ
kasya vā bṛhatīm etām
ātmārāmaḥ samabhyasat
Śrī Śaunaka asked Sūta Gosvāmī: Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī was already on the path of self-realization, and thus he was pleased with his own self. So why did he take the trouble to undergo the study of such a vast literature? [S.B. 1.7.9]
sūta uvāca
ātmārāmāś ca munayo
nirgranthā apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukīṁ bhaktim
ittham-bhūta-guṇo hariḥ
ātmārāmāś ca munayo
nirgranthā apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukīṁ bhaktim
ittham-bhūta-guṇo hariḥ
Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī:All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls. [S.B. 1.7.10]
:namaste
Last edited:
Shântoham
Vedantin
Namaskāram
Vrindavana Das wrote: Continuing the positive streak I am glad that even though it may be with a caustic additive the communication is there.
So am I. The caustic additive comes from our previous interactions and the general disrespect Dvaitins reserve for Advaitins.
Vrindavana Das wrote: As for the rest of the post, please be assured that I am not telling you what Advaita has and what it does not have. That would be vanity. I quoted Advaita authority Ādi Guru Shankarāchāryā. Also the commentary of C. Rajagopalachari.
But an even greater vanity is to quote Śaṅkarācārya to an Advaitin in order to make a point that contradicts the understanding of the Ācāryas teaching.
Vrindavana Das wrote: Seeing an old grammarian wasting the last days of his life contemplating the rules of grammar, the poem Bhaja-Govindam burst out from the lips of Śankarāchāryā. He did not tell him to follow the rules of Advaita philosophy. Why?
Being a simple question Ill give you two simple answers so you can choose which one you dislike the most. 1) When encountering someone that is still busy with the basic knowledge of language without applying it to the understanding of Śāstra it is perfectly useless to suggest that he/she try to understand the highest Tattva much easier to suggest that he/she try to apply him/herself to the lowest rung of the Sādhanā ladder that leads to the highest Tattva. The lowest rung of the ladder is the worship of outer divinity and what better divinity to suggest than the one who share the name with Śaṅkarācāryas beloved Guru.
2) If you understand that A-Dvaita is a total negation of Dvaita if I suggest to someone to worship Govinda I am suggesting him/her to worship that highest Tattva which is the essential nature of him/herself and all that (apparently) exists.
Vrindavana Das wrote: To see this simple truth, I just need to be willing and open. I do not need to be a devotee, a fruitive worker or a yogi or to study Advaita philosophy for consistent number of years. That would be equivalent to re-condition myself to 'interpret meanings' instead of becoming free from material conditioning and see things as-it-is.
I am sufficiently familiar with the Dvaita Bhāṣya of the four leading Sampradāyas to know that the Ācāryas are more than happy to interpret the meaning of the Advaita verses in the Śāstra according to the Dvaita understanding the same way as the Advaita Ācāryas are more than happy to interpret the meaning of the Dvaita verses in the Śāstra according to the Advaita understanding. Your as-it-is appears to be at best subjective.
Anyhow I appreciated our brief exchange and I hope we can continue to interact with each others in this more civilized fashion in the future. For now I wish you the utter fulfillment of your personal Sādhanā.
Pranāms
Vrindavana Das wrote: Continuing the positive streak I am glad that even though it may be with a caustic additive the communication is there.
So am I. The caustic additive comes from our previous interactions and the general disrespect Dvaitins reserve for Advaitins.
Vrindavana Das wrote: As for the rest of the post, please be assured that I am not telling you what Advaita has and what it does not have. That would be vanity. I quoted Advaita authority Ādi Guru Shankarāchāryā. Also the commentary of C. Rajagopalachari.
But an even greater vanity is to quote Śaṅkarācārya to an Advaitin in order to make a point that contradicts the understanding of the Ācāryas teaching.
Vrindavana Das wrote: Seeing an old grammarian wasting the last days of his life contemplating the rules of grammar, the poem Bhaja-Govindam burst out from the lips of Śankarāchāryā. He did not tell him to follow the rules of Advaita philosophy. Why?
Being a simple question Ill give you two simple answers so you can choose which one you dislike the most
. 1) When encountering someone that is still busy with the basic knowledge of language without applying it to the understanding of Śāstra it is perfectly useless to suggest that he/she try to understand the highest Tattva much easier to suggest that he/she try to apply him/herself to the lowest rung of the Sādhanā ladder that leads to the highest Tattva. The lowest rung of the ladder is the worship of outer divinity and what better divinity to suggest than the one who share the name with Śaṅkarācāryas beloved Guru. 2) If you understand that A-Dvaita is a total negation of Dvaita if I suggest to someone to worship Govinda I am suggesting him/her to worship that highest Tattva which is the essential nature of him/herself and all that (apparently) exists.
Vrindavana Das wrote: To see this simple truth, I just need to be willing and open. I do not need to be a devotee, a fruitive worker or a yogi or to study Advaita philosophy for consistent number of years. That would be equivalent to re-condition myself to 'interpret meanings' instead of becoming free from material conditioning and see things as-it-is.
I am sufficiently familiar with the Dvaita Bhāṣya of the four leading Sampradāyas to know that the Ācāryas are more than happy to interpret the meaning of the Advaita verses in the Śāstra according to the Dvaita understanding the same way as the Advaita Ācāryas are more than happy to interpret the meaning of the Dvaita verses in the Śāstra according to the Advaita understanding. Your as-it-is appears to be at best subjective.
Anyhow I appreciated our brief exchange and I hope we can continue to interact with each others in this more civilized fashion in the future. For now I wish you the utter fulfillment of your personal Sādhanā.
Pranāms
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
As we bid each other farewell for now, a few words from a well-wisher, if you would so believe .
1. When a patient is critically close to death, he is admitted in the ICU and not the general ward - lowest.
Even on a spiritual platform, the example of Parikśit Maharāj in my above post confirms this truth.
Also,
And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]
Use of 'Aham' or 'I' above speaks of the Personal Feature of Supreme Lord which is subsequently confirmed to be above His Impersonal Brahman Feature by the Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa Himself, in this verse.
"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]
Thus, Brahman understanding is the lowest. Personal - Parmātmā understanding is higher still and Supreme Person - Bhagavān understanding is the highest level of realization.
2. Vanity would be to say something on Advaita, which comes from a personal belief and showing my disrespect for Advaita or Advaitin. I simply stated a 'fact' which is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. Previously also, I have always spoken from the perspective of 'achintya-bheda-abheda tattva', the doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous distinction (dvaita) and oneness (advaita), which embraces both advaita and dvaita philosophy and teachings. Thus, there is neither disrespect for advaita and nor is the use of 'as-it-is' terminology subjective.
4. Speaking of other previous interactions, my discomfort was with the uncivilized proposal of homosexuality as 'scripturally sanctioned'. 'Acknowledgement' of a sin cannot be considered as an 'acceptance' for the sin. That however in no way should be understood to imply that I have disrespect, on a personal level, for anyone favoring of the above understanding. Rest can be summed-up as "hate the sin but not the sinner" - so the saying goes...and the perspective which I speak from.
5. I take this opportunity to vocalize my respect for your learning and acknowledging the high esteem I hold you in. In my being, there is no contempt or disrespect for you or advaita in any way what-so-ever.
6. Finally, I too reciprocate the good wishes and utter fulfillment of your sādhanā with equal warmth along with the expression of my gratitude for your kind wishes.
In our sādhanā, we believe that with our finite strength and efforts, we cannot attain the All Powerful and Infinite Lord. He would lose His Absolute Position then. Our's is the descending path (ability descends) and not the ascending path (on the strength of our efforts).
When our efforts are coupled with the mercy, prayers and blessings of others, then it can work wonders for our spiritual advancement. So, I thank you!
:namaste
.1. When a patient is critically close to death, he is admitted in the ICU and not the general ward - lowest.
Even on a spiritual platform, the example of Parikśit Maharāj in my above post confirms this truth.
Also,
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness. [B.G. 14.27]
Use of 'Aham' or 'I' above speaks of the Personal Feature of Supreme Lord which is subsequently confirmed to be above His Impersonal Brahman Feature by the Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa Himself, in this verse.
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]
Thus, Brahman understanding is the lowest. Personal - Parmātmā understanding is higher still and Supreme Person - Bhagavān understanding is the highest level of realization.
2. Vanity would be to say something on Advaita, which comes from a personal belief and showing my disrespect for Advaita or Advaitin. I simply stated a 'fact' which is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
3. Previously also, I have always spoken from the perspective of 'achintya-bheda-abheda tattva', the doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous distinction (dvaita) and oneness (advaita), which embraces both advaita and dvaita philosophy and teachings. Thus, there is neither disrespect for advaita and nor is the use of 'as-it-is' terminology subjective.
4. Speaking of other previous interactions, my discomfort was with the uncivilized proposal of homosexuality as 'scripturally sanctioned'. 'Acknowledgement' of a sin cannot be considered as an 'acceptance' for the sin. That however in no way should be understood to imply that I have disrespect, on a personal level, for anyone favoring of the above understanding. Rest can be summed-up as "hate the sin but not the sinner" - so the saying goes...and the perspective which I speak from.
5. I take this opportunity to vocalize my respect for your learning and acknowledging the high esteem I hold you in. In my being, there is no contempt or disrespect for you or advaita in any way what-so-ever.
6. Finally, I too reciprocate the good wishes and utter fulfillment of your sādhanā with equal warmth along with the expression of my gratitude for your kind wishes.
In our sādhanā, we believe that with our finite strength and efforts, we cannot attain the All Powerful and Infinite Lord. He would lose His Absolute Position then. Our's is the descending path (ability descends) and not the ascending path (on the strength of our efforts).
When our efforts are coupled with the mercy, prayers and blessings of others, then it can work wonders for our spiritual advancement. So, I thank you!
:namaste
Thank you. Someone has already reminded:
Aham Brahmasmi: I am Brahman.
Ayam Atma Brahma = The Self is Brahman
Ayam Atma Brahma = The Self is Brahman
That is sense derived. Atman actually is not housed in any location. It is homogeneously all-pervading.
Shântoham
Vedantin
Namaskāram
The size of the Ātmā is a point that is often discussed by the various Darśanas and there is a lot of debate on this subject. Since the OP asked for opinions and not debates it is pointless to (re)start VD and Atanuji already had a go at it on another thread a debate on this very subject.
There are a couple of mistakes in VDs posts: 1) the second half of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9 reads bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijńeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kalpate and not bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ ; 2) and it is Bhagavadgītā 10.20 and not 15.20.
Now, as I already mentioned in my previous post, the identity of Īśvara and Ātmā and their hypothetical separation is a matter of understanding. People are at different points on their spiritual journeys. Therefore different understandings are needed to meet their specific different needs. Accordingly all understandings are a manifestation of our own personal level of spiritual maturity. When our spiritual maturity increases our understanding changes appropriately. For this reason there should be no room for arguments or debates each one of us will reach the highest understanding at the appropriate time in this lifetime or in furure ones. That is what Sādhanā is for the increasing of our spiritual maturity. We can also pray and ask Bhagavān to help us improving our spiritual maturity but our physical and mental actions must be conducive to such intervention.
In harmony with our spiritual maturity we can understand that Ātmā is the all-pervading subject-I which is the essential truth of Īśvara (macrocosm) and Jīva (microcosm) or we can understand that Ātmā is the Supersoul the plenary portion of Śrī Kṛṣṇa as Kṣīrodakaśāyī-Viṣṇu standing on the whirl of a lotus flower with four hands, holding conchshell, discus, club, and lotus flower located in the heart of every living being and every atom of the creation.
Our maturity will determine if we understand Ātmā as the all-pervading essential truth of everything or a tiny atomic sized Lord Viṣṇu residing in our heart and every atom of the creation. Or any other possible variation Ātmā is the size of the body, Ātmā is the size of a thumb, etc.
The fact that Viṣṇu means the all-pervasive veveṣṭi vyāpnoti iti Viṣṇuḥ may put in question the locationality and the Aṇutva (smallness) of the Ātmā for some people, at least. After all it does really boil down to spiritual maturity.
For those who like me understand Ātmā as the all-pervading subject-I the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 2.23 says:
sūkṣma iti sūkṣmavidah sthūla iti ca tatvidaḥ |
mūrta iti mūrtavido amūrta iti ca tadvidaḥ ||
// Those who know the subtle say it is subtle, those who know the gross say it is gross. Those who know form say it is form and those who know the formless say it is the formless //
The word Sūkṣma can be interpreted in two ways minute in terms of size or Sukṣmaśarīra. Some people understand the Ātmā to be very very small atomic in size.
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.9 says: eṣo aṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo Ātmā is of the size of an atom. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9 says: vālāgraśatabhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya one hundredth part of the end of a hair divided again by a hundred. Based on these statements the Ātmā is understood as very very small and located in the cavity of the heart.
According to Advaita Vedānta, Śāstra uses the words figuratively. Ātmā is Aṇuḥ means Ātmā is very subtle and cannot be objectified. The objection is raised only because we grasp the words in a gross manner. The entire matter is discussed in Śaṅkarācāryas Brahmasūtra Bhāśya 2.3.19-32.
Another meaning of Sūkṣma is Sūkṣmaśarīra (the subtle body). The Sūkṣmaśarīra is made up of 19 parts five Jñānendriyas (organs of knowledge hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell), five Karmendriyas (organs of action speech, prehension, movement, excretion, and generation), five Prāṇas (vital airs), Manah (mind), Buddhi (intellect), Citta (memory), and Ahaṃkāra (ego).
The subtle body is the immediate identity of the Jīva because the gross body comes and goes, but the subtle body continues. It alone carries the Karma of the Jīva and thus it is more significant than the gross body. Bhagavadgītā 2.22 says: vāsāmsi jīrnani yatha vihāya.... Just as you drop an old dress and wear a new dress, similarly the embodied Dehī, the indweller of the body, the Sūkṣmaśarīra goes from one body to another. Really it is not Ātmā, but Sūkṣmaśarīra which travels. So Sūkṣmaśarīra is the immediate identity of the Jīva.
Some people mistake the Sūkṣmaśarīra for the Ātmā but it cannot be the Ātmā because the Sūkṣmaśarīra consists of parts. Anything which consists of parts does not have a specific reality. A flower, for example, is the combination or the sum total of all the petals and whatever else is there. Any one petal is not the flower. Nor is the stem or any other part of the flower the flower. Thus all the parts of the flower individually are not the flower. But all of them put together make up the flower. This means that nothing specific can be pointed out as the flower. It means there is no specific reality called flower. Similarly parts of the car are not the car. But all the parts put together make up the car. This means that nothing specific can be pointed out as the car. So there is no specific reality called car.
This is an important principle of Advaita Vedānta anything put together does not have a specific reality only an apparent one. Thus Sūkṣmaśarīra which consists of parts is not the ultimate reality of the Jīva only its immediate identity.
Some people say that the Sūkṣmaśarīra is more important than the other two bodies because Sūkṣmasarira is required for Bhoga (wordly experience). Some others say that the Sthūlaśarīra (the gross body) is ultimate reality of Jīva because when the gross body is gone, the person is no longer there and all relationships are over. Also you can have Bhoga only when the Sthūlaśarīra is there. Therefore the Sthūlaśarīra is more important than the other two bodies. When the Sthūlaśarīra is destroyed the persons existence is deleted.
This type of reasoning can be dismissed in a simple way. The Sthūlaśarīra cannot be the ultimate reality of the Jīva because the Sthūlaśarīra is not present in Suṣupti Avasthā (the state of deep-sleep). If Sthūlaśarīra is the ultimate reality of the Jīva then even in Suṣupti or even after death we would have the experience of the gross world because the gross body is very much there after death. Our I-sense does not continue with the Sthūlaśarīra in deep sleep. If I am the Sthūlaśarīra, then the Sthūlaśarīra identification should continue in deep sleep, which is not the case. Therefore the Sthūlaśarīra is also not the ultimate reality of the Jīva.
The size of the Ātmā is a point that is often discussed by the various Darśanas and there is a lot of debate on this subject. Since the OP asked for opinions and not debates it is pointless to (re)start VD and Atanuji already had a go at it on another thread a debate on this very subject.
There are a couple of mistakes in VDs posts: 1) the second half of Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9 reads bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijńeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kalpate and not bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ ; 2) and it is Bhagavadgītā 10.20 and not 15.20.
Now, as I already mentioned in my previous post, the identity of Īśvara and Ātmā and their hypothetical separation is a matter of understanding. People are at different points on their spiritual journeys. Therefore different understandings are needed to meet their specific different needs. Accordingly all understandings are a manifestation of our own personal level of spiritual maturity. When our spiritual maturity increases our understanding changes appropriately. For this reason there should be no room for arguments or debates each one of us will reach the highest understanding at the appropriate time in this lifetime or in furure ones. That is what Sādhanā is for the increasing of our spiritual maturity. We can also pray and ask Bhagavān to help us improving our spiritual maturity but our physical and mental actions must be conducive to such intervention.
In harmony with our spiritual maturity we can understand that Ātmā is the all-pervading subject-I which is the essential truth of Īśvara (macrocosm) and Jīva (microcosm) or we can understand that Ātmā is the Supersoul the plenary portion of Śrī Kṛṣṇa as Kṣīrodakaśāyī-Viṣṇu standing on the whirl of a lotus flower with four hands, holding conchshell, discus, club, and lotus flower located in the heart of every living being and every atom of the creation.
Our maturity will determine if we understand Ātmā as the all-pervading essential truth of everything or a tiny atomic sized Lord Viṣṇu residing in our heart and every atom of the creation. Or any other possible variation Ātmā is the size of the body, Ātmā is the size of a thumb, etc.
The fact that Viṣṇu means the all-pervasive veveṣṭi vyāpnoti iti Viṣṇuḥ may put in question the locationality and the Aṇutva (smallness) of the Ātmā for some people, at least. After all it does really boil down to spiritual maturity.
For those who like me understand Ātmā as the all-pervading subject-I the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 2.23 says:
sūkṣma iti sūkṣmavidah sthūla iti ca tatvidaḥ |
mūrta iti mūrtavido amūrta iti ca tadvidaḥ ||
// Those who know the subtle say it is subtle, those who know the gross say it is gross. Those who know form say it is form and those who know the formless say it is the formless //
The word Sūkṣma can be interpreted in two ways minute in terms of size or Sukṣmaśarīra. Some people understand the Ātmā to be very very small atomic in size.
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.9 says: eṣo aṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo Ātmā is of the size of an atom. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9 says: vālāgraśatabhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya one hundredth part of the end of a hair divided again by a hundred. Based on these statements the Ātmā is understood as very very small and located in the cavity of the heart.
According to Advaita Vedānta, Śāstra uses the words figuratively. Ātmā is Aṇuḥ means Ātmā is very subtle and cannot be objectified. The objection is raised only because we grasp the words in a gross manner. The entire matter is discussed in Śaṅkarācāryas Brahmasūtra Bhāśya 2.3.19-32.
Another meaning of Sūkṣma is Sūkṣmaśarīra (the subtle body). The Sūkṣmaśarīra is made up of 19 parts five Jñānendriyas (organs of knowledge hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell), five Karmendriyas (organs of action speech, prehension, movement, excretion, and generation), five Prāṇas (vital airs), Manah (mind), Buddhi (intellect), Citta (memory), and Ahaṃkāra (ego).
The subtle body is the immediate identity of the Jīva because the gross body comes and goes, but the subtle body continues. It alone carries the Karma of the Jīva and thus it is more significant than the gross body. Bhagavadgītā 2.22 says: vāsāmsi jīrnani yatha vihāya.... Just as you drop an old dress and wear a new dress, similarly the embodied Dehī, the indweller of the body, the Sūkṣmaśarīra goes from one body to another. Really it is not Ātmā, but Sūkṣmaśarīra which travels. So Sūkṣmaśarīra is the immediate identity of the Jīva.
Some people mistake the Sūkṣmaśarīra for the Ātmā but it cannot be the Ātmā because the Sūkṣmaśarīra consists of parts. Anything which consists of parts does not have a specific reality. A flower, for example, is the combination or the sum total of all the petals and whatever else is there. Any one petal is not the flower. Nor is the stem or any other part of the flower the flower. Thus all the parts of the flower individually are not the flower. But all of them put together make up the flower. This means that nothing specific can be pointed out as the flower. It means there is no specific reality called flower. Similarly parts of the car are not the car. But all the parts put together make up the car. This means that nothing specific can be pointed out as the car. So there is no specific reality called car.
This is an important principle of Advaita Vedānta anything put together does not have a specific reality only an apparent one. Thus Sūkṣmaśarīra which consists of parts is not the ultimate reality of the Jīva only its immediate identity.
Some people say that the Sūkṣmaśarīra is more important than the other two bodies because Sūkṣmasarira is required for Bhoga (wordly experience). Some others say that the Sthūlaśarīra (the gross body) is ultimate reality of Jīva because when the gross body is gone, the person is no longer there and all relationships are over. Also you can have Bhoga only when the Sthūlaśarīra is there. Therefore the Sthūlaśarīra is more important than the other two bodies. When the Sthūlaśarīra is destroyed the persons existence is deleted.
This type of reasoning can be dismissed in a simple way. The Sthūlaśarīra cannot be the ultimate reality of the Jīva because the Sthūlaśarīra is not present in Suṣupti Avasthā (the state of deep-sleep). If Sthūlaśarīra is the ultimate reality of the Jīva then even in Suṣupti or even after death we would have the experience of the gross world because the gross body is very much there after death. Our I-sense does not continue with the Sthūlaśarīra in deep sleep. If I am the Sthūlaśarīra, then the Sthūlaśarīra identification should continue in deep sleep, which is not the case. Therefore the Sthūlaśarīra is also not the ultimate reality of the Jīva.
Shântoham
Vedantin
According to the technical language of Advaita Vedānta Jīva, Ātmā, and Jīvātmā ere not synonymous they are three different concepts. Jīva is the individual a Prāṇi, a Saṁsāri (s)he has a temporary gross body and long lasting subtle body and causal body these two last until final liberation (Videhamukti) the subtle body is the immediate identity of the Jīva what most religious people would call the soul. Ātmā is Śuddha-Caitanya pure, unmanifested consciousness the essential truth of Īśvara (macrocosm) and Jīva (microcosm). The term Ātmā is used in reference to the microcosm and the term Brahman is used in reference to the macrocosm. Jīvātmā is Śuddha-Caitanya manifested in the Sūkṣmaśarīra. To be specific Śuddha-Caitanya manifests in the Buddhi the intellect which is subtle enough to allow the manifestation of consciousness. Another term for it is Cidābhāsa or Pratibimba.
Being all-pervasive Śuddha-Caitanya pervades the Jīva and manifests in the Buddhi the same way as the presence of water in a vase manifests (the reflection of) the sun when the water comes in contact with the sunlight and enlivens the bodies from the inside out. The Śuddha-Caitanya pervades even the inanimate objects which being devoid of a manifesting medium the Buddhi remains inanimate. At death the Sūkṣmaśarīra moves on depriving the Sthūlaśarīra of a manifesting medium rendering inanimate the Sthūlaśarīra. Śuddha-Caitanya is still there it hasnt moved but it does not manifests in that specific body due to the lack of a manifesting medium.
It is the Sūkṣmaśarīra which is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.7-12 Sa jīvaḥ. It is Brahman which is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.1-7. And it is Ātmā which is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.13-14.
In Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.9 Ātmā is described as Aṇuh which is not understood as atomic in size but as subtle. It is understood this way because in the previous verse (3.1.8) it is described as Tam niṣkalam that which is free from parts (partless). And in 3.1.7 it is described as Sūkṣmat sūkṣmataram subtler than the subtle.
If all this is understood properly then the meaning of Bhagavadgītā 10.20 becomes clear: aham ātmā sarva-bhūtāśaya-sthitaḥ I am [aham] the Ātmā [ātmā] situated within [sthitaḥ] the mind [āśaya: आशय; ā + śī; the seat of feelings and thoughts, the mind, the heart] of all living beings [sarva-bhūta] (as Cidābhāsa).
Pranāms
Being all-pervasive Śuddha-Caitanya pervades the Jīva and manifests in the Buddhi the same way as the presence of water in a vase manifests (the reflection of) the sun when the water comes in contact with the sunlight and enlivens the bodies from the inside out. The Śuddha-Caitanya pervades even the inanimate objects which being devoid of a manifesting medium the Buddhi remains inanimate. At death the Sūkṣmaśarīra moves on depriving the Sthūlaśarīra of a manifesting medium rendering inanimate the Sthūlaśarīra. Śuddha-Caitanya is still there it hasnt moved but it does not manifests in that specific body due to the lack of a manifesting medium.
It is the Sūkṣmaśarīra which is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.7-12 Sa jīvaḥ. It is Brahman which is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.1-7. And it is Ātmā which is described in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.13-14.
In Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.9 Ātmā is described as Aṇuh which is not understood as atomic in size but as subtle. It is understood this way because in the previous verse (3.1.8) it is described as Tam niṣkalam that which is free from parts (partless). And in 3.1.7 it is described as Sūkṣmat sūkṣmataram subtler than the subtle.
If all this is understood properly then the meaning of Bhagavadgītā 10.20 becomes clear: aham ātmā sarva-bhūtāśaya-sthitaḥ I am [aham] the Ātmā [ātmā] situated within [sthitaḥ] the mind [āśaya: आशय; ā + śī; the seat of feelings and thoughts, the mind, the heart] of all living beings [sarva-bhūta] (as Cidābhāsa).
Pranāms
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Dhanyavad All for your information and Knowledge.
May Ishwar Be with you through thick and thin,
OHM TATH SATH
May Ishwar Be with you through thick and thin,
OHM TATH SATH