Is Ishwar the Same as Atman?

[Satyamavejayanti]

Shântoham;3168829]This much was established in your first post – but since this is your thread – maybe you should be a bit more specific and help us understanding where all this is going. According to your understanding the essential nature of Ātmā and Īśvara is it the same or is it different?

Namaste,

I'm just trying have a conversation, get some view and express mine, that is it. But you are right I should be more specific.

According to my understanding, the essential nature of Atman and Ishvar are similar, but not the same, to me Ishwar and Atman are both eternal entities without beginning or end, but that is the only similarity.

The essential nature of Ātmā and Īśvara what is made of?

Who truly knows

I can only say the being eternal is a similar nature of both. So simply saying similar material but attributes differ.

What is the relationship between Ātmā and Īśvara?

Atman is the seeker, Ishwar is to be found, the same relationship a traveller has with his destination. Ishwar is omnipresent but Atman needs to realize this.

What is the ultimate goal of human life?

Moksha comes to mind first, but more immediate would be just to live and let live.

From where do you derive your understanding? Intuition? Personal opinion? The Scriptures?

Personal opinion on scriptures coupled with intuition.

If you do indeed understand the analogy of wave, ocean, and water – don’t forget the water – you would not say that it does not apply.

Well to me this only applies as far as the the similarities between Atman and Ishwar as in the being eternal, to me if Ishwar is the ocean of water, Atman are the drops of lead, Atman drowns in the Bliss of Ishwar, but in doing so never merges fully with Ishwar because Ishwar is purna (complete) no additions nor deletion apply to her. Atman is not a part of Ishwar but is a companion.

To Ishvar the Atman is like one of those mates that you have who likes jumping castles at the age of 40, and every time you invite the bloke you have to hire the jumping castle as well just to please him, while Ishvar itself is sitting back and not having any need for any kind of enjoyment because he has been there and done that.

similar analogy used in one of the Vedas i think Rig

if you know what i mean.

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

Thank you for clarifying your position. I hope I did not come across as confrontational because that is not my intention. My intention is to understand your position in a meaningful way – so I can (try to) contribute to this conversation.
I must confess that your position is somewhat unclear to me. It would be helpful if you could formulate your position in a more systematic manner.
So far this is what I understood: 1) Īśvara, Jīva (that you define as Ātm&#257, and Prakṛiti are eternal; 2) Īśvara though does not create Jīva and Prakṛiti they being coeval with Him; 3) Īśvara is the absolute master and controller – both from within and from without – of Jīva and Prakṛiti. Is my understanding of your view correct?
We could say that Īśvara alone is Svatantra – independent reality – and Jīva and Prakṛiti are Asvatantra – dependent reality. Do you agree?
Some questions: 1) Is Brahman another name for Īśvara? 2) Is Avyākṛta-Ākāśa – unmodified space – eternal and coeval with Īśvara? 3) Is Īśvara anthropomorphic? 4) What is Scripture for you?

Satyamavejayanti wrote: According to my understanding, the essential nature of Atman and Ishvar are similar, but not the same, to me Ishwar and Atman are both eternal entities without beginning or end, but that is the only similarity.

Can two eternal entities coexist? Can one of the two be eternal yet limited while the other is eternal yet limitless? Does eternity imply limitlessness?

Satyamavejayanti wrote: Who truly knows. I can only say the being eternal is a similar nature of both. So simply saying similar material but attributes differ.

Can anything exist separate from consciousness (Cit)? Does existence (Sat) imply consciousness (Cit)?

Satyamavejayanti wrote: Atman is the seeker, Ishwar is to be found, the same relationship a traveller has with his destination. Ishwar is omnipresent but Atman needs to realize this.

Why does the traveller travel? What is his/her reason?

Satyamavejayanti wrote: Moksha comes to mind first...

Liberation from what? And through which method?

Satyamavejayanti wrote: Personal opinion on scriptures coupled with intuition.

Can personal opinion and Scriptures coexist? Or should personal opinion be the product of the proper understanding of the Scriptures? Intuition based on what?

Satyamavejayanti wrote: Well to me this only applies as far as the the similarities between Atman and Ishwar as in the being eternal, to me if Ishwar is the ocean of water, Atman are the drops of lead, Atman drowns in the Bliss of Ishwar, but in doing so never merges fully with Ishwar because Ishwar is purna (complete) no additions nor deletion apply to her. Atman is not a part of Ishwar but is a companion.

Īśvara is the ocean, the Jīva – not Ātmā – is the wave, and water – Ātmā/Brahman – is the reality of both. This analogy addresses the essential nature of Īśvara, Jīva, and Jagat. They all share the same essential nature. If we apply this analogy in any other way it makes no sense.
The wave does not merge – fully or partially – into the water – it is water. The ocean does not contain – fully or partially – water – it is (an immense body of) water. The Pūrnatva of the ocean derives from its being water not ocean.

Satyamavejayanti wrote: Similar analogy used in one of the Vedas I think Rig…

Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.6, Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4.6, Ṛg Veda 1.164.20.

Satyamavejayanti wrote: If you know what I mean.

I am trying...

Pranāms

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

ShântohamThank you for clarifying your position. I hope I did not come across as confrontational because that is not my intention. My intention is to understand your position in a meaningful way – so I can (try to) contribute to this conversation.

Namaste,

No you did not come across confrontational at all. I will try to clarify my position as best i can.

I must confess that your position is somewhat unclear to me. It would be helpful if you could formulate your position in a more systematic manner.

Shall try

So far this is what I understood: 1) Īśvara, Jīva (that you define as Ātm&#257, and Prakṛiti are eternal; 2) Īśvara though does not create Jīva and Prakṛiti they being coeval with Him; 3) Īśvara is the absolute master and controller – both from within and from without – of Jīva and Prakṛiti. Is my understanding of your view correct?

Yes this is my understanding.

We could say that Īśvara alone is Svatantra – independent reality – and Jīva and Prakṛiti are Asvatantra – dependent reality. Do you agree?

Yes i would agree.

Some questions: 1) Is Brahman another name for Īśvara?

Yes, i think it is, Brahman/Ishwar/OM/Shiva/Vishnu/Kali/Saraswati ect ect. all names of the one.

2) Is Avyākṛta-Ākāśa – unmodified space – eternal and coeval with Īśvara?

yes, i would say its part of Prakriti.

3) Is Īśvara anthropomorphic?

Not fully, is is existence (similar to Atman and Parakriti) and is conscious (similar to Atman but not to Prakriti) but is all blissful (neither similar to Prakriti not Atman.

4) What is Scripture for you?

Rig, Yajus, Saman and Atharva

Can two eternal entities coexist?

Yes, i believe so, not two but three.

Can one of the two be eternal yet limited while the other is eternal yet limitless?

Yes

Does eternity imply limitlessness?

Not completely, one can be eternal but still have limits.

Can anything exist separate from consciousness (Cit)?

Yes, the un-conscious

Does existence (Sat) imply consciousness (Cit)?

Not always, inanimate objects remain unconscious.

Why does the traveller travel? What is his/her reason?

To reach the destination

Liberation from what? And through which method?

From birth and and death.
Methods are many, yoga, niyam/yam, good karma, ect ect.

Can personal opinion and Scriptures coexist? Or should personal opinion be the product of the proper understanding of the Scriptures?

I think personal opinion has to be based on the proper understanding of scriptures.

Intuition based on what?

Based on what i understand from scriptures.

Īśvara is the ocean, the Jīva – not Ātmā – is the wave, and water – Ātmā/Brahman – is the reality of both. This analogy addresses the essential nature of Īśvara, Jīva, and Jagat. They all share the same essential nature. If we apply this analogy in any other way it makes no sense.The wave does not merge – fully or partially – into the water – it is water. The ocean does not contain – fully or partially – water – it is (an immense body of) water. The Pūrnatva of the ocean derives from its being water not ocean.

To me Jiva and Atma are the same thing, they are conscious being, Brahman is ParmAtman the supreme consciousness, Atman and Paramatman is different because of the attributes associated with it, Atman is Jiva so its individual consciousness, Brahman is a conscious entity who is not limited by time and space and is omnipresent. Atman/Jiva is not omnipresent and is limited in time and space.

Jiva Atman inhabits a limited body (Prakriti), Parmatman pervades all and is not limited.

Jiva Atman Does karma and reaps the reward, Brahman does not.
I think that Just because they may have the similar nature does not make them the same.

Ṛg Veda 1.164.20.

Yes this one. In this Hymn if i remember rightly 2 birds of similar nature, but yet separate, and the thing that separates them is one eats the fruit and the other just watches. And also the tree itself is separate from both these birds, implying a third entity, which is in co-existence but different in its nature.

To me this is Brahman/Aman/Prakriti established as separate. As i consider only the Vedas as revealed i dont think any other text as having a better description. Plus i see myself who as Atman but I'm limited and are continually engaged in Karma, I need my body to conduct my duties,
So naturally to be Brahman would not have need for a Body, and not engaged in Karma nor is Brahman limited to anything.

I (Atman) cannot be the same with Brahman (Ishwar), because that would limit Brahman, and would also mean the Atman (I) am Unlimited, which i can see from just looking around the office is not possible.

Hope this helps

OM TATH SATH

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I've always seen it as Ishwara/Brahman/Paramatma = Macrocosm (God/Self)
Atma = microcosm (individual/self)

Sorry for the late reply Madhuri ji,

Ok so you also consider Atman separate from ParmAtman.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Brahman is omnipresent throughout Cosmos, and is simultaneously present in all that exists and transcendent to all that exists. It fills the space between sub-atomic 'particles' and equally constitutes the sub-atomic 'particles',...such so called particles being merely spherical standing waves of the universal spirit energy of Brahman,..all is Brahman.

Human dualistic consciousness conceptualizes the personification of Brahman and names it Ishvara/Lord. The interface between human consciousness and Ishvara takes place through the relevant mutually shared local occupied space/spirit/energy/matter, and calls this interface where the micro-cosmic self meets the macro-cosmic Self Atman.

 

[atanu]

Brahman is omnipresent throughout Cosmos, and is simultaneously present in all that exists and transcendent to all that exists. It fills the space between sub-atomic 'particles' and equally constitutes the sub-atomic 'particles',...such so called particles being merely spherical standing waves of the universal spirit energy of Brahman,..all is Brahman.

Human dualistic consciousness conceptualizes the personification of Brahman and names it Ishvara/Lord. The interface between human consciousness and Ishvara takes place through the relevant mutually shared local occupied space/spirit/energy/matter, and calls this interface where the micro-cosmic self meets the macro-cosmic Self Atman.

And: ayam atma brahman

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And: ayam atma brahman

Yes, Atman is Brahman, Atman is the soul of Brahman from the perspective of man, and Ishvara is Brahman.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

From the use of the term ātman, seems you are referring to 'Viśnu tattva' as ātman.

:namaste

 

[Vrindavana Das]

An individual soul (ātman) is simultaneously one and yet different from Brahman/Supreme Lord. This is the 'Doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference', as taught by Śree Chaitanya Mahāprabhu.

The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding - Brahman, Parmātmā and Bhagvān.

It is mentioned in the scriptures:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
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]

So, the final word in the realization of Absolute Truth is realization of Bhagavān feature of Supreme Lord.

It is further mentioned,

ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
indrāri-vyākulaḿ lokaḿ
mṛḍayanti yuge yuge​

All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

Therefore, it is to be understood that Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān - Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Elsewhere we find, Lord Brahma (creator of the material universe) prays in the following way to Supreme Lord.

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
anādir ādir govindaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam​

Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Controller (Godhead). He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. [B.S. 5.1]

Thus, we see that Brahman is the impersonal feature of Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa.

As for the individual souls, it is stated:

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." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9]

The constitutional position of this atomic particle - soul is explained as:

jīvera 'svarūpa' haya — kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa'
kṛṣṇera 'taṭasthā-śakti' 'bhedābheda-prakāśa'
sūryāḿśa-kiraṇa, yaiche agni-jvālā-caya
svābhāvika kṛṣṇera tina-prakāra 'śakti' haya​

"It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa because he is the marginal energy of Kṛṣṇa and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Kṛṣṇa has three varieties of energy. [C.C. Madhya 20.108-109]

Ātman/soul is not the same substance as Brahman/Supreme Lord. It qualifies as a part of the marginal energy/potency of Supreme Lord.

Ātman is same in quality with Brahman/Supreme Lord (like particle of sunshine is the same as sun). However, it is different in quantity from the Infinite Supreme Lord/Brahman (just like a particle of sunlight is not Sun).

Doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference - achitnya bhedābheda tattva.

:namaste

 

[Shântoham]

Hope this helps

Namaskāram

Yes, thank you, it was very helpful.

Yes, the un-conscious
Not always, inanimate objects remain unconscious.

Can the un-conscious even (be considered) exist(ent) without the witnessing presence of consciousness?

Pranāms

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

From the use of the term ātman, seems you are referring to 'Viśnu tattva' as ātman.

:namaste

I think of Atman as individual "Soul", also known as Jiva.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Shântoham;3172857]Yes, thank you, it was very helpful.

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

Can the un-conscious even (be considered) exist(ent) without the witnessing presence of consciousness?

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.

 

[atanu]

A perspective:

Discrimination of the Mahavakyas - The Philosophy of the Panchadasi - Chapter 5

 

[Iti oj]

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

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

Dont the consist of the same.substance?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Dont the consist of the same.substance?

And What substance is that may i ask?

 

[Sumit]

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

Ishwar and Atman are not same. They are totally different. Ishwar, Atman and Prakriti these three are without begaining or end.

 

[Krishna Chaitanya]

Namaskāram

It depends on your understanding. If by Īśvara you mean God and by Ātmā you mean the soul – than they are separate. But if by Ātmā you mean the all-pervading subject-I – Āpnoti sarvam vyapnoti iti ātmā – than that which is all-perveding cannot be separate from anything. That which is all-pervading can only be the essential truth of everything. Therefore Ātmā is – according to this understanding – the essential truth of Īśvara (macrocosm) and Jīva (microcosm). From the standpoint of their personal attributes Jīva and Īśvara are different – one is God and the other is a limited individual – but from the standpoint of their essential nature they are one and the same. The same way as the wave and the ocean are different but essentially they are one water.

Pranāms

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.

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.

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).

Thanks,
Chaitanya

 

[Krishna Chaitanya]

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

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

As far as the question is concerned, as many already remarked, it will depend on the context and the meaning you associate with those terms.

An initial unbiased way would be to treat the words literally (and not attaching any context to them),

Ishvara would just mean controller - and we can control to some extent (of course, via the interface of paramatma though - since matter is alien to our identity as spirit and hence we do not have direct access, however matter and spirit are energies of the supreme lord - so 'when we desire by our freewill to type this text in the post', the lord in the heart permits it in general).

Atman literally means the spirit soul (the store house of consciousness within the body).

The follow might give a clearer picture:

A mundane analogy would be: "blue"drop and "blue"ocean. The word "blue" is just an adjective and is presented as an attribute to indicate the 'color' of the subject.

Similarly, the attributes Ishvara and Atma act as adjectives to qualify specific characteristics of 'living entity' and 'supreme lord'. For example:

Ishvara and ParamIshvara refer to the controller aspect of atma and the supreme lord.

Atma and ParamAtma refer to the spiritual being (soul) of the individual soul (atma) and the supersoul (paramatma).

Hope it helps you clear your confusion .

Thanks,
Chaitanya

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

As far as the question is concerned, as many already remarked, it will depend on the context and the meaning you associate with those terms.

An initial unbiased way would be to treat the words literally (and not attaching any context to them),

Ishvara would just mean controller - and we can control to some extent (of course, via the interface of paramatma though - since matter is alien to our identity as spirit and hence we do not have direct access, however matter and spirit are energies of the supreme lord - so 'when we desire by our freewill to type this text in the post', the lord in the heart permits it in general).

Atman literally means the spirit soul (the store house of consciousness within the body).

The follow might give a clearer picture:

A mundane analogy would be: "blue"drop and "blue"ocean. The word "blue" is just an adjective and is presented as an attribute to indicate the 'color' of the subject.

Similarly, the attributes Ishvara and Atma act as adjectives to qualify specific characteristics of 'living entity' and 'supreme lord'. For example:

Ishvara and ParamIshvara refer to the controller aspect of atma and the supreme lord.

Atma and ParamAtma refer to the spiritual being (soul) of the individual soul (atma) and the supersoul (paramatma).

Hope it helps you clear your confusion .

Thanks,
Chaitanya

There is no confusion at all, just different perspectives of the same truth, one reality different names, I just wanted to read some views on the issue.

Dhanyavad

 

[Iti oj]

And What substance is that may i ask?

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