Paramatman, Atman and Brahman

[Rick O'Shez]

I find Paramatman an intriguing concept, but I'm struggling to understand how it relates to Atman and Brahman - it is a sort of unifying concept? Can anyone provide a simple explanation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

 

[Shantanu]

I find Paramatman an intriguing concept, but I'm struggling to understand how it relates to Atman and Brahman - it is a sort of unifying concept? Can anyone provide a simple explanation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Hope this is simple enough: https://satyaadvaita.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/brahman-in-hindu-cosmogony-and-religion/? To add: atman is one's own consciousness (the self - derived from guna consciousness energy component of total energy of the universe) whereas Paramatma is God's mind (Supersoul).

 

[Kirran]

Wiki gives me this on the Paramatman in Buddhism - Atman is perceived as illusory. Paramatman is seen as the only distinguishing permanence of life,[6] as depicted in the philosophy of Anatta.

So in Advaita we'd say that the Atman is the Paramatman, which is Brahman. Rather than that the Atman doesn't exist, but there is only the Paramatman. If we take the above quote to refer to the Atman as an individual separate soul, as was commonly used at the time, then Advaita agrees with it.

Another wiki quote - In Advaita philosophy, individual souls are called Jīvātman, and the Highest Brahman is called Paramātman. The Jivatman and the Paramatman are known to be one and the same when the Jivatman attains the true knowledge of the Brahman

So these are all ultimately the same thing in Advaita, although the jivatman is perceived to be an individual thing prior to realisation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Another wiki quote - In Advaita philosophy, individual souls are called Jīvātman, and the Highest Brahman is called Paramātman. The Jivatman and the Paramatman are known to be one and the same when the Jivatman attains the true knowledge of the Brahman
So these are all ultimately the same thing in Advaita, although the jivatman is perceived to be an individual thing prior to realisation.

So is Jivatman basically the same as Atman?

The OP Wiki article includes: "Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes." Does this mean that Jivatman and Atman "have" personality and individuality, or are they also self-less?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So is Jivatman basically the same as Atman?

The OP Wiki article includes: "Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes." Does this mean that Jivatman and Atman "have" personality and individuality, or are they also self-less?

Till the time they have the sense of 'self', they will be separate. Once that sense goes, then 'self', which appears because of 'maya', also disappears.
Brahman and Paramatma are nearly the same. Brahman is generally used in a non-personal sense, while Paramatma is generally used in a personal sense (a personal God, just like a soul).
Mundaka Upanishad says "Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (one who knows/comes to know Brahman, verily becomes Brahman). The person transcends the bonds of 'maya'/'ajnana'/'self' and becomes 'universal'/enlightened. Hope it helps.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I find Paramatman an intriguing concept, but I'm struggling to understand how it relates to Atman and Brahman - it is a sort of unifying concept? Can anyone provide a simple explanation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Nitaibol. It really depends on the school in how the Paramatma is explained and its relationship with Atman and Brahma. Kiranji and Aupmanyavji have already explained the Adwaita position, I will briefly explain the Vaishnav (specifically Gaudiya) view:

For us, Paramatma refers to the Supersoul which is considered to be the partial expansion of God (specifically known as Ksirodaksayi Visnu). The Paramatma has 2 main functions. Its first function is that it resides alongside the Jiva-atma in the body of every single living entity, bestowing upon the Jiva-atma the fruit of its karma. Its second function is that the Paramatma pervades (and is within) every single atom within material creation, acting as its support. Vaishnavs cite the following verse from Mundaka Upanisad 3.1.1-2 in support of this:

dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā
samānaṁ vṛkṣaṁ pariṣasvajāte
tayor anyaḥ pippalaṁ svādy atty
anaśnann anyo 'bhicākaśīti

"There are two birds in one tree. One of them (the Jivatma) is eating the fruits of the tree, while the other (paramatma) is witnessing the actions. The witness is the Lord, and the fruit-eater is the living entity."

samāne vṛkṣe puruṣo nimagno
'nīśayā śocati muhyamānaḥ
juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyaty anyam īśam
asya mahimānam iti vīta-śokaḥ

"Although the two birds are in the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories—at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties."

Based upon our interpretation of the above verse, there is a permanent different between the Jivatma (self) and the Paramatma. The Paramatma is a partial expansion of Lord Sankarshana (Visnu) while the Jivatma is a fragmented fraction of the impersonal Brahman.

 

[Kirran]

So is Jivatman basically the same as Atman?

The OP Wiki article includes: "Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes." Does this mean that Jivatman and Atman "have" personality and individuality, or are they also self-less?

Eh, kind of The Atman is Brahman. But the Jivatman, while being in truth the Atman, is what is perceived by the deluded (i.e. us plebs) as an individual consciousness. Consciousness being very simple, rather than some complex phenomenon. Jivatman is Atman perceived to have individuality, one can say, but in reality is no different to the Atman.

In my understanding.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Till the time they have the sense of 'self', they will be separate. Once that sense goes, then 'self', which appears because of 'maya', also disappears.
Brahman and Paramatma are nearly the same. Brahman is generally used in a non-personal sense, while Paramatma is generally used in a personal sense (a personal God, just like a soul).
Mundaka Upanishad says "Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (one who knows/comes to know Brahman, verily becomes Brahman). The person transcends the bonds of 'maya'/'ajnana'/'self' and becomes 'universal'/enlightened. Hope it helps.

So does enlightenment entail the cessation of self-view, or the cessation of self ( individuality/personality )?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Eh, kind of The Atman is Brahman. But the Jivatman, while being in truth the Atman, is what is perceived by the deluded (i.e. us plebs) as an individual consciousness. Consciousness being very simple, rather than some complex phenomenon. Jivatman is Atman perceived to have individuality, one can say, but in reality is no different to the Atman.
In my understanding.

So is Jivatman like our sense of self?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"There are two birds in one tree. One of them (the Jivatma) is eating the fruits of the tree, while the other (paramatma) is witnessing the actions. The witness is the Lord, and the fruit-eater is the living entity."

So are there specific practices to "realise" Paramatman?

 

[Stormcry]

Wise men say if it's on Wikipedia it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Kirran]

So is Jivatman like our sense of self?

No, not quite. It's an object of perception which is the reflection of Atman being perceived as individual.

 

[Kirran]

Wise men say if it's on Wikipedia it doesn't mean it's true.

We got any wise men around here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So does enlightenment entail the cessation of self-view, or the cessation of self ( individuality/personality )?

In my sort of 'advaita' (non-duality), cessation of 'self-view' is enlightenment. At a lower level of reality - 'Vyavaharika' (Pragmatic), 'self' will persist - Buddha will remain Buddha, Aupmanyav will remain Aupmanyav, Kirran will remain Kirran, with our bodies and its requirements. But at a higher/truer level of reality - 'Parmamarthika' (Absolute), the person will come to understand that both him and a stone are the same, constituted by the very same energy (physical and not supernatural/exotic/esoteric). 'Ayamatma Brahman', 'Aham Brahmasmi', 'Tat twam asi', 'So'ham', 'Shivo'ham, Shivo'ham'). Now the person does not have an individuality - he is but Brahman.
I am not explaining these terms because you already know that.

We got any wise men around here?

Actually, we only have wise men around here, every one of us.

 

[Terese]

So are there specific practices to "realise" Paramatman?

Yes. Jnana Yoga (wisdom yoga), Karma Yoga (action yoga), Raja Yoga (self discipline yoga). However, in Sri Vaishnavism, Prapatti (surrender) is the best way to 'realise' Paramatman.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yes. Jnana Yoga (wisdom yoga), Karma Yoga (action yoga), Raja Yoga (self discipline yoga). However, in Sri Vaishnavism, Prapatti (surrender) is the best way to 'realise' Paramatman.

Beautifully said We completely agree.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita too is 'prapatti', to Brahman, which constitues the whole universe, surrender of 'self', individuality.

 

[Terese]

Advaita too is 'prapatti', to Brahman, which constitues the whole universe, surrender of 'self', individuality.

'Prapatti' as in surrender to a personal God, his form and attributes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing against that. It is only a difference of views. And as you know Hinduism does not mind it.

 

[morphesium]

Hope this is simple enough: https://satyaadvaita.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/brahman-in-hindu-cosmogony-and-religion/? To add: atman is one's own consciousness (the self - derived from guna consciousness energy component of total energy of the universe) whereas Paramatma is God's mind (Supersoul).

So if atman is one's own consciousness - what happens to it if the person is unconscious -> atman is out of service.
Medically, trauma to the brain can cause impaired consciousness. Does that mean one will have impaired atman at those times?
Just asking.