Where's Atma Who's not Brahma?

[Stormcry]

Just a very simple and funny question to Dvaitians or semi-dvaitians....

Where in the scripture it is written that Atma is not Brahman? I'm interested to know those verses. The meaning should be clear as like that of ' Aham Brahma asmi ' It's some kind of challenge to post such verses. After all shastra pramana is more important than beliefs. Isn't it?

Hari Ram Govinda

 

[Sumit]

Just a very simple and funny question to Dvaitians or semi-dvaitians....

I don't want to convert it into a debate or copy paste thread, so I suggest you to read books of shri Madhvacharya who was a great Vaishnav and teacher of dvaita vedanta.
Madhvacharya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where in the scripture it is written that Atma is not Brahman?

Where scripture (Vedas) says Aatman is Brahman??

 

[chinu]

Just a very simple and funny question to Dvaitians or semi-dvaitians....

Where in the scripture it is written that Atma is not Brahman? I'm interested to know those verses. The meaning should be clear as like that of ' Aham Brahma asmi ' It's some kind of challenge to post such verses. After all shastra pramana is more important than beliefs. Isn't it?

Hari Ram Govinda

Where it is written that water isn't a Sea ?
And Where it is written that water isn't a River ?

Ah! They both are Water, and they both are very different from each other too.

I hope you got it now, do you ?

Anyways..

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

This is a fair discussion. To my understanding, yes the two birds analogy is true, and also true is the atman is the brahman. I can quote numerous scriptures to support this, but there would be too many.

 

[Makaranda]

Where scripture (Vedas) says Aatman is Brahman??

Mandukya Upanishad, second verse, says ayam atma brahma.

Chandogya Upanishad indicates the same in the tat tvam asi refrain; see rough translation for context: 'That Being which is this subtle essence, even That all this world has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O Shvetaketu.'

 

[Sumit]

Mandukya Upanishad, second verse, says ayam atma brahma.

Chandogya Upanishad indicates the same in the tat tvam asi refrain; see rough translation for context: 'That Being which is this subtle essence, even That all this world has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O Shvetaketu.'

Where scripture (Vedas) says Aatman is Brahman??

 

[Poeticus]

Where scripture (Vedas) says Aatman is Brahman??

The Four Vedas (Rg, Sama, Yajur, & Atharva) do not deal with
the jnana-kanda. Historically*, in the Hindu-Indic sense, the phrase
"the Vedas" deals with not only the Samhita-s, but also the Mukhya
Upanishads. In other words, since the topic deals with the jnana-
kanda facets of Hinduism, particularly that of Vedanta and meta-
physical speculations, the scriptures that would have to be used
are the Mukhya Upanishads <--- and they are the Vedas as well.
___________________
* And not just historically but theologically as well. ​

 

[Makaranda]

Where scripture (Vedas) says Aatman is Brahman??

Uhhh... Upanishads are Vedic texts. That is why Upanishads are called Vedanta- they are the texts which appear at the end of or conclude the Vedas. The Mandukya Upanishad, which verse says ayam atma brahma, belongs to the Atharva Veda. Chandogya belongs to the Sama Veda.

 

[Vinayaka]

Can someone define atma(n), or can we share definitions? Perhaps that will help. Perhaps not.

 

[Stormcry]

Where it is written that water isn't a Sea ?
And Where it is written that water isn't a River ?

Ah! They both are Water, and they both are very different from each other too.

Dude,Without water, there's no sea. So no any difference. Water and sea are just two different names of what we see a thing with water. The same thing is about Atma and Brahman. If we consider water different from sea, then either water or sea should be negated completely. Because the thing which is dependant on something is not a reality.
@ShivaFan: Analogy of two birds is not supporting Atma is not Brahman. It's just an example to show how paramatma is aloof from wordly existence though it acts like deluded ie as a jiva. I've already explained this in my " two birds of Iskcon" thread.

 

[ShivaFan]

HLK: @ShivaFan: Analogy of two birds is not supporting Atma is not Brahman. It's just an example to show how paramatma is aloof from wordly existence though it acts like deluded ie as a jiva. I've already explained this in my " two birds of Iskcon" thread.

I understand that HLK, I wasn't using the anology in that manner. I was just advocating as I said in the next breath, that Atman is Brahman, but I also advocate the Paramatma as aloof as well, meaning some feel a contradiction here as if two cannot be true. But I see both as true.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Kalidas]

Just a very simple and funny question to Dvaitians or semi-dvaitians....

Where in the scripture it is written that Atma is not Brahman? I'm interested to know those verses. The meaning should be clear as like that of ' Aham Brahma asmi ' It's some kind of challenge to post such verses. After all shastra pramana is more important than beliefs. Isn't it?

Hari Ram Govinda

http://reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif

 

[Poeticus]

Uhhh... Upanishads are Vedic texts.

And the Brahmana-s and Aranyaka-s; it is also said that the sutra-s that accompany various Shakha-s are also Shruti. For example, the shulba-sutra-s, the grhya-sutra-s, the shrauta-sutra-s, and even the dharma-sutra-s (however, I'm not familiar with the inner workings of the dharma-sutra-s, and they are practically the most difficult texts to come by, especially their English translations). Pretty much any text that belongs to not only the kalpa facet of Shruti-oriented scripture, but also to every Vedanga - is Veda in the traditional sense.​

 

[Sumit]

The Four Vedas (Rg, Sama, Yajur, & Atharva) do not deal with
the jnana-kanda. Historically*, in the Hindu-Indic sense, the phrase
"the Vedas" deals with not only the Samhita-s, but also the Mukhya
Upanishads. In other words, since the topic deals with the jnana-
kanda facets of Hinduism, particularly that of Vedanta and meta-
physical speculations, the scriptures that would have to be used
are the Mukhya Upanishads <--- and they are the Vedas as well.
___________________
* And not just historically but theologically as well. ​

Upanishads are not Vedas, they just explain certain vedic versus. This claim is similar to those whose says Bhagavatam is 5th veda.

 

[Poeticus]

Upanishads are not Vedas, they just explain certain vedic versus. This claim is similar to those whose says Bhagavatam is 5th veda.

It's not a claim. To even stress it as a claim shows theological
carelessness. The Bhagavatam is clearly Smriti, but the Mukhya
Upanishads are definitely Shruti.

The Samhita-s, the Mukhya Upanishads, along with the Brahmana-s,
Aranyaka-s, and various Vedanga-centric scriptures make up the
portion known as Shruti ... and Shruti = vedah pramanah.

Veda, itself, is divided into two portions: karma-kanda and jnana-
kanda. The OP's topic is jnana-kanda related, and therefore, the
Mukhya Upanishads have to be utilized.​

 

[Stormcry]

Upanishads are not Vedas, they just explain certain vedic versus. This claim is similar to those whose says Bhagavatam is 5th veda.

Wow ! Great research adapted by westerner thinking. Would you like to give us some Shabda Pramana rather than your personal view formed by Kutarka Buddhi. So Upanishads and smritis are the works of some unknown people and all our traditional realised acharyas who quoted Upanishads and smritis were fools. It feels lol for me.

Disbelievance in Shastras is a Pakhanda and it's none other than the evil of Kaliyuga. It is the westerner who started such claims and this virus is getting stronger in some unintelligent Hindus. It's corrupting our basic sanatana values. Doubting shastras only incure sins.

 

[Makaranda]

Upanishads are not Vedas, they just explain certain vedic versus. This claim is similar to those whose says Bhagavatam is 5th veda.

Uhhhh...no. Vedas are constituted of Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and (possibly) Sutras. These are all called Shruti. Upanishads are also called Vedanta, because they are the final portion (-anta, end or conclusion) of the Vedic corpus. This is very basic knowledge of our scriptures which apparently you are lacking.

 

[Vinayaka]

Upanishads are part of the Vedas. But that's off topic.

I see Atman as an extension of Brahman, or a portion of Brahman. Jiva is Siva, but doesn't know it for awhile. So from this view, it's both, depending on the perspective you're viewing from.

 

[Stormcry]

Upanishads are part of the Vedas. But that's off topic.

I see Atman as an extension of Brahman, or a portion of Brahman. Jiva is Siva, but doesn't know it for awhile. So from this view, it's both, depending on the perspective you're viewing from.

I think, we shouldn't believe something unless scriptures doesn't say so. Shastra doesn't support " Atma is a part ". It says " this atma is Brahma itself "

Jiva is Shiva. But Brahma is beyond jiva-Shiva. Jiva is Purusha and Shiva is Prakruti. When the state of oneness of Jiva and Shiva is achieved, it's called as Brahmabhava or Brahmasparsha. When such oneness itself is gone, then what remains is complete Brahma without a second.

 

[Sumit]

Wow ! Great research adapted by westerner thinking. Would you like to give us some Shabda Pramana rather than your personal view formed by Kutarka Buddhi. So Upanishads and smritis are the works of some unknown people and all our traditional realised acharyas who quoted Upanishads and smritis were fools. It feels lol for me.
Disbelievance in Shastras is a Pakhanda and it's none other than the evil of Kaliyuga. It is the westerner who started such claims and this virus is getting stronger in some unintelligent Hindus. It's corrupting our basic sanatana values. Doubting shastras only incure sins.

Don't be so furious buddy, cool down.
Now going back to your question, I simply asked you to to provide a verse from 4 vedas that says Aatman is Brahman, so if you have one post it here (or just google it).

Uhhhh...no. Vedas are constituted of Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and (possibly) Sutras. These are all called Shruti. Upanishads are also called Vedanta, because they are the final portion (-anta, end or conclusion) of the Vedic corpus. This is very basic knowledge of our scriptures which apparently you are lacking.

Upanishads cannot be declared as Vedas, Most of the Upanishads were composed in post vedic age or after arrival of Buddhism. They were composed to preach and propagate Vedic dharma in an effective yet easier way. Most of the Upanishads were commentaries over Veda Samhitas like 17 out of 18 verses of Isha Upanishads are taken from Yajurveda. The second reason not to believe Upanishads as Vedas is that if we read itihaasa (Ramayana and Mahabharata), we do not find any mention of those Upanishad.