Where's Atma Who's not Brahma?

[Vinayaka]

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.

It depends on definition, and context. It can be the soul body (anandamaya kosha) and it's essence (Parasiva), or both. So if you choose one of the three (I chose the last, as I think that encompasses the whole view, from all sides) you get a differing view. Unfortunately for the mind's eye, it is difficult to see both sides of a coin simultaneously.

Having said all this, I also don't believe it can be accurately spoken of from just an intellectual understanding. It has to be realised. So that puts me at the level of a babbling fool.

 

[Stormcry]

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).

It's futile to post those. Because you've some problem in dealing with various parts of veda and for what purposes they're. There are three parts of Veda - Karma, upasana and Dnyana. The knowledge of Brahma is stated in the end of veda which we call Upanishads. Such highest knowledge of Brahma is not found in Karma and upasana subjerof Veda. Because Knowledge is contradictory to Karma. Because duality is the base of karma while one acquires knowledge about Brahma only when there's dissolution of duality.

Upanishads cannot be declared as Vedas, Most of the Upanishads were composed in post vedic age or after arrival of Buddhism.

So much ignorance about creation of veda and puranas. Once there was only one veda. But seeing the dull witted people of kaliyuga, with Mercy, vyasadeva thought to divide veda in four parts and instructed various sages to write those. And as per puranas, puranas and itihasa were written before about 5000 years when kali yuga was being activated. So if Purana were created 5000 years ago, then surely Upanishads are too much older than 5000 years as puranas mention Upanishads.

They were composed to preach and propagate Vedic dharma in an effective yet easier way.

Dude, without knowledge there's nothing in veda as far as moksha is concerned.

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.

Good, at least you believe in itihasa. I wanna say that your thinking is completely based on western thinking. In Hinduism, there are not vedic age or post vedic age like concepts. Vaidik scriptures talk about Yugas and in each yuga the dharma is little bit different according to conditions of Yuga. Each dharma of each yuga is Vaidika Dharma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's not a claim. To even stress it as a claim shows theological carelessness.

Give Sumit the link to Wikipedia -Vedas. They are part of Vedas, Shruti, divine inspiration.

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.

Taking verses from another books is OK, it is a problem of compiling. SamaVeda has many verses from RigVeda. Ramayana and Mahabharata are indigenous stories. If someone is writing about Chandragupta Vikaramaditya, why would one add 'Dasrajnya War'? That will be out of context.

 

[Makaranda]

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).

This is called moving the goalposts. I provided quotations from Shruti (Mandukya and Chandogya) which explicitly reveal the identity of Atman and Brahman (the two words are synonymous in the Vedanta texts). Then you say that Upanishads are not Vedic texts, but this is an assertion with no support whatsoever. No authority would suggest that the Mukhya Upanishads are not Vedic. All the Acharyas teach that Upanishads are Vedic/Shruti texts. Your assertions are baseless.

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.

This is not accurate. The Bhagavad Gita, which occurs in the Mahabharata, for example, is replete with word for word quotations from Shruti (Upanishads). The Gita explicitly quotes from the Katha Upanishad many times . The analogy of the horse-drawn chariot which Krishna mentions is originally found in the Katha Upanishad.

They were composed to preach and propagate Vedic dharma in an effective yet easier way

The purpose of Upanishads is not to propogate dharma (there are other texts for this), but to serve as a pramAna for liberating knowledge. That is why the Upanishads are also called Jnana-Kanda. They relate to knowledge, not action.

Please do more research from our own Acharyas on what constitutes Shruti and Veda.

 

[atanu]

Where scripture (Vedas) says Aatman is Brahman??

When risi Dirghatma proclaims the truth as one, what it means? Does it mean that atma is one truth and brahman another?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Namaste!

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?

"Nithyo Nithyaanaam chethanas chethanaanaam Eko bhahuunaam yo vidadhaathi kaamaan" clearly states that among the innumerable eternally existing Aatmans, an Aatman is eternally existing who is distinguished from all the Aatmans as he grants and fulfills the wishes of all the other Aatmans. Amoung the inumerable Aatmans who have knowledge, there exist an Aatman who is having knowledge who is distinguished from all the Aatmans as he grants and fulfills the wishes of all the other Aatmans. Here the Veda has clearly declared that the Iswara is different from the Jeevaatmans as it says "That One Aatman who is different from all other Aatmans because of his unparalleled and unsurpassed supreme qualities that are unique to him"

More Bheda srutis: Introduction

 

[Stormcry]

"Nithyo Nithyaanaam chethanas chethanaanaam Eko bhahuunaam yo vidadhaathi kaamaan" clearly states that among the innumerable eternally existing Aatmans, an Aatman is eternally existing who is distinguished from all the Aatmans as he grants and fulfills the wishes of all the other Aatmans.

I can't read this. Would you post in Sanskrit? What's the source? Upanishada? And I think Jiva and Atma are different entities. Jiva is Mind+Intellect+Prana and Atma is Brahman. Bheda shruti deals with distinguishing Jiva(Non-self) and Brahman(Self), this has a different motive though.

 

[Stormcry]

Vedanta and Smruti shatters the duality between Atman and Brahman.

विभेदजनकेऽज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते
आत्मनो ब्रम्हणो भेदमसन्तं क: करिष्यति ।। विष्णु पुराण 6.7.96 ।।

"After the complete annihilation of Ignorance, who'll think of difference between Atman and Brahman, which is certainly false? "

What to speak more, Shri Hari himself declared - Bahgavad Gita 10.20 " Aham atma sarvabhutashaysthitah - I'm Atma of all Jivas "

 

[Acintya_Ash]

I can't read this. Would you post in Sanskrit? What's the source? Upanishada?

Its Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13

Jiva is Mind+Intellect+Prana and Atma is Brahman

it can be interpreted more sensibly as done by Sri Madhvacharya. The interpretations you have given have no practical basis. Jiva is not Jada.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

What to speak more, Shri Hari himself declared - Bahgavad Gita 10.20 " Aham atma sarvabhutashaysthitah - I'm Atma of all Jivas "

Ofcourse He is...He is the only Self-dependent tattva and All Jivas are dependent on him

"After the complete annihilation of Ignorance, who'll think of difference between Atman and Brahman, which is certainly false? "

Why Did Brahman make himself different from itself? I mean why did he let Ignorance Dawn upon him?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Bhagavad Gita, which occurs in the Mahabharata, for example, is replete with word for word quotations from Shruti (Upanishads). The Gita explicitly quotes from the Katha Upanishad many times . The analogy of the horse-drawn chariot which Krishna mentions is originally found in the Katha Upanishad.

That only shows that Srimad BhagawadGita was written/revealed (take your pick) later than theparticular Upanishads.

 

[Stormcry]

Its Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13

Okay !

it can be interpreted more sensibly as done by Sri Madhvacharya. The interpretations you have given have no practical basis. Jiva is not Jada.

Jiva is called as Ahamkara. Jiva is not the self but the brahman is.

(BP 11.28.16:

"The spirit hidden behind the body, the senses, the vital airs and the mind and identifying itself with them is called the Jeeva. The subtle body constituted of the Gunas and karmas is its material manifestation and is variously known as the Sootrama or the Mahat-Tattwa"


“satwam rajastam……tayoho param yat “(BP 11.3.37)

"That which was one before creation became known as Pradhana (or Prakriti) of triple nature, consisting of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Then by its active power it became as the Sutratma and by its power of understanding it became known as Mahat Principle. Again as a condition investing the Jeeva or individual soul, it became known as Ahankara (the ego). The incomprehensible Brahman alone shines as deities presiding over the senses and their objects and the pain pleasure experience. The effect and the cause – are all Brahman only, because it is cause of both."

What I am saying the same Brahman is known as Jiva when it appears to be mixed with Mind-Body-Intellect-Prana ie subtle and physical body.

 

[Stormcry]

That only shows that Srimad BhagawadGita was written/revealed (take your pick) later than theparticular Upanishads.

Do you expect verses of all upanishada in Gita?

 

[Stormcry]

Ofcourse He is...He is the only Self-dependent tattva and All Jivas are dependent on him

Irrational Interpretation

Why Did Brahman make himself different from itself? I mean why did he let Ignorance Dawn upon him?

Ask this to Brahman or Vishnu. Veda says Brahman thought to become many. So ask 'Why you decided to become many? You were not happy alone ?'

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I don't.
There were always many opinions in Hinduism and that is its hall-mark (matas). If Kathopanishad said jeeva is different from Brahman, Chhandogya said differences are only 'vikaras'.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

"The spirit hidden behind the body, the senses, the vital airs and the mind and identifying itself with them is called the Jeeva. The subtle body constituted of the Gunas and karmas is its material manifestation and is variously known as the Sootrama or the Mahat-Tattwa"

That verse doesn't define a Jiva. It just outlines the fate of a Jiva who identifies itself with the senses and body...

"The living entity who falsely identifies with his body, senses, life air and mind, and who dwells within these coverings, assumes the form of his own materially conditioned qualities and work. He is designated variously in relation to the total material energy, and thus, under the strict control of supreme time, he is forced to run here and there within material existence."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why Did Brahman make himself different from itself? I mean why did he let Ignorance Dawn upon him?

Brahman does not do anything. Just the existence of Brahman creates 'maya', illusion.

The atoms do not have any thinking, but humans who are none other than collections of atoms (as it seems), think. It is only the sea of energy, Brahman constituting all things. "Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah".

 

[Stormcry]

That verse doesn't define a Jiva. It just outlines the fate of a Jiva who identifies itself with the senses and body...

You fail to realize this.

"That which was one before creation became known as Pradhana (or Prakriti) of triple nature, consisting of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Then by its active power it became as the Sutratma and by its power of understanding it became known as Mahat Principle. Again as a condition investing the Jeeva or individual soul, it became known as Ahankara (the ego).

Brahman becomes Jiva by accepting limitations on itself.

And also, Vishnu Purusha defines Jiva. I can't recollect that verse at the moment.

 

[Stormcry]

Its Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13

It's too weird interpretation. The verse doesn't say there are many atma nor confirms duality between Atman and Brahman.

Interestingly, your interpretation is refuted by the same Katha-Upanishada.

-II-9. Just as fire, though one, having entered the world, assumes a separate form in respect of every form, so does the in-dwelling Self of all beings, though one, assume a form in respect of every form, and is outside it.

This verse explicitly states there's one self and it is appearing as if divided in all living bodies. Thus saying Katha Upanishada supports duality or many Atman-s is just extreme interpretation of Verses. @Aupmanyav

 

[Stormcry]

2-II-13. Whoso among the intelligent realize the Self in the (inner space of the) heart as the eternal among the ephemeral, the consciousness among the conscious, who, though one, dispenses the desired objects to many, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others.


Consciousness among conscious is somewhat metaphor. The hidden meaning of consciousness among the conscious is in fact indicating the self is even beyond consciousness. Mandukya Upanishada confirms the self is not consciousness nor unconsciousness.