Why use two separate terms to address the Self?

[Valjean]

BUT don't we also have a soul (Causal Body) that grows through reincarnation experiences? I call that the soul. It is not permanent and unchanging but grows into liberation/moksha.

It seems we should then have a different English word for that 'personal pinch of Brahman'. It seems spirit is the better word to distinguish it from the Causal Body or reincarnating soul.

How do you distinguish between the two when you say 'soul'?

"Soul" is an Abrahamic concept. It doesn't perfectly correspond to Hindu theology.
Atman, causal body? These are personal, individual concepts. Perhaps real within a dream, but not ultimately.

Vedanta generally focuses on ultimate reality, ie: Real reality, not the dream state we currently inhabit.
You speak of change and growth. Brahman doesn't change or grow. Nothing changes, or grows, or moves. Like time, these are all Maya. Everything you see and experience in this world is a hallucination; a convincing dream.

Don't get tangled up in Hinduism's convoluted mythology/folklore. Real reality -- the focus of Vedanta -- is no more understandable from our Waking State consciousness than quantum electrodynamics is to a flatworm.

 

[George-ananda]

Does it?
I would say things go back in the pool. What was before is never recreated, though billions of new things arise every moment out of the pool as also dissipate back into it. This is a continuous process.

@Greg Levenski You may already know that our friend Aupmanyav is coming from a view that is consistent with materialism. There is no such thing as a Causal Body in this school of thought. So this is a different perspective than Swami Sarvapriyananda presents and I subsribe to which is the mainstream Advaita Vedanta.

 

[George-ananda]

"Soul" is an Abrahamic concept. It doesn't perfectly correspond to Hindu theology.
Atman, causal body? These are personal, individual concepts. Perhaps real within a dream, but not ultimately.

Vedanta generally focuses on ultimate reality, ie: Real reality, not the dream state we currently inhabit.
You speak of change and growth. Brahman doesn't change or grow. Nothing changes, or grows, or moves. Like time, these are all Maya. Everything you see and experience in this world is a hallucination; a convincing dream.

Don't get tangled up in Hinduism's convoluted mythology/folklore. Real reality -- the focus of Vedanta -- is no more understandable from our Waking State consciousness than quantum electrodynamics is to a flatworm.

I would never say Brahman grows or changes. But we do from our relative perspective have a Causal Body ('karana sharira') that grows and changes.

My issue is that western people hear about us being Brahman and don't realize there are a myriad of spiritual worlds between us and Brahman. If you already understand this then it is OK to focus on the ultimate perspective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm talking from a vyavaharika POV. If you say that vyavaharika satya is an illusion, then this conversation has no value.

Also when you say atman is the individual self and Parmatma/Brahman is the universal self, are you also implying that this Atman or individual self travels from one gross body to the other. Would love to hear your reply.

Both levels of truth are important in their own way. The story goes that when Sankaracharya was pursued by an elephant or a lion, he ran. When people asked him that if he considered all things in the universe to be Brahman, why did he run away from himself since both the lion or the elephant and he were no other than Brahman*. Sankara replied, "What lion, what elephant?"

When we talk of 'Vyavaharika', only the perceived is the truth. In Parmkarthika it is the other way round. What is perceived is an illusion. At the perceived level you are Greg and I am Aup. But at the Paramarthika level, we are none other than the ocean (along with all other things that exist). Though at the Vyavaharika level, I will act according to exigencies of that level. I will also run if pursued by a lion, but I do not accept existence of a separate 'atman'. That, IMHO, will be against Advaita (non-duality). I go by what Sankara said:

* "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah .." (Brahman (alone) is the truth, the perceived (world) is false; a being is none other than Brahman ..)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't get tangled up in Hinduism's convoluted mythology/folklore. Real reality -- the focus of Vedanta -- is no more understandable from our Waking State consciousness than quantum electrodynamics is to a flatworm.

That is an over-kill, Val, there is no tangle. You understand it (yeah, you do), Salix understands it, I understand it, many other people also understand it. Advaita is much easier to understand than Quantum Mechanics because it does not require any proficiency in mathematics.

And friend @George-ananda , Aup. is not coming from materialism, other than that what you say is truth. This is not main-line Advaita, which is just a version of theism. Aup. is coming with no mysticism or esoterics but just with plain truth.

 

[ajay0]

If our true nature is One, Non-dual, Indivisible, Infinite, Eternal Reality, then why do some advaitins use two terms ('Atman' and also 'Brahman') to refer to this immortal Self? I mean it creates confusion in the student's mind.

If I am Brahman (aham brahmasmi) then why not call our true Self, by using only a single word 'Brahman'? Why do we use the term 'Atman' then?

Because Brahman is used in the terms of an impersonal God like entity, while Atman is spoken from the perspective of the God-head within oneself, free of all vasanas and impurities.

Both Brahman and Atman are one and the same, and are just employed as words to teach the student better.

While Brahman is pure consciousness pervading everything and has a God like tone to it, Atman is the pure consciousness within oneself which one can relate better with.

Since the focus on Vedanta is knowing oneself better, Atman is used often to describe pure consciousness within oneself. It is just a teaching tool, and all such words are just created by human beings for better understanding.

Its better to use one single term 'Brahman' because many people use the term 'Atman' for the transmigrating soul, which is incorrect.

The term jiva or jivatman ought to be employed for such descriptions as it is correct that Atman is the same as Brahman. But because unlike Brahman, Atman is used in a personal sense, it is also employed as well for such descriptions.

Today i was listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures on youtube where he was explaining the immortality of Atman and he erroneously said that the Atman is the soul. So, I had to post a comment below the video, that the word 'soul' should not be used to address the Atman. The soul is a transmigrating entity which is also called the subtle body (as you guys have explained to me in the past few years). And It contains dispositions, samskaras, memories, etc. and it travels/transmigrates from one gross body to another.
But since Atman (or i should rather call IT Brahman) is omnipresent and immovable (as explained by Krishna in Gita ch.2) it has no need to transmigrate since IT is present everywhere.

Why do you think many people use two terms to address the Self?

I am glad that you have properly understood the subject to showcase some inconsistencies in it.

Advaitan masters talk about the same thing, but at times use differing terminology instead.But in the whole context of their own speeches or writings such differing terms would make sense.

It would obviously help the cause of the student if such terms were standardized with precise meanings.

 

[ajay0]

Per Advaita, this Atman is, ultimately, an illusion.

Remember always to keep in mind what level of reality a statement comes from or refers to. Two completely contradictory things can both be perfectly true -- at different levels.

It is the Jiva that is an illusion, not the Atman.

Ātman (Hinduism) - Wikipedia

The tree of Jiva and Atman is a parable used to distinguish between the two.

Tree of Jiva and Atman - Wikipedia

 

[ajay0]

That Atman is Brahman is the conclusion of the Vedanta thought and to arrive at this conclusion requires reflection and analysis. It's like morning star, evening star and Venus. All three are the same but we have different names as they appear different initially.

This is superbly written. The Self, Atman and Brahman are one and the same, but are used in different perspectives or contexts.

You can say that people are worshipping Brahman during meditation or prayer.

But if you say that people are worshipping my Self during meditation or prayer they might get angry or irritated .

Vivekananda as a teenager learning the advaitan philosophy once proclaimed that it is his own Self that is the sun and moon, which drew an angry retort from a bhakta yogi who accused him of being arrogant.

Hence such terms were created for use in different contexts, even if they are one and the same.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

You always explain things so beautifully.
Thank you ajay0

 

[Aupmanyav]

See this is where the theoretical dissecting leaves us.
Because that is what I am originally. Not the personality that people think I am or that I make myself to be.

No. You have not dissected it well. You are left where you want to be left. It is your choice that you do not want to continue with dissection, which will not leave anything 'divine'.
You yourself say that you are not what people think that you are. Then, why do you persist with an untruth? There is no personal 'atma', what exists is Brahman only.
Some Upanishad understood this, some remained with traditional views. Some did not have the courage to accept truth, others did not want to rock the boat.

 

[ajay0]

@Greg Levenski You may already know that our friend Aupmanyav is coming from a view that is consistent with materialism. There is no such thing as a Causal Body in this school of thought. So this is a different perspective than Swami Sarvapriyananda presents and I subsribe to which is the mainstream Advaita Vedanta.

Yes, it is better to adhere to what reputed and mainstream Advaitan masters like Adi Shankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi , Annamalai Swami and Nisargadatta Maharaj teach.

In that way, one remains safe on solid ground and not led astray.

 

[Martin]

It is the Jiva that is an illusion, not the Atman.

Ātman (Hinduism) - Wikipedia

The tree of Jiva and Atman is a parable used to distinguish between the two.

Tree of Jiva and Atman - Wikipedia

Good point, which refers to the Mundaka Upanishad. It's clear that jiva is personal, while Atman is impersonal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Jiva itself is a mirage. That is Vyavaharika and not Paramarthika.

 

[SalixIncendium]

While Atman and Brahman are the same, the terms themselves point to two different things in order to overcome ignorance. Atman points to the perceived multiplicity of Brahman, as we appear in vyavaharika to be individual beings, when in reality (Paramartika) all are one, and the multiplicity is illusory.

We have the terms “wave” and “water.” While they are the same, both being water, they point to two different things. A wave, while being water in its true nature, is an appearance, what we see on the surface until we wade in and see it is all water, and there is no multiplicity.

 

[ameyAtmA]

By innermost kendra bindu, you mean the innermost core, right?

Yes. Kendra = center Bindu = Point

And does this Atman transmigrates as per advaita?

I think you answered this yourself but here is what I can add :

AtmA is One, the original One, in reality , especially when referred to as the innermost core, point, kendra-bindu
OR
The fundamental , pure , the foundation - on which the world appears stacked. (This is why Shri MahaVishNu is in the ksheersagar - He is the foundation.)

What transmigrates is the layered-one - that has been carrying the layers over years and lifetimes. We can say it is "the sUkshma sharIra propelled and powered by AtmA".

The important point is that the sUkshma sharIra cannot do anything without the AtmA. AtmA is intrinsic to it. The sUkshma is the covering. Like saying the seed is in the tree,

Bhagavad Geeta chapter 2 has the word "dehi" at one point - DEHI = the one to whom this deha (body) belongs / the one who is [trapped] in the deha.
Then in chapter 15 , a shloka says the One carries samskaar (imprints) , vikaar (flaws) , vAsanA (desires) just as the wind/air (vAyu) carries fragrance (gandha) from the flowers.
Now this air has a qualifier - the fragrance. It left the garden long ago, but is still carrying the fragrance.
This verse refers to the One who is carrying the samskaar (imprints) as Ishwar!

BG 15.8 shariram yad avApnoti
yach cha-apy utkramatishvarah:
grhitvaitAni samyati
vaAur gandhanivaAshayAt

Just think - Ishwar? Isn't Ishwar omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent? Why would He carry imprints from one body to another?
=>All beings belong to Him and each local-jiva needs their due time to iterate.
=>Ishwar means controller, and in this context, the controller that made the body sentient is leaving the body now, and carrying the imprints (sUkshma sharIra) at death of body.

So is the case with AtmA.
Stepping aside in knowledge, the jnAni understands that I am not these layers. I am the pure consciousness which is the most fundamental to all existence.

------

The argument about Swamijis using the word Soul :

1. soul with a small s can be jivAtmA

2. We can say that this entire kaal chakra (wheel of time) is governed by the One Soul (Capital S). In this context , Soul = AtmA = Brahman = Purushottam

3. Dada Bhagwan taught advaita, but his website uses the word 'Soul' with a capital S all the way to Siddha-Lok (dimension).

The same being is identifying as Me, what changes is the understanding and identification.

The pointer changes.

Another point: While you are understand it, the purpose of the Upanishads was to conduct the experiment and derive the conclusion, or arrive at it.

 

[ameyAtmA]

How do you distinguish between the two when you say 'soul'?

Simple. soul and Soul
Further, soul , pure soul, and The Soul - The One
AtmA in advaita frame of reference is the Soul.

 

[George-ananda]

Simple. soul and Soul
Further, soul , pure soul, and The Soul - The One
AtmA in advaita frame of reference is the Soul.

Simple, but that word usage is far from universally agreed upon and understood. Also, as in the OP issue, you can't see capitals and lower-cases when talking.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Simple, but that word usage is far from universally agreed upon and understood. Also, as in the OP issue, you can't see capitals and lower-cases when talking.

Agreed, good point. In those cases, context is all we have.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I have a question.
Is Brahman really immutable?
I mean, if the world appears and disappears as waves/bubbles in the infinite ocean of Brahman, then isn't Brahman undergoing changes?

If you say it is Brahman's shakti maya that undergoes all sorts of changes and not Brahman itself, then we have to believe that maya is a separate entity and is different from brahman. Is it not? But since the scriptures say they are not different but one and the same, then how can Brahman remain changeless?

 

[Valjean]

I have a question.
Is Brahman really immutable?
I mean, if the world appears and disappears as waves/bubbles in the infinite ocean of Brahman, then isn't Brahman undergoing change?

If you say it is Brahman's shakti maya that undergoes all sorts of changes and not Brahman itself, then isn't it true, that there exists no second entity other than brahman (which makes maya a part of Brahman)?

In theory, no. Waves and bubbles occur within an underlying Brahman.