Atman

[Guest guest]

Continuing on the talk 'Atman - freedom and bondage'

By Swami Vivekananda

 

We know our body will perish; it had a beginning and it will have an

end. But the Self having no form, cannot be bound by the law of

beginning and end. It is existing from infinite time; just as time is

eternal, so is the Self of man eternal. Secondly, it must be

all-pervading. It is only form that is conditioned and limited by

space; that which is formless cannot be confined in space. So,

according to Advaita Vedanta, the Self, the Atman, in you, in me, in

every one, is omnipresent. You are as much in the sun now as in this

earth, as much in England as in America. But the Self acts through

the mind and the body, and where they are, its action is visible.

[Guest guest]

nirmalaji - pranaams

 

As I understand when they refer aatmaa as though reflection of brahman in

the upaadhiis they are referring to the notion of jiiva here not the sat

chit ananda aspect - it is reflected consciousness of brahman in the

upaadhiis with the notion that I am the uppadhiis. The self shining aatma -

the beam of light is as though (as though is underlined) is reflected in the

bhudhhi which it further relected through the manas and the body - when one

says I am the intelligent with these notions and I love this or that or I am

hurt or have a back pain etc - This is the pratibimba - it is intended to

imply that - pratibimba is only an virtual image of aatma (in the mirror of

bhudhhi) - that is called chit - Any virtual image is only virtual and not

real - the real itself is everlasting unlimited consciousness aatma which is

the same as brahman since I am that consciousness which is unlimited and

hence infinite. These are all within the adhyaasa and only an explanation

of what swamiji calls unholly marriage of the purusha and prakR^iti - these

are just the words for the operation of the whole process which is beyond

any process.

I hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>slimaye

>advaitin

>advaitin

> atman

>Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:30:12 EST

>

>to the erudite schlors on the list,

>I have a problem in the definition of atman as a reflection. A reflection

>is

>unreal., whereas atman is part of brahman is it not? A wave in the ocean is

>not separate from the water,same way atman can be equated with wave and

>brahman to the ocean.Could anyone comment on this

>Nirmala

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin, slimaye@a... wrote:

> to the erudite schlors on the list,

 

Hi. I will put in my 2 cents worth too :-)

> I have a problem in the definition of atman as a reflection. A

reflection is

> unreal.,

 

A Reflection allows the Real to see Itself.

 

Beauty gazes into, & As Self.

 

Sees Self

 

Observer is observed

 

Invisible made manifest

>whereas atman is part of brahman is it not?

 

A wave in the

ocean is

> not separate from the water,same way atman can be equated with wave

and

> brahman to the ocean.Could anyone comment on this

> Nirmala

 

 

Love to my brothers & my sisters,

 

Col

[Guest guest]

>>>>>to the erudite schlors on the list,

I have a problem in the definition of atman as a reflection. A reflection is

unreal., whereas atman is part of brahman is it not? A wave in the ocean is

not separate from the water,same way atman can be equated with wave and

brahman to the ocean.Could anyone comment on this

 

Ocean is an saavayava (composed of part) and Brahman is niravayava, i.e. it

has no parts, than how can Jiva Atman be it's avayava (part)? wave is a

part, then how Brahman can have "waves". Can akaasha (sky) have "waves"?

Atman is brahman, "ayamaatma brahma" the shruti states it very clearly. But

the ignorant atman, is like a reflection. Not a reflection, but LIKE A

REFLECTION. It is just simile.

Regards,

Siddhartha

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Nirmalaji:

 

Namaste,

 

We all agree that neither 'Brahman,' nor 'Atman' can be explained

using intellectual means that satisfies everyone. For Advaitins,

Atman is no different from Brahman. The statement that Atman is the

reflection of Brahman reiterates that they are the same.

 

The ocean-wave analogy may be more appropriate to distinguish between

Paramatman and Jivatman. Paramatman represents the spirit of the

universe where as Jivatman corresponds to the spirit of the jiva

(human). Just like the wave in the ocean, Jivatman is not separate

from the Paramatman but in appearance they look as separate entities!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, slimaye@a... wrote:

> to the erudite schlors on the list,

> I have a problem in the definition of atman as a reflection. A

 

reflection is

> unreal., whereas atman is part of brahman is it not? A wave in the

 

ocean is

> not separate from the water,same way atman can be equated with wave

 

and

> brahman to the ocean.Could anyone comment on this

> Nirmala

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna@v...>

wrote:

> >>>>>to the erudite schlors on the list,

> I have a problem in the definition of atman as a reflection. A

reflection is

> unreal., whereas atman is part of brahman is it not? A wave in the

ocean is

> not separate from the water,same way atman can be equated with wave

and

> brahman to the ocean.Could anyone comment on this

>

> Ocean is an saavayava (composed of part) and Brahman is niravayava,

i.e. it

> has no parts, than how can Jiva Atman be it's avayava (part)? wave

is a

> part, then how Brahman can have "waves". Can akaasha (sky) have

"waves"?

> Atman is brahman, "ayamaatma brahma" the shruti states it very

clearly. But

> the ignorant atman, is like a reflection. Not a reflection, but LIKE

A

> REFLECTION. It is just simile.

 

Just like a smile.

 

Ocean watches with delight It's own SELF take form as a wave which

curves back upon Itself as One, not two. In that sense it is not

unreal, It Is the Ocean.

 

Got a good game going eh?

You need two to play ..

 

Col

> Regards,

> Siddhartha