Jivatman as Reflection of Paramatman, and Transmigration

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

I was reading a book titled, 'May I answer that ?', which has

questions of devotees and answers of Swami Sivananda. I wanted to

write two of them which meet our previous discussion.

 

1. (Page 74) What is the difference between Jivatman and Paramatman ?

 

Jivatman is the individual soul, a reflection of Brahman in Avidya or

the mind. Paramatman is the Supreme Soul, Brahman or the Atman. From

the emperical viewpoint, the Jivatman is a finite and conditioned

being, while the Paramatman is the infinite, eternal, Sat-chit-ananda

Brahman. In essence, the Jivatman is identical with Paramatman when

Avidya is destroyed.

 

2. The Atman is different from the body and is not affected by the

latter's doings. The body is reborn a number of times and accoding to

its Karma and goes through life and death as per the Supreme Will. If

this is so, then who goes to hell or heaven ?

 

The real experiencer of anything, in an individualistic way, is

neither the Self nor the physical body. It is the mind that is the

center of individuality, that individualizes and imprisons a ray of

the Atman in what is called the individual soul. And it is this mind,

as embodied in the subtle body, that undergoes the pleasure of heaven

or the pains of hell, or for that matter, any experience through a

gross or a subtle body.

 

The mind appears to have consciousness on account of there being a

ray of the Atman in it, in the form of a reflection, very much

limited by its own constitution. Hence it will be clear that the

individuality of a person is as much real or unreal as a reflection

of a real object.

 

Though every thing happens according to the Supreme Will, the Karma

of the individual determines the form or shape of the experience that

is to be had under the dispensation of this will. It is not the Atman

or the body that has any type of relative experience, though the body

is a gross means of experience; it is the mind that has all this.

 

----------

Also the following sentences from 'Vedanta for Beginners' are

relevant.

 

(Page 105)

 

Example of the reflection of a face in a mirror

 

The reflection of a face in a mirror is different from the face; the

reflection imitates the mirror in as much as it possesses the

property of being in the mirror and the quality of the mirror. The

reflection depends on the mirror for its existance. But, the real

face does not. So, the real face is different from the reflection.

Similarly, the reflection of the Self in the ego is different from

the Pure Self.

 

In the case of the face, the face is real but not its reflection in

the mirror. The reflection is not always there. But at the same time,

the reflection is not totally unreal since it is seen at times.

Hence, the reflection is indescribable and the face is different from

it. In the case of Pure Self and its reflection, in fact however,

both of them are devoid of any real distinction. In the case of the

face and the mirror, the mirror has an existance independent of the

face. But, in the case of the Pure Self, the intellect which is the

reflecting medium is not having an independence existance all by

itself, apart from the existance of the Pure Self. Therefore, the

distinction between the Pure self and Its reflection is only apparent

and not real. Owing to a non-discrimination due to ignorance between

the Pure Self and Its reflection, the Self is regarded as an

individual suffering transmigratory existance.

 

It may be said that the reflection of the Self in the ego, as

distinct from the Pure Self, is the individual soul experiencing and

acting in this universe, on the authority that the individual soul is

a real entity having its own properties like the shadow of a tree

having the property of refreshing any one coming under it on a hot

midday. That can not be so. The refreshing property can not be

attributed to the shadow, for it is the effect of refraining from the

warm things, say, the hot sun. Further, because of that, it cannot be

said that the refreshing property that is seen in the shadow is an

ample proof for accepting the reality of the shadow. One is not

refreshed by sitting close to a burning hearth under its shadow.

 

I would accept that most of the Advaitin List members would know

these concepts, but as a novice I thought they were logically

explained and found them useful, so venture to post these quotes.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna