Weekly Definition - 'Atman' or 'self'-read only if u must!

[Guest guest]

Ananada-ji, my own priya Atman!! :

 

Thank you so much for that Crisp and Neat defition of 'Atman' - i

never knew such a complex phenomenon could be described with such

simplicity and elegance without the use of other additional complex

sounding sanskrit terminology!! the Katha upanishad quote at the

end was certainly very apt !

 

may i please be permitted to trace the etymology of the

word 'Atman'When used as 'Atman' - it is 'masculine' nominative

singular but when used as 'Atma' it is considered 'feminine' while

pronouncing the 'n' is silent !

 

We know when we us the letter 'A' with any other word it is

a 'negative' particle -

 

Tracing the etymology of this word Atma - it is said the word'tma'

refers to 'Tamas' or darkness (ignorance , inertia erc -=one of the

three gunas) Therefore A-tma means - opposite of darkness or - pure

light- ever shining !

 

Therefore the individual soul ( the jivaatma)) is the lower self and

the higher soul ( the paramatma) . But , of course , in Advaita ,

individual souls exist in MAya only !

 

in the sense in which you have used and explained 'Atman; , Ananda-

ji , i find that 'Atman' is used as a world-negating tendency ( the

three koshas or sheaths -body , sense and mind ) but the Taittriya

upanishad gives 'Atman' a more positive and optimistic definition in

terms of five koshas or sheaths !

 

THERE ARE THE FIVE LEVELS OF SELF:

 

1) The self made of of Food"( anna maya)

 

2) the self made of breath- prana maya (vital breath)

 

3) the self made of Mind ( maninmaya)

 

4) the Self made of Consciousness or intellect (vijnana)

 

5), the Self made of Bliss (ananda)

 

So , is there any special reason, Ananda-ji, you only focussed on

three identifications - " self: as a body, or as

sense-organs, or as mind. " May i know why you have chosen to

ignore 'the intellect' and the 'bLiss' sheaths ? did not sri Adi

shankara bhagvadapada comment on the Taittriya upanishads ?

 

For me , Atma and Ananda are synonyms - for the knower of the Atma

is eternally blissful. In the language of Kabir , why should the

deer look for the 'musk' in the forest when it is there all along in

its navel ?

 

May i also share a Ramana quote on Atma ?

 

"As an example of direct perception everyone will quote the simile

of the nellikai (similar to a gooseberry) placed in the palm of the

hand. The Self is even more directly perceivable than the fruit on

the palm. To perceive the fruit there must be the fruit, the palm

to place it on and the eyes to see it. The mind should also be in

the proper condition [to process the information]. Without any of

these four things, even those with very little knowledge can say out

of direct experience, "I am." Because the Self exists just as the

feeling "I am," atma vidya is very easy indeed. The easiest path is

to see the one who is going to attain the atma (Self)."

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

On another note :

 

For those of you who were talking about knowledge , experience etc ,

here is a quotation from Yoga vasishta :

 

" To the unwise knowledge of scriptures is a burden, to one who is

full of desires, even wisdom is a burden, one who is rest­less, even

mind is a burden and one who has no knowledge of "Self"- both lower

and higher i.e. soul and spirit even the body (life span) is a

burden."

 

with warmest regards

 

please forgive any errors in thinking .

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> The Sanskrit word 'Atman' means 'self', plain and simple. In

> particular, it refers to an inmost self that is pure spirit, at

the

> living centre of each person's body, sense and mind.

>

> When a body is called 'I', it is taken to know a world of objects

> outside. When a body's senses are called 'I', they are taken to

know

> a sensory world of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. When a

mind

> is called 'I', it is taken to know a changing process of

> perceptions, thoughts and feelings that conceive a physical and

> mental world.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>>

> may i please be permitted to trace the etymology of the

> word 'Atman'When used as 'Atman' - it is 'masculine' nominative

> singular but when used as 'Atma' it is considered 'feminine' while

> pronouncing the 'n' is silent !

>

Namaste, Dhyanasaraswati-ji,

 

I am constrained to offer a correction to the above paragraph,

involving Sanskrit Grammar.

 

The word 'Atman' is the stem (generic) for the Sanskrit word

meaning 'Self'. It is a masculine noun as per Sanskrit grammar. When

you decline the word, the Nominative singular is "AtmA". It is not a

feminine word.

 

When using Sanskrit words in the English language, it has been the

custom for more than two centuries now either to use the stem word or

the nominative singular. For example "jnAnam" is the nominative

singular for the stem "jnAna" meaning 'knowledge'. Both are in use in

English writing as you know. So either one uses "AtmA" or one

uses "Atman".

 

As a reflexive pronoun 'Atman' is used in all three persons and all

three genders (I, You, He/She/It). Gita Verse VI -5 has:

 

'One should lift up oneself by oneself':

"uddhared AtmanA AtmAnam"

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Professorji:

 

Namaste! Thank you for your rapid response .

 

WHEN ONE JUST WRITES 'Atma' ( the last letter 'a' in small letters)

it is indeed 'masculine'

 

but when writes 'AtmA' ( The last letter 'a' in capital letters) it

is feminine ...

 

i just like to think of 'AtmA' as the divine feminine principle ! i

know for a fact that in 'urdu' , Rooh ( the equivalent for AtmA) is

indeed a feminine word and in Hindi too! May be our beloved

Sunderji can throw light on this! i know that MAyA ( with 'a' as

CAPITAL LETTER at the end is a feminine word)

 

i just like to think of the Soul being 'feminine' with all its

feminine attributes of Compassion, (karuna), forgiveness (kshma),

mercy (daya ) etc etc .....

 

In the Srimad Bhagawat Gita, the word 'Atma' is used in more than

one sense depending on the context, would you not say, professorji ?

The word 'Atma' is designated to represent the

 

a) the individual soul

b) the supreme soul

c) the pure spirit

d) consciousness or chaitanya

e) the lower and the higher self

f) sometimes even as ego -ahamkara

g) or chitta

h) or the individual psyche

 

etc etc

but , i love the question Veenaji has asked " So is Atman the

Prana?

or is Atman something beyond Prana?"

 

i would love to hear the response to that question -

 

after reading Veenaji's question , i was reminded of the following

verse from katha upanishad ( similar verse is in srimad bhagvatgita

also)

 

na jayate mriyate va vipascin

 

nayam kutascin na vibhuva kascit

 

ajo nityah sasvato 'yam purano

 

na hanyate hanyamane sarire

 

(Katha 1.2.18)

 

 

1-II-18. The intelligent Self is not born, nor does It die. It did

not come from anywhere, nor did anything come from It. It is unborn,

eternal, everlasting and ancient, and is not slain even when the

body is slain.

 

there is more to 'atma' than meets the eye ....

 

Aum Shanti! shanti! shantihi!

 

( the poet's lines come to mind - breathes there the man with soul

so dead .... ) -

 

 

 

In advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

>

> advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

> <dhyanasaraswati@> wrote:

> >>

> > may i please be permitted to trace the etymology of the

> > word 'Atman'When used as 'Atman' - it is 'masculine' nominative

> > singular but when used as 'Atma' it is considered 'feminine'

while

> > pronouncing the 'n' is silent !

> >

> Namaste, Dhyanasaraswati-ji,

>

> I am constrained to offer a correction to the above paragraph,

> involving Sanskrit Grammar.

>

> The word 'Atman' is the stem (generic) for the Sanskrit word

> meaning 'Self'. It is a masculine noun as per Sanskrit grammar.

When

> you decline the word, the Nominative singular is "AtmA". It is

not a

> feminine word.

>

> When using Sanskrit words in the English language, it has been the

> custom for more than two centuries now either to use the stem

word or

> the nominative singular. For example "jnAnam" is the nominative

> singular for the stem "jnAna" meaning 'knowledge'. Both are in

use in

> English writing as you know. So either one uses "AtmA" or one

> uses "Atman".

>

> As a reflexive pronoun 'Atman' is used in all three persons and

all

> three genders (I, You, He/She/It). Gita Verse VI -5 has:

>

> 'One should lift up oneself by oneself':

> "uddhared AtmanA AtmAnam"

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

Your reply was studied. I have a feeling that the question has

not been touched at all by you and the reply has no bearing upon the

question at all. Again I request you kindly to examine the questions

in depth and then give the reply.There is no hurry.

Sri Shankara says "By Atman is meant one's true nature ( atmA hi

nAma svarUpam)". To see Vishvarupa one may require Divine Eye.

BUT TO SEE ONE'S OWN TRUE NATURE WHICH IS

NONE OTHER THAN ATMAN/BRAHMAN AND WHICH IS RIGHT

HERE AND NOW THERE IS NO NEED OF ANY SPECIAL

VISION LIKE DIVINE EYE OTHER THAN THE AWARENESS WHICH

EVERY ONE IS HAVING HERE AND NOW AND THAT ITSELF

IS DIVINE because THE SEER IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE

SEEING AND THE SEER IS BRAHMAN/ATMAN AND THERE IS NO SECOND

SEER OTHER THAN IT.

Prashna Upanishad says:The Purusha is within the body here and

now(ihaivantaHSarIrE sOmya sa puruShO...)

BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad says "AtmanyEvAtmAnam paSyati" i.e.

one cognizes Atman within oneself. Sri Sankara in his commentary on

this mantra says " Atmani svE kAryakaraNasaMGAtE - Atmani in his own

body,AtmAnam pratyakcEtayitAram- the innermost AWARENESS, paSyati-

cognizes".

What are the conclusions from the above two mantras which we

can draw? The body is here. I am here. Atman is here. Can you draw

the boundary lines to separating them?

I request you to pardon me for my frank and open thoughts.As

one who has read and enjoyed your postings I have great respect for

you.

Let us all pray to The Divine to bless us with complete and

correct understanding of the subject about which we are presenting in

this great and wonderful Advaitin Group.

 

With respectful namaskarams to the learned members,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sreenivasa Murthy:

 

Thanks for taking sometime to study my reply and I am sorry that I

couldn't provide an answer to your satisfaction. It just confirms my

limitation in my understanding.

 

Sri Shankara's quotation that you have quoted- "By Atman is meant

one's true nature" is quite precise. What is one's true nature?

Until we know that, we still don't know what is Atman? As advaitic

Vedantin, Vishvarupa dharsanam can be no different from the

realization (or recognition or whatever other appropriate word one

can choose) of the Atman and the divine eye is again symbolic.

 

Getting the divine eye is equivalent to detaching our identity from

the body/mind/intellect. Only with complete shutdown of our sensory

perceptions, we will be able to visualize our TRUE DIVINE NATURE.

It is my understanding that Vedavyasa has used the Bhagavad Gita to

educate us that our true divine nature is beyond the boundaries of

body/mind/intellect (sensory perceptions). Also the Upanishadic

statements quoted by you also confirm that the Atman pervades

without any boundary; Atman is eternal and Atman has its independent

existence. I believe that the above statements imply the following:

Atman is not the body; Atman is not the mind; Atman is not the

intellect; etc., etc. (also known as the neti-neti principle).

 

You have specifically asked the following question:

" What are the conclusions from the above two mantras which we can

draw? The body is here. I am here. Atman is here. Can you draw the

boundary lines to separating them?

 

I believe that the Mantras declare the following: (1) "I am the

Atman;" (2) "I am not the body; " and (3) Atman is not the body."

As I have stated in my earlier postings, I have provided my

observation on the basis of my own understanding of the Bhagavad

Gita (which is the essence of all the Upanishads) and I do welcome

comments and corrections from learned members of the group.

Since you have asked some profound questions with respect to Atman,

I would love to hear from you any declaration from any of our

scriptures on "What is Atman?" using precise words. I would also

very much like to know my TRUE NATURE and may I request someone to

enlighten me with an answer. I Honestly believe that it is

impossible for any of us to explain Atman only by using "words."

 

I do want to join with you and with all the rest of us to pray to

The Divine to bless us with complete and correct understanding of

the subject about which we are presenting in this great and

wonderful Advaitin Group.

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

Note1: I also pray to the Divine to open the eyes and minds of the

learned members to enlighten us with their thoughts on this

important subject matter.

 

Note 2: The essay on "The Nature of the Self" by Swami

Krishnananda provides a detailed account of "Atman" and it is

available in the following link:

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_60.html

 

The following excerpt from the above essay provides some clues:

"This omniscient Atman is not born, nor does it die. It has not come

from anywhere, and it has not become anything. Unborn, eternal,

perpetual and ancient, this Atman is not killed when the body is

killed. Birth is the process of the production of an effect from a

cause, and hence, it is the process of transient becoming. For the

same reason, death also is a process. The processes of birth, life

and death are impermanent and, therefore, they are denied in the

Atman. Ceaseless consciousness is free from all change. Change is

the character of phantasmal presentations. Changelessness is the

nature of the Atman. This Atman does not come from anywhere, and it

has not become anything else, because coming and becoming are,

again, transient processes. It has not ceased to be itself. It does

not decay or suffer diminution. It is the most ancient and the

newest of all. An object becomes new when its constituents are

changed and set in a different condition. The Atman exists even

prior to and later than the newest of objects. It exists together

with everything, and also after everything. Nothing newer and other

than the Atman can ever be produced. In other words, the Atman is

whatever is, was and will be. Hence, it is indestructible. It

neither kills anyone nor is killed. It suffers from nothing, because

it is untouched like ether. It is free from the experiences of

Samsara. It is bodiless, and hence relation-less. Non-becoming or

changelessness is the one character which denies of the Atman all

phenomenal natures. The Atman is subtler than the subtlest and

larger than the largest. It is situated as the central being of all.

Free from thought and action, one beholds it through the cessation

of distraction and attainment of tranquility, and becoming sorrow-

less, rejoices in the glory of the Atman. It is the subtlest of all,

because it is limitless. It is possible to know it through the

practice of hearing, contemplation and meditation, after getting

oneself freed from desires and actions, and separating oneself from

objects, seen as well as heard of. As long as the mind shakes and

the body gets agitated, it is not possible for one to know the

Atman. Perfect satiety of the mind, the senses and the body is

absolutely necessary before the attempt at the vision of the Self.

Those who have desires and passions are prevented from the

realization of the Self. "

 

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

> Your reply was studied. I have a feeling that the question

has

> not been touched at all by you and the reply has no bearing upon

the

> question at all. Again I request you kindly to examine the

questions

> in depth and then give the reply.There is no hurry.

> Sri Shankara says "By Atman is meant one's true nature ( atmA

hi

> nAma svarUpam)". To see Vishvarupa one may require Divine Eye.

> BUT TO SEE ONE'S OWN TRUE NATURE WHICH IS

> NONE OTHER THAN ATMAN/BRAHMAN AND WHICH IS RIGHT

> HERE AND NOW THERE IS NO NEED OF ANY SPECIAL

> VISION LIKE DIVINE EYE OTHER THAN THE AWARENESS

WHICH

> EVERY ONE IS HAVING HERE AND NOW AND THAT ITSELF

> IS DIVINE because THE SEER IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE

> SEEING AND THE SEER IS BRAHMAN/ATMAN AND THERE IS NO

SECOND

> SEER OTHER THAN IT.

>

> Prashna Upanishad says:The Purusha is within the body here

and

> now(ihaivantaHSarIrE sOmya sa puruShO...)

> BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad says "AtmanyEvAtmAnam paSyati"

i.e.

> one cognizes Atman within oneself. Sri Sankara in his commentary

on

> this mantra says " Atmani svE kAryakaraNasaMGAtE - Atmani in his

own

> body,AtmAnam pratyakcEtayitAram- the innermost AWARENESS, paSyati-

> cognizes".

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Lady Joyce" <shaantih wrote:

>

 

>

> "All beings are in Me, I am not in them". Sri krishNa

>

> advaitin/message/14986

>

> I have seen this quote so many times online and I never

> could understand what it was saying. "I am not in them."

> How could this be? From my perspective, thinking on

> perhaps a mundane level, He certainly is in me...in fact,

> I am nothing but Him. So how can he say He is not in me?

 

Namaste, Lady Joyce

 

Think of the movie screen. The screen says. " All the pictures are

moving on me. But I am not in them!"

 

Actually there is another apparent contradiction lurking behind in

the verses Gita 9-4 2nd line and 9-5 1st line. And it has a whole

philosophy of advaita in its depth.

 

For a peep into the 'contradiction' and its answer, see my posts

nos.14919 and 2356 and all the connected posts around these by so

many stalwarts on this list.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Pranams

 

Your questions and post reveal your understanding

already!

 

A direct reading of Shankara's commentary itself of

the verses in question will be very useful:

 

9.4 Idam, this; sarvam, whole; jagat, world; is tatam,

pervaded; maya, by Me; through the supreme nature,

that I have, avyakta-murtina, in My unmanifest form,

in that form in which My nature is not manifest, i.e.

in My form which is beyond the range of the organs.

Sarva-bhutani, all beings, from Brahma to a clump of

grass; matsthani, exist in Me, are established in Me

in that unmanifest form. For, no created thing that is

bereft of the Self (i.e. of Reality) can be conceived

of as an object of practical use. Therefore, being

possessed of their reality through Me who am their

Self, they exist in Me. Hence they are said to be

established in Me. I Myself am the Self of those

created things. Consequently, it appears to people of

little understanding that I dwell in them. Hence I

say: Na ca aham, but I am not; avasthitah, contained;

tesu, in them, in the created things. Since unlike

gross objects I am not in contact with anything,

therefore I am certainly the inmost core even of

space. For, a thing that has no contact with anything

cannot exist like something contained in a receptacle.

For this very reason that I am not in contact with

anyting-

9.5 Na ca bhutani, nor do the beings, beginning from

Brahma; matsthani, dwell in Me. Pasya, behold; me, My;

aisvaram, divine; yogam, Yoga, action, performance,

i.e. this real nature of Myself. The Upanisadic text,

too, similarly shows the absence of association (of

the Self) due to Its being free from contact:

'...unattached, for It is never attached' (Br.

3.9.26). Behold this other wonder: I am the

bhuta-bhrt, sustainer of beings, though I am

unattached. Ca, but; mama atma, My Self; na

bhutasthah, is not contained in the bengs. As it has

been explained according to the logic stated above,

there is no possibility of Its remaining contained in

beings. How, again, is it said, 'It is My Self?

Following human understanding, having separated the

aggregate of body etc. (from the Self) and

superimposing eoism of them, the Lord calls It 'My

Self'. But not that He has said so by ignorantly

thinking like ordinary mortals that the Self is

different from Himself. So also, I am the

bhuta-bhavanah, originator of beings, one who gives

birth to or nourishes the beings."

 

 

Perhaps an easy way for understanding this is the

dream example.

 

I project a universe of objects - animate and

inanimate - in my dream.

I sustain everything that is in my dream.

Each and every person in my dream is "in me"..is

pervaded by me.

 

Now am I in each and every person?

No - really speaking, I am asangaha - unattached.

 

Going back to the dream, let us say in my dream there

is a Mr.Joe and a Ms.Doe.

 

Am in inside of either of them? No!

Can either of them exist without me? No!

 

Now - do both of them really exist??

No! They only enjoy empiric existence.

As long as I project the dream - where? - onto

myself(being the substratum of the dream) - Mr.Joe and

Ms.Doe are free to suffer all that is in their lot in

the dream.

 

Now, again, really speaking neither of them are in me

- because they only have empiric existence.

Minus Me - their existence is nil.

Hence they cannot even be said to exist in me.

 

Thus all three statements if understood are valid

 

These beings exist in me - the dreamer.

I do not exist "in" them i.e. i am not limited by nor

associated with them

These beings really do not exist, not even "in" me.

 

[This is a example of a general vedantic technique

known as adhyarosa apavada - simulatenous assertion

and negation, to unfold a particular thought.

The "contradictoriness" while confusing is necessary

to unfold the subtle truths they point towards.]

 

"I am the Sole Existence, the Truth in which the dream

is born, is sustained and finally resolves, and in and

through all of this, I, the Paramatman, remain

unaffected." is the essential import of Bhagwan.

 

On a different note - regarding Brahman and

beyond....there is only one thing that is "beyond" the

perceived world of forms and names - and that is the

perceiver the witnesser, the Self.

 

And in reality what is perceived is nondifferent from

the witnessing principle. The witnessing principle

alone is Real, is Brahman. And this witnessing

principle you are. right now. Cognition is removal of

ignorance about this fact.

 

The "beyond" is not in the sense of objectifying

something else in the future that is yet

unobjectified, in a pure and pristine form, but a

re-cognition about I the witnessing principle, the

SUBJECT alone, being what is "beyond" the seen, the

sense organs and the mind, in the very now.

 

Trust this helps clarify to some extent.

 

To one, such as yourself, who realizes that "i am

nothing but Him", there is no question of Him being in

"me", or "me" being in Him - for I am He and He is Me,

the Self, One, Undifferentiated, without a second,

Whole.

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

--- Lady Joyce <shaantih (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

 

> I am nothing but Him. So how can he say He is not

> in me?

 

 

 

 

 

The fish are biting.

Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing.

http://searchmarketing./arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

[Guest guest]

In the prior message the typographic error in spelling

adhyaropa is regretted.

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

--- Shyam <shyam_md > wrote:

> [This is a example of a general vedantic technique

> known as adhyarosa apavada - simulatenous assertion

> and negation, to unfold a particular thought.

 

 

 

 

 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with the Search movie showtime shortcut.

http://tools.search./shortcuts/#news

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Shyam-ji:

 

Thanks for explaining the word <beyond> in the context of the term,

<beyond body, mind and intellect>. Here is another way of looking at

what <beyond> can imply. Everything that we can understand is always

through the intellect and the intellect is continuously changing. When

the student is at the elementary school, his/her intellect has a

limited capacity to understand and discriminate and questions that

pertain to knowledge at college level is beyond the elementary level

intelect. When we say that Atman is beyond intellect, we mean that the

True understanding of Atman is beyond the current capacity of

intellect. But when the capacity level grows to the fullest potential,

then Atman can be grasped by that INTELLECT! How can we understand the

changeless, all pervading and eternal Atman by an ever changing

intellect? The answer is implanted within this question - when the

intellect reaches the supremum level and becomes changeless, all

pervading and eternal - or become the Atman.

 

with my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

>

> The "beyond" is not in the sense of objectifying

> something else in the future that is yet

> unobjectified, in a pure and pristine form, but a

> re-cognition about I the witnessing principle, the

> SUBJECT alone, being what is "beyond" the seen, the

> sense organs and the mind, in the very now.

>