Few thoughts on relationship between Brahman, Atma, Jiva, and the Supreme Being

[punkdbass]

Namaste,

I want to share with you guys some of my thoughts regarding the relationship between Brahman, Atma, and Jiva. I sort of had an epiphany today of how these 3 concepts relate to one another.

Easwaran defines Brahman as "The Supreme reality underlying all life, the divine ground of existence, the impersonal Godhead." Some of you may disagree with it being impersonal, but hear me out, for I will explain how personality fits in the picture. For me, Brahman is the pure energy that underlies all things. Some call this pure awareness or pure consciousness. Brahman pervades all things. This can be thought of as analogous to the Big Bang - the concentrated "pure energy" that created everything.

The concept of Atman is the idea the essence of any given thing is literally Brahman. To use the analogy of the Big Bang again, it is literally true that we are made of star dust, i.e. that we are made of the original pure energy that started everything. We are one with this. Our essence is Brahman.

Jiva: now this is the key concept that help explains the existence of multiplicity/plurality. Without the concept of Jiva, thus far one might think all of existence is literally just one thing. This would be a view of pure monism. I do not endorse this view. Easwaran says the Jiva is "the living soul, the finite individual soul that is identified with separate existence, as opposed to Atman, the eternal Self." For me, the concept of an "individual soul" is a simplistic way of describing a conditioned karmic being. Somehow, in mysterious ways I do not fully understand, "Maya" allows Brahman to delude itself into thinking it is something that it is not. This occurs through the process of karmic conditioning. For me, a living being can be thought of as a conglomeration of karmic conditioning. Every single human being is unique in the sense that their karmic conditioning is unique. Thus the Jiva can be thought of as the unique karmic manifestation of Brahman, in what we conventionally consider as an "individual being." Thus no 2 jivas are the same.

The Supreme Being: A human being, or any sentient being for that matter, can be thought of as the universe literally becoming aware of itself. In a rather mystical sense, a living being is a vessel or mirror for the universe. The greater one's awareness is, the more that being is able to manifest or reveal the Universe to others. The idea of a Supreme Being then can be thought of as a living being who fully manifests/reveals the entire Universe within it's being. A mirror that reflects Eternity. The entire Universe transparently radiates through this Supreme Being. All of truth, contained within a living, aware personality.

I know some Hindus view reality as ultimately being purely impersonal. This view just feels too inadequate for me. The viewpoint I'm presenting explains how God is both impersonal (pure energy/Brahman), but also personal (the Supreme Being that manifests/reveals/reflects Eternity within its personality). Rather than view reality from the bottom up (strictly impersonal), or top down (strictly personal), what I'm describing is a middle way. What do you guys think?

 

[DanielR]

I agree with your view of the Jiva

are you talking from a Vishishtadvaita perspective??

But I'm sure many people here would disagree since it sounds very Buddhist.

 

[StarryNightshade]

@punkdbass

Nice post. It does sound very Vishishtadvaitan/Panentheistic in your description.

 

[punkdbass]

I agree with your view of the Jiva

are you talking from a Vishishtadvaita perspective??

But I'm sure many people here would disagree since it sounds very Buddhist.

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what the Jiva means in the various philosophies of Hinduism. I was hoping other members here could comment on that. I've only heard that it represents the unique individual soul. I'm just pointing out that every beings karmic conditioning is unique, hence the existence of "individuality." I think there might be a connection between one's unique karmic conditioning and the concept of an individual "soul." In my mind, to say one's "soul" is reborn into another being, means the same thing as to say that persons Karma was reborn into another being, more or less anyways.

I'm not sure how Vishishtadvaitan my perspective is. I'm not going to claim to have a good understanding of Vishishtadvaita until I read some of Ramanuja's works. I have his Gita Bhashya (Gita commentary) coming in the mail.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Hare Krishna!
Namaste punkdbass ji

Relation Among God, World and the Souls


1) Differences between Vallabha’s Pure-Monism and Ramanuja’s Qualified Monism regarding the relation between God, souls and the world:

a) Ramanuja has accepted the individual soul and the world as forming the attributes or modes of God.

b) Vallabha says that the relation of individual self and the world to God is that of part to the whole. He does not regard individual soul and the world as inseparable from God in the sense of substance and attributes.

2) Differences between Vallabha’s Pure Monism and Madhva’s Dualism:

While Vallabha regards the world and the souls as non-different from Brahman, to Madhva they are totally different.

3) Nimbarka’s view of bhedabheda is different from the vishishtadvaita of Ramanuja. The main point of distinction between them is that while according to Ramanuja difference is an attribute of unity, for Nimbarka both identity and difference have equal status in reality. Difference is not secondary in his view.

4) Nimbarka’s view is clearly different from Vallabha’s and there is no point of agreement between them. Vallabha is the advocate of pure-monism and difference is not real according to him.

5) Nimbarka’s assertion of two realities (independent and dependent) is not acceptable to Jiva Gosvami. He has rejected this distinction and accepted God as the non-dual Reality. He does not accept souls and world as dependent realities but as shaktis of God. He realizes the difficulty of reconciling the relation of both identity and difference between shakti and possessor of shakti but (instead of calling one independent and other dependent), He calls this relation ‘acintya’.

6) Madhva accepted three eternal and real entities - God, soul and matter. God is independent and soul and matter are dependent on Him. But if the souls and matter are eternal like God then how could Madhva say that God is the only Independent Reality? Dualism makes supremacy of God impossible.

7) Vallabha’s system of Pure-Monism also accepts the souls and matter as real and as the manifestations of God’s attributes. He has accepted God as the abode of contradictory attributes. This doctrine is established on the basis of shrutis but it is not conceivable by the limited human reason.

8) Nimbarka has accepted both identity and difference among the three entities. The soul and matter are dependent on God Who is the only Independent Reality.They are non-different from God since they are in the nature of God. They are different from Him because while God is independent, the world and souls are dependent on Him. He is the support of their dependent existence. The concept of dependence necessarily involves some difference.

9) Shri Chaitanya and His followers recognize the supralogical and inconceivable nature of the relation of bhedabheda by positing the category of ‘acintya’ which shows their sincerity and frankness. They have supported it on the basis of scriptural passages.

Source: http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scripture...radayas/Appendix_I_-_Comparative_Analysis.htm

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

I want to share with you guys some of my thoughts regarding the relationship between Brahman, Atma, and Jiva. I sort of had an epiphany today of how these 3 concepts relate to one another.

Easwaran defines Brahman as "The Supreme reality underlying all life, the divine ground of existence, the impersonal Godhead." Some of you may disagree with it being impersonal, but hear me out, for I will explain how personality fits in the picture. For me, Brahman is the pure energy that underlies all things. Some call this pure awareness or pure consciousness. Brahman pervades all things. This can be thought of as analogous to the Big Bang - the concentrated "pure energy" that created everything.

The concept of Atman is the idea the essence of any given thing is literally Brahman. To use the analogy of the Big Bang again, it is literally true that we are made of star dust, i.e. that we are made of the original pure energy that started everything. We are one with this. Our essence is Brahman.

The terms brahman and Atman is often used interchangeably in the shrutis. The big bang, perhaps, can be conceived by interpreting shrutis in a certain way, though it would be impossible to do so without acknowledging the controlled and balanced expansion which might to a great extent take the "bang" out of the theory. For in the shrutis it is not so much of an accident from when creation ensued as it is from divine Will.

Also, one cannot accept both an impersonal and a supreme-being to be Real without holding one to sublate into other ultimately. Which is why Sri Shankara chose to hold all forms and names to be out of maya with only the impersonal brahman to be ultimately real whereas both Sri Ramanuja (AFAIK) and Sri Madhva hold brahman as Narayana.

Jiva

: now this is the key concept that help explains the existence of multiplicity/plurality. Without the concept of Jiva, thus far one might think all of existence is literally just one thing. This would be a view of pure monism. I do not endorse this view. Easwaran says the Jiva is "the living soul, the finite individual soul that is identified with separate existence, as opposed to Atman, the eternal Self." For me, the concept of an "individual soul" is a simplistic way of describing a conditioned karmic being. Somehow, in mysterious ways I do not fully understand, "Maya" allows Brahman to delude itself into thinking it is something that it is not. This occurs through the process of karmic conditioning. For me, a living being can be thought of as a conglomeration of karmic conditioning. Every single human being is unique in the sense that their karmic conditioning is unique. Thus the Jiva can be thought of as the unique karmic manifestation of Brahman, in what we conventionally consider as an "individual being." Thus no 2 jivas are the same.

Just as jiva when it identifies itself with the body is referred to as the body, when it identifies with brahman/Atman is referred to as such. And just as, though identifying with the body in the first case, it is different from the body, it is different from brahman/Atman in the latter case too. It would be improper to think that the brahman gets into delusion, for in that case moksha would be superfluous. To establish the locus of uniqueness in karmic condition would lead to infinite regress. And if brahman were to be held to have karma, it goes against the import of vedas.

The Supreme Being:

A human being, or any sentient being for that matter, can be thought of as the universe literally becoming aware of itself. In a rather mystical sense, a living being is a vessel or mirror for the universe. The greater one's awareness is, the more that being is able to manifest or reveal the Universe to others. The idea of a Supreme Being then can be thought of as a living being who fully manifests/reveals the entire Universe within it's being. A mirror that reflects Eternity. The entire Universe transparently radiates through this Supreme Being. All of truth, contained within a living, aware personality.

The supreme-being by definition cannot be "human" and even after moksha no individual gets the power to manifest any sort of creation - there is an explicit injunction on this in the brahma-sUtras so such a conception is out of question at least from perspective of vedas. Also, the material creation is but a fraction of supreme power as evidenced in many shrutis.

I know some Hindus view reality as ultimately being purely impersonal. This view just feels too inadequate for me. The viewpoint I'm presenting explains how God is both impersonal (pure energy/Brahman), but also personal (the Supreme Being that manifests/reveals/reflects Eternity within its personality). Rather than view reality from the bottom up (strictly impersonal), or top down (strictly personal), what I'm describing is a middle way. What do you guys think?

There is really only two possibilities that can be proposed that comply with the import of the vedas. Either brahman is impersonal and without attributes or that He is full of auspicious attributes and with eternal form. Rest are just fanciful imaginations for it will be quite impossible to establish such a middle way where both can exist. In the case former, both great qualities ascribed to brahman and limitations ascribed to jiva are held to be ultimately unreal and therefore what remains is pure chaitanya which therefore is one and the same. In case of latter, there are two schools of thoughts Sri Ramanuja's and Sri Madhva's, though differing in many specifics, agree upon the fact that Narayana is the brahman stated in the shrutis.

6) Madhva accepted three eternal and real entities - God, soul and matter. God is independent and soul and matter are dependent on Him. But if the souls and matter are eternal like God then how could Madhva say that God is the only Independent Reality? Dualism makes supremacy of God impossible.

So were jivas and matter created by Him? In which case His mischief knows no bounds I know you are just stating what is stated in that website but i feel they don't have a good understanding of Sri Madhva's siddhanta or even the scriptures. The eternality of jiva is established unequivocally in both shrutis and smrities. In fact, to hold that there is non-difference, however inconceivable, is what might undermine His supremacy, conceptually that is. Jivas and matter are eternal and dependent therefore eternally dependent, how does this compromise His supremacy, for He is eternally independent? Even if you take jivas to be His shakti, shakti is also dependent on the possessor of shakti, and therefore, since the possessor of shakti is eternal, so also will be shakti which in turn makes jivas eternal. Else you would have to imagine a situation where He lacked this particular shakti. Now if one says, shakti is not dependent on Him, then it must have a locus somewhere else. It is plain jugglery of words to call something as one's shakti and then hold it not depending on the one and finally state it is inconceivable, for inconceivability doesn't preclude the possibility of dependence.

9) Shri Chaitanya and His followers recognize the supralogical and inconceivable nature of the relation of bhedabheda by positing the category of ‘acintya’ which shows their sincerity and frankness. They have supported it on the basis of scriptural passages.

Indeed it would have been sincerity and frankness if only to say achintya (i don't know) but then trying to establish it using shrutis is unnecessary. Why quote shrutis to establish what can't be known? For me, inconceivable can perhaps be a valid answer, not a valid siddhanta.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[punkdbass]

The terms brahman and Atman is often used interchangeably in the shrutis. The big bang, perhaps, can be conceived by interpreting shrutis in a certain way, though it would be impossible to do so without acknowledging the controlled and balanced expansion which might to a great extent take the "bang" out of the theory. For in the shrutis it is not so much of an accident from when creation ensued as it is from divine Will.

Also, one cannot accept both an impersonal and a supreme-being to be Real without holding one to sublate into other ultimately. Which is why Sri Shankara chose to hold all forms and names to be out of maya with only the impersonal brahman to be ultimately real whereas both Sri Ramanuja (AFAIK) and Sri Madhva hold brahman as Narayana.


Just as jiva when it identifies itself with the body is referred to as the body, when it identifies with brahman/Atman is referred to as such. And just as, though identifying with the body in the first case, it is different from the body, it is different from brahman/Atman in the latter case too. It would be improper to think that the brahman gets into delusion, for in that case moksha would be superfluous. To establish the locus of uniqueness in karmic condition would lead to infinite regress. And if brahman were to be held to have karma, it goes against the import of vedas.


The supreme-being by definition cannot be "human" and even after moksha no individual gets the power to manifest any sort of creation - there is an explicit injunction on this in the brahma-sUtras so such a conception is out of question at least from perspective of vedas. Also, the material creation is but a fraction of supreme power as evidenced in many shrutis.



There is really only two possibilities that can be proposed that comply with the import of the vedas. Either brahman is impersonal and without attributes or that He is full of auspicious attributes and with eternal form. Rest are just fanciful imaginations for it will be quite impossible to establish such a middle way where both can exist. In the case former, both great qualities ascribed to brahman and limitations ascribed to jiva are held to be ultimately unreal and therefore what remains is pure chaitanya which therefore is one and the same. In case of latter, there are two schools of thoughts Sri Ramanuja's and Sri Madhva's, though differing in many specifics, agree upon the fact that Narayana is the brahman stated in the shrutis.


So were jivas and matter created by Him? In which case His mischief knows no bounds I know you are just stating what is stated in that website but i feel they don't have a good understanding of Sri Madhva's siddhanta or even the scriptures. The eternality of jiva is established unequivocally in both shrutis and smrities. In fact, to hold that there is non-difference, however inconceivable, is what might undermine His supremacy, conceptually that is. Jivas and matter are eternal and dependent therefore eternally dependent, how does this compromise His supremacy, for He is eternally independent? Even if you take jivas to be His shakti, shakti is also dependent on the possessor of shakti, and therefore, since the possessor of shakti is eternal, so also will be shakti which in turn makes jivas eternal. Else you would have to imagine a situation where He lacked this particular shakti. Now if one says, shakti is not dependent on Him, then it must have a locus somewhere else. It is plain jugglery of words to call something as one's shakti and then hold it not depending on the one and finally state it is inconceivable, for inconceivability doesn't preclude the possibility of dependence.


Indeed it would have been sincerity and frankness if only to say achintya (i don't know) but then trying to establish it using shrutis is unnecessary. Why quote shrutis to establish what can't be known? For me, inconceivable can perhaps be a valid answer, not a valid siddhanta.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Namaste तत्त्वप्रह्व,

Thanks for the very insightful reply. I used several analogies for understanding the various terms above, but as you pointed out, any analogy when pushed to its limits, becomes inadequate for describing such complex concepts.

It makes sense to me that the big bang is inadequate in describing Brahman because it does not involve any notion of "will," which obviously many Hindu scriptures associate the creation of the Universe as an act of will.

There is really only two possibilities that can be proposed that comply with the import of the vedas. Either brahman is impersonal and without attributes or that He is full of auspicious attributes and with eternal form.

Interesting. I do not know enough about the vedas to have a strong belief on this, although my intuition tells me that ultimate reality - that which we all came from - must be infinitely more complex than what exists now (i.e. Brahman must be with attributes), rather than a simple reality without attributes. But I honestly don't know.

Also it makes sense to me that the Jivas have to be more than just a conglomeration of karmic conditioning, since it is possible for a Jiva to exist unconditioned (i.e. to break out of the realm of samsara).

And yes, I agree that the Supreme Being is not merely a fully enlightened human being, or merely a full representation of Truth, but rather the scriptures indicate that the Supreme Being was the willful creator of all. I was just trying to give a unique perspective of how "personality" can be a mirror for truth.

I have Ramanuja's Gita Bhashya coming in the mail which I really look forward to reading!

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

I used several analogies for understanding the various terms above, but as you pointed out, any analogy when pushed to its limits, becomes inadequate for describing such complex concepts.

Sure, it is an accepted way of understanding the metaphysical: there are primarily three metaphors that are used:

1. The adhisthAna-Aropya-bhava: Here adhisthAna is substratum reality and Aropa is the superimposition, like a hare and its (imaginary)horns analogy used to understand the mayavada view
2. The sharIra-sharIri-bhava: body and soul analogy used to understand the VA view
3. The bimba-pratibimba-bhava: original and the reflection analogy used to understand tattvavada view

It makes sense to me that the big bang is inadequate in describing Brahman because it does not involve any notion of "will," which obviously many Hindu scriptures associate the creation of the Universe as an act of will.

There is also a theory called brahmapariNAma-vada which holds that it is verily the brahman who is the material cause for the world, which would to some extent go in tandem with the big bang, but as you've rightly pointed out, the concept of will is indeed a limiting factor. But this is a problem for advaita's brahman too, for it is totally nirdharmika i.e., it cannot have a will and therefore the necessity of Ishvara (annexed with maya) who can undertake all these activities.

I have Ramanuja's Gita Bhashya coming in the mail which I really look forward to reading!

That's great! Perhaps we will have another thread to discuss metaphor 2. shortly, then

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Eternally changing, that must be an atribute of Brahman, the way virtual particles appear and disappear. Also, being eternal also is an atribute. So, I would not say that Brahman is without attributes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or perhaps it is only the perception of a human mind???

 

[Stormcry]

According to Shruti gita found in Bhagavata, Jiva is a mixture of Purusha(Brahman uniting with material world who's the appeared manifestation of Param Purusha-Para Brahman) and the Prakruti( Maya or world) , even as how drop of water is a mixture of water and air...Once jiva realises his self, as it were, he merges in its root cause- supreme Brahman ..This is jiva !