Why use two separate terms to address the Self?

[The Crimson Universe]

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?

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

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?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

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

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 think self is an aggregate. Many pieces are necessary and shared.

 

[sayak83]

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?

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

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?

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.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste

Language cannot be ruled out when it comes to understanding:
Brahman' = the vast ever-expanding infinite, the Supreme Spirit , that, when presenting as Ishwar, some call God.
AtmA = Myself - literally speaking.

So while peeling all outer layers till one reaches the point in the center, to realize that [my center = the center of Whole. All ] , the understanding of "myself" travels in the process from the outermost layer to the innermost kendra-bindu.

This is not just theory, it is a live process via interaction of the individual and the Divine Brahman' and that is why we have 2 words - AtmA and Brahman'


More here

 

[Martin]

Namaste

Language cannot be ruled out when it comes to understanding:
Brahman' = the vast ever-expanding infinite, the Supreme Spirit , that, when presenting as Ishwar, some call God.
AtmA = Myself - literally speaking.

So while peeling all outer layers till one reaches the point in the center, to realize that [my center = the center of Whole. All ] , the understanding of "myself" travels in the process from the outermost layer to the innermost kendra-bindu.

This is not just theory, it is a live process via interaction of the individual and the Divine Brahman' and that is why we have 2 words - AtmA and Brahman'


More here

I thought Atman was impersonal, like a "fragment" of Brahman?

 

[Valjean]

It's one of the cardinal rules of Hinduism: Always make everything as complicated and abstruse as possible. Be sure to use lots of Sanskrit. Describe everything in a dozen different ways and subdivide it into as many parts and properties as you can.


Brahman is a technical term for a sort of universal isness. Atman is more poetic, referring to a "vital breath" that we like to associate with the universal field of being. We like to take every thing and reduce it to an essential Brahman.
Soul is as good a word as any for one's personal pinch of Brahman.

 

[Valjean]

I thought Atman was impersonal, like a "fragment" of Brahman?

More a personal fragment of an impersonal Brahman, I'd say.

 

[ameyAtmA]

I thought Atman was impersonal, like a "fragment" of Brahman?

See this is where the theoretical dissecting leaves us.

Yes, AtmA is impersonal in the sense, it is not tied to one specific adopted personality such as "meerkat" that has ties to their environment, culture and people they interact with. No strings attached.

However, the language origin helps with simplicity and understanding.

Why is the realest or truest AtmA i.e. me , this pure Being that you are calling 'impersonal' ? Because that is what I am originally. Not the personality that people think I am or that I make myself to be.

Some are of the opinion that this is best understood in theory using the logical brain, but many will attest to the richness that bhakti or Divine experience brings.

It is an intuitive process and intuitive understanding that comes with grace and possibly Divine input. Not because it is written in a book or someone said so.

The whole purpose of the granthas , upanishads etc. was to point to this. There is no need to tally or compare your intuitive understanding of truest AtmA with someone else's. The shAstra (scriptures) is the guide and measuring stick.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

the understanding of "myself" travels in the process from the outermost layer to the innermost kendra-bindu.
This is not just theory, it is a live process via interaction of the individual and the Divine Brahman' and that is why we have 2 words - AtmA and Brahman'
More here

By innermost kendra bindu, you mean the innermost core, right?
And does this Atman transmigrates as per advaita?

 

[Valjean]

By innermost kendra bindu, you mean the innermost core, right?
And does this Atman transmigrates as per advaita?

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.

 

[George-ananda]

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?

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

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?

Greg, we think alike on this stuff I see. Well let's check Wikipedia:

Brahman (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन्), (Hindi: ब्रह्म) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.

Then I went to the dictionary for Atman and found the spiritual life principle of the universe, especially when regarded as inherent in the real self of the individual.

Suffice it for my understanding to just think Brahman=Atman. Let's hope we get a good answer to your question.

But I particularly liked what you said about the use of the word soul. For my mind I like to distinguish between soul (Causal Body) and spirit (Brahman/Atman). Like you I wonder why Swami would call the Atman our soul as opposed to calling it our spirit. Was it a mistake or something he really meant that I am not understanding?

 

[George-ananda]

I
Soul is as good a word as any for one's personal pinch of Brahman.

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'?

 

[Martin]

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'?

Actually words like "soul" and "spirit" aren't very useful in this discussion, IMO. Better to stick with the Vedantic terms.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I completely agree with George.
Brahman=Atman, should be the supreme spirit. But the soul is the subtle/causal body that transmigrates and reincarnates.

Here's the link to the video

The Swami says at 17:35 that Atman is the soul, which in my opinion, is incorrect.
And yet I think i'll watch the full video again to see what he really meant by that and whether i'm missing out on something.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

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.

If ATMAN as you say is an illusion, then why do you think Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes this ATMAN as that, in which everything exists, which is of the highest value, which permeates everything, which is the essence of all, bliss and beyond description.
Would love to hear your opinion

 

[George-ananda]

Actually words like "soul" and "spirit" aren't very useful in this discussion, IMO. Better to stick with the Vedantic terms.

You know there is a Vedantic word for the Causal Body or reincarnating soul like something-Mayakosa but that name is almost unused.

My peeve is that too often I hear people talking about just us humans and the absolute Atman source. The many in-between levels is where it’s at. We don’t just die and become Brahman. That would be boring.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

That is the correct answer, Valjean.
Greg, there are two realities. One at the level of human perception (Vyavaharika, pragmatic), the other is at the level of the absolute truth (Paramarthika).
Atman (this body, if I say this 'self', that will confuse some, there is no 'self' - soul, other than this body). It is an illusion and impermanent. We perceive it like that because of the limitations of our perception and mind. We see waves, not the whole ocean.
When the truth is realized, we come to know that we are the ocean - Brahman, and that all that exists is nothing other than Brahman (the Hindu name for the substrate which constitutes all things in the universe.

Please note that this is a radical explanation in Advaita. All advaitists do not believe this. Even all Upanishads also do not go that far. Upanishads also are views of people like us. They differentiate between the individual 'self' (Atman) and the universal 'self' (Paramatma). That is what I would say 'weak' advaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman=Atman, should be the supreme spirit. But the soul is the subtle/causal body that transmigrates and reincarnates.

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.

 

[George-ananda]

The Swami says at 17:35 that Atman is the soul, which in my opinion, is incorrect.
And yet I think i'll watch the full video again to see what he really meant by that and whether i'm missing out on something.

I wonder if he is not using the word 'soul' in two ways. "Soul" with a capital "S" for Atman=Brahman and sometimes referring to 'soul' (lower case 's') for the Causal Body.

I think I may have seen this done too with 'Self' and 'self'.

The Causal Body or soul is called 'karana sharira' in Sanskrit but this word is unfamiliar and never used when speaking to western audiences it seems. Words like 'Brahman' and 'Atman' have made it into western conversational dialogues.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

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.

I agree with you to a certain extent.
Yes, billions of new things does arise every moment out of the pool/endless ocean.
And these new things are the jivas (the subtle,causal and gross bodies) and also the jagat (the universe). And then again these things merge back into the pool/endless ocean. 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.