Is My Atman The Same As The Atman In Everybody Else?

[Joseph Maynor]

Just curious.  How is my Atman related to your Atman?

If this is True, is my awareness the same as your awareness?  If not, how do you explain the discrepancy?

Edited July 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Sean Johnson]

Absolute is absolute. The finite can have as many perspectives as the absolute wants. Someone elses experience can never be known in your finite perspective, but there never was a finite perspective, so there are no descrepacies.

[Prabhaker]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

If this is True

Gurdjieff said, “You are nothing but the body, and when the body dies you will die. Only once in a while does a person survive – one who has created soul (Atman) in his life survives death – not all. A Buddha survives; a Jesus survives, but not you! You will simply die, not even a trace will be left.”

What was Gurdjieff trying to do? He was shocking you to the very roots; he was trying to take away all your consolations and foolish theories which go on helping you to postpone work upon yourself. Now, to tell people, “You don’t have any souls, you are just vegetables, just a cabbage or maybe a cauliflower” – a cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education – “but nothing more than that.” He was really a master par excellence. He was taking the very earth away from underneath your feet. He was giving you such a shock that you had to think over the whole situation: are you going to remain a cabbage? He was creating a situation around you in which you would have to seek and search for the soul, because who wants to die?

And the idea that the soul is immortal has helped people to console themselves that they are not going to die, that death is just an appearance, just a long sleep, a restful sleep, and you will be born again. Gurdjieff says, “All nonsense. This is all nonsense! Dead, you are dead forever – unless you have created the soul….”

Now see the difference: you have been told you are already a soul, and Gurdjieff changes it totally. He says, “You are not already a soul, but only an opportunity. You can use it, you can miss it.”

And I would like to tell you that Gurdjieff was just using a device. It is not true. Everybody is born with a soul. But what to do with people who have been using truths as consolations? A great master sometimes has to lie – and only a great master has the right to lie – just to pull you out of your sleep.

Osho, The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol. 2, Talk #2

[Ananta]

On 7/23/2017 at 1:59 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

How is my Atman related to your Atman?

Atman=Brahman

Atman is just the portion of Brahman that's associated with each individual "apparent" body/mind.

On 7/23/2017 at 1:59 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

If this is True, is my awareness the same as your awareness?

Yes, it is.

(The subtle body could be said to be a jivas soul. Depending how one is defining "soul".)

Edited July 24, 2017 by Anna1

[Joseph Maynor]

@Anna1 Then how can Atman = Brahman.  If I am a perspective, how can I also be the anti-perspective?  Does that make sense?  Can you see what I am pointing to?  I realize we are like deaf people trying to hunt and point around with language with a greater or lesser effectiveness -- which often has more to do with boldness than anything.  The audacity to discourse.  

How can my limited perspective equal the total perspective?

I realize Leo answers this in the below video.  But humor me with your take!  Let's see.

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Shanmugam]

@Joseph Maynor  When it comes to non dual experience, there is no question that there is oneness in your perception... When your perception of reality is non-dual, you won't really feel that there are others. 

But I can understand your question... We know that there are many conscious beings all around us, and each of their field of consciousness is actually distinct. So, the nondual oneness that someone feels through his experience cannot be really shared with your consciousness.No one can deny this because everyone experiences his life through his own independent field of consciousness.

At the same time, my intuition tells me that there is one primordial source, which is the essence of everything; There cannot be two. It is quite possible that after the death of a liberated person, his consciousness merges with that one primordial source.

There is no agreement on this topic even when it comes to the great enlightened souls.

Let me introduce Ramanuja to you. Here is the source document for the below excerpt: http://www.cronksite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RamanujaGC.pdf

Ramanuja, like Shankara, is a "non-dualist." He too believes that Brahman alone is ultimately and independently real. However, Ramanuja is a non-dualist with a difference: He holds that, within the one Brahman, there exist many individual material entities as well as many individual conscious selves, and he regards these individual things and selves as ontologically real. It is not that material things and conscious selves exist independently of Brahman, as certain dualistic or pluralistic metaphysicians claim. For Ramanuja, material things and conscious selves are real, but not independently or ultimately real; their existence is grounded firmly in the unity of Brahman, "in whom they live, and move, and have their being." Ramanuja's version of Vedanta is therefore known as "qualified non-dualism" (vishishtadvaita).

Here is an excerpt from Ramanuja's commentary on Brahman Sutras, where he refutes Shankara's views:

Shankara: Brahman — a single, undifferentiated, and pure intelligence — is the only true reality. All other things (knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, all distinctions and differences between things, and individual things themselves) are illusory and unreal. The "Pure Being" of Brahman alone is "really real."

Ramanuja: This view (metaphysical non-dualism) cannot be proved. All objects that can be known are things that are distinct and different from other such things. Acts of consciousness reveal metaphysical distinctions

Shankara: The theory of a supreme reality devoid of all distinction and difference is immediately established by one's own consciousness. The various individual objects of consciousness such as jars, pieces of cloth, etc., and the distinctions and differences between them, come and go in our experience (that is, they are impermanent); but the being of such objects (Pure Being, Being-as-Being) persists in all states of consciousness. The one permanent and therefore really fundamental feature of all individual objects of consciousness is Pure Being itself (which is the same as Brahman). Distinctions and differences between things — and the things themselves — are appearances only, not realities.

Ramanuja: This view is refuted by the fact that all consciousness implies difference. All states of consciousness have for their objects things marked by some difference, as appears in the case of judgments like "I saw this" [where the "I" is different from the "this" and vice versa, and where both the "I" and the "this" are different from other things] . . . .

Moreover, consciousness has certain attributes that are different from each other such as permanence, oneness, self-luminousness, etc. Thus, it cannot be shown that these are only Being in general. Also, we observe that [in philosophy and other fields] there takes place a discussion of different views, and the proponents of non-dualism themselves attempt to prove their theory by means of the differences between other views and their own. It therefore must be admitted that reality is full of distinctions and differences . . . .

............................

You can read the rest of it in the source. 

However, you can adopt either of these views and become enlightened. I don't see why there is going to be a problem. Don't engage too much into this type of thinking, because you will get nowhere.. We can only make speculations about the ultimate but there is a deep mystery in the universe which can never be resolved by logic. Our existence is a mystery. The best we can do is to get rid of our own suffering.

[Ananta]

37 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Then how can Atman = Brahman.

Atman is the portion of pure awareness (Brahman) permeating, enlivening and illuminating the jiva.

The body/mind/sense complex is "within" awareness, as well as composed "from/ out of", pure awareness.

37 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Does that make sense?  Can you see what I am pointing to?

No, you'll have to expand your question. I don't know what you mean by anti-perspective. What does anti-perspective mean to you?

 

I don't watch Leo's video's, so I can't comment on it.

 

 

[Spiral]

You = me.

We see, hear and feeling the same thing. Problem "you" can't remember what "I" experience

Edited July 24, 2017 by Spiral

[ajasatya]

On 23/07/2017 at 2:59 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

Just curious.  How is my Atman related to your Atman?

If this is True, is my awareness the same as your awareness?  If not, how do you explain the discrepancy?

Reality sees Itself through many eyes, listens to Itself through many ears and tastes Itself with many tongues.

you cannot find a separated identity inside of you and you cannot find a separated identity inside of anybody. NOTHING has an inherent individuality.

when we say that everything is One, it's not just a cute statement meaning that we humans should be falling in love with each other. the veracity of that statement is much much much more deeper. it's so deep that it's impossible to be put in words. it has to be lived in silence.

your main obstacle for now is your intellectual pride. you're not working hard enough to let Silence grow in your mental space. it doesn't matter how smart you are, you gotta step into the unknown and get used to it. watch logical thoughts arise and let them go. they're helpless. HELPLESS.

it cannot be known. let go of it. throw away all of your 30 years of philosophy. throw it all away. humble yourself before existence and let it be. cultivate silence instead.

as you read these words, you feel like you know what i am trying to say to you. you may even let go for now. but i bet you won't work hard enough and mental diarrhea will destroy your peace over and over.

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, Spiral said:

We see, hear and feeling the same thing. Problem "you" can't remember what "I" experience

No one can know your subjective experience's except you and Isvara (God).

Atman (awareness/Brahman) is what you "are", you realize this when you negate every-thing phenomenal, including..you..the apparent person, you think you are.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Anna1

[Ananta]

3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

How can my limited perspective equal the total perspective?

Ok, I was at work earlier while posting..it's harder to think..lol.

I'll assume you mean by limited perspective, the body/mind? If that's the case (?), think of all apparent objects as being a hologram.  

An analogy- A room is filled with light (pure awareness/Brahman), then a hologram appears, "made of" light (awareness). Its superimposed upon/within the "light" in the room. Therefore, the light in the room is also "permeating" (Atman) the hologram.

The hologram thinks it's an individual volitional entity, because it doesn't recognize it is made from/out of light. It doesn't apprehend the light in the room. 

All analogies break down at some point, but my point was to say the "real you" is the light in the room, not the hologram. The hologram exists (as its also awareness), but its temporary, therefore, ultimately its an illusion and dependent on the light itself for its apparent existence.

So, all phenomena is a temporary  "appearance" (created out of Brahman/awareness) due to the power of Maya and Isvara. Objects are superimposed onto/within Brahman, therefore Brahman "permeates" every-thing. When Brahman permeates a jiva/object, it's then "associated" with it, then its called Atman.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Anna1

[Markus]

@Joseph Maynor Nothing has no qualities. So how could you divide it? Nothing is nothing.

[Dodo]

On 23/07/2017 at 9:13 AM, Prabhaker said:

Gurdjieff said, “You are nothing but the body, and when the body dies you will die. Only once in a while does a person survive – one who has created soul (Atman) in his life survives death – not all. A Buddha survives; a Jesus survives, but not you! You will simply die, not even a trace will be left.”

What was Gurdjieff trying to do? He was shocking you to the very roots; he was trying to take away all your consolations and foolish theories which go on helping you to postpone work upon yourself. Now, to tell people, “You don’t have any souls, you are just vegetables, just a cabbage or maybe a cauliflower” – a cauliflower is a cabbage with a college education – “but nothing more than that.” He was really a master par excellence. He was taking the very earth away from underneath your feet. He was giving you such a shock that you had to think over the whole situation: are you going to remain a cabbage? He was creating a situation around you in which you would have to seek and search for the soul, because who wants to die?

And the idea that the soul is immortal has helped people to console themselves that they are not going to die, that death is just an appearance, just a long sleep, a restful sleep, and you will be born again. Gurdjieff says, “All nonsense. This is all nonsense! Dead, you are dead forever – unless you have created the soul….”

Now see the difference: you have been told you are already a soul, and Gurdjieff changes it totally. He says, “You are not already a soul, but only an opportunity. You can use it, you can miss it.”

And I would like to tell you that Gurdjieff was just using a device. It is not true. Everybody is born with a soul. But what to do with people who have been using truths as consolations? A great master sometimes has to lie – and only a great master has the right to lie – just to pull you out of your sleep.

Osho, The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol. 2, Talk #2

All due respect, dear Gurdjieff, but dead forever means nothing, since who is there to experience "dead forever". Why should one fear being "dead forever" - I have never gotten that. It's obviously not going to be a restful sleep or anything of that kind, because there is simply no you there to experience that.

However, probability and maths are on the side of Dodoster here. Why? Because it happened once that Dodoster would exist (now). This means that the chance of Dodoster's existence is bigger than 0%. Dodoster has infinite amount of time to be "dead", however, if the chance of Dodoster's existence is proven to be more than 0% because of the current happenings, this means that Dodoster will be born again and again in infinity.

So everyone will have infinite amount of tries to get enlightened anyway. But yeah, better get it on this iteration, you're already far enough in.  If creating soul means finding the true nature...

"And I would like to tell you that Gurdjieff was just using a device. It is not true. Everybody is born with a soul. But what to do with people who have been using truths as consolations? A great master sometimes has to lie – and only a great master has the right to lie – just to pull you out of your sleep." 

I like this addition by Osho. But still I don't think it's a good tactic to bring fear into the equation by Gurdjieff.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Dodo

[Dodo]

On 23/07/2017 at 6:59 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

Just curious.  How is my Atman related to your Atman?

If this is True, is my awareness the same as your awareness?  If not, how do you explain the discrepancy?

Let me rephrase the question : Is my nothingness the same as your nothingness? Sounds silly! 

[Spiral]

17 hours ago, Anna1 said:

No one can know your subjective experience's except you and Isvara (God).

Atman (awareness/Brahman) is what you "are", you realize this when you negate every-thing phenomenal, including..you..the apparent person, you think you are.

Annoying with the wording in regards to this subject, words don't really cut it  Either way we mean the same thing if I interpret you correctly.

@Joseph Maynor Reading our responses won't cut it for you, knowledge is not good enought, sorry 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Spiral

[Dodo]

1 minute ago, Loreena said:

If everything is nothing, then what is something ? 

Well if everything is nothing, then something is nothing too. I don't know if everything is nothing, I know nothing, John Snow.

[Loreena]

Just now, Dodo said:

Well if everything is nothing, then something is nothing too. I don't know if everything is nothing, I know nothing, John Snow.

Who is John Snow  ?

[Spiral]

2 minutes ago, Loreena said:

If everything is nothing, then what is something ? 

Something = an illusion created by an simple mind

[Loreena]

Just now, Spiral said:

Something = an illusion created by an simple mind

Then what would you call the absence of illusion ?

[Spiral]

4 minutes ago, Loreena said:

Then what would you call the absence of illusion ?

Nothing 

We got a circle here, everything is nothing and that's something.

Enought with these mind games

Edited July 25, 2017 by Spiral