[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Atmaa : Do I have one ?
Roy Raja (rajaroy@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: I have been pondering over this question for many years, and still
: I don't have any answer.
: To start with, Islam , christianity, and judaism say that only
: humans have souls ( and therefore atmaa ), and other animals and
: plants don't have one. Hinduism says that all living beings including
: plants have atmaa. Looking from a biological point of view, Hinduism makes
: more sense, because there is not much biologocally different among
: animals and humans, human brain is more advanced, but animals do have
: brains, and they do feel happiness and sorrow, and they struggle to
: survive too.
: Now comes the doubt. There is physical body, mind, and atmaa (let's
: assume). According to hindu philosophy, it is not the atmaa, but the
: jiva that is bound in the cycle of rebirth. Jiva is atmaa + inner body
: or mind. Since atmaa can not be bound, it is due to the inner body
: that I am bound. Example normally given is that of a pot in ocean. Ocean
: is god, pot is body and mind, and water inside the pot is atmaa. The
: pot is not letting the water inside merge with water outside. Now I think
: that pot can not really be closed, because then one can divide god, which
: is not possible. Since God is same all the time, its like an open pot
: moving in the ocean. So when I move, whatever part of God I occupy is
: essentially my atmaa. Then ofcourse I don't have the same atmaa all
: the time. So basically, it is quite meaningless to have an atmaa.
This is what I think.
The term aatmaa implies self. So the question whether
I have an aatmaa is quite meaningless. The moment I
use the word "I", a sense of self-ness is implied.
Further, if there is something which I cannot really
doubt, it is this "I". I can doubt Raja Roy's existence.
I can doubt anything. But the very idea that "I" can
doubt "I-ness" is meaningless. And it is this "I"
that we have labelled as AtmA. The root is in: "Atma".
The other thing that I want to point is that do not take
the pot analogy (as given by Kabir) too far. There is an
assumption that AtmA and ParAtmA (super AtmA) are both
boundless. Both infinities. Perhaps, one infinity being
of a higher order than the other one. And so, when you
take one infinity from the other, it is still an infinity.
The IsaUpanishad in its very first verse says something
strikingly similar. And that verse has mathematical as
well as spiritual implications. The verse goes on something
like:
om, pOrnamidam, pOrnamidasya ...
I wish someone could reproduce the exact verse.
---
Nachiketa Tiwari
=====================================================
750 Tall Oaks Drive 118 Patton Hall
Apt. # 3600 I Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060. Blacksburg, VA 24061.
(540)-951-3979 (540)-231-4611
=====================================================
