[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Atmaa : Do I have one ?
In article <4f0v5b$t00@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>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.
This is what I have been thinking about. Who am I, or Why am I.
According to Sankhya, there are two fundamental things in universe :
Purush and Prakriti. Prakriti goes through transformation when universe
comes into being, but Purush remains unchanged. However since Prakriti
is inanimate, it can not go through transformation on its own, but it
happens due to the presence of Purush.
Let's take another example here of a computer. Computer has a hardware,
software, but it won't run without electricity. We have a body, mind, but
we won't be alive without Atmaa. Let's assume there is a computer that
can think. What should it identify with : its hardware, its software, or
its electricity? To me it is hard to identify with electricity.
Raja
