YogiSource.com my account | view cart | customer service
 Search:    
Welcome to the new Yoga.com Forums home!
For future visits, link to "http://www.YogiSource.com/forums".
Make a new bookmark.
Tell your friends so they can find us and you!

Coming soon ... exciting new changes for our website, now at YogiSource.com.

Search | Statistics | User Listing View All Forums
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )



Atman
Moderators: Moderators

Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Yoga -> Philosophy and ReligionMessage format
 
strazin
Posted 2007-09-16 3:19 PM (#96353)
Subject: Atman


My mind is throwing another doubt at me while I try to meditate, which I can't seem to resolve. I don't understand how it is possible for me to find Atman, or understand Atman, or experience Atman in any meaningful way. If I can find the Self, then shouldn't any animal or thing be able to as well? Shouldn't a dog be able to reach Self-realization? What about a rock or a drop of water? I don't understand what is so special about me. What seperates me from a dog? I am not that much more intelligent than any other animal, am I?

Who is "I" anyway? I have been asking myself that question a lot lately. How can somebody find himself? A camera can not take a picture of itself. So how can I ever see myself, if I am the one who is looking?

I can understand that Atman might flow through me. But why should I be able to notice or comprehend it?

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Phil
Posted 2007-09-16 4:19 PM (#96356 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman


Hope this helps,
The mind is always a block to meditation.
The mind always desires an experience of some kind.
Some thing to hold onto, something to call it's own.
And Atman is in a field outside of the mind.
And meditation is a way to explore if there is a field not contaminated by the known (mind).

Why we are more conscious than rocks is.
Evolution has evolved are nervous system to such a complex level that it became self aware.
And that energy, self awareness, can go outwards as self consciousness or inwards as self realisation. It's up to your self will to choose which way.
Who is "I" is a good question to put to the mind. A clear form of inquiry.
Try looking up "Ramana Maharshi"
Top of the page Bottom of the page
tweeva
Posted 2007-09-16 4:37 PM (#96357 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman



Veteran

Posts: 101
100
strazin - 2007-09-15 9:19 PM

My mind is throwing another doubt at me while I try to meditate, which I can't seem to resolve.
I don't understand how it is possible for me to find Atman, or understand Atman, or experience Atman in any meaningful way. If I can find the Self, then shouldn't any animal or thing be able to as well? Shouldn't a dog be able to reach Self-realization? What about a rock or a drop of water? I don't understand what is so special about me. What seperates me from a dog? I am not that much more intelligent than any other animal, am I?


The answer, if there is any, might be found in the question.
Stop trying to understand, comprehend, doubt and trying to find or experience. These are useless attempts for control by the ego.
Surrender and just be.

strazin - 2007-09-15 9:19 PM

Who is "I" anyway? I have been asking myself that question a lot lately. How can somebody find himself? A camera can not take a picture of itself. So how can I ever see myself, if I am the one who is looking?
I can understand that Atman might flow through me. But why should I be able to notice or comprehend it?

Ah, the heart of the matter (pun intended).
And why is this "I" asking these questions? How can it be capable of this?

Btw: You haven't by any chance been digging in some Koans, have you?

Tw


Top of the page Bottom of the page
OrangeMat
Posted 2007-09-16 7:04 PM (#96358 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman


When I was a young child, maybe 8 or 9 years old, I was in the car with my mother one day, running some errands, and I distinctly remember having a thought that I just couldn't get out of my head. I wanted to question that thought, ask my mother about it, yet I just couldn't figure out the words to fully describe my question. As an adult, I now know that what I was trying to ask was this:

"How is it that I have the consciousness that I have and not another? Would I know it if I had another?"

"Why do I have the awareness I have, and do others have this same awareness?"

"I am somehow aware of my own consciousness; how and why is it that I am able to do this?"

Lots of questions for an eight-year-old, eh? Well, all I could manage to say out loud to my mom was "Why?", to which of course she responded "Why what?". I tried to rephrase and ask "Why am I me?", but that wasn't exactly what I wanted to ask either. I wasn't talking about "me" that day, but something deeper than that. Can an eight-year-old distinguish between the Self and one's ego? Again, I didn't have the words for it then, but there was definitely something being asked there.

Over 35 years later I still find myself contemplating that same feeling that I was trying to question, but at least now I know to "do" with it: it's the doorway to the Self, the beginnings of meditation.

Swami Durgananda, in her book The Heart of Meditation, offers the reader several exercises for becoming comfortable with meditation, the first of which is: become aware of your own awareness. When I got to that statement, the lightbulb completely lit for me. This was exactly what I had found myself doing that day, driving around in the car with my mom.

My advice to you is to try to ease off of the hard questions, and just see if you can become aware of your awareness. Nothing complicated or specific, just a sense of going behind the scenes, if you will. Will that give you any concrete answers? Probably not. Awareness isn't about concrete answers, which is exactly why I found I couldn't ask any concrete questions that day. Just be, and notice that "being-ness". Trust me, you'll do fine.



Edited by OrangeMat 2007-09-16 7:08 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
priyankeshu
Posted 2007-09-18 2:47 PM (#96466 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman


To understand this i would give reference about the creation of the universe ...

Whole universe is made up of one single thing .. the source is ONE. IT is just that its formed different way. So you are just a pile of thoughts (Atman) away from the main ParamAatma (The Single source)

Yoga is the union with that paramatma (God)so when you meditate your main objective always would be remove the thoughts/feelings/memories frm your mind good or bad does nt matter they should be eliminated .. and you would purify and ready to mingle to Paramatma . Thats the purpose of meditation.

WHY HUMAN ? NOT DOG .. well you think being dog is wierd ... but the dog might have the same feeling for you ? so its just the way you see it ..

i cant really comment weather a dog can get self realization but definately it can live a god or bad life .. his KARMA counts.... and that could help him getting close to .. self realisation and/or Moksha ...

Every dog has a different life .. pets live a better life .. not only the high breed but also the street dogs who get love by the local people .. and also what the dog does in life .. thats his KArma..

And yes in Vedas its mentioned that after living 2240000 typed of lives we are born as human beings and only human beings have the intellect to understand and change his Karma in a more thoughful and planned way then animals ..



As hinduism says ..you can have different paths ..or ways but everything will lead to the SUPREME !

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mellish
Posted 2007-09-26 12:05 PM (#96986 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman


Mind is all there is. Why seek 'other' as proof of One-ness? The experience of reality is singular, no need to go elsewhere in meditation to find it.


M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-26 1:05 PM (#97000 - in reply to #96986)
Subject: RE: Atman


The problem is:

Those who state 'Mind is all there is' tell others 'who are also mind' that 'they are nothing but mind', while assuming that 'Others have not realized this fact' and in that way 'others are not the same as the staters'.

In other words no body 'Minds' their own business. This is called 'missionary' work.


Mellish - 2007-09-26 12:05 PM

Mind is all there is. Why seek 'other' as proof of One-ness? The experience of reality is singular, no need to go elsewhere in meditation to find it.


M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mellish
Posted 2007-09-26 3:57 PM (#97017 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman



<
Those who state 'Mind is all there is' tell others 'who are also mind' that 'they are nothing but mind', while assuming that 'Others have not realized this fact' and in that way 'others are not the same as the staters'. >>

LOL! What an odd thing to assume. That's a lot of supposition, now isn't it? Why so aggressive?

>>In other words no body 'Minds' their own business. This is called 'missionary' work.

Unfortunately, posting here makes your business everyone else's.

Calling another traditions POV when stated 'missionary work' is another odd supposition, when it was intended to try and help in some way. Strange to have so much anger on the Path?

M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-26 6:13 PM (#97022 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman


Darling Mellish:
As I understand with my limited POV, 'missionary work' means telling others:

what they are doing is NOT needed, or is insufficeint, or is incorrect and they need to do 'what the missionary is telling'. For example:

"Trust is Son of God. Then only you shall be saved. You shall not be saved if you have your own deities. ETC.'

"Why do anything else, when Mind is all there is. That means no need to do what you are doing".

ETC.


Let me know what you think as "Missionary Work" means.

Your Angry Friend

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mellish
Posted 2007-09-27 7:40 AM (#97047 - in reply to #97022)
Subject: RE: Atman


kulkarnn - 2007-09-26 6:13 PM

Darling Mellish:
As I understand with my limited POV, 'missionary work' means telling others:

what they are doing is NOT needed, or is insufficeint, or is incorrect and they need to do 'what the missionary is telling'. For example:

"Trust is Son of God. Then only you shall be saved. You shall not be saved if you have your own deities. ETC.'

"Why do anything else, when Mind is all there is. That means no need to do what you are doing".

ETC.


Let me know what you think as "Missionary Work" means.

Your Angry Friend



Darling? LOL! Rather sudden, we haven't even been formally introduced.

Unfortunately your paranoia doesn't allow you to discern the difference between helping and 'missionary work'. If you look at mys posts you'll see that I didn't tell you you were wrong, just that there is another approach to solve your quandry. How strange you are to think it was anything else.

The bottom line is this: you claim to fully understand both mind and one-ness, and yet if you truly did you wouldn't say the things that you do within this forum. I can't put it any more simply than that. It might be an idea for you to ask yourself why you feel so strongly that you're above being offered advice?

M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-27 8:34 AM (#97057 - in reply to #97047)
Subject: RE: Atman


Darling Mellish: Please see ===> below. And, that is my final on this thread as far as your previous statements are concerned. If you have new ideas, I am open to discuss further.

Mellish - 2007-09-27 7:40 AM

kulkarnn - 2007-09-26 6:13 PM

Darling Mellish:
As I understand with my limited POV, 'missionary work' means telling others:

what they are doing is NOT needed, or is insufficeint, or is incorrect and they need to do 'what the missionary is telling'. For example:

"Trust is Son of God. Then only you shall be saved. You shall not be saved if you have your own deities. ETC.'

"Why do anything else, when Mind is all there is. That means no need to do what you are doing".

ETC.


Let me know what you think as "Missionary Work" means.

Your Angry Friend



Darling? LOL! Rather sudden, we haven't even been formally introduced.
===> Yes. I fall in love at first sight, first hearing and first reading many a times.

Unfortunately your paranoia doesn't allow you to discern the difference between helping and 'missionary work'. If you look at mys posts you'll see that I didn't tell you you were wrong, just that there is another approach to solve your quandry. How strange you are to think it was anything else.
===> Yes. I know that missionary work and helping both go hand in hand. In fact missionaries help more than non missionaries. You did not tell me I was wrong, but you took the OP out of the context of Atman into the dreamworld of Mind. Mind is all there is..... etc. And, that is what is interesting, which you should ponder upon.


The bottom line is this: you claim to fully understand both mind and one-ness, and yet if you truly did you wouldn't say the things that you do within this forum. I can't put it any more simply than that. It might be an idea for you to ask yourself why you feel so strongly that you're above being offered advice?
===> You are writing my biography without knowing me. But, I am not worried about it. I am more concerned about the topic of post and responses, not personalities posting the posts. Look at this:

Minds are Many=Ness. That means minds are different in different persons. That is why one thing is perceived differently by different persons. The only one ness is Atman and that is what dear Starzin wants to perceive. And, he is asking how that can happen. To tell him Mind is all there is ... is xxxxxx.

vastusaamye chttabhedaat tayor vibhaktaaH panthaaH... Patanjali Chapter 4.



M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mellish
Posted 2007-09-28 7:25 AM (#97119 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman


Minds are Many=Ness. That means minds are different in different persons. That is why one thing is perceived differently by different persons. The only one ness is Atman and that is what dear Starzin wants to perceive. And, he is asking how that can happen. To tell him Mind is all there is ... is xxxxxx.

So, tell me how there are many minds in One-ness? Tell me how there are any divsions at all in a singularity? We can of course talk about relative experience and perceptions, but that isn't ultimate experience, and you and I both know that in the ultimate sense, there are no divisions into self and other, all is one. So to perceive Atman you simply need to perceive, with understanding, what 'you' already are within this reality. There's no boundary or difference between samsara or nirvana, inner or outer. No need to go elsewhere.

We are, as you say you know, sunyata, a wave, never becoming other than the sea of reality we emerge from. Divisions are man made concepts, which make us miss experiencing our true nature. When we no loger conceptualise and think of things as separate and 'other', the illusion that prevents us perceiving the 'Not Two' of reality in total is not an issue. We no longer need to try to negate, avoid or purify reality. We just are the 'I Am'.. As I've said, this is the same for Hinduism and Buddhism, but some forms of both, as intermediate methods, teach how to negate. But this IS an intermediate stage, and anyone can move along the path in great leaps by just letting their obsession with transcending this reality go.

What we're all looking for though isn't just to be told that, but to have a direct experience of it, and the way to do that is - according to mahamudra and on, and branches of Hindusim - to understand what you already are and how to rest in that. Not meditate endlessly but to be. I hope that some here might consider examining say, Dzogchen texts (Keith Dowman's site is excellent) to see a further explanation of this.


Bye for now 'Darling'

M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-28 8:26 AM (#97122 - in reply to #97119)
Subject: RE: Atman


Darling Mellish:
Good. Now that we are out of 'Angry world', we can discuss this a peaceful way. But, there is one more thing we shold get out of our way, and that is "usage of Hinduism and Buddhism words". Because, all Buddhism concepts (without any exception) come out of Hinduism which is a name given to the Vedic Philosophy. The concepts are given different form at some places. If we should discuss this comparison issue, we can do it at some other place and time. For now, we shall just discuss the concepts directly without mentioning these terms, I mean Hinduism and Buddhism.

Now, please see ===> below.

>
Mellish - 2007-09-28 7:25 AM

Minds are Many=Ness. That means minds are different in different persons. That is why one thing is perceived differently by different persons. The only one ness is Atman and that is what dear Starzin wants to perceive. And, he is asking how that can happen. To tell him Mind is all there is ... is xxxxxx.

So, tell me how there are many minds in One-ness? Tell me how there are any divsions at all in a singularity? We can of course talk about relative experience and perceptions, but that isn't ultimate experience, and you and I both know that in the ultimate sense, there are no divisions into self and other, all is one. So to perceive Atman you simply need to perceive, with understanding, what 'you' already are within this reality. There's no boundary or difference between samsara or nirvana, inner or outer. No need to go elsewhere.

We are, as you say you know, sunyata, a wave, never becoming other than the sea of reality we emerge from. Divisions are man made concepts, which make us miss experiencing our true nature. When we no loger conceptualise and think of things as separate and 'other', the illusion that prevents us perceiving the 'Not Two' of reality in total is not an issue. We no longer need to try to negate, avoid or purify reality. We just are the 'I Am'.. As I've said, this is the same for Hinduism and Buddhism, but some forms of both, as intermediate methods, teach how to negate. But this IS an intermediate stage, and anyone can move along the path in great leaps by just letting their obsession with transcending this reality go.

===> In the concept of Atman, the concept of Shuunyataa is invalid. Shunyataa means nothing exists. Atman is a positive existence represented by Sat - Chit - Anand. Perception only reaches to the level of mind. In fact, mind is what is perceiving. And, as the minds are different, non-One, they perceive the same obect differently. Atman resides beyond the mind as an unchangeable positive, constant entity, not shuunyataa. But, at the same time, that Atman is same in all, being in costant, and that is also called God, Allah, etc. And, since that exists constantly, all the perceptible multiferous world has come out of it. This is also called as "God Created World" by some. The method of producing multiferious world out of singular constant entity is beyond Conception, and that is why it is called "Maya" or "Magic". It is a special property by which the Costant exists as a constant and at the same time as multiple.

===> The problem in the perception of Atman is: firstly, Atman is not perceived similar to perceptions of other things including mind. Other things are perceived using mind. Where as when mind does not perceive other things, Atman is automatically perceived if one wants to use that term. tadda drashuH svaruupe avasthaanam ... Patanjali Chapter 1.

===> The process of meditation is ALWAYS required for slowly or quickly removing the multiferous nature of mind perceptions. Only the methods of this meditations differ.

===> When one wants to go by a path suggested by your statements, it is called 'vihanga - marga' directly flying to the goal. And, that is for only very evolved minds. But, even in that case:

===> Even then, one is still meditating on the thought "I am That" reality, and nothing else is true. Instead of meditating on say "xxxx".



What we're all looking for though isn't just to be told that, but to have a direct experience of it, and the way to do that is - according to mahamudra and on, and branches of Hindusim - to understand what you already are and how to rest in that. Not meditate endlessly but to be. I hope that some here might consider examining say, Dzogchen texts (Keith Dowman's site is excellent) to see a further explanation of this.


Bye for now 'Darling'

M
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-28 8:28 AM (#97123 - in reply to #96353)
Subject: RE: Atman



Mellish: Bye for now 'Darling'

===> The reason I called you Darling is: My daughter's name is "Melissa Lesh" which becomes Mellish. She is an avid artist and has drawn pictures on some of my books and audios.
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-09-28 4:48 PM (#97154 - in reply to #97123)
Subject: RE: Atman


THE WORD ATMAN

In early Sanskrit writings the word "Atman" meant "breath" and later also took on the meaning "soul" (per several well known professors of Sanskrit and ancient Indian history.) The German word "Atmen" means "breath" as a noun and "to breathe" as a verb. (German and Sanskrit are both Indo-European languages with common roots.) I just heard (on the radio) a professor of Hebrew and Jewish history lecture that the word "soul" as used in the Psalms of the Old Testament has been incorrectly translated and that the word used meant "breath" at that time and only much later took on the meaning "soul". I find this historical relationship between the concepts of "breath" and "soul" to be not only interesting, but "food for thought".

I know that this is somewhat off the path of where this discussion has been going, but I wanted to share this anyway.
Top of the page Bottom of the page

Posted 2007-09-28 5:18 PM (#97155 - in reply to #97154)
Subject: RE: Atman


You guys are discussing the "many" and the "one". They are two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other. The only difference between them is in how you choose to percieve reality. Reality (which includes both the many and the one as well as every other concept that we think up) stays the same regardless of how we view it.

You find balance by not taking sides; internally or externally. Once you take sides, you are no longer in balance and you cannot see reality. (Both the "one" and the "many" are parts of reality.) External conflict is the result of internal conflict. Internal conflict is the result of being out of balance, taking one side against another, being attached to a part without seeing the whole. The “many” and the “one” are concepts or words in your head, not independent realities in the world. (The same is true of the differences between body/mind, matter/energy etc etc) If you can let go of taking sides, you can relax and experience what is actually happening right now; the whole thing, reality, not just the words in your head or what is left over after your mind filters out everything that doesn't agree with your beliefs and personal and cultural prejudices. Balance negates extremes. Extremes require force and force is violence. Peace is balance. It is active and energetic without force.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-28 11:18 PM (#97160 - in reply to #97154)
Subject: RE: Atman


Very interesting. Thank you.

jimg - 2007-09-28 4:48 PM

THE WORD ATMAN
etc.
I know that this is somewhat off the path of where this discussion has been going, but I wanted to share this anyway.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
kulkarnn
Posted 2007-09-28 11:27 PM (#97161 - in reply to #97155)
Subject: RE: Atman


Dear Jimg:
Inspite of what you wrote below and the logic behind, the fact is:


- when one is discussing something using language, concepts in head are going to come out. either the concepts in the head of the person discussing, or the concepts from the head of the philosopher whom the discusser agrees with. This also applies to the concepts in your statements.

- secondly, what you are refereing to as to what should happen is "Experience" as we discussed, I believe, once in the past. And, NOT the discussion. Silence, Living In Presence, etc. etc. are all experiences. Not discussions.

- when one discusses, words, thoughts, concepts, all these shall come out. And, then one has to accept this fact. And, work with that. For example:

Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. all the subjects are integrated at one level. But, when one is talking Physics, he shall be using the Physics terminology and associate with Physics. And, same thing with Biology. If they start talking Physics and use Biology terminology, confusion shall occur. This does not mean that Physicists and Biologists are fighting and there is a lack of peace. And, if someone else comes and tells them that Physics and Biology belong to the same reality, they are not going to heed that.

But, I understand your point.




jimg - 2007-09-28 5:18 PM

You guys are discussing the "many" and the "one". They are two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other. The only difference between them is in how you choose to percieve reality. Reality (which includes both the many and the one as well as every other concept that we think up) stays the same regardless of how we view it.

You find balance by not taking sides; internally or externally. Once you take sides, you are no longer in balance and you cannot see reality. (Both the "one" and the "many" are parts of reality.) External conflict is the result of internal conflict. Internal conflict is the result of being out of balance, taking one side against another, being attached to a part without seeing the whole. The “many” and the “one” are concepts or words in your head, not independent realities in the world. (The same is true of the differences between body/mind, matter/energy etc etc) If you can let go of taking sides, you can relax and experience what is actually happening right now; the whole thing, reality, not just the words in your head or what is left over after your mind filters out everything that doesn't agree with your beliefs and personal and cultural prejudices. Balance negates extremes. Extremes require force and force is violence. Peace is balance. It is active and energetic without force.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread


(Delete all cookies set by this site)