I am confused about something. I think I may have a flawed understanding of the Hindu interpretation of Atman. I have always been told that in the Hindu belief system, as you go through your lifetimes your Atman gains wisdom, and the ultimate goal is for it to be wise enough to attain Nirvana. At the same time, I have always been told that the Atman is the unchanging part of the self that is unaffected by worldly phenomena. If the Atman is not affected by sensual stimulation and does not change, how can it gather wisdon through experiences in samsara? I don't get it. Please explain what I am missing. Thanks
I think it goes something like: you cannot "understand" your Atman (inner self, soul, etc), because it isn't intellectual in nature - you can only perceive it. The wisdom is understanding this (that you cannot rationalise it or really explain it, only experience it). I don't understand the statement: "your Atman gains wisdom"; your "Atman" isn't "wise", but is the source of perception - not intellectualism. There are meant to be various levels along the path to eventual salvation, or realisation (not sure what all the Hindi names are), the last is Samadhi - eventual loss of "self" and merger with "the all", or somesuch. I know one is called Dhyana (maybe no. 4), which is the state of knowing one is on the path to enlightenment, and disconnection (detachment) from materialism and deluded thought. I think the first is desire to find the path - but there are many roads to the same goal, apparently. Maybe Nirvana is the "path" to Samadhi - number 6 of 7 levels of "enlightenment". Not 100% about all this, though.
Atman is a very complex concept. It is defined as the moral, immortal essense of self, one that is limited by maya (illusion) and the senses (indriya). In Vedic literature, the duality of mortal being (jiva) and immortal essence (atman), have been described as two birds sitting on a tree. IOW, the atman can neglect or drift away from the truth when we are distracted by the wordly pleasures. An analogy can be made to a man who moves away from his homeland and forgets his roots. They exist within him, but his enthrallment with the pleasures he encounters make him forget them. "The self-existent Lord pierced the senses to make them turn outward. Thus we look to the external world and see not the Self with in us." Its only when we divest our being of all sensory activities and illusions that the atman can perceive what truth is. "There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown." Things are further complicated by the false atman, or ego, which assumes control and is a reflection of the illusory world and our sensory slavery to it. "There are two selves, the separate ego and the indivisible Atman. When one raises above I, me and mine, the Atman reveals Itself as the real Self." http://www.hinduwebsite.com/atman.asp
the true self (atman) is unchanging and perfect, it's just the body that has to be perfected so that you can be what you really are. the body is a "distraction", like a dirty glass. when the glass is cleaned, you can see clearly. that's why we go to heaven when we die, because all distraction disappears. the glass breaks and we can be what we are: heaven.
I thought the Ego was limited by maya and indriya and the Atman was not. The quote from Wiki that give me that impression is: It is one's true self (hence generally translated into English as 'Self') beyond identification with the phenomenal reality of worldly existence.
"There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it... It is other than the known and beyond the unknown." "There are two selves, the separate ego and the indivisible Atman." There's you, and there's the mask you wear. There's also confusion about "self", and translating Sanskrit. But essentially, there is (each) Atman, and there's a "false" self or ego, which identifies with the physical body and appearance (an illusion).
If you are a westerner (born and raised here) then do the following: Borrow a book from your local library called "The New Master Key System" which is just came in the Libraries in the USA. The old one is hard to read. The new one is edited and the language is updated. Then come back. I will explain why Atman is not affected by emotions in the sense you are thinking. You can also deduce for yourself. Emotions color the Wisdom. However, if you understand emotion as just information within the Samsara without that biased attachment, then you can still have the unbiased wisdom.
Correct, but while the ego dominates, the atman is suppressed. It is necessary to 'let go' of the ego for the atman to be freed. That is the whole concept of Nirvana or Mukti
That's your genes talking. It's an example of adaptive behaviour. That is, the purpose behind you being attracted/distracted, which should be obvious to anyone old enough (or who grew up on a farm maybe), to know about reproduction (inheritance), is inheritance, or persistence. The advantage for the female, of this interaction is that it leads to reproduction (your genes are telling you they want to survive, which is to their advantage). But that's Evolution, of course....:shrug:
I has nothing to do with evolution. Read your bible: " go forth and multiply" From your pitifully inadequate standpoint you may regard it as evolution.
yes. it's because you have a male body, so you think you are a man, and men need girls, to be whole, because a man is only one half of the reality that we all are (god, mind).
Invective is the last resort of those who have nothing worthwhile to say. By resorting to such ad homs., you lose the argument - in any rational debate, that is.
ahh thanks i make a non fallacious statement laced with invective you make a fallacious statement devoid of invective you win in a rational debate that is very clever /kowtow
imparting godlike characteristics to this atman fella is a mistake the fuck could be a piece of shit a retard
IF Your statement is non fallacious YOU will not need to have recourse to Invective because It does nothing To bolster your ARGUMENT
