Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AgarthaZen11
MEANING OF THE PHRASE “ATMAN-BRAHMAN”
The Upanishads proclaim that “Atman is Brahman.” Atman refers to the ‘individual soul’ of all living things and that which is immortal, unlike the body. Brahman is the supreme soul or the ‘cosmic soul,’ the life source of all that exists in the universe. So, the phrase “Atman is Brahman” wonderfully implies that the individual soul – you and me – are part of the cosmic soul. This is also the basis of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay entitled ‘Over-Soul’ (1841) and other similar Transcendental writings in Western Literature.~~Unknown
|
Namaste.
It is very synchronous and fortuitous that you mention Ralph Waldo Emerson this day.
In a post I made in response to another thread about the nature of Maya (illusion) which I posted yesterday, I had the choice of posting "Dream Within A Dream" by Edgar Allen Poe or "Brahma" by Ralph Waldo Emerson...I chose the former, so I now take this opportunity of posting the latter:
Brahma
BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON
If the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again.
Far or forgot to me is near;
Shadow and sunlight are the same;
The vanished gods to me appear;
And one to me are shame and fame.
They reckon ill who leave me out;
When me they fly, I am the wings;
I am the doubter and the doubt,
I am the hymn the Brahmin sings.
The strong gods pine for my abode,
And pine in vain the sacred Seven;
But thou, meek lover of the good!
Find me, and turn thy back on heaven.
Anyway...as a student of Advaita Vedanta, it is easy for the mind to become confused with all of these hierarchical attributions and divisions regarding the nature of Self...until the realization of such is to be had
for oneself!
For example, there is the term "Atman" which loosely approximates to "Soul" and then, there is "Paramatman" which thus approximates to "Oversoul"...however, if (and indeed AS) Atman and Paramatman are one in the same thing, why does the distinction or Duality exist between such in the first place? I also thought that the embodied soul was known as "Jiva" and not "Atman" anyway...however, the scholars chose to circumvent all that confusion by just calling the whole thing "Jivatman" so there wouldn't be any confusion.... didn't work. LOL
The same thing applies to Brahman vs Parabrahman...hey, if Brahman alone exists, then why differentiate Brahman into "imminent" and "transcendent" Brahman? The same thing goes for Shiva vs Sadashiva...Vishnu vs Narayana...all of that stuff just does my head in... honestly!
In the attempt to teach Non Duality through Duality, every point made becomes absurdly irrelevant and yet, the delineations still exist...within vs without...higher vs lower... embodied vs disembodied...and on and on it goes...just like that.
Now, I am a Hindu with a very good grasp on the Vedas and on Sruti...I can read and write Sanskrit, however if there is ONE thing that I fail to understand about my own religion, it is what I have mentioned above...so maybe yourself or another person would care to explain all of this to me and I await and anticipate any and all responses on the above matters. Thank you.
Aum Namah Shivaya