Basic Quesiton - WHAT IS ATMA?

[Guest guest]

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||Namaste Bipin and learned,

 

As usual, I am delayed in my response. Apologies offered.

Now, I thank you and Swee Ji for their mails on Atma. However, my mind still ponders to the fact that if in-fact, The Atma is what we believe for it to be- i.e., invisible, shapeless,formless, emotionless, part of the universal Bhramin, etc etc, then how do we concur that it is in-fact that Atma which creates/redeems fruits/punishments for karmas, both sanchit and prabradha. Atma, then, I would imagine does not really do anything, is not part to anything, just is. It, I imagine is that element which brings the human body to "functionality". If the body suffers/joys, is the Atma really sufferings?

 

May Be I am being pound foolish in getting into minute meaningless arguments, but just satisfying my largely unorganized mind.

 

Namaste,Gaurav Jain

[Guest guest]

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||Namaste Hari Ji,

 

That was a good paragraph. I am in agreement in the sense of it. Thank you.

However, who is that " I " in there?

Namaste,Gaurav Jain

[Guest guest]

Jagannatha always smiles; you cannot but smile.

 

Dear Gaurav,

 

May be this paragraph from an article on atman by Swami Viditatmananda

of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam may answer the questions you raised.

 

" To say that I did not have a previous birth, I am born from nowhere, and I

disappear into nothing, makes no sense. That is to say that I came into existence

from non-existence. No non-existent thing can give rise to an existent thing.

Something cannot come out of nothing. If there is no reason why I am what I

am, and you are what you are, there seems to be a lot of disparity and injustice.

It would seem wrong if I were not accountable for my past actions and, again, if I

do not bear the consequences of my present actions. If I do not accept the

continuity of life, this life and its diversity are inexplicable. It would make sense

only if I accept that I have had past embodiments when I performed a variety of

actions that have given rise to my present. Again, I have to accept that I perform

actions today, which will give rise to the future. Thus, there is a chain of cause

and effect. If I were to be born without a history, I would be born without a

cause and if I die without a living residue, a cause is destroyed without creating

an effect. If birth were an effect without a cause, death would become a cause

without an effect. That does not make sense. "

 

regards

Hari

On 6/24/05, yobrevol <yobrevol wrote:

 

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||Namaste Bipin and learned,

 

As usual, I am delayed in my response. Apologies offered.

Now, I thank you and Swee Ji for their mails on Atma. However, my mind still ponders to the fact that if in-fact, The Atma is what we believe for it to be- i.e., invisible, shapeless,formless, emotionless, part of the universal Bhramin, etc etc, then how do we concur that it is in-fact that Atma which creates/redeems fruits/punishments for karmas, both sanchit and prabradha. Atma, then, I would imagine does not really do anything, is not part to anything, just is. It, I imagine is that element which brings the human body to " functionality " . If the body suffers/joys, is the Atma really sufferings?

 

May Be I am being pound foolish in getting into minute meaningless arguments, but just satisfying my largely unorganized mind.

 

Namaste,Gaurav Jain