Relative Jiva and Absolute Atman

Jiva refers to oneself, dominated by dualism, while Atman (or Brahman) signifies the true self without the distinction of self and other, representing a monistic, universal self.

In Vedanta, the term Jiva is used, but in Buddhism, it is called afflictions or ego. However, Jiva does not have a negative meaning; it simply refers to oneself in the relative, dualistic world. Humans have both the dualistic aspect of Jiva and the absolute Atman (true self).

In Buddhism, the Chen sect first explains relative truth based on dualism and cultivates morality and compassion. Esoteric Buddhism is also fundamentally dualistic, with a distinction between self and other. Both divide worldly truths into good and bad, with the Chen sect emphasizing the positive aspects and Esoteric Buddhism transforming negative images into positive images like those of Buddhas, thereby elevating them.

The methods differ between the Chen sect and Esoteric Buddhism, but the goals are similar. In the Chen sect, the goal is to reach a state of stillness (dhyana, samatha), emphasizing compassion, which allows one to break through dualism. On the other hand, in Esoteric Buddhism, the image of a Buddha, such as the principal Buddha, is used to sublimate negative images and distractions, and by uniting oneself with the principal Buddha, one can break through dualism.

Both start with dualism, but ultimately aim to transcend it.

In reality, there are not many people who have transcended dualism. There may be more enlightened people among the general public than among practitioners.

Regarding this dualism, it is discussed in Buddhism, but according to Vedanta and Tibetan Dzogchen, the world is inherently a monistic Atman, and from that perspective, dualism is an illusion.

This monism, if you only hear it once, might make you think, "Ah, I see," but what is being described is a world that becomes visible after practicing in theEsoteric Buddhism (Kenkyō) orTantric Buddhism (Mikkyō) of Buddhism. In that world after practice, there is no distinction between self and other, and it is monistic.

If that is the case, then it is a correct explanation of monism. However, what makes things more complicated is that the people who transmit this, such as the Vedanta schools, are not necessarily enlightened. In that case, what should have been an explanation of the world after enlightenment, the state of samadhi, is instead based on transmission and oral tradition, which leaves a somewhat strange explanation, which is a difficult point.

However, once you understand it, it can be understood as simply a difference in expression.

▪️Indian Vedanta bases monism on dualism.

Vedanta is also called Advaita Vedanta, and it is a teaching that has continued since the sage Shankara. It is based on the teachings of the Upanishads and states that only Brahman (or Atman) exists in this world.

In the world of dualism, Vedanta describes it as the world of Jiva. In the world of Jiva, there is a distinction between self and other, and the self (ego, ahamkara) is considered to be oneself.

Similarly, the world of Atman (the true self) is also described. The self as Jiva is not the true self, but Atman is the true self. There is no distinction between self and other in Atman, and it has three aspects: Sat, Cit, and Ananda.

- Sat: Eternal existence
- Cit: Consciousness
- Ananda: Fullness (often translated as bliss, but it is bliss because it is full)

Atman (or Brahman), which has these three aspects, is the true self, according to the non-dual monism of Vedanta. In that, there are two aspects: the self as Jiva and the self as Atman. In reality, the self as Atman is the true self, while the self as Jiva is not the true self.

The self as Jiva is relative, with distinctions between self and other, and distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong.
On the other hand, the self as Atman is absolute, with no distinction between self and other, no distinction between good and bad, and no distinction between right and wrong.

The truth of the Atman exists absolutely and is not influenced by the activities or actions of the Jiva.

Sat means existence, and it exists constantly in the past, present, and future without being affected by the time axis.
Cit means consciousness, and consciousness permeates this world completely.
Ananda is often translated as bliss in books, but its original meaning is fullness, and it is full, therefore it is happy.

These are described as three aspects, but they are merely descriptions, and the actual form can only be understood through direct experience. However, these three descriptions seem to be quite accurate.

The truth of the Atman is not cognizable by the Jiva, but as an explanation of the aspects of the Atman when it appears in this world, the three aspects of creation, destruction, and preservation are often used, and each god is assigned as a symbol.

- Brahma: Creation
- Vishnu: Preservation
- Shiva: Destruction

The Atman itself is essentially unknowable to the Jiva, but in reality, the Atman does not exist as a single entity; it is always accompanied by Gunas (material elements). When the Atman and Gunas combine, they appear in this world as Ishvara or Jagat (the world), and when it appears as this world, there are these three aspects.

During meditation, the Atman itself does not have Gunas, so it cannot be recognized, but the three aspects of creation, preservation, and destruction, which appear when combined with Gunas, can be recognized during meditation, and that is the aspect of Ishvara as the Atman appearing in this world.

This is the same as what is recently called the Higher Self in spiritual circles, and it can be felt with the heart as the center of Ishvara or Atman or Higher Self.

According to what is passed down in Indian schools of thought, knowing this Atman leads to Moksha (liberation) and liberation from the cycle of reincarnation caused by Karma.

▪️Non-dualism, which seems to have slightly different interpretations depending on the school.

Non-dualism itself is correct, but the explanations seem to vary slightly depending on the school, and differences can be felt, especially in how the Jiva aspect is viewed.

In that regard, it seems that basing the explanation on the Tibetan Dzogchen teachings rather than the Indian schools would provide a clearer and more comprehensive understanding.

This is because, according to the Vedanta philosophy, the world of the "jiva," which is the aspect of "I" that is not the ultimate reality, disappears when that aspect of "I" as the "Atman" is realized (fully understood). This is an important point.

The important point is that, according to the teachings of Vedanta, the world of the "jiva" disappears when the "Atman" is correctly understood. This does not mean that the body disappears, but rather that the world of the "jiva" disappears in terms of cognition.

On the other hand, according to the teachings of Tibetan Dzogchen, whether the so-called "jiva" lives in a dualistic existence or not, the true "I" (the nature of mind, "Semni") remains unchanged. The only thing that changes is whether or not there is awakened consciousness ("Rigpa").

This may sound the same when read in words. However, depending on the teachings of the school, the nuances are quite different.

Both Vedanta and Dzogchen say that the absolute truth remains as it is, unaffected by the relative "I." The explanation is the same. However, in Vedanta, there is a nuance of transforming the relative "I" into the absolute "I." In this regard, while the people of Vedanta do not use the word "transformation" but use the word "understanding," the explanation is correct, but it contains the nuance of transformation. Even if the words are correct, it is likely that the people in the school do not properly understand the meaning of "understanding" and the meaning of "it is not transformation," and therefore, while they say "it is not transformation, it is understanding," the explanation contains the nuance of "transformation" in various places.

Well, this is a subjective impression, so perhaps I am just struggling to explain it, and I actually understand everything. Or perhaps not.

From my perspective, although the words may be the same, the way of practice and the tradition of each school seem to be different.

Based on the philosophies of Dzogchen and Vedanta, the absolute truth as "I" is not affected by the relative "I," and even if there are emotions or thoughts, it does not matter. However, the actual actions and thoughts that are considered acceptable may vary depending on the school.

Well, it is to some extent correct that a disciplined and orderly life is important for training, but it seems that traditions and oral teachings are prioritized, and the true meaning is being interpreted somewhat differently.

However, there are various schools of thought in Indian Vedanta, so it probably varies depending on the place, and I don't think this is a simple matter.

▪️The perspective from Samadhi as "understanding" in Vedanta.

The word "understanding" used by people in Vedanta has a rather special meaning, and basically it includes the ordinary meaning of "correctly and completely understanding," but it seems to me that that meaning is not the main point.

In Vedanta, such an interpretation is not made, and the basic explanation is that understanding is just understanding, and that if you understand, that's enough. This is explained as "it's about understanding, not action," but I don't think that explanation expresses the whole picture.

Normally, when we say "understanding," it often refers to reactions and logic in conscious memory and thought, but what Vedanta calls "understanding" can also be interpreted as logic, but to me, it seems closer to "direct perception." However, people in Vedanta don't say "direct perception," they say "understanding," which is confusing.

People in Vedanta say that if you understand, you will be liberated from the cycle of reincarnation on this earth and become free, and they call that liberation "moksha," but the "understanding" they are talking about does not seem to be ordinary understanding.

However, people in Vedanta sometimes say that "if you understand correctly, that's enough," which is also very confusing as an expression.

Furthermore, in Vedanta, the state of Samadhi, which is said in yoga, is considered an "action," so it is "temporary," and it is not liberation (moksha). This also causes confusion about the word "Samadhi."

Now, let's put aside the words of Vedanta for a moment and offer my own interpretation.

In my interpretation, the perspective from Samadhi is what Vedanta calls "understanding."

This interpretation is neat and very clear.

Let's try interpreting this a little more in the style of Vedanta. In Vedanta, this world (Jagrat) is divided, especially from the human perspective, into Jiva (the self in the ego) and Ishvara or Atman (the true self, the real self).

At this time, seeing the "Jagat" (world) from the "Atman" (true self) is what constitutes "understanding."

Since the "Jagat" (world) includes the "Jiva" (the self as an individual), if we limit this to a spiritual perspective of the self, then seeing the "Jiva" (the self as an individual) from the "Atman" (true self) can also be considered "understanding."

- Seeing the "Jagat" (world) from the "Atman" (true self) is "understanding."
- (From the perspective of "oneself"), seeing the "Jiva" (the self as an individual) from the "Atman" (true self) is "understanding."

Furthermore, Vedanta states that the "Atman" (true self) is originally identical to Brahman (the ultimate reality), so from that perspective, the following can also be said:

- Seeing the "Jagat" (world) from Brahman is "understanding."

In Vedanta, this is understood intellectually, but it is not said to be "Samadhi." However, based on my understanding, this is the very perspective of Samadhi.

Samadhi is about transcending the framework of the self and having the perspective of the "Atman" (true self), so it can be called contemplation, or perhaps "direct perception." Some schools of thought rephrase this as "understanding," but there is only a slight difference, such as "well, there is a way of saying it like that, there might be a misunderstanding, but that way of saying it is possible." If we call Samadhi "understanding," then it is acceptable in its own right.

Indeed, it can be said that the state of Samadhi is simply a form of cognition, so it can be considered "understanding" to some extent. However, this is a more direct understanding, and it is more like "knowledge" itself. "Understanding" tends to include logic and thought, but the "understanding" I am referring to here does not include the thought of the self; it is simply knowledge itself. If we call that "understanding," then I suppose it is possible, but personally, I think it is a very misleading expression.

However, when talking about such things to people in Vedanta, there are differences in language and expression, so I generally do not ask for explicit agreement with such interpretations. I might have a casual conversation. It is simply a statement that, based on my perception, it can be interpreted in this way.

Each school of thought has its unique expressions, which is a good example of how it can only be interpreted by carefully examining each case. However, the path of spirituality is relatively common, so even if the expressions are quite different and unique, if you grasp the basics, you can understand it even in other schools of thought.

▪️In the state of Samadhi, the aspect of one's actions is observed.

The aspect of one's actions refers to the aspect of the self as the Jiva (ego, Ahankara) in Vedanta, and that action includes all actions in life. And, all of those actions are observed.

Thus, when one enters the state of Samadhi, the self as an action is observed.

For example, if one is meditating, the meditation itself is observed.
Or, if one is studying and trying to understand, that itself is observed.
Also, whatever one does, that action itself is observed.

At this time, generally, in yoga and other meditative practices, the act of meditation itself is observed.

On the other hand, in schools of thought like Vedanta, which emphasize study and understanding, the act of studying and understanding itself is observed.

At that time, the action and the observer become one.

The Yoga Sutra describes this state as a state where the seer, the seen, and the act of seeing become one. In this area, the translations from the original Sanskrit to English or Japanese vary quite a bit depending on the book, but it is generally translated as a state where the three things, seer, seen, and seeing, become one.

In such a state, for example, if one is meditating in yoga, meditation itself may be understood as being connected to Samadhi, and it may be understood that Samadhi is meditation.

On the other hand, in schools of thought like Vedanta, if one is studying or understanding, that understanding itself may be understood as being connected to Samadhi, and it may be understood that Samadhi (Vedanta does not use the word Samadhi, but instead uses Moksha, which means liberation) is understanding.

In the state of Samadhi or Moksha, there is always some connection to an action, but initially, it is understood that Samadhi is connected to that action, but gradually, one comes to understand that Samadhi itself is not related to action or understanding, but is essentially pure observation, and is the awakened consciousness itself.

Initially, one understands Samadhi or Moksha in terms of meditation and understanding. However, gradually, one begins to realize that a more general, awakened consciousness exists, independent of specific situations involving action or understanding.

▪️A state where there is no distinction between the knower, the known, and the knowledge.

This is how Samadhi is described in Chapter 1, verse 41 of the Yoga Sutras.

Like a transparent crystal taking on the color and shape of the objects placed near it, (omitted), the mind becomes clear and still, reaching a state where there is no distinction between the knower, the known, and the knowledge. This is the culmination of meditation, which is Samadhi. "Integral Yoga" (by Swami Satchidananda).

When the yogi has completely controlled (the fluctuations) of the mind, like a crystal placed before various colored objects, the subject, the object (of perception), and the process of perception (the "self," the mind, and external objects) become concentrated and unified. "Raja Yoga" (by Swami Vivekananda).

This translation, whether in English or Japanese, likely changes significantly, and the words are quite altered.

For one who has completely controlled the fluctuations of the mind, a state of identification or similarity with the perceived object eventually arises. Just as a crystal takes on the color of what is reflected within it, the knower, the knowledge, and the field of knowledge become one. "The Light of the Soul" (by Alice Bailey).

This sutra, when read literally, tends to be interpreted as "through concentration, the mind and the object become one." Originally, in meditation, before reaching Samadhi, in the state of concentration (Dharana) or meditation (Dhyana), these three are separate. There is a meditating subject, the object of meditation, and the act of meditation.

Then, in Samadhi, these three become one, but it is not a literal, localized story of the object becoming one. This is a point where it can be misunderstood if read literally.

In reality, the state of Samadhi is essentially observation.

In Vedanta, when the Atman (true self) observes all actions and even the world itself, the actions that were previously thought to be performed by the ego (Ahamkara) as the individual self (Jiva) are observed by the Atman. Also, the objects that the Jiva was observing are observed by the Atman, and even the knowledge obtained in that way is observed by the Atman.

Actually, from the perspective of the individual self (Jiva), these three distinctions still remain to some extent. However, when the consciousness of the Atman emerges and a state of observation arises, these three are understood as being connected. In that state, one understands that everything is one, and in actual cognition, one perceives it as such. Therefore, one begins to recognize and observe that the knower (self, Ahamkara), the known (object), and the knowledge (Chitta, Buddhi) are moving as one. In reality, as the translator says, it is not that they truly become one, but rather that the consciousness of the Atman, which is a higher level, emerges, and through that, the three separate things are understood or recognized or observed as being fundamentally the same.

Therefore, the dimension of the individual self (Ahamkara) that appears in the Jiva will eventually disappear. By realizing that the self as an individual self (the self as a Jiva) was not the true self, one begins to perceive that the distinctions of self and object disappear and become one.

If one reads it literally, the story of the crystal might seem to be related to these three things. However, the story of the crystal and the story of the three are explaining the preconditions and the cognition under those conditions. If one reads it literally, it might seem that the three become one because it is a crystal. Indeed, that is true in a sense, but that way of saying it can be very misleading. It is more accurate to say that if one becomes like a crystal, the illusion of these three distinctions disappears.

The first part of the sutra states, "when the Vrittis have subsided," which is a precondition. This means that when the mind becomes calm, it begins to reflect the object purely, like a crystal, and the three distinctions disappear. And that is Samadhi. And in that state of Samadhi, the Atman observes. This is not explicitly stated in this sutra, but it is quite obvious if one reads the preceding and following sutras.

Therefore, it is a relatively simple story, but it is a sutra that can lead to misunderstandings if one takes parts out of context.