Devlok With Devdutt Pattanaik Read online

  These negative stories are usually of the Chandra Vansh, but are interesting nevertheless. All the stories in shadow (chhaon) are associated with the Chandra Vansh and stories in light (dhoop) with the Surya Vansh.

  6

  Atma

  What is the exact meaning of atma? Is it soul or mind?

  Atma is what makes a being alive—the ability to be conscious. It’s not related to time or space. It’s anadi (without beginning), anant (endless), nirgun (formless). Any material object can decay with time, is located in a particular space and has certain properties. The opposite of this, that which is unaffected by time, space, form, is called the soul. In Hindi, it’s called atma. The word originated from the Rig Veda.

  Hinduism believes that everything has atma. Do stones have atma too?

  One school believes that wherever you look, there’s paramatma. According to this, everything has an atma and atma contains everything. Another school says that there are the ajeev (non-living) and jeevit (living), and the non-living do not have an atma whereas the living do. The inanimate do not have hunger, and are merely made up of the pancha mahabhut, the five basic elements. Where there is atma there is hunger. Plants hunger for water and sunlight, and grow; animals and birds too look for food and water. They are alive and therefore there is fear of death. In this there’s an awareness of atma. Human beings have the ability to think, feel with their indriyan (senses); they have a heart and brain. Due to these characteristics, they have an atma. A computer does not have an atma because it does not have a heart or brain, it does not have feelings. However efficient a robot may be, it cannot show you sympathy or empathy; it is nirjeev or ajeev (non-living). But according to the other school, even the nirjeev have an atma.

  Do all Indian religions have this concept of atma?

  The Rig Veda has an interesting description of the atma. It’s actually a metaphor—some say it’s a poem—because it’s difficult to describe what is formless (nirgun). It talks of one bird watching another bird eating fruit, suggesting that our body that enjoys the pleasures of the world is the fruit-eating bird and the one that watches it is our atma. Our mann (mind) is watching our shareer (body). At one level I am watching you, the fruit-eating bird. On another level, I watch myself. Third level is: Who is observing my mann? That is atma. These are the observer and what is observed.

  Observing one’s mind is called recursion in English. This ability—of seeing oneself—is present only in human beings. It arises from the atma, by which I can look at (observe) myself and the world around me without emotional attachment or interaction. Our mind feels excitement, happiness, sorrow. The atma is beyond this, separate from these emotions.

  In the Upanishads (which were composed 3000 years ago, and came 1000 years after the Vedas), human beings questioned the purpose of their existence—was it just to run after food like all other living things? For bhog? The answer that emerged was that human beings are supposed to look for meaning, for atma-gyan. In Sanskrit, it’s called mimansa, that is, inquiry. In science the inquiry is about the outside world, whereas here it is about your inner life. As man went inward, first he saw the flesh, then the indriyan, then the heart (emotions) and mind (rationality). He wondered if there was something beyond this. What is it that is stable (sthir), anant (endless), anadi (has always been there) and is merely watching? The atma.

  Buddha did not believe in this concept. He said everything is destructible; nothing is permanent (concept of anicca). Buddhism has unatma or anatta: that there is no atma. What we call consciousness is simply chemistry, for instance, grapes become wine and acquire alcoholic properties. So when the five elements combine, they form both the animate and the inanimate, from where consciousness arises. There’s no permanence.

  These were the two big schools of thought.

  A third school is that of Jains. Jainism looks at the atma as dravya (elements). The world is made up of two things—jeev (living) and ajeev (non-living). Here, they look at atma as that which makes you alive; by which your indriyan are awakened. It is not the same as in Hinduism.

  Jainism has a concept of atma whereas Buddhism doesn’t?

  Yes. Jainism believes that you are stuck on earth (Bhu-loka) because of your karma, which decides whether you will be born on earth or in heaven or hell. A jeev is like a balloon; your karma is the stone weighing it down. The heavier the stone, the further it will sink, to earth, and even beyond to hell. With good deeds the weight is lessened and the balloon can rise, from hell to earth, then to heaven, then to Siddha-loka where the Tirthankaras, the wisest men, are. They do not have any karma. They are completely purified beings.

  Hinduism has a similar concept of rebirth?

  There are similarities in many of these concepts, but intellectuals will fine-tune them as separate concepts. The Bhagavata Purana will say that atma is god. So you have it, I have it. In Hinduism the concept of jeevatma and para-atma emerges, but we don’t realize this because we are ignorant. We are confused and not looking correctly. When we do, we will know that there’s god in you and in me. That will liberate us.

  There’s a story of Gajendramoksha in the Vishnu Purana. This king of elephants is strong and powerful. Once, a crocodile grabs him in a lake. He tries to free himself but is unable to. Finally, he prays to god who comes and frees him. The idea is that god is freeing you from your ignorance that attaches you to things. The bird watching the fruit-eating bird tells her to not be so taken by the fruit and to look at her too. This concept has been described in different ways by different wise people.

  What’s the difference between jeevatma and paramatma?

  Jeevatma is khandit, incomplete, and paramatma is akhand, complete. There are two distinct words—para-atma and paramatma. Para-atma is others. If I don’t respect you, it shows that I’ve become so arrogant that I don’t acknowledge your atma, think that you have no atma. If I acknowledge that all livings beings have the same soul inside different bodies, I’m conscious of the para-atma.

  When we bring together the entire world’s atma, so that it is infinite, that is paramatma; this is akhandit, unbroken, without boundaries. Jeevatma (an individual soul) has boundaries, is caught up in karma. Paramatma is not. Krishna is paramatma, and his gopikas are jeevatma who are seeking completion. A bhakta (jeevatma) seeks god (paramatma); a khandit atma seeks the akhandit atma. In the Aadhyatma Ramayana, Rama is atma, Sita is mann or jeevatma and Ravana, who steals her away, is ahankar (ego) and Hanuman is Bhakti who unites jeevatma with paramatma. These are different stories to bring these concepts to the people.

  How do you know whether someone has knowledge of atma? He will not disrespect anyone; he will not compare others; he will refrain from judging. Once when Adi Shankaracharya expounded on atma, people praised him for the wonderful lecture. When he was leaving, a Chandaal (a person who works in a crematorium) approached him. Shankaracharya’s disciples asked him to move out of the way—as many people would do even today—for they considered him impure and dirty because he dealt with dead bodies. So the Chandaal asked them, ‘Should I move my body or my atma?’ Even the Shankaracharya learnt from his.

  As long as you are comparing and judging, you do not have knowledge of atma. Relationships of boss–subordinate, etc., are in the everyday, material world. In the spiritual world, whatever differences there may be, all of us have atma. When you don’t have that knowledge, feudalism arises, where people are labelled superior or inferior. If you seek meaning or purpose by comparing, and your material wealth goes to your head—like when young men say, ‘Don’t you know who my father is?’—you do not have knowledge of atma.

  Adi Shankaracharya said that jeevatma and paramatma are one and the same—this is the concept of Advaita (no dualism, no division). The Madhavacharya school believed that the two are separate. That jeevatma is the bhakta or devotee and paramatma is god, thus Dvaita (two, separate). Yet another school is about bhed–abhed (separate–whole), which is Vishishtadvaita. It says a tree is paramatma (akhandit)