Is it right to say that Atman (Self) is that which one cannot be separated from?

Last updated on 28th Aug. 2022

Preface: I am sticking my neck out on this :-). Perhaps I am going to get clobbered with criticism or worse (mockery). But I felt that I should share my view on this. Constructive criticism is welcome as that may help me catch errors in my thinking/analysis and correct myself.

----

Today as I was meditating and also doing some self-analysis (atma-chintan), it struck me that the Atman (Self) is that which one cannot be separated from. Later I googled for the term:

Atman (Self) is that which one cannot be separated from

I got this interesting result (in top ten results) whose title is different from what I was looking for but which has some content related to the search term: If ultimate aim of atman (self) is to attain moksha (Brahman), then why atman got separated from Brahman initially?, https://www.quora.com/If-ultimate-aim-of-atman-self-is-to-attain-moksha-Brahman-then-why-atman-got-separated-from-Brahman-initially .

Let me also share some extracts from the wiki page of the classic Neti Neti teaching from Upanishads, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti :

Neti Neti (Sanskrit : नेति नेति) is a Sanskrit expression which means "not this, not that", or "neither this, nor that" (neti is sandhi from na iti "not so"). It is found in the Upanishads and the Avadhuta Gita and constitutes an analytical meditation helping a person to understand the nature of the Brahman by negating everything that is not Brahman. One of the key elements of Jnana Yoga practice is often a "neti neti search." The purpose of the exercise is to negate all objects of consciousness, including thoughts and the mind, and to realize the non-dual awareness of reality.

...

Neti neti, meaning, "Not this, not this", is the method of Vedic analysis of negation. It is a keynote of Vedic inquiry. With its aid the Jnani negates identification with all things of this world which is not the Atman, in this way he negates the Anatman (Not-Self). Through this gradual process he negates the mind and transcends all worldly experiences that are negated till nothing remains but the Self. He attains union with the Absolute by denying the body, name, form, intellect, senses and all limiting adjuncts and discovers what remains, the true "I" alone.[1: Vishnu Devanand (1999). Meditation and Mantras:An Authoritative Text. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. p. 119. ISBN 9788120816152.]

--- end extracts ---

I think the above extracts capture the 'Neti Neti' teaching well (at least as I understand it).

In short, my understanding of above is that the Atman (Self) is that which cannot be negated, that which cannot be denied. It is ever present.

Today it struck me that one can say that the Atman (Self) is also something that one cannot be separated from. For example, when I focused my meditation on my heart and left hand, I could feel my heart pumping blood which was going down into fingers of my left hand and then withdrawing like waves (pulsating). So this-I was able to, in a separate way, as a separate 'thing', feel my heart, the blood pulsating and my fingers. Similar was the case with other parts of the physical body. For example, I could view my leg as a separate 'thing' from the knower-I.

But I could not separately view the knower/awareness. In other words, I could not separate this knower-I (myself) from my awareness, and view my awareness from a different vantage (viewing) point.

So I now feel that one can say: Atman (Self/Awareness) is that which one cannot be separated from.

=========================

Given below is are comments I made (slightly edited) on my LinkedIn post sharing this post link: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ravi-s-iyer-13a55310_is-it-right-to-say-that-atman-self-is-that-activity-6964995425493794816-X7DZ :

Thanks --- for your response. I will need to think about it to understand.

...

Interesting view that thankfully Atman is one thing human beings have not been able to control as otherwise ... Thanks for sharing this angle.

On the good karma part, my limited understanding is that Hindu scripture says that typically, good karma will result in good karmic fruits which too have to be experienced. And that if one does the good karma actions in a 'Nishkama' - without desire for fruits - spirit (and/or dedicating the action and its fruits to God), then we do not get bound by the reaction of good karma (i.e. we do not have to experience the fruits of good karma).

And God has the power to cancel out karma (typically when a devotee prays intensely to God for that purpose). Markandeya being saved by Lord Shiva is an example of such changing of destiny of an individual by God.

But this is my limited understanding of what I have read in Hindu scripture and discourses/writings of spiritual masters. I am not sure whether that's the right understanding. How karma actually operates is a great mystery, IMHO, with perhaps very few great souls having the ability to intuitively/directly know or see how that karma operates across one or multiple lifetimes.

-----

[I thank Wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extract(s) from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]