परमात्मा (ईश्वर) / आत्मा and जीव / भगवान (God): Understanding the Difference Between Universal Consciousness → the Individual Soul and The Embodied Self (जीवात्मा, spirit) → the Supreme Being / Spirit
An exploration of universal consciousness, the individual soul, the embodied spirit, God and the illusion of acquired identity through Eastern and Western philosophies.
Are we individual spirits created by God, expressions of a universal consciousness, or manifestations of an eternal reality? Is liberation something we must achieve, or something we must realise? And, most importantly, who are we beyond the identities and relationships we have acquired during our lifetime?
One of humanity's oldest philosophical questions concerns the very nature of existence.
Who am I? Am I this physical body, my mind, my personality and the individual identity I call 'I'? Or is there something beyond these — an eternal consciousness that transcends the physical body, senses, mind and individual identity?
The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Vedanta, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikh philosophy and Abrahamic religious traditions have explored these questions from different perspectives.
I would like to put forward a philosophical proposition concerning the distinction between परमात्मा (ईश्वर), आत्मा, जीव, जीवात्मा and भगवान (God).
A fundamental source of confusion, in my view, is the interchangeable use of these terms, despite the different philosophical concepts they can represent.
The distinction proposed here concerns universal consciousness, the individual soul, the embodied spirit and the Supreme Being.
Rather than modifying this proposition to conform to established religious doctrines, I will present it in its original form and subsequently examine where different philosophical traditions support, challenge or contradict it.
PART I — THE ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHICAL PROPOSITION
परमात्मा, आत्मा, जीव and Self
परमात्मा - सत , सनातन चेतन तत्व consciousness
आत्मा - परमात्मा का अंश (चेतना, consciousness) is same as परमात्मा qualitatively , just like drop of water is no different than its souce (ocean)
God - supreme spirit
जीव - spirit or सूक्ष्म शरीर
Self - differ according to religion
मुक्ति (Liberation) - is of bound jeevatma to this mithya jagat / artificially created world
निर्वाण (Nirvana) or realization of awakened soul - is merging of consciousness to supreme consciousness known as parmatman, bramha, ishwar - analogy to breadth and air flowing around us or drop of ocean
In Hinduism - umbrella of all religion or sect , broadly classified in two categories -
-
द्वैत वादी - most popular religion Islam, christianity, zudaism, hindutva , sagunopasak : according to it God is also a spirit, just like human spirit (self) , they believe in concept of Self (I) which is different from God , and hence they pray and seek mercy of God , they believe in jeev (self) resides in this world or in heaven - concept of self and its divinity
-
विशिष्ट अद्वैतवादी thoda nuiances - they believe in जीवात्मा - आत्मा (self comsciousness) associated jeeva , atma is not independent entity, when it is dharmic and believe in God, jeevatma ki jeevan maran cycle se mukti ho jaati hai...hence, importance of Self and its liberation (4 kinds of Mukti)
-
अद्वैतवादी - बौद्ध, जैन, सिख , सनातन हिन्दू , they believe we are (no "I") आत्मा, part अंश of परमात्मा who is nirakar, sarva vyapi, chetan तत्व , and awakened soul dwell always in pure God consciousness of truth, and compassion , hence these individuals do not associated themselves to either school shareer (and indriya and its vishaya - what eyes sees, ear hear etc), hence there is no self at all, question of liberation does not arise , they are already liberated, and after death of body they would simply merge in 5 elements or Paramatman.
PART II — PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMINATION AND CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES
1. परमात्मा (ईश्वर) – Universal and Eternal Consciousness
Here, परमात्मा (ईश्वर) represents Sat, Sanatan, Nirakar, Sarvavyapi and eternal consciousness.
It is not being used to describe a personal deity or an individual divine personality.
The distinction between परमात्मा (ईश्वर) and भगवान (God) is intentional in this philosophical framework.
The Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1.1) describes Brahman through the expression:
सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म।
"Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma."
Brahman is described as reality, consciousness or knowledge, and infinity.
Advaita Vedanta, particularly through Adi Shankaracharya, develops the concept of Nirguna Brahman — ultimate reality beyond attributes, limitations and individual distinctions.
The distinction between Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman or Ishvara is particularly relevant to understanding the distinction proposed here.
Terminology note: Classical Hindu scriptures and different Vedantic schools sometimes use Ishvara, Bhagavan, Paramatman and Brahman in overlapping ways. Their meanings are not universally separated as proposed here. The distinction in this article is the author's chosen philosophical framework.
References:
2. आत्मा – The Individual Soul and its relationship with Paramatman
The proposition is that Atman is an aspect or part of Paramatman and is qualitatively identical to it.
The analogy of a drop of water and the ocean provides an intuitive explanation.
A drop of water and the ocean are different in their apparent scale, but their essential substance is the same.
Similarly, Atman represents the same essential consciousness as Paramatman, although individual existence appears differentiated through embodiment and identification.
Philosophical support: Advaita Vedanta
The Chandogya Upanishad (6.8.7) declares:
तत्त्वमसि — Tat Tvam Asi.
"That Thou Art."
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.4.10) declares:
अहं ब्रह्मास्मि — Aham Brahmasmi.
"I am Brahman."
These statements form the philosophical foundation of Advaita Vedanta.
The Bhagavad Gita (15.7) also states:
ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः।
The individual living being is described as an eternal portion of the Supreme.
The three philosophical interpretations
The drop-and-ocean analogy illustrates the Advaitic proposition that individual consciousness (Atman) and universal consciousness (Paramatman) are qualitatively identical.
The interpretation of this relationship differs according to the three philosophical schools:
1. द्वैतवाद (Dvaita)
The individual soul and God are eternally distinct. The individual retains its identity and seeks liberation through devotion and divine grace.
2. विशिष्टाद्वैतवाद (Vishishtadvaita)
The individual soul is inseparably related to the Supreme Being but retains its individuality. Liberation means freedom from samsara and an eternal relationship with God.
3. अद्वैतवाद (Advaita)
Atman and Paramatman are ultimately one. The apparent separation arises through ignorance and identification with the body, mind, senses and ego. The acquired identities and associations of Mithya Jagat are transient and cannot define the eternal Self.
Thus, the three schools differ in their understanding of individual identity, its relationship with ultimate reality and the nature of liberation.
Mithya Sansaar (मिथ्या संसार) – The illusion of acquired identity
In Advaita Vedanta, the world of names, forms, relationships and individual identities is understood as Mithya.
However, Mithya does not mean false, non-existent or an illusion in the ordinary sense.
Mithya refers to that which is not permanent, independently or ultimately real; that which is transient and dependent on something more fundamental.
Adi Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta is famously summarised through the expression:
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या, जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः।
Brahman alone is ultimately real; Jagat is Mithya; Jiva is none other than Brahman.
If Brahman is Satya and Jagat is Mithya, then everything we acquire through our association with Jagat is also Mithya in the ultimate sense.
Our physical body, personality, possessions, professional designations, social status and identities acquired through relationships — father, son, husband, wife, brother, sister, friend or colleague — are all transient associations.
They are not necessarily false. They exist and have meaning within the relative world of experience, but they are neither permanent nor our ultimate identity.
We acquire these identities through birth, circumstances, relationships and social conditioning. They change with time and circumstances and eventually disappear.
The body changes, relationships evolve, professional roles end, possessions are lost and social identities transform.
Yet, according to Advaita, the underlying consciousness (Atman), which is ultimately identical with Brahman, is not subject to these changes.
Therefore, any identification of the Self with the acquired identities and associations of Mithya Jagat is itself Mithya.
This does not mean that we should abandon relationships, responsibilities or compassion. Rather, we should participate in the world without confusing our temporary roles with our essential nature.
The distinction is between:
- Vyavaharika Satya (व्यावहारिक सत्य): Relative or transactional reality, where we experience the world, relationships, responsibilities and individual identities.
- Paramarthika Satya (पारमार्थिक सत्य): Ultimate reality, where Brahman alone is independently and absolutely real.
At the relative level, we exist as individuals with responsibilities, relationships and identities.
At the ultimate level, these acquired identities do not define our essential nature.
The fundamental mistake is not participating in the world or maintaining relationships; it is identifying our eternal Self with these temporary associations.
If the body is transient, its acquired identities are transient too. If relationships change, the identities arising from those relationships change with them. If social roles disappear, the personality constructed around those roles also undergoes transformation.
The ultimate realisation in Advaita is not that the individual ego becomes Brahman, but that the true Self was never separate from Brahman.
We are not denying the world or our relationships; we are questioning our attachment to them as our permanent identity.
Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Śaṅkara.
3. जीव and जीवात्मा – The embodied Self or Spirit
The distinction between Atman, Jiva and Jivatman is particularly important.
The original proposition describes Jiva as spirit or Sukshma Sharira, while Jivatman is used in the context of individual consciousness associated with embodied existence.
Vedantic philosophy discusses three bodies:
- Sthula Sharira – Physical or gross body.
- Sukshma Sharira – Subtle body, associated with mind, senses and vital energies.
- Karana Sharira – Causal body.
The embodied individual experiences existence through these dimensions.
The Bhagavad Gita, particularly chapters 2, 13 and 15, explores the distinction between the body, the embodied being and the imperishable Self.
Critical examination
Classical Vedanta does not universally treat Jiva and Sukshma Sharira as synonymous.
Jiva generally refers to the individual living entity, whereas Sukshma Sharira refers to the subtle body associated with embodied experience.
Likewise, Jivatman can refer to the individual Self or soul in its embodied condition.
The terminology therefore varies across philosophical schools.
The important question is how the individual spirit is understood in relation to the body, mind, senses and the cycle of birth and death.
Reference: Bhagavad Gita – IIT Kanpur Gita Supersite.
4. भगवान (God) – The Supreme Being or Supreme Spirit
The distinction proposed here is between Paramatman as universal consciousness and Bhagavan as the Supreme Being or Spirit.
The latter may be understood through a divine form, attributes, personality and individual identity.
This understanding is particularly relevant to devotional traditions.
Dvaita Vedanta – Madhvacharya
Madhvacharya maintains an eternal distinction between God and individual souls.
God is supreme and independent, while individual souls are dependent on God.
Liberation is attained through devotion, spiritual understanding and divine grace.
Vishishtadvaita – Ramanujacharya
Ramanujacharya offers a more nuanced relationship.
Brahman is the ultimate reality, but individual souls and the universe are also real.
The relationship is often explained through the analogy of the body and its indwelling soul.
Individual souls are inseparably related to Brahman but do not lose their individuality.
Abrahamic religious traditions
Islam, Christianity and Judaism generally maintain a distinction between the Creator and created human beings.
- Islam emphasises Tawhid — the absolute oneness and uniqueness of Allah.
- Christianity distinguishes the Creator from the created human soul, while exploring union with God through divine grace.
- Judaism explores the nature of the soul through concepts such as Nefesh, Ruach and Neshamah.
Their mystical traditions also explore spiritual experiences that transcend ordinary ego and individual identity.
For example, Islamic Sufism explores Fana and Baqa, while Christian mysticism explores union with God.
Critical examination
Although these traditions maintain a distinction between God and human beings, they cannot simply be classified as identical versions of Dvaita.
Their theological understandings of the soul, salvation, divine grace and spiritual union differ considerably.
Similarly, Hindutva is a political and cultural ideology, not a school of Vedantic philosophy. Sagunopasana is a mode of worship and does not necessarily imply Dvaita.
References:
5. मुक्ति (Mukti) and निर्वाण (Nirvana) – Freedom from bondage and merging with Supreme Consciousness
This distinction is central to the new philosophical proposition.
Mukti and Nirvana should not be treated as interchangeable concepts within this framework.
मुक्ति (Mukti) – Liberation from Mithya Jagat
Mukti is the liberation of the bound Jivatman from its bondage to Mithya Jagat — the artificially created world of acquired identities, attachments, material associations and embodied conditioning.
The individual becomes bound through identification with the physical body, mind, senses, ego, relationships, social roles and the transient world of experience.
This bondage is not necessarily the physical existence of the body itself. It is the identification of the essential Self with everything that is acquired and impermanent.
Liberation therefore means freedom from this bondage.
It is the recognition that our acquired identities and worldly associations do not constitute our eternal nature.
निर्वाण (Nirvana) – Realisation of the awakened soul
Nirvana, or the ultimate realisation of the awakened soul in the proposed framework, is the merging of individual consciousness into Supreme Consciousness, known as:
- परमात्मा (Paramatman)
- ब्रह्म (Brahman)
- ईश्वर (Ishwar)
The analogy of a drop merging into the ocean illustrates this understanding.
Another analogy is that of our breath and the air flowing around us.
While we breathe, we experience breath as something associated with our individual body. Yet the air is not fundamentally separate from the atmosphere surrounding us.
Similarly, individual consciousness is understood as qualitatively identical to Supreme Consciousness. The apparent separation belongs to individualised existence, not to the ultimate nature of consciousness.
When the awakened soul realises this underlying unity, the distinction between individual and universal consciousness is transcended.
Mukti is freedom from bondage; Nirvana or ultimate realisation is the recognition and merging of consciousness into its Supreme source.
Philosophical qualification
These definitions represent the author's proposed philosophical framework and should be distinguished from the established terminology of individual religious traditions.
In Advaita Vedanta, Moksha is generally understood as the realisation of the already existing identity of Atman and Brahman, rather than a literal movement of one consciousness into another.
In classical Buddhism, Nirvana is not ordinarily understood as the merging of an eternal soul into universal consciousness, because Buddhism rejects the premise of a permanent Atman.
In Jainism, liberation preserves the individuality of the Jiva.
Thus, the use of Nirvana in this article is broader than its conventional Buddhist meaning.
6. Advaita, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism – Are they really non-dualistic?
This is arguably the most controversial part of the original proposition.
It brings together Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Advaita Hindu philosophy under a broad non-dualistic understanding.
There are similarities in their questioning of ego, individual identity and separation, but their metaphysical explanations are substantially different.
Advaita Vedanta
Advaita provides the clearest support for the proposition that the individual Self and universal consciousness are ultimately one.
The apparent separation between Jiva and Brahman is attributed to Avidya (ignorance).
Liberation is the realisation of this underlying identity.
Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Śaṅkara.
Buddhism – Anatta
Buddhism offers a fundamental philosophical challenge.
The doctrine of Anatta questions the existence of a permanent, independent Self.
Classical Buddhist philosophy does not simply teach that an eternal individual Atman is a fragment of universal Paramatman.
Rather, it analyses human existence through changing physical and psychological processes.
Liberation involves overcoming ignorance, craving and attachment, including attachment to the idea of a permanent Self.
Therefore, Buddhism and Advaita may share a critique of ordinary ego-identification, but their metaphysical conclusions are different.
Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Mind in Indian Buddhist Philosophy.
Jainism – The eternal individual Jiva
Jain philosophy recognises individual, eternal souls.
Each Jiva possesses consciousness and has the potential to attain its pure, liberated state.
However, unlike Advaita, Jainism does not teach that individual souls merge into one universal consciousness.
Liberated souls retain their individuality.
This directly challenges the proposition that all individual consciousness is ultimately one.
Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Jaina Philosophy.
Sikhism – Ik Onkar and divine oneness
Sikh philosophy places profound emphasis on:
ੴ — Ik Onkar.
The oneness of ultimate reality.
It also explores Haumai (ego or self-centred identification), and the transformation of consciousness through Naam, devotion, grace and righteous living.
There are significant philosophical resonances with non-dualistic thought.
However, Sikh philosophy has its own distinctive metaphysical and devotional framework and should not simply be equated with Advaita Vedanta.
Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Sikh Philosophy.
PART III — THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHAT IS SPIRITUAL AWAKENING?
Beyond religious classifications, perhaps there is a more important philosophical inquiry.
What happens when an individual transcends the limitations of ego, possessiveness, fear, attachment and the compulsive identification with the physical body and mind?
Could awakening be the realisation of a deeper interconnectedness of existence?
The different traditions offer different explanations:
- Advaita calls it realisation of Brahman.
- Buddhism calls it awakening through insight into impermanence, dependent origination and non-self.
- Jainism calls it liberation of the Jiva from karmic bondage.
- Sikh philosophy emphasises freedom from ego and alignment with the divine.
- Mystical traditions in Christianity, Islam and Judaism explore union, intimacy or communion with God.
These approaches are not identical, but they invite us to examine the limitations of our ordinary sense of identity.
Perhaps the most transformative aspect of spiritual awakening is not acquiring a new identity, but relinquishing the compulsive need to define ourselves through the limited identity we have constructed.
A consciousness grounded in truth, compassion, humility and interconnectedness could fundamentally transform how we relate to other human beings and the natural world.
Perhaps the real challenge is to live in the world without becoming psychologically imprisoned by the identities we acquire through it.
To love without possessiveness. To fulfil responsibilities without ego. To participate in relationships without confusing them with our eternal identity.
This is not withdrawal from life. It is a different understanding of our participation in it.
PART IV — QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER CONTEMPLATION
I would particularly welcome perspectives from philosophers, spiritual practitioners, scholars of comparative religion and anyone who has explored consciousness beyond conventional religious boundaries.
-
Is Atman an expression or part of Paramatman, or are Atman and Paramatman fundamentally one and the same reality?
-
If consciousness is universal, why does individual consciousness appear fragmented into billions of separate beings?
-
Is the individual Self merely a construct of the mind, or does an eternal individual soul actually exist?
-
Is Buddhist Anatta fundamentally different from Advaita's negation of ego, or do they converge at some experiential level?
-
If the soul is already divine, why should liberation be necessary at all?
-
Is enlightenment an achievement, a transformation of consciousness, or simply the recognition of something that has always existed?
-
Could different spiritual traditions be describing different dimensions of a reality that human language and conceptual thought cannot fully comprehend?
-
Is परमात्मा (ईश्वर) the universal consciousness underlying existence, while भगवान (God) represents the Supreme Being or Spirit with whom the individual soul seeks a relationship?
-
If Jagat is Mithya, why do we give so much importance to identities, social status, possessions and relationships that are inherently transient?
-
Can we attain Mukti from the bondage of Mithya Jagat while continuing to fulfil our worldly responsibilities?
-
Is Nirvana the ultimate realisation of individual consciousness merging with Supreme Consciousness, as suggested by the breath-and-air and drop-and-ocean analogies?
My concluding thought
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to understanding consciousness is our insistence on interpreting ultimate reality through the limited framework of individual identity, inherited beliefs and religious conditioning.
We spend much of our lives constructing identities around our relationships, professions, achievements, possessions and social positions.
We become attached to these identities and begin to believe that they define who we are.
But if these identities are acquired through Mithya Jagat, can they ever represent our permanent or ultimate nature?
Perhaps Mukti begins with freedom from this bondage — recognising the transient nature of our acquired identities and not mistaking them for our eternal Self.
And perhaps Nirvana or ultimate realisation is the recognition that individual consciousness is not fundamentally separate from Supreme Consciousness.
The breath returns to the air; the drop returns to the ocean.
Maybe the journey is not about abandoning the world, our relationships or our responsibilities. It is about recognising their transient nature, freeing ourselves from identification with them and awakening to the deeper reality of consciousness.
Mukti is freedom from the bondage of Mithya Jagat. Nirvana is the ultimate realisation of consciousness in its Supreme source.
We may have many identities in this lifetime, but do any of them represent who we truly are?
The inquiry itself may be more important than the answer.
PART V — REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
The following references include primary scriptures and independent academic resources. They are intended to help readers examine both the supporting arguments and the philosophical contradictions.
A. Upanishads and Vedanta
- Taittiriya Upanishad – 2.1: Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma
- Chandogya Upanishad – Tat Tvam Asi
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad – Aham Brahmasmi
- Bhagavad Gita – IIT Kanpur Gita Supersite
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Śaṅkara
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Madhva
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Ramanuja
B. Buddhism and Jainism
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Mind in Indian Buddhist Philosophy
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Jaina Philosophy
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Jain Philosophy
C. Sikh Philosophy
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Sikh Philosophy
D. God, the Supreme Being and Abrahamic traditions
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – God and Other Ultimates
- Vatican – Catechism of the Catholic Church: Human Beings and the Soul
This article presents an individual philosophical proposition and examines it against established religious and philosophical traditions. It is an invitation to intellectual inquiry, disagreement and exploration — not a claim that all religions teach the same doctrine or that one philosophical school possesses a monopoly on truth.
