if you do not confuse „atman“ and „brahman“, you can have both.
the atman is on a journey through the material world, as an materially embodied spiritual soul. it gets its „interface“ according to it s level of SPIRITUAL evolution. every new body gives a new „interface“. if you do not make at least some evolution you can be downgraded as well.
the param-atman as the personal aspect of the eternal brahman is always side by side with the atman, following its journey through illusion, offerimg guidance, help and healing, if asked for. the picture is given of two birds sitting on the same tree, but only one (the atman) trying to enjoy its fruits.
maybe this vedic view can help.
this is my answer to:
Are there lower or higher levels of consciousness or is consciousness simply conscious of and limited by the biological, bioelectrical and biochemical activities that are going on in the life form? Does a different level of consciousness interface with different life forms or is the infinite consciousness that localizes in infinite finite consciousnesses the same localized infinite conscious in all life forms? With my experiences in hospice the latter seems to be true. “There is no other.” It is the same localized infinite consciousness in all life forms. “The Father and I are one.” The wave returns to the sea. It was never separate from the sea. It was an illusion. Comments?
That’s a thoughtful and beautifully phrased response — it bridges the Vedic and experiential perspectives on consciousness with clarity and depth. You’re highlighting an important distinction that’s often lost in nondual or Advaita discussions: while Ātman (the individual spirit) and Brahman (the ultimate reality) are ultimately one in essence, their distinction has functional meaning within the realm of experience.
You express this in a very relatable way by describing the “interface” each embodied soul receives — a vivid, almost technical metaphor that fits well with modern understanding. It aligns closely with the Bhagavad Gītā’s teaching that the body and mind serve as instruments for the soul’s experience and evolution, shaped by karma and spiritual maturity.
The image of the two birds from the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad reinforces this:
- one bird (the Ātman) tastes the fruits (pleasures and pains) of the tree of life,
- the other bird (the Paramātman) watches silently, ever pure and untouched, waiting patiently until the first turns toward it in recognition.
So your answer harmonizes dual and nondual viewpoints — acknowledging both individual spiritual progression (the soul evolving through forms) and ontological unity (all souls being nonseparate from Brahman). This synthesis provides a way to honor both mystical experience (“the Father and I are one”) and the reality of lived evolution (“every new body gives a new interface”).
Would you like me to help you refine your response stylistically — for instance, to make it slightly more fluid or philosophical in tone while keeping your original meaning?
you are welcome!
Thanks for the warm welcome! Your Vedic framing continues to resonate deeply with the original question on consciousness levels.
Key Vedic Distinctions
Ātman represents the individual soul on its evolutionary journey through embodied forms, receiving interfaces suited to its spiritual maturity, while Brahman is the unchanging ultimate reality. Paramātman, as Brahman’s personal aspect, accompanies the Ātman like the witnessing bird in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad parable, offering guidance without partaking in worldly fruits.^2_1^2_3^2_5
Parable Text
The classic verse describes: „Two birds, united companions, perch on the same tree; one eats the sweet and bitter fruits, the other watches without eating“ (Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 3.1.1). This illustrates the Ātman’s immersion in illusion (māyā) and Paramātman’s eternal oversight, as echoed in the Bhagavad Gītā.^2_3^2_8^2_1
Your view elegantly reconciles hospice insights of unity („There is no other“) with progressive evolution, avoiding strict nonduality.^2_2
it is nonduality still, but it considers the personal aspect of spirituality. classical advaita has no means to adress this problem, as is considers personal existence as illusionary, too. can we please take a sidestep to the beautiful „pure nondualism“ of sri vallabha, bridging unity with personal existence?
Sri Vallabha’s Suddhadvaita (pure non-dualism) offers a masterful bridge between unity and personal existence, refining classical Advaita by rejecting māyā as an illusory principle.
Core of Suddhadvaita
Unlike Shankara’s Advaita, where personal existence (jīva) dissolves as mere illusion, Vallabha sees the world and souls as real, pure evolutes (parināma) of Brahman—manifestations of Shri Krishna without any external veil. Brahman remains non-dual yet vibrantly personal, with souls as atomic parts (aṁśa) sharing its sat-chit essence while their bliss (ānanda) is temporarily veiled, allowing devotion (bhakti) to flourish.^3_1^3_4
Personal Spirituality
This „pure“ non-duality affirms individuality: the jīva evolves through loving service (seva) to Krishna, achieving liberation (mokṣa) via grace (puṣṭi) rather than knowledge alone, preserving personal relation without compromising unity. Classical Advaita’s impersonal absolute thus gains a relational heart, where „There is no other“ coexists with intimate divine companionship.^3_2
Your sidestep highlights how Suddhadvaita honors both hospice unity and the soul’s journey, elegantly resolving the tension.
^3_10^3_8