How many aatmas (souls) are there?

Question

What is the number of aatmas are there ? What is the exact number ?

What does Sankhya philosophy say about it ?

Answer 1

janma-marana-karananam pratinyamad-ayugapat-pravrttes-ca |
purusa-bahutvam siddham traigunya-viparyayac-caiva || (Samkhya Karika, verse 18)

The incidence of birth and death and the action of the Indriyas being different for different individuals; all men not having the same inclinations at the same time; the thoughts arising out of the action of the three Gunas being different for different men - it follows that souls (Purusa) are many (each man having a separate soul).
(Samkhya Karika, verse 18)

Answer 2

Jiva, not Atman (definition and details follow). Short answer: There are infinite jivas. Vasista's Yogam says jivas fell like rain in creation. Vedas says that when creation happened Rudras in infinite encompassed all 3 levels of creation and they are called Viṣ. Hence the word Viṣvam or Viṣnu or ShipiViṣta (that which encompasses or fills). For a Jiva is not necessary to be sentient or insentient. Like energy, we cant call it sentient or insentient, same goes for Rivers and Soil.

Jiva (link): Jīva (also pronounced as jeeva), is the innate or primordial force that inherits this body. "Meaning, it tethers both the physical body (Sthula:Śarīra) and the subtle body (Sukshma:Śarīra) and wears it like a cloth" ~ Quote by Ramana Maharshi.

Detail from Vasista's Yogam: Jiva is not bound by kālá/kālám (time), meaning it doesn’t age, nor grow weak. This Jīva makes one recognize one’s own existence in a given time but is not aware of its true self or its true source. It can be interpreted as a soul but is really nothing but agitation or vibration of Brahmān. This agitation within Brahmān is to create a temporary state of “absence-of-consciousness-of-Brahmān”. This means, out of infinite possibilities in Brahman there also exists a state where a jiva-combination also exists.

A sloka from Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2 of Sankhya Yoga, Sloka 13, in which Gitacharya (Sri Krishna) says:

देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा। तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति।।

Meaning, this innate Jīva that dwells within a physical body witnesses childhood, youth, old age, and death, but also takes up a new host body and continues the same cycle again. Hence, for this Jīva, there is no death, and the wise who realize this have nothing to grieve.

So neither Sankhya nor Vedas, nor Yoga nor any Siddhanta put any limitation on the number of Jivas.

What is Atma or Ātman There are two modes or shades in which Ātman can be explained. Various Rishis (Maharśi), Acharyas who are Avatara (manifestations) have put forth a path (Siddhānta) in each era depending on the situation, time and level of awareness of beings. As per the Advita (dvita meaning dual, a:dvita meaning there are no two entities), Ātman is nothing but Brahmān; only in conversations do Rśi and Acharyas use this distinction. They use the term Ātman/Self when addressing an individual, and Brahmān when referring to whole/infinite. Since it is not in one’s experience, neither Brahmān nor Ātman can be put into words. Ātman is not a second entity, because the infinite doesn’t have parts, nor shades or subsections. One can’t divide the infinite into pieces. One can’t divide space, one can just perceive space as cross-sections for understanding. Ātman is not a subject that one has to explore, nor an object that one has to understand through another object. It acts as a witness to māyā. Let us take an analogy – there is nothing but space, now a bubble emerges in space, this bubble is nothing but water which encapsulates/captures space, this is called Ātman. This thin film of water is called māyā. Neither Ātman, nor māyā are separate from Brahmān. Atman, Brahman and Maya are eternal. Only Maya on a Jiva is not eternal. In other words, there is no such thing as his/her Ātman vs my Ātman. There is no such thing as my Ātman is trying to understand your Ātman. Ātman is not a part of Brahmān nor a subordinate. Brahmān is pure infinite awareness and pure intelligence, it is Nirguṇa, meaning that with no personalities, personas or characteristics – hence Brahmān is just a word that cannot be defined within the frontiers of the vocabulary by the intellect of mind. Creation (jagat) is not a second entity created by Brahmān, it is an illusion (māyā) of Brahmān that a Jīva experiences. One’s Ātman is nothing but a window to Brahmān, like an empty pot; the pot is Brahmān, the space inside the pot is Brahmān, the space outside is Brahmān, the space within is not different from the space outside. The opening of the pot is called the window. This pot is an illusion called māyā, it is a window within our māyā (illusion), a shell we created out of the reflection of our mind. Another analogy is a wave in an ocean – a wave is an agitation called māyā, the wave is not different from the ocean. It is not the Ātman which is in confusion, it is the Jīva’s false representation of itself as a material object. This illusion is called a:vidya arising out of māyā. Māyā, Ātman, Self, Truth are all Brahmān, there are no two things, one Brahmān and other non-Brahmān. Infinite can’t be infinite if there is a second entity that is not infinite. This concept is very difficult to understand and define in words, hence it is easy to view Ātman as a subsection of Brahmān or an extension of Para:mĀtma within Brahmān.

In his Yoga on Creation, Maharśi Vasistha explains to Śrī Ram:

During the cosmic dissolution the entire objective creation is resolved into the infinite being, which is variously designated as Atma, Brahman, Truth, etc., by the wise, to facilitate communication and dialogue. This same infinite self conceives within itself the duality of oneself and the other. Hence, the mind arises, as a wave arises when the surface of the calm ocean is disturbed. But please bear in mind that just as a bracelet of gold is but gold, the qualities and the nature of the created and the potentiality of creation are inherent in the creator.” ~ (Swami Venkatesananda. 1993)

In the profound composition of Patanjali Yoga Sutra, translated by I.K Taimni in the book, “The Science of Yoga”, it is precisely stated that:

“Jivatma has become subjectively (not physical) separated from Paramatma and is destined, after going through an evolutionary cycle in the manifested Universe, to become united with Him again in consciousness. This state of unification of the two in consciousness as well as the mental process and discipline through which this union is attained are both called Yoga” ~(I.K.Taimni. 1975)

This means the purpose of a Jīva is to realize Ātman, hence the phrase “Aham Brahmāsmi” – meaning this “Me” (I the Ātman) is Brahmān; in other words, my identity is not limited to this physicality but that of the supreme. Ātman acts as an interface or an opening between this false reality (māyā) and the innate energy which is the Jīva, and helps the Jīva in retaining an upaadhi. Jīva and Ātman are interchangeably used and sometimes also called jivatma, meaning the Ātman in a Jīva or Jiva’s Ātman (not that each Jīva has its own unique Ātman). A good example is an empty pot, which holds what? It holds space. And where does this pot reside? It resides in the same space. The pot has an opening, which is what? It is nothing but a window to the same space. What is the pot made of? The same māyā that belongs to this space. What happens to the pot when it is broken? The space inside the pot is the same space outside the pot. Similarly, a Jīva (the life-source) that tethers both the sthula-Śarīra and the sukshma-Śarīra encapsulates itself with māyā and the material nature, and falsely identifies itself as this body. In reality, this māyā and this body and this notion of “I” all reside within Brahmān, but since there exists no second entity other than Brahmān, Jagat becomes an illusion. The supreme authority who comes as an Avatara (manifestation of the supreme as an anomaly) speaks of this truth – standing as if He is one among us, but with no notion of “I” as a being, but as the representative of Brahmān (as the very opening to Brahman) and shines as the essence of Pāramatma.

Now, coming to the other mode of understanding from the vantage of a bhakta (Devotee), in which case Brahmān becomes Bhagavān, wherein Bhagavān is the beloved title given by the servile group known as bhakta (devotees) towards their seer or master (The One Supreme Authority). In this mode, atma becomes a subset of the same Brahmān but of a lesser shade. As stated in the Patanjali Yoga Sutra, translated by I.K Taimni in the book, “The Science of Yoga”:

“Jivatma is a facet or partial expression of the Over-Soul or Paramatma, the Divine Reality which is the source or substratum of the manifested Universe” ~(I.K.Taimni. 1975)

In this way, there exists a certain duality among the servile and the master. This doesn’t mean atman is a separate entity, it is still a part of Brahmān, but with lesser energy than that of the supreme. In this mode, “Aham Brahmāsmi” means “Me” is the servile entity in service of the One Supreme Atma (Pāramatma). This approach is the most beautiful because the path of devotion is the sweetest among all. Hence, never draw a conclusion over the two modes in which Atman is explained, and never argue with the intent to undermine one Siddhānta over another (Advita or Dvita and others) as they were customized to suit the temperament of people belonging to a certain era.

As explained by Swami Prabhavananada and Christopher Isherwood in their translation of Śrī Adishankaracharya’s renowned composition of Advita Siddhānta titled Vivekachudamani (Crest -Jewel of Discrimination):

“The sun’s rays bring forth layers of cloud. By them, the sun is concealed; and so it appears that the cloud alone exists. In the same way, the ego (identity) which is brought forth by the Atman, hides the true nature of the Atman; and so it appears that the ego alone exists.” “When the Atman is enveloped in the thick darkness of tamas, the terrible power of rajas attacks the deluded man with all kinds of sorrow” ~ (Swami Prabhavananda. Isherwood, Christopher. 1947)