Acharya Prashant addresses the difference between 'Ruh' (spirit/soul) and 'Atma' (the Self). He explains that Atma is the ultimate, immovable truth. It is neither born nor does it die; it neither comes nor goes. Nothing can be thought or said about it. In contrast, what is called 'Ruh' is a human imagination, a falsehood, an untruth, a thing that comes and goes. There is no comparison or similarity between Ruh and Atma. The speaker finds it unfortunate that many people consider them to be the same thing. Acharya Prashant clarifies that 'Atma' means truth—the truth of what you are. Since the world is also perceived by you, when we talk about your truth, the truth of the world is also included. The truth of the world and your own truth is called Atma, and these two truths are one. This truth does not change. Because it doesn't change, it never began, as a beginning is also a change. And for the same reason, it will never end, as an end is also a change. It is beginningless and endless. This is called Atma. The Atma does not reside in anyone's body, whereas the imagination about the 'Ruh' is that it is in the body, enters it, and leaves it. Atma is not many; Atma is one because truth is not many. According to your definition, 'Ruhs' are many. It is a matter of regret, the speaker says, that some religious sects have turned the concept of Atma into a story just like that of the Ruh. They talk as if there are many Atmas, and that we are all Atmas. All the things that are said about 'Ruhs', they have started saying about the Atma. In reality, the way most people talk about Atma today, they are not talking about Atma but about Ruh. In Indian religious philosophy, there is no place for anything like a 'Ruh'. The speaker clarifies that even the Bhagavad Gita does not contain such ideas. People who say that Shri Krishna in the Gita says that the Atma comes and goes have understood neither the Gita nor Shri Krishna. The Gita itself is called an Upanishad, and the Upanishadic philosophy is very straightforward: there is only one truth, whose name is Atma. What you call Paramatma (the Supreme Self) is nothing but another name for Atma. This is the Vedanta philosophy, and the Gita is a scripture of Vedanta. India, which understood the truth of the Atma, has, under futile influences, turned the Atma into a 'Ruh'. The situation has deteriorated so much that people now discuss Atma in the same way they discuss 'Ruh'—that the Atma has left, the Atma was flying, the Atma was sitting on a tree, this person's Atma entered that person's body. These ideas are not Indian or Vedic at all. The speaker urges that the word 'Atma' should be used with great respect and caution. Atma means that truth which cannot change. Atma means that which is infinite and immovable. That which is immovable, how can it go from one body to another? That which is infinite, how can it fit into a small body? He concludes by quoting Adi Shankaracharya, who, when asked if the truth is dual or singular, replied, 'How can there be two when there is not even one?' This is Advaita (non-duality).
