Does an individual jīvātma have some inherent uniqueness and individuality, or is that superimposed by their mind?

When we ask this question to different experts, we get different answers. Sometimes we hear that Jīvātma’s individuality is a falsehood imposed by conditions interpreted by the intellect. Sometimes we hear the opposite: Jīvātma’s individuality is inherent, not created by the mind. Neither viewpoint is entirely correct, but neither is entirely incorrect. This is why the Vedānta school of philosophy evolved to harmonize the two.

The first point of view declares individuality to be an illusion produced by conditioning. If you change the conditioning (the intellect, emotions, body, or environment) you change the individual, it says.

The second point of view makes the absurd claim that individuality is not a product of environmental, physical, and mental conditioning.

So, the first point of view seems better than the second, but it also has a problem at its base: the problem is that it doesn’t give a satisfactory answer to the question, “who or what is being conditioned?” Ironically, the absurd second point of view can be modified and corrected a bit to fit in here and solve this problem. To do this we need to break identity into two parts, (1) the perceiver at the basis of the identity, (2) the specifics of the identity being perceived.

Ātma is the foundation of individuality.

Environment, body, mind, etc. are the specifics of individuality.

In a statement like, “I am a farmer,” the word farmer denotes a specific of individuality. Being a farmer is based on conditions and is therefore entirely changeable. “I am fat.” “I am smart.” “I am elated.” “I am depressed.” “I am rich.” All these statements have different specifics, but all of them have the same phrase, “I am.” This part, “I am” represents ātma’s role in identity.

Individuality is a combination of I am + some sort of specific like a farmer, or fat. In other words individuality is a combined effect of ātma + conditions.

If we take away the conditioning, do all ātma become the same?

“Yes,” in a practical sense. “No,” in an actual sense.

When we remove all conditioning, we still have the seed of identity. “I am” can still be enunciated, even without a descriptor like “a farmer” or “fat.”

If ātma were completely devoid of individuality we run into two hermetic and śāstrika problems: (1) why did the seers describe it as “ātma,” a word that literally means special, unique, specific, and (2) If ātmā is singular and uniform, how does it get broken into individuals? The second problem is impossible to solve, without violating another śāstrika principle about ātma: that it is indivisible.

These two questions disappear if we allow ātmā to have inherent “individuality-capacity.” This is not fully-fledged individuality itself, but is the foundation for it. It is a product of something śāstra describes as the “angle of the eye” (in a metaphor where ātma is “the seer”).

Ātma can utilize śakti to construct identity on this foundation. Śakti provides conditions to facilitate sentience, self-specificity, intellect, mind, sensation, body, and world (citta, ahamkara, buddhi, manas, indriyas, śarīra and loka), and THESE are what fully define a very specific individuality.

How does Paramātmā fit in this picture?

Paramātmā is the ultimate “I”. It manifests specifics to its identity by manifesting ātma and śakti. Its relationship with these defines the specifics of its being. One way it is different from ātma is that its specific indentity-conditions are eternal (namely, ātma and śakti, but not specific conditions of either). Paramātmā’s identifying sentence is, “I am the manifestor of ātma and śakti.”

Is there individuality in the liberated ātma?

Yes, but it can either be kinetic or potential, depending on what type of liberation the ātma enjoys. If ātma enjoyed liberation by eliminating all conditions from its identity and being fixed in that non-conditioned potential identity, then it permanently bypasses any kinetic identity. This condition is typically described as brahma-sayujya mukti (“liberation where the identity is unified with the entirety of the conscious substrate”).

If, however, the ātma freed from erroneous conditional identity, feels that “I” has some non-erroneous relationship to the Ultimate-I, then it can utilize the Ultimate-I’s own śakti to manifest conditional receptors (citta, ahamkara, etc) in that relationship and manifest specificity in a liberated identity.