The Concept of Atman and Anatman in Hinduism

[Ram Chandran]

• Namaskar:

  
  

  I am posting the article below, that I wrote for Kathopanishad weekly Virtual discussions for your comments.  The subject of this discussion is the very reason why Sankara's Advaita Philosophy is more appealing than other religious philosophies.  

  
  

  with my warm regards,

  Ram Chandran

  
  

  The Concept of Atman and Anatman in Hinduism

  Ram Chandran

  The earliest use of the word Ātman is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). The concept of atman proposed in the Rigveda is the basis for the development of different schools of philosophies of Hinduism. Liberation (Moksha) is the ultimate goal of the realization of one’s atman (the Brahman). The concept of the atman is central to all the six major schools of Hinduism (Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta). Atman is also the major difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. Buddhism does not believe the concept of the individual soul. In Buddhism, Anātman (Sanskrit) or anattā (Pali) refers to the doctrine of "non-self." According to Buddhist theology that no unchanging, permanent SELF or spirit can ever be found in any phenomenon.  Shankara in Advaita Philosophy treats the phenomenal world as Maya. Advaita Vedanta views the phenomenal, experimental world as indescribable or Maya from the Ultimate Truth level (Paramarta Satya); but doesn’t consider it as indescribable from the Relative truth level (Vyavahara Satya). Only from transcendental, ultimate stand point, phenomenal world is indescribable.  It should be noted that the concept of Atman very much exists in Jainism. In fact, the whole philosophy of Jainism revolves around the concept of Atman and aims at liberation of the Atman from the cycle of birth and death. Jainism believes the Universe itself is eternal and powerful. While Hinduism and Buddhism  accept Karma philosophy, Jains describe Karma as particles that pollute the soul.

   As per Advaita Vedanta all that exists is Brahman. All animate and inanimate substances are Brahman from the Ultimate standpoint. Brahman is one without a second because nothing exists in addition to it. This merely implies that Brahman (ultimate truth) is inherent or immanent in the phenomenal world. In the world of day to day activities, ultimate truth is present. But we are not able to understand it till we get special knowledge to realize it. Thus the external world is not only indescribable or Maya, but it is a way for the ignorant people to reach the ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is immanent in the relative, phenomenal world. Only through the relative, one can reach the ultimate. The distinction between them is only apparent. If the Ultimate truth is that what we see through the relative one, then the chaos will be restricted to the relative only. Brahman, including the one who realized Brahman will behave like a lotus leaf in the water. Though they both co-exist, water cannot malign the lotus leaf. The agonies that a person faces in life, is due to the presence of avidya. Brahman has no role in the difficulties that one faces in life.

   Those who have not realized the Brahman cannot understand phenomenal world as ‘Maya’. To them the phenomenal world is Real and exist by itself. They approve the existence and objectivity of external or phenomenal world. Living in and interaction with the phenomenal world gives them a kind of truth. The truth that the phenomenal world provides is also known as the relative truth. It is a step inferior to the ultimate or absolute truth, the world of the Brahman. But the phenomenal world enables the common man to get familiar with relative truth. Good. bad, sin, virtue, etc., exist at this relative plane. In the Ultimate truth these contrary characteristics are absent.  Sin and virtue are not present in the Brahman because supposition of any one of them, will lead the thinker to the other, opposite end, evoking the duality. All kinds of pluralities are absent in the ultimate truth. Thus Advaita Vedanta effectively resolves the puzzle by postulating two levels of existence for the Ultimate Truth. All of the inequalities and chaos that we see in the phenomenal world, around us, is relative in nature and we can overcome such difficulties by realizing the Brahman.

   The Atman and Anatman distinction is described in Bhagavad Gita Chapter 9 through verses 4 and 5:

   mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ jagad avyakta-mūrtinā

  mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni na chāhaṁ teṣhvavasthitaḥ (9.4)

  This entire cosmic manifestation is pervaded by Me in My un-manifest form. All living beings dwell in Me, but I do not dwell in them.

  Sri Krishna says that He does not dwell in the living beings because  the infinite can’t be contained by the finite beings.  Just as an ocean throws up many waves, and these waves are a part of the ocean, but the ocean is much more than the sum total of the waves,  similarly too, the souls and Maya exist within the Atman but Atman is beyond Maya and the individual souls.

   

  na cha mat-sthāni bhūtāni paśhya me yogam aiśhwaram
  bhūta-bhṛin na cha bhūta-stho mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ

   And yet, the living beings do not abide in Me. Behold the mystery of My divine personality! Consequently I am not influenced by them or by phenomenal world.

   Ramana Maharshi often used the analogy of a cinema screen. The contents of the screen keep changing but the screen itself doesn't change. The same way, You, the Self or the pure awareness doesn't change while the contents of the consciousness keep changing.

   Bhagavad Gita Verses 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17 and 2.19, 2.20 and 2.22 provide the narration of Atman and Anatman. There was never a time when you or I did not exist, nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12) The soul acquires another body after death. (2.13) The invisible Spirit is eternal. The visible physical body is transitory. (2.16) The Spirit pervades this entire universe and is indestructible. No one can destroy the imperishable Spirit. (2.17). The Spirit is neither born nor does it die at any time. It does not come into being, or cease to exist. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Spirit is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. (2.19-20) Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding old ones, the living entity or the individual soul acquires a new body after casting away the old body." (2.22).  These verses are often recited while mourning the death of dear ones to console that the body only dies and not the soul!

  The question whether Nirvana is obliquely opposite to the concept of Brahman is often investigated by the scholars from Hinduism and Buddhism. There are similarities between Nirvana and Brahman which are quite convincing to those who agree to accept the logical reasoning because  both of them represent the ultimate realities.

   Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya, one of the 5 major scriptures of Buddhism as: "the un-fabricated (unborn), the un-inclined, the truth, the subtle, the un-aging (eternal), the stable, the un-integrating, the un-manifest, the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the un-ailing state, the un-afflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the un-adhesive, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge, the destination.”  In Bhagavad Gita  chapter 2 Atman is described by the following: "The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atman is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. This Atman cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atman is said to be un-manifested and unchanging."  Also in Gita Verse 12,3 it is stated that "the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, Hindu scriptures use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable.

   Even though from the above, discussion, it appears that Nirvana and Brahman are quite similar but if we look at other references of Buddhist scriptures, the Brahman is considered as the origin or source of, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana.  Also for Hindus, the Brahman in subtle terms is the reference to God with no name and form (Nirguna Brahman).  But then again, Buddhist and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent. Philosophers are able to appreciate how and why the followers of any specific religious belief refuse to accept other religious beliefs even though all beliefs hope to reach the same unknown destination!

  
  

  
  

  
  

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ramchandranji,

I know you are a moderator of this group, yet if you permit me I would like to say that i am unable to agree with the statement; "Buddhism does not believe the concept of the individual soul.".

To my knowledge, Lord Buddha calls it "Tathagata-garbha" or the   "Embryo of Buddha" in all beings. This is the spark of the Brahman in all of us. This is the real Self or Atman and it is devoid of Anatman, which is the physical reality or the vyavaharika satya, which is Anitya.  We should develop self-lessness or the detachment towards the anitya world, so that we realize our higher Self.

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CABEezgyHG_g78RxaPxOG9Ye%3Dj0LBYhiNdLOfU_OWCSTagMHsMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

First, let me clarify that any message posted by a moderator or any member needs to be treated the same way and there is no need for any member to seek permission to post any disagreement.  In my message, I never claimed that everyone should accept everything what I say in my message.  I am not surprised that you disagree with one of my observations.  Please know that, I have just stated that some scholars have that opinion and at the same time that other scholars may have a different opinion.  The subject of discussion is quite complex and it can never be either easily understood nor will it be universally acceptable to all!   Please read the entire text of what I wrote which makes it clear that no CONCLUSIVE conclusions can ever be reached!  

thanks for expressing your opinion,

With warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram,

Thank you for sharing this. Perhaps something that is not explicitly mentioned in the article is that the Nirvana of Buddhism is equivalent to nothingness (sunya), akin to a lamp going out. 

Below is my understanding on the similarity and difference between Buddhist nihilism (sunyavaadam) and Advaitam, which I had also shared recently in another group. 

In essence, both claim that this world is illusory (maaya) and this is the similarity between these two systems of thought. However, Buddhist nihilism claims that everything seems to comes out of nothing (sunya) whereas Advaita says that there is something (brahmam or atma) out of which everything seems to appear. 

The Advaitic argument against the Buddhist nihilist view is that there has to be something as a base for any illusion, like a rope for the illusory snake or a conch for the illusory silver or a tree stump for an illusory man. An illusion cannot come out of nothing. There is something that exists which just appears as something else. It is not that nothing exists and still something seems to appear like the Buddhist view claims. 

An interesting Buddhist counterpoint I have heard is from the Chandyoga Upanishad Shankara bhashya in the 6th adhyaya (also called “satvidya”) in the context of the following two sruti statements:

सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत ॥ ६.२.१ ॥

sadeva somyedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyam | taddhaika āhurasadevedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyaṃ tasmādasataḥ sajjāyata || 6.2.1 ||

1. Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one without a second. On this subject, some maintain that before this world was manifest there was only non-existence, one without a second. Out of that non-existence, existence emerged.

The sruti itself posits both these views and asserts that the second view corresponding to Buddhist nihilism is invalid. 

In Shankara’s bhashya, a Buddhist nihilist objection is raised and replied to where the objection goes something like this. We all see that a seed has to be completely destroyed in order for a tree to grow from it. So according to them this is an example of something coming from nothing. Shankaracharya argues that only the form of the seed is lost but the material goes to make the tree, because the essence of the type of tree (mango or neem etc) is in the seed. Otherwise any tree can grow from any seed. Therefore he says that there is no example of something coming out of nothing. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Ramachandran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

It is bit confusing for me that you are making two different statements at two different place from the same view point (pAramArthika satya view point) with regard to Jagat.  I am quoting it for your ready reference :

 

// quote //

 

Shankara in Advaita Philosophy treats the phenomenal world as Maya. Advaita Vedanta views the phenomenal, experimental world as indescribable or Maya from the Ultimate Truth level (Paramarta Satya); but doesn’t consider it as indescribable from the Relative truth level (Vyavahara Satya). Only from transcendental, ultimate stand point, phenomenal world is indescribable.

 

//unquote//

 

Here above you are implying that jagat is anirvachaneeya from the pAramArthika drushti.  Do you mean to say the paramArtha jnAni would have saMshayAtmaka jnana with regard to jagat and he would not be in a position to determine whether this jagat is brahman or otherwise !!?? 

 

In the below statement you have conclusively said that everything is brahman only from the ultimate point of view. 

 

//quote//

 

As per Advaita Vedanta all that exists is Brahman. All animate and inanimate substances are Brahman from the Ultimate standpoint. Brahman is one without a second because nothing exists in addition to it. This merely implies that Brahman (ultimate truth) is inherent or immanent in the phenomenal world.

 

//unquote//

 

IMHO the second statement of yours is the ultimate reflection of jnAni’s view point on jagat.  His drushti is sthira deterministic that whatever he sees is nothing but brahman and there exists nothing apart from brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar dear Bhaskarji and Vinodji:

Thanks to both of you for clearing and enhancing our understanding of this important subject matter.  Bhaskarji, you are right and thanks for removing or (reducing) the confusion.  I should have paid more attention while typing.  Vinodji, your clarification is quite valuable and we have lot more to learn since we know very little about both Jainism and Buddhism.  I am hoping to see more postings with more clarifications.

With warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar dear Bhaskarji:

This statement, ‘Only from transcendental, ultimate stand point, phenomenal world is indescribable’  needs a correction as pointed out by you and should be changed as: ‘From the transcendental, ultimate stand point, phenomenal world doesn’t exist!.’ Yes, it is confusing because of the fact that when the Jnani transcends from Ajnani to Jnani, he/she transcends from the spell of Maya!    

thanks and warm regards,
Ram Chandran

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3:36:26 AM UTC-7 Bhaskar YR wrote:

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ramachandranji and friends,

Please permit me to say that Lord Buddha did talk about  Brahman, He himself claims to be lord Ram reborn and we know that Lord Ram gave the upadesha of Atman and Anatman to Lord Hanuman, the latter is said to be the  incarnation of one of the Ekadasha Rudras. Lord Ram in his human avatara was a student of the sage Vasishtha and the sage Vasishtha taught  lord Ram that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing will be there at the end, and in the middle also it is as good as nothing is there.

Lord Krishna also says the same thing in the second chapter of the Original Bhagavad gita of 745 verses. unfortunately Nimba-bhashkara (Bhashkaracharjya changed his name to Nimbarkacharya)  removed 45 verses from the original Bhagavad Gita and tried to contest Jnanakarmasamucchaya. Contrary to what many people think Bhagavad Gita bhashya was written by Abhinava Shankara (and not by Adi Shankara)  to contest Nimba-bhashkara.

Fortunately Keshav Kashmiri Bhattacharya, of the Nimbarka school of Bhedabheda, who was also the guru of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu of the Achintya Bhedabheda school, admitted the fact that the original Bhagavad Gita had 745 verses.

My 2 cents

Sunil KB

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/5e60335c-3f9c-4cb0-b05f-850268beac87n%40googlegroups.com.

[SREENATH N]

Hi,

I read through the above posts.

Can any one summarize what's the core difference between Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism.

My observation is posted below

Initial post suggested there is some difference. (Regarding existence of individual soul)

But I couldn't infer any difference from the later post.

Am I missing something here?

Rgds,

Sreenath

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/5e60335c-3f9c-4cb0-b05f-850268beac87n%40googlegroups.com

.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:40 AM 'SREENATH N' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi,

I read through the above posts.

Can any one summarize what's the core difference between Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism.

A couple of years ago, there was a seminar on Buddhism, organised jointly by the Maha Bodhi Society and the Karnataka Sanskrit University, at the Institute of World Culture, B.P. Wadia Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Speaking at the seminar, senior Madhva scholar  Dr. D. Prahladachar (who is now the head of the Vyasraja Matha) observed: "Both Buddhists and Advaitins admit the mithyatva of the world. The Advaitins say the substraturm of the world, which is but a superimposition, is Brahman as propounded by Vedanta. Buddhists do not admit any eternal substratum."

Here is a file containing an essay by Sri SSS on the comparative study of Advaita and Buddhism.  Gaudapadacharya's Karika and Nagarjuna's work are the texts.  This is in English:  

https://adbhutam.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/advaita-and-buddhism-sss.pdf 

Regards

subbu 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Indeed. There are two sub categories in Mahayana Buddhism - vijnAnavAda and mAdhyamika. 

vijnAnavAda holds that the Atma takes on the form of every external object outside - ie there is no object corresponding to its cognition. Further, they hold that it is the cognition itself is the self. That is, the self being self-effulgent, appears as the object and cognises itself as an external object. As cognition is momentary, they hold the self to be momentary, hence kshaNika vijnAnavAda / sAkAravAda.

mAdhyamika buddhism does not accord even a momentary existence to anything. Rather they hold that everything - whether the subject Atma or the object anAtma - is shUnya, which is a technical term, not meaning zero / nothing - rather it means that which cannot be classified as existing, non-existing, both or neither. When faced with the objection that as everything boils down to shUnya according to them, shUnya must exist, they counter - everything, including shUnya itself is shUnya. 

advaita on the other hand, holds that all that exists, is the self - which is permanent, unchanging, self-effulgent, all pervading and beyond the limitations of time, space and objects. The world with its multifarious objects is an appearance, an adhyAsa, on the self, so that the properties of the anAtma appear in the Atma and vice versa. Consequently, the self, whose nature is existence, appears to be present in the anAtma - leading to a misguided notion that the world exists. And the finitude of the anAtma incorrectly appears in the self, leading to one's notion of one's own limitation and the concomitant fear, sorrow and delusion that follow. Freedom from this illusory bondage is through the clear discrimination between the self and the non self, the resolution of the non self as an illusory appearance and the attendant resolution of any limitation of the anAtma falsely attributed to the Atma.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3SwWntjDkpHCcCv-GDk19xZph1X%2BezT0EUBkoYCVzmuA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Venkataraghvanji,

What I read quite some years ago is that the advaitins of his time had difficulty in understanding what their Advaitin guru taught them based on the upananishads, and they approached Lord Buddha if he would help them understand what the upanishadic teachings are.  That was how the Mahayana teachings started. I think only the great scholar Dr. Radhakrishnan was the first among the modern scholars, who could understand Lord Buddha properly.

My 2 cents

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DoR_wFxGjwbKK1w3fW0SoR-Jm%3DFbzEPmtYFqW8ity3YA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sunil ji,

That is an interesting story, thanks for mentioning.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99J3L-QYYyuoEfJ9FsWZeCyaQ0-01HdAWpnbu2V4RoCKA%40mail.gmail.com.