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!
--
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.
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.
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
--
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.
Hi,I read through the above posts.Can any one summarize what's the core difference between Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism.
Regards
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DoR_wFxGjwbKK1w3fW0SoR-Jm%3DFbzEPmtYFqW8ity3YA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99J3L-QYYyuoEfJ9FsWZeCyaQ0-01HdAWpnbu2V4RoCKA%40mail.gmail.com.