Ātman (Hinduism)
Ātman (; ) is a Sanskrit word that refers to the (universal) Self or self-existent essence of individuals, as distinct from ego ("Ahamkara"), mind ("Citta") and embodied existence ("Prakṛti"). The term is often translated as soul, but is better translated as "Self," as it solely refers to pure consciousness or witness-consciousness, beyond identification with phenomena. In order to attain moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge ("Atma Gyaan or Brahmajnana"). "Atman" is a central concept in the various schools of Indian philosophy, which have different views on the relation between "Atman", individual Self ("Jīvātman"), supreme Self  ("Paramātmā") and, the Ultimate Reality ("Brahman"), stating that they are: completely identical (Advaita, Non-Dualist), completely different (Dvaita, Dualist), or simultaneously non-different and different (Bhedabheda, Non-Dualist + Dualist). The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is "Ātman" in every living being ("jiva"), which is distinct from the body-mind complex. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of "Anatta", which holds that in essence there is no unchanging essence or Self to be found in the empirical constituents of a living being, staying silent on "what" it is that is liberated. Etymology  and meaning. Etymology. "Ātman" ("Atma", आत्मा, आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word which refers to "essence, breath." It is derived from the Proto-Indo-European word "" (a root meaning "breath" with Germanic cognates: Dutch "adem", Old High German "atum" "breath," Modern German "atmen" "to breathe" and "Atem" "respiration, breath", Old English "eþian"). "Ātman", sometimes spelled without a diacritic as "atman" in scholarly literature, means "real Self" of the individual, "innermost essence." While often translated as "soul," it is better translated as "self." Meaning. In Hinduism, "Atman" refers to the self-existent essence of human beings, the observing pure consciousness or witness -consciousness as exemplified by the Purusha of Samkhya. It is distinct from the ever-evolving embodied individual being ("jivanatman") embedded in material reality, exemplified by the prakriti of Samkhya, and characterized by "Ahamkara" (ego, non-spiritual psychological I-ness Me-ness), mind ("citta", "manas"), and all the defiling "kleshas" (habits, prejudices, desires, impulses, delusions, fads, behaviors, pleasures, sufferings and fears). Embodied personality and "Ahamkara" shift, evolve or change with time, while "Atman" doesn't. It is "pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness." As such, it is different from non-Hindu notions of soul, which includes consciousness but also the mental abilities  of a living being, such as reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception and thinking. In Hinduism, these are all included in embodied reality, the counterpart of "Atman". Atman, in Hinduism, is considered as eternal, imperishable, beyond time, "not the same as body or mind or consciousness, but... something beyond which permeates all these". "Atman" is the unchanging, eternal, innermost radiant Self that is unaffected by personality, unaffected by ego; "Atman" is that which is ever-free, never-bound, the realized purpose, meaning, liberation in life. As Puchalski states, "the ultimate goal of Hindu religious life is to transcend individually, to  realize one's own true nature", the inner essence of oneself, which is divine and pure. Development of the concept. Vedas. The earliest use of the word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of "Ātman": the pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united and the ultimate sentient principle. Other hymns of Rig Veda where the word "Ātman" appears include I.115.1, VII.87.2, VII.101.6, VIII.3.24, IX.2.10, IX.6.8, and X.168.4. Upanishads. "Ātman" is a central topic in all of the  Upanishads, and "know your Ātman" is one of their thematic foci. The Upanishads say that "Atman" denotes "the ultimate essence of the universe" as well as "the vital breath in human beings", which is "imperishable Divine within" that is neither born nor does it die. Cosmology and psychology are indistinguishable, and these texts state that the core of every person's Self is not the body, nor the mind, nor the ego, but "Ātman". The Upanishads express two distinct, somewhat divergent themes on the relation between Atman and Brahman. Some teach that Brahman (highest reality; universal principle; being-consciousness-bliss ) is identical with "Ātman", while others teach that "Ātman" is part of Brahman but not identical to it. This ancient debate flowered into various dual and non-dual theories in Hinduism. The Brahmasutra by Badarayana (~100 BCE) synthesized and unified these somewhat conflicting theories, stating that "Atman" and Brahman are different in some respects, particularly during the state of ignorance, but at the deepest level and in the state of self-realization, "Atman" and Brahman are identical, non-different (advaita). According to Koller, this synthesis countered the dualistic tradition of Samkhya-Yoga schools and realism-driven traditions of Nyaya-Vaiseshika  schools, enabling it to become the foundation of Vedanta as Hinduism's most influential spiritual tradition. Section::::"Brihadaranyaka Upanishad". The "Brihadaranyaka Upanishad" (800-600 BCE) describes "Atman" as that in which everything exists, which is of the highest value, which permeates everything, which is the essence of all, bliss and beyond description. In hymn 4.4.5, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes "Atman" as "Brahman", and associates it with everything one is, everything one can be, one's free will, one's desire, what one does, what one doesn't do, the good in oneself, the bad in oneself. This theme of "Ātman", that the  essence and Self of every person and being is the same as Brahman, is extensively repeated in Brihadāranyaka Upanishad. The Upanishad asserts that this knowledge of "I am Brahman", and that there is no difference between "I" and "you", or "I" and "him" is a source of liberation, and not even gods can prevail over such a liberated man. For example, in hymn 1.4.10, Section::::"Chandogya Upanishad". The "Chandogya Upanishad" (7th-6th c. BCE) explains "Ātman" as that which appears to be separate between two living beings but isn't, that essence and innermost, true, radiant self of all individuals which connects  and unifies all. Hymn 6.10 explains it with the example of rivers, some of which flow to the east and some to the west, but ultimately all merge into the ocean and become one. In the same way, the individual souls are pure being, states the "Chandogya Upanishad"; an individual soul is pure truth, and an individual soul is a manifestation of the ocean of one universal soul. Section::::"Katha Upanishad". Along with the "Brihadāranyaka", all the earliest and middle Upanishads discuss "Ātman" as they build their theories to answer how man can achieve liberation, freedom and bliss. The "Katha Upanishad  (5th to 1st century BCE), for example, explains Atman" as the imminent and transcendent innermost essence of each human being and living creature, that this is one, even though the external forms of living creatures manifest in different forms. For example, hymn 2.2.9 states, Katha Upanishad, in Book 1, hymns 3.3 to 3.4, describes the widely cited proto-Samkhya analogy of chariot for the relation of "Soul, Self" to body, mind and senses. Stephen Kaplan translates these hymns as, "Know the Self as the rider in a chariot, and the body as simply the chariot. Know the intellect as the  charioteer, and the mind as the reins. The senses, they say are the horses, and sense objects are the paths around them". The Katha Upanishad then declares that "when the Self [Ātman] understands this and is unified, integrated with body, senses and mind, is virtuous, mindful and pure, he reaches bliss, freedom and liberation". Indian philosophy. Orthodox schools. Atman is a metaphysical and spiritual concept for Hindus, often discussed in their scriptures with the concept of Brahman. All major orthodox schools of Hinduism – Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta – accept the foundational premise of the Vedas and Upanishads that  Ātman exists. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, "Ātman" is the first principle. Jainism too accepts this premise, although it has its own idea of what that means. In contrast, both Buddhism and the Charvakas deny that there is anything called "Ātman/soul/self". Samkhya. In Samkhya, the oldest school of Hinduism, Puruṣa, the witness-consciousness, is "Atman". It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, "nonattributive consciousness". Puruṣa is neither produced nor does it produce. No appellations  can qualify purusha, nor can it substantialized or objectified. It "cannot be reduced, can't be 'settled'." Any designation of purusha comes from prakriti, and is a limitation. Unlike Advaita Vedanta, and like Purva-Mīmāṃsā, Samkhya believes in plurality of the puruṣas. Samkhya considers ego ("asmita", "ahamkara") to be the cause of pleasure and pain. Self-knowledge is the means to attain "kaivalya", the separation of "Atman" from the body-mind complex. Yoga philosophy. The Yogasutra of Patanjali, the foundational text of Yoga school of Hinduism, mentions "Atma" in multiple verses, and particularly in its last book, where Samadhi  is described as the path to self-knowledge and kaivalya. Some earlier mentions of "Atman" in Yogasutra include verse 2.5, where evidence of ignorance includes "confusing what is not Atman as Atman". In verses 2.19-2.20, Yogasutra declares that pure ideas are the domain of Atman, the perceivable universe exists to enlighten Atman, but while Atman is pure, it may be deceived by complexities of perception or mind. These verses also set the purpose of all experience as a means to self-knowledge. In Book 4, Yogasutra states spiritual liberation as the stage where the yogin achieves distinguishing self-knowledge , he no longer confuses his mind as Atman, the mind is no longer affected by afflictions or worries of any kind, ignorance vanishes, and "pure consciousness settles in its own pure nature". The Yoga school is similar to the Samkhya school in its conceptual foundations of "Ātman". It is the self that is discovered and realized in the Kaivalya state, in both schools. Like Samkhya, this is not a single universal "Ātman". It is one of the many individual selves where each "pure consciousness settles in its own pure nature", as a unique distinct soul/self. However, Yoga school's  methodology was widely influential on other schools of Hindu philosophy. Vedanta monism, for example, adopted Yoga as a means to reach "Jivanmukti" – self-realization in this life – as conceptualized in Advaita Vedanta. Yoga and Samkhya define "Ātman" as an "unrelated, attributeless, self-luminous, omnipresent entity", which is identical with consciousness. Nyaya. Early atheistic Nyaya scholars, and later theistic Nyaya scholars, both made substantial contributions to the systematic study of "Ātman". They posited that even though "self" is intimately related to the knower, it can still be the subject of knowledge. John Plott states that the Nyaya scholars developed a theory  of negation that far exceeds Hegel's theory of negation, while their epistemological theories refined to "know the knower" at least equals Aristotle's sophistication. Nyaya methodology influenced all major schools of Hinduism. The Nyaya scholars defined "Ātman" as an imperceptible substance that is the substrate of human consciousness, manifesting itself with or without qualities such as desires, feelings, perception, knowledge, understanding, errors, insights, sufferings, bliss, and others. Nyaya school not only developed its theory of "Atman", it contributed to Hindu philosophy in a number of ways. To the Hindu theory of "Ātman", the contributions of Nyaya scholars were twofold . One, they went beyond holding it as "self evident" and offered rational proofs, consistent with their epistemology, in their debates with Buddhists, that "Atman exists". Second, they developed theories on what "Atman is and is not". As proofs for the proposition 'self exists', for example, Nyaya scholars argued that personal recollections and memories of the form "I did this so many years ago" implicitly presume that there is a self that is substantial, continuing, unchanged, and existent. Nyayasutra, a 2nd-century CE foundational text of Nyaya school of Hinduism, states that Atma is a proper object of human knowledge. It  also states that Atman is a real substance that can be inferred from certain signs, objectively perceivable attributes. For example, in book 1, chapter 1, verses 9 and 10, Nyayasutra states Book 2, chapter 1, verses 1 to 23, of the Nyayasutras posits that the sensory act of looking is different from perception and cognition–that perception and knowledge arise from the seekings and actions of "Ātman". The Naiyayikas emphasize that "Ātman" has qualities, but is different from its qualities. For example, desire is one of many qualities of "Ātman", but "Ātman" does not always have desire, and in the  state of liberation, for instance, the "Ātman" is without desire. Vaiśeṣika. The Vaisheshika school of Hinduism, using its non-theistic theories of atomistic naturalism, posits that "Ātman" is one of the four eternal non-physical substances without attributes, the other three being "kala" (time), "dik" (space) and "manas" (mind). Time and space, stated Vaiśeṣika scholars, are "eka" (one), "nitya" (eternal) and "vibhu" (all pervading). Time and space are indivisible reality, but human mind prefers to divide them to comprehend past, present, future, relative place of other substances and beings, direction and its own coordinates in the universe. In contrast to  these characteristics of time and space, Vaiśeṣika scholars considered "Ātman" to be many, eternal, independent and spiritual substances that cannot be reduced or inferred from other three non-physical and five physical "dravya" (substances). Mind and sensory organs are instruments, while consciousness is the domain of "atman, soul, self". The knowledge of "Ātman", to Vaiśeṣika Hindus, is another knowledge without any "bliss" or "consciousness" "moksha" state that Vedanta and Yoga school describe. Mimamsa. "Ātman", in the ritualism-based Mīmāṃsā school of Hinduism, is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active essence that is identified as I-consciousness. Unlike all other schools  of Hinduism, Mimamsaka scholars considered ego and "Atman" as the same. Within Mimamsa school, there was divergence of beliefs. Kumārila, for example, believed that "Atman" is the object of I-consciousness, whereas Prabhakara believed that "Atman" is the subject of I-consciousness. Mimamsaka Hindus believed that what matters is virtuous actions and rituals completed with perfection, and it is this that creates merit and imprints knowledge on "Atman", whether one is aware or not aware of "Atman". Their foremost emphasis was formulation and understanding of laws/duties/virtuous life ("dharma") and consequent perfect execution of "kriyas" (actions). The Upanishadic discussion  of "Atman", to them, was of secondary importance. While other schools disagreed and discarded the "Atma" theory of Mimamsa, they incorporated Mimamsa theories on ethics, self-discipline, action, and dharma as necessary in one's journey toward knowing one's "Atman". Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) sees the "spirit/soul/self" within each living entity as being fully identical with Brahman. The Advaita school believes that there is one soul that connects and exists in all living beings, regardless of their shapes or forms, and there is no distinction, no superior, no inferior, no separate devotee soul ("Atman ), no separate god soul (Brahman). The oneness unifies all beings, there is divine in every being, and that all existence is a single reality, state the Advaita Vedanta Hindus. In contrast, devotional sub-schools of Vedanta such as Dvaita (dualism) differentiate between the individual Atma" in living beings, and the supreme "Atma" ("Paramatma") as being separate. Advaita Vedanta philosophy considers "Atman" as self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual. To Advaitins, the "Atman" is the Brahman, the Brahman is the "Atman", each self is non-different from the infinite. "Atman" is the universal principle, one eternal undifferentiated self-luminous consciousness , the truth asserts Advaita Hinduism. Human beings, in a state of unawareness of this universal self, see their "I-ness" as different from the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness. To Advaitins, Atman-knowledge is the state of full awareness, liberation, and freedom that overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others, and in all living beings; the non-dual oneness, that God is in everything, and everything is God. This identification of individual living beings/souls, or "jiva-atmas , with the 'one Atman' is the non-dualistic Advaita Vedanta position. Vaishnava Vedanta. The monist, non-dual conception of existence in Advaita Vedanta is not accepted by the dualistic/theistic Dvaita Vedanta. Dvaita Vedanta calls the Atman" of a supreme being as "Paramatman", and holds it to be different from individual "Atman". Dvaita scholars assert that God is the ultimate, complete, perfect, but distinct soul, one that is separate from incomplete, imperfect "jivas" (individual souls). The Advaita sub-school believes that self-knowledge leads to liberation in this life, while the Dvaita sub-school believes that liberation is only possible  in after-life as communion with God, and only through the grace of God (if not, then one's "Atman" is reborn). God created individual souls, state Dvaita Vedantins, but the individual soul never was and never will become one with God; the best it can do is to experience bliss by getting infinitely close to God. The Dvaita school, therefore, in contrast to the monistic position of Advaita, advocates a version of monotheism wherein Brahman is made synonymous with Vishnu (or Narayana), distinct from numerous individual Atmans. The Dvaita school, states Graham Oppy, is not strict monotheism, as it  does not deny existence of other gods and their respective "Atman". Buddhism. Applying the disidentification of 'no-self' to the logical end, Buddhism does not assert an unchanging essence, any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman," According to Jayatilleke, the Upanishadic inquiry fails to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman, but nevertheless assumes its existence, and, states Mackenzie, Advaitins "reify consciousness as an eternal self." In contrast, the Buddhist inquiry "is satisfied with the empirical investigation which shows that no such Atman exists because there is no evidence" states Jayatilleke. While Nirvana is  liberation from the "kleshas" and the disturbances of the mind-body complex, Buddhism eludes a definition of "what" it is that is liberated. According to Johannes Bronkhorst, "it is possible that original Buddhism did not deny the existence of soul," but did not want to talk about it, as they could not say that "the soul is essentially not involved in action, as their opponents did." While the skandhas are regarded is impermanent ("anatman") and sorrowfull ("dukkha"), the existence of a permanent, joyful and unchanging self is neither acknowledged nor explicitly denied. Liberation is not attained by knowledge of such  a self, but by " turning away from what might erroneously be regarded as the self." According to Harvey, in Buddhism the negation of temporal existents is applied even more rigorous than in the Upanishads: Nevertheless, Atman-like notions can also be found in Buddhist texts chronologically placed in the 1st millennium of the Common Era, such as the Mahayana tradition's "Tathāgatagarbha sūtras" suggest self-like concepts, variously called "Tathagatagarbha" or "Buddha nature". In the Theravada tradition, the Dhammakaya Movement in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric of "anatta" (non-self); instead, nirvana is  taught to be the "true self" or "dhammakaya". Similar interpretations have been put forth by the then Thai Sangharaja in 1939. According to Williams, the Sangharaja's interpretation echoes the "tathāgatagarbha" sutras. The notion of Buddha-nature is controversial, and "eternal self" concepts have been vigorously attacked. These "self-like" concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. Some scholars posit that the "Tathagatagarbha Sutras" were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists. The Dhammakaya Movement teaching that nirvana is atta (atman) has been criticized as heretical in Buddhism by Prayudh Payutto, a well-known scholar monk , who added that 'Buddha taught nibbana as being non-self". This dispute on the nature of teachings about 'self' and 'non-self' in Buddhism has led to arrest warrants, attacks and threats. Influence of Atman-concept on Hindu ethics. The "Atman" theory in Upanishads had a profound impact on ancient ethical theories and dharma traditions now known as Hinduism. The earliest Dharmasutras of Hindus recite "Atman" theory from the Vedic texts and Upanishads, and on its foundation build precepts of dharma, laws and ethics. "Atman" theory, particularly the Advaita Vedanta and Yoga versions, influenced the emergence of the theory of  Ahimsa (non-violence against all creatures), culture of vegetarianism, and other theories of ethical, dharmic life. Dharma-sutras. The Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras integrate the teachings of "Atman" theory. Apastamba Dharmasutra, the oldest known Indian text on dharma, for example, titles Chapters 1.8.22 and 1.8.23 as "Knowledge of the Atman" and then recites, Ahimsa. The ethical prohibition against harming any human beings or other living creatures (Ahimsa, अहिंसा), in Hindu traditions, can be traced to the "Atman" theory. This precept against injuring any living being appears together with Atman theory in hymn 8.15.1 of Chandogya Upanishad (ca. 8th century BCE), then  becomes central in the texts of Hindu philosophy, entering the dharma codes of ancient "Dharmasutras" and later era "Manu-Smriti". Ahimsa theory is a natural corollary and consequence of "Atman is universal oneness, present in all living beings. Atman connects and prevades in everyone. Hurting or injuring another being is hurting the Atman, and thus one's self that exists in another body". This conceptual connection between one's "Atman", the universal, and Ahimsa starts in Isha Upanishad, develops in the theories of the ancient scholar Yajnavalkya, and one which inspired Gandhi as he led non-violent movement against colonialism  in early 20th century. Similarities with Greek philosophy. The Atman concept and its discussions in Hindu philosophy parallel with "psuchê" (soul) and its discussion in ancient Greek philosophy. Eliade notes that there is a capital difference, with schools of Hinduism asserting that liberation of "Atman" implies "self-knowledge" and "bliss". Similarly, the self-knowledge conceptual theme of Hinduism ("Atman jnana") parallels the "know thyself" conceptual theme of Greek philosophy. Max Müller summarized it thus,