Peter Hornbach

World Religions

Mid-Term
The Atman and The Anatta

Both Hinduism and Buddhism are symbolic systems containing numerous internal divisions that culturally and philosophically seem sometimes almost alien to one another. Both systems possess rich internal diffusion within the same overarching identity of Hindu or Buddhist. However, in spite of such complex interpretive branching there are certain perceptions about the nature of reality itself that bind all these internal branches together, allowing them to ultimately all belong to the same tree, so to speak. The way in which both Buddhism and Hinduism respectively view the soul, or lack thereof, is probably the most important of these basic perceptions. The Hindu Atman and the Buddhist Anatta are easily two of the most central concepts, embodying the most fundamental ideas about how both Hinduism and Buddhism respectively view the universe and humanitys relationship to it. The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the nature of this distinction as well as the distinction between the two concepts more thematic implications. The differences between Hindu and Buddhist ideas about the soul are not only philosophically significant but historically as well considering Buddhism arose as a response to Hinduism. The Anatta could be thought of as a scathingly inflammatory critique of Hinduism itself bearing in mind the pivotal importance perception of the soul has to both systems 1

respective ideas about the universe in general. In the most general sense, the Atman implies the existence of an ultimate reality in the absence of human delusion. And conversely, the Buddhist Anatta implies the non-existence of any ultimate reality. This is essentially the crux of the distinction between them; however the issue is not nearly that simple. The Atman is a common way of rationalizing the essence of ourselves within Hinduism. Even more than that though, the Atman symbolizes attempts to rationalize the relationship between ourselves and ultimate reality. The result of this rationalization tends to yield something comparable to Western ideas about a concrete transcendent soul. In very simplistic terms, the Atman is a permanent transcendent essence bound within the confines of ones body that will maintain its constitution after the death of that body and be continuously re-deposited within the material world, in a cycle of rebirth, until finally reaching perfect non-differentiated unity with the universe. On the surface this seems somewhat similar to the soul in western thought. However, the Atman parts ways with the western soul in terms of individuality. In Hinduism, the perception of there being such a thing as an individual soul, or an individual anything, is ultimately an illusion. Its true that the Atman is the soul, but its also true that the Atman is literally everything else as well. The universal, homogenized, all pervading soul of the universe is the one and only essence that really ultimately exists. The idea of individual beings having individual essence that is concretely separate from other individual beings with individual essence is part and parcel to the delusion that keeps the universes central consciousness divided and locked in an ongoing cycle of birth and re-birth. In short, human beings do have an eternal transcendent essence, but the belief that this essence is separate or disconnected in any way from the essence of anything else is considered the great problem of sentient beings. The massive difficulty in resolving this problem is detailed in the Bhagavad-Gita.

The Bagavad-Gita symbolizes the internal battle against delusions of separateness with an actual physical battle field. It presents philosophical arguments for the observance of behavioral ideals in Hindu culture through a conversation between Vishnus avatar Krishna and a soldier named Arjuna. Arjunas reluctance to fight and kill a rival division of his family prompts Vishnu to offer guidance by explaining how such reluctance ultimately stems from an incorrect view of reality. He explains the oneness of all things, the inevitability of death and transience, and the foolishness of basing ones actions around the desire for specific outcome. One such point is saliently expressed in the tenth teaching: I am the self abiding in the heart of all creatures; I am their beginning, their middle and their end. I am Vishnu, striding among sun gods, the radiant sun among lights; I am lightening among wind gods, the moon among the stars. I am the song in sacred lore, I am Indra, king of the gods; I am the mind of the senses, the consciousness of creatures (Miller,p.94) The point of what Vishnu is attempting to say somewhat makes a mockery of the pronouns he uses to say it. This is also true of the pronouns I am forced to use in writing this paper. Words like I and their and he, and even names like Vishnu and Arjuna reinforce an idea of distinct individual essence while simultaneously trying to destroy it. In a practical sense however, the Bagavad-Gita, the Dharma it emphasizes, and even the seemingly concrete form of Vishnu are all meant as vehicles to help gradually deliver all beings into realization of non-dualistic reality. The difficulty of such a task requires speaking to the delusional in ways that are relatable; even if the language of such guidance might include tacitly imbedded ideas that somewhat contribute to reinforcing the delusion. Also, the English language is a clumsy instrument for explaining Hindu metaphysics. The idea of non-differentiation, nonduality, and non-linear time completely flies in the face of Western positivism, which is deeply imbedded into the structure of Western languages.

In Hindu thought there is only one self, one identity, and one essence. The universe is not a divided branching of categories working conjunctively with one another and existing in some state of concrete permanent independence. The Hindu universe is ultimately one homogenized entity with one overarching agency. It is delusions within that all-pervading agency that gives rise to individual beings and independent thought, which then leads the universe to, in a sense, counsel itself. The Gita could very much be thought of as a story about the universe itself speaking to itself about itself in order to fix itself. To put it in Western medicalized terms, the problem with the universe, according to Hindu thought, is that it schizophrenically suffers from the delusion of multiple personalities. The extinguishment of those deviations of personality is representative of the ultimate reality implied by the concept of Atman. It is this sense of ultimate reality that forces Buddhism to part ways with Hinduism. Additionally, it could be argued that Buddhism actually reverses the flow of reality in terms of its origins and manifestations. The Hindu universe exists wholly as a conscious, all pervading entity that manifests itself in a variety of internally divisional forms. Sometimes this is a result of the universes central imperfection and other times these forms flow from its attempt to correct such a thing. In any case, all of existence, including the gods themselves, flows from the same transcendent reality that engulfs everything and is everything. This is why the Anatta forces Buddhism and Hinduism to part paths with such impact. The concept of the Anatta implies not only that people have no soul but literally nothing does. In Buddhism, reality is a delusion not a delusional reflection of some greater reality. Walpola Rahula illustrates how the genesis of reality is somewhat inverted when shifting from Hinduism to Buddhism. Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for his own protection, safety and 4

security, just as a child depends on its parents. For self-preservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman. (Rahula, p.51) Its hard to escape the Freudian undertones of Rahulas interpretation. Tendencies to reduce the concept of God to the simple desire for a satisfying paternalistic relationship are no stranger to the logic of Western Rationalism. Whether The Buddha himself would have agreed with this however is somewhat non-germane to the topic. Regardless of the reason human beings create gods, Buddhism would assert that we do in fact create them. From a purely theoretical perspective, there can be no negotiation on this point unless we are to rethink the definition of a god. The concept of the Atman becomes negated wholly by virtue of the fact that nothing is imperishable, which even further flows from the idea that nothing actually exists. If then following that logic it becomes clear why there can be no gods in the way gods are normally thought of. Simply put, there can be nothing that is enduring and eternal when nothing actually exists in the first place to be described as those things. What the Anatta essentially does is to strip external or transcendent agency away from what appears to be happening or existing around us. Instead, every thought, feeling, idea, event, relationship and object is product of the same root delusion, contained completely within ourselves. There is no interplay between our agency and the agency of an overarching entity that pervades us and offers guidance through manifestations of itself. We do not even exist in an ultimate sense to be guided, nothing does. The Anatta implies the existence of nothing but non-existence particularly when considering it as a response to everything the Atman implies. This is not to say however that Buddhism is somehow nihilistic. Rather, morality would appear to work itself out in a way that may seem alien to more theistically oriented belief systems. The twelve steps of Conditioned Genesis indicate that the delusion of consciousness, and all its consequences, ultimately materializes from the most basic ignorance, manifesting itself in the form of volitional actions. 5

1. Through Ignorance are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations. 2. Through volitional actions is conditioned consciousness.(Rahula, p.53) The steps go on to articulate how this consciousness conditions mental and physical phenomena into quasi-existence and that, eventually, this leads to desire, craving, clinging, and ultimately suffering. Morality in the Buddhist universe is not a matter of divine edict or caste-bound behavioral obligation. Rather, the idea of a non-self renders selfish actions philosophically ridiculous and counter-productive to extinguishing ones own suffering. In other words, immoral actions do not transgress some divinely established line of acceptable behavior. Rather, actions deriving from attachment riddled emotions such as anger, hatred, depression or envy both reinforce, and flow from, a delusional state of perception. In a sense, such actions are more foolish than they are wrong, like pouring gasoline on ones self in an attempt to extinguish ones own burning body. Rahula illustrates this point following the twelfth step in Conditional Genesis. This is how life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula in its reverse order, we come to the cessation of the process: through the complete cessation of ignorance, volitional activities or Karma-formations cease; through the cessation of volitional activities, consciousness ceases; .. through the cessation of birth, death, decay, sorrow, etc., cease. (Rahula, p.54) In short, enlightenment does not come from behaving morally in and of itself. Rather, the path to enlightenment gradually promotes the destruction of self, which essentially neutralizes the roots of that which might result in immoral action. In a certain sense, Hinduism possesses a kind of linear end game in that the universal essence of all creation wishes to eventually unify itself in perfect harmony. Linear is probably an inappropriate term for this in that the Gita somewhat implies that time may not even exist when Vishnu, in the Tenth Teaching, claims to be time itself, suggesting that its no more

separate of an entity than anything else. However, linguistic limitations aside, there is a positive goal to human existence in Hinduism, embodied within the symbolism of the Atman. The Anatta does not exactly embody such a goal. The purpose, so to speak, is to fully realize that there is no purpose because there is no self to have a purpose and no anything else to have one in relationship to. The primary distinction between the Atman and Anatta is the opposite directions they respectively take in defining the self. The Atman defines itself by what it really is behind the delusions whereas the Anatta defines itself as what it isnt behind the delusions. Simply put, the answer to what the Anatta isnt is: anything. What it is: is nothing. Whether the mental aggregates that constitute the twelve steps of Conditional Genesis actually exist in a truly real sense may be a point of contention between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. But from a theoretical perspective one thing can be sure; Buddhism does not recognize the ultimate existence of anything deriving from that process. In conclusion, Buddhism unsurprisingly shares a great many similarities with Hinduism particularly in their mutual ideas about cyclical time and the central problem of humanity being derived from a delusional view of reality. Where they mainly part ways are their ideas about what that actual problem is, what to do about it and what will happen once its dealt with. All of these issues are deeply embodied and implied by the Atman and the Anatta. Our personal experience of self, and the body that helps produce, maintain and regulate that experience, is undeniably central to any human beings understanding of the universe. Arguably, this is because that which we individually perceive and experience through the limitations of our own inalienable flesh may as well be the entire universe to us, and thus becomes our reality. Its then unsurprising that symbolic concepts of self would have such huge foundational implications within the systems of belief that espouse them.