Re: Atman
Originally Posted by
Greggorious
Hi there, I was wondering if someone could give me a Hindu definition of what Atman is?
I've been a practicing Buddhist for many years though I'm now in conflict about it and searching elsewhere.
In Buddhism is it said there is no Atman, no soul, no unchanging self and that Science now proves this too.
Opinions?
Why do you need other's opinions on this? Buddhist view on self is not just a view but a tangible experience.
Self-consciousness is something we always feel when we move about in the ordinary world awake. This is the most basic form of awareness. You don't need vedas, philosophies, ontologies to believe in self - it is the most natural belief and anyone will readily agree that he has a self or soul or an entity.
Buddhist claim otherwise. What does that say? Either buddha was a complete retard OR he went much deeper into himself to reach a ground where the self itself becomes illusion. Surely what buddha says is not supported by ordinary consciousness of the common human mind. So either the Buddhist view is an exalted and uncommon view or he was a crazy & stupid person. Does his life indicate he was a crazy retard? Did he reached his conclusion very easily? On the other hand any tom-dick-harry can vouch for the Self without knowing any scriptures, without meditating even without thinking much. What does that say?
This is my suggestion to you as a buddhist. I also believe most common understanding of Self in Hinduism is not on par with the exalted understanding of non-self in buddhism. The nyaya view above, is good for argumenting with the buddhist but is contadicted by conscious experience. Self floats like a small ball in the ocean of consciousness and not vice a verse. It is sometimes in the heart, sometimes in the head. It is mostly unaware of all unconscious, subconscious or even conscious processes. No doubt the other hindus saw self as atomic. Also making our individual selfs pervasive like in Nyaya makes it a difficult position for a theists who like depend on an almighty God for everything.
But I am not happy with buddhistic non-self either. All things are supported in some form of conscious activity or inactivity. There is no way to deny that. Buddhist only see the interconnectedness (madhyamaka view) of all existing things, but that is only one way to see it, and even when waves on a ocean has subsided the ocean still remains, no? So buddhistic view is a bit oppressive after sometime.
If you are not interested in religion let go of all views and just meditate - all views are imperfect in someway because they are just views. The expereince which led to these views are real, so lets target that instead. Ofcourse you will be rediculed as unorthodox anti-something for that, but I think it is a small price to pay in this world.
Edit to Add: But if you want to believe in Self, I think the advaitic/vedantic and shaiva/shakta are better. The individual self which is denied in buddhism is also regarded as an illusion here (rather I should say the duality of individual selves is an illusion) - the true self is hidden in maya or malas and what we regard as self is basically a involution in prakriti or nature. So you can go in the same lines as buddhist, but don't need end everything with dependent orgination. All things may (and I often think maynot) have interconnectedness, but they all exist in the vast canvass of the self or consciousness. The interconnectedness of apprearences cannot deny the self. Affirmation of self must happen in experience, but this is where Hinduism often falters, and instead of providing experience of self it feeds a bunch of beliefs about it. Same with present day buddhism where belief on a non-self is fed all the time.
Last edited by sm78; 02 March 2012 at 03:06 AM.
What is Here, is Elsewhere. What is not Here, is Nowhere.
Bookmarks