Atman

[devotee]

Namaste Greg,

I was wondering if someone could give me a Hindu definition of what Atman is?

I can give you the Advaitic position.

a)Self is one Reality which is the substratum of everything or even nothing. There is nothing like "Non-Self".

b) The Self acts in four quarters wherein three quarters or states are i) Waking Consciousness i.e. this gross world, ii) the dreaming Consciousness i.e. the subtle world created in dream and the world before and after death, iii) God state which is the Lord of the two states. All these three states are created under the influence of Maya which is the nature of the Self in its three states. All the three states appear simultaneously and act as if real until Self-realisation occurs. This Maya is beginningless but it ends on Self-realisation.

In the first two states i.e. the waking and the dreaming states, there arise a false "individual self" which acts with false notion of having an "i" within these two states. This "i" makes one distinguish from the "other", like you are able to feel that you are "Greggorious" and not "devotee" ... this is possible only because of rise of "i". From Science we know that one atom of Hydrogen can identify another atom of Oxygen nearby and combine with it which is not possible without both having different "i"s. This "i" is again an illusion but without which this phenomenal world is not possible. This "i" alone takes the responsibility of all good and bad actions done by the body-mind entity and enjoys or suffers the results arising out of those actions.

The above three states are projected only as an illusion but this illusion is much more powerful than the human experience of illusion. This illusion is on cosmic scale. However, when Self-realisation occurs to a Seeker, all the three states disappear.

The Self in its untainted state which is called the Fourth or Turiya cannot be described in words as it is beyond all mental concepts. It can only be described by negation of all concepts. This Fourth is the substratum of all the illusory appearance of the three states.

In Buddhism is it said there is no Atman, no soul, no unchanging self and that Science now proves this too.
Opinions?

I have read Buddhism to some extent and in my opinion, today's Buddhists (Theravada) who outrightly deny even the existence of false "i"/self have gone beyond Buddha. Imho, when Buddha said that there is no-self he meant that in reality there was no-self. If you deny even the illusory existence of self then the whole concept of re-incarnation collapses. So, how can Dalai-Lama or other Buddhas be born again and again ? Moreover, Self or no Self, you may call it by whatever name you like but if "emptiness" is not intelligent or is a Reality, how can this whole illusion arise without a cause ? The whole Dependent Origination should depend on "something". I can see serpent where the rope is there but how can there be seen anything where there is no seer and there is nothing to be seen. There has to be at least illusion of a seer and the seen.

How Science proves it ? How does two objects exert Gravitational force on each other unless "one" knows that there is "another" and a force has to be applied ? How do you differentiate me from yourself right now if there is no self i.e. absence of 'i" ? Please remember "i" is what makes it possible to differentiate one from the other.

OM

[wundermonk]

No problem Nyaya can hold any premise it deems fit to defend its theories, except they are not true.

How exactly does one go about proving that a metaphysical/theological premise is wrong?

Even individual consciousness has no well defined boundary and can be expansive and even all inclusive.

Ok. What is the relevance of this to the Nyaya position that the self is pervasive?

It is not because these are attested in meditative experiences and scriptures - but also possible to experience oneself if one invests the time in meditation instead of arguments based on unfounded or dud assumptions.

What is being attested? Again, how is a metaphysical position on the "soul" deemed to be unfounded or dud?

It is also a meditative experience of many buddhas which is available to navya nayakars like you which makes the experence of individual self an illusion.

Meditative experiences are unreliable means to prove/disprove the veracity of metaphysical premises because of lack of intersubjective verifiability.

These are all real states of consciousness and hypothetical theories like Nyaya is meaningless under the circumstances. You can choose to stay out of the possibility, that's all. No room for arguments as such.

Yet another time here you are claiming the Nyaya position is meaningless. What exactly is meaningless? And why?

What? If all pleasure, pains, joy are mine, what's a God got to do with any of it then? Why pray? to whom? what can he do? He may be bigger than me and have a bigger "boundary" (how does this boundary look like btw? what does Nyayakars say on that? How does one see it?) but can he do with things in my "boundary"? Did he create them? If he did, then please start your theory all over again as I heard pleasure pain etc are Self's creation or reception or feeling - whatever. Sure you can add some corollaries to the already phony theory to support the theism, but it takes one leg off the stool.

Fourth time - how does a metaphysical premise become "phony"? What are the means to verify the truth claims of metaphysical premises?

[brahman]

Namaste Greg,



I can give you the Advaitic position.

a)Self is one Reality which is the substratum of everything or even nothing. There is nothing like "Non-Self".

b) The Self acts in four quarters wherein three quarters or states are i) Waking Consciousness i.e. this gross world, ii) the dreaming Consciousness i.e. the subtle world created in dream and the world before and after death, iii) God state which is the Lord of the two states. All these three states are created under the influence of Maya which is the nature of the Self in its three states. All the three states appear simultaneously and act as if real until Self-realisation occurs. This Maya is beginningless but it ends on Self-realisation.

In the first two states i.e. the waking and the dreaming states, there arise a false "individual self" which acts with false notion of having an "i" within these two states. This "i" makes one distinguish from the "other", like you are able to feel that you are "Greggorious" and not "devotee" ... this is possible only because of rise of "i". From Science we know that one atom of Hydrogen can identify another atom of Oxygen nearby and combine with it which is not possible without both having different "i"s. This "i" is again an illusion but without which this phenomenal world is not possible. This "i" alone takes the responsibility of all good and bad actions done by the body-mind entity and enjoys or suffers the results arising out of those actions.

The above three states are projected only as an illusion but this illusion is much more powerful than the human experience of illusion. This illusion is on cosmic scale. However, when Self-realisation occurs to a Seeker, all the three states disappear.

The Self in its untainted state which is called the Fourth or Turiya cannot be described in words as it is beyond all mental concepts. It can only be described by negation of all concepts. This Fourth is the substratum of all the illusory appearance of the three states.



I have read Buddhism to some extent and in my opinion, today's Buddhists (Theravada) who outrightly deny even the existence of false "i"/self have gone beyond Buddha. Imho, when Buddha said that there is no-self he meant that in reality there was no-self. If you deny even the illusory existence of self then the whole concept of re-incarnation collapses. So, how can Dalai-Lama or other Buddhas be born again and again ? Moreover, Self or no Self, you may call it by whatever name you like but if "emptiness" is not intelligent or is a Reality, how can this whole illusion arise without a cause ? The whole Dependent Origination should depend on "something". I can see serpent where the rope is there but how can there be seen anything where there is no seer and there is nothing to be seen. There has to be at least illusion of a seer and the seen.

How Science proves it ? How does two objects exert Gravitational force on each other unless "one" knows that there is "another" and a force has to be applied ? How do you differentiate me from yourself right now if there is no self i.e. absence of 'i" ? Please remember "i" is what makes it possible to differentiate one from the other.

OM

Dear Devotee,

It was indeed a nice read.

Though the Sunyata concept or the nonexistence of the Self has been carefully refuted, doesn’t this thesis here equally interpret a multiplicity of Self(Atman)s? Love

[devotee]

Namaste Brahman,

D
Though the Sunyata concept or the nonexistence of the Self has been carefully refuted, doesn’t this thesis here equally interpret a multiplicity of Self(Atman)s? Love

How can there be multiplicity of 'Self' ? I said,

Self is one Reality which is the substratum of everything or even nothing. There is nothing like "Non-Self".

Therefore, it is the single, non-dual Reality which is the substratum of all. This Self is written with capitalised "S" and is the Cosmic Self.

However, due to influence of Maya three states apparently arise just like dream experience of the Dreamer. Within these three states there is an illusion of multiplicity. Here each and every thing has its apparent illusory "i".

I wrote this :

In the first two states i.e. the waking and the dreaming states, there arise a false "individual self" which acts with false notion of having an "i" within these two states.

It is like the various characters taking part in the dream of the dreamer. Every character in the dream acts as if it has its own "i" but actually all "i"s of all beings and things there in the dream arise from "I" which is the dreamer and the sole Reality. The "i"s of various illusory characters acting in the dream have no real existence.

I hope it clarifies the doubts.

OM

[anirvan]

[QUOTE]

What? If all pleasure, pains, joy are mine, what's a God got to do with any of it then? Why pray? to whom? what can he do? He may be bigger than me and have a bigger "boundary" (how does this boundary look like btw? what does Nyayakars say on that? How does one see it?) but can he do with things in my "boundary"? Did he create them?

If eventually it is found that mine is actually he?the my boundary and his is one?And if prayers is helping for the relief of pain and source of infinite joys?

Its the self care/self prayer we do everyday,is what a theist does in his daily prayer.

jaysrikrishna

[Adhvagat]

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.

SM, nice points. Thank you.

Could you comment a bit more on the blue points?

Om

[brahman]

Namaste Brahman,


I hope it clarifies the doubts.

OM

Dear Devotee,

Thank you for the time spent.

Your scriptural supports are valid. In fact the above discussion has been put forward for consideration at a philosophical/methodological level.

Without having included the terminology Avdiya, Maya’s immediate counterpart at the individual level, how does a thesis be complete and how does it benefit a real seeker to drive himself towards a state of actualization of the Oneness, which Vedanta ultimately aims at?

Love

[anirvan]

[QUOTE]

[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Dear Devotee,
Without having included the terminology Avdiya, Maya’s immediate counterpart at the individual level, how does a thesis be complete and how does it benefit a real seeker to drive himself towards a state of actualization of the Oneness, which Vedanta ultimately aims at?

Does the concept of MAYA and Avidya is like thinking global and acting local?


Just like there is no multiplicity of ATMAN,similarly there is no multiplicity of MAYA,its apparent multiplicity(the avidya at individual level) is due to its reflection on CHITTA/ANTAKARANAH...whcih is a little grosser (more jadabastha) object as comparision to unthinkably subtler maya.

Namaste Brahman,


It is like the various characters taking part in the dream of the dreamer. Every character in the dream acts as if it has its own "i" but actually all "i"s of all beings and things there in the dream arise from "I" which is the dreamer and the sole Reality. The "i"s of various illusory characters acting in the dream have no real existence.

I hope it clarifies the doubts.

OM

Thanks dear Devotee,above example is an excellent samples of multiple illusory nature of single "I".

[shian]

But in Mahayana Buddhism, from Great Sangha of ancient china,
They still use term "Soul", in chinesse is LING, or 灵

But it not denied , and used by holder of lineage (enlightened Masters),

And the term anatman in Mahayana Buddhism is practice of Bodhisattva when someone is work for benefit of sentient beings, because they already enlightened that their self is Big self as universe, see all sentient beings is same and is Buddha.

So , the meaning of anatman is not mean "no soul",. soul is only like we called many part hand, head, limbs, foot etc as "BODY", or called someone with their own name.

But i know in Hinayana it is different, they also have different understanding on Nirvana and Bardo. (Have different with Mahayana)

[devotee]

Namaste Brahman,

I think Anirvan has answered it quite well and if you carefully read my posts everything is answered there itself.

If you want to use the term "Avidya", I have no issues. However, I try to avoid jargons when the concept can be explained without that. I talked of arising of multiple apparent "i"s in the first two states. This false notion of having a separate "i" is the root of "individualised Maya" or Avidya". So, the concept doesn't change with or without the use of jargons.

As far helping an individual is concerned, it doesn't matter whether you use a particular jargon or not. You cannot see Avidya separate from Maya. Self-realisation destroys everything created under the influence of Maya. Moreover, my posts were directed at answering what Atman is and not how help an individual realise Self.

OM