@masterraalkivictorieux Master Ra’al Ki Victorieux

Atma is the eternal essence within us, transcending life and death. It’s the true self, a universal principle of oneness. ✨ #Atma #Self #Spirituality #UniversalConsciousness https://wp.me/p3JLEZ-9tX

Atma refers to the eternal, unchanging, and indestructible Self or soul, distinct from the physical body and mind. It is considered the innermost essence of an individual, the true self that transcends birth and death, and exists beyond the limitations of the material world. Atma as the universal self, identical with the eternal core of personality, which either transmigrates to a new life or attains release (moksha).

Atman (devanāgarī: आत्मन् ātman) or Ātmā, is a Sanskrit word that means “self”. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedānta school, it refers to one’s true self beyond phenomena.

In the Theosophical literature, it refers to the seventh principle in man and the cosmos. Atman is said to be a ray of the Absolute and, therefore, not individual. Each person participates of this universal principle, which manifests in him or her as the “Higher Self”. However, per se, atman is beyond consciousness or any other relative attribute. Its vehicle of expression in the differentiated universe is the sixth principle, or Buddhi.

Ātmā in Theosophy

Universal principle

Ātman, the seventh principle, is frequently described by H. P. Blavatsky as being a ray of the Absolute:

The seventh [principle is] the synthesis of the six, and not a principle but a ray of the Absolute ALL—in strict truth.

This being the case, atman is essentially beyond any description:

Ātma is nothing; it is all absolute, and it cannot be said that it is this, that or the other… It is simply that in which we are.

Since atman is omnipresent, it cannot be regarded as a human principle, but rather as a universal one:

Spirit (in the sense of the Absolute, and therefore, indivisible ALL), or Atma. As this can neither be located nor limited in philosophy, being simply that which IS in Eternity, and which cannot be absent from even the tiniest geometrical or mathematical point of the universe of matter or substance, it ought not to be called, in truth, a “human” principle at all.

The seventh [Principle] is not a human, but a universal principle in which Man participates; but so does equally every physical and subjective atom, and also every blade of grass and everything that lives or is in Space, whether it is sensible of it or not.

We say that the Spirit (the “Father in secret” of Jesus), or Atman, is no individual property of any man, but is the Divine essence which has no body, no form, which is imponderable, invisible and indivisible, that which does not exist and yet is, as the Buddhists say of Nirvana. It only overshadows the mortal; that which enters into him and pervades the whole body being only its omnipresent rays, or light, radiated through Buddhi, its vehicle and direct emanation.

The Higher Self

When referring to the presence of atman in human beings, it is said to constitute the “higher self”:

The Higher Self is Atma the inseparable ray of the Universal and ONE SELF. It is the God above, more than within, us.

However, this does not mean that each person has his or her own higher self. In reality, there is only One self expressing through every person:

Atma, the “Higher Self,” is neither your Spirit nor mine, but like sunlight shines on all. It is the universally diffused “divine principle,” and is inseparable from its one and absolute Meta-Spirit, as the sunbeam is inseparable from sunlight.

You must never say: “my Âtma”; you have no Âtma. This idea is the curse of the world. It has produced this tremendous selfishness, this egotism we say, “we are”, “my Âtma”, “my Buddhi”.

Conscious non-consciousness

Being a universal and absolute principle, ātman cannot be said to have consciousness as we know it, which is a relative attribute:

Consciousness implies limitations and qualifications; something [the object] to be conscious of, and someone [the subject] to be conscious of it. But Absolute Consciousness contains the cognizer, the thing cognized and the cognition, all three in itself and all three one.

Understand me, Ātman cannot be called infinite consciousness. It is the one Absolute, which is conscious non-consciousness. It contains everything, the potentiality of all; therefore, it is nothing at all… It is “No Thing,” you understand?

He [man] starts downward as a simply spiritual entity —an unconscious seventh principle .. with the germs of the other six principles lying latent and dormant in him.

However, it should not be thought that atman is just a lack of consciousness. Its state is not what we know as consciousness and, to indicate this fact, it is said to be unconscious or non-conscious:

It must not be forgotten, also, that we give names to things according to the appearances they assume for ourselves. We call absolute consciousness “unconsciousness,” because it seems to us that it must necessarily be so.

Understanding the Nature of Atma

I will share an excerp of “The Treatise on the Seven Rays”, which can explain it in more detail:

We have, in the case of man, two groups of major energies dominating, as a result of a long experience of incarnation in form, the energy of the astral or desire nature and the energy of the mind. When these are fused and blended, thoroughly organised and utilised, then we see a functionning and powerful Personality. Seeking to impose itself upon these energies and to subordinate them to higher and different aims is to be found that blended energy-unit which we call the soul. Its two energies (mind and love, the latter being also a dual form of energy) are anchored, if one may use this world in a symbolic and esoteric sense, in the human brain, whilst the life principle, as we have seen, is anchored in the human heart. The four energies of the lower self -atomic energy, vital energy, feeling energy and mental energy- plus the two energies of the soul, make the six energies used by man in his life experience; but the energy of the atom is usually not counted as a human energy, as it is uniform in its usage in all forms of life in all kingdoms, and therefore man is regarded as a sum total of five energies, an not of six energies.

The human soul (in contradistinction to the soul as it functions in its own kingdom, free from the limitations of human life) is imprisoned by and subject to the control of the lower energies for the major part of its experience. Then, upon the Path of Probation, the dual energy of the soul begins to be increasingly active, and the man seeks consciously to use his mind, and to express love-wisdom on the physical plane. This is a simple statement of the objective of all aspirants. When the five energies are beginning to be used consciously and wisely in service, a rhythm is then set up between the personality and the soul. It is as if a magnetic field were then established, and these two vibrating and magnetic units, or grouped energies, begin to swing into each other’s field of influence. In the early stages, this happens only occasionally and rarely. Later it occurs more constantly, and thus a path of contact is established which eventually becomes the line of least resistance, “the way of familiar approach”, as it is sometimes esoterically called. Thus the first half of the “bridge”, the antahkarana, is constructed. By the time the third initiation is undergone, this way is completed, and the initiate can “pass to higher worlds at will, leaving the lower worlds far behind; or he can come again and pass upon the way that leads from dark to light, from light to dark, and from the under, lower worlds into the realms of light”.

Thus the two are one, and the first great unison upon the path of return is complete. A second stage of the way has then to be trodden, leading to a second union of still greater importance in that it leads to complete liberation from the three worlds. It must be remembered that the soul, in its turn, is a union of two energies, plus the energy of spirit, of which the lower three are the reflection. It is a synthesis of the energy of Life itself (which demonstrates as the life-principle within the world of forms), of the energy of the intuition, or spiritual love-wisdom or understanding (which demonstrates as sensitivity and feeling in the astral body), and of spiritual mind, whose reflection in the lower nature is the mind or the principle of intelligence in the form world. In these three energies we have the atma-buddhi-manas of the theosophical literature. They are that higher triplicity which is reflected in the lower three, and which focusses through the soul body on the higher levels of the mental plane before being “precipitated into incarnation”, as it is esoterically called.

Modernising the concept, we might say that the energies which animate the physical body and the intelligent life of the atom, the sensitive emotional states, and the intelligent mind have eventually to be blended with, and transmuted into, the energies which animate the soul. These are the spiritual mind, conveying illumination; the intuitive nature, conferring spiritual perception; and divine livingness.

After the third initiation the “Way” is carried forward with great rapidity, and the “bridge” is finished which links perfectly the higher spiritual Triad and the lower material reflection. The three worlds of the soul and the three worlds of the Personality become one world wherein the initiate works and functions, seeing no distinction, viewing one world as the world of inspiration and the other world as constituting the field of service, yet regarding both together as forming one world of activity. Of these two worlds, the subjective etheric body (or the body of vital inspiration) and the dense physical body are symbols on the external plane.

Atman in Hinduism

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/; Sanskrit: आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word for the true or eternal Self or the self-existent essence or an impersonal (it) witness-consciousness within each individual. Atman is conceptually different from Jīvātman, which persists across multiple bodies and lifetimes. Some schools of Indian philosophy regard the Ātman as distinct from the material or mortal ego (Ahankara), the emotional aspect of the mind (Citta), and existence in an embodied form (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).

Ātman 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 that refers to “essence, breath.” It is derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *h₁eh₁tmṓ (a root meaning “breath” similar to Ancient Greek ἀτμός along with Germanic cognates: Dutch adem, Afrikaans asem, Old High German atum “breath,” Modern German atmen “to breathe” and Atem “respiration, breath”, Modern English ethem, and Old English ǽþm and 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 individuality, 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.

The atman, according to several Upaniṣadic texts, is present within the human body, extending even to the extremities such as the tips of the nails (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.7). Though the atman pervades the entire body, the Upanishads often emphasize the heart, not as a physical organ but as an inner “cave” or guha, as the atman’s special locus. It is described as lying deep within the heart (Chandogya Upanishad III.14.3-4).

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.

That Atman (self, soul) is indeed Brahman. It [Ātman] is also identified with the intellect, the Manas (mind), and the vital breath, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water, air, and ākāśa (sky), with fire and with what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything — it is identified, as is well known, with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred). As it [Ātman] does and acts, so it becomes: by doing good it becomes good, and by doing evil it becomes evil. It becomes virtuous through good acts, and vicious through evil acts. Others, however, say, “The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, so it resolves; what it resolves, so is its deed; and what deed it does, so it reaps.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5, 9th century BCE

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.

Brahman was this before; therefore it knew even the Ātma (soul, himself). I am Brahman, therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That. It is the same with the sages, the same with men. Whoever knows the self as “I am Brahman,” becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their Ātma. Now, if a man worships another god, thinking: “He is one and I am another,” he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish; how much more so when many are taken away? Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10.

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.

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) 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. Hymn 2.2.9 states:

As the one fire, after it has entered the world, though one, takes different forms according to whatever it burns, so does the internal Ātman of all living beings, though one, takes a form according to whatever He enters and is outside all forms.
— Katha Upanishad, 2.2.9

Katha Upanishad, in Book 1, hymns 3.3-3.4, 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”.

Bhagavad Gita
In Bhagavad Gita verses 10-30 of the second chapter, Krishna urges Arjuna to understand the indestructible nature of the atman, emphasizing that it transcends the finite body it inhabits. The atman neither kills nor can be killed, as it is eternal and unaffected by birth or death. The analogy of changing clothes is used to illustrate how the soul discards old bodies for new ones. Krishna emphasizes the eternal existence of the soul by explaining that even as it undergoes various life stages and changes bodies it remains unaffected. It is imperceptible, inconceivable, and unchanging.

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”.

अनित्याशुचिदुःखानात्मसु नित्यशुचिसुखात्मख्यातिरविद्या

Avidya (अविद्या, ignorance) is regarding the transient as eternal, the impure as pure, the pain-giving as joy-giving, and the non-Atman as Atman.
— Yogasutra 2.5

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.

द्रष्टा दृशिमात्रः शुद्धोऽपि प्रत्ययानुपश्यः
तदर्थ एव दृश्यस्यात्मा

The seer is the absolute knower. Though pure, modifications are witnessed by him by coloring of intellect.
The spectacle exists only to serve the purpose of the Atman.
— Yogasutra 2.19 – 2.20

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.

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 theory of the ātman had two broader contributions to Hindu conceptions of the ātman. One, Nyaya scholars 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:

Ātman, body, senses, objects of senses, intellect, mind, activity, error, pretyabhava (after life), fruit, suffering and bliss are the objects of right knowledge.
Desire, aversion, effort, happiness, suffering and cognition are the Linga (लिङ्ग, mark, sign) of the Ātman.
— Nyaya Sutra, I.1.9-10

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. Additionally, the self has the property of consciousness, but that too, is not an essential property. Naiyayikas take the ātman to lose consciousness during deep sleep.

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 kāla (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 Prabhākara 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).[62] 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 Sat-cit-ānanda, 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.

Dvaita 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.

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 rigorously than in the Upanishads:

While the Upanishads recognized many things as being not-Self, they felt that a real, true Self could be found. They held that when it was found, and known to be identical to Brahman, the basis of everything, this would bring liberation. In the Buddhist Suttas, though, literally everything is seen is non-Self, even Nirvana. When this is known, then liberation – Nirvana – is attained by total non-attachment. Thus both the Upanishads and the Buddhist Suttas see many things as not-Self, but the Suttas apply it, indeed non-Self, to everything.

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,

There is no higher object than the attainment of the knowledge of Atman. We shall quote the verses from the Veda which refer to the attainment of the knowledge of the Atman. All living creatures are the dwelling of him who lies enveloped in matter, who is immortal, who is spotless. A wise man shall strive after the knowledge of the Atman. It is he [Self] who is the eternal part in all creatures, whose essence is wisdom, who is immortal, unchangeable, pure; he is the universe, he is the highest goal. – 1.8.22.2-7

Freedom from anger, from excitement, from rage, from greed, from perplexity, from hypocrisy, from hurtfulness (from injury to others); Speaking the truth, moderate eating, refraining from calumny and envy, sharing with others, avoiding accepting gifts, uprightness, forgiveness, gentleness, tranquility, temperance, amity with all living creatures, yoga, honorable conduct, benevolence and contentedness – These virtues have been agreed upon for all the ashramas; he who, according to the precepts of the sacred law, practices these, becomes united with the Universal Self. – 1.8.23.6

— Knowledge of the Atman, Apastamba Dharma Sūtra, ~ 400 BCE

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.

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मन्येवानुपश्यति । सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥६॥
यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतान्यात्मैवाभूद्विजानतः । तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥७॥
स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणम् अस्नाविरँ शुद्धमपापविद्धम् । कविर्मनीषी परिभूः स्वयम्भूःयाथातथ्यतोऽर्थान् व्यदधाच्छाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः ॥८॥

And he who sees everything in his atman, and his atman in everything, does not seek to hide himself from that.
In whom all beings have become one with his own atman, what perplexity, what sorrow, is there when he sees this oneness?
He [the self] prevades all, resplendent, bodiless, woundless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; far-seeing, transcendent, self-being, disposing ends through perpetual ages.

— Isha Upanishad, Hymns 6-8.

Ātman in Buddhism

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/), attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature’s discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta). Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchanging atman (self, soul).

Etymology

Cognates (Sanskrit: आत्मन्) ātman, Pāli atta, Old English æthm, and German Atem derive from the Indo-European root *ēt-men (breath). The word means “essence, breath, soul.”

Ātman and atta refer to a person’s “true self”, a person’s permanent self, absolute within, the “thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations” separate from and beyond the changing phenomenal world. The term Ātman is synonymous with Tuma, Atuma and Attan in early Buddhist literature, state Rhys David and William Stede, all in the sense of “self, soul”. The Atman and Atta are related, in Buddhist canons, to terms such as Niratta (Nir+attan, soulless) and Attaniya (belonging to the soul, having a soul, of the nature of soul).

Early Buddhism

“Atman” in early Buddhism appears as “all dhammas are not-Self (an-atta)”, where atta (atman) refers to a metaphysical Self, states Peter Harvey, that is a “permanent, substantial, autonomous self or I”. This concept refers to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism, where a distinction is made between the personal self, jivatman (impermanent body, personality) and the Real Self, Atman. The early Buddhist literature explores the validity of the Upanishadic concepts of self and Self, then asserts that every living being has an impermanent self but there is no real Higher Self. The Nikaya texts of Buddhism deny that there is anything called Ātman that is the substantial absolute or essence of a living being, an idea that distinguishes Buddhism from the Brahmanical (proto-Hindu) traditions.

The Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging “Self” can be found. In Buddha’s view, states Wayman, “eso me atta, or this is my Self, is to be in the grip of wrong view”. All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, and therefore can’t be taken to be an unchanging “Self”. Instead, the Buddha explains the perceived continuity of the human personality by describing it as composed of five skandhas, without a permanent entity (Self, soul).

Pudgalavada

Of the early Indian Buddhist schools, only the Pudgalavada-school diverged from this basic teaching. The Pudgalavādins asserted that, while there is no ātman, there is a pudgala or “person”, which is neither the same as nor different from the skandhas.

Buddha-nature

Buddha-nature is a central notion of east-Asian (Chinese) Mahayana thought. It refers to several related terms, most notably Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu. Tathāgatagarbha means “the womb of the thus-gone” (cf. enlightened one), while Buddha-dhātu literally means “Buddha-realm” or “Buddha-substrate”. Several key texts refer to the tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-dhātu as “atman”, Self or essence, though those texts also contain warnings against a literal interpretation. Several scholars have noted similarities between tathāgatagarbha texts and the substantial monism found in the atman/Brahman tradition.

The Tathagatagarbha doctrine, at its earliest, probably appeared about the later part of the 3rd century CE, and is verifiable in Chinese translations of 1st millennium CE.

Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

In contrast to the madhyamika-tradition, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra uses “positive language” to denote “absolute reality”. According to Paul Williams, the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra teaches an underlying essence, “Self”, or “atman”. This “true Self” is the Buddha-nature (Tathagatagarbha), which is present in all sentient beings, and realized by the awakened ones. Most scholars consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an ‘essential nature’ in every living being is equivalent to ‘Self’, and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.

According to Sallie B. King, the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra does not represent a major innovation. Its most important innovation is the linking of the term buddhadhatu with tathagatagarbha. According to King, the sutra is rather unsystematic, which made it “a fruitful one for later students and commentators, who were obliged to create their own order and bring it to the text”. The sutra speaks about Buddha-nature in so many different ways, that Chinese scholars created a list of types of Buddha-nature that could be found in the text. One of those statements is:

Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ’the Self ’ [atman].

In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra the Buddha also speaks of the “affirmative attributes” of nirvana, “the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.”[30] The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explains:

The Self ’ signifies the Buddha; ’the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ’Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ’the Pure’ signifies Dharma.

Edward Conze connotatively links the term tathagata itself (the designation which the Buddha applied to himself) with the notion of a real, true self:

Just as tathata designates true reality in general, so the word which developed into Tathagata designated the true self, the true reality within man.

It is possible, states Johannes Bronkhorst, that “original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul [Ātman, Attan]”, even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied it existence. While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, adds Bronkhorst, it is clear from these texts that seeking self-knowledge is not the Buddhist path for liberation, and turning away from self-knowledge is. This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as “the principal means to achieving liberation”.

“Self” as a teaching method

According to Paul Wiliams, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term “Self” in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:

The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.

In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.

Ratnagotravibhāga

The Ratnagotravibhāga (also known as Uttaratantra), another text composed in the first half of 1st millennium CE and translated into Chinese in 511 CE, points out that the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning “self-love” (atma-sneha) – considered to be a moral defect in Buddhism. The 6th-century Chinese Tathagatagarbha translation states that “Buddha has shiwo (True Self) which is beyond being and nonbeing”. However, the Ratnagotravibhāga asserts that the “Self” implied in Tathagatagarbha doctrine is actually “not-Self”.

Current disputes

The dispute about “self” and “not-self” doctrines has continued throughout the history of Buddhism. According to Johannes Bronkhorst, it is possible that “original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul”, even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied its existence. French religion writer André Migot also states that original Buddhism may not have taught a complete absence of self, pointing to evidence presented by Buddhist and Pali scholars Jean Przyluski and Caroline Rhys Davids that early Buddhism generally believed in a self, making Buddhist schools that admit an existence of a “self” not heretical, but conservative, adhering to ancient beliefs. In his book, The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism, scholar Kamaleswar Bhattacharya wrote that, while Shakyamuni Buddha did indeed teach against a permanent self within the ever-changing aggregates, both he and early Buddhists believed in an impersonal, universal atman. While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, Bronkhorst suggests that these texts clearly indicate that the Buddhist path of liberation consists not in seeking self-knowledge, but in turning away from what might erroneously be regarded as the self. This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as “the principal means to achieving liberation.”

In Thai Theravada Buddhism, for example, states Paul Williams, some modern era Buddhist scholars have said that “nirvana is indeed the true Self”, while other Thai Buddhists disagree. For instance, 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. The Dhammakaya Movement teaching that nirvana is atta, or true self, was criticized as heretical in Buddhism in 1994 by Ven. Payutto, a well-known scholar monk, who stated that ‘Buddha taught nibbana as being non-self”. The abbot of one major temple in the Dhammakaya Movement, Luang Por Sermchai of Wat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram, argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners. He points to the experiences of prominent forest hermit monks such as Luang Pu Sodh and Ajahn Mun to support the notion of a “true self”.] Similar interpretations on the “true self” were put forth earlier by the 12th Supreme Patriarch of Thailand in 1939. According to Williams, the Supreme Patriarch’s interpretation echoes the tathāgatagarbha sutras.

Several notable teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition have also described ideas in contrast to absolute non-self. Ajahn Maha Bua, a well known meditation master, described the citta (mind) as being an indestructible reality that does not fall under anattā. He has stated that not-self is merely a perception that is used to pry one away from infatuation with the concept of a self, and that once this infatuation is gone the idea of not-self must be dropped as well. American monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha’s statements on non-self as a path to awakening rather than a universal truth. Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Buddha intentionally set aside the question of whether or not there is a self as a useless question, and that clinging to the idea that there is no self at all would actually prevent enlightenment. Bhikkhu Bodhi authored a rejoinder to Thanissaro, writing that “The reason the teaching of anatta can serve as a strategy of liberation is precisely because it serves to rectify a misconception about the nature of being, hence an ontological error.”

Buddhist scholars Richard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne argue that the Buddha’s descriptions of non-self in early Buddhist texts do not deny that there is a self. Gethin writes that anatta is often mistranslated as meaning “not having a self”, but in reality meant “not the self”. Wynne say that early Buddhist texts such as the Anattalakkhana Sutta do not deny that there is a self, stating that the five aggregates that are described as not self are not descriptions of a human being but descriptions of the human experience. Wynne and Gombrich both argue that the Buddha’s statements on anattā were originally a “not-self” teaching that developed into a “no-self” teaching in later Buddhist thought. Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to the Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10), where the Buddha stays silent when asked whether there is a ‘self’ or not, as a major cause of the dispute.

The Essence of Spiritual Development: Honoring the Soul

As spiritual seekers, we often find ourselves caught in the intricate web of historical texts, doctrines, and traditions that various religions present. While this pursuit of knowledge can be enlightening, it is crucial to recognize that the essence of our spiritual journey transcends the boundaries of historical sources.

The Honor of the Soul

At the core of spiritual development lies the profound act of honoring our own soul, the guiding light within us. This honor extends outward to all spiritual masters, guides, and angels who have illuminated the path before us. Each being holds a unique vibration and wisdom that contributes to the greater tapestry of existence. Recognizing this connection allows us to cultivate respect for the anima mundi, the world soul that unifies all sentient beings.

Service Over Violence

True spiritual growth is rooted in service rather than violence. As we align ourselves with the higher principles of compassion, love, and understanding, we begin to foster a healing presence in the world. Our spiritual practices should promote peace, kindness, and the nurturing of life. This commitment to non-violence and respect not only honors the souls of all beings but also uplifts our own spiritual frequency.

Spiritual Alignment

The practice of alignment becomes a bridge, enabling us to transcend intellectual differences among various religious paths. Spirituality is not confined to dogmas or rituals but is instead a journey that invites us to experience unity. By aligning with our authentic selves and the greater divine consciousness, we open ourselves to deeper understanding and connection to the source of all that is.

In this process of alignment, we discover that spirituality unites rather than divides. The various teachings and practices serve as ladders guiding us towards enlightenment. Each initiation, whether through meditation, prayer, or acts of service, leads us closer to awakening, revealing the divine within ourselves and in the universe.

The Path of Initiation

As we progress along our spiritual journey, the initiations we encounter are not merely steps of knowledge. They are transformative experiences that deepen our understanding and connection to the divine. Each initiation acts as a rite of passage, dissolving layers of ego and opening our hearts and minds to the profound truths that lie beyond the limitations of our intellect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the most important aspect of our spiritual development is to cultivate a heartfelt reverence for our own soul and the souls of all beings. Through service, respect, and the practice of alignment, we can transcend the intellectual confines of religion and embrace the unifying essence of spirituality. Let us honor the divine in ourselves, in others, and in the world, creating a network of light and love that uplifts not only our own souls but the collective soul of humanity. In doing so, we pave our path toward true enlightenment, realizing that we are all threads in the magnificent tapestry of existence.

References:

• Bayley, Alice A. (1995) Eleventh Printing. Esoteric Psychology. Volume Two. Lucis Publishing Company. NY
• Blavatsky Helena Peltrova (1987), The Key to Theosophy, London: Theosophical Publishing House.
• Blavatsky Helena Peltrova (1973), The Secret Doctrine. Krotona, CA: Theosophical Publishing House.

Keep on reading

Atma Sapphire, lullaby for your senses

• To Transmute Prejudices; Cultivate Consciousness
• Vamp Iris Atma Ra: 20 years raising awareness!
• Vamp Iris Atma Ra; psychological profile
• Arhat; the worthy one
• Begin your Transmutation Adventure
• Atmic Aura
• Jesus: “I Am the Resurrection and the Life”
• Understanding Spiritual Alignment

The Victory of the Sphinx, Art by Iris Atma