Difference between revisions of "Anātman"

From Theosopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
(Pāli: ''Anātta''). The doctrine that there is no
+
(Anātman, Pāli: ''Anātta''). The doctrine that there is no
permanent, unchanging Self (Sk. ''ātman'') and that the human
+
permanent, unchanging Self (Sk. ''atman'') and that the human
 
experience of selfhood is composed of impermanent,
 
experience of selfhood is composed of impermanent,
 
constantly changing factors and hence is illusory. The
 
constantly changing factors and hence is illusory. The
anātman (or anātta) doctrine is a central tenet of Buddhism,
+
anatman (or anatta) doctrine is a central tenet of Buddhism,
 
which states that the sense of self is actually the result
 
which states that the sense of self is actually the result
of the activity of five aggregates (Sk. ''skāndhas''; Pāli
+
of the activity of five aggregates (Sk. ''skandhas''; Pali
''khāndhas''), all of which are impermanent. They are form
+
''khandhas''), all of which are impermanent. They are form
(''rūpa''), sensation (''vedanā''), perception (Sk. ''samjñā''; Pāli
+
(''rupa''), sensation (''vedana''), perception (Sk. ''samjña''; Pali
''saññā''), latent tendencies or personality characteristics
+
''sañña''), latent tendencies or personality characteristics
(Sk. ''samskāras''; Pāli ''sankāras''), and conditioned consciousness
+
(Sk. ''samskaras''; Pali ''sankaras''), and conditioned consciousness
(Sk. ''vijñāna''; Pāli v''iññāna''). In the ''Mahayana
+
(Sk. ''vijñana''; Pali ''viññana''). In the ''Mahayana
 
Mahaparinirvana Sutra'', however, the Buddha taught that
 
Mahaparinirvana Sutra'', however, the Buddha taught that
 
there is an enduring Self (Atman) which is the Buddha-
 
there is an enduring Self (Atman) which is the Buddha-
Line 16: Line 16:
 
literature teaches both the existence and non-existence of
 
literature teaches both the existence and non-existence of
 
Self or Atman. By contrast, Hindu philosophy, especially
 
Self or Atman. By contrast, Hindu philosophy, especially
Vedānta, postulates an unchanging ātman as the true Self
+
Vedanta, postulates an unchanging atman as the true Self
 
of each human being.
 
of each human being.
  
 
Theosophy states that there are two manifestations of
 
Theosophy states that there are two manifestations of
self: the personal ego (usually termed ''jīva'' in Hindu philosophy)
+
self: the personal ego (usually termed ''jiva'' in Hindu philosophy)
and the real Self (''ātman''), which manifests as
+
and the real Self (''atman''), which manifests as
ātma-buddhi. Theosophy clearly agrees with Buddhism
+
atma-buddhi. Theosophy clearly agrees with Buddhism
 
that the personal ego is transitory, therefore is in some
 
that the personal ego is transitory, therefore is in some
 
sense illusory. It has to be transcended. In her ''Voice of the
 
sense illusory. It has to be transcended. In her ''Voice of the
 
Silence'', Helena P. BLAVATSKY states that when the soul
 
Silence'', Helena P. BLAVATSKY states that when the soul
 
says “This is I,” it is caught in the web of the delusion of
 
says “This is I,” it is caught in the web of the delusion of
personality (called in Pāli ''sakkāyadiṭṭhi''). In The
+
personality (called in Pali ''sakkayaditthi''). In The
MAHATMA LETTERS TO A. P. SINNETT, the Mahātma KOOT HOOMI similarly considers sakkāyadiṭṭhi and the
+
MAHATMA LETTERS TO A. P. SINNETT, the Mahatma KOOT HOOMI similarly considers sakkayaditthi and the
doctrine of a Self (''ātma-vāda'') as leading to illusion or
+
doctrine of a Self (''atma-vada'') as leading to illusion or
māyā. What brings this sense of selfhood about is called
+
maya. What brings this sense of selfhood about is called
ahamkāra or the “I-making” faculty, sometimes translated
+
ahamkara or the “I-making” faculty, sometimes translated
 
“egoity.”
 
“egoity.”
As to the doctrine that ātman is the real or “highest
+
 
 +
As to the doctrine that atman is the real or “highest
 
Self,” theosophical literature appears to affirm its existence.
 
Self,” theosophical literature appears to affirm its existence.
However, a deeper analysis of the Mahātma Letters
+
However, a deeper analysis of the Mahatma Letters
 
and the writings of Blavatsky shows that this is not exactly
 
and the writings of Blavatsky shows that this is not exactly
the case. Blavatsky explains that ātman is non-personal or
+
the case. Blavatsky explains that atman is non-personal or
 
non-individual. In the ''Key to Theosophy'', she says that
 
non-individual. In the ''Key to Theosophy'', she says that
ātman “is no individual property of any man, but is the Divine
+
atman “is no individual property of any man, but is the Divine
 
essence which has no body, no form, which is imponderable,
 
essence which has no body, no form, which is imponderable,
 
invisible and indivisible, that which does not exist
 
invisible and indivisible, that which does not exist
 
and yet is, as the Buddhists say of Nirvana” (''Key'', sect. 7).
 
and yet is, as the Buddhists say of Nirvana” (''Key'', sect. 7).
While ātman is commonly assumed to be the human Spirit
+
While atman is commonly assumed to be the human Spirit
 
or Self, Blavatsky stressed in her writings that in fact
 
or Self, Blavatsky stressed in her writings that in fact
ātman cannot even be considered a human principle. She
+
atman cannot even be considered a human principle. She
 
says that it “becomes the HIGHER-SELF of man only in conjunction
 
says that it “becomes the HIGHER-SELF of man only in conjunction
 
with ''Buddhi'', its vehicle. . . .” (''idem''.) Again,
 
with ''Buddhi'', its vehicle. . . .” (''idem''.) Again,
  
: We include Atma among the human “principles” in order not to create additional confusion. In reality it is no
+
: We include Atma among the human “principles” in order not to create additional confusion. In reality it is no “human” but the universal absolute principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the carrier. (''Key'', sect. 6, fn.)
“human” but the universal absolute principle of which
+
Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the carrier. (''Key'', sect. 6, fn.)
+
  
The inclusion of ātman as a seventh principle is, therefore,
+
The inclusion of atman as a seventh principle is, therefore,
 
an exoteric classification. In a strict sense it is not a
 
an exoteric classification. In a strict sense it is not a
 
self (or a Self), not a unity of individuality, but rather is
 
self (or a Self), not a unity of individuality, but rather is
 
equivalent to the universal consciousness:
 
equivalent to the universal consciousness:
  
: ''Ātma'', the “''Higher Self'',” is neither your Spirit nor mine,
+
: ''Atma'', the “''Higher Self'',” is neither your Spirit nor mine, but like the sunlight shines on all. It is the universally diffused “''divine principles'',” and is inseparable from its one and absolute ''Meta''-Spirit, as the sunbeam is inseparable from sunlight. (''Key'', sec. 8) For ''Atman'' or the “Higher Self” is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it. . . . It is the God ''above'', more than within us. (''Key'', sec. 9)
but like the sunlight shines on all. It is the universally
+
diffused “''divine principles'',” and is inseparable from its one
+
and absolute ''Meta''-Spirit, as the sunbeam is inseparable
+
from sunlight. (''Key'', sec. 8) For ''Atman'' or the “Higher Self”
+
is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable
+
from it. . . . It is the God ''above'', more than within us. (''Key'',
+
sec. 9)
+
  
 
''The Secret Doctrine'' further elucidates on this point
 
''The Secret Doctrine'' further elucidates on this point
Line 71: Line 63:
 
Blavatsky says:
 
Blavatsky says:
  
“A Dhyani has to be an Atma-Buddhi; once the
+
: “A Dhyani has to be an Atma-Buddhi; once the Buddhi-Manas breaks loose from its immortal Atma of which it (Buddhi) is the vehicle, Atman passes into NON-BEING, which is absolute Being.” This means [she continues] that the purely Nirvanic state is a passage of Spirit back to the ideal abstraction of Be-ness which has no relation to the plane on which our Universe is accomplishing its cycle. (''SD'' I:193)
Buddhi-Manas breaks loose from its immortal Atma of
+
 
which it (Buddhi) is the vehicle, Atman passes into
+
[[Contributors|V.H.C.]]
NON-BEING, which is absolute Being.” This means [she
+
 
continues] that the purely Nirvāṇic state is a passage of
+
 
Spirit back to the ideal abstraction of Be-ness which has no
+
 
relation to the plane on which our Universe is
+
 
accomplishing its cycle. (''SD'' I:193)
+
  
V.H.C.
+
© Copyright by the Theosophical Publishing House, Manila

Latest revision as of 05:40, 5 February 2013

(Anātman, Pāli: Anātta). The doctrine that there is no permanent, unchanging Self (Sk. atman) and that the human experience of selfhood is composed of impermanent, constantly changing factors and hence is illusory. The anatman (or anatta) doctrine is a central tenet of Buddhism, which states that the sense of self is actually the result of the activity of five aggregates (Sk. skandhas; Pali khandhas), all of which are impermanent. They are form (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (Sk. samjña; Pali sañña), latent tendencies or personality characteristics (Sk. samskaras; Pali sankaras), and conditioned consciousness (Sk. vijñana; Pali viññana). In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, however, the Buddha taught that there is an enduring Self (Atman) which is the Buddha- Nature (Buddha-dhatu) in all beings. Thus Buddhist literature teaches both the existence and non-existence of Self or Atman. By contrast, Hindu philosophy, especially Vedanta, postulates an unchanging atman as the true Self of each human being.

Theosophy states that there are two manifestations of self: the personal ego (usually termed jiva in Hindu philosophy) and the real Self (atman), which manifests as atma-buddhi. Theosophy clearly agrees with Buddhism that the personal ego is transitory, therefore is in some sense illusory. It has to be transcended. In her Voice of the Silence, Helena P. BLAVATSKY states that when the soul says “This is I,” it is caught in the web of the delusion of personality (called in Pali sakkayaditthi). In The MAHATMA LETTERS TO A. P. SINNETT, the Mahatma KOOT HOOMI similarly considers sakkayaditthi and the doctrine of a Self (atma-vada) as leading to illusion or maya. What brings this sense of selfhood about is called ahamkara or the “I-making” faculty, sometimes translated “egoity.”

As to the doctrine that atman is the real or “highest Self,” theosophical literature appears to affirm its existence. However, a deeper analysis of the Mahatma Letters and the writings of Blavatsky shows that this is not exactly the case. Blavatsky explains that atman is non-personal or non-individual. In the Key to Theosophy, she says that 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” (Key, sect. 7). While atman is commonly assumed to be the human Spirit or Self, Blavatsky stressed in her writings that in fact atman cannot even be considered a human principle. She says that it “becomes the HIGHER-SELF of man only in conjunction with Buddhi, its vehicle. . . .” (idem.) Again,

We include Atma among the human “principles” in order not to create additional confusion. In reality it is no “human” but the universal absolute principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the carrier. (Key, sect. 6, fn.)

The inclusion of atman as a seventh principle is, therefore, an exoteric classification. In a strict sense it is not a self (or a Self), not a unity of individuality, but rather is equivalent to the universal consciousness:

Atma, the “Higher Self,” is neither your Spirit nor mine, but like the sunlight shines on all. It is the universally diffused “divine principles,” and is inseparable from its one and absolute Meta-Spirit, as the sunbeam is inseparable from sunlight. (Key, sec. 8) For Atman or the “Higher Self” is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it. . . . It is the God above, more than within us. (Key, sec. 9)

The Secret Doctrine further elucidates on this point based on “the Eastern Esoteric teaching,” quoting which, Blavatsky says:

“A Dhyani has to be an Atma-Buddhi; once the Buddhi-Manas breaks loose from its immortal Atma of which it (Buddhi) is the vehicle, Atman passes into NON-BEING, which is absolute Being.” This means [she continues] that the purely Nirvanic state is a passage of Spirit back to the ideal abstraction of Be-ness which has no relation to the plane on which our Universe is accomplishing its cycle. (SD I:193)

V.H.C.



© Copyright by the Theosophical Publishing House, Manila

Personal tools