Dharmic traditions only: How would you know if you had an Atman?

[Rick O'Shez]

If we are locked in the egoic self, it is the set of eyes we look out through and reflect upon ourselves with. It sees only through that set of eyes. If we are able perceive with the eyes beyond that, then we are not locked in the egoic self, but recognize our true Face, which includes, but is not limited to the egoic self.

But Atman is said to be impersonal, so I find your use of language like "true Face" and "Self" a little puzzling here.

 

[Windwalker]

But atman is said to be impersonal, so references to "Self" seem inappropriate.

Are you certain?

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/) is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul.[1][2][3] In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[4]the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.[2][5]

The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (Soul, Self) in every being, a major point of difference with Buddhism, which does not believe that there is either soul or self.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atman (self) is self evident.

I'm confused now because other contributors have talked about Atman as an impersonal essence and said that it cannot be seen. Or perhaps different schools of Hinduism have different ideas about it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you certain?

Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/) is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul.[1][2][3] In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[4]the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.[2][5]
The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman (Soul, Self) in every being, a major point of difference with Buddhism, which does not believe that there is either oul or self.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

But if Atman is identical with Brahman then it must surely be impersonal? It cannot be a self in the sense that we normally use the word.

 

[Windwalker]

But Atman is said to be impersonal, so I find your use of language like "true Face" and "Self" a little puzzling here.

Be careful of literalizing metaphors. Granted it is not "personality" I am talking about here, but the "impersonal" is not other to the "personal" either. Brahman is not other to the world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Be careful of literalizing metaphors. Granted it is not "personality" I am talking about here, but the "impersonal" is not other to the "personal" either. Brahman is not other to the world.

By impersonal I mean devoid of personality or individuality, so everybody's Atman would be identical, having the nature of Brahman. You seem to have the idea of finding a "true self", which includes ego but is larger?

 

[Windwalker]

I'll put it this way, there is the self-actualized individual, which is the fully developed ego-self. But the true Self is who you are, before you were, before your ego-development, and who you are, what you are beyond the ego. It is the eternal, the timeless, spaceless "you" before you as human became. When we move into Godhead, I personally do not see a division or separation in reality between Nirguna Brahman, God without qualities, and Saguna Brahman, or God with qualities. There is not one without the other.

 

[atanu]

I'm confused now because other contributors have talked about Atman as an impersonal essence and said that it cannot be seen. Or perhaps different schools of Hinduism have different ideas about it?

Let me quote:

Atma Upanishad (Note: Upanishad's are mostly dialog between teaccher and student sitting together. )

Now Angirah: The Spirit, manifests Itself, in three ways: the self, the inner Self and the supreme Self.

I-2. There are the organs – the skin, inner and outer: flesh, hair, the thumb, the fingers, the backbone, the nails, the ankles, the stomach, the navel, the penis, the hip, the thighs, the cheeks, the ears, the brows, the forehead, the hands, the flanks, the head and the eyes; these are born and these die; so they constitute the self.

I-3. Next this inner self is (indicated by the elements) earth, water, fire, air, ether, desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, desire, delusion, doubts, etc., and memory, (marked by) the high pitch and accentlessness, short, long and prolate (vowel sounds), the hearer, smeller, taster, leader, agent and self of knowledge vis-à-vis stumbling, shouting, enjoying, dancing, singing and playing on musical instruments. He is the ancient spirit that distinguishes between Nyaya, Mimamsa and the institutes of law and the specific object of listening, smelling and grasping. He is the inner Self.

I-4. Next the supreme Self, the imperishable, He is to meditated on with (the help of) the Yogic steps, breath control, withdrawal (of sense organs), fixation (of mind), contemplation and concentration, He is to be inferred by the thinkers on the Self as like unto the seed of the Banyan tree or a grain of millet or a hundredth part of a split hair. (Thus) is He won and not known. He is not born, does not die, does not dry, is not wetted, not burnt, does not tremble, is not split, does not sweat. He is beyond the gunas, is spectator, is pure, partless, alone, subtle, owning naught, blemishless, immutable, devoid of sound, touch, colour, taste, smell, is indubitable, non-grasping, omnipresent. He is unthinkable and invisible. He purifies the impure, the unhallowed. He acts not. He is not subject to empirical existence.

II-1. The good named the Atman is pure, one and non-dual always, in the form of Brahman. Brahman alone shines forth.
.....................

The meaning of atman is that wherefrom the I sense sprouts.

 

[Windwalker]

By impersonal I mean devoid of personality or individuality, so everybody's Atman would be identical, having the nature of Brahman. You seem to have the idea of finding a "true self", which includes ego but is larger?

I agree there is not a bunch of Selfs out there. I am you and you are me. "We" are simply unique manifestations of the Self. But I am not not-me realizing my true identity is Atman. I still remain "me" as this form. There is the True Self, and the unique self. I still have my own personality as this human form, but I am not other to my Self. My true Self is eternal. My unique self is this body. When this body dies, the ego self dies with it. The ego self is the form. But that form is not separate from God, even though it lives, evolves, and dies. Nor will it ever actually be lost, even though its form discontinues. God still manifests, and all manifestations are God in form. This is the nondual. Emptiness in not other to form, nor is form other to Emptiness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When we move into Godhead, I personally do not see a division or separation in reality between Nirguna Brahman, God without qualities, and Saguna Brahman, or God with qualities. There is not one without the other.

So what do you make of Paramatman? "Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I-4. Next the supreme Self, the imperishable, He is to meditated on with (the help of) the Yogic steps, breath control, withdrawal (of sense organs), fixation (of mind), contemplation and concentration, He is to be inferred by the thinkers on the Self as like unto the seed of the Banyan tree or a grain of millet or a hundredth part of a split hair. (Thus) is He won and not known. He is not born, does not die, does not dry, is not wetted, not burnt, does not tremble, is not split, does not sweat. He is beyond the gunas, is spectator, is pure, partless, alone, subtle, owning naught, blemishless, immutable, devoid of sound, touch, colour, taste, smell, is indubitable, non-grasping, omnipresent. He is unthinkable and invisible. He purifies the impure, the unhallowed. He acts not. He is not subject to empirical existence.

II-1. The good named the Atman is pure, one and non-dual always, in the form of Brahman. Brahman alone shines forth.

So is Supreme Self the same as Atman? And where does Paramatman fit in?

By the way, the description of Supreme Self is reminiscent of sutta descriptions of Nibbana, which is interesting.
"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

 

[Windwalker]

So what do you make of Paramatman? "Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatman

Sure. I mentioned this in so many words in post 69. But part of this is knowing this in ourselves is knowing the indwelling God. It is knowing the eternal in us, that we are not simply this flesh and bone, nor personality wrapped around the objects of our self-identifications. To know that and to understand that with the mind liberates us from the prison of our own ideas about ourselves. We rest in the eternal in that Self knowledge. That which is within me, is that which creates the universe. I am the Creator and the created.

 

[atanu]

So is Supreme Self the same as Atman? And where does Paramatman fit in?

Well, I thought that I posted a citation that showed the three expressions of atman: bodily self, inner self (the seer-knower); and the supreme self (param atman). Param means supreme.

By the way, the description of Supreme Self is reminiscent of sutta descriptions of Nibbana, which is interesting.
"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

To the evolved mind that has begun to see beyond the bodily self, the commonalities will become more and more clear. For example:

Kathopanishad 2.2.15

The sun does not shine, nor do the moon and the stars, nor do lightnings shine and much less this fire. When it shines, everything shines after it; by its light, all these shine.

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.

 

[kalyan]

But if Atman is identical with Brahman then it must surely be impersonal? It cannot be a self in the sense that we normally use the word.

Different sampradayas
1. Advaita- atma is brahman or paramaatma is atma
2.Visista -advaita ---which mentions -body controlled by atma controlled by paramaatma

 

[Papoon]

I might have missed it, but I still don't think I've seen a clear answer to the OP question.

Then give an example of a 'clear answer'.
How would you recognise 'Buddha nature' ?
How would you know it is 'Buddha nature' ?

 

[Windwalker]

I might have missed it, but I still don't think I've seen a clear answer to the OP question.

How would you recognise an Atman? How would you know it was an Atman?

You'll know it when you know it. You're looking for a clear answer will not suffice. It's not a "thing". It's yourself. Answer this question clearly if you can. How will you know when you are being authentic? Start with that question, and then see if it's something you could answer clearly for someone asking you, "How will I know when I'm being authentic".

You could talk about certain aspects of what it is like for you, but you can't point to it like it's an object, someone can measure. It's the Subject, and how do you know the subject except by being it and knowing yourself? It's not external to you. How will you know when you know yourself? This is something known by your own being in yourself, not something someone can point to. It's you. How will you know when you know yourself?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You'll know it when you know it. You're looking for a clear answer will not suffice.

I guess I'm exploring different ways of interpreting the experiences I have. I appreciate that you have your own interpretation of mystical experience, but my OP question was specifically about Atman. I think I have a clearer idea now.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ask about 'atma' (soul). Atman is 'self'. I have a 'self' (temporary, illusionary, but still it is a self), the elephant has a 'self', the dog has a 'self'. We act to nourish, save, please our 'self' (atman). All sentient beings have a 'self'. Just investigating it.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

How would you recognise an Atman? How would you know it was an Atman?

Namaste,

Your question assumes another "You", who recognises or gets to know a separate Atman, the question for me makes no sense (only because this is not how Hindus generally understand the Atman), its assuming a separation of you and Atman. The Atman is the witness that is You, but the inner you - the best translation i could think of of for Atman is "Witness", but still not accurate IMHO. Atman is realized, because to realize means that it is always there but you just were not aware of it or you did not realize that you are that (Tat Tvam Asi).

If your asking how to recognize Atman in others, then we have to rely on Apta Vakya, or the verbal testimony of a realized person, because unless you realize your own nature the nature of others is a speculation. In short I cannot realize your Atman, because I am not You. As Hinduism is a experience and observation based tradition especially with the Parmathika realm (This does not mean that the Vyavharika is not experienced or observation based as well), the explanation of what one has experienced is limited to the vocabulary one has to articulate the experience, the explanation is more clearer regarding observation but only once it is backed up by experience.

And as i have not yet experienced nor observed the Atman, the only evidence that i can rely on is Apta Vakya, and therefore i can confidently say that I dont know much about the Atman, not yet atleast.

Dhanyavad

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Atman is the witness that is You, but the inner you - the best translation i could think of of for Atman is "Witness", but still not accurate IMHO. Atman is realized, because to realize means that it is always there but you just were not aware of it or you did not realize that you are that (Tat Tvam Asi).

The witness view sounds a little like mindfulness ( sati ).