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

[Satyamavejayanti]

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

Namaste,

Depends? Am not familiar with the term "Sati", in this context is this Pali?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Am not familiar with the term "Sati", in this context is this Pali?

That's right. The main Buddhist text on mindfulness is the Satipatthana Sutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.nysa.html

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

That's right. The main Buddhist text on mindfulness is the Satipatthana Sutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.nysa.html

Namaste,

Will have to do some reading. Dhanyavad

 

[kalyan]

That's right. The main Buddhist text on mindfulness is the Satipatthana Sutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.nysa.html

Spiny, don't you think this thread will go against your buddhist practice? Why do you want to know about atma at all? would not it deviate from your path and confuse you more ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spiny, don't you think this thread will go against your buddhist practice? Why do you want to know about atma at all? would not it deviate from your path and confuse you more ?

I guess I'm re-examining assumptions and exploring different models of thought and experience. Part of my Buddhist practice is embracing uncertainty, so I don't view it as a weakness.

I find the Atman question particularly interesting because it looks like a pivotal difference between Buddhist and Hindu thought. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any consensus here about what Atman actually is, but I put that down to the pluralistic nature of Hinduism.

 

[Papoon]

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

Not exactly. Mindfulness is a training of the mind to be present in your experience. Atman is who-is-present. So sati may lead to experience of oneself - Atman - but not necessarily.

Traleg Rinpoche said awareness is not the goal of mahamudra (the specific teaching I received orally), but awareness is a portal to ' the transcendent reality' (his exact words). He did not use the word Atman, but I think that was because he did not want to get caught up in the futile Hindu vs Buddhist argument.

 

[Papoon]

So I guess the best way to answer your question "How would you know if you had an Atman ?" would be to take a leaf from Crossfire's book - "Wrong line of questioning"

 

[Kapalika]

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

..yo would recognize it as your most true self? I don't understand the question, it is almost phrased as if it is a separate thing.

So Atman is a belief rather than something to be discovered or revealed?

I'd sat that you stumble upon it it as you discover your self, your deepest self, but maybe others would disagree with me. It;s something you'd feel in a nondualistic sense, I'd imagine.

I expect that if Atman existed, people would be a lot less voluble, more ethical, more certain of themselves.

Which is probably why the belief exists in the first place, come to think of it. It certainly isn't due to the weight of the evidence.

Why? It's people's separation from atman thatt cause all that, so why would it be evidence against Atman?

 

[Kirran]

I'm not sure 'Hindu thought' is a thing Spiny So variable - there are forms of Hindu philosophy more similar to Buddhism than to other forms of Hinduism!

As for knowing atman exists - from the perspective of Advaita, the atman is all that we can know exists. We know atman to exist by the fact that 'I am'. Already in the statement 'I am' is two things, consciousness and existence. 'I' is consciousness, 'am' is existence. But these things are one and the same here. If you got rid of one or the other the statement would be meaningless.

There isn't really 'an atman', as there isn't anything which isn't the one paramatman (supreme soul). The atman is who I am, as the one who observes all else!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not sure 'Hindu thought' is a thing Spiny So variable - there are forms of Hindu philosophy more similar to Buddhism than to other forms of Hinduism!

And vice versa.

 

[Kirran]

And vice versa.

Yes, true enough!

Although I do tend to think Hinduism's a lot more diverse, simply because it's older and draws on more sources. Not that this is any kind of superiority.

I've recently come to better understand Buddhism's diversity though, in particular seeing the differences between Chan Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism - 2500 years of history, after all!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

..yo would recognize it as your most true self? I don't understand the question, it is almost phrased as if it is a separate thing.
I'd sat that you stumble upon it it as you discover your self, your deepest self, but maybe others would disagree with me. It;s something you'd feel in a nondualistic sense, I'd imagine.

So how would you recognise your "true self" or "deepest self"? It feels to me like there are many layers of self, so how do you know when you get to the deepest level?

 

[Kirran]

So how would you recognise your "true self" or "deepest self"? It feels to me like there are many layers of self, so how do you know when you get to the deepest level?

It seems to be rather something you know when you get there, because there's nothing else there anymore.

Of course, we already are there, it's just a matter of focus and stillness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "seeing beyond the bodily self"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Of course, we already are there, it's just a matter of focus and stillness.

Very Zen.

 

[Kirran]

Very Zen.

"You're messing with my Zen thing, man."

 

[Papoon]

It seems to be rather something you know when you get there, because there's nothing else there anymore.

Of course, we already are there, it's just a matter of focus and stillness.

It's all right when there's nothing left, LOL.

 

[Windwalker]

So how would you recognise your "true self" or "deepest self"? It feels to me like there are many layers of self, so how do you know when you get to the deepest level?

I'm going to inject some thoughts here, and I'm not sure if I mentioned this in this thread or not. I would not say that Atman is our "deepest" self. I think saying our "unchanging" self is probably a better way to describe this. I'll explain it in these terms. There is a difference between freedom and fullness. You cannot be freer than free. You are either free or you are not. Atman is freedom. Freedom from illusion, from clinging, from suffering, where we are transfixed upon the creation and not knowing the creator, to put those terms to it. But fullness is where knowing that freedom expressed in the myriad of multifaceted ways it can be known and explored within that which is created, including our "self", becomes experienced as a fullness of it.

It is the relative or the temporal that unfolds in layers and layers, and in which depth is known. Within each of these layers of self, of being, of manifest reality Freedom is found "as is" at each level, at each stage, from the simple to the complex. There is nothing freer than free, but there certainly is fuller, wider, higher, and deeper degrees of manifestation of that freedom within the relative plane of existence.

Another way to put this is that within the Ocean there are great depths, shallow reefs, great swells of waves, and tiny ripples. But everywhere at all places, both shallow and deep, the wetness of the Ocean just is. There is no "depth" of wetness. It's all the same wetness, whether you are dipping your toe in the water, wading in the shallows, or deep sea diving exploring its mysterious depths. No matter where you are, the wetness is identical. Life is the wetness of the waves, but the lived experience has enormous depths to be lived and known. Being truly free allows us to truly explore that depth. And that's the point of all of this.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

@Spiny Norman, let me ask you a question.

When you talk about finding/identifying the Atman, who is the finder?

 

[Papoon]

I'm going to inject some thoughts here, and I'm not sure if I mentioned this in this thread or not. I would not say that Atman is our "deepest" self. I think saying our "unchanging" self is probably a better way to describe this. I'll explain it in these terms. There is a difference between freedom and fullness. You cannot be freer than free. You are either free or you are not. Atman is freedom. Freedom from illusion, from clinging, from suffering, where we are transfixed upon the creation and not knowing the creator, to put those terms to it. But fullness is where knowing that freedom expressed in the myriad of multifaceted ways it can be known and explored within that which is created, including our "self", becomes experienced as a fullness of it.

It is the relative or the temporal that unfolds in layers and layers, and in which depth is known. Within each of these layers of self, of being, of manifest reality Freedom is found "as is" at each level, at each stage, from the simple to the complex. There is nothing freer than free, but there certainly is fuller, wider, higher, and deeper degrees of manifestation of that freedom within the relative plane of existence.

Another way to put this is that within the Ocean there are great depths, shallow reefs, great swells of waves, and tiny ripples. But everywhere at all places, both shallow and deep, the wetness of the Ocean just is. There is no "depth" of wetness. It's all the same wetness, whether you are dipping your toe in the water, wading in the shallows, or deep sea diving exploring its mysterious depths. No matter where you are, the wetness is identical. Life is the wetness of the waves, but the lived experience has enormous depths to be lived and known. Being truly free allows us to truly explore that depth. And that's the point of all of this.

Beautiful.