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

[Papoon]

How would you know if you had a look in your eyes ?

 

[Papoon]

How would you know if you had a look in your eyes ?

Can you prove it ?
Where is the evidence ?
But is it logical ?
Has a famous sage said it ?
Does it go well with mustard ?

Etc etc....

Excuse me. That was a lucid moment. I couldn't prevent it. It just leaks through the cracks of the 'spiritual facade'.

Atman is a word which refers to Presence. Being.
It doesn't depend on anything. It isn't naughty or nice. It can't be achieved. It is not a reward. It is not righteous or evil.
You don't have one.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

@Spiny Norman, let me ask you a question.
When you talk about finding/identifying the Atman, who is the finder?

I don't know, but see post #80 where I queried whether Atman was comparable to sati ( mindfulness ). It's difficult because there is no consensus here about Atman actually is, everyone seems to have a different idea about it.

Another possible comparison with Buddhism might be to talk about The Deathless or the Unconditioned, both of which are descriptive of Nibbana.

But what do you think? Who is the finder? Or is Atman the finder? Which definition of Atman are you working to?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atman is freedom. Freedom from illusion, from clinging, from suffering...

That sounds very reminiscent of Buddhist Nirvana. Are you equating Atman with Nirvana?

 

[Kirran]

That sounds very reminiscent of Buddhist Nirvana. Are you equating Atman with Nirvana?

If I may, the term moksha is better suited as the equivalent of nirvana. Moksha is liberation, and comes from realising your true nature as atman.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If I may, the term moksha is better suited as the equivalent of nirvana. Moksha is liberation, and comes from realising your true nature as atman.

OK, that makes sense, but what in your view is that true nature ( atman )?

 

[Kirran]

OK, that makes sense, but what in your view is that true nature ( atman )?

Well it is what's left when you remove all your preconceptions, it's that which is observing all else, it's the ultimate subject of experience. So removing all that can be objectified leaves only you, the atman.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Well it is what's left when you remove all your preconceptions, it's that which is observing all else, it's the ultimate subject of experience. So removing all that can be objectified leaves only you, the atman.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "preconceptions"? Do you basically mean views and opinions, or are you going deeper and including how those views are formed, eg family and cultural conditioning, life experience and so on?

 

[Kirran]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "preconceptions"?

I think I'd say that preconceptions are our ideas about what we are, what reality, where happiness comes from and more or less everything else, centring upon the idea of ourselves as an individual mind-body-self.

 

[Papoon]

OK, that makes sense, but what in your view is that true nature ( atman )?

No offence Spiny, but that is not a useful question IMO.
What actually is anything ?
It's the 'what is' part that is specious.
What does 'what is' actually mean ?

Welcome to Rogerian nondirective metaphysics, LOL.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think I'd say that preconceptions are our ideas about what we are, what reality, where happiness comes from and more or less everything else, centring upon the idea of ourselves as an individual mind-body-self.

So what do you think is left? What do you think true nature or Atman is like?

 

[Kirran]

So what do you think is left? What do you think true nature or Atman is like?

Well it ia ultimately beyond description, by definition, like shunya. We can point to it with certain terms, but they're only 'as-if-attributes' if I may borrow a phrase from a scholar in this area.

All description is predicated upon duality.

 

[crossfire]

Does Tao Te Ching chapter 1 have any bearing regarding atman, even if only in a metaphorical manner?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders​

Compare Dogen's Genjo Koan:
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shobogenzo/003genjo.pdf
snippet:

To learn what the path to Buddhahood is, is to learn what the True Self is. To learn what the True Self is, is to forget a bout the self. To forget about the self is to become one with the whole universe. To become one with the whole universe is to be shed of ‘my body and mind’ and ‘their bodies and minds’. The traces from this experience of awakening to one’s enlightenment will quiet down and cease to show themselves, but it takes quite some time for all outer signs of being awake to disappear.​

 

[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,

Had a read of the link, and i think i would agree with others that this is not really explain anything similar to or about Atman, this is more a Yoga because it is advising Chit-Vritti-Nirodh, or how to control the mind by concentration of specific things which rids the Chitta of the many Vritti that arise.

I would say that the Atman is the one who is being Mindful, or is the "I", who experiences the Body.

Many places in the text the "I", is considered as obvious and not questioned at all.

For e.g:

"Experiencing the whole (breath-) body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Experiencing the whole (breath-) body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the (breath-) body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the (breath-) body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself.

This is already acknowledging the presence of the "I", or the experiencer and witness, and training oneself in being Mindfull of ones existence and the fleeting nature of the Body is also advised, this reminds me more of the Gita where Arjun is advised to be Mindful of the nature of the Body and how it perishes and that death is the only outcome. But i guess since both The Gita and the Teachings of the Buddhism are from the same Culture their is bound to be similarities.

Also in many places the Yoga is advised to a Bhikkhu to "live in the Body being Mindful of the Body", now Who is this living in the Body? I think this is what we refer to as the Atman or the "I" in Tharavada.

I hope this makes sense or No-Sense..lol

 

[Papoon]

I would say that the Atman is the one who is being Mindful, or is the "I", who experiences the Body.

I agree. Personally, I see little difference between the advaitin and Buddhist views. In fact, no difference of any consequence.

Atman refers to the self who is practicing yoga, the self who observes, the self who is liberated from false identification with the aggregates, the cognitions and reactions which Buddha taught are anatta - 'not self'.

It is Atman who finds repose in nirvana, moksha.

Buddhists only have a problem with this if they persist in the error of translating anatta as 'no self', rather than the correct translation 'not self'.

It is Atman who is meditating.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I agree. Personally, I see little difference between the advaitin and Buddhist views. In fact, no difference of any consequence.

Atman refers to the self who is practicing yoga, the self who observes, the self who is liberated from false identification with the aggregates, the cognitions and reactions which Buddha taught are anatta - 'not self'.

It is Atman who finds repose in nirvana, moksha.

Buddhists only have a problem with this if they persist in the error of translating anatta as 'no self', rather than the correct translation 'not self'.

It is Atman who is meditating.

Namaste,

Yes, translations (to English) have done the most damage to Buddhist and Hindu relationship, but i think that was the intended purpose for translations from the get go.

Dhanyavad

 

[George-ananda]

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

This question is oddly worded. But anyway, Atman is the fundamental eternal consciousness that expresses itself in limited form in all us finite beings. Without atman there would just be matter and energy vibrating about with no subjective experiencer. Matter itself can not experience. Why do I believe atman exists, it is taught by the spiritual masters who for multiple reasons I have come to respect.

 

[kalyan]

This question is oddly worded. But anyway, Atman is the fundamental eternal consciousness that expresses itself in limited form in us finite beings. Without atman there would just be matter and energy vibrating about with no subjective experiencer. Why do I believe it exists, it is taught by the spiritual masters who for multiple reasons I have come to respect.

Atma is a term from vedam (5000 BC) and orally transmitted from eons ago. The concept of soul(corrupted term) in any religion where it is used comes from eastern traditions and from the primary source Vedam. So to get the description of it you have to ask Vedam.

 

[George-ananda]

Atma is a term from vedam (5000 BC) and orally transmitted from eons ago. The concept of soul(corrupted term) in any religion where it is used comes from eastern traditions and from the primary source Vedam. So to get the description of it you have to ask Vedam.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with that reply. Atman=Brahman=pure infinite consciousness best described as infinite sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

 

[kalyan]

I am not sure what you are trying to say with that reply. Atman=Brahman=pure infinite consciousness best described as infinite sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

you said it is taught by spiritual masters, I was JUST pointing out the primary source i.e Vedam