Hindus and Buddhists: Atman and Anatta

[dyanaprajna2011]

Since there's been heated debate recently about the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, and since some seem to think that the Buddha taught atman, I decided to take a different look at both. So here, Hindus and Buddhists can debate their positions, on this question:

Which idea, Hindu atman, or Buddhist anatta, which one leads to greater spiritual fulfillment? Which one is better designed to lead to greater spirituality?

 

[Maya3]

It depends on the person.

Maya

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't say better or best. All have their own ideas which are best for them and they find spiritual fulfillment in it.

Buddha never advocated existence of 'Soul' ('atman' has many meanings and it will confuse people). That is 'anatta'. However, perhaps some strains of Buddhism accept the existence of Dhammakaya, Bodhikaya, Tathagatagarbha, etc. about which you would know better.

In Hinduism, 'Jeeva' (soul, closer to the meaning that you are probably using in this topic) can be totally separate from God, it can be a part of God, or there might be no 'soul' if everything is only the entity which exists, Brahman, without it being a God (that is my view).

 

[LuisDantas]

It will of course depend on the person. Generally speaking, however, I find concepts of souls and spirits to be somewhat inclined to misuse, so I avoid them as a rule.

 

[George-ananda]

Which idea, Hindu atman, or Buddhist anatta, which one leads to greater spiritual fulfillment? Which one is better designed to lead to greater spirituality?

To me it's not an 'or' question as I believe in both atman and anatta.

To me 'anatta' is saying there is no permanent individual self. I agree with this. But this does not mean there aren't temporary bodies on the physical and subtle planes that are constantly changing. I may not be the same as I was one minute ago but I still consider myself the same person. Anatta does not mean there are not temporary changing bodies on the physical, astral and causal planes that are temporarily 'us' although ultimately (an aeon from now) there will be no illusion of individual 'I'. Those temporary forms fall away. So I believe in anatta and temporary souls on the causal plane that have multiple physical experiences (reincarnations/rebirth). And after death we will have experiences on the astral plane in our temporary astral double body.

Atman is like a ray of Brahman that animates and brings consciousness to all temporary bodies on all planes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It depends on the person.

Maya

It will of course depend on the person. Generally speaking, however, I find concepts of souls and spirits to be somewhat inclined to misuse, so I avoid them as a rule.

I agree. It depends entirely upon how a person approaches and views atman and anatta respectively.

I think "better or better designed" cannot address the actual reality from which those views portray.