Dhruv Khurjekar ’22… The Interconnectedness of Two Central Concepts in Buddhism and Hinduism: Anatta & Atman

Dhruv Khurjekar ’22

On the surface, Anatta and Atman are the literal opposite. However, the two are inextricably woven and one cannot be comprehended without the full context of the other. Although the creation of the two concepts is chronologically separated by centuries, they are deeply connected, with one creating the need, and conjured to alleviate its unintended consequences, for the other. Atman, “the Self, Soul, and Indwelling spirit,” is a central concept in Hindu philosophy (Bhaskarananda 202). Anatta, literally translated as “non-Soul”, is the absence of a Soul and is relevant in Buddhist teachings (Fronsdal). This simplistic contrast between Atman and Anatta deserves careful delineation rather than simply treating them as antonyms because of the very different contexts in which the two were introduced. After exploring these two keystone concepts of Hinduism and Buddhism, I find that the two ultimately serve the common purpose of leading a practitioner onto a similar spiritual path of selflessness.

The Hindu teaching regarding Atman, both in the early scriptures as well as in subsequent literature to this day, has been consistent in characterizing Atman as the quality of the self that is unmanifested. Atman is distinct from the physical, mental or intellectual qualities of human beings in the form of their body, mind or thought (Radhakrishnan). Once these outer layers of appearance, imagination, and emotion are removed from the Self, the Soul or Atman remains. Due to every individual having an Atman within, devoid of the external differences, it is the universal equalizer to obviate hate or hierarchy or any reason for any entity in the universe to not love the other and co-exist in harmony. At its essence, Atman has been explained as the inner God, the true Self that is one with Brahman, the universal God, and therefore every being in the universe is essentially a manifestation of the Brahman via the Atman, which resides within the Self (Radhakrishnan). This elegant exposition of Atman continues to form the basis of the core philosophy of Hinduism, Vasudeva Kutumbakam, which means the whole universe is a family and therefore guides the practicing Hindu on the path of selfless love for the universe as a means towards true happiness (“Vasudeva Kutumbakam”). 46

Chronologically, Atman predates Anatta by hundreds of years, allowing the concept to have already evolved over the centuries before the Buddha. It was first documented in the Rigveda and was expounded upon in the other Vedas and the Upanishads (Deussen 91). By the time the Buddha was reaching enlightenment and trying to make sense of the world around him, even though the philosophical concepts of the Vedas and Upanishads might have been cogent and intrinsically sound, he did not see their direct benefit to society. The suffering, hatred, sorrow, and violence that the Buddha observed in the world is what motivated him to pursue his spiritual journey in the first place. He questioned and critiqued all of society’s philosophical concepts that were available yet inadequate to improve people’s lives. He had to design a philosophy that provided solutions to the problems he saw rather than merely follow what was accepted as pure and accurate in elite Hindu scholarship.

A Buddhist’s journey is to acknowledge suffering, understand its cause, and transcend it by knowing that it can end. He did not believe that focusing on Atman would help one to achieve Nirvana, but rather needed a construct to define one’s journey away from the Self. According to Mrs. Rhys Davids, a late British writer and Buddhist text interpreter, the concept of Anatta is an example of the Buddha deliberately de-emphasizing or apparently negating the core tenet of Atman which focuses on the Self, while the Buddha’s teachings implore us to not do so because attachment to the Self is a cause of suffering (Davids as qtd. in Radhakrishnan 384). There is evidence of the Buddha discussing Atman in his early discourses and struggling to find a way to make it a usable and practical tool for the journey that he believed in towards attaining Nirvana. He feared both extremes of the use of Atman: one was the nihilist outcome of people not caring about their lives because the body, mind, and intellect did not ultimately matter; the other was the danger of eternalism in which people would indulge in superficial pleasures all their lives because the Soul was immortal anyway (Radhakrishnan 386). Rather, the Buddha wanted to impart the transcendental doctrine while still reminding people of the misery of attachment to life and rebirth. Since true happiness comes from detachment, he had to carefully balance the use of Atman in his discourse and eventually relinquished its use without rejecting it (Radhakrishnan 386). Ultimately, Anatta was derived from Atman over time. And because Atman was not able to directly control the physical, emotional or intellectual faculties, nor was it easy to appreciate as a metaphysical construct, Buddhism gradually discarded Atman as unworthy and hence focused on Anatta.

Yet it is telling that the Buddha never repudiated or rejected the concept 47

of Atman. In fact, as explained in the Buddhist Vacchagotta Sutta, he was asked about it twice directly, and he did not answer the questions either in the affirmative or the negative; he was merely silent (Vacchagotta Sutra as qtd. in and transl. by Radhakrishnan 386). While the Buddha agreed with the concept of Atman for his time, with the unintended consequences of people’s actions to feed their self ego, he deemed the concept limited, inadequate, and perhaps a detriment to his teachings. He needed a construct that could free the human from his self and set him on a path to Nirvana. He considered it so important to remove one’s attachment from one’s Self that he included the literal opposite of the Soul, the true Self, Anatta or “an-Atman” in his discourse (Radhakrishnan 389). Even in doing so, he leveraged both concepts to further support his teachings. They were both preached by the Buddha himself depending on the doctrine of choice, as described in Nagarjuna’s interpretation of the Prajnaparamita Sutra: “He taught the existence of Atman when he wanted to impart to his hearers the conventional doctrine; he taught the doctrine of an-Atman when he wanted to impart to them the transcendental doctrine” (Nagarjuna transl. from Prajnaparamita Sutra, qtd. in Radhakrishnan 389). The irony of this choice is palpable: both Atman and Anatta aim to achieve the same objective, which is to help an individual move away from superficial worldly attachments and aim instead to attain the universal truth of detached harmony. Atman and Anatta both lead to salvation or Nirvana through a journey of renouncing worldly pleasures and experiencing the universe with detached appreciation.

The scholars of Hinduism have discussed and debated Atman and its centrality in the religion’s philosophy, especially its oneness with Brahman, thus creating a seamless continuum from an individual to the ultimate God. This elegance helps string together much of the worldly religious guidance that shaped the early Indian or Hindu way of life and guides practicing Hindus even today. On the other hand, Buddhist scholars have taken the Buddha’s disinterest in Atman and dwelled on Anatta as a way to focus on the actionable tenets of Buddhism, with the ultimate goal being Nirvana. The state of Nirvana is not much different than the ultimate Hindu spiritual objective of life. Despite the differences in approach of the two conjoined concepts in Hinduism and Buddhism, the religious paths of guidance from Atman and Anatta both lead to a similar spiritual objective. This interconnectedness reflects the nuanced character of Buddhism as a religion. Out of its many responses to and departures from Hinduism, Anatta stands out as one that may appear as a challenge to Hinduism. After digging deeper, however, it is discovered to be the other side of the same 48

coin, thus revealing the value in studying this concept through the lens of Hinduism. Ultimately, one may say that neither Buddhism nor Hinduism conform with the western guidelines of being a religion—rather, they are ways of leading one’s life and spiritual institutions that define the purpose and objective of that life. As we can see after exploring only a few threads that are woven into the thick fabrics of each religion, there are a countless number of paths that lead one to this holy grail.

Works Cited

Bhaskarananda, Swami. The Essentials of Hinduism: A Comprehensive Overview of the World’s Oldest Religion. Indian ed., The President, Sri Ramakrishna Math Printing Press, Mylapore, Chennai-4, 1998. Deussen, Paul. The Philosophy of the Upanishads at Google Books, Dover Publications, pages 86-111, 182-212. “Ethical Idealism of Buddhism: The Individual Self.” Indian Philosophy, by S. Radhakrishnan, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1999. Fronsdal, Gil. “Anatta and the Four Noble Truths.” Insight Meditation Center, Insight Meditation Center, 1 Oct. 2002, www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/anatta-and-the-four-noble-truths/. (adapted from a talk by Gil Fronsdal). “Vasudeva Kutumbakam.” Yogapedia.com, Yogapedia, 30 Jan. 2019, www. yogapedia.com/definition/6372/vasudeva-kutumbakam-yoga.