The concept of Atman vs.

No self
[Type the document subtitle]
[Pick the date]

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
A Comparative Perspective ..................................................................................................................... 3
Plausibility ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 6
References .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Introduction
Both Buddhism and Hinduism are counted among the worlds greatest and most influential
religions. Both religions lay faith in human life consisting of different phases and in the fact
that the phase of arising is followed by existing which is then followed by vanishing. Both
religions seek to link Karma (or actions) to its results and are similar in many other aspects of
their general philosophy. While similarities between these two religions and contrasting
aspects of both these religions from monotheistic religion originating from the west are
clearly known, differences between these two religions are less understood. Literature
evidence on these two religions is suggestive of the fact that both great doctrines significantly
differ from each other in many theoretical aspects. One of these differences might be seen
with the help of Hinduism Theory of Atman as compared with Buddhism Theory of No-self
or Anatta. 1
In light of these facts, this assessment proceeds to compare these two theoretical perspectives
and suggest which one of them is more plausible.

A Comparative Perspective
The Hindu mythology and theory according to literature believes in the existence of an
atman or the self within. This atman according to theory resides within the body and can
be distinguished from an individuals physical body, external personality or any feeling and
emotions. Further, the theory suggests that although the atman resides within an individual, it
does not have any personal characteristics. Atman is beyond the identification of phenomenal
existence of the real world and can neither be created nor destroyed. It is also believed in
Hindu mythology that atman survives death. While humans proceed through different phases
of their life, the atman survives within individuals and serves to illuminate them. It is open to
all experiences and is a constant. As humans age and slowly reach the end of their lives, the
atman leaves the individual and enters a spiritual world also known as Brahman-Atman.
This spiritual world in accordance with the Hindu mythology exists beyond all visible and
invisible universe of human experience.2
Exact meaning and interpretation of the concept of atman is uncertain in many Hindu
philosophies which have been provided till date. Atman has been regarded as the supreme
most spirit by some philosophers and as a finite self of humans by others. According to
1
2

Leesa S. Davis, Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, p. 57
Purushottama Bilimoria, The Self and Its Destiny in Hinduism, p. 178

Vedanta philosophy however, the atman exists as a universal soul which unifies with the
spiritual world upon attainment of liberation or Moksha. This philosophy also believes that
the cycle of birth and death is irreversible and the atman after being liberated after the death
of one individual seeks to re-enter another individual who is just born. 2
As a complete contrast to this perspective, Buddhism follows the concept of anatta or no
self. Most literary evidence centred on the concept of no-self has been identified to possess
both positive as well as negative counterparts. The positive counterpart might tend to exhibit
several commonalities with Vedanta in mental formations, perceptions, feelings and in
physical form. The negative counterpart however completely rejects all Upanisadic notions of
existence of Atman. According to this perspective, nothing is permanent and therefore the
concept of a permanent inner self or the atman cannot be justified. The doctrine of Buddhism
believes in the concept of re-birth and in the fact that an individuals actions in his current
live would hold implications for all later lives. This doctrine defies the existence of a spiritual
world and suggests that it is only through true enlightenment that one can escape the cycle of
re-birth and suffering. Buddhism also advocates that an individual is defined with the help of
a collection of physical and mental processes which constantly interact with each other.
Furthermore, these interactions re-occur over time in a definite pattern but are not
autonomous in nature. Also according to this doctrine, every individual has an independent
personality which is constituted by patterns of emotional thinking, aversion, likings, memory
etc. In accordance with available literary evidence, it might also be suggested that an
individuals positive as well as negative experiences take up the form of his consciousness
which in turn is transmitted to the individuals next life at re-birth. Defining the process of
transmission, the doctrine of Buddhism is suggestive of the fact that this transmission of
consciousness is extremely smooth and might be compared to the manner in which water
flows in a stream. 3
Both, the theory of atman as provided in Hinduism and the theory of no self as provided in
Buddhism are also often differentiated in terms of their beliefs about reincarnation. It is true
that both theories seem to believe in the concept of re-birth. The cornerstone of this belief
however is completely different between the two. Since the theory of atman advocates the
existence of a permanent soul, it suggests that a person remains unchanged through the
process of re-incarnation. In other words, a person and his personal characteristics would

Steven Collins, Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism, p. 122

cease to change until nirvana has been attained. This concept has been rejected by the no self
theory provided in Buddhism. The theory of no self is suggestive of the fact that an
individuals positive as well as negative experiences remain with the individual and might
also pose consequences for each incarnation of the individual. The individual however does
not remain the same in each incarnation. This might be attributed to the fact that every
individual is a part of a greater whole (or the Brahman). 4
The concept of atman as mentioned in Upanishads suggests that atman cannot be reached by
an individual who stays connected with visible or invisible realities of the world. In other
words, a scholar, a learned person or an individual who believes in scientific knowledge and
facts which present evidence would never be able to reach his atman. Thus, in order to be
able to successfully reach his atman, an individual must be willing to realise his true inner
self. This in turn might only be possible for an individual when he succeeds in gaining
complete control over his mind and senses in a manner that they do not interfere in the
process of soul searching. Hence, atman might also be realised as the form of real self. The
Hindu theory also advocates the existence of ego as atmans poor cousin. Where atman
depicts an individuals real self, ego is created by the mind. Literature suggests that when an
individuals mind and intellect is deployed to the task of discovery of true inner self, ego is
created. This ego provides an illusion of atman and serves to control an individuals actions.
An individual would thus have to rise over and above his ego to actually realise his inner self
or atman. 5
The doctrine of Buddhism on the other hand rejects the distinction between atman and ego
and suggests that truth might only be understood by individuals who are willing to accept the
concept of emptiness and no-self. It has also been suggested that an individual would only be
able to experience peace if the existence of ego or no-self is defeated. Advocating in favour
of existing and visible realities of this world, Buddhism suggests that it is far more
meaningful to try and understand what is known and present rather than investing resources
and time on speculating the unknown. 6

Steven Collins, Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism, Numen 29, 1982, 256
Steven Collins, Soul Buddhist Concepts, The Encyclopedia Of Religion, 13, 445
6
Robert W. Luyster, The Concept of the Self in the Upanishads: Its Origin and Symbols, Philosophy East and
West, 20, 1970, 53
5

Plausibility
In my opinion, the Buddhism theory of no self is far more plausible as compared with the
theory of atman provided in Hinduism. This might be attributed to the fact that the very
aspect of plausibility seeks logic and the theory of no-self flows in a logical manner. The
theory teaches the importance of detachment and suggests that an individual would be able to
experience peace if he lets go of his ego. The theory also directs focus on to existent realities
of the world and suggests that it is far wiser to live in the present and discover the meaning of
what is known rather than to grope in the dark and speculate the unknown. Lastly, the theory
takes everyday physical as well as mental interactions in consideration and suggests that
these play a crucial role in defining individual experiences and personality.7

Conclusion
The assessment was aimed at presenting a comparison between the theory of atman in
Hinduism and the theory of no self in Buddhism. Discussions revealed that the theory of
atman is centred on the existence of an eternal soul which remains constant in every birth of
an individual till the time nirvana has been attained. Further, the theory advocates that the
atman does not have any physical characteristics, cannot die and unifies with the spiritual
world when an individual dies. The theory of no self on the other hand completely denies the
existence of atman. This theory suggests that nothing is permanent and individual personality
is defined with the help of a pattern of physical and mental interactions.

Abraham Velez, Buddha, p. 65

References
Abraham Velez, Buddha in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available
at http://www.iep.utm.edu/buddha/
Leesa S. Davis, Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual
Inquiry (London & New York,: Continuum, 2010)
Purushottama Bilimoria, The Self and Its Destiny in Hinduism (Deakin University, 1990)
Robert W. Luyster, The Concept of the Self in the Upanishads: Its Origin and
Symbols, Philosophy East and West 20 (1970): 51-61
Steven Collins, Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982), part II: The doctrine of not-self
Steven Collins, Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism, Numen 29 (1982): 250-71.
Steven Collins, Soul Buddhist Concepts, in Mircea Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia Of
Religion, vol. 13, pp.443-47.