Atman Vs Anatman: Self or No-Self
The Argument For Personhood Over Self
"The Self, pure awareness, shines as the light within the heart, surrounded by the senses. Only seeming to think, seeming to move, the Self neither sleeps nor wakes nor dreams."
Chandogya Upanishad (Hindu scripture)
"All things in the world are without Self. When one sees this with wisdom, one becomes weary of suffering. This is the path to purity."
Dhammapada 279 (Buddhist scripture)
Introduction
In Eastern philosophies and religious practices, the concepts of self and identity have long captivated the minds of scholars and spiritual seekers alike.
Hinduism and Buddhism offer contrasting views on the nature of existence and the self.
At the heart of this difference lies the Hindu concept of atman and the Buddhist notion of anatman.
Atman refers to the eternal, unchanging essence of an individual, while anatman posits that there is no such thing — no permanent, independent self.
These concepts atman (self) and anatma (no-self) are crucial in understanding the different paths to awakening and the different concepts of the causes for human suffering.
This article will examine a series of arguments for and against the concept of the Self from both Hinduism and Buddhism.
It will also draw on the Western philosophical tradition, which also offers excellent arguments for and against the concepts of self (atman) and no-self (anatman).
The Hindu Concept of Anatman
Central to Hindu philosophy is the belief in the existence of an eternal, unchanging essence known as atman.
According to the Upanishads, the ancient sacred texts of Hinduism, atman is the true self, distinct from the ephemeral physical body and the transient mind.
It is described as infinite, divine, and interconnected with the ultimate reality, Brahman.
The individual self, or jiva, is considered a manifestation of atman, undergoing the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth until it achieves union with Brahman through self-realisation.
Atman represents the divine spark within each individual, embodying consciousness, knowledge, and bliss.
This concept forms the foundation for understanding the nature of reality, human existence, and the quest for liberation, or Moksha.
The Buddhist Notion of Anatman
In stark contrast to the Hindu perspective, Buddhism posits the doctrine of anatman, or no-self.
The core teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, or the Buddha, challenge the notion of an enduring, independent self.
According to Buddhist philosophy, all phenomena are devoid of inherent, permanent existence, including the self.
The self is considered an aggregate of impermanent, interconnected processes and experiences, devoid of a fixed essence.
The Five Aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) compose the individual, constantly changing and interdependent.
Therefore, from a Buddhist point of view, while there may be “personhood,” made up of the five aggregates, there is no enduring self behind this “person,” or “personhood.”
In the same way, we may point to, say, a “university” as performing many activities — teaching, examinations, granting degrees, etc — but when we look for the entity “university” we can find no such thing behind all the activities.
Yet, we cannot say the university does not exist!
Understanding anatman is crucial for comprehending the fundamental tenet of Buddhism: the cessation of suffering through the attainment of nirvana.
“Nirvana” = to blow out.
Implications for Our Human Experience
The contrasting viewpoints of atman and anatman have profound implications for human experience.
Hinduism’s belief in the existence of a divine essence, atman, imbues life with inherent purpose and meaning.
It suggests that the individual’s actions and choices have consequences that extend beyond the current lifetime.
This understanding fosters a sense of responsibility, encouraging individuals to seek self-realisation and embrace a moral, virtuous life.
Conversely, the Buddhist notion of anatman, or no-self, challenges the ego-centric perception of self and dismantles attachments to transient identities, fostering a sense of interconnectedness and interdependence.
It encourages individuals to embrace impermanence, recognize the illusory nature of selfhood, and cultivate compassion and mindfulness.
These contrasting concepts of atman and anatman profoundly shape the spiritual practices and paths to liberation in both Hinduism and Buddhism.
Hinduism emphasises various paths, including:
Karma Yoga (the path of selfless action)
Bhakti Yoga (the path of devotion)
Jnana Yoga (the path of knowledge)
Raja Yoga (the path of meditation)
These paths aim to purify the mind, transcend the limitations of the ego, and realise the unity of atman and Brahman.
In Hindu spiritual practices, individuals strive to detach from worldly desires and cultivate virtues such as compassion, self-discipline, and selflessness, ultimately seeking self-realisation and union with the divine.
Buddhism, on the other hand, offers the Noble Eightfold Path as a means to attain liberation from suffering and reach enlightenment.
This path consists of:
Right Understanding
Right Intention
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration
Through mindfulness and meditation practices, individuals develop insight into the impermanent and interconnected nature of existence, gradually realising the absence of a permanent, independent self.
By letting go of attachments and cravings, practitioners aspire to attain Nirvana, a state of liberation characterised by the cessation of suffering.
While Hinduism emphasises the union of atman and Brahman as the ultimate goal, Buddhism emphasises the transcendence of the concept of Self altogether, leading to the cessation of suffering.
Despite their divergent perspectives on self and identity, both traditions provide spiritual seekers with practical paths to deepen self-awareness, cultivate virtues, and liberate themselves from the cycle of suffering.
Now, let us look at the arguments for and against the atman (self) and the anatman (no-self).
Arguments For The Existence Of An Atman, or Self
There’s an argument that has been used to try to prove the existence of the self which can be found in both the Indian and European philosophical traditions.
It’s often called the Cartesian argument because René Descartes (1596–1650), an important Western philosopher, presented it in his work called Meditations.
This argument, however, actually existed before Descartes and can be traced back both to the Indian philosopher, Uddyotakara (7th century CE), and the thinker and scholar, Ibn Sina (980–1037), an Islamic philosopher.
Descartes formulated it as the cogito argument, based on the famous saying “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I exist).
This argument is centred around the idea that if someone is thinking, then they must exist as a thinking being.
The argument acknowledges that thinking requires a thinker, which could potentially be a self.
Descartes concludes, “I am a thinking thing,” emphasising the connection between thought and the existence of a thinker.
This act of thinking seemingly to indicates a self that thinks.
Both Uddyotakara and Descartes attempt to expand this by further exploring their respective ideas of what it means to be a thing or an object.
They propose that objects are substances which necessarily have properties.
Therefore, thought is considered a property of a thinking thing or object, similar to how redness is a property of an apple.
By arguing that properties can only exist within substances and that similarly actions can only be performed by substantial agents, they conclude that thinking must indicate and prove a substantial agent.
According to their reasoning, being such a substantial agent aligns with being a self, or in Hindu terms, an atman.
This atman or transcendental self, according to the conclusions of this argument is a special kind of substance in which thought exists or that engages in acts of thought.
People who make claims for the existence of the atman, or self, use transcendental arguments to explain how and why the self must exist.
They say that the existence of an enduring self, or atman is necessary to account for certain things like:
The unity of our thoughts and experiences
Our sense of personal identity over time
Our sense of agency and of being a subject
Our ability to tell individual people apart
The consistency of our memories over time
These arguments for a enduring self, or transcendental self, are of two kinds:
Synchronic and Diachronic
Synchronic & Diachronic Selves
Synchronic identity refers to identity at a single time, while diachronic identity refers to identity over time.
Synchronic identity therefore would seem to account for things like:
The unity of our thoughts and experiences
Our sense of agency and of being a subject
Our ability to tell individual people apart
Diachronic identity would account for things like:
Our sense of personal identity over time
The consistency of our memories over time
The condition for any experience at all
We will look at diachronic identity in more detail in a moment.
But first, let’s look at the arguments for synchronic identity in more detail.
Following this, we will look at the arguments against both the synchronic and diachronic notions of a substantial self and the arguments for the no-self, or the non-existence of any self at all.
The arguments for the synchronic self usually take two main forms:
Unity of consciousness
Unity of object
The unity of consciousness argument offers as evidence the fact that our experiences are unified (seemingly) in a single subject.
The unity of object argument is the idea that everything we experience is part of a single subjective experience.
In ancient India, philosophers from the Nyāya and Vedānta traditions believed that the unity of consciousness was an obvious fact.
They argued that these unities could only be explained if there was a self, called atman, which was the ultimate subject of all our experiences.
They believed that this self had to be distinct from the mind and body because it is the subject of both our physical senses and our introspective awareness of our own thoughts and feelings.
These Indian philosophical traditions considered it obvious that a single subject, namely ourselves, is the subject of all experiences, forming a single inner life.
Therefore, they concluded that the self not only has to be distinct from the mind and body and existing over time (diachronic) but also has to be unified (synchronic).
So while synchronic identity is the feeling-sense of the unity of our subjectivity in the present moment, diachronic identity is the sense that we are the same person, or identity, extended over time.
We perceive ourselves as having existed in the past, continuing as the same person in the present, and hopefully continuing to exist into the future.
The diachronic argument for the existence of the self suggests that if we weren’t aware of ourselves as extended over time, we wouldn’t even be aware of our existence at all.
This argument concludes that in order for us to have any experience at all, we must endure over time, and this enduring thing is what we call a self.
Furthermore, the argument claims that if we were merely a succession of moments without endurance over time, memory would be impossible.
So, the argument states that without a persistent self, memory wouldn’t exist.
The same applies to anticipation of future states. If we couldn’t expect to be around to experience them, our anticipation wouldn’t be genuine.
Therefore, our continued existence over time is a necessary condition for any experience to occur.
These arguments for the self, or atman, both synchronic and diachronic, are extremely persuasive.
However, from a Buddhist point-of-view they are completely wrong and misguided.
Now, let’s have a look at some of the arguments made against the existence of a self, or atman.
Arguments Against The Existence Of An Atman, or Self
As we have seen, the argument from synchronic unity posits that the self exists because we experience ourselves as unified and integrated beings.
It suggests that the self is necessary to explain the coherence and unity of our conscious experiences and the objects of our consciousness.
However, this argument is flawed from a Buddhist point-of-view (and indeed, some Western philosophical points-of-view) for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, it confuses the unity of experience with the unity of the self.
While it is true that our experiences are unified and integrated, it does not necessarily imply the existence of a separate and enduring self.
The unity of experience can be explained by the interconnectedness and interplay of various mental processes and cognitive functions without the need for a distinct self.
Using our previous example: The “university” operates very well (most of the time!) without us being able to point to an actual entity called “university.”
This “interconnectedness and interplay of various mental processes and cognitive functions” is what Buddhists call “dependent origination” or “dependent arising” in English, or Pratītyasamutpāda in Sanskrit.
Secondly, the unity of self argument assumes that the self is a substance, a separate entity that unifies our experiences.
This assumption is problematic.
The concept of a substantial self implies a fixed and unchanging entity, which contradicts our actual experience of the self as dynamic and ever-changing.
In Western philosophy, Nietzsche pointed to this very fact: we are never singular, unified subjects or selves, but many, many selves depending on the particular context we find ourselves in.
The performative self in the company of my lover is very different from the self performed at work — at least one would hope!
Our sense of self is not a static entity but rather a fluid and evolving construct influenced by various factors such as thoughts, emotions, and external circumstances.
Scientific research also supports the Buddhist perspective.
Recent empirical research in neuroscience and psychology has shown that the sense of self can be greatly altered and even temporarily disrupted through various means such as meditation, drugs, altered states of consciousness, or certain neurological conditions.
These findings challenge the notion of a fixed and independent self.
The arguments for synchronic self simply do not hold.
The unity of experience that it posits can easily be explained by other factors such as the interconnectedness of mental processes.
The synchronic self is also inconsistent with our dynamic and ever-changing experience of ourselves.
The diachronic argument for the existence of a self, or atman, does not do any better.
As previously mentioned, the argument from diachronic identity suggests that the self exists because we experience ourselves as persisting over time.
It posits that our sense of personal identity, the continuity of our memories, and the recognition of ourselves as the same person over time require the existence of a self.
Again, this argument has some rather large and gaping theoretical holes.
Firstly, it confuses personal identity with numerical identity.
Personal identity refers to the sense of being the same person over time, while numerical identity refers to the strict numerical sameness of an entity.
While we may have a sense of personal identity, it does not necessarily imply the existence of a numerically identical self that persists unchanged over time.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the self is a substance, a fixed and enduring entity that remains the same throughout our lives.
Again, this assumption is very problematic.
Our experiences, memories, and even our physical and psychological characteristics change over time.
The self is not a static entity but rather a dynamic and evolving construct influenced by various factors such as personal growth, experiences, and interactions with the world.
Moreover, there are cases where individuals experience extreme changes in their personal identity, such as in cases of amnesia, identity disorders, or significant life events.
These cases challenge the notion of a fixed and unchanging self and suggest that personal identity is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that can be influenced and shaped by various factors.
To sum it up, the argument from diachronic identity fails to establish the existence of a numerically identical and enduring self.
Additionally, personal identity is a complex and dynamic concept that can change over time, and the notion of a fixed and unchanging self is inconsistent with our experiences and the evidence from cases of personal identity alteration.
Thus from a Buddhist perspective (and from many Western philosophical perspectives) these arguments, synchronic and diachronic, at best, support the existence of the person (i.e. personhood), but they are far from providing sufficient reasons to support a belief in a separate enduring self, or atman.
Further Reading
There are, of course, vast amounts of texts in both the Hindu and Buddhist traditions which argue extremely cogently on both sides of this argument.
However, in recent years, Western philosophy, neuroscience, consciousness studies, and even computer science, have taken up the arguments against the existence of a self.
One of the most compelling contemporary thinkers in this area is Thomas Metzinger.
Thomas Metzinger is a prominent philosopher known for his groundbreaking work in the field of philosophy of mind and consciousness.
Metzinger has made significant contributions to our understanding of the nature of self, subjective experience, and the implications of neuroscience on our understanding of consciousness.
He is considered a leading figure in the field of neurophilosophy, which seeks to bridge the gap between neuroscience and philosophy.
Metzinger’s most influential work is his excellent book:
“Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity.”
This book presents a comprehensive theory of self and consciousness, arguing that the self is not an entity but rather a process created by the brain.
Metzinger proposes that our conscious experience is the result of the brain’s ongoing self-modelling, in which it creates a virtual self-representation that allows us to have a sense of being a unified and continuous individual.
Metzinger’s book “Being No One” is a long and dense academic text with much philosophical technical language.
However, Metzinger has written a much shorter book for a general audience: “The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind And The Myth of The Self.”
Three other books are worth mentioning here:
“Losing Ourselves: Learning To Live Without A Self” by Jay L. Garfield
This book recently published by Princeton University Press is a stunning refutation of the self and argument instead for Buddhist notions of personhood.
It delves into the concept of self and the nature of personal identity, challenging our conventional understanding of who we are.
Professor Garfield explores the interplay between Buddhist philosophy and Western science, examining the implications of anatta (no-self) for our understanding of consciousness, free will, and ethics.
“The Mind Is Flat: The Illusion Of Mental Depth & The Improvised Mind.” by Nick Chater
The book challenges the traditional notion of a deep, hidden self and presents a provocative perspective on the nature of the mind.
Chater argues that our mental experiences are constructed on the spot, without a unified and consistent self guiding our thoughts and actions.
Drawing on cognitive science and psychology, he suggests that our mind operates through a continuous process of perception, inference, and storytelling, debunking the idea of a stable and autonomous self.
“Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to Life, the Universe and Everything” by Bernado Kastrup
Professor Kastrup has written tens of books and has an excellent website: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/
Kastrup’s work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental and the self an illusion.
He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence).
As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the ‘Casimir Effect’ of Quantum Field Theory was discovered).
Check out my book reviews: Books & Walking
