Compare the ideas of Self (ātman) found in the Upaniṣads with the Buddhist concept of no-Self (anātman)
Compare the ideas of Self (ātman) found in the Upaniṣads with the Buddhist concept of no-Self (anātman)
The early Upanisadic notion of the Atman, a permanent, unchanging essence common to all human beings, obscured by the physical and emotional activities of human, or illusion (maya).1 In contrast, Buddhist literature is usually thought – at least within more mainstream academics – to contend that, instead, humans are merely experience, or rather, the culmination or accumulation of feelings, bodily and mentally, experienced through life, which itself is essentially suffering; Miri Albahari identifies these two traits as naturally and as two sides (the negative and positive) of the same coin (the anatman coin).2
This essay aims to highlight and explore the difference in the concept of the self between what is shown in the Upanisadic literature and in the Buddhist tradition, including the origin and consequences of these differences. In doing this, it is hoped to examine the theory that the differences steam from the divergent emphasis and goals of the religious life, although it should be argued that these differing attitudes and ideas result in a similar outcome, namely that of action without desire.3
Firstly, some history about the composition of the Upanisads is beneficial to explore how the concept of the atman, Brahman and their link may have surfaced. The predecessors to the Upanisads, the Brahmanas focused exclusively on ritual activity.4 The Upanisads expanded the ritual concept to encompass all aspects of life, transforming life itself and each person into a ritual which needed to be performed correctly.5 To put it very simply (succinctly), the concept of Brahman, the all-encompassing essence which creates, sustains and links, was established in order to link all human activity to idea of the cosmic ritual.6
According to the early Upanisads, Atman is the eternal essence of humans, the self in its ultimate form.7 It can also be interpreted as divine
The early Upanisadic notion of the Atman, a permanent, unchanging essence common to all human beings, obscured by the physical and emotional activities of human, or illusion (maya).1 In contrast, Buddhist literature is usually thought – at least within more mainstream academics – to contend that, instead, humans are merely experience, or rather, the culmination or accumulation of feelings, bodily and mentally, experienced through life, which itself is essentially suffering; Miri Albahari identifies these two traits as naturally and as two sides (the negative and positive) of the same coin (the anatman coin).2
This essay aims to highlight and explore the difference in the concept of the self between what is shown in the Upanisadic literature and in the Buddhist tradition, including the origin and consequences of these differences. In doing this, it is hoped to examine the theory that the differences steam from the divergent emphasis and goals of the religious life, although it should be argued that these differing attitudes and ideas result in a similar outcome, namely that of action without desire.3
Firstly, some history about the composition of the Upanisads is beneficial to explore how the concept of the atman, Brahman and their link may have surfaced. The predecessors to the Upanisads, the Brahmanas focused exclusively on ritual activity.4 The Upanisads expanded the ritual concept to encompass all aspects of life, transforming life itself and each person into a ritual which needed to be performed correctly.5 To put it very simply (succinctly), the concept of Brahman, the all-encompassing essence which creates, sustains and links, was established in order to link all human activity to idea of the cosmic ritual.6
According to the early Upanisads, Atman is the eternal essence of humans, the self in its ultimate form.7 It can also be interpreted as divine
Bibliography: Albahari, MIRI. ‘Against No-Atman Theories of Anatta’. Asian Philsophy, 12(1), 2002. Background Reading (non-referenced) LINDTNER, Christian (1999) From Brahmanism to Buddhism, Asian Philosophy, 9(1), pp