Editing Ātman (Hinduism) (section)

===Orthodox schools===
{{Main|Hindu philosophy}}

Atman is a metaphysical and spiritual concept for Hindus, often discussed in their scriptures with the concept of Brahman.<ref>{{citation|author=A. L. Herman |title=An Introduction to Indian Thought |url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontoin00alhe |url-access=registration |year=1976|publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=978-0-13-484477-0 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/introductiontoin00alhe/page/110 110]–115 }}</ref><ref>{{citation|author=Jeaneane D. Fowler |title=Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RmGKHu20hA0C |year=1997|publisher=Sussex Academic Press |isbn=978-1-898723-60-8|pages=109–121 }}</ref><ref>{{citation|author=Arvind Sharma |title=Advaita Vedānta: An Introduction |url=https://archive.org/details/advaitavedanta00arvi |url-access=registration |year=2004|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |isbn=978-81-208-2027-2 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/advaitavedanta00arvi/page/24 24]–43 }}</ref> All major orthodox schools of Hinduism – Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta – accept the foundational premise of the Vedas and Upanishads that "Ātman exists." In [[Hindu philosophy]], especially in the [[Vedanta]] school of [[Hinduism]], ''Ātman'' is the [[first principle]].<ref>Deussen, Paul and Geden, A. S. The Philosophy of the Upanishads. Cosimo Classics (June 1, 2010). P. 86. {{ISBN|1616402407}}.</ref> [[Ātman (Jainism)|Jainism]] too accepts this premise, although it has its own idea of what that means. In contrast, both Buddhism and the [[Charvaka]]s deny that there is anything called "Ātman/soul/self".{{sfn|Plott|2000|p=60-62}}

====Samkhya====
[[File:Purusha-Pakriti.jpg|thumb|right|Purusha-prakriti]]
{{Main|Samkhya}}

In Samkhya, the oldest school of Hinduism, [[Purusha|Puruṣa]], the witness-consciousness, is ''Atman''. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, "nonattributive consciousness". Puruṣa is neither produced nor does it produce.{{sfn|Sharma|1997|pages=155–7}} No appellations can qualify purusha, nor can it substantialized or objectified.{{sfn|Chapple|2008|p=21}} It "cannot be reduced, can't be 'settled'." Any designation of purusha comes from prakriti, and is a limitation.{{sfn|Osto|2018|p=203}} Unlike [[Advaita Vedanta]], and like [[Mīmāṃsā|Purva-Mīmāṃsā]], Samkhya believes in plurality of the puruṣas.{{sfn|Sharma|1997|pages=155–7}}{{sfn|Plott|2000|p=60-62}}

Samkhya considers ego (''[[Yoga (philosophy)#Epistemology|asmita]]'', ''[[ahamkara]]'') to be the cause of pleasure and pain.<ref>Paranjpe, A. C. Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought. Springer; 1 edition (September 30, 1998). P. 263-264. {{ISBN|978-0-306-45844-6}}.</ref> Self-knowledge is the means to attain ''[[kaivalya]]'', the separation of ''Atman'' from the body-mind complex.{{sfn|Plott|2000|p=60-62}}

====Yoga philosophy====
The Yogasutra of Patanjali, the foundational text of [[Yoga (philosophy)|Yoga]] school of Hinduism, mentions ''Atma'' in multiple verses, and particularly in its last book, where Samadhi is described as the path to self-knowledge and [[moksha|kaivalya]]. Some earlier mentions of ''Atman'' in Yogasutra include verse 2.5, where evidence of ignorance includes "confusing what is not Atman as Atman".

{{blockquote|
अनित्याशुचिदुःखा'''नात्म'''सु नित्यशुचिसु'''खात्म'''ख्यातिरविद्या

Avidya (अविद्या, ignorance) is regarding the transient as eternal, the impure as pure, the pain-giving as joy-giving, and the non-Atman as Atman.
|Yogasutra 2.5<ref name=pyogas3t>
* Sanskrit Original with '''Translation 1''': [https://archive.org/stream/yogaphilosophyb00tatygoog#page/n6/mode/2up The Yoga Philosophy] TR Tatya (Translator), with Bhojaraja commentary; Harvard University Archives;
* '''Translation 2''': [https://archive.org/stream/yogadaranasutra00patagoog#page/n4/mode/2up The Yoga-darsana: The sutras of Patanjali with the Bhasya of Vyasa] GN Jha (Translator), with notes; Harvard University Archives;
* '''Translation 3''': [https://archive.org/stream/yogasutrasofpata00pata#page/n5/mode/2up The Yogasutras of Patanjali] Charles Johnston (Translator)</ref>}}

In verses 2.19-2.20, Yogasutra declares that pure ideas are the domain of Atman, the perceivable universe exists to enlighten Atman, but while Atman is pure, it may be deceived by complexities of perception or mind. These verses also set the purpose of all experience as a means to self-knowledge.

{{blockquote|
द्रष्टा दृशिमात्रः शुद्धोऽपि प्रत्ययानुपश्यः<br>
तदर्थ एव दृश्यस्यात्मा

The seer is the absolute knower. Though pure, modifications are witnessed by him by coloring of intellect.<br>
The spectacle exists only to serve the purpose of the Atman.
|Yogasutra 2.19 - 2.20<ref name=pyogas3t/>}}

In Book 4, Yogasutra states spiritual liberation as the stage where the yogin achieves distinguishing self-knowledge, he no longer confuses his mind as Atman, the mind is no longer affected by afflictions or worries of any kind, ignorance vanishes, and "pure consciousness settles in its own pure nature".<ref name=pyogas3t/><ref>Verses 4.24-4.34, Patanjali's Yogasutras; Quote: "विशेषदर्शिन '''आत्म'''भावभावनाविनिवृत्तिः"</ref>

The Yoga school is similar to the Samkhya school in its conceptual foundations of ''Ātman''. It is the self that is discovered and realized in the Kaivalya state, in both schools. Like Samkhya, this is not a single universal ''Ātman''. It is one of the many individual selves where each "pure consciousness settles in its own pure nature", as a unique distinct soul/self.<ref>Stephen H. Phillips, ''Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of "new Logic".'' Open Court Publishing, 1995, pages 12–13.</ref> However, Yoga school's methodology was widely influential on other schools of Hindu philosophy. Vedanta monism, for example, adopted Yoga as a means to reach ''Jivanmukti'' – self-realization in this life – as conceptualized in Advaita Vedanta. Yoga and [[Samkhya]] define ''Ātman'' as an "unrelated, attributeless, [[self-luminous]], omnipresent entity", which is identical with consciousness.{{sfn| Grimes|1996|p=69}}

====Nyaya====
Early atheistic [[Nyaya]] scholars, and later theistic Nyaya scholars, both made substantial contributions to the systematic study of ''Ātman''.{{sfn|Plott|2000|p=62}} They posited that even though "self" is intimately related to the knower, it can still be the subject of knowledge. John Plott{{sfn|Plott|2000|p=62}} states that the Nyaya scholars developed a theory of negation that far exceeds [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]]'s theory of [[negation]], while their epistemological theories refined to "know the knower" at least equals Aristotle's sophistication. Nyaya methodology influenced all major schools of Hinduism.

Nyaya scholars defined ''Ātman'' as an imperceptible substance that is the substrate of human consciousness, manifesting itself with or without qualities such as desires, feelings, perception, knowledge, understanding, errors, insights, sufferings, bliss, and others.<ref name=elisa/><ref>KK Chakrabarti (1999), Classical Indian Philosophy of Mind: The Nyaya Dualist Tradition, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791441718}}, pages 2, 187-188, 220</ref> 

Nyaya theory of the ''ātman'' had two broader contributions to Hindu conceptions of the ''ātman''. One, Nyaya scholars went beyond holding it as "self evident" and offered rational proofs, consistent with their epistemology, in their debates with Buddhists, that "Atman exists".<ref name="nyayaexamples" /> Second, they developed theories on what "Atman is and is not".<ref name="royperrett">Roy W. Perrett (Editor, 2000), Indian Philosophy: Metaphysics, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, {{ISBN|978-0815336082}}, page xvii; also see Chakrabarti pages 279-292</ref> As proofs for the proposition 'self exists', for example, Nyaya scholars argued that personal recollections and memories of the form "I did this so many years ago" implicitly presume that there is a self that is substantial, continuing, unchanged, and existent.<ref name="nyayaexamples">See example discussed in this section; For additional examples of Nyaya reasoning to prove that 'self exists', using propositions and its theories of negation, see: [https://archive.org/stream/TheNyayaSutrasOfGotama/Vidyabhusana_Nyaya-Sutras_1913#page/n39/mode/2up Nyayasutra] verses 1.2.1 on pages 14-15, 1.2.59 on page 20, 3.1.1-3.1.27 on pages 63-69, and later chapters</ref><ref name="royperrett" />

[[Nyāya Sūtras|Nyayasutra]], a 2nd-century CE foundational text of Nyaya school of Hinduism, states that Atma is a proper object of human knowledge. It also states that Atman is a real substance that can be inferred from certain signs, objectively perceivable attributes. For example, in book 1, chapter 1, verses 9 and 10, Nyayasutra states<ref name=elisa/>
{{Blockquote|
''Ātman'', body, senses, objects of senses, intellect, mind, activity, error, ''pretyabhava'' (after life), fruit, suffering and bliss are the objects of right knowledge.<br>
Desire, aversion, effort, happiness, suffering and cognition are the ''Linga'' (लिङ्ग, mark, sign) of the ''Ātman''.
|Nyaya Sutra|I.1.9-10<ref name=elisa>Original Sanskrit: [https://archive.org/details/Anandashram_Samskrita_Granthavali_Anandashram_Sanskrit_Series Nyayasutra] Anand Ashram Sanskrit Granthvali, pages 26-28;<br>English translation 1: [https://archive.org/stream/TheNyayaSutrasOfGotama/Vidyabhusana_Nyaya-Sutras_1913#page/n29/mode/2up Nyayasutra] see verses 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 on pages 4-5;<br>English translation 2: Elisa Freschi (2014), Puspika: Tracing Ancient India Through Texts and Traditions, (Editors: Giovanni Ciotti, Alastair Gornall, Paolo Visigalli), Oxbow, {{ISBN|978-1782974154}}, pages 56-73</ref>}}

Book 2, chapter 1, verses 1 to 23, of the Nyayasutras posits that the sensory act of looking is different from perception and cognition–that perception and knowledge arise from the seekings and actions of ''Ātman''.<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/TheNyayaSutrasOfGotama/Vidyabhusana_Nyaya-the Sutras_1913#page/n47/mode/2up Nyayasutra] see pages 22-29</ref> The Naiyayikas emphasize that ''Ātman'' has qualities, but is different from its qualities. For example, desire is one of many qualities of ''Ātman'', but ''Ātman'' does not always have desire, and in the state of liberation, for instance, the ''Ātman'' is without desire.<ref name=elisa/> Additionally, the self has the property of consciousness, but that too, is not an essential property. Naiyayikas take the ''ātman'' to lose consciousness during deep sleep.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thompson |first=Evan |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Waking_Dreaming_Being/q_vpBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 |title=Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy |date=2014-11-18 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-53831-2 |pages=240 |language=en}}</ref>

====Vaiśeṣika====
The [[Vaisheshika]] school of Hinduism, using its non-theistic theories of atomistic [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], posits that ''Ātman'' is one of the four eternal non-physical<ref>The school posits that there are five physical substances: earth, water, air, water and ''akasa'' (ether/sky/space beyond air)</ref> substances without attributes, the other three being ''[[kāla]]'' (time), ''dik'' (space) and ''[[Manas (early Buddhism)|manas]]'' (mind).<ref name=sarachmo>Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore (Eds., 1973), A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Reprinted in 1973, {{ISBN|978-0691019581}}, pages 386-423</ref> Time and space, stated Vaiśeṣika scholars, are ''eka'' (one), ''nitya'' (eternal) and ''vibhu'' (all pervading). Time and space are indivisible reality, but human mind prefers to divide them to comprehend past, present, future, relative place of other substances and beings, direction and its own coordinates in the universe. In contrast to these characteristics of time and space, Vaiśeṣika scholars considered ''Ātman'' to be many, eternal, independent and spiritual substances that cannot be reduced or inferred from other three non-physical and five physical ''dravya'' (substances).<ref name=sarachmo/> Mind and sensory organs are instruments, while consciousness is the domain of "atman, soul, self".<ref name=sarachmo/>

The knowledge of ''Ātman'', to Vaiśeṣika Hindus, is another knowledge without any "bliss" or "consciousness" ''[[moksha]]'' state that Vedanta and Yoga school describe.{{sfn|Plott|2000|p=60-62}}

====Mimamsa====
''Ātman'', in the ritualism-based [[Mīmāṃsā]] school of Hinduism, is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active essence that is identified as I-consciousness.<ref name=ptraju2>PT Raju (2008), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0415461214}}, pages 79-80</ref><ref name=chrisbartley>Chris Bartley (2013), Purva Mimamsa, in Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy (Editor: Oliver Leaman), Routledge, 978-0415862530, page 443-445</ref> Unlike all other schools of Hinduism, Mimamsaka scholars considered ego and ''Atman'' as the same. Within Mimamsa school, there was divergence of beliefs. [[Kumārila Bhaṭṭa|Kumārila]], for example, believed that ''Atman'' is the object of I-consciousness, whereas [[Prabhākara]] believed that ''Atman'' is the subject of I-consciousness.<ref name=ptraju2/> Mimamsaka Hindus believed that what matters is virtuous actions and rituals completed with perfection, and it is this that creates merit and imprints knowledge on ''Atman'', whether one is aware or not aware of ''Atman''. Their foremost emphasis was formulation and understanding of laws/duties/virtuous life (''[[dharma]]'') and consequent perfect execution of ''kriyas'' (actions). The Upanishadic discussion of ''Atman'', to them, was of secondary importance.<ref name=chrisbartley/><ref>Oliver Leaman (2006), Shruti, in Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy, Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0415862530}}, page 503</ref> While other schools disagreed and discarded the ''Atma'' theory of Mimamsa, they incorporated Mimamsa theories on ethics, self-discipline, action, and dharma as necessary in one's journey toward knowing one's ''Atman''.<ref>PT Raju (2008), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0415461214}}, pages 82-85</ref><ref>PT Raju (1985), Structural Depths of Indian Thought, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0887061394}}, pages 54-63; Michael C. Brannigan (2009), Striking a Balance: A Primer in Traditional Asian Values, Rowman & Littlefield, {{ISBN|978-0739138465}}, page 15</ref>

====Vedanta====

=====Advaita Vedanta=====
[[Advaita Vedanta]] (non-dualism) sees the "spirit/soul/self" within each living entity as being fully identical with Brahman.<ref name=arvindsharmaintro/> The Advaita school believes that there is one soul that connects and exists in all living beings, regardless of their shapes or forms, and there is no distinction, no superior, no inferior, no separate devotee soul (''Atman''), no separate god soul (Brahman).<ref name=arvindsharmaintro>Arvind Sharma (2007), Advaita Vedānta: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120820272}}, pages 19-40, 53-58, 79-86</ref> The oneness unifies all beings, there is divine in every being, and that all existence is a single reality, state the Advaita Vedanta Hindus. In contrast, devotional sub-schools of Vedanta such as [[Dvaita]] (dualism) differentiate between the individual ''Atma'' in living beings, and the supreme ''Atma'' (''[[Paramatma]]'') as being separate.<ref>[[Bhagavata Purana]] [http://vedabase.net/sb/3/28/41/en 3.28.41] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217121958/http://vedabase.net/sb/3/28/41/en |date=2012-02-17 }}</ref><ref>[http://srimadbhagavatam.com/7/7/19-20/en1 Bhagavata Purana 7.7.19–20] "Atma also refers to the Supreme Lord or the living entities. Both of them are spiritual."</ref>

Advaita Vedanta philosophy considers ''Atman'' as [[Saccidānanda|Sat-cit-ānanda]], self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual.<ref name=aramb>A Rambachan (2006), The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791468524}}, pages 47, 99-103</ref> To Advaitins, the ''Atman'' is the Brahman, the Brahman is the ''Atman'', each self is non-different from the infinite.<ref name=arvindsharmaintro/><ref>Karl Potter (2008), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta, Volume 3, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120803107}}, pages 510-512</ref> ''Atman'' is the universal principle, one eternal undifferentiated [[self-luminous]] consciousness, the truth asserts Advaita Hinduism.<ref>S Timalsina (2014), Consciousness in Indian Philosophy: The Advaita Doctrine of 'Awareness Only', Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0415762236}}, pages 3-23</ref><ref>Eliot Deutsch (1980), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, {{ISBN|978-0824802714}}, pages 48-53</ref> Human beings, in a state of unawareness of this universal self, see their "I-ness" as different from the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.<ref>A Rambachan (2006), The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791468524}}, pages 114-122</ref><ref>Adi Sankara, A Bouquet of Nondual Texts: Advaita Prakarana Manjari, Translators: Ramamoorthy & Nome, {{ISBN|978-0970366726}}, pages 173-214</ref> To Advaitins, Atman-knowledge is the state of full awareness, liberation, and freedom that overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others, and in all living beings; the non-dual oneness, that God is in everything, and everything is God.<ref name=arvindsharmaintro/><ref name=aramb/> This identification of individual living beings/souls, or ''jiva-atmas'', with the 'one Atman' is the non-dualistic [[Advaita Vedanta]] position.

===== Dvaita Vedanta =====
The [[monism|monist]], non-dual conception of existence in Advaita Vedanta is not accepted by the dualistic/theistic [[Dvaita Vedanta]]. Dvaita Vedanta calls the ''Atman'' of a supreme being as ''[[Paramatman]]'', and holds it to be different from individual ''Atman''. Dvaita scholars assert that God is the ultimate, complete, perfect, but distinct soul, one that is separate from incomplete, imperfect ''jivas'' (individual souls).<ref>R Prasad (2009), A Historical-developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Concept Publishing, {{ISBN|978-8180695957}}, pages 345-347</ref> The Advaita sub-school believes that self-knowledge leads to liberation in this life, while the Dvaita sub-school believes that liberation is only possible in after-life as communion with God, and only through the grace of God (if not, then one's ''Atman'' is reborn).<ref>James Lewis and William Travis (1999), Religious Traditions of the World, {{ISBN|978-1579102302}}, pages 279-280</ref> God created individual souls, state Dvaita Vedantins, but the individual soul never was and never will become one with God; the best it can do is to experience bliss by getting infinitely close to God.<ref name=tompad>Thomas Padiyath (2014), The Metaphysics of Becoming, De Gruyter, {{ISBN|978-3110342550}}, pages 155-157</ref> The Dvaita school, therefore, in contrast to the monistic position of Advaita, advocates a version of monotheism wherein Brahman is made synonymous with [[Vishnu]] (or Narayana), distinct from numerous individual Atmans.