A Philosophical Analysis: Hindu Atman Theory and Buddhist Anatman

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the Hindu Atman theory and the Buddhist Anatman theory, focusing on their differing perspectives on the concept of self. The Hindu Atman theory posits the existence of an immortal soul (Atman) within each individual, which is distinct from the body and mind. This soul undergoes rebirth and is the essence of a person's identity. In contrast, the Buddhist Anatman theory denies the existence of a permanent, unchanging self. Instead, it proposes that individuals are composed of five skandhas (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) which are impermanent and interconnected, leading to the idea of no-self. The essay explores the arguments and justifications provided by both religions, highlighting the analogies used by Hinduism and the focus on suffering in Buddhism. The conclusion suggests that while both offer valuable insights, Hinduism's justification may appear more plausible due to its detailed analogies, while Buddhism's arguments align more with modern scientific thinking. However, the essay emphasizes the importance of respecting the diverse beliefs of different religions.

Running head: PHILOSOPHY
0
[Type the company name]
PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY
1
Hindu theory of atman and Buddhism no-self theory:
This world consists of various religions that have different beliefs and values. Similar things are
looked differently by the people who have different religious background. This is because the
concepts and the teachings that have been taught to them by their religious teachers are different.
The basis of the concepts remains same but the thinking and the viewpoints regarding that
concept is different (Adhikary, 2010). The major concept that has been discussed by various
religions is the concept of self. This is the concept that has frequent theories associated with it by
different religion followers. No religion would be totally satisfied with the teaching and theories
of the teachings and theories of self by other religion. The contradiction is observed in the
Buddhism theory and the Hinduism theory (Klostermaier, 2007). Although, Buddhism is the part
of Hinduism, still they refused to agree on the points Hinduism follow on the concept self that is
also called as “Atman”. Hinduism believes that there is self in each of the human body that is
called soul or atman. This is the basis of existence for humans in Hinduism and they claim that
soul is what makes the humans how they are and not the body. Human body is just considered as
the external container that holds the soul. Atman is not a physical element but is present in the
human body. During incarnation of the human body, this soul leaves the body as soul cannot die
according to the Hinduism theory (Narayanan, 2009). On the other hand, Buddhism is the
religion that believes in the theory of “anatman”. Unlike Hinduism, Buddhism think that there is
no self in the body that is required for the existence, but it is the cause and effects that are the
basis of life on earth. The below discussion provides the information about both the concepts and
beliefs of self and the judgment has been made in the end regarding the plausibility of one of the
theory.
Hindu believes that there is soul in every body. The soul is considered as immortal, invisible and
eternal in nature (Narayanan, 2009). The soul is called atman which breathes inside humans.
Atman should not be confused with the mind or body as it is distinct from both. According to the
theory of Hinduism, self-awareness is to be aware of the nature of the soul of the person and not
the mind or body’s nature (Heimsath, 2015). This is the reason why self-awareness considered so
difficult. It is this awareness that helps in distinguishing the great personalities from the normal

PHILOSOPHY
2
personalities in Hinduism. A famous analogy is explained in order to explain the concept of soul
in the human body by Hinduism. The analogy is driver in the vehicle. Here, the driver is
considered as soul and vehicle is termed as body. As the car or the vehicle cannot run without the
driver, likewise a body also needs the soul to function. When a car hits another car, the person
sitting in one car says that “he hits me” instead, in actual, the car hits the car. Just like this
concept, soul is not the body but it is assumed to be one. Driver of the car is bound to the laws
and rules of driving the car on the roads; likewise the soul of the body is also restricted by some
of the factors such as mind and heart of the body (Gandhi, 2017). When the child is small, he do
not have knowledge about the rules and laws of driving and he may not have the knowledge that
car needs driver to run. In same way, the people who do not have knowledge regarding the soul
and the body thinks that soul and body are same. They generally fail to see the soul as distinct
part of the body. Drivers can leave their one car and drive other cars. Just like the soul of the
human body that can leave one and can enter to anther after the incarnation. This is the basis of
rebirth concept that the Hindus believe in (Tweed, 2011). self-realization is thus a sacred practice
that cannot be practiced by anyone. It is the actual realization of the soul that can be achieved
only when the soul have its control the mind. When all the materialistic thinking vanishes from
the mind of the human body, the only self-realization can be achieved.
On the other hand, Buddhism also made some of the arguments that are about the concept of no
self-theory of Buddhism. The first argument that is made is about sufferings. According to
Buddhism theory, the humans and animals have been given six senses in order to feel the
sufferings they experience. They argue that anything that face sufferings cannot be ours thus,
Buddhism suggests that there is no soul but the body is the self. Buddhism teachings suggest that
there are five skandhas that involves forms, sensation, perceptions, mental formations and
consciousness. Form is about the physical form while sensation is about the feelings whether
emotional of physical (Yao, 2012). The third skandha is about the thinking process the humans
have to take and understands the concepts. Mental formations are about the habits of the people
and the last one is about the awareness or the sensitivity of the different objects. The most
important thing that needs to be understood about all these skandha is that they are empty in
nature and thus the concept of no self-arises (Colzato, Zech, Hommel, Verdonschot, van den
Wildenberg and Hsieh, 2012). This concept of Buddhism is also termed as “anatman or anatta”.
Buddhism teachings suggest that the terms ego, soul, self, etc. are just the terms and they do not

PHILOSOPHY
3
have any real identity. According to Buddhism, there is no reason to believe the fact that there is
existence of an immortal soul. Buddhism suggests that it is better to strive for salvation rather
than wasting time in researching about the soul and self-awareness.
Both the religions have their own concepts and beliefs. However, it is difficult to find out that
whose concepts re better justified. It has been analysed that Hindus justifies their concept of soul
and atman. The analogy has been framed for justifying the concept of soul with the driver and
the vehicle. This defines the concept of soul. As far as the Buddhism arguments are considered,
it is more related to the modern world and is related to science. Thus some of the people believe
in this concept. Hinduism claims that body and soul are distinct part; Buddhism says that soul
does not exist and the concept of soul and self is non-existent. There is no thing called soul on
their earth. It is only the sufferings and the senses that made the body and the self. It has ben
analysed that the features of bot the teaching are very much contrasting. Hinduism claims are
very different from the Buddhism claims. However, Hinduism has very intelligently justified
their beliefs by making such analogies but Buddhism has only provided the statement that there
is no reason for them to believe in atman (Young, Morris, Burrus, Krishnan and Regmi, 2011).
There is no proper justification of what they are claiming. In addition to it, they even do not have
any contrasting claim that can cut the claim of the Hindus. Buddhism are only giving statements
in their teachings that soul is not present but they do not have any proof to that and they have not
even proved that Hindus are wrong in their beliefs. They are just denying the religious teachings
of Hindus without any proof. Every religion has their own concepts and beliefs and thus has their
own plausibility. According to Buddhism, human are process and not the self while Hinduism
gives humans a life (Menon, 2013). Analysing the arguments of both the religions, it has been
identified that plausibility is found more in Hinduism rather than in the concepts of Buddhism.
Examining both the sides, it has been analysed that Buddhism has logic behind its concepts but
Hinduism has justifies their concepts with the theoretical aspects without any practical logic of
modern world (Chan, 2008). With due respect to both the religion, it has been suggested out of
the study that every religion has their own beliefs that needs to be respected by the other religion
followers. This is because no religion can be wrong; it is just that the views and the thinking
process of the people and the followers are different.

PHILOSOPHY
4
References:
Adhikary, N.M., 2010. Sancharyoga: Approaching communication as a vidya in Hindu
orthodoxy. China Media Research, 6(3), pp.76-85.
Chan, W.S., 2008. Psychological attachment, no-self and Chan Buddhist mind
therapy. Contemporary Buddhism, 9(2), pp.253-264.
Colzato, L.S., Zech, H., Hommel, B., Verdonschot, R., van den Wildenberg, W.P. and Hsieh, S.,
2012. Loving-kindness brings loving-kindness: The impact of Buddhism on cognitive self–other
integration. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 19(3), pp.541-545.
Gandhi, M.K., 2017. Hindu dharma. Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd.
Heimsath, C.H., 2015. Indian nationalism and Hindu social reform. Princeton University Press.
Klostermaier, K.K., 2007. A survey of Hinduism. SuNY Press.
Menon, U., 2013. The Hindu concept of self-refinement: Implicit yet meaningful. Psychology
and Developing Societies, 25(1), pp.195-222.
Narayanan, A.S., 2014. A Dialogue On Principles And Practice Of Hinduism. विद्य ा प्र सारक मंडळ,
ठाणे.v
Narayanan, V., 2009. Hinduism. The Rosen Publishing Group.
Tweed, T.A., 2011. Theory and method in the study of Buddhism:
toward'Translocative'analysis. Journal of Global Buddhism, 12, p.17.
Yao, Z., 2012. The Buddhist theory of self-cognition. Routledge.
Young, M.J., Morris, M.W., Burrus, J., Krishnan, L. and Regmi, M.P., 2011. Deity and destiny:
Patterns of fatalistic thinking in Christian and Hindu cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 42(6), pp.1030-1053.