ATMAN AND ANATMAN

In contrast to the Atman of Vedanta, there is the Buddhist Anatman.  The former refers to the spiritual self or soul that is the same as Brahman, the Godhead.  Buddhism disputes this Atman by asserting that there is no self or soul that exists apart from everything else in the world, and that certainly there is nothing that transmigrates or is reborn into a new life after death.

Indeed, the Vedantic and Buddhist views of rebirth illustrate fully the difference between the Atman and Anatman doctines.  In Vedanta, the Atman is the same stuff as Brahman, pure being, hence does not die when the individual dies.  Rather, it carries over into a new existence, sometimes lingering in a way station in other realms before returning.  Unlike Western religions, it does not remain in a permanent eternal heaven, or hell.

Buddhism says that there is no such entity (an-atman, no self) that moves on, stating at the same time, however, that rebirth does take place.  What is reborn, though, is a character structure consisting of impressions, ideas, and feelings that pass along to the new life.  The process is likened to the flame of a candle that is transferred to another candle.  The flame, this way, is the same flame yet different.

The real purpose of the doctrine of Anatman in Buddhism is to keep a person from clinging to, from becoming attached to, from being distracted by, the notion that something else, a soul, exists in him that lives on.  To become so sidetracked is to place one’s suffering, and the cause of it, in a secondary position, to where it becomes an excuse for inaction.

The strategy in Buddhism is for us to jettison all concepts, preconceived notions, and theories concerning a soul, the Atman, so that we can focus on alleviating our real suffering here and now, what our highest priority should be.