No soul vs Atman

One of the things I'm familiar with in Buddhism, partucularly othordox Theravada Buddhism, is that because there is no such thing as a self there there is no such thing as an Atman. Buddhism claims that the Atman means that everyone has a seperate entity that goes from lifetime to lifetime. The more I look into it however, Hinduism doesn't claim the the Atman is a seperate enity at all, but that it's in line and connected to everything in the universe. In a way this is comparible to the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Buddha nature. To me Buddha nature at Atman seem to be the same thing, though just with different terminologies attached to it. Behind the illusion of ego lies our true nature, mahayana would call it Buddha nature, Hindu's atman.
Am I getting this right?

Yes I have always believed they are the same thing, it's just a confusion of terms. The point is that Buddhist anatta (no-self) teaching is talking about the ordinary, conventional "I". This is the "I" that is individual, as opposed to "you". But in the Upanishads and the Hindu mystical teachings, that is _not_ what is meant by the Atman. The individual "I" is the jiva. The Atman is pure consciousness, what is not individual but the nature of everything.

The Atman is the same as the nature of mind discussed in the Mahayana teachings. If you call that a self or not is just a perspective. It is not a self in the sense that it is not an individual - it is not "mine" as opposed to "yours". But you can't say it's not a self! Because it is the nature of everything, it is who you really are. The difference is only a point of view and a term, it has caused a massive amount of confusion but they are both describing the same reality of discovering an awareness beyond the individual.

[JaysonR]

Perhaps it might help to see that the sanskrit is at-man (at: move - man (conjugation of mad): first person personal pronoun [I, me, my]).
For example, asmad, is what I would write to declare the English equivalent of, "myself".

Anatta in Sanskrit is anatman, and the Sanskrit prefix a (which is a Sanskrit prefix for negation, or "not") is suffixed with n when the subsequent letter is a vowel, such as atman begins with.

Meaning, anatman is, "not my motion".

I wrote a bit about this in the Buddhism section when someone asked a similar question (as it was regarding another similar issue), and while it does not directly address the question, it does accompany it.

Originally Posted by JaysonR

*The ocean has a current which produces a wave; janamana (to produce mind/to produce to perception [another way of saying this: to make available for witness)

*The wave will move on a course influenced by this current; samsara (under flow)

*The wave has an action; karma (my action)

*The water's reaction to the current within itself is the uniqueness of that wave (the part of the current that is within the body of the wave itself); atman (my movement [at (move). man (my/me).])

*When the wave reaches the shore it stops being the wave; marana/jaramarana (expending to cessation of action ['my action': karma])

*It is then no more as it has reached full expense and recedes back to the ocean unbound; nirvana (lit. without blow, fig. unbound)

*What was the wave is now part of the ocean, which the ocean has a current which produces a wave; punarjanam (back to produce [implied: mind/perception; from janamana])

*The wave will move on a course influenced by this current; samsara...


The illusion being described is that of confusing mana with atman.
To consider that one is their mana and that mana has their atman.
Mana is the provoked; atman is the iteration.
But neither remain.

Jan remains; the current.
Nirvana is after each iteration, and true nirvana is when the current; jan; is done producing like waves (nirvana through jaramarana of punarjanam).

Until then, a new atman (my movement) will be produced into consciousness [capable of being witnessed] (janamana) every time the same motion of the current (sara) brings the same wave into motion (samsara) permitting it its action (karma) within the confines of its force of current (samsara) until it reaches the shore and expends itself in the same way as its preceding like waves (jaramarana)...and repeat.

The idea that was provocative was to realize that the way to reach final nirvana was to release the attempt to control sara in samsara by using mana in hopes of preserving atman after jaramarana in samsara.

To realize the only way that your type of wave stops returning in form is when the energy of the current has been expended by the ocean and the ocean therefore stops returning the current.

Ultimately, the disillusion, therefore, is to understand that control over this is not within oneself.
There is no possession, save for the temporal atman which will reach nirvana after jaramarana in samsara; so this too is not entirely possessed at all.
After this, if it is to be that the appearance of your type is to come again with another atman over and over, then so be it. That is for that time; that janamana; that samsara...not this janamana; this samsara; this atman.


Or, to say it another way...
Give up and just live.

Note: these are my opinions on the terminological philosophies which would have been the buzzing discussion at the end of the Vedic period (when the Vedic period essentially fell apart and a sort of philosophical Indian renaissance started taking place) from which Buddhism (and other schools) developed.

But mostly, this post shows the terminological relationships between the various phrases etymologically with a mind to the ontological values.

[Xan]

Behind the illusion of ego lies our true nature, mahayana would call it Buddha nature, Hindu's atman.
Am I getting this right?

Yes... that's the understanding, Greg.

Now for experiencing your true nature in the quiet open space within....


Xan

[peteyzen]

the atman is the divine spark that animates the body. the soul is the collection of personal experiences that travels from body to body almost like a hard drive of our lives and a map of our evolving spiritual structure for when we embody again

Atman, used in Hinduism and Yoga, means the Higher Self, yet, a personal self.
Buddhism says that ultimately there is no self. The word "self" here means the individuality, or the ego.
When a Yogi realizes the Supreme Reality, he realizes that the self, or ego, is but an illusion. Thus, a realized Yogi will agree that in reality, form the view point of the Ultimate Reality, there is no self (ego).

Thus, Hinduism and Yoga on one hand, and Buddhism on the other hand, use different terminology. A realized Yogi and a Realized Buddhist will agree completely with one another about the nature of reality. Followers of each school are attached to the words and terms used. Realized beings agree with one another on the nature of Reality they have realized.

[Xan]

Hinduism's most basic principle is, "Atman is Brahman."

Brahman is pure formless beingness expressing itself as Atman, individual pure beings.

The conditioned ego self is called Jiva in Sanskrit.


Xan

Well, Jiva is the immortal soul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiva .
A Jivanmukta is a liberated one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jivanmukta .

[Xan]

Jiva has a very similar usage to atma, but whereas atma refers to "the cosmic self", jiva is used to denote an individual 'living entity' or 'living being' specifically.

Also from Wikipedia. Take your pick which definition you prefer.


Xan

Yes jiva is the individuality. Buddhist teaching analyzes that individuality, showing that it is composed of the 5 aggregates or bundles of mind-body processes. These are always changing and so there is no permanent, fixed identity to anyone.

But beyond that is the nature of mind (called rigpa in Tibetan) or the pure Witness/Consciousness/Self (called Atman, Purusha, and several other names in Sanskrit).