The difference between the notion of Atman and Anatta and their relation to my perception of reality.
Introduction
Atman refers to a metaphysical and spiritual concept in the Hindu philosophy that asserts to the existence of an eternal soul or inner self in all creatures (Larson and James, 245-259). This belief is at the very center of Hinduism. The belief in the existence of a person’s innermost essence that is eternal and is at the core of an individual’s state of being. Atman considers the soul as an independent phenomenon, transcending the reams of time, consciousness and the physical. To the contrary, anatta is a Buddhist contraction dismissing the existence of permanent self, an unchanged essence of the existence of a living thing (Iida, Shotaro and Lancaster, 365-368). Buddhism holds the view that the belief of the existence and permanence of a soul as not only fallacious but also as the source of an individual’s suffering, an obstacle to the achieving of enlightenment.
Self-identity refers to how an individual perceives themselves. It is a multi-facet phenomenon comprising of what an individual considers to permanent attributes of themselves. For instance personality, knowledge and skills (Bem and Dary, 177-204). This concept aims at answering the question, who am I?
Thesis statement
The notion of the absence of self is a more rational approach to the analysis of the nature of self-identity compared to the notion of the existence of an enduring self.
As a student of free will and the randomness of reality, I am inclined towards the Buddhist concept of anatta. This position is informed by the conviction that the existence a soul is nothing but a contract of the human mind aimed at trying to make sense of an otherwise random state of reality. It is merely an effort by humans to try to conceptualize their environment. To try to establish patterns in the midst of confusion that they can cling to. I am a subscriber to the school of thought that dresses down the majority of human behavioral decisions, similarly to all other living things, to the basis of their the innate need to survive. Living things are genetically inclined to be guided by the need to survive, the need to adapt to their ever-changing environment to efficiently utilize the limited available resources. It is, therefore, a matter of rationality to deduce the absence of a predetermined essence of existence in living things.
The randomness of life and existence can be traced back to the formation of life itself. Although it is a highly subjective concept, for this argument I will consider conception as the start of life. In the case of humans, I think it is irrational and delusional to purport the existence of a constant in conclusion whereas the premises from which it is derived exhibit randomness. The process of fertilization is a random process involving a single egg and hundreds of millions of sperms. There exist infinite possible genetic combinations the egg and a given sperm. The determinant of which given sperm will fertilize the egg exhibit randomness. It is a nexus between the sperm that was available at the optimal time and place and one that was fittest. Therefore, if at the very source of life, the only constant is randomness and the survival of the fitness. how then can we go ahead to impose the existence of a predetermined essence of life on the result of such a chaotic process?
The Buddhist concept of anatta is consistent with these realities. It observes that the illusion of an unchanging self is a collection of independent mental and physical entities are continually evolving (Iida, Shotaro and Lancaster, 365-368). This doctrine warns against the innate tenancy of man to cling to the contractions of his mind. To try to look for meaning in a space devoid of it. The concept of anatta views the assumption of the existence of a soul as an extrapolation of one’s current situation. It a case of the mind trying to justify its existence, therefore, setting a platform for conflict and pain. Pain, suffering, and conflict are fueled by the misguided desire to attain the apparent objectives of our existence (Iida, Shotaro and Lancaster, 365-368). To serve our predetermined purpose. To fulfill our destiny. The teachings on anatta emphasize on the fact that to objectively perceive reality, one ought to completely detach themselves from the pre-determined perceptions of self which are mistakenly anchored on the fallacious analysis of form as an aggregate of feelings, consciousness, perceptions and mental fabrications
I hold the opinion, informed by the teachings of the concept of anatta, that the only way to fully comprehend the nature of one’s identity is to depart from the bliss of clinging to such impermanent perceptions and seeking refuge on wisdom, that which remain when all is set loss.
Conclusion
It is vital for individuals in their quest of not only identifying but also understanding themselves to avoid the trap of subscribing into societal dogmas and prejudices. To devoid their judgment of the constructs of their mind. To avoid being victims of their ego that give rise to a misguided sense of self-importance and predestined destiny. It is only through this that one will able to truly know themselves.
Work Cited
Larson, Gerald James. "Āyurveda and the Hindu philosophical systems." Philosophy East and West (1987): 245-259.
Iida, Shotaro, and Lew Lancaster. "Dynamic Buddha and Static Buddha (A System of Buddhist Practice)." (1963): 365-366.
Bem, Daryl J. "An experimental analysis of self-persuasion." Attitude Change. Routledge, 2017. 177-204.
