entity_type
stringclasses 1
value | qid
stringclasses 4
values | wikipedia_pageid
int64 101k
22.4M
| wikipedia_title
stringclasses 4
values | wikipedia_url
stringclasses 4
values | retrieved_at
stringdate 2026-01-22 05:15:15
2026-01-22 05:15:15
| seed_categories
listlengths 3
3
| title
stringclasses 4
values | summary
stringclasses 4
values | definition
stringclasses 2
values | history
stringclasses 1
value | philosophical_context
stringclasses 2
values | practice
stringclasses 2
values | criticism
stringclasses 1
value | sections
dict | core_strengths_llm
listlengths 0
0
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
concept
|
Q2517751
| 6,811,468
|
Achourya
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achourya
|
2026-01-22T05:15:15.201175+00:00
|
[
"Category:Indian philosophical concepts",
"Category:Hindu philosophical concepts",
"Category:Concepts in Hinduism"
] |
Achourya
|
(Sanskrit: , IAST: ) or (Sanskrit: ; IAST: ) is the Sanskrit term for "non-stealing". It is a virtue in Jainism. The practice of demands that one must not steal, nor have the intent to steal, another's property through action, speech, and thoughts.
is one of the five major vows of Hinduism and Jainism. It is also one of ten forms of temperance (virtuous self-restraint) in Indian philosophy.
|
{
"Advaita Vedanta": null,
"Ahimsa": null,
"Based on belief in Atman": null,
"Bhagavad Gita": null,
"Brihadaranyaka Upanishad": null,
"Buddhism": null,
"Chandogya Upanishad": null,
"Classification of schools": null,
"Dharma-sutras": null,
"Difference from": "and are two of several important virtues in Hinduism and Jainism. They both involve interaction between a person and material world, either as property, fame or ideas; yet and are different concepts. is the virtue of non-stealing and not wanting to appropriate, or take by force or deceit or exploitation, by deeds or words or thoughts, what is owned by and belongs to someone else. , in contrast, is the virtue of non-possessiveness and non-clinging to one's own property, non-accepting of any gifts or particularly improper gifts offered by others, and of non-avarice/non-craving in the motivation of one's deeds, words, and thoughts.David Frawley, Yoga and the Sacred Fire, Motilal Banarsidas, \n\n means non-covetousness. is where one stands. is the limit. When one crosses the limit of one's , even by intention it's covetousness, not a virtue. It's misappropriation or manipulation. This principle applies not only to physical property, but also to intellectual property. Crossing one's limit, craving for something or someone rightfully belonging to others even by thoughts or intentions is a sin. “...whosever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” ().",
"Discussion": "in practice implies to \"not steal\", \"not cheat\", nor unethically manipulate other's property or others for one's own gain. as virtue demands not only that one \"not steal\", but that one should not encourage cheating through speech or writing, or want to cheat even in one's thinking. The virtue of arises out of the understanding that all misappropriation is an expression of craving and lack of compassion for other beings. To steal or want to steal expresses lack of faith in oneself: one's ability to learn and create property. To steal another's property is also stealing from one's own potential ability to develop. The Sutras reason that misappropriation, conspiring to misappropriate, or wanting to misappropriate, at its root reflects the sin of (bad greed), (material delusion), or (bad anger).\n\nGandhi held as essential to the human right to life and liberty without fear, and as essential to the human right to property without fear. follows from , in Gandhi's views, because stealing is a form of violence and injury to another person. is not merely \"theft by action\", but it includes \"theft by intent\" and \"theft by manipulation\". Persistent exploitation of the weak or poor is a form of \" in one's thought\".",
"Dvaita Vedanta": null,
"Etymology": "The word \"\" is a compound derived from Sanskrit, where \"\" refers to \"non-\" and \"\" refers to \"practice of stealing\" or \"something that can be stolen\". Thus, means \"non-stealing\".",
"External links": null,
"Four Functions": null,
"Hinduism": "is defined in Hindu texts as \"the abstinence, in one's deeds or words or thoughts, from unauthorized appropriation of things of value from another human being\". It is a widely discussed virtue in ethical theories of Hinduism. For example, in the Yoga Sūtras (II.30), is listed as the third or virtue of self-restraint, along with (nonviolence), (non-falsehoods, truthfulness), (sexual chastity in one's feelings and actions) and (non-possessiveness, non-craving).\n\n is thus one of the five essential restraints (, \"the don'ts\") in Hinduism, that with five essential practices (, \"the dos\") are suggested for right, virtuous, enlightened living.",
"Influence of Atman-concept on Hindu ethics": null,
"Jainism": "In Jainism, it is one of the five vows that all and s (householders) as well as monastics must observe. The five transgressions of this vow, as mentioned in the Jain text Tattvārthsūtra, are: \"Prompting another to steal, receiving stolen goods, underbuying in a disordered state, using false weights and measures, and deceiving others with artificial or imitation goods\".\nThis is explained in the Jain text, Sarvārthasiddhi as (translated by S.A. Jain):",
"Katha Upanishad": null,
"Lead": "(Sanskrit: , IAST: ) or (Sanskrit: ; IAST: ) is the Sanskrit term for \"non-stealing\". It is a virtue in Jainism. The practice of demands that one must not steal, nor have the intent to steal, another's property through action, speech, and thoughts.\n\n is one of the five major vows of Hinduism and Jainism. It is also one of ten forms of temperance (virtuous self-restraint) in Indian philosophy.",
"Meaning": null,
"Mimamsa": null,
"Nyaya": null,
"Nāstika": null,
"Orthodox schools": null,
"Pudgalavāda": null,
"References": null,
"Related concepts": "—charity to a deserving person without any expectation in return—is a recommended in Hinduism. The motive behind is reverse to that of \"stealing from others\". is a complementary practice to the (restraint) of .",
"Samkhya": null,
"Sassatavāda": null,
"See also": null,
"Sources": "Category:Jain philosophical concepts\nCategory:Hindu philosophical concepts\nCategory:Relational ethics\nCategory:Jain ethics\nCategory:Hindu ethics",
"Upanishads": null,
"Vaiśeṣika": null,
"Vedas": null,
"Without reference to Vedas": null,
"Yoga philosophy": null,
"Ājīvika": null,
"Āstika": null
}
|
[] |
|||||
concept
|
Q2671758
| 22,433,972
|
Antahkarana
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antahkarana
|
2026-01-22T05:15:15.201175+00:00
|
[
"Category:Indian philosophical concepts",
"Category:Hindu philosophical concepts",
"Category:Concepts in Hinduism"
] |
Antahkarana
|
Antaḥkaraṇa (Sanskrit: अन्तःकरण) is a concept in Hindu philosophy, referring to the totality of the mind, including the thinking faculty, the sense of I-ness, and the discriminating faculty. Antaḥ means 'inner' and karaṇa means 'instrument', or, 'function'. Therefore, the word Antaḥkaraṇa can be understood as 'inner organ', 'inner functions', or, 'inner instrument'.
|
{
"Advaita Vedanta": null,
"Ahimsa": null,
"Based on belief in Atman": null,
"Bhagavad Gita": null,
"Brihadaranyaka Upanishad": null,
"Buddhism": null,
"Chandogya Upanishad": null,
"Classification of schools": null,
"Dharma-sutras": null,
"Difference from": null,
"Discussion": null,
"Dvaita Vedanta": null,
"Etymology": null,
"External links": null,
"Four Functions": "The antahkarana is composed of the four functions of the mind, namely the manas (the mind or lower mind), buddhi (the intellect or higher mind), chitta (memory, or, consciousness), and ahamkara (ego, or, I-maker). Antaḥkaraṇa has also been called the link between the middle and higher mind, the reincarnating part of the mind.\nthumb|The four functions of Antahkarana\nIn Vedāntic literature, this (internal organ) is organised into four parts:\n ahaṃkāra (ego)—identifies the Atman (self) with the body as 'I'. The attachment or identification of the ego, also known as the 'I-maker'.\n buddhi (intellect)—the decision-making part of the mind. The part that is able to discern truth from falsehood and thereby to make wisdom possible.\n manas (mind)—the lower part of the mind that connects with the external world, and controls sankalpa (will or resolution). It is also the faculty of doubt and volition; seat of desire and governor of sensory and motor organs.\n chitta (memory)—the consciousness where impressions, memories and experiences are stored; the part that deals with remembering and forgetting.\nThere are three states of consciousness:\n\n jāgrat—waking state\n svapna—dream state\n suṣupti—deep sleep state\n\nThe antaḥkaraṇa is actively functioning in the first two states and dormant in the third state.\n\nAnother description says that antaḥkaraṇa refers to the entire psychological process, including mind and emotions, are composing the mind levels, as described above, which are mentioned as a unit that functions with all parts working together as a whole. Furthermore, when considering that mind levels are bodies, they are: manomayakośa – related to manas – the part of mind related to five senses, and also craving for new and pleasant sensations and emotions, while buddhi (intellect, intelligence, capacity to reason), is related to vijñānamayakośa – the body of consciousness, knowledge, intuition and experience.\n\nAntahkarana can also refer to the connection (bridge) between Manas and Buddhi.",
"Hinduism": null,
"Influence of Atman-concept on Hindu ethics": null,
"Jainism": null,
"Katha Upanishad": null,
"Lead": "Antaḥkaraṇa (Sanskrit: अन्तःकरण) is a concept in Hindu philosophy, referring to the totality of the mind, including the thinking faculty, the sense of I-ness, and the discriminating faculty. Antaḥ means 'inner' and karaṇa means 'instrument', or, 'function'. Therefore, the word Antaḥkaraṇa can be understood as 'inner organ', 'inner functions', or, 'inner instrument'.",
"Meaning": null,
"Mimamsa": null,
"Nyaya": null,
"Nāstika": null,
"Orthodox schools": null,
"Pudgalavāda": null,
"References": "Category:Hindu philosophical concepts\nCategory:Concepts in the philosophy of mind",
"Related concepts": null,
"Samkhya": null,
"Sassatavāda": null,
"See also": null,
"Sources": null,
"Upanishads": null,
"Vaiśeṣika": null,
"Vedas": null,
"Without reference to Vedas": null,
"Yoga philosophy": null,
"Ājīvika": null,
"Āstika": null
}
|
[] |
|||||
concept
|
Q618680
| 2,026,886
|
Āstika and nāstika
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika
|
2026-01-22T05:15:15.201175+00:00
|
[
"Category:Indian philosophical concepts",
"Category:Hindu philosophical concepts",
"Category:Concepts in Hinduism"
] |
Āstika and nāstika
|
Āstika (Sanskrit: आस्तिक, IAST: āstika) and nāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक, IAST: nāstika) are mutually exclusive terms that modern scholars use to classify the schools of Indian philosophy as well as some Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts.Perrett, Roy. 2000. Indian Philosophy. Routledge. . p. 88.Mittal, Sushil, and Gene Thursby. 2004. The Hindu World. Routledge. . pp. 729–30. The various definitions for āstika and nāstika philosophies have been disputed since ancient times, and there is no consensus.Nicholson, Andrew J. 2013. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Columbia University Press. . ch. 9.Doniger, Wendy. 2014. On Hinduism. Oxford University Press. . p. 46. One standard distinction, as within ancient- and medieval-era Sanskrit philosophical literature, is that āstika schools accept the Vedas, the ancient texts of India, as fundamentally authoritative, while the nāstika schools do not.Grayling, A. C. (2019). The History of Philosophy. Penguin Books. p. 519.Chatterjee, Satischandra, and Dhirendramohan Datta. 1984. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy (8th reprint ed.). Calcutta: University of Calcutta. p. 5n1:
"In modern Indian languages, 'āstika' and 'nāstika' generally mean 'theist' and 'atheist,' respectively. But in Sanskrit philosophical literature, 'āstika' means 'one who believes in the authority of the Vedas'. ('nāstika' means the opposite of these). The word is used here in the first sense. The six orthodox schools are 'āstika', and the Cārvāka is 'nāstika' in both the senses." However, a separate way of distinguishing the two terms has evolved in current Indian languages like Telugu, Hindi and Bengali, wherein āstika and its derivatives usually mean 'theist', and nāstika and its derivatives denote 'atheism'.For instance, the Atheist Society of India produces a monthly publications Nastika Yuga, which it translates as 'The Age of Atheism'. .
Still, philosophical tradition maintains the earlier distinction, for example, in identifying the school of Sāṃkhya, which is non-theistic (as it does not explicitly affirm the existence of God in its classical formulation), as āstika (Veda-affirming) philosophy, though "God" is often used as an epithet for consciousness (purusha) within its doctrine. "By reasoning, the material principle itself simply evolves into complex forms, and there is no need to hold that some spiritual power governs the material principle or its ultimate source." Similarly, though Buddhism is considered to be nāstika, Gautama Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu in some Hindu denominations.Literature review of secondary references of Buddha as Dashavatara which regard Buddha to be part of standard list:
Britannica
A Dictionary of Asian Mythology By David Adams Leeming p. 19 "Avatar"
Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide By Roshen Dalal p. 112 "Dashavatara" ""The standard and most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is: ... Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Kalki."
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M p. 73 "Avatar"
Hindu Gods and Goddesses By Sunita Pant Bansal p. 27 "Vishnu Dashavatara"
Hindu Myths (Penguin Books) pp. 62–63
The Book of Vishnu (see index)
Seven secrets of Vishnu By Devdutt Pattanaik p. 203 "In the more popular list of ten avatars of Vishnu, the ninth avatar is shown as Buddha, not Balarama."
A Dictionary of Hinduism p. 47 "Avatara"
BBC
Due to its acceptance of the Vedas, āstika philosophy, in the original sense, is often equivalent to Hindu philosophy: philosophy that developed alongside the Hindu religion.
Āstika (; from Sanskrit: asti, 'there is, there exists') means one who believes in the existence of a Self or Brahman, etc. It has been defined in one of three ways:GS Ghurye, Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary, Ed: S. Devadas Pillai (2011), , page 354
as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas;
as those who accept the existence of ātman;
as those who accept the existence of Ishvara.
Nāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक; from Sanskrit: na, 'not' + ), by contrast, are those who deny all the respective definitions of āstika; they do not believe in the existence of Self.
The six most studied Āstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as orthodox schools, are Nyāyá, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta. The five most studied Nāstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as heterodox schools, are Buddhism, Jainism, Chārvāka, Ājīvika, and Ajñana.For an overview of this method of classification, with detail on the grouping of schools, see: However, this orthodox-heterodox terminology is a construct of Western languages, and lacks scholarly roots in Sanskrit. Recent scholarly studies state that there have been various heresiological translations of Āstika and Nāstika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but many are unsophisticated and flawed.
|
{
"Advaita Vedanta": null,
"Ahimsa": null,
"Based on belief in Atman": "Astika, in some texts, is defined as those who believe in the existence of Atman (Self), while Nastika being those who deny there is any \"Self\" in human beings and other living beings.C Sharma (2013), A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, , page 66 All six schools of Hinduism classified as Astika philosophies hold the premise, \"Atman exists\". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, \"Atman does not exist.\"Dae-Sook Suh (1994), Korean Studies: New Pacific Currents, University of Hawaii Press, , page 171John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, , page 63, Quote: \"The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism\". Asanga Tilakaratna translates Astika as 'positivism' and Nastika as 'negativism', with Astika illustrated by Brahmanic traditions who accepted \"Self and God exists\", while Nastika as those traditions, such as Buddhism, who denied \"Self and God exists.\"Asanga Tilakaratna (2003, Editors: Anne Blackburn and Jeffrey Samuels), Approaching the Dhamma: Buddhist Texts and Practices in South and Southeast Asia, Pariyatti, , pages 128–129;God, states Tilakaratna, in Brahmanic traditions is Parama-atma (universal Self, Ishvara, Brahman)",
"Bhagavad Gita": null,
"Brihadaranyaka Upanishad": null,
"Buddhism": "Nagarjuna, according to Chandradhar Sharma, equates Nastikya to \"nihilism\".\n\nThe 4th century Buddhist scholar Asanga, in Bodhisattva Bhumi, refers to nastika Buddhists as sarvaiva nastika, describing them as who are complete deniers. To Asanga, nastika are those who say \"nothing whatsoever exists\", and the worst kind of nastika are those who deny all designation and reality. Astika are those who accept merit in and practice a religious life. According to Andrew Nicholson, later Buddhists understood Asanga to be targeting Madhyamaka Buddhism as nastika, while considering his own Yogachara Buddhist tradition to be astika. Initial interpretations of the Buddhist texts with the term astika and nastika, such as those composed by Nagarjuna and Aśvaghoṣa, were interpreted as being directed at the Hindu traditions. However, states John Kelly, most later scholarship considers this as incorrect, and that the astika and nastika terms were directed towards the competing Buddhist traditions and the intended audience of the texts were Buddhist monks debating an array of ideas across various Buddhist traditions.\n\nThe charges of being a nastika were serious threat to the social standing of a Buddhist, and could lead to expulsion from Buddhist monastic community. Thus, states Nicholson, the colonial era Indologist definition of astika and nastika schools of Indian philosophy, was based on a narrow study of literature such as a version of Manusmriti, while in truth these terms are more complex and contextually apply within the diverse schools of Indian philosophies.\n\nThe most common meaning of astika and nastika, in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism was the acceptance and adherence to ethical premises, and not textual validity or doctrinal premises, states Nicholson. It is likely that astika was translated as orthodox, and nastika as heterodox, because the early European Indologists carried the baggage of Christian theological traditions and extrapolated their own concepts to Asia, thereby distorting the complexity of Indian traditions and thought.",
"Chandogya Upanishad": null,
"Classification of schools": "The terms Āstika and Nāstika have been used to classify various Indian intellectual traditions.",
"Dharma-sutras": null,
"Difference from": null,
"Discussion": null,
"Dvaita Vedanta": null,
"Etymology": "Āstika is a Sanskrit adjective and noun that derives from asti ('there is or exists'), meaning 'knowing that which exists' or 'pious.' The word Nāstika (na, not, + ) is its negative.\n\nOne of the traditional etymologies of the term āstika—based on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.4.60 (\"astināstidiṣṭam matiḥ\")—defines the concept as 'he whose opinion is that Īśvara exists' (asti īśvara iti matir yasya). According to Sanskrit grammarian Hemachandra, āstika is a synonym for 'he who believes'. Other definitions include:\n 'opposite of nāstika' (nāstika bhinna);\n 'he whose idea is that Īśvara exists' (īśvara asti iti vādī); and\n 'he who considers the Vedas as authorities' (vedaprāmāṇyavādī).\n\nAs used in Hindu philosophy, the differentiation between āstika and nāstika does not refer to theism or atheism. The terms often, but not always, relate to accepting Vedic literature as an authority, particularly on their teachings on Self. The Veda and Hinduism do not subscribe to or include the concept of an almighty that is separate from oneself i.e. there is no concept of God in the Christian or Islamic sense. N. N. Bhattacharya writes:\n\nĀstika is also a name, such as that of a Vedic scholar born to the goddess Mānasā ('Mind') and the sage Jaratkaru.George Williams (2003), Handbook of Hindu Mythology, Oxford University Press, , page 65",
"External links": null,
"Four Functions": null,
"Hinduism": "Manusmriti, in verse 2.11, defines Nāstika as those who do not accept \"Vedic literature in entirety based on two roots of science of reasoning (Śruti and Smriti)\". The 9th century Indian scholar Medhatithi analyzed this definition and stated that Nāstika does not mean someone who says \"Vedic literature are untrue\", but rather one who says \"Vedic literature are immoral\". Medhatithi further noted verse 8.309 of Manusmriti, to provide another aspect of the definition of Nāstika as one who believes, \"there is no other world, there is no purpose in giving charity, there is no purpose in rituals and the teachings in the Vedic literature.\"\n\nManusmriti does not define, or imply a definition for Astika. It is also silent or contradictory on specific rituals such as animal sacrifices, asserting Ahimsa (non-violence, non-injury) is dharma in its verses such as verse 10.63 based on Upanishadic layer of Vedic literature, even though the older layer of Vedic literature mention such sacrifices unlike the later layer of Vedic literature.Sanskrit: Manusmriti with six scholar commentaries VN Mandlik, page 1310English: Manusmriti 10.63 Berkeley Center for World Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University Indian scholars, such as those from Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vedanta schools, accepted Astika to be those that include Śabda (; or Aptavacana, testimony of Vedic literature and reliable experts) as a reliable means of epistemology, but they accepted the later ancient layer of the Vedic literature to be superseding the earlier ancient layer.",
"Influence of Atman-concept on Hindu ethics": null,
"Jainism": "According to G. S. Ghurye, the Jain texts define na+astika as one \"denying what exists\" or any school of philosophy that denies the existence of the Self. The Vedanta sub-traditions of Hinduism are \"astika\" because they accept the existence of Self, while Buddhist traditions denying this are referred to as \"nastika\".\n\nOne of the earliest mentions of astika concept in Jain texts is by Manibhadra, who states that an astika is one who \"accepts there exist another world (paraloka), transmigration of Self, virtue and vice that affect how a Self journeys through time\".\n\nThe 5th–6th century Jainism scholar Haribhadra, states Andrew Nicholson, does not mention anything about accepting or rejecting the Vedas or god as a criterion for being an astika or nastika. Instead, Haribhadra explains nastika in the manner of the more ancient Jain scholar Manibhadra, by stating a nastika to be one \"who says there is no other worlds, there is no purpose in charity, there is no purpose in offerings\". An astika, to Haribhadra, is one who believes that there is a purpose and merit in an ethical life such as ahimsa (non-violence) and ritual actions. This exposition of the word astika and nastika by Haribhadra is similar to one by the Sanskrit grammarian and Hindu scholar Pāṇini in section 4.4.60 of the Astadhyayi.\n\nThe 12th century Jaina scholar Hemachandra similarly states, in his text Abithana Chintamani, that a nastika is any philosophy that presumes or argues there is \"no virtue and vice.\"",
"Katha Upanishad": null,
"Lead": "Āstika (Sanskrit: आस्तिक, IAST: āstika) and nāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक, IAST: nāstika) are mutually exclusive terms that modern scholars use to classify the schools of Indian philosophy as well as some Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts.Perrett, Roy. 2000. Indian Philosophy. Routledge. . p. 88.Mittal, Sushil, and Gene Thursby. 2004. The Hindu World. Routledge. . pp. 729–30. The various definitions for āstika and nāstika philosophies have been disputed since ancient times, and there is no consensus.Nicholson, Andrew J. 2013. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. Columbia University Press. . ch. 9.Doniger, Wendy. 2014. On Hinduism. Oxford University Press. . p. 46. One standard distinction, as within ancient- and medieval-era Sanskrit philosophical literature, is that āstika schools accept the Vedas, the ancient texts of India, as fundamentally authoritative, while the nāstika schools do not.Grayling, A. C. (2019). The History of Philosophy. Penguin Books. p. 519.Chatterjee, Satischandra, and Dhirendramohan Datta. 1984. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy (8th reprint ed.). Calcutta: University of Calcutta. p. 5n1:\n\n\"In modern Indian languages, 'āstika' and 'nāstika' generally mean 'theist' and 'atheist,' respectively. But in Sanskrit philosophical literature, 'āstika' means 'one who believes in the authority of the Vedas'. ('nāstika' means the opposite of these). The word is used here in the first sense. The six orthodox schools are 'āstika', and the Cārvāka is 'nāstika' in both the senses.\" However, a separate way of distinguishing the two terms has evolved in current Indian languages like Telugu, Hindi and Bengali, wherein āstika and its derivatives usually mean 'theist', and nāstika and its derivatives denote 'atheism'.For instance, the Atheist Society of India produces a monthly publications Nastika Yuga, which it translates as 'The Age of Atheism'. .\n\nStill, philosophical tradition maintains the earlier distinction, for example, in identifying the school of Sāṃkhya, which is non-theistic (as it does not explicitly affirm the existence of God in its classical formulation), as āstika (Veda-affirming) philosophy, though \"God\" is often used as an epithet for consciousness (purusha) within its doctrine. \"By reasoning, the material principle itself simply evolves into complex forms, and there is no need to hold that some spiritual power governs the material principle or its ultimate source.\" Similarly, though Buddhism is considered to be nāstika, Gautama Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu in some Hindu denominations.Literature review of secondary references of Buddha as Dashavatara which regard Buddha to be part of standard list:\n Britannica\n A Dictionary of Asian Mythology By David Adams Leeming p. 19 \"Avatar\"\n Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide By Roshen Dalal p. 112 \"Dashavatara\" \"\"The standard and most accepted list found in Puranas and other texts is: ... Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Kalki.\"\n The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M p. 73 \"Avatar\"\n Hindu Gods and Goddesses By Sunita Pant Bansal p. 27 \"Vishnu Dashavatara\"\n Hindu Myths (Penguin Books) pp. 62–63\n The Book of Vishnu (see index)\n Seven secrets of Vishnu By Devdutt Pattanaik p. 203 \"In the more popular list of ten avatars of Vishnu, the ninth avatar is shown as Buddha, not Balarama.\"\n A Dictionary of Hinduism p. 47 \"Avatara\"\n BBC\n Due to its acceptance of the Vedas, āstika philosophy, in the original sense, is often equivalent to Hindu philosophy: philosophy that developed alongside the Hindu religion.\n\nĀstika (; from Sanskrit: asti, 'there is, there exists') means one who believes in the existence of a Self or Brahman, etc. It has been defined in one of three ways:GS Ghurye, Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary, Ed: S. Devadas Pillai (2011), , page 354\n as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas;\n as those who accept the existence of ātman;\n as those who accept the existence of Ishvara.\n\nNāstika (Sanskrit: नास्तिक; from Sanskrit: na, 'not' + ), by contrast, are those who deny all the respective definitions of āstika; they do not believe in the existence of Self.\n\nThe six most studied Āstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as orthodox schools, are Nyāyá, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta. The five most studied Nāstika schools of Indian philosophies, sometimes referred to as heterodox schools, are Buddhism, Jainism, Chārvāka, Ājīvika, and Ajñana.For an overview of this method of classification, with detail on the grouping of schools, see: However, this orthodox-heterodox terminology is a construct of Western languages, and lacks scholarly roots in Sanskrit. Recent scholarly studies state that there have been various heresiological translations of Āstika and Nāstika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but many are unsophisticated and flawed.",
"Meaning": null,
"Mimamsa": null,
"Nyaya": null,
"Nāstika": "The main schools of Indian philosophy that reject the Vedas were regarded as heterodox in the tradition:\n\n Buddhism\n Jainism\n Charvaka\n Ājīvika\n Ajñana\n\nThe use of the term nāstika to describe Buddhism and Jainism in India is explained by Gavin Flood as follows:\n\nTantric traditions in Hinduism have both āstika and nāstika lines; as Banerji writes in Tantra in Bengal:",
"Orthodox schools": null,
"Pudgalavāda": null,
"References": null,
"Related concepts": null,
"Samkhya": null,
"Sassatavāda": null,
"See also": "Ātman (Buddhism)\n Atheism in Hinduism\n Atman (Hinduism)\n Jīva (Jainism)\n Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism\n Transtheism",
"Sources": "Category:Hindu philosophical concepts\nCategory:Schools and traditions in ancient Indian philosophy",
"Upanishads": null,
"Vaiśeṣika": null,
"Vedas": null,
"Without reference to Vedas": "In contrast to Manusmriti, the 6th century CE Jain scholar and doxographer Haribhadra, provided a different perspective in his writings on Astika and Nāstika. Haribhadra did not consider \"reverence for Vedas\" as a marker for an Astika. He and other 1st millennium CE Jaina scholars defined Astika as one who \"affirms there exists another world, transmigration exists, virtue (punya) exists, vice (paapa) exists.\"\n\nThe 7th century scholars Jayaditya and Vamana, in Kasikavrtti of Pāṇini tradition, were silent on the role of or authority of Vedic literature in defining Astika and Nāstika. They state, \"Astika is the one who believes there exists another world. The opposite of him is the Nāstika.\"P. Haag and V. Vergiani (Eds., 2009), Studies in the Kāśikāvṛtti, Firenze: Società Editrice Fiorentina, \n\nSimilarly the widely studied 2nd–3rd century CE Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, in Chapter 1 verses 60–61 of Ratnāvalī, wrote Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya schools of Hinduism were Nāstika, along with Jainism, his own school of Buddhism and Pudgalavadins (Vātsīputrīya) school of Buddhism.Markus Dressler and Arvind Mandair (2011), Secularism and Religion-Making, Oxford University Press, , page 59 note 39Ernst Steinkellner (1991), Studies in the Buddhist Epistemological Tradition: Proceedings of the Second International Dharmakīrti Conference, Vienna, Volume 222, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, , pages 230–238",
"Yoga philosophy": null,
"Ājīvika": null,
"Āstika": "The āstika schools are six systems or ṣaḍdarśana that consider the Vedas a reliable and authoritative source of knowledge. These are often coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons.\n\nNyāyá-Vaiśeṣika\n Nyaya, the school of logic\n Vaisheshika, the atomist school\nSāṃkhya-Yoga\n Samkhya, the enumeration school\n Yoga, the school of Patañjali (which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya)\nMimāṃsā-Vedanta\n Mīmāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis\n Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition."
}
|
[] |
|||||
concept
|
Q1052811
| 100,542
|
Ātman (Hinduism)
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)
|
2026-01-22T05:15:15.201175+00:00
|
[
"Category:Indian philosophical concepts",
"Category:Hindu philosophical concepts",
"Category:Concepts in Hinduism"
] |
Ātman (Hinduism)
|
Ātman (; ) in Hinduism is the true, innermost essence or self of a living being, conceived as eternal and unchanging. Atman is conceptually closely related to the individual self, Jīvātman, which persists across multiple bodies and lifetimes, but different from the self-idea or ego (Ahamkara), the emotional aspect of the mind (Citta), and the bodily or natural aspects (prakṛti). The term is often translated as soul, but is better translated as "Self" or essence. To attain moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (Atmajnana or Brahmajnana).
The six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy have different views on what this self is. In Samkhya and Yoga, which call the essence purusha, and in Advaita Vedanta, the essence is pure consciousness or witness-consciousness (sakshi), beyond identification with phenomena.Jeffrey D. Long, Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, p.50 In Samkhya and Yoga there are innumerable selves, while in Advaita Vedanta there is only one Self. Prominent views in Vedanta on the relation between (Jīv)Atman and the supreme Self (Paramātmā) or Ultimate Reality (Brahman) are that atman and Brahman are simultaneously different and non-different (Bhedabheda),Bhedabheda: non-different (Advaita, 'not-two'),Richard King (1995), Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, State University of New York Press, , page 64, Quote: "Atman as the innermost essence or soul of man, and Brahman as the innermost essence and support of the universe. (...) Thus we can see in the Upanishads, a tendency towards a convergence of microcosm and macrocosm, culminating in the equating of atman with Brahman". and different with dependence (Dvaita, 'dualist'),Dvaita: and or non-different but with dependence (Vishishtadvaita, qualified non-dualism; see: Ātman-Brahman.
The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman in every living being (jiva), which is distinct from the body-mind complex. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that in essence there is no unchanging essence or Self to be found in the empirical constituents of a living being, intentionally ambiguous on what it is that is liberated. While essentialist positions are seemingly found in Buddhism, such as in Madhyamika (sunyata) and Yogachara ('mere representation'), presenting broad similarities to non-dualist traditions of Hinduism, the concept of ātman remains anathema to the foundations of Buddhism.
|
Olivelle notes that ātman "has many meanings and usages in the Upanisadic vocabulary," including "Self," "the ultimate essence of a human being," but is also used to refer to "a living, breathing body," and as reflexive pronoun, akin to "myself."
In contemporary Hinduism, Ātman means "real Self" of the individual, "innermost essence." Atman refers to the essence of human beings that persists amid change, distinct from the ever-evolving embodied individual being (jiva) embedded in material reality. Embodied personality can change while Atman does not. In Advaita Vedanta, it is the observing pure consciousness or witness-consciousness, "pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness," while in Neo-Advaita it is also the nonconceptual insight that 'being' cannot be grasped in words or deeds.
While often translated as "soul", it is better translated as "self." As such, it is different from non-Hindu notions of soul, which includes consciousness but also the mental abilities of a living being, such as reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception and thinking. In Hinduism, these are all included in embodied reality, the counterpart of Atman.[a] ;[b] ;[c]
|
The Yogasutra of Patanjali, the foundational text of Yoga school of Hinduism, sees purusha as the essence of human beings, revealed in samadhi, but mentions Atma in multiple verses, and particularly in its last book, where Samadhi is described as the path to self-knowledge and kaivalya. Some earlier mentions of Atman in Yogasutra include verse 2.5, where evidence of ignorance includes "confusing what is not Atman as Atman".
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.
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".Verses 4.24-4.34, Patanjali's Yogasutras; Quote: "विशेषदर्शिन आत्मभावभावनाविनिवृत्तिः"
The Yoga school is similar to the Samkhya school in its conceptual foundations of purusha as 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.Stephen H. Phillips, Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of "new Logic". Open Court Publishing, 1995, pages 12–13. 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.
|
The Yogasutra of Patanjali, the foundational text of Yoga school of Hinduism, sees purusha as the essence of human beings, revealed in samadhi, but mentions Atma in multiple verses, and particularly in its last book, where Samadhi is described as the path to self-knowledge and kaivalya. Some earlier mentions of Atman in Yogasutra include verse 2.5, where evidence of ignorance includes "confusing what is not Atman as Atman".
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.
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".Verses 4.24-4.34, Patanjali's Yogasutras; Quote: "विशेषदर्शिन आत्मभावभावनाविनिवृत्तिः"
The Yoga school is similar to the Samkhya school in its conceptual foundations of purusha as 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.Stephen H. Phillips, Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of "new Logic". Open Court Publishing, 1995, pages 12–13. 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.
|
{
"Advaita Vedanta": "Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) sees the Ātman (“spirit, soul, self”) as seemingly manifesting as many individuals, while being fully identical with Brahman. 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. There is no separate devotee soul (Atman) and god soul (Brahman).Arvind Sharma (2007), Advaita Vedānta: An Introduction, Motilal Banarsidass, , pages 19-40, 53-58, 79-86 Each self is non-different from the infinite.Karl Potter (2008), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta, Volume 3, Motilal Banarsidass, , pages 510-512\n\nAdvaita Vedanta philosophy considers Atman as Sat-cit-ānanda, self-existent awareness, limitless and non-dual.A Rambachan (2006), The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity, State University of New York Press, , pages 47, 99-103 Atman is the universal principle, one eternal undifferentiated self-luminous consciousness, the truth asserts Advaita Hinduism.S Timalsina (2014), Consciousness in Indian Philosophy: The Advaita Doctrine of 'Awareness Only', Routledge, , pages 3-23Eliot Deutsch (1980), Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction, University of Hawaii Press, , pages 48-53 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.A Rambachan (2006), The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity, State University of New York Press, , pages 114-122Adi Sankara, A Bouquet of Nondual Texts: Advaita Prakarana Manjari, Translators: Ramamoorthy & Nome, , pages 173-214 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. This identification of individual living beings/souls, or jiva-atmas, with the 'one Atman' is the non-dualistic Advaita Vedanta position.",
"Ahimsa": "The ethical prohibition against harming any human beings or other living creatures (Ahimsa, अहिंसा), in Hindu traditions, can be traced to the Atman theory. This precept against injuring any living being appears together with Atman theory in hymn 8.15.1 of Chandogya Upanishad (ca. 8th century BCE),Sanskrit original: तधैतद्ब्रह्मा प्रजापतये उवाच प्रजापतिर्मनवे मनुः प्रजाभ्यः आचार्यकुलाद्वेदमधीत्य यथाविधानं गुरोः कर्मातिशेषेणाभिसमावृत्य कुटुम्बे शुचौ देशे स्वाध्यायमधीयानो धर्मिकान्विदधदात्मनि सर्वैन्द्रियाणि संप्रतिष्ठाप्याहिँसन्सर्व भूतान्यन्यत्र तीर्थेभ्यः स खल्वेवं वर्तयन्यावदायुषं ब्रह्मलोकमभिसंपद्यते न च पुनरावर्तते न च पुनरावर्तते ॥१॥; छान्दोग्योपनिषद् ४ Wikisource;English Translation: Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, , page 205 then becomes central in the texts of Hindu philosophy, entering the dharma codes of ancient Dharmasutras and later era Manu-Smriti. Ahimsa theory is a natural corollary and consequence of \"Atman is universal oneness, present in all living beings. Atman connects and prevades in everyone. Hurting or injuring another being is hurting the Atman, and thus one's self that exists in another body\". This conceptual connection between one's Atman, the universal, and Ahimsa starts in Isha Upanishad, develops in the theories of the ancient scholar Yajnavalkya, and one which inspired Gandhi as he led non-violent movement against colonialism in early 20th century.Deen K. Chatterjee (2011), Encyclopedia of Global Justice: A - I, Volume 1, Springer, , page 376",
"Based on belief in Atman": null,
"Bhagavad Gita": "In Bhagavad Gita verses 10-30 of the second chapter, Krishna urges Arjuna to understand the indestructible nature of the atman, emphasizing that it transcends the finite body it inhabits. The atman neither kills nor can be killed, as it is eternal and unaffected by birth or death. The analogy of changing clothes is used to illustrate how the soul discards old bodies for new ones. Krishna emphasizes the eternal existence of the soul by explaining that even as it undergoes various life stages and changes bodies it remains unaffected. It is imperceptible, inconceivable, and unchanging.",
"Brihadaranyaka Upanishad": "The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (800-600 BCEPatrick Olivelle (2014), The Early Upanishads, Oxford University Press, , page 12-13) describes Atman as that in which everything exists, which is of the highest value, which permeates everything, which is the essence of all, bliss and beyond description.Raju, Poolla Tirupati. Structural Depths of Indian Thought. SUNY Series in Philosophy. P. 26. . In hymn 4.4.5, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad describes Atman as Brahman, and describes the self as made of everything, including the functions, elements and desires:\n\nThe theme of acquiring knowledge of Brahman, and thereby becoming godlike, is extensively repeated in Brihadāranyaka Upanishad. Not even gods can prevail over such a liberated man, to their dismay. For example, in hymn 1.4.10,",
"Buddhism": "Applying the disidentification of 'no-self' to the logical end, Buddhism does not assert an unchanging essence, any \"eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman,\" According to Jayatilleke, the Upanishadic inquiry fails to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman, but nevertheless assumes its existence, and, states Mackenzie, Advaitins \"reify consciousness as an eternal self.\" In contrast, the Buddhist inquiry \"is satisfied with the empirical investigation which shows that no such Atman exists because there is no evidence\" states Jayatilleke.\n\nWhile Nirvana is liberation from the kleshas and the disturbances of the mind-body complex, Buddhism eludes a definition of what it is that is liberated, implying, in Anguttara Nikaya 4.23, that the 'tathagata' is \"deep, unfathomable.\" According to Johannes Bronkhorst, \"it is possible that original Buddhism did not deny the existence of soul,\" but did not want to talk about it, as they could not say that \"the soul is essentially not involved in action, as their opponents did.\" While the skandhas are regarded is impermanent (anatman) and sorrowfull (dukkha), the existence of a permanent, joyful and unchanging self is neither acknowledged nor explicitly denied. Liberation is not attained by knowledge of such a self, but by \" turning away from what might erroneously be regarded as the self.\"\n\nAccording to Harvey, in Buddhism the negation of temporal existents is applied even more rigorously than in the Upanishads:\n\nNevertheless, Atman-like notions can also be found in Buddhist texts chronologically placed in the 1st millennium of the Common Era, such as the Mahayana tradition's Tathāgatagarbha sūtras suggest self-like concepts, variously called Tathagatagarbha or Buddha nature. In the Theravada tradition, the Dhammakaya Movement in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric of anatta (non-self); instead, nirvana is taught to be the \"true self\" or dhammakaya. Similar interpretations have been put forth by the then Thai Sangharaja in 1939. According to Williams, the Sangharaja's interpretation echoes the tathāgatagarbha sutras.\n\nThe notion of Buddha-nature is controversial, and \"eternal self\" concepts have been vigorously attacked. These \"self-like\" concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality. Some scholars posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists. The Dhammakaya Movement teaching that nirvana is atta (atman) has been criticized as heretical in Buddhism by Prayudh Payutto, a well-known scholar monk, who added that 'Buddha taught nibbana as being non-self\".",
"Chandogya Upanishad": "The Chandogya Upanishad (7th-6th c. BCE) explains Ātman as that which appears to be separate between two living beings but isn't, that essence and innermost, true, radiant self of all individuals which connects and unifies all. Hymn 6.10 explains it with the example of rivers, some of which flow to the east and some to the west, but ultimately all merge into the ocean and become one. In the same way, the individual souls are pure being, states the Chandogya Upanishad; an individual soul is pure truth, and an individual soul is a manifestation of the ocean of one universal soul.Max Müller, Upanishads, Wordsworth, , pages XXIII-XXIV",
"Classification of schools": null,
"Dharma-sutras": "The Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras integrate the teachings of Atman theory. Apastamba Dharmasutra, the oldest known Indian text on dharma, for example, titles Chapters 1.8.22 and 1.8.23 as \"Knowledge of the Atman\" and then recites,Sanskrit Original: Apastamba Dharma Sutra page 14;English Translation 1: Knowledge of the Atman Apastamba Dharmasutra, The Sacred Laws of the Aryas, Georg Bühler (Translator), pages 75-79;English Translation 2: Ludwig Alsdorf (2010), The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India, Routledge, , pages 111-112;English Translation 3: Patrick Olivelle (1999), Dharmasutras, Oxford University Press, , page 34",
"Difference from": null,
"Discussion": null,
"Dvaita Vedanta": "Dvaita Vedanta differentiates the individual atman of living beings from the atman of a supreme being (Paramatman).Bhagavata Purana 3.28.41 Bhagavata Purana 7.7.19–20 \"Atma also refers to the Supreme Lord or the living entities. Both of them are spiritual.\" God is the ultimate, perfect, but distinct soul from incomplete, imperfect jivas (individual souls).R Prasad (2009), A Historical-developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Concept Publishing, , pages 345-347 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.Thomas Padiyath (2014), The Metaphysics of Becoming, De Gruyter, , pages 155-157 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).James Lewis and William Travis (1999), Religious Traditions of the World, , pages 279-280",
"Etymology": "Ātman (Atma, आत्मा, आत्मन्) is a Sanskrit word that refers to \"essence, breath, soul.\" It is thought to be derived from the reconstructed hypothetical Proto-Indo-European word *etmen \"breath\" (a root found in Sanskrit and Germanic; source also of Old English æðm, Dutch adem, Old High German atum \"breath,\" Old English eþian, Dutch ademen \"to breathe\").",
"External links": "A. S. Woodburne (1925), The Idea of God in Hinduism, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Jan., 1925), pages 52–66\n K. L. Seshagiri Rao (1970), On Truth: A Hindu Perspective, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pages 377-382\n Norman E. Thomas (1988), Liberation for Life: A Hindu Liberation Philosophy, Missiology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pages 149-162\n\nCategory:Conceptions of self\nCategory:Hindu philosophical concepts\nCategory:Vedanta",
"Four Functions": null,
"Hinduism": null,
"Influence of Atman-concept on Hindu ethics": "220px|thumb|Ahimsa, non-violence, is considered the highest ethical value and virtue in Hinduism.Stephen H. Phillips & other authors (2008), in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Second Edition), , Elsevier Science, Pages 1347–1356, 701-849, 1867 The virtue of Ahimsa follows from the Atman theories of Hindu traditions.NF Gier (1995), Ahimsa, the Self, and Postmodernism, International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 35, Issue 1, pages 71-86, ;Jean Varenne (1977), Yoga and the Hindu Tradition, University of Chicago Press, , page 200-202\nThe Atman theory in Upanishads had a profound impact on ancient ethical theories and dharma traditions now known as Hinduism.Ludwig Alsdorf (2010), The History of Vegetarianism and Cow-Veneration in India, Routledge, , pages 111-114 The earliest Dharmasutras of Hindus recite Atman theory from the Vedic texts and Upanishads,These ancient texts of India refer to Upanishads and Vedic era texts some of which have been traced to preserved documents, but some are lost or yet to be found. and on its foundation build precepts of dharma, laws and ethics. Atman theory, particularly the Advaita Vedanta and Yoga versions, influenced the emergence of the theory of Ahimsa (non-violence against all creatures), culture of vegetarianism, and other theories of ethical, dharmic life.Stephen H. Phillips (2009), Yoga, Karma, and Rebirth: A Brief History and Philosophy, Columbia University Press, , pages 122-125Knut Jacobsen (1994), The institutionalization of the ethics of \"non-injury\" toward all \"beings\" in Ancient India, Environmental Ethics, Volume 16, Issue 3, pages 287-301,",
"Jainism": "Ātman is a philosophical term used within Jainism to identify the soul. As per Jain cosmology, jīva or soul is the principle of sentience and is one of the tattvas or one of the fundamental substances forming part of the universe.\nAccording to the Jain text, Samayasāra (2nd century CE or later):\n\nAccording to Vijay Jain, the souls which rest on the pure self are called the Real Self, and only arihant and Siddhas are the Real Self.",
"Katha Upanishad": "Along with the Brihadāranyaka, all the earliest and middle Upanishads discuss Ātman as they build their theories to answer how man can achieve liberation, freedom and bliss. The Katha Upanishad (5th to 1st century BCE) explains Atman as the imminent and transcendent innermost essence of each human being and living creature, that this is one, even though the external forms of living creatures manifest in different forms. Hymn 2.2.9 states:\n\nKatha Upanishad, in Book 1, hymns 3.3-3.4, describes the widely cited proto-Samkhya analogy of chariot for the relation of \"Soul, Self\" to body, mind and senses.Sanskrit Original: आत्मानँ रथितं विद्धि शरीरँ रथमेव तु । बुद्धिं तु सारथिं विद्धि मनः प्रग्रहमेव च ॥ ३ ॥ इन्द्रियाणि हयानाहुर्विषयाँ स्तेषु गोचरान् । आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥ ४ ॥, Katha Upanishad Wikisource;English Translation: Max Müller, Katha Upanishad Third Valli, Verse 3 & 4 and through 15, pages 12-14 Stephen KaplanStephen Kaplan (2011), The Routledge Companion to Religion and Science, (Editors: James W. Haag, Gregory R. Peterson, Michael L. Speziopage), Routledge, , page 323 translates these hymns as, \"Know the Self as the rider in a chariot, and the body as simply the chariot. Know the intellect as the charioteer, and the mind as the reins. The senses, they say are the horses, and sense objects are the paths around them\". The Katha Upanishad then declares that \"when the Self [Ātman] understands this and is unified, integrated with body, senses and mind, is virtuous, mindful and pure, he reaches bliss, freedom and liberation\".",
"Lead": "Ātman (; ) in Hinduism is the true, innermost essence or self of a living being, conceived as eternal and unchanging. Atman is conceptually closely related to the individual self, Jīvātman, which persists across multiple bodies and lifetimes, but different from the self-idea or ego (Ahamkara), the emotional aspect of the mind (Citta), and the bodily or natural aspects (prakṛti). The term is often translated as soul, but is better translated as \"Self\" or essence. To attain moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (Atmajnana or Brahmajnana).\n\nThe six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy have different views on what this self is. In Samkhya and Yoga, which call the essence purusha, and in Advaita Vedanta, the essence is pure consciousness or witness-consciousness (sakshi), beyond identification with phenomena.Jeffrey D. Long, Historical Dictionary of Hinduism, p.50 In Samkhya and Yoga there are innumerable selves, while in Advaita Vedanta there is only one Self. Prominent views in Vedanta on the relation between (Jīv)Atman and the supreme Self (Paramātmā) or Ultimate Reality (Brahman) are that atman and Brahman are simultaneously different and non-different (Bhedabheda),Bhedabheda: non-different (Advaita, 'not-two'),Richard King (1995), Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, State University of New York Press, , page 64, Quote: \"Atman as the innermost essence or soul of man, and Brahman as the innermost essence and support of the universe. (...) Thus we can see in the Upanishads, a tendency towards a convergence of microcosm and macrocosm, culminating in the equating of atman with Brahman\". and different with dependence (Dvaita, 'dualist'),Dvaita: and or non-different but with dependence (Vishishtadvaita, qualified non-dualism; see: Ātman-Brahman.\n\nThe six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is Ātman in every living being (jiva), which is distinct from the body-mind complex. This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that in essence there is no unchanging essence or Self to be found in the empirical constituents of a living being, intentionally ambiguous on what it is that is liberated. While essentialist positions are seemingly found in Buddhism, such as in Madhyamika (sunyata) and Yogachara ('mere representation'), presenting broad similarities to non-dualist traditions of Hinduism, the concept of ātman remains anathema to the foundations of Buddhism.",
"Meaning": "Olivelle notes that ātman \"has many meanings and usages in the Upanisadic vocabulary,\" including \"Self,\" \"the ultimate essence of a human being,\" but is also used to refer to \"a living, breathing body,\" and as reflexive pronoun, akin to \"myself.\"\n\nIn contemporary Hinduism, Ātman means \"real Self\" of the individual, \"innermost essence.\" Atman refers to the essence of human beings that persists amid change, distinct from the ever-evolving embodied individual being (jiva) embedded in material reality. Embodied personality can change while Atman does not. In Advaita Vedanta, it is the observing pure consciousness or witness-consciousness, \"pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness,\" while in Neo-Advaita it is also the nonconceptual insight that 'being' cannot be grasped in words or deeds.\n\nWhile often translated as \"soul\", it is better translated as \"self.\" As such, it is different from non-Hindu notions of soul, which includes consciousness but also the mental abilities of a living being, such as reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception and thinking. In Hinduism, these are all included in embodied reality, the counterpart of Atman.[a] ;[b] ;[c]",
"Mimamsa": "Ātman, in the ritualism-based Mīmāṃsā school of Hinduism, is an eternal, omnipresent, inherently active essence that is identified as I-consciousness.PT Raju (2008), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Routledge, , pages 79-80Chris Bartley (2013), Purva Mimamsa, in Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy (Editor: Oliver Leaman), Routledge, 978-0415862530, page 443-445 Unlike all other schools of Hinduism, Mimamsaka scholars considered ego and Atman as the same. Within Mimamsa school, there was divergence of beliefs. Kumārila, for example, believed that Atman is the object of I-consciousness, whereas Prabhākara believed that Atman is the subject of I-consciousness. 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.Oliver Leaman (2006), Shruti, in Encyclopaedia of Asian Philosophy, Routledge, , page 503 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.PT Raju (2008), The Philosophical Traditions of India, Routledge, , pages 82-85PT Raju (1985), Structural Depths of Indian Thought, State University of New York Press, , pages 54-63; Michael C. Brannigan (2009), Striking a Balance: A Primer in Traditional Asian Values, Rowman & Littlefield, , page 15",
"Nyaya": "According to John Plott, \"Nyaya made considerable contributions to the logical explanation of the mode in which Ātman, although itself of the nature of the knower, can still be an object of knowledge.\" Plott states that the Nyaya scholars developed a theory of negation that far exceeds 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.\n\nNyaya 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.KK Chakrabarti (1999), Classical Indian Philosophy of Mind: The Nyaya Dualist Tradition, State University of New York Press, , pages 2, 187-188, 220 \n\nNyaya 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\". Second, they developed theories on what \"Atman is and is not\".Roy W. Perrett (Editor, 2000), Indian Philosophy: Metaphysics, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, , page xvii; also see Chakrabarti pages 279-292 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.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: 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 Pandit Badrinath Shukla argues that considerations of ontological economy show that the manas or \"mind\" alone suffices, thus contending that an eternal atman is unnecessary for the system, suggesting a rational revision to the Nyaya tradition.\n\nNyayasutra, 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\n\nBook 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.Sutras_1913#page/n47/mode/2up Nyayasutra see pages 22-29 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. 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.",
"Nāstika": null,
"Orthodox schools": "Atman is a metaphysical and spiritual concept for Hindus, often discussed in their scriptures with the concept of Brahman. 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.Deussen, Paul and Geden, A. S. The Philosophy of the Upanishads. Cosimo Classics (June 1, 2010). P. 86. . Jainism too accepts this premise, although it has its own idea of what that means. In contrast, both Buddhism and the Charvakas deny that there is anything called \"Ātman/soul/self\".",
"Pudgalavāda": "Pudgalavāda was a Buddhist philosophical view and also referred to a group of Nikaya Buddhist schools (mainly known as Vātsīputrīyas) that arose within the school of minority elders who split from the majority Mahāsāṃghika after the Second Buddhist Council.Williams, Paul, Buddhism: The early Buddhist schools and doctrinal history; Theravāda doctrine, Volume 2, Taylor & Francis, 2005, p. 86. The Pudgalavādins asserted that while there is no ātman, there exists a pudgala (person) or sattva (being), which is neither a conditioned dharma nor an unconditioned dharma.\n\nBecause the Vātsīputrīya views were seen as close to the concept of a self or ātman, they were sharply criticized by the Vibhajjavadins (a record of this is found in the Theravadin Kathavatthu), as well as by the Sarvastivadins (In the Vijñanakaya), Sautrantikas (most famously in the Abhidharmakosha), and the Madhyamaka school ( Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara).Paul Williams, Anthony Tribe, Alexander Wynne, Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition, p. 92.",
"References": null,
"Related concepts": null,
"Samkhya": "thumb|right|Purusha-prakriti\n\nIn Samkhya, the oldest Hindu school of Dualism, 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. No appellations can qualify purusha, nor can it substantialized or objectified. It \"cannot be reduced, can't be 'settled'.\" Any designation of purusha comes from prakriti, and is a limitation. Unlike Advaita Vedanta, and like Purva-Mīmāṃsā, Samkhya believes in plurality of the puruṣas.\n\nSamkhya considers ego (asmita, ahamkara) to be the cause of pleasure and pain.Paranjpe, A. C. Self and Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought. Springer; 1 edition (September 30, 1998). P. 263-264. . Self-knowledge is the means to attain kaivalya, the separation of Atman from the body-mind complex.",
"Sassatavāda": "Sassatavāda refers to a school of \"eternalism and categoralism\" that holds the belief in an unchanging self.K. Venkata Ramanan, Nagarjuna's Philosophy: As Presented in the Maha-Prajnaparamita-Sastra. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1993, page 60. Whatever is known about Sassatavāda comes from Buddhist sources. According to the Pali Canon, Pakudha Kaccāyana founded this school around the 6th century BCE. He was an atomist who taught that everything is composed of seven eternal elements: earth, water, fire, air, happiness (joy), pain, and Ātman (soul). Pakudha further asserted that these elements do not interact with one another.Thanissaro (1997).",
"See also": "Ātman (Buddhism)\n Ātman (Jainism)\n Ishvara\n Jiva (Hinduism)\n Jnana\n Moksha\n Ousia\n Spirit\n Tat tvam asi\n Tree of Jiva and Atman",
"Sources": "Printed sources\n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n\n J. Ganeri (2013), The Concealed Art of the Soul, Oxford University Press, \n \n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n\nWeb-sources",
"Upanishads": "Ātman is a central topic in all of the Upanishads, and \"know your Ātman\" is one of their thematic foci.PT Raju (1985), Structural Depths of Indian Thought, State University of New York Press, , pages 35-36 The Upanishads say that Atman denotes \"the ultimate essence of the universe\" as well as \"the vital breath in human beings\", which is \"imperishable Divine within\" that is neither born nor does it die.\n\nThe Upanishads express two distinct, somewhat divergent themes on the relation between Atman and Brahman. Some teach that Brahman (highest reality; universal principle; being-consciousness-bliss) is identical with Ātman, while others teach that Ātman is part of Brahman but not identical to it.Paul Deussen, , Dover Publications, pages 86-111, 182-212 This ancient debate flowered into various dual and non-dual theories in Hinduism. The Brahmasutra by Badarayana (~100 BCE) synthesized and unified these somewhat conflicting theories, stating that Atman and Brahman are different in some respects, particularly during the state of ignorance, but at the deepest level and in the state of self-realization, Atman and Brahman are identical, non-different (advaita). According to Koller, this synthesis countered the dualistic tradition of Samkhya-Yoga schools and realism-driven traditions of Nyaya-Vaiseshika schools, enabling it to become the foundation of Vedanta as Hinduism's most influential spiritual tradition.\n\nThe atman, according to several Upaniṣadic texts, is present within the human body, extending even to the extremities such as the tips of the nails (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.7). Though the atman pervades the entire body, the Upanishads often emphasize the heart, not as a physical organ but as an inner \"cave\" or guha, as the atman's special locus. It is described as lying deep within the heart (Chandogya Upanishad III.14.3-4).",
"Vaiśeṣika": "The Vaisheshika school of Hinduism, using its non-theistic theories of atomistic naturalism, posits that Ātman is one of the four eternal non-physicalThe school posits that there are five physical substances: earth, water, air, water and akasa (ether/sky/space beyond air) substances without attributes, the other three being kāla (time), dik (space) and manas (mind).Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore (Eds., 1973), A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Reprinted in 1973, , pages 386-423 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). Mind and sensory organs are instruments, while consciousness is the domain of \"atman, soul, self\".\n\nThe knowledge of Ātman, to Vaiśeṣika Hindus, is another knowledge without any \"bliss\" or \"consciousness\" moksha state that Vedanta and Yoga school describe.",
"Vedas": "The earliest use of the word Ātman in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11).ऋग्वेद: सूक्तं १०.९७, Wikisource; Quote: \"यदिमा वाजयन्नहमोषधीर्हस्त आदधे । आत्मा यक्ष्मस्य नश्यति पुरा जीवगृभो यथा ॥११॥ Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united and the ultimate sentient principle.Baumer, Bettina and Vatsyayan, Kapila. Kalatattvakosa Vol. 1: Pervasive Terms Vyapti (Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts). Motilal Banarsidass; Revised edition (March 1, 2001). P. 42. .\n\nOther hymns of Rig Veda where the word Ātman appears include I.115.1, VII.87.2, VII.101.6, VIII.3.24, IX.2.10, IX.6.8, and X.168.4.Source 1: Rig veda Sanskrit;Source 2: ऋग्वेदः/संहिता Wikisource",
"Without reference to Vedas": null,
"Yoga philosophy": "The Yogasutra of Patanjali, the foundational text of Yoga school of Hinduism, sees purusha as the essence of human beings, revealed in samadhi, but mentions Atma in multiple verses, and particularly in its last book, where Samadhi is described as the path to self-knowledge and kaivalya. Some earlier mentions of Atman in Yogasutra include verse 2.5, where evidence of ignorance includes \"confusing what is not Atman as Atman\".\n\nIn 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.\n\nIn 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\".Verses 4.24-4.34, Patanjali's Yogasutras; Quote: \"विशेषदर्शिन आत्मभावभावनाविनिवृत्तिः\"\n\nThe Yoga school is similar to the Samkhya school in its conceptual foundations of purusha as 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.Stephen H. Phillips, Classical Indian Metaphysics: Refutations of Realism and the Emergence of \"new Logic\". Open Court Publishing, 1995, pages 12–13. 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.",
"Ājīvika": "The predetermined fate (niyati) of living beings was the major distinctive doctrine of Ājīvika school, along with withholding judgement on how to achieve liberation (moksha) from the eternal cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, instead believing that fate would lead us there. Ājīvikas further considered the karma doctrine as a fallacy. They were mostly considered as atheists;Johannes Quack (2014), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Editors: Stephen Bullivant, Michael Ruse), Oxford University Press, , page 654 however, they believed that in every living being there is an Ātman.Analayo (2004), Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization, , pp. 207-208",
"Āstika": null
}
|
[] |
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 2