glass house philosopher / notebook 1
Wednesday, 1st November 2000
I wish someone would explain the 'Atman' theory to me.
At the last Wednesday evening class before the half-term break, the idea deriving from Hindu philosophy of the self as Atman emerged as a possible way of making sense of the feeling, the intuition that there is somehow more to I than all my physical and mental attributes added together. In a world exactly like this one with someone exactly like me in it, I might not have existed.
If we feel tempted, or impelled to think this way, that can only be because we believe that the term 'I', used with this particular emphasis, refers to something extra, over and above my physical body, over and above my thoughts and feelings, and all that goes to make up the content of my mental life. In the possible world we are describing, something is missing, which is present in the actual world. What that 'something' is, is the thing that the term 'I' ultimately refers to.
We don't usually, or consciously use the term 'I' in this way. It is a philosophical discovery. 'Maybe you didn't realize it, but this is what you really mean when you say, "I". What you are really referring to is your unique Atman.'
I looked up 'Atman' in a library book one of my WEA students, Julia, lent me Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy edited by Oliver Leaman (Routledge 1999). All I was able to gather from the three page article is that amongst the great Hindu philosophers there was considerable disagreement over the nature of the Atman, and to what extent the belief that my Atman has a distinct identity from your Atman represents a valid or distorted view of the ultimate nature of things. And then of course there are the Buddhists who hold the theory of anatman or 'no Atman', in other words, they hold the view that the idea that there is an essential core of my being which 'I' refers to is a nothing but an illusion.
It's what you'd expect. There is no solid block of opinion called 'Indian philosophy' or 'Hindu philosophy', any more than there is a solid block of opinion called 'Analytic philosophy' or 'American philosophy'. On this most elusive of questions, there was endless debate, just as contemporary analytic philosophers continue to debate the nature of the self and consciousness, and the pros and cons of the currently favoured theory.
As I read the article in Leaman, I could recognize the same issues that I was familiar with from Descartes and Locke, Hume and Kant, but with an additional twist. For a long period of its history, Western philosophy has been dominated by the concern to uphold the Christian doctrine the soul and an afterlife. In Eastern philosophy, the dominant concern was to uphold the Hindu belief in reincarnation.
It is religion, not philosophy, that arose out of a desire to make sense of our moral life. It is a painful, unbearably painful fact about our finite existence that the good continue suffer at the hands of the wicked, that the good all too often fail to reap any reward for their goodness, while the wicked too often escape punishment. I can readily see how this bleak picture of human life might outrage one's sense of justice. If this life is all there is, then life is meaningless.
I'm not saying I agree with this. But I can feel the force of the argument. Anyone who wants to argue that the only meaning in human existence is the meaning we choose to give it, in this life, faces an uphill struggle.
But not all religions are the same. The self that suffers the torments of Hell, or enjoys the bliss of Heaven is a very different self from the self that is reborn innumerable times in innumerable forms until finally it succeeds in escaping the circle of rebirth altogether.
Reward and punishment are meaningless if you have no sense or recollection of the good deeds for which one is being rewarded or the crimes for which one is being punished. Hence, Locke was able to claim that the concept of personal identity was a forensic notion. The self is whatever it is that remembers things done in the past as its doings, or things enjoyed or suffered in the past as its enjoyments or sufferings.
If, on the other hand, the prospect that I face in consequence of my misdeeds is not going to Hell, but being reincarnated, say, as a bluebottle, then the question arises of what there is of me in that buzzing fly. In film maker Cronenberg's brilliant remake of the science fiction classic The Fly, Jeff Goldblum gives an startlingly convincing performance of a man whose whole outlook on life, whose sense of self, becomes less and less human and more and more fly-like as he undergoes his grisly metamorphosis. At the end, as the repulsive, throbbing organism in its death throes, we can believe that there is nothing in its agonized consciousness that belonged to the man who once existed. All traces of recollection of a past life have been extinguished. All that is left are those terrible eyes, behind which we imagine the something, the 'I' that once looked out on the world through the eyes of a man.
If the writhing mass was just a thing, if the 'I', the individual had simply departed, then we would mourn the death of the man. But it is not just a thing, it is an 'I', or rather the irreducible core of the 'I', the Atman. That is what is still there. That is what is so terrifying.
I don't understand this 'theory'. I don't understand how there can be any thing left if you take away all the contents of the mind, the contents of consciousness. But thinking of the example of The Fly I can sense the power of the idea.Suppose we could somehow make sense of this. Then we would have a perfect solution to the question, 'What is it, if not my body, or my mind or consciousness, that is present in the world, that might have been absent? The answer is, the irreducible core of my being, my Atman.
The Atman theory is perfectly adapted to the other component of the reincarnation theory, the idea of escape from the cycle of rebirth. If there is a core nugget of individuality that can look out on the world, first through the eyes of a man, and then, after re-birth, through the eyes of something so vastly different as a house fly, then whatever the fly has in common with the man can be separated from both, and exist apart on a level of reality where there is nothing to 'see', or 'hear' or 'touch' And now the philosophers can argue endlessly about whether what remains, with no eyes, ears or limbs, no memories or sense of self, still has any claim to be 'individual', or whether, on the contrary, escape from the cycle of rebirth means complete reabsorption into whatever it came from in the first place the Primeval Being, or Universal Mind, or Brahman.
I'm talking as if I understood all of this, which of course I don't. In philosophy, you can know what the logic of the argument impels you to say, without any comprehension of what you would mean in saying it.
But let's press on, regardless.
One aspect, really the crucial aspect, which I have missed out is the role of illusion. For the Buddhists, I said, the very idea of 'Atman' is an illusion. It is just the name of an incoherent philosophical theory. Whereas if you accept that theory, if you embrace the idea of the Atman, you still have the task of reconciling the theory to our everyday experience.
My everyday experience does not include any awareness of my 'core nugget of individuality'. If that is what I truly am, then my belief that my 'I' is made up of my character and memories is an illusion, and the wish to see that continue in a future life is a mistake. After reincarnation, all the contents of my self are left behind. But then it turns out that my Atman is not truly separate from your Atman, or his or hers. So, the illusion returns at a deeper level. So what is the truth? Does something really separate from the universal mind, or is it only an illusion that 'something separates'? If it is an illusion, what is the correct account of the reality behind the illusion, how is the illusion able to arise in the first place?
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!