Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – II 'आत्मन्'

Continuing his series "Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa," this month Bibek Debroy introduces core beliefs in Hinduism. Despite appearing to be a myriad of sects, Bibek explains that the bedrock of Hinduism is a set of  commonly held beliefs. He begins  with the most central: ātman. I am in complete agreement when he says that Ādi Śankarācārya’s निर्वाण षटकम्  best explains ātman. Read on to find out more, including his experiments at Cambridge!!

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – II

Let’s come back to the question of Hindusim.  What do we mean by Hinduism?  What are its core beliefs, regardless of which school one has in mind?  Cutting across all schools, we have a core belief in the existence of the आत्मन्, as distinct from the physical body.  For the moment, let’s ignore questions of rebirth and the doctrine of karma. Let’s also ignore concepts of yoga and union between the ātman and the paramātman/brahman. Those will come later and there are differing perspectives on those. But everyone who professes to be a Hindu will believe in the ātman.

I can quote Bhagavad Gita 2.20, or I can quote other texts: 

na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin

nāyaṃ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ

ajo nityaḥ śāśvatoyaṃ purāṇo

na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre

Neither is this [ātman] born, nor does it die ever,
Nor having been, will it again come not to be,
Unborn, eternal, perpetual, primaeval,
It is not slain when the body is slain.

On this point, I actually prefer Ādi Śankarācārya’s निर्वाण षटकम्. It has six ślokas. This is Vedānta.  But I am not on the Vedānta part right now.  Therefore, those who know the original will realize that I have knocked out the last line of each śloka. That will come later. Some people may know that Swami Vivekānanda translated this. I could have given my own translation. But since Swami Vivekānanda translated it, one might as well stick to his translation.  With that last line of each śloka knocked out, here goes:

मनोबुद्धयहंकार चित्तानि नाहं, न च श्रोत्रजिव्हे न च घ्राणनेत्रे । न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः

न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पंचवायुः, न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः । न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु,

न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ, मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः । न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः

न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं, न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदा न यज्ञ । अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता

न मे मृत्युशंका न मे जातिभेदः, पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः । न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरूर्नैव शिष्यः

अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकार रूपो, विभुत्वाच सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् । न चासङत नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः

“I am neither the mind, nor the intellect, nor the ego, nor the mind-stuff;  I am neither the body, nor the changes of the body; I am neither the senses of hearing, taste, smell, or sight; Nor am I the ether, the earth, the fire, the air; I am neither the prāṇa nor the five vital airs; I am neither the materials of the body, nor the five sheaths; Neither am I the organs of action, nor object of the senses;  I have neither aversion nor attachment, neither greed nor delusion;  Neither egotism nor envy, neither Dharma nor Mokṣa; I am neither desire nor objects of desire;
I am neither sin nor virtue, neither pleasure nor pain;  Nor temple nor worship, nor pilgrimage nor scriptures, Neither the act of enjoying, the enjoyable nor the enjoyer;
I have neither death nor fear of death, nor caste; Nor was I ever born, nor had I parents, friends, and relations; I have neither Guru, nor disciple; I am untouched by the senses, I am neither Mukti nor knowable; I am without form, without limit, beyond space, beyond time; I am in everything; I am the basis of the universe; everywhere am I. I am Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute.”  

I said that I am going to excise Vedānta, for the moment. The purist will say that despite eliminating that last line, I haven’t quite been able to do that. But let that pass for the moment.  Independent of Vedānta, I think most people comprehend that the ātman is not the body, nor the five organs of sense (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing) or the five organs of action (feet, hands, anus, genitals, mouth).  Therefore, when the body dies, the ātman does not die.

Students are poverty-stricken, everywhere in the world.  When we were students in Cambridge, there was a professor of Physics there.  He had already received the equivalent of tenure, so he could “research” whatever he wished.  And he asked for student volunteers as guinea pigs, promising them small sums of money if they volunteered.  I was one of those who volunteered and the experiment was the following.  We went to sleep, hooked on to all kinds of gadgets and measuring instruments.  The idea was that when people slept, the soul (obviously he didn’t call it the ātman) would leave the body and roam around.  These sensitive measuring instruments were supposed to detect the departure and return of the soul, in these out-of-body experiences.  As far as I know, the professor met with no success.  Nothing registered.  

There is a story about Catherine the Great of Russia (Catherine II) and the philosopher Diderot, who was a bit of an atheist.  This bothered Catherine the Great and the other courtiers.  Euler, the mathematician, was also around and was summoned to help.  Diderot knew nothing about mathematics.  Euler went up to him and said, “Sir, (a+bⁿ)/n= x.  Hence, God exists!” (Actually, he said it in French, but the English will suffice.)  This embarrassed Diderot so much that he vanished from the court.  Whether it is God, or the ātman, we tend to ask for odd kinds of proof.

Be logical.  Do you believe in the concept of ½?  Of course, you do.  But have you ever actually seen ½? Of course, you haven’t.  No matter how precise the measuring rod, when something is broken into two equal halves, will each part be exactly half?  It won’t.  Yet, we believe in the concept of half.  If I give you an equation that says 1+1=11, you will say this is wrong.  Yet, it is perfectly correct, if I am using the binary system.  If I say, two parallel lines do not meet, that’s apparently correct, but only on a plane.  On the earth’s surface, lines of longitude do meet.  The point I am making is that scientific proofs can be axiomatic, or they can be empirical.  At an axiomatic level, I see nothing that one can complain about vis-à-vis the concept of the ātman.  As an axiomatic structure, it is perfectly coherent.  Therefore, if the ātman is being questioned, it is on the level of the empirical. 

We will continue with this line of reasoning next month.