One of the most difficult concepts to grasp in any attempt to understand Indic thought, and Hinduism, particularly in its arguably most complex form, namely, Advaita Vedanta (literally non-dual end of knowledge), is that of the Atman. Once this concept is grasped, however, a whole world opens up, and the results are pretty profound, and this post will try to explain this tricky concept.
It’s also quite fascinating to note strong similarities between this approach and various schools of Buddhism, particularly the Mahayana Buddhism of Nagarjuna, and in many ways, the Vedanta Hinduism propounded in the Bhagavad Gita, and systematized by the philosopher Shankara, can be seen as a response to these developments in Buddhism, which were its main competition for converts in the first millennia CE. Such a perspective, of course, is historical rather than devotional in nature, and many adherents of these worldviews have argued that linear history and social pressures shouldn’t be applied to issues of revelation. Either way, there are strong similarities between Vedanta and Mahayana thought, two of the most complex developments in Indic thought as a whole, and with profound lessons to teach. What’s also worth noting is the strong similarities between both of these schools and certain developments in contemporary philosophy, such as the immanentism of Deleuze, or my own networkological thought. These issues will be discussed at another time.