Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c8.19

c8.19

(150) Even the reference to the conflicting theories about the ātman may be attributed to the early Sceptic, since each one of the theories stated were current by the time of the Pāli Nikāyas and all of them could be traced to the period of the Early Upaniṣads. Thus the pantheistic ātman, which is 'made of everything' (sarvamayaḥ, idammayaḥ adomayaḥ, Bṛh. 4.4.5) would be omnipresent (sarvagatam) while the transcendent ātman defined negatively (neti neti, Bṛh 3.9.26) would not be so. Again at Kaṭha 2.3.17, the ātman is of 'the size of a digit' (*anguṣṭamātraḥ*), while at Chāndogya 3.14.3, the ātman is 'smaller than a kernel of a grain of millet'² (atmā aṇīyān śyāmākataṇḍulāt). Again at Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.3.¹, Brahman which is identical with the ātman is said 'both to have form and also be formless' (mūrtam caivāmūrtañ ca). Likewise at Kaṭha 2.3.17 the ātman 'resides in the heart' (hṛdaye sanniviṣṭaḥ) while at Aitareya Āraṇyaka 2.1.4.6 it (i.e. brahman=ātman) is located in the head (śiro'śrayata). It is not at all surprising that the Sceptics would have been quick to see these contradictions in the Upaniṣads in an age when the Vedāntic interpretation (or for that matter, the interpretations of Deussen or Radhakrishnan) which tries to synthesize all these contradictions, was not known.