Lesson video

Hello, my name is Mrs. Rawbone and I'm your RE teacher for today.

I'd like to welcome you to this lesson on, "Atman, the divine within all." By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain different understandings of the atman as divine and evaluate the claim that experiences across religions cancel each other out.

Today we are going to be using a few key terms. There are atman, Brahman, John Hick, multiple claims argument, and pluralist.

Now, atman is a word for the spark of Brahman or spirit within all living beings.

Brahman is a supreme spirit or ultimate reality.

John Hick is a philosopher who argues for religious pluralism.

The multiple claims argument says that conflicting religious experiences challenge the idea that they can prove the existence of God.

And a pluralist is someone who believes that different religions are paths to understanding the same divine truth.

Our lesson today will have two parts.

First, we will consider atman as the divine within all, and second, we will apply this to our questions about the existence of God.

So let's get started on, atman as the divine within all.

Philosophers are academics and thinkers who study ultimate questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality using logic to explore these topics.

Whether you have a religious or a non-religious worldview, philosophy provides tools to understand the arguments used to support different perspectives.

In this lesson, we will explore the concept of atman as a divine within all in Hindu Dharma and use logic to assess how successfully the multiple claims argument challenges the existence of God.

Hindu Dharma teaches that the ultimate reality is known as Brahman.

Everything in the world is a manifestation of Brahman.

The word Brahman is Sanskrit.

It comes from the root "brh" which means to grow or expand.

At first, this suggested something vast and limitless, and over time it came to mean, the supreme spirit or ultimate reality.

Hindu Dharma teaches that all living beings have a self or spirit known as the atman.

Hindus believe that the atman is eternal, which means it never dies and it cannot be destroyed.

The word atman is also Sanskrit.

And it comes from the root "at" meaning to breathe or to go.

So initially it referred to the breath or the life force, but over time it came to mean the eternal spirit present in every living being.

Hidden in the heart of all beings is the atman, the spirit, the self, smaller than the smallest atom, greater than the vastest space.

That's a quotation from Katha Upanishad, of the Hindu sacred scriptures.

What do you think this quotation might tell us about the atman? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do so.

Pause if you need to, and then come back and we can unpick the quotation together.

So let's look at the meaning of the quotation.

The word hidden is important.

The atman is not easily visible or perceptible, it lies deep within.

And then we have two words.

We have smaller and greater.

And we learned that the atman is both very small but also limitless, beyond the physical world.

So the smallest of the atman means it is within each living thing, but the vastness means it is connected with Brahman, the ultimate reality.

So let's check your understanding on the word Brahman.

Which of the following best describes Brahman? Is it the individual self or spirit? Is it the physical body? Is it supreme spirit, or ultimate reality? Or is it a personal deity worshipped in some Hindu traditions? Take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put C, supreme spirit or ultimate reality.

So Brahman is the source of all reality.

Now, Hindu Dharma has various views on the atman with Advaita Vedanta and Dvaita Vedanta offering contrasting philosophies.

Advaita Vedanta would argue the atman is Brahman.

So the atman within matches Brahman, it is Brahman.

But Dvaita Vedanta argues that instead the atman is connected to Brahman.

So it comes from Brahman, but it is not the same.

What they both agree on though is that the atman is somehow divine, which means somehow from God or connected to God.

And so by connecting with the divine within them, whether they believe that it is just linked to Brahman or actually is Brahman, Hindus belief that they can connect with Brahman and learn about God or ultimate reality.

So the Advaita Vedanta understanding of atman is slightly different.

Here is an image of an empty pot, and one of the scriptures, Chandogya Upanishad says that in the same way, the space inside the pot is not different from the infinite space outside.

Similarly, the individual self, atman, is not different from the supreme self.

So the atman is not separate from the universal reality of Brahman, just as the space inside a pot is ultimately the same as the space outside.

So in Advaita Vedanta, dhyana, meditation is a popular way of experiencing the divine because by meditating, you're focusing inwardly.

Priya says, "I meditate to focus on the atman, my true self.

I feel closer to Brahman, the universal essence.

I believe the atman and Brahman are one, and meditation helps me experience that connection and feel peaceful." In Advaita Vedanta, dhyana, meditation is a popular way of experiencing the divine.

And here we can see a woman meditating as she sits by the river Ganges.

She's using meditation to connect with Brahman by turning inward and focusing on her atman.

She seeks to overcome what she would see as the illusion of separateness and realise that her atman is one with Brahman.

Now Dvaita Vedanta has a different understanding of atman.

And the comparison here is with the sun.

Just as the sun is one, but it's rays are many, in the same way Brahman is one and its manifestations, which are the atman, are many.

So that's also from Chandogya Upanishad.

And it is just a different way of understanding atman and Brahman and their connection.

So for Dvaita Vedanta, individual atman are separate from each other and from Brahman, but they all come from him just like the rays all come from the sun.

So in Dvaita Vedanta, puja, which is ritual worship, is one of the most popular ways to experience the divine.

Dhanu says, "I perform puja to connect with Brahman.

I believe my atman comes from Brahman.

And through puja I focus on the deity to build a connection with Brahman.

It helps me feel guided, peaceful, and closer to the divine." In Dvaita Vedanta, puja, ritual worship, is one of the most popular ways to experience the divine.

And here we can see a home shrine dedicated to Lord Krishna.

The murti, the image of Krishna, is a visible representation of Brahman, which means that the worshipper can focus on something outward, showing that Brahman within is separate from atman.

There are offerings like fruits, incense, and light, which help the worshipper express love and devotion to Krishna, and they create a kind of bridge, if you like, to connect with Brahman as a separate being.

So let's reflect on our understanding of Brahman and atman.

Which metaphor best represents the view of the atman in Advaita Vedanta? Is it A, the atman is like the rays of the sun radiating outward.

Is it B, the atman is like the space in an empty pot.

Is it C, the atman is like the waves and Brahman is like the ocean.

Is it D, the atman is like jewellery and Brahman is the gold it is made from.

Take a moment to think about which of those metaphors was used to express the beliefs of Advaita Vedanta.

Pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you put B, atman is like the space in an empty pot.

It could be outside or inside the pot, it is all one.

So for our first task, for task A, understanding atman as the divine within all, I'd like you to decide whether each statement reflects Advaita Vedanta, or Dvaita Vedanta understandings of the atman.

So we have the atman is separate from Brahman.

Brahman is atman.

Meditation focuses inwardly.

Puja focuses outwardly on murti.

Meditating aims to dissolve the illusion of separateness.

And offerings are made to a deity.

So take your time to think carefully about each of the philosophies and tick the one that you think it applies to.

So take each statement and decide which it applies to.

Pause the video to give yourself some time to do this task properly.

And when you've finished, you can come back and check your answers.

Now well done if you said the following.

Atman is separate from Brahman, is Dvaita Vedanta.

Brahman is atman is Advaita Vedanta.

Meditation focuses inwardly is Advaita Vedanta.

Puja focuses outwardly on a murti is Dvaita Vedanta.

Meditating aims to dissolve the illusion of separateness is Advaita Vedanta.

And offerings are made to a deity, is Dvaita Vedanta.

For part two of our task, I'd like you to use the statements from part one to write a paragraph on the difference between Advaita Vedanta and Dvaita Vedanta understandings of the atman as the divine within all.

So here are some possible sentence starters.

And remember you have the statements that we used previously that we sorted to help you with these sentences.

In Advaita Vedanta.

In contrast, Dvaita Vedanta.

Advaita Vedanta emphasises.

Whereas Dvaita Vedanta encourages.

The key difference is that.

So take your time to complete some sentences, there are five there, and you can use some or all of them or perhaps write your own.

Pause the video so that you can do this task properly and then come back to me when you are ready to see what you might have written.

So there are lots of things you could have said, but here are some examples.

In Advaita Vedanta, the atman is identical with Brahman, meaning the self and ultimate reality are one.

In contrast, Dvaita Vedanta teaches that the atman is separate from Brahman.

Advaita Vedanta emphasises meditation to realise oneness with Brahman, whereas Dvaita Vedanta encourages connection with the divine through offerings made during puja.

The key difference is that Advaita Vedanta sees that atman and Brahman as one, while Dvaita Vedanta views them as separate.

So well done if you talked about the difference in views that one believes they're identical and the other believes that atman comes from Brahman.

And if you also mentioned the different practises.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson and think about how this might reflect on understanding and knowing the existence of God.

Now religious experiences are universal.

We have an image there with lots of symbols from different world religions and different worldviews.

And the point is that religious experience are documented as happening in all sorts of different religions.

For example, Sufis would describe union with Allah and Christians would speak to God.

Both contrasting religions.

They also have shared features.

So across different religions, the philosopher and psychologist William James noticed that there were common features shared between religious experiences.

They're usually life changing.

So for example, Bernadette of Lords joined a convent after her visions of Mary.

And they usually involve different practises.

So Hindus for example, might practise yoga, and Sufis might practise dhikr.

And both of these will be ways of connecting with God and engaging in a religious experience.

Jun and Jacob are discussing whether religious experiences prove God exists.

Jacob says, "I don't think religious experiences prove God exists because they occur in most religions.

William James spoke to people from many world religions and found they experienced similar things." Jun replies, "That's a good point.

Although St.

Bernadette's visions of Mary support the existence of a Christian God, Hindu beliefs about experiencing Brahman support the existence of a different kind of God." So Jacob concludes, "So if someone's experience is evidence for their God, it's evidence against others.

They end up cancelling each other out." What's happening here is that Jacob is explaining a philosophical argument against the existence of God, and this is known as the multiple claims argument.

He says, "So if someone's experience is evidence for their God, it's evidence against others, they end up cancelling each other out." Put in the form of a philosophical argument, we will begin, religions make conflicting claims about God.

Religious experiences happen in all religions.

An experience of God in one religion is contradicted by an experience in another.

This is when Jacob says, they end up cancelling each other out.

And religious experiences do not prove God exists.

So let's recap and see what you remember.

True or false? The multiple claims argument says that religious experiences in different religions prove the existence of one specific God.

Decide whether that's true or false, make a note of your answer, but also have a think about your reason.

Have a think about why.

Pause if you need to and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put false.

And the reason why is that the multiple claims argument challenges the idea that religious experiences prove the existence of one God, as different religions use religious experience to support their belief in God.

Diane is a humanist.

With her humanist worldview, she doesn't think religious experiences prove the existence of God.

She says, "I find the multiple claims argument convincing because it shows that different religions make conflicting claims about God.

If religious experiences are supposed to prove God's existence, the fact that so many people have different experiences and interpretations suggests these experiences are more about culture, psychology, and personal belief than actual evidence of a divine being." Priya joins in Jacob and Jun's conversation about whether religious experiences in different religions cancel each other out.

She says, "Many Hindus are pluralists, and they believe truth can be understood in different ways.

It's like a mountain.

People climbing up different sides see different views, but they're all heading to the same peak.

Religious experiences are different paths to the same truth." Jun asks her, "What about contradictions between religions?" And Priya replies, "They're just different ways of seeing the same ultimate reality.

Hindu dharma teaches truth is one, the wise call it by many names," that's found in the Rigveda.

So Priya is referring to an analogy that was popularised by the philosopher John Hick, and he used it to explain his pluralist hypothesis.

This was a reply to the multiple claims argument.

So Hick wanted to show, unlike Diane, but agreeing with Priya, that religious experiences do not cancel each other out.

He described a mountain.

We have different religions all being different paths up the same mountain.

Here we can see three paths, but Hick would argue that there are many, many more.

And the peak of the mountain we might describe as God or as ultimate reality, or whatever the end goal for that particular religion might be.

So religions are like different paths up the same mountain, they're all leading to the same ultimate reality or God.

And not all religious people might realise this, but in Priya's case as a Hindu it's quite common to be pluralist.

She believes that all of the religions are just different ways of getting to God.

And so all the religious experiences within them are aLl ways of accessing the same God, who she would call Brahman.

So let's check your understanding here.

I'd like you to fill in the missing word.

According to John Hick's.

hypothesis, different religions are paths up the same mountain.

Take a moment to write down what you think the missing word is.

Pause if you need to, and then come back to check.

Well done if you wrote pluralist.

Pluralist, think of the root word plural, means that there are many different ways of getting to God.

So let's have a go at a task relating to the existence of God.

For part one of task B, Jacob is explaining the multiple claims argument.

I'd like you to turn his explanation into a four bullet pointed philosophical argument, demonstrating that religious experiences might cancel each other out as proof of God's existence.

He says, "If people from different religions have religious experiences that support their own beliefs, it's hard to see how they can all be right.

Since these experiences support different religions, they seem to cancel each other out, making it hard to use them as proof that God exists." So take some time to break down what he says into bullet points, and then look carefully at how you've organised them to make sure that they follow from each other, like a philosophical argument that makes a point and another point which follows and reaches a conclusion.

And we're looking for four bullet points.

Pause the video, take your time and come back when you're ready to see what you might have written.

So you could have said, people from different religions have religious experiences.

These experiences are used to support their own religious beliefs.

Religions make different claims about God, and so these religious experiences contradict each other.

And then finally, your conclusion.

The final point, religious experiences cannot be used to prove the existence of God.

Well done if you manage to get to that conclusion.

And if you covered the fact that the religious experiences happen in different religions and so they cannot all support the existence of God.

Priya is using John Hick's pluralist hypothesis to argue against the multiple claims argument.

So for part two of task B, I'd like you to use a picture of a mountain to illustrate her point by adding labels and writing a summary.

She says, "Although different religions have religious experiences, the pluralist hypothesis argues each religion is like a different path up the same mountain, and so together they help prove the existence of God." The suggested sentence starters are as follows.

This diagram represents the pluralist hypothesis by showing.

Instead of contradicting each other.

And all paths lead to the same truth, which suggests that.

So take the time to sketch out your picture, put some labels on it, and then write a little summary alongside to show how it explains the idea that Priya is expressing there.

Pause the video and once you've taken your time and completed the task, come back and see what your diagram might have looked like.

So your answer could have looked something like this.

We have a sketch of a mountain.

We have some lines to show paths.

We have God at the top.

In my case, we've got two examples of religions, Christianity and Hindu Dharma, but you might have chosen different ones.

And then we've got, this diagram represents the pluralist hypothesis by showing that different religions are like different paths up the same mountain, all leading to the same God.

Instead of contradicting each other, these religious experiences offer different but valid perspectives on the same ultimate reality.

All paths lead to the same truth, which suggests that instead of cancelling each other out, these experiences build a stronger case for the existence of God.

Well done if you manage to show the different paths, the way they connect together, and also particularly if you said about them building a case for God's existence.

Thank you for your hard work today.

We have learned lots.

We have learned that Brahman is the supreme spirit or ultimate reality in Hindu Dharma.

The atman is the spark of Brahman or spirit present within every living thing.

For Hindus, religious experience is recognising the atman, the true self as the divine within connected to Brahman.

In Advaita Vedanta the atman and Brahman are one.

But in Dvaita Vedanta the atman and Brahman are distinct.

The multiple claims arguments suggests that conflicting religious experiences challenge the proof of one specific God.

John Hick's pluralist hypothesis suggest different religious experiences, interpret the same divine reality.

And most Hindus are pluralist, seeing multiple religious paths as valid.

Thank you for working with me today.