Atman is not 'Soul' and not 'Self'

Atman is not a psychological self or a metaphysical soul; it is the witness that cannot be objectified.

2026-01-05 • 6 min • vv1.0

The translation trap

When we say

atman

The witness, not an object of experience.

Glossary entry
is the “soul” or the “self,” we import Western baggage that the text does not require. The Gita is precise: the knower is not an object of knowledge.

BG 2.20
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचित् नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः
na jāyate mriyate vā kadācit nāyaṃ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ
It is never born, nor does it die; having been, it never ceases to be.

The verse does not point to a hidden entity inside the mind. It points to what cannot be made into an object at all.

What the text permits

We can say: the witness is not born, does not die, and is not an object of experience. We cannot say: it is a personal soul that survives in a moral ledger.

Objections

  • “Isn’t this just semantics?” Only if you allow the wrong translation to drive the claim.
  • “But tradition uses the word soul.” Tradition uses atman, and that difference matters.

What would change my mind

If a verse or commentary establishes atman as a personal, psychological entity, I will revise the claim.

Version notes

  • v1.0 — initial publication.