The varieties of non-perception of Truth have resulted in various doctrines of the nature of the Self. The Lokayatas or Charvakas, the Indian materialists, consider the visible as real. Inasmuch as the objects and the body alone are visible, nothing above these is regarded by them as real. They hold on mainly to perception as the main proof of knowledge, and consider the real to be that which is perceived by the senses. The object which is made up of five elements is held by them to be the true self, and they cannot envisage any other state of liberation than the death of the body. The famous Virochana of the Chhandogya Upanishad is supposed to be the initiator of this doctrine.

Another school of Charvakas began to feel that the body without sensations has no life, and hence the senses are the self. As we have a direct, personal awareness of the senses, they are we. The senses are more important than merely the physical elements. Those who have pondered over the activities of the Prana and noted that the senses are directed by it, consider the Prana to be superior, and infer that it functions even if the senses may vanish. The Prana operates even in the state of deep sleep. The supremacy of the Prana over the senses is heard of even in the scriptures. Hence, that Prana is the self is the doctrine of the Upasakas of Prana.

The mind considers the functions of even the Prana. The Prana does not enjoy or experience anything. It knows nothing even if it functions in the deep sleep of the Jiva. It is also heard that the mind alone is the cause of the bondage and liberation of the Jiva. The mind knows what the Prana does not. Hence one of the schools hold that mind should be regarded as the self.

The Vijnanavadins go higher, and for them the Vijnana or intellect is the self. It has its primary source in the Alayavijnana, the reservoir of consciousness. This Vijnana is Kshanika or momentary, and is made up of bits of process, one different from the other, but having the semblance of continuity due to the Samskaras or impressions generated and left behind by every momentary phase. The Vijnana constitutes the sense of the ‘I’, while the Manas or the mind denotes the sense of ‘this’ in cognition. The Vijnana is the source of the ‘I’-consciousness, and is the origin of the mental Vrittis, which contact objects outside. There is no outward perception without a presupposition of the ‘I’, and this ‘I’ is the Vijnana. There is birth and death of Vijnana every moment, and its unity is similar to the continuity of the flame of a lamp. It is not one mass, but is made up of several parts, though it has the appearance of the whole. This Vijnana is the transmigrating Jiva.

As in the case of a pot illumined by sunlight, the light and the pot are indistinguishable to non discriminate persons, and yet the light and the pot are two different things; so, also, the procession of bits of intellectual impressions is different from the basic consciousness that is underlying it, though, to a nondiscriminating Jiva, the two appear to be the same. The intellect is, thus, not the Atman. The scripture refers to the intellect as the charioteer (Sarathi) and not the lord of the chariot (Rathi). Moreover, if the Atman were a momentary consciousness, as the Vijnanavadins hold, one would not remember even one’s having taken food a little before. The theory of Pratyabhijna or a series of understandings, one preceding the other, is untenable, as it would lead to an unending regression of consciousness behind consciousness. There cannot be a mere series without a substratum. The assumption that Samskaras or impressions of Vijnana can be identified with the Atman would lead to petitio principii (Atmasraya), since Samskaras would depend on Vijnana as their basis, and the latter again on the former for its existence. The Atman, therefore, is above all processes of understanding or intellectual becoming.

The Madhyamikas urge that Vijnana is momentary like the flash of a lightning or the rending of a cloud, or the winking of the eye. There is no permanency in the Vijnana, and consequently there is no substantiality in what is perceived. The whole universe is a series of phenomena appearing on void, and the world of contact between the seer and the seen is unreal due to the impermanency of the contact and the momentariness of all things. This doctrine of the Madhyamikas, however, is untenable, because one cannot imagine even delusion or phenomena unless there is an underlying basis. Moreover, even void cannot be known if there is no witness of it as a conscious observer. We cannot conceive of an unknown void. The existence of Atman, cannot therefore, be ever doubted.

The Naiyayikas and the Prabhakara-Mimamsakas consider that the Anandamaya-Atman is the real self, as it persists even in transmigration, and there is, in its experience, a sense of some existence, though indeterminate.

There is also difference of opinion regarding the size of the Atman. Some think that the Atman is atomic in size, because it is said to pervade even the minutest nerve-current (Nadi), and one of the Upanishads makes mention of the Jiva to be as subtle as the hundredth part of a hair divided hundredfold. There are also other references in the Upanishads to the effect that the Atman is subtle and minute, and incapable of perception. This makes some opine that the Atman is of the size of an atom.

The school of the Jainas, called Digambaras, feels that an atomic Atman cannot pervade the whole body, and so it is of the size of the body. It is seen that consciousness pervades the whole body and the Upanishads also mention this fact. The Digambaras conclude that the Atman is medium in size and it can pervade even the subtle Nadis, as we thrust our hands into the sleeves of a shirt. The Atman can assume a bigger size when it enters a big body and a smaller one when it enters a smaller body by an expansion and contraction of its parts. Now this doctrine is defective, because the Atman cannot be said to have parts, and there can be no contraction or expansion of it to suit the size of the body. That which has parts would be perishable like any other body in the world; and if the Atman is to be perishable, there would be no rule regarding virtue or vice, good or bad, and the world would be a chaos. The conclusive doctrine is that the Atman is universal and absolute, not atomic or medium in size. It is all pervading and partless, indivisible and eternal.

With regard to the essential nature of the Atman, there is, again, a difference of opinion. The Naiyayikas and Prabhakara-Mimamsakas think that the Atman is unconscious essentially, is a substance like ether, having the quality of consciousness inherent in it, as sound is the property of ether. They also assume that the Atman has other qualities like desire, hatred, effort, virtue, vice, pleasure, pain, and their impressions. Consciousness, and the other qualities, are, according to them, the result of the contact of the Atman with the mind, which is brought about by the operation of Adrishta or the invisible potency of previous action. When the potency subsides, there is unconsciousness, as in sleep; when the potency is activised, there is consciousness. The Atman is held to be an agent of actions and experiencer of pleasure and pain, which are caused by the effect of past deeds.

The Bhatta school of Mimamsa considers that the Atman is both conscious and unconscious, and the above-mentioned qualities inhere in it. It is unconscious because it has no experience in sleep. It is conscious because this is inferred after one’s awakening from sleep. They compare the Atman to a firefly which may flash light or withdraw it on different occasions. The Sankhya repudiates this doctrine and holds on to the theory of a universal conscious Purusha or Atman, and posits an opposite principle called Prakriti, which is unconscious in nature.

The Sankhya holds that Purushas are many in number, each being infinite and intelligent. Prakriti is inert and is an eternal principle like Purusha. The function of Prakriti is to bring about conditions for the experience of Purusha, and create for it a training ground, towards its final liberation. Bondage is the non-discrimination on the part of Purusha as regards its true relation to Prakriti. Liberation is this discrimination. The Purusha, when it rests on it own essential nature, attains Moksha. The existence of Purusha and Prakriti is known from the Sruti. (Verses 57-101)

The Yoga doctrine feels the necessity for an Isvara, inasmuch as Purusha and Prakriti, alone, cannot, by mutual contact and non-contact, explain the law and justice operating in the world, for there would be none to dispense the deserts of the Purusha if they are let free to themselves. There should be, therefore, an over-all, regulating law, above Purusha and Prakriti. This is the Isvara of the Yoga school.

The Sruti (Antaryami-Brahmana) is in support of the Yoga in advancing the doctrine of Isvara, but we have different schools of thought defining Isvara in various ways. The Yoga defines Isvara as a special kind of Purusha who is unaffected by anything, therefore untouched by afflictions, Karma, their fruits and their impressions. He is unattached consciousness. Though He is untouched, He is the ruler of the universe, because on the non-acceptance of such a ruler of all things, there would be confusion, and there would be no arrangement for the liberation of the Jivas from the state of bondage. The Upanishad refers to the existence of Isvara when it states that ‘due to His fear’ everything functions everywhere. Though the Jiva also is untouched and untainted consciousness, essentially, like Isvara, it gets into bondage by a mistaken notion of the identity of itself with Prakriti.

The Naiyayikas or the logical schoolmen feel that a completely detached Isvara cannot have rulership over the world. So they attribute to Him qualities like eternal knowledge, eternal effort, and eternal desire. “His desire is truth; His volition is truth,” says the Upanishad. Isvara is a special Purusha, on account of these attributes.

The worshippers of Hiranyagarbha think that if Isvara in His original state were to be the Creator, there would be perpetual creation due to His permanent contact with all things. Hence, it should be regarded that He is Creator only in a state of Hiranyagarbha with a Universal Subtle Body, and not otherwise. In the Udgitha Brahmana of the Upanishad the glory of Hiranyagarbha is sung abundantly. Though Hiranyagarbha has a subtle body, he is above Jivahood because of his universality, and so above Karma and its fruits. Some think that without a gross body there cannot be even an idea of the subtle body. Hence the Virat or the Cosmic Body spreading everywhere, alone, is to be considered as the real Creator and not Hiranyagarbha. The Rigveda and other scriptures corroborate this view when they say that the Purusha is thousand-headed, thousand-eyed, all-seeing, etc.

As it is difficult to conceive of Virat in His essential nature as Creator due to His being inside and outside, equally, Brahma, described in the Puranas, is to be considered as creator, in the opinion of the Upasakas of Brahma. The Vaishnavas regard Vishnu as supreme since even Brahma came out of his navel, according to the Puranas. The Saivas regard Siva as supreme, and quote the instance from the Puranas, where it is said that Vishnu and Brahma could not fathom the depths of Siva. The worshippers of Ganesa think that he is supreme, as even Siva worshipped him while engaged in the destruction of the Tripuras.

Thus, there are countless views of Isvara from the points of view of different Jivas in different levels of evolution, looking at Isvara from particular angles. Right from the Upanishad concept of Isvara, down to such deities as trees and stones, there are religious beliefs and worships, covering a wide range. The truth, however, is that Isvara is the Absolute Individual, including even space and time within himself, and operating both as the instrumental and material cause of creation, with His power called Maya. Maya is inseparable from the one who wields it. Everything is strung in the body of Isvara, as beads in a thread, and He exists supreme above all things like a magician who is untouched by the magic he displays. From this standpoint of Isvara, as the all inclusive whole, every special form of worship has a truth in it, and meaning, since Isvara is everywhere, and is everything.

The nature of Maya, taken independently, is inscrutable. In the Tapaniya Upanishad it is described as Jada (inert) and Mohatmaka (delusive). Its existence is proved by the personal experience, in everyone, of having a sufficient knowledge in regard to it. The inertness of Maya is that which we see in things like an earthen pot; delusion is that wherein the intellect gets stultified and cannot understand anything. For the ordinary people of the world, Maya is a reality, because it projects this world which is clearly seen by them as a fact; but to the logical mind, or the philosophical intellect, it is a mystery, because it cannot be said to be either non-existent (due to its appearance) or existent (due to its ultimate negation in Brahman). It is real from the point of view of popular common sense, inscrutable from the point of view of logical philosophy, and unreal to the illumined sage. It is seen in three different ways from three levels of evolution. The dependence of Maya is seen from the fact of its being impossible where there is no consciousness. It has also a semblance of independence as it manages somehow to present a world to the untainted consciousness. It manifests a world to the unattached Kutastha, and brings about a distinction between Iswara and jiva by manifesting itself cosmically as well as individually. The wonder is that it does not affect the Kutastha, and yet appears to involve it in world- experience. The world appears to be ‘there’, but is yet inexplicable. The very meaning of Maya is that it can effect marvels and bring about events and occurrences which are usually impossible. The intellect of the Jiva gets divided here, and the only thing open to it is to conclude that mystery is perhaps the stuff of Maya, as liquidity is the nature of water, heat of fire, hardness of stone etc. It intrigues a person, who is involved in it. It is known to be unsubstantial when the light of Brahman reveals itself. No question in regard to Maya will bring a satisfactory answer, because the very nature of Maya is a question as to the origin of things. Maya is a query and a wonder, not a subject for logical scrutiny or empirical observation. The solution lies only in the cessation of the intellect, in the subsiding of all interrogation, and the effacement of individuality in the greatest wonder of Brahman. Sincere seekers, therefore, should not worry themselves as to the origin of Maya and its nature, but endeavour hard in finding ways and means of attaining freedom from it. The answer to the question of Maya lies only in the experience of Brahman. There are explanations and statements satisfying the intellect open to a certain limit, but there is a point reaching which the intellect turns back baffled, and where it finds itself confronted by a mighty wall of ignorance. How did life originate? How did consciousness enter the individual? How is a large tree contained in a small seed? These are questions which the intellect cannot answer. It is wrong on the part of anyone to enter into discussions and arguments in regard to transcendental mysteries, knowing well that such arguments reach their fulfilment and obtain their answer only in the utter surrender of one’s individuality in the Absolute. Logical definitions and affirmations are circumscribed by the empirical categories of space, time and causality, and these assertions can be faced with counter-statements in a world of relativity. The wonder of creation is so tremendous to the mind of man, that he cannot even approach it. The wisest position would be to recognise that the true insight lies in real humility before the marvel of Brahman, and a sincere effort to realise it in one’s own experience.