Ātman
आत्मन् (ātman)
In Vedānta, the *Ātman* is the pure Self—not the psychological "I" made of habits, opinions, and memories, but the absolute subject that observes them without dissolving into them. The fundamental principle of *Advaita* (non-duality): *Ātman* = [*Brahman*](/lexique/brahman/). What in each of us is identical to the total Reality is neither a spark nor a fragment—it is the same light, undivided.
la seule vérité vraie ou la seule réalité réelle est l'incommunicable Moi ou Unique Existence (Âtman, Advaïta), le quatrième état du Moi que décrit le Védânta
The Sanskrit root ān- means “to breathe,” “to live.” In the Vedas, Ātman is first and foremost the vital breath unique to each being—what animates the body. The Upanishads effect a decisive shift: this individual breath and the universal breath are one and the same. The great formula (mahāvākya) of the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad—“this Self is Brahman” (ayam ātmā brahma)—may well be the most condensed sentence in all of Indian philosophy.
The “fourth state” (turīya), referenced in the passage, is the state underlying the three ordinary states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) without merging with any of them. It is the unconditioned Ātman: neither thought, nor dream, nor void—but pure consciousness that makes all these states possible.
The Bhagavad-Gītā (Ch. II, v. 20) offers its most stark formulation, where the Self cannot be touched by death: “It is not born, it does not die; it was not born in the past, it will not be reborn; unborn, endless, eternal, ancient—it is not slain when the body is killed.” Burnouf, in 1861, translated ātman as “Soul”—but the French word covers too much ground; what Ātman designates is not the individual soul that reincarnates, but the witness presiding over all incarnations without attachment.
Ātman ≠ the psychological self (ahaṃkāra, lit. “I-maker”). Ahaṃkāra is the mental construct that says, “it is I who act, it is I who suffer”; Ātman is what observes this construct without identifying with it. The entire Vedantic practice aims to undo the confusion between the two. It must also be distinguished from the Tao: where the Tao is a cosmic power without subject, Ātman remains a structure of subjectivity—even if this subjectivity is universal and impersonal.