AnÃÂtman in Sanskrit means that "which is different from atman" or "non-self". In Hinduism, the former definition is found in some texts, while in Buddhism, anÃÂtman or anattÃÂ means non-self.
According to à Ârë Candraà Âekhara BhÃÂratë of à Âringeri, Shankara does not use the term anÃÂtman to mean non-soul or anti-soul. The ÃÂtman is formless and partless whose true nature cannot be perceived, while the anÃÂtman has form, has parts and whose nature can be perceived. AnÃÂtman, a creation of Brahman which is non-different from Brahman and has no existence apart from Brahman. To comprehend the difference between ÃÂtman and anÃÂtman is to become liberated.
In order to realise the self-existent eternal Atman, the seeker after Truth uses "Neti, neti", that is "not this, not this" on Anatman, to reach that which remains as Atman.
âÂÂAnÃÂtmanastu kÃÂmÃÂya sarvaá¹ priyaá¹ bhavatiâ (Bá¹ÂhadÃÂraá¹Âyaka Upanishad 2.4.5) â âÂÂAll is dear, not for the sake of the non-self, but for the Self.âÂÂ
Buddhists believe that there is no permanent underlying substance called self or soul (ÃÂtman) in human beings. They believe that anattÃÂ/anÃÂtman (non-self), impermanence and dukkha (suffering) are the three characteristics (trilakkhana) of all existence, and understanding of these three constitutes right understanding. "The anÃÂtman doctrine was in no sense an addendum, since it was fundamental to the other two doctrines; that is, because there is no real human or sentient self, there is no duration in human experience; and because there is no duration in human experience, there is no genuine happiness."
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's explication of the theory of anÃÂtman as à Âà «nyatà(emptiness) in the Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikàwas part of his restatement of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths as well as a rejection of the philosophies of the early Buddhist schools of the Sarvastivadins and the SautrÃÂntika.