Buddhism's Anatta (No-Self) and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

I have enjoyed so much my interaction with this forum, and feel I

have a much better understanding of Advaita philosophy than

when I began. The patience and courtesy of the members have

truly been wonderful. (The many replies I received on my most

recent post about animals have been most helpful! Thank you

all!)

 

I have come to a point in my investigations where I would like to

address a crucial point -- a question that I came to this forum

with but wanted to wait until I got a better grasp of the

fundamentals before asking.

 

The issue has to do with Buddhism and its teaching of Anatta

and what Advaita says in response to the Buddhism's Anatta.

 

I believe I understand what the Buddha taught in regards to

Anatta, but for sake of accuracy, let me quote from the scholar

Wapola Rahula, from "What the Buddha Taught":

 

"What in general is suggested by Soul, Self, Ego, or to use the

Sanskrit expression, Atman is that in man there is a permanent,

everlasting and absolute entity, which is the unchanging

substance behind the changing phenomenal world....Buddhism

stand unique in the history of human thought in denying the

existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the

teachings of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false

belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces

harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine,' selfish desire, craving

attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other

defilements, impurities and problems....According to Buddhism,

our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly

developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle

mental projections, garbed in intricate metaphysical and

philosophical phraseology."

 

"According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, as well as

according to the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea

of an abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it

is called Atman, I, Soul, Self, or Ego, is considered only a false

belief, a mental projection. This is the Buddhist doctrine of

Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self."

 

Quoting the Buddha in the Alagaddupama-sutta of the

Majjjhima-nikaya, we read: "O bhikkhus, when neither self nor

anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this

speculative view: 'The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be

that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging,

and I shall exist as such for eternity' -- is it not wholly and

completely foolish?"

 

Rahula then goes on to address certain passages which have

sometimes been used to say that some Self or self sense exists

in some form in the Buddha's teachings. I wont' take the space

to quote them here, but if one has done much reading of

Buddhist text and analysis, these refutations are very familiar. As

Rahula says:

 

"Those who want to find a 'Self' in Buddhism argue as follows: It

is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation,

perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says

that none of these things is the self. But he does not say that

there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these

aggregates. This position is untenable for two reasons: One is

that, according to the Buddha's teaching, a being is composed

*only* of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere

has he said that there was anything more than these Five

Aggregates in a being. The second reason is that the Buddha

denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one

place, the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego, within man or

without, or anywhere else in the universe."

 

Now, while I do not personally agree with this doctrine of Anatta, I

do think there's no question that Anatta is exactly and *only* what

the Buddha taught. I have never run across any Buddhist

scholar or sage who says differently. I just don't see any

evidence for some "hiddenunspoken" or "implied" or "not

implied" idea of Atman, or the Self, in the Buddha's teaching. In

this, I must respectfully disagree with Sri Ramana, who in a

number of places I've read, says that "it is only a different point of

view" between what the Buddha taught about Anatta and the

Advaita teaching of the Self. The great Advaitan sage may

believe that, finally, there is no difference, but I don't think there's

any support for this conclusiohn in what the *Buddha himself*

taught, and I know of know Buddhist scholars who disagree.

 

But isn't that as it should be? Rather than try to say or argue that

Buddhism "really" does allow the Self in the back door, so to

speak, and thus earn the Advaitans the name of "hidden

Buddhists," as I understand some Advaitans have been called, I

would much rather hear what arguments have been given by

Shankara, and others, to say where and why the doctrine of

Anatta, No-Self, is wrong or flawed.

 

It seems to me that the key and pivotal point is the issue of the

Buddha's Five Aggregates and Conditional Genesis. On these

two concepts, the whole platform of Anatta rests, it seems to me.

And I would assume that it is here that any Hindu

counter-reformation to Buddhism would focus. Since the Buddha

taught neither nihilism, nor annihilationism, nor any eternalist

theory, the basis for any counter-argument must surely be the

deconstructing the bedrock idea of the Five Aggregates and

Conditonal Genesis as all there is to the "I" and its origin.

 

And indeed, I would have to agree that if all "I" am is, in fact,

merely the Five Aggregates, then the logic of the Buddha is

unassailable and unanswerable. In the well-known metaphor,

the only answer to the problem of bieng is to "snuff out" the

Aggregates like the flame of the candle, and not ask

"nonsensical" questions about the existence of the flame after

extinguishment, since there was no real flame (or "I") before

extinguishment either. It's all dukkha,

 

My friends, please know that in presenting the Buddhist view

strongly and clearly, (insofar as I grasp it) I am not advocating it

or attacking Advaita! I merely want to understand how these

essential points of Buddhism have been analyzed and critique

from the standpoint of Advaita. In fact, my initial interest in

Advaita was because it was presented as a powerful critique

and answer to Buddhism and its No-Self, Anatta doctrine.

Personally, I feel the Five Aggregate doctrine of Buddhism has

some logical/semantical inconsistencies that more than leave

enough room for the idea of a Self-revealing Soul or Atman. But

since absolutely brilliant and great-hearted and

spiritually-minded people have been and continue to be both

Buddhists and Advaitans, I feel very humble in even saying the

latter, though this is what my Heart and life experience continues

to say to confirm. (If, finally, that too proves to be illusion, I'll be

suprised!)

 

If the good folks of this forum can direct me to writings that

address the Anatta issue, as well as other doctrines deemed

problematical from the Advaitan viewpoint, I would be most

grateful. And of course, I also welcome any personal input that

anyone might have to offer on this problem.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post -- the

importance of the subject seemed to me to justify the length I

hope you agree and look forward to learning more about this

subject of Anatta as viewed by the Advaitan teachings.

 

With affection,

Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> Dear friends,

 

Hi Steven. I am glad you posted this topic as I too have pondered it.

Perhaps anatta refers to Brahman? Atman maybe could be said to be the

reflection of Brahman & so on & so on, as the play develops onward

into persona & conditioning worn by the Atman for Brahman. This could

be said to delve into the relationship between the impersonal All, &

its reflected personalisations & scenery.

 

In my humble opinion.

 

Love,

 

Colette

 

>

> The issue has to do with Buddhism and its teaching of Anatta

> and what Advaita says in response to the Buddhism's Anatta.

> With affection,

> Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin, colette@b... wrote:

> advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> > Dear friends,

>

> Hi Steven. I am glad you posted this topic as I too have

pondered it.

 

Hi Colette! Always nice to hear from you.

> Perhaps anatta refers to Brahman?

 

No. The Buddha, according to everything I have read and

studied, denies such a concept or relationship. Or rather, says

such a term as "Brahman" is void and empty of meaning.

Indeeed, it is dukkha. Indeed, in a certain sense, the concepts of

anatta and Brahman are virtual opposites, though that's not quite

the right way to say it. The Buddhist would ask how something

that is empty of meaning can have an opposite!. (What is the

"opposite" of a four-legged tripod?) No-Self means no Soul,

Ego, Self, Brhaman, God, or Christ. All that is dukkha and the

source of suffering.

>Atman maybe could be said to be the

> reflection of Brahman & so on & so on, as the play develops

onward

> into persona & conditioning worn by the Atman for Brahman.

 

This could well describe Advaitin belief, but would make no

sense to a Buddhist, for to him there is no Atman or Brahman to

"wear" anything. Anatta means *anatta* -- No-Soul or Self. The

logic of the Buddha is ferocious and without compromise.

 

This could

> be said to delve into the relationship between the impersonal

All, &

> its reflected personalisations & scenery.

 

Again, not to say you are wrong; just that this reasoning would

have no basis or credibility in Buddhism. They posit no All or

Soul or Self or Ego or Brahman from which what we see around

us can be "derived" or "reflected" or in any way explained or

justified. All such concepts are "void" and "empty." Indeed, they

are dukkha itself.

> In my humble opinion.

>

 

Hey, I know what you mean by feeling humble! One does not

want to say, trivially, or egotistically, that someone like the

Buddha got it wrong! <g> How did the Enligtened One miss the

Self-obvious "I" is one of the greatest of mysteries -- or else, it is

as the Buddhist might reply, there is and was no "I" (or self, or

Self) for him to miss! <G>

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Blessings,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Prof. R.K.Dasgupta gave a series of 12 monthly lectures [May

1999 to May 2000] on Vedanta Through the Ages, published in the

Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta,

India. Lecture no. III deals with the influence of Vedanta on Buddhism.

 

Here are a few excerpts from that lecture:

 

" ...When Buddha attained his enlightenment at Bodh Gaya at the age of

35 in 522 B.C., Vedanta had made its appearance on the Indian

philosophical scene through as many as eight ancient, prose

upanishads,which were composed in the 8th and 7th centuries. These

upanishads are: Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Chandogya, Kena, Taittiriya,

Brihadaranyaka, Isha, and Katha. A prince born in the 6th century, in

557 B.C., to be precise, was presumably acquainted with the wisdom of

these works when he left home at the age of 29, that is in 528 B.C.;

and when he attained Buddhahood in 522 B.C. Vedanta philosophy was

some 2 centuries old. It is impossible that a prince who became a

sannyasi was indifferent to the most influential philosophical system

of the age.

We know that during his sannyasa he received instruction from a

scholar-sage named Ara Kalam of whom he became a disciple. He also

became a disciple of another sage named Rudraka and obviously both

these sages imparted to Gautama the wisdom of the upanishads. We can,

however, assume taht while he understood Vedanta and accepted its main

teachings, he was not particularly impressed by its metaphysical

dialectics. He was in search of an ethical wisdom rooted in a sense of

human sorrows and a sense of compassion for suffering humanity.

Obviously no one drew his attention to the presence of both in the

upanishads.

..............He preached his wisdom for the remaining 45 years of his

life, but he did not set down any of his ideas in writing. Soon after

his passing away at Kushinagar in 477 B.C. at the age of 80, his

disciples and followers assembled in a Council - the first Buddhist

Council which was held in Rajagriha - to determine his teachings.

There is no written record of this Council., and Buddha's teachings

naturally became a pert of an oral tradition. The second Council took

place at Vaishali, a century later....But even this Council did not

fix any text of his teachings. The 3rd Buddhist Council was held in

242 B.C. in the reign of Ashoka, but no corpus of Buddhist scriptures

emerged from this great Council held in Patna, the capital of a vast

kingdom which had embraced Buddhism. Buddha preached in his

vernacular, the Prakrit of Magadha, and his words, at least words

supposed to have been spoken by him, were on the lips of Buddhist

Shramana and Bikshus. This continued for about two and a half

centuries. The Buddhist canon was written in Ceylon in 80 B.C. in

Pali, a literary Prakrit of Northern India. It is called the Pali

Canon of Buddhism......another form of Buddhism made its appearance in

Nepal and Tibet......Northern Buddhism.

Our subject becomes more complicated when a new Buddhism emerged

during the period from Ashoka to Kanishka, that is between 269 B.C.

and 100 A.D. This new Buddhism is called Mahayana or Great Vehicle to

be distiguished from early Buddhism called Hinayana or Little Vehicle,

also called Theravada..[buddhism preached by the Theras or Elders.]

 

The question now is: Where do we have the authentic voice of

Buddha to be able to see if in that voice there is an echo of the

upanishads? Amongst the historians of our philosophy it is M.

Hiriyanna who more than anyone else has raised this question. In his

'Outlines of Indian Philosophy [1932] Hiriyanna says:" Buddha wrote no

books; and there is a certain amount of vagueness about his teaching,

because it has to be gathered from works that were compiled a long

time after his death and cannot therefore be regarded as exactly

representing what he taught."......

......TO BE CONTINUED......

 

 

 

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> advaitin, colette@b... wrote:

> > advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> > > Dear friends,

[Guest guest]

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

>

> Hi Colette! Always nice to hear from you.

<snip>

> Again, not to say you are wrong; just that this reasoning would

> have no basis or credibility in Buddhism. They posit no All or

> Soul or Self or Ego or Brahman from which what we see around

> us can be "derived" or "reflected" or in any way explained or

> justified. All such concepts are "void" and "empty." Indeed, they

> are dukkha itself.

 

And even I agree with that, yet you see we are here communicating so

what is the purpose of Life then in their eyes? Would they agree that

Life Is? Seriously.

 

Why would no concepts commune as them?

 

You see I like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's approach which is that not only

is there Mind which is empty, but THERE IS COGNITION too. WE cannot

deny that concepts occur & appear to arise from an attributeless

Source.

 

Either we tell half the story & wipe out form altogether or we

transcend & include it.

 

I like the idea that not only is form empty, but emptiness IS FORM. So

not only is Brahman (in my opinion) 'no self' (mystery) but It Is also

all form & even it's absolute ground ~ Self too!

 

I just equate this no self non existence to that no self that is never

found which some here especially Frank refer to as 'Mystery'. Tulku

Urgyen Rinpoche refers to life (as it seems to me) as the reflection

or expression of Mind. So Mind is not just empty. It 'thinks'. It

forms images symbols & concepts. What is this mystery?

> > In my humble opinion.

> >

>

> Hey, I know what you mean by feeling humble! One does not

> want to say, trivially, or egotistically, that someone like the

> Buddha got it wrong!

 

Were His words actually recorded at the time?

 

<g> How did the Enligtened One miss the

> Self-obvious "I" is one of the greatest of mysteries -- or else, it

is

> as the Buddhist might reply, there is and was no "I" (or self, or

> Self) for him to miss! <G>

 

Perhaps both are true. Some traditions focus on one aspect of Truth

leaving out others - form in particular. I can see why that is done to

help sever attachment to it as most true as it isn't, but after

transcending attachment & the play still goes on then what?

 

And what then is this Compassion & Loving kindness they all talk of?

Is it real? Is anything worth something? What is the purpose of the

Real & the reflection of Truth?

>

> Thanks for the post.

>

> Blessings,

> Steve

 

:-) Hey fun~

 

See ya later

 

(P.S. I just give to you how I see it. It might be better if you don't

presume to label it any particular style). I don't know where it fits.

Frank thinks it is advaitin but I see many here have different ideas

on what that means.

 

Peace,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

advaitin, colette@b... wrote:

> advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

 

Prof. Dasgupta's lecture excerpts: cotd:

 

"True Voice of Buddha:...................We may hear it when we are

really keen to hear it even in the midst of thousands of words in the

Pali Canon, that is the three pitakas or baskets, the Vinaya Pitaka,

the Sutta Pitaka, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Then we must also look

for the true words of Buddha in the Mahayana texts which are not

regardeda s canon, but which contain the wisdom of Buddha. Let us not

concentrate only on the Pali Canon; let us search for our Buddha in

the large corpus of Buddhist literature including works written

inSanskrit or Buddhistic Sanskrit. And above all let us discover our

Buddha in the whole spiritual history of India of which he was a

product.

I may immodestly mention my approach to Buddha as a common man long

before I read the 136 volumes of the Pali Canon as presented in the

translations issued by the Pali Text Society, London, or works by

Cowell and Max Muller, and Takakakuso's Buddhist Mahayana Sutras,

including Ashvaghosh's Buddhacharita published in the Sacred Books of

the Est in 1894, and T.W.Rhys Davids' Buddhism:Its History and

Literature published in 1907.

....I first read about Buddha in Sarat Kumar Ray's Bengali work

Buddher Jivani O Vani which appeared........... in 1914. This

work.......presents Buddha as a part of the great Hindu tradition.

After this I read a Bengali work ....Satyendranath Tagore's

Bouddhadharma [2nd ed. 1915] which did not at all give me the

impression that Buddhism emerged in our country as a rejection of

Vedantism. Satyendranath does not see any difference between Buddist

nirvana and Vedantic moksha. ................ half a century ago the

average Bengali did not look upon Buddhism as a repudiation of

Vedanta.

Another Bengali work on Buddhism is Charu Chandra Basu's translation

of the great Buddhist classic Dhammapada, a text in the Khuddaka

Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka,.....published in 1904. The 423 verses of

the work are known to be Buddha's words, and some of these words

speak of nibbana as a state of bliss thus showing that it is

identical with Hindu moksha. I am referring to only one such

expression in verse 204 where it is said `nibbanang paramang

sukhang.' This is the clearest answer to those who think that the

Buddhist nirvana is annihilation. In his English translation of the

Dhammapada published in 1950, Radhakrishnan translates these words

as `Nirvana is the highest happiness.'

............Sir Edwin Arnold's The Light of Asia published in

1884...in his introduction to this work Sir Edwin very rightly says

that `a third of mankind would never have been brought to believe in

blank abstractios, or in nothingness as the issue and crown of

Being.' In Sir Edwin's great poem on Buddha we have words which

present Buddhist nirvana as positive bliss:

'Ye are not bound! the Soul of Things is sweet ,

The Heart of Being is celestial rest;

Stronger than ill is will: that which was Good

Doth pass to Better-Best.'

Sir Edwin suggests in this poem that Buddha was temperamentally

averse to metaphysical disquisition and preferred silence to speech:

`.....measure not with words

The immeasurable; nor sink the string of thought

Into the fathomless. Who asks doth err,

Who answers errs, Say nought.'

We do not have Buddha's words on the nature of the Supreme Reality

and man's relation with it not because he did not believe in them; he

just preferred to be silent on what was beyond words.......

..................TO BE CONTINUED......................................

[Guest guest]

 

stevenfair [stevenfair]

 

Now, while I do not personally agree with this doctrine of Anatta, I

do think there's no question that Anatta is exactly and *only* what

the Buddha taught. I have never run across any Buddhist

scholar or sage who says differently. I just don't see any

evidence for some "hiddenunspoken" or "implied" or "not

implied" idea of Atman, or the Self, in the Buddha's teaching. In

this, I must respectfully disagree with Sri Ramana, who in a

number of places I've read, says that "it is only a different point of

view" between what the Buddha taught about Anatta and the

Advaita teaching of the Self. The great Advaitan sage may

believe that, finally, there is no difference, but I don't think there's

any support for this conclusiohn in what the *Buddha himself*

taught, and I know of know Buddhist scholars who disagree.

____

Namaste Sri Steveji,

 

It seems to me that Moksha of Hinduism and Nirvana of Buddhism are

identical. Both terms refer to a complete absence of any longing. That is an

important and a fundamental point to keep in mind.

 

The Vedantic sages have used the terms Sat-Chit-Ananda to give words to

their Realization. Self, that is referred to in Advaita is not the term

"self" in ordinary usage or in the way it is used in Buddhism. Self here (in

Advaita Vedanta) refers to That which is devoid of all sorrows, desires, and

utterly and completely empty of all things. Therefore it can be rightly be

called Emptiness from one perspective.

 

I do not see the slightest distinction between the Vedantic "Self" and the

Buddhist "No Self". When there is nothing to hold on to and no one to hold

on, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental consciousness has

vanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this is Self, etc.

 

Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience when he referred to

Buddha's teachings.

 

Perhaps you will find the following article to be of interest, "The Highest

Teaching: Self or Emptiness? By Pham D. Luan (KKT)" on the

website. I give a brief intro below.

 

Master Pham writes,

 

"Whether ultimate reality is fullness of the Self or Emptiness has always

been a fascinating problem. It had been for long a debate between Buddhists

and Advaitins, and among Buddhists themselves (Yogacara with the Mind-Only

theory and Madhyamika with the Shunyata or Emptiness theory)."

 

"Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an (Chinese Zen) but sometimes is

regarded as the real father of this tradition, in his famous Platform Sutra

said that "seeing one's own original nature is enlightenment." His view was

condemned by other Buddhists as heretic because orthodox Buddhism believed

in (absolute) No-Self. His Platform Sutra was burned after his death."

 

"I like to present another interesting view of Dzogchen which arrives to

conciliate the two apparently opposite conceptions: Self and Emptiness."

 

You can find the full article on the website.

 

/

[Guest guest]

My opinion is that both Buddhist and the Advaitins speak of the same

object but they have tried to describe the same thing according to

their own perspective. Some used one word, another a few more to

essentially denote the same thing. Just like calling H2o as water or

the white liquid of life. Just by trying to point out certain

dimentions certain aspects have been pointed out. Probably none

express the whole but have successfully indicated the object in

question.

What is in a name that we call a rose, in any other name it would

smell as sweet--Shakespeare

 

 

advaitin, "Harsha" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote:

>

> stevenfair [stevenfair]

>

> Now, while I do not personally agree with this doctrine of Anatta, I

> do think there's no question that Anatta is exactly and *only* what

> the Buddha taught. I have never run across any Buddhist

> scholar or sage who says differently. I just don't see any

> evidence for some "hiddenunspoken" or "implied" or "not

> implied" idea of Atman, or the Self, in the Buddha's teaching. In

> this, I must respectfully disagree with Sri Ramana, who in a

> number of places I've read, says that "it is only a different point

of

> view" between what the Buddha taught about Anatta and the

> Advaita teaching of the Self. The great Advaitan sage may

> believe that, finally, there is no difference, but I don't think

there's

> any support for this conclusiohn in what the *Buddha himself*

> taught, and I know of know Buddhist scholars who disagree.

> ____

> Namaste Sri Steveji,

>

> It seems to me that Moksha of Hinduism and Nirvana of

Buddhism are

> identical. Both terms refer to a complete absence of any longing.

That is an

> important and a fundamental point to keep in mind.

>

> The Vedantic sages have used the terms Sat-Chit-Ananda to

give words to

> their Realization. Self, that is referred to in Advaita is not the

term

> "self" in ordinary usage or in the way it is used in Buddhism. Self

here (in

> Advaita Vedanta) refers to That which is devoid of all sorrows,

desires, and

> utterly and completely empty of all things. Therefore it can be

rightly be

> called Emptiness from one perspective.

>

> I do not see the slightest distinction between the

Vedantic "Self" and the

> Buddhist "No Self". When there is nothing to hold on to and no one

to hold

> on, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental

consciousness has

> vanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this is Self, etc.

>

> Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience when he

referred to

> Buddha's teachings.

>

> Perhaps you will find the following article to be of

interest, "The Highest

> Teaching: Self or Emptiness? By Pham D. Luan (KKT)" on the

> website. I give a brief intro below.

>

> Master Pham writes,

>

> "Whether ultimate reality is fullness of the Self or Emptiness has

always

> been a fascinating problem. It had been for long a debate between

Buddhists

> and Advaitins, and among Buddhists themselves (Yogacara with the

Mind-Only

> theory and Madhyamika with the Shunyata or Emptiness theory)."

>

> "Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an (Chinese Zen) but sometimes

is

> regarded as the real father of this tradition, in his famous

Platform Sutra

> said that "seeing one's own original nature is enlightenment." His

view was

> condemned by other Buddhists as heretic because orthodox Buddhism

believed

> in (absolute) No-Self. His Platform Sutra was burned after his

death."

>

> "I like to present another interesting view of Dzogchen which

arrives to

> conciliate the two apparently opposite conceptions: Self and

Emptiness."

>

> You can find the full article on the website.

>

> /