Fwd: Atman vs Anatman

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Saurav " <azygos678 wrote:

 

 

Thank you bhikuji for another of your excellent posts........

I wish it was possible for you to post this in a couple of other

forums

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi@>

wrote:

>

> Note to the moderators: The topic in discussion is surely allowed

by the moderators and it appears to be an interesting topic for

discussion among the members on the group since of the posts that

appeared yesterday a majority were on this topic, especially in

response to Mr. Frederico. I donot assume to be a scholar on

Buddhism and am in no way a scholar of Advaita Vedanta. But I shall

try my best to explain this matter to the members. Let me assure the

moderators that I donot wish to show either systems of philosophy as

inferior or superior in the process.

>

> Dear members,

>

> It is interesting to note that there are such a variety of views

on Anatta (Anatman) of Buddhism. It is be surprising that people get

confused with a concept so simple to understand. I am neither a

Theravada nor a Mahayana or a Vjrayana (Tibetan) Buddhist. I belong

to none of these schools of Buddhism especially because I being a

monk have renounced all sense of belonging. For that matter, I

cannot even be characterized as a Buddhist - only a person following

the Arya Dhamma (Noble path).

>

> At the very outset I shall make it amply clear that I am not

intending to proselytize, but since the matter was allowed to be

discussed, I am just posting it here. I would appreciate it if

members having any further queries would write directly to me rather

than speculate on the group, since it would not appropriate for me

to discuss something out of the scope of 'Sankara's view of Advaita

Vedanta' as held by the list for too long. I hope to be allowed just

this one post and any further queries be kindly sent to me directly

in case members expect a response. If however, you wish to only

specualte and criticize Buddhism, you may do so at your will.

>

> Anatta or Anatman does not imply " no soul " or " there is no soul " .

This is a misconception. The correct Pali term for saying " there is

no soul " or " no soul " is " naatthiatta " and not " anatta " . The term

anatta therefore means " not soul " just like ananta means " not

ending " and does not mean " there is no end " .

>

> The Buddha explains very clearly and in several places in the

Canon he clearly says that anatta is not a doctrine. It is not a

metaphysical assertion as many might beleive. It is a technique of

developing wisdom. It is important to know how and where to

interpret the Buddha. In this connection he says that those that

infer where it is not intended and those that donot infer where

intended, do injustice to his teaching. Very often quite a few

Buddhists beleive and even very openly write commentaries on the

Canon saying that Anatta is a doctrine and an absolute metaphysical

assertion of " there is no self " . This is a grave injustice to a

teaching that should not be inferred from. Why? Because the Buddha

himself made it amply clear that it is incorrect to make both the

statements " there exists a self " and " there does not exist a self " .

>

> There is a long sutta (in the Digha nikaya) wherein a Buddhist

monk's miconception is described. (This is about 50 years after the

Buddha's death) He incorrectly thinks that Gotama the Buddha taught

that " there exists no self " . A Buddha named Shariputra (Sariputta in

Pali) explains to him using two brilliant analogies that this is not

the teaching of Gotama the Buddha and that this is an incorrect

notion as well. Sariputta at that time was as influential as

Mahakassapa.

>

> Before going into the issue of why the Buddha said that neither

of the assertions is appropriate, it is important to consider that

in a land of diverse cultures and philosophies, the sense of use of

several words changed with time, location and also the people that

used these words. Nowhere in the Pali Canon is the word Atman or

Attan used in the Upanishadic sense. This is the firm opinion of

many Buddhists since they agree very notably in several places that

the term Atman as used in the Canon is different from that of the

Upanishads. The mula-madhyamaka karika of Nagarjuna is another place

where this assertion and distinction is made amply clear. Since the

Atman of the Pali Canon is different from that of the Upanishads,

Buddhism does not deny or contradict anything in the Upanishads. In

fact Ajativada of Gaudapada in the GK, which he asserts is not in

conflict (avirodhah) with Buddhism.

>

> The term atman is used in the Pali Canon as a sense of 'ego

consciousness' an 'I', consisting of a 'my' etc. The terms Atmaja

(literally one [male] born of me) and AtmajA (literally one [female]

born of me) is indicative of this meaning for the word Atman, that

developed during the Buddha's time. One may note that these terms

are always used as " putram " or " putri " in the early Vedic period and

only in the later Upanishads [probably being composed at the time of

the Buddha], do we find a reference to these terms. In calssical

Sanskrit (late Panini Sanskrit), the word Atman meant a persisting

entity that is responsible for life. It is said to 'enter' a body

and leave another at the time of death. This again is not the

Upanishadic sense of the word Atman which has no entering, no

leaving, no here, no there and does not possess a body. That is why,

Sankara stresses again and again that the Atman of the Upanishads is

not known elsewhere. He insists that the one seeking

> enlightenment must seek Atman as known in the Upanishads.

>

> Now that it is established that the Atman of the Buddha was not

the same as the Upanishadic Atman, one might ask if he acknowledged

the Upanishadic Atman. Is there a permanent, non-changing,

Deathless? Yes, but the Buddha called it Nibbana. He did not call it

the self. In fact the Buddha taught that all that is changing is

causative of sorrow and stress and is hence not the self.

Corresponding to this a monk asks him in one of the Suttas, if

something constant and non-changing can be called self? The Buddha's

reply to this indicates that in his opinion, considering Nibbana or

the Deathless as self amounts to developing an attachment and a

passion for Nibbana. He explains that the reason such a question is

posed is because of one's passion for the notion of 'I' and hence he

searches for a self in Nibbana. He further instructs a monk to only

directly know Nibbana to be the cessation of all sorrow and to never

delight in it, or develop an attachment for it or to imagine

> things in it or to imagine things emanating from it.

>

> Further a school of philosophy called the Sankhya school of

philosophy posited a root cause of the Universe and called it

Brahman. According to them, Brahman is the creator of the Universe.

The Buddha rejects this idea as non-conducive and irrelevant to the

path of enlightenment. He says that he teaches the nature of stress,

its origin and the path to its cessation and not any doctrine of

origin. This is also asserted in the Brahmajala Sutta in another

way - the Buddha makes none of the 64 different metaphysical

statements possible. He distinguishes himself from the nihilist whom

he calls " natthika " , (Pali equivalent of nastika), the eternalist

(aatthika), the origin-prophet, the destruction-prophet etc. He

talks of a path to the truth and nothing else.

>

> In the madhyamika texts however, the Buddha talks of the womb of

the Tathagata. It is important to understand again that this is not

an entity in the usual sense as we might think. It does not move

from one body to another. It is not localized. In fact it's

description in the Madhyamika texts is very much similar to the

description of the Atman of the Upanishads. Nevertheless, like the

Atman, it is also beyond description. The term 'tathagata' is used

very often even in the Pali Canon. The tathagata is said to be one

gone beyond all the things known or unknown in this universe. He is

said to be one gone beyond all sorrow. However the Madhyamika texts

posit a womb of the tathagata. This is said to be the nature of the

tathagata and is said to be dormant in all of us. When developed

fully, one becomes a tathagata. Thus in other words, the tathagata

garbha is not an entity, but a latent potential to become

enlightened.

>

> One may also refer the following webpage if in need of a

reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

>

> Nowhere in any of the Buddhist texts is an entity called Atman

posited. But I seriously doubt if even the Upanishads treat Atman as

an entity in as much as one conditioned by the nature of entities.

The Atman is said to be unconditioned. In Buddhism, Nibbana is the

only unconditioned phenomenon. I see only a similarity between the

teachings of the Buddha and those of Sankara. To me there appears no

conflict. If however, any of the members feel they were at

lockhorns, I shall withdraw.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

>

> Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously

low rates.

>

>