Atman (of Advaita) vs Anatta (of Buddhism)

[The Crimson Universe]

What do the Buddhists really mean by "Anatta" or "non-self"?

When the buddhists say "non-self", are they actually speaking about the non-existence (illusory nature) of the ego driven false-self ... (which the Advaitins usually call "Jiva" or "Causal-Subtle body")?

That is the assumption of some people, who studied both these religions.

What are your thoughts? :=)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not just the ego, but all things we consider substance. Nearly the same, IMHO.
Advaita accepts eternal existence of a substrate, Brahman.
Buddha does not accept any eternal entity, because things arise out of combination of portions - Patticca Samuppada (dependent co-origination), coming together of Khandas (portions). But he said he was not a nihilist. The 'khandas' are form, sensation, perceptions, mental activity and consciousness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do the Buddhists really mean by "Anatta" or "non-self"?

When the buddhists say "non-self", are they actually speaking about the non-existence (illusory nature) of the ego driven false-self ... (which the Advaitins usually call "Jiva" or "Causal-Subtle body")?

That is the assumption of some people, who studied both these religions.

What are your thoughts? :=)

It basically revolves around the idea of having/possessing a permanent unchanging identity called 'I' or 'me'. The ego iow.

In Buddhism, the ego is aggregated, called the skandhas ( What Are the Five Skandhas? ) and has no centralized identity and is prone to impermanence as anything else.

Hence no true unchanging 'I' or 'me' in a permanent context exists unlike transient souls and such that are regarded by some people as being permanent and unchanging.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Advaita teaches the true nature of one's being from a positive approach, while Buddhism teaches it from a negative approach. Both agree that "I" is not a thing...not an object...that exists in this reality beyond the body/mind complex.

Swami Sarvapriyananda explains it well, likely better than I did, in this lecture. About 16:40 is where he talk about the difference.

 

[Secret Chief]

transient souls and such that are regarded by some people as being permanent and unchanging.

"Transient" means just the opposite of permanent.

 

[Secret Chief]

What do the Buddhists really mean by "Anatta" or "non-self"?

When the buddhists say "non-self", are they actually speaking about the non-existence (illusory nature) of the ego driven false-self ... (which the Advaitins usually call "Jiva" or "Causal-Subtle body")?

That is the assumption of some people, who studied both these religions.

What are your thoughts? :=)

Not illusory. Lacking abiding intrinsic selfhood; as with all dharmas (things).

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Transient" means just the opposite of permanent.

I meant a permanent soul that travels from body to body.

 

[Martin]

What do the Buddhists really mean by "Anatta" or "non-self"?

When the buddhists say "non-self", are they actually speaking about the non-existence (illusory nature) of the ego driven false-self ... (which the Advaitins usually call "Jiva" or "Causal-Subtle body")?

That is the assumption of some people, who studied both these religions.

What are your thoughts? :=)

Both traditions would agree that the aggregates or sheaths are not self.
The difference is that Advaita assumes an underlying independent reality (Atman/Brahman), which Buddhism does not.

Also in the Buddhist suttas, consciousness is transient, and only arises in dependence upon conditions - so consciousness is also not-self. There is a quite different view of consciousness in Advaita, where real Self is the unchanging witness consciousness.

 

[Martin]

Advaita teaches the true nature of one's being from a positive approach, while Buddhism teaches it from a negative approach. Both agree that "I" is not a thing...not an object...that exists in this reality beyond the body/mind complex.

Swami Sarvapriyananda explains it well, likely better than I did, in this lecture. About 16:40 is where he talk about the difference.

I listened to the relevant section of the Swami's talk and found it quite muddled. I'm sure he's very knowledgeable about Advaita, but his understanding of Buddhist teachings seems quite sketchy to me.

It's as if he's repeating an Advaita view about Buddhism, rather than actually describing Buddhism. All traditions have their rhetoric.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Both traditions would agree that the aggregates or sheaths are not self.
The difference is that Advaita assumes an underlying independent reality (Atman/Brahman), which Buddhism does not.

Also in the Buddhist suttas, consciousness is transient, and only arises in dependence upon conditions - so consciousness is also not-self. There is a quite different view of consciousness in Advaita, where real Self is the unchanging witness consciousness.

So, this transient consciousness which the Buddhists speak of, is it a product of the human mind? (just like how modern science says)?

 

[Wildswanderer]

What do the Buddhists really mean by "Anatta" or "non-self"?

When the buddhists say "non-self", are they actually speaking about the non-existence (illusory nature) of the ego driven false-self ... (which the Advaitins usually call "Jiva" or "Causal-Subtle body")?

That is the assumption of some people, who studied both these religions.

What are your thoughts? :=)

Holy smokes, Atman!

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I meant a permanent soul that travels from body to body.

What is the definition of soul in Buddhism?

In Advaita, the soul is the mind that travels from one body to another.

Do Buddhists really believe in a permanent soul? I thought they considered everything impermanent.

 

[Martin]

So, this transient consciousness which the Buddhists speak of, is it a product of the human mind? (just like how modern science says)?

Not exactly.
As a crude analogy for these two models of consciousness, imagine two neighbours fixing floodlights outside for security. The first neighbour just installs an outside light which is left switched on all night (Advaita model).
The second neighbour installs a sensor light, which only switches on when somebody passes across it's field (Buddhist model).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also in the Buddhist suttas, consciousness is transient, and only arises in dependence upon conditions - so consciousness is also not-self. There is a quite different view of consciousness in Advaita, where real Self is the unchanging witness consciousness.

Even as per my Advaita views, consciousness is a product of working of brain, and is transient. No false mysticism, only what science says. That is not the general Advaita belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do Buddhists really believe in a permanent soul? I thought they considered everything impermanent.

Yes, they consider everything to be impermanent, 'anatman', unless brought to existence by aggregation of khandas (Skandhas) as Secret Chief rightly said. That, they call as 'Patticca Samuppada' (Dependent Co-Origination).

Not exactly.
As a crude analogy for these two models of consciousness, imagine two neighbors fixing floodlights outside for security. The first neighbour just installs an outside light which is left switched on all night (Advaita model).
The second neighbor installs a sensor light, which only switches on when somebody passes across it's field (Buddhist model).

Very nice simile. But I have installed a sensor light in my Advaita, which switches on only when someone passes by.
Yes, my Advaita is heavily influenced by Buddhism, and along with Gaudapada and Sankara, Buddha too is my guru.