Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[Breathe]

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is anatta, as we are told over and over.

So, how do some Buddhists take the teachings of atman and other-emptiness, found in some interpretations of Buddhism? Particularly when they do not hold these beliefs which seem to be contradictory (at least, to some other people's understands understandings; those who affirm them would agree otherwise), to what is characterised and held as being effectively one of the essential doctrines of Buddhist philosophy?

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

 

[Jainarayan]

I personally have a "believe and let believe" attitude about a lot of things. There are a few different views of anatta in the different schools. Someone is bound to fit into one of them. However, I think that people in both camps miss the point that to think about this or dwell on it without the guidance of a teacher is a stumbling block to enlightenment and the elimination of dukkha. Moreover, when someone who adheres to a particular interpretation or belief insists that is the only way or right way, well then, I see that as an even bigger stumbling block. In short I think it's fine for someone to believe what they believe as they understand it; however, they should extend the same courtesy to me.

 

[crossfire]

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is anatta, as we are told over and over.

So, how do some Buddhists take the teachings of atman and other-emptiness, found in some interpretations of Buddhism? Particularly when they do not hold these beliefs which seem to be contradictory (at least, to some other people's understands understandings; those who affirm them would agree otherwise), to what is characterised and held as being effectively one of the essential doctrines of Buddhist philosophy?

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

I'm not sure that those who do not hold to the Four Seals (or at least the three marks of existence) can really be called Buddhists, as these are the distinguishing teachings of the Buddha. The Three Marks of existence are held all acrossed the schools of Buddhism, and they have been used for a long time to distinguish Buddhism from "sorta looks like Buddhism." People can believe what they want to. Can they call themselves Buddhists if they don't follow the Buddha's teachings?

The Four Dharma Seals -- The Four Dharma Seals Define Buddhism

Here's an utterance Buddha made just after his enlightenment:

Muccalinda Sutta: About Muccalinda

Blissful is detachment for one who is content, For one who has learned Dhamma and who sees; Blissful is non-affliction in the world, Restraint towards living creatures; Blissful is passionlessness in the world, The overcoming of sensual desires; But the abolition of the conceit "I am" — That is truly the supreme bliss.​

I can give more sutta sources for Buddha's teachings of overcoming the conceit of "I am" {Atta (Pali) or Atman (Sanskrit)}

 

[Breathe]

I'm not sure that those who do not hold to the Four Seals (or at least the three marks of existence) can really be called Buddhists, as these are the distinguishing teachings of the Buddha. The Three Marks of existence are held all acrossed the schools of Buddhism, and they have been used for a long time to distinguish Buddhism from "sorta looks like Buddhism." People can believe what they want to. Can they call themselves Buddhists if they don't follow the Buddha's teachings?

But they do consider themselves Buddhists and accept these things. They believe in not-self, but they understand anatta and atman, and rangtong and zhentong, as complimentary.
It's a long story, but they are ardent that they are Buddhists, of the third or even fourth turning of the wheel of the Dharma.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think a lot of "conflict" comes from [mis]understanding what anatta and shunyata are (from the link above):

"According to the Buddha's teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion 'I have no self' (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the opinion 'I have a self' (the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I AM'. The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of any opinion or views, but to try to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I', or 'being', is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence." (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, 2nd ed., 1974, p. 66)

Mahayana Buddhism teaches the doctrine of shunyata, or "emptiness." Phenomena have no existence of their own and are empty of a permanent self. In shunyata, there is neither reality not not-reality; only relativity. However, shunyata also is an absolute reality that is all things and beings, unmanifested.

I think this is the Middle Way.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But they do consider themselves Buddhists and accept these things. They believe in not-self, but they understand anatta and atman, and rangtong and zhentong, as complimentary.
It's a long story, but they are ardent that they are Buddhists, of the third or even fourth turning of the wheel of the Dharma.

Jesus was adamant that he was only for the Jews.

Look where that got him, and us.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jesus was adamant that he was only for the Jews.

Look where that got him, and us.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19

 

[crossfire]

But they do consider themselves Buddhists and accept these things. They believe in not-self, but they understand anatta and atman, and rangtong and zhentong, as complimentary.
It's a long story, but they are ardent that they are Buddhists, of the third or even fourth turning of the wheel of the Dharma.

Hey, I consider anyone who holds the four seals in their heart/mind and contemplates them as being Buddhist.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram brethe ji :namaste

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is anatta, as we are told over and over.

So, how do some Buddhists take the teachings of atman and other-emptiness, found in some interpretations of Buddhism? Particularly when they do not hold these beliefs which seem to be contradictory (at least, to some other people's understands understandings; those who affirm them would agree otherwise), to what is characterised and held as being effectively one of the essential doctrines of Buddhist philosophy?

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

This has allways been a difficult subject Buddhists are foolishly constructing a divide , when in truth there are only levels of understanding .

we canot say that ... 'this' , ..'that' , ...or 'other' doctrine makes one truely Buddhist , and makes another not .

we can only say that there are practitioners of different scope .

Buddhism is not the accepting of any one given doctrine , it is the exploration of doctrine it is the exploration of what we assume to be the self , and ultimately it is the realisation of the true nature of self , the true nature of all phenomena .

every text is open to inturpretation , and the inturpretation will differ from person to person dependant upon their level of understanding , every school or doctrine is an attempt to put into words that which is beyond words as our understanding of each word is heavily bound by our own conception , even self and not self are there to be meditated upon as true understanding goes beyond words . to one persons understanding what is there beyond the limitations of the self is infinate , it is pure knowledge , pure bliss ,.... yet to another entrenched in the self and the self's experience of this plane of reality there is nothing beyond if it is not this .

then there are a myriad of conceptions in between ...

to me one of the fundamental concepts of Buddhism is non attatchment as without it there is allways an 'I am' or an 'I am not' ,.... (a thought which give birth to you are or you are not ) intruth they are equaly attatched , they are equaly ignorant of the ultimate truth ......

so that leaves me only one question to ask ,.... which kind of Buddhist am I and to whos conception is that so ? ....

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

from My side it dosent realy matter what another thinks , it only matters when one Buddhist expects all others to think like himself , it only matters when another Buddhist propogates one veiw only , then an alternative veiw is usefull , we never know to whoom and it dosent matter , what matters is developing thought and ariving at realisation .

 

[Twilight Hue]

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is anatta, as we are told over and over.

So, how do some Buddhists take the teachings of atman and other-emptiness, found in some interpretations of Buddhism? Particularly when they do not hold these beliefs which seem to be contradictory (at least, to some other people's understands understandings; those who affirm them would agree otherwise), to what is characterised and held as being effectively one of the essential doctrines of Buddhist philosophy?

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

What do you mean by other emptiness??

 

[Sees]

Hey, I consider anyone who holds the four seals in their heart/mind and contemplates them as being Buddhist.

This is why I never call my self a Buddhist, even though I am Buddhalicious.

It's the wall where "it's just a psychological practice and/or philosophy on happiness and healthy views, actions" meets the actual religion.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19

He broke, over time.

No reason for Buddhism to cave though.

 

[Ekanta]

Or we can hear what Buddha himself said on the topic (mahayana sutras):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCb2fFGz-W8&feature=youtu.be

 

[LuisDantas]

One of the cornerstones of Buddhism is anatta, as we are told over and over.

So, how do some Buddhists take the teachings of atman and other-emptiness, found in some interpretations of Buddhism? Particularly when they do not hold these beliefs which seem to be contradictory (at least, to some other people's understands understandings; those who affirm them would agree otherwise), to what is characterised and held as being effectively one of the essential doctrines of Buddhist philosophy?

My question is not over whether there is atman or other-emptiness in Buddhism. It is about how other Buddhists, who do not hold these views, feel about those who do.

I guess they would have to convince me that they are indeed Buddhists despite the insistence in holding a concept of Atman.

 

[Ekanta]

I guess they would have to convince me that they are indeed Buddhists despite the insistence in holding a concept of Atman.

Does it count that several mahayana sutras state that buddha-nature is identical to atman and tathagata?

Like:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra Chapter Four, “Grief”
"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva)."

Mahaparinirvana chapter entitled, “The Tathāgata-garbha”
"The True Self is the tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-nature]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [defects]."

... and besides, these teachings Buddha himself names "highest teaching" so the claim that they are just upaya (pedagogy to attract people)... is kind of self defeating.

I encourage people to investigate this themselves...

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Does it count that several mahayana sutras state that buddha-nature is identical to atman and tathagata?

Like:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra Chapter Four, “Grief”
"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva)."

Mahaparinirvana chapter entitled, “The Tathāgata-garbha”
"The True Self is the tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-nature]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [defects]."

... and besides, these teachings Buddha himself names "highest teaching" so the claim that they are just upaya (pedagogy to attract people)... is kind of self defeating.

I encourage people to investigate this themselves...

"If any teach Nirvana is to cease
Say unto such they lie.
If any teach Nirvana is to live
Say unto such they err."

The concept of permanence and eternity in this context may be less than accurate.

At that time again, Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said this to the Blessed One: Is the Blessed One, the Tathagata, the Arhat, the Fully-Enlightened One, permanent or impermanent?

Said the Blessed One: Mahāmati, the Tathagata is neither permanent nor impermanent. Why? Because either way there is a fault connected with it. Mahāmati, what fault is connected with either assertion?1 If the Tathagata is permanent, he will be connected with the creating agencies. For, Mahāmati, according to all the philosophers the creating agencies are something uncreated and permanent. But the Tathagata is not permanent [in the same sense] as the uncreated are permanent. If he is impermanent, he will be connected with things created. Because the Skandhas which are predicable as qualified and qualifying are nonexistent, and because the Skandhas are subject to annihilation, destructibility is their nature. Mahāmati, all that is created is impermanent as is a jug, a garment, straw, a piece of wood, a brick, etc., which are all connected with impermanency. Thus all the preparations for the knowledge of the All-Knowing One will become useless as they are things created. On account of no distinction being made, the Tathagata, indeed, would be something created. For this reason, the Tathagata is neither permanent nor impermanent.

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-4.htm

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does it count that several mahayana sutras state that buddha-nature is identical to atman and tathagata?

Like:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra Chapter Four, “Grief”
"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva)."

Mahaparinirvana chapter entitled, “The Tathāgata-garbha”
"The True Self is the tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-nature]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [defects]."

... and besides, these teachings Buddha himself names "highest teaching" so the claim that they are just upaya (pedagogy to attract people)... is kind of self defeating.

I encourage people to investigate this themselves...

Ātman (Buddhism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Does it count that several mahayana sutras state that buddha-nature is identical to atman and tathagata?

Like:
Mahaparinirvana Sutra Chapter Four, “Grief”
"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva)."

Mahaparinirvana chapter entitled, “The Tathāgata-garbha”
"The True Self is the tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-nature]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [defects]."

... and besides, these teachings Buddha himself names "highest teaching" so the claim that they are just upaya (pedagogy to attract people)... is kind of self defeating.

I encourage people to investigate this themselves...

For one thing, almost all the Mahayana Sutras say that they are the highest teaching. This, in and of itself, says to me that they are all upaya. Next, most other Buddhist scriptures and schools would disagree with the Tathagatagarbha school that each person has an eternal, independent self, even if that is the Buddha nature. Like in Zen, the Buddha nature teachings are just positive language for sunyata.

 

[crossfire]

This is why I never call my self a Buddhist, even though I am Buddhalicious.

It's the wall where "it's just a psychological practice and/or philosophy on happiness and healthy views, actions" meets the actual religion.

LOL! @ Buddhalicious.

As beings have innumerable hang-ups, there are innumerable dhamma doors that lead to awakening.

 

[Breathe]

What do you mean by other emptiness??

Zhentong [shentong].

From Wiki:

Shentong [...] empty of all qualities other than an inherent, ineffable nature [...]

According to a Shentongpa (proponent of Shentong), the emptiness of ultimate reality should not be characterized in the same way as the emptiness of apparent phenomena because it is prabhāsvara-saṃtāna, or "clear light mental continuum," endowed with limitless Buddha qualities.[1] It is empty of all that is false, not empty of the limitless Buddha qualities that are its innate nature.
​

The short is that it is empty of falsehood, not empty of its true, innate, perfect nature of Buddha-qualities.

I guess they would have to convince me that they are indeed Buddhists despite the insistence in holding a concept of Atman.

How would one do this?
And why should they have to convince you they are Buddhists despite holding a different view?