Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

I respect Hinduism. But, Hinduism is not Buddhism. They are two different paths. I do not understand why people wish to call themselves Buddhists while arguing that the core teachings of Buddhism are either irrelevant or false. If someone told me they were a Muslim and in the very next sentence said they worshipped Jesus as god, I would be terribly confused...

agreed they are two seperate paths ,
but Buddhi is Buddhi , it can be equaly recognised and discussed from either side.


it is the conception of the teachings that causes the argument , not the teachings themselves . or in this case it is the conception of one single principle .

I think you will find that even from one school of Buddhism to the other the conception of a principle will also change .

if I met a muslim who worshiped jesus as god I have no reason to become confused , I may become interested and ask him to explain his beleifs but personaly I have no reason to become confused , let him do what he wishes , let us remain calm and only concern ourselves with that from which we can learn .

 

[crossfire]

Pranams,

...which does not prove anything...


In other words, non-existence exists.


If my question is bothering you, then I apologize and I will stop questioning you. But don't make it sound like I'm presenting some dogma (absolutism/eternalism), because the sole thing that I have been trying to prove is "Existence exists" (which actually does not need any proof since it is self-evident), to which you continuously fail to present a meaningful refutation.

You don't get it do you? What part of "not relevant" don't you understand?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

Originally Posted by atanu
I have noticed. Someone became angry.

That is bound to happen when one attempts to distort the core teachings of a path, don't you think?

Particularly when it happens on its own DIR.

please look at this carefully , people are not trying to willfully distort buddhist teachings , they are simply posting from their own perception of the teachings .

furthermore where ever one attatches to ones own veiw as being complete there will be some disscomfort when coming across the veiws of another .

when a person is thus attatched , he becomes angry with all that does not agree .
simmilarly when a person experiences some degree of anger he sees anger every where even when no anger exists from the otherside .

There are those who have a great deal of emotional investment in the idea that different paths must somehow agree.

prehaps it is simply that one who holds an emotional attatchment is imputing emotional attatchment , what one expects , one will see .

 

[atanu]

...... 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.

I suppose, the OP was answered long back.

 

[crossfire]

I think that there is a confusion. I did not see in Ekanta's citation that each person has an eternal independent Buddha nature.

That would be total contradiction.

(Nor is Atman different in each individual).

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3683203-post14.html

5. Buddha-nature is not atman; it is positive language of anatta/sunyata.

Well, in the nirvana sutra, atman is Buddha-nature... so I guess its not that easy...

If the "negative language" of sunyata is "all phenomena are impermanent", the "positive language" is "Buddha-nature is permanent".

"The essence of the Self [atman] is the subtle Tathagata-garbha ..."
"The Buddha-dhatu of beings inheres / abides within the five skandhas."
"The Buddha-dhatu is the True Self and, like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed".
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

 

[atanu]

...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.

I think that there is a confusion. I did not see in Ekanta's citation that each person has an eternal independent Buddha nature.

That would be total contradiction.

(Nor is Atman different in each individual).

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

Same confusion. What each person has is 'Jivatman' -- a reflection of 'unborn power of awareness/breath (Atman)' on varied names-forms. Atman is indivisible and non-dual and beyond asserting "I am".

Kindly note that this view is not much different from what Dalai Lama says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

… when we look at [the] interdependence of mental and physical constituents from the perspective of Highest Yoga Tantra, there are two concepts of a person. One is the temporary person or self, that is as we exist at the moment, and this is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross physical body and conditioned mind, and, at the same time, there is a subtle person or self which is designated in dependence on the subtle body and subtle mind. This subtle body and subtle mind are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect which has the quality of awareness, which can reflect and has the power of cognition, is the subtle mind. Simultaneously, there is its energy, the force that activates the mind towards its object – this is the subtle body or subtle wind. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in Highest Yoga Tantra, as the ultimate nature of a person and are identified as buddha nature, the essential or actual nature of mind..

Do we ask Dalai Lama to convince us that he indeed is a Buddhist?

 

[Elector]

This subtle body and subtle mind are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect which has the quality of awareness, which can reflect and has the power of cognition, is the subtle mind.

Pranams,

As far as I understand, in Vedanta, the subtle body (Sukshma sharira) is not our true nature and is inert. It is the Atman that "endows" the subtle body with Consciousness - which is our real nature.

 

[crossfire]

Same confusion. What each person has is 'Jivatman' -- a reflection of 'unborn power of awareness/breath (Atman)' on varied names-forms. Atman is indivisible and non-dual and beyond asserting "I am".

Kindly note that this view is not much different from what Dalai Lama says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)


Do we ask Dalai Lama to convince us that he indeed is a Buddhist?

The more you try to talk about it or name it, the more you distort it, and the further you get from it. When you name it, it just becomes another thing. Therefore, anatta is very much appropriate, no matter how close you think you might be to it, as naming it is a distortion anywhere. Naming it conditions your mind and whatever it is, and leads to dukkha. Naming it distorts the ability to discern the fabrications. Negating the naming leads to clarity. Anatta is always appropriate.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

For those who would believe that Buddha nature is equivalent to atman, Dogen would disagree:

Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.

This is the understanding in Zen. Buddha nature is just a positive language expression of sunyata. And remember, Dogen was a devotee and lover of the Lotus sutra, which is sometimes used to try to 'prove' that Buddha nature is atman.

 

[atanu]

Pranams,

As far as I understand, in Vedanta, the subtle body (Sukshma sharira) is not our true nature and is inert. It is the Atman that "endows" the subtle body with Consciousness - which is our real nature.

Pranam Elector

I like your posts. You are correct, atman has no sharira.

 

[atanu]

The more you try to talk about it or name it, the more you distort it, and the further you get from it. When you name it, it just becomes another thing. Therefore, anatta is very much appropriate, no matter how close you think you might be to it, as naming it is a distortion anywhere. Naming it conditions your mind and whatever it is, and leads to dukkha. Naming it distorts the ability to discern the fabrications. Negating the naming leads to clarity. Anatta is always appropriate.

You are correct. But that applies to anatta too. Surely, Nirvana is not anatta. Surely Nirvana is not anitya. Further existence itself is upheld when Nirvan is explained as unborn, which means without beginning.


Atman is a pointer to that which is unravelled by neti-neti. Not this. Not this.

But the point of the thread was something else. Breathe asked how annatta group tackles with the atman group, within Buddhism. That there are Buddhists are not so averse to a word called atman is not in doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

 

[Ekanta]

The more you try to talk about it or name it, the more you distort it, and the further you get from it. When you name it, it just becomes another thing. Therefore, anatta is very much appropriate, no matter how close you think you might be to it, as naming it is a distortion anywhere. Naming it conditions your mind and whatever it is, and leads to dukkha. Naming it distorts the ability to discern the fabrications. Negating the naming leads to clarity. Anatta is always appropriate.

While I agree... I would add that it can work both ways, let me explain:

Assuming that buddha-nature is the basis, we can neither find it or escape it, since we already are that. Hence a tactic is to work with what is workable, i.e. "discern the fabrications".

But what about faith in our original nature? If we have that we wouldnt go and look for it. Take soto-zen tradition for example, its based on faith in buddha-nature and hence the meditation and daily life is marked by mushotoku (not seek to obtain anything). But for this to be successful we have to be told we already are buddha-nature.

Edited: It should be noted that in neither case is there any fabrications about Buddha-nature. One work with "discern the fabrications" the other is just faith in original nature.

 

[crossfire]

You are correct. But that applies to anatta too. Surely, Nirvana is not anatta. Surely Nirvana is not anittya. Further existence itself is upheld when Nirvan is explained as unborn, which means without beginning.

Yes beginning to start the interdependent chain of causation again! Nibbana is the cessation of this chain (blowing out the fire)

Atman is a pointer to that which is explained by neti-neti. Not this. Not this.

But the point of the thread was something else. Breathe asked how annatta group tackles with the atman group, within Buddhism.

Ampersand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I just said, anatta is always appropriate, as it ends distortions and the interdependent chain of causation. Asking who? or what? Is an inappropriate question, as it leads to beginning the interdependent chain of becoming all over again. Contemplating the interdependent chain, knowing it, and ending it is the correct approach, according to Buddha's teachings. (I can supply a whole bunch of suttas for this, if you like.)

 

[crossfire]

While I agree... I would add that it can work both ways, let me explain:

Assuming that buddha-nature is the basis, we can neither find it or escape it, since we already are that. Hence a tactic is to work with what is workable, i.e. "discern the fabrications".

But what about faith in our original nature? If we have that we wouldnt go and look for it. Take soto-zen tradition for example, its based on faith in buddha-nature and hence the meditation and daily life is marked by mushotoku (not seek to obtain anything). But for this to be successful we have to be told we already are buddha-nature.

Dispelling ignorance is dispelling the first link in the interdependent chain of co-arising.

 

[Ekanta]

Dispelling ignorance is dispelling the first link in the interdependent chain of co-arising.

Yes and I was saying that
1. To "discern the fabrications" is a way to dispell ignorance.
2. To "stop entertain fabrications" is another way. This is the soto-zen way.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Yes and I was saying that
1. To "discern the fabrications" is a way to dispell ignorance.
2. To "stop entertain fabrications" is another way. This is the soto-zen way.

I find it a bit misleading when you use Soto Zen as an example of your position. Knowing your position, you'd do well to read the 21st chapter of the Shobogenzo, where Dogen explicitly denies your position.

 

[atanu]

Yes beginning to start the interdependent chain of causation again! Nibbana is the cessation of this chain (blowing out the fire).

So? By cessation of the phenomenon the without beginning unborn is revealed. Do you mean to say that the Nirvana is anitya? And do you meant to say that Nirvana is devoid of a Seer?

Then how do you know of anatta and Nirvana?

I just said, anatta is always appropriate, ....

The term Anatta in relation to the Seer, who sees the phenomenal self as anatta, is never appropriate. Call it Nirvana or call it Atman .. it is the unborn -- without beginning. To assert or to know or to teach anatta requires its counterpart -- the Seer of anatta.

Else all that you are saying is of no value.
...............

But again. This is not the topic of the thread. There is no doubt that within Mahayana and in a limited way in Theravada too, Atman is not negated as anitya phenomenon. So, how the anatta group reconciles with that?

 

[atanu]

I know that the Scholar Buddhists will find a way to rationalise even the following. Nevertheless, let the following be here as a record.


AN 6.1.4.8 Attakārī Sutta: Self-Doing (AN 6.38; PTS A III, 337)

Then a certain Brahmin approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the Brahmin spoke to the Blessed One thus:

“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer [natthi attakāro'], there is no other-doer [natthi parakāro]’.”

“I have not, Brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one – moving forward by himself [sayaṃ abhikkamanto], moving back by himself [sayaṃ paṭikkamanto] – say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, Brahmin, is there an element or principle [dhātu] of initiating or beginning [ārabbha] [sc. an action]?"

"Just so, Venerable Sir."

"When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [ārabbhavanto sattā] clearly discerned?"

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, Brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. What do you think, Brahmin, is there an element of exertion [nikkamadhātu] . . . is there an element of effort [parakkamadhātu] . . . is there an element of power [thāmadhātu] . . . is there an element of continuing [ṭhitidhātu] . . . is there an element of performing (actions) [upakkamadhātu]?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of performing (actions), are (act-) performing beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, Brahmin, when there is the element of performing (actions), (act-) performing beings are clearly discerned; of (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, Brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view [sc. as yours]. How, indeed, could one – moving forward by himself, moving back by himself – say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

 

[atanu]

And this is exactly what I am trying to say (again the scholar will simply brush it away and/or rationalise):

Patisambhidamagga Sutta

This is the ultimate meaning (paramattha) of emptiness [as it relates to] all
kinds of emptiness, which is the terminating of [temporal] occurrence in one
who is fully aware.
...........

There is one who is fully aware .... and such a one is the tathAgata. So, kindly do not infer that in the ultimate, there is no Seer or no Knower. The sunya is not devoid of the Seer/Knower. If it were then this teaching of anatta would not be handed down to us.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Here's where I think the problem is coming in. Buddhism teaches anatta-that there is no eternal, independent, ego-soul. What some people seem to be getting out of this, is that there is no such thing as being itself. That all this, ourselves, everything, is somehow just an illusion. The Buddha never denied that there was an existential self-what he denied was an independent eternal self. Our existential self is made up of the five aggregates and the eighteen sense bases.