Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[dyanaprajna2011]

What Buddhists Believe - Is there an Eternal Soul?

An excellent article by Ven. Dhammananda Maha Thera, called "Is There An Eternal Soul?", which does a good job of explaining the Buddhist point of view.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

BUDDHISM, COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT - A Guide to Buddhism A to Z

From Buddhism A to Z: Common Misconceptions about Buddhism

Statement: Buddhism teaches that at death the soul passes from one body to the next.

Answer: All Buddhists sects teach that there is no eternal unchanging soul or atman. This is one of the most unique and characteristic teachings of Buddhism.

 

[Ekanta]

Yes. But look at the context of the verse and what Dogen's views are. When he talks of True Self, he means Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is emptiness. To speak of one is to speak of another. Dogen believed that impermanence was Buddha-Nature.

Tathata (thusness) is often called "self" in Dogen's works. Does appreciation for the uniqueness of the current state of interconnectedness of reality constitute a permanent self? No, as reality is constantly changing. I don't think the word atman can apply to this in the Hindu sense of the word. Buddha Nature might be the capacity to have this sort of realization/appreciation/thusness experience, but does it constitute atman?

These are two honest and nice posts!
I just wonder: why does Dogen call it “true self” at all? You might argue it’s because "When he talks of True Self, he means Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is emptiness" and thats all there is. Or "Buddha Nature might be the capacity to have this sort of realization". So we end up with the capacity to realize that everything is impermanent.
But why is it then called unborn? Unborn means outside the twelve-fold chain. How is it outside the twelve-fold chain if that is all there is? How can there be a permanent nirvana if there is nothing outside the twelve-fold chain (which is impermanent)? How can a realization made by skandhas (which are imperment and all there is) somehow transform itself into an eternal realization and state of nirvana? Wouldn’t something (the realization) which depends on impermanent skandhas, be impermanent itself? How can it live on without its skandhas on which it depends (i.e. without taking birth)? This very definition of realization/nirvana depends on the skandhas of which Buddha said "I am not that" (anatta)! And so on...

From Shobogenzo:
“The Venerable One [Nāgārjuna] replied, “Buddha Nature is neither large nor small, neither vast nor constricted. It is beyond happiness, beyond retribution, for It is undying and unborn.”
The Shōbōgenzō - Dōgen / Free Download

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The Doctrine of No-Soul

Another good analysis of why the Buddha did not teach atman, from 'What the Buddha Taught", by Walpola Rahula.

 

[crossfire]

These are two honest and nice posts!
I just wonder: why does Dogen call it “true self” at all? You might argue it’s because "When he talks of True Self, he means Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is emptiness" and thats all there is. Or "Buddha Nature might be the capacity to have this sort of realization". So we end up with the capacity to realize that everything is impermanent.
But why is it then called unborn? Unborn means outside the twelve-fold chain. How is it outside the twelve-fold chain if that is all there is? How can there be a permanent nirvana if there is nothing outside the twelve-fold chain (which is impermanent)? How can a realization made by skandhas (which are imperment and all there is) somehow transform itself into an eternal realization and state of nirvana? Wouldn’t something (the realization) which depends on impermanent skandhas, be impermanent itself? How can it live on without its skandhas on which it depends (i.e. without taking birth)? This very definition of realization/nirvana depends on the skandhas of which Buddha said "I am not that" (anatta)! And so on...

From Shobogenzo:
“The Venerable One [Nāgārjuna] replied, “Buddha Nature is neither large nor small, neither vast nor constricted. It is beyond happiness, beyond retribution, for It is undying and unborn.”
The Shōbōgenzō - Dōgen / Free Download

No one has said that the skandas are all there is. What's left is untraceable, that's all.

From the Water Snake Simile:

"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]​

 

[crossfire]

No one has said that the skandas are all there is. What's left is untraceable, that's all.

From the Water Snake Simile:

"And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]​

Have you experienced or at least considered the jhana of neither-perception-or-non-perception, where there's nothing left to ferret out? When you reach this point, are you perceiving nothing, or not perceiving anything? (You can perceive the mudita part of the jhana cycle when it arises, though, and the equanimity that follows.)

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

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

Buddhism and Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the Wiki article on atman:

a Sanskrit word that means 'inner-self' or 'soul'. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle,[1] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain salvation (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman:

Now, before I get into it, can anyone here (atanu or Ekanta) tell me how this is Buddhism?

Ātman is the first principle

There is no first principal in Buddhism.

the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena

There is no true self in Buddhism, and no self at all beyond phenomena.

In order to attain salvation (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman

This is the opposite of what the Buddha taught.

One more thought: if the Buddha taught atman, why did he deny both reincarnation or the Hindu idea of Brahma?

 

[Ekanta]

No one has said that the skandas are all there is. What's left is untraceable, that's all.

So the "untraceable" is not a skandha? Are you now saying there is something in the human body-mind complex which is not a skandha? Is there something more than the skandhas? What would that be? Is the "untraceable" floating in the air independent of the skandhas?

Have you experienced or at least considered the jhana of neither-perception-or-non-perception

This is not really relevant, but I ask anyway (the main point is the above question):
Jhana is the function of what? Is it floating in the air outside the skandhas? If it is, how? If it is not, is it then not part of the skandhas?

 

[crossfire]

So the "untraceable" is not a skandha? Are you now saying there is something in the human body-mind complex which is not a skandha? Is there something more than the skandhas? What would that be? Is the "untraceable" floating in the air independent of the skandhas?

If it is untraceable, how can you say it is a skanda, since you can't trace any separate aggregates? How can you say it is not a skanda if you can't trace?

This is not really relevant, but I ask anyway (the main point is the above question):
Jhana is the function of what? Is it floating in the air outside the skandhas? If it is, how? If it is not, is it then not part of the skandhas?

Jhana is one of many states of consciousness. The particular state of consciousness has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Consciousness is not a steady, unchanging state. By the fact that it is not constant and changing, we can learn from the way it changes, and how to better manage it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

We have to remember, all the teachings of the Buddha all tie in to each other. Without one, the whole system fails. Anatta/anatman is tied into each and every other Buddhist idea. Without anatta, there's no rebirth, no karma, no three seals, no nirvana. To deny anatta, is to deny buddhadharma. Don't like it? Doesn't matter. It matters to Buddhists. This is why syncretism, or trying to understand Buddhism (or any other religion, for that matter), through the lens of another religion, is both pointless, and dangerous.

 

[Ekanta]

If it is untraceable, how can you say it is a skanda, since you can't trace any separate aggregates? How can you say it is not a skanda if you can't trace?

Im not saying its a skandha or not. Im asking if its a skandha or its floating in the air irrelevant of the skandhas and if so how?
Since the human body-mind complex has previously been defined as the five skandhas, I just wonder how suddenly there is something untraceable appearing and we cant decide what it is or where it is. I find it interesting

 

[crossfire]

Im not saying its a skandha or not. Im asking if its a skandha or its floating in the air irrelevant of the skandhas and if so how?
Since the human body-mind complex has previously been defined as the five skandhas, I just wonder how suddenly there is something untraceable appearing and we cant decide what it is or where it is. I find it interesting

It's just untraceable. Speculating about it is bound to give birth to mental formations and/or dukkha, so until it is traceable, it's prolly best to just acknowledge it as such(ness.) {pardon the pun.}

 

[von bek]

I have not questioned sunya ever. I simply say that sunya must be known and then an awakened one can teach about it. With the materialist ideas of most Buddhists here, if the consciousness is solely the product of skandhas then sunya/nirvana cannot be discerned.

Further Buddha straightaway refused the notion of absence of self of the Nihilists. So, there is not even a question of anatta being the immutable truth of Buddha. Anatta is simply a way of weaning away the phenomenal.

The nihilism the Buddha refutes is specified by the Buddha himself. By nihilism, he is referring to the idea that the material elements are all that exist and that when the present body breaks apart, that is the ending of rebirth and the termination of karma. In other words, true materialism. I see nobody on this thread advocating the nihilist position. The Middle Way followed by Buddhists is neither eternalism nor nihilism.

When Buddha teaches to enquire "This not my atta, this is not my self", it surely does not indicate that the Buddha was saying "there is no atta". the anatta is very specifically taught in terms of skandha-s to Radha.



The above clearly explains what the anatta term means. OTOH, there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddha's denial of atman.

So, kindly discard the idea that Buddha ever denied the atman. He describes himself as solely reliant on the light of the atman, which he terms as Nitya.

The Buddha is meticulous when making arguments breaking down the aggregates. I encourage you to understand in full context what he is saying. You are incorrect in saying the Buddha denied atman. He does so explicitly many times.

And, please remember what I said about Dogen. He uses words like "True Self", but look at context. True Self means Buddha-Nature means Mind means Emptiness. Impermanence is Buddha-Nature. Impermanence is True Self, which is no self at all. This is what Dogen is teaching. When Buddha speaks of Nibbana, he speaks of what Dogen is speaking of. Tathagatagarbha is impermanence, it is Mind, it is Emptiness.

You may disagree with this, and that is fine! You may disagree with what the Buddha and Dogen teach, but it is what they teach.

 

[von bek]

These are two honest and nice posts!
I just wonder: why does Dogen call it “true self” at all? You might argue it’s because "When he talks of True Self, he means Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is emptiness" and thats all there is. Or "Buddha Nature might be the capacity to have this sort of realization". So we end up with the capacity to realize that everything is impermanent.
But why is it then called unborn? Unborn means outside the twelve-fold chain. How is it outside the twelve-fold chain if that is all there is?

I would say Buddha-Nature is Unborn because it is identical to impermanence and all things are impermanent. Impermanence is not a quality to cultivate, it already is.

How can there be a permanent nirvana if there is nothing outside the twelve-fold chain (which is impermanent)? How can a realization made by skandhas (which are imperment and all there is) somehow transform itself into an eternal realization and state of nirvana?

The skandhas are Buddha-Nature. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is another name for Buddha-Nature, so form is Buddha-Nature, Buddha-Nature is form. The same is true for all the skandhas, elements, teachings, etc.

Wouldn’t something (the realization) which depends on impermanent skandhas, be impermanent itself? How can it live on without its skandhas on which it depends (i.e. without taking birth)? This very definition of realization/nirvana depends on the skandhas of which Buddha said "I am not that" (anatta)! And so on...

Realization depends on the cessation of dukkha, which depends on the elimination of craving. Concepts such as permanent or impermanent have no meaning in Unborn Emptiness or Buddha-Nature.

 

[von bek]

Ekanta,

Some of my posts to you in the past few days have been too blunt, I think. I hope to be more respectful going forward. Forgive me if some of my words have provoked anger in you. I don't want to poison this board with negative emotions, and I have been doing that.

 

[Ekanta]

It's just untraceable. Speculating about it is bound to give birth to mental formations and/or dukkha, so until it is traceable, it's prolly best to just acknowledge it as such(ness.) {pardon the pun.}

Actually this is a very nice post. I fully accept your standpoint and this is where we meet (not that I have some authority to judge etc, but still). I wont push it any further, its not appropriate.

 

[Ekanta]

Ekanta,
Some of my posts to you in the past few days have been too blunt, I think. I hope to be more respectful going forward. Forgive me if some of my words have provoked anger in you. I don't want to poison this board with negative emotions, and I have been doing that.

There has never been a problem so dont worry. A little resistance is good for my learning

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram crossfire ji :namaste

It might be a good idea to start a thread about the history and development of these different doctrines in another thread. It might go a long way in dispelling misconceptions, imo.

good idea , at least it would allow people to gain a better perspective

 

[von bek]

You are incorrect in saying the Buddha denied atman. He does so explicitly many times.

Oops. I meant to say: It is incorrect to say that the Buddha does not deny atman. Sorry for my mistake in the original.

 

[von bek]

There has never been a problem so dont worry. A little resistance is good for my learning

May great Kannon bodhisattva bless you with compassion and mercy. Her presence transforms a hell-realm into paradise. She frees the prisoners from their bonds and rescues the condemned. I pray that the blessed attendant of Amida Buddha will transform all our anger into loving-kindness and guide us along the path to the Pure Land, that we may be able to benefit all suffering beings!