-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The suttas don't negate atman....
- Thread starter Rick O'Shez
- Start date
Perhaps, although I somewhat doubt it. But that is secondary.
The core of the matter IMO is that religion must of course deal with the reality that people with low moral discernment exist, but the goal must involve raising that discernment if the religion is to have self-respect.
The core of the matter IMO is that religion must of course deal with the reality that people with low moral discernment exist, but the goal must involve raising that discernment if the religion is to have self-respect.
That is nice, but does it connect to this matter?
Well, superstition and fear of gods do exist, that much we can agree on.
Whether that is a good thing, or one to be accepted without questioning, is a separate matter.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Well, several problems with the video in the original post...
The guy is constantly appealing to his own authority as an expert, which is fallacious and only makes me doubt his knowledge of the subject matter. If he really knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't need to protest so much.
He takes for granted that that Pali canon represents an accurate picture of the earliest form of Buddhism before sectarian divisions, but any real academic Buddhologist would know better. We have no record of Buddhist scriptures prior to sectarian divisions. The Pali canon is a source for Theravada doctrine in particular, not pre-sectarian Buddhism. It might represent the scriptural canon of the original Sthaviravada from which the Theravada is said to descened if we accept the hypothesis that Paisaci (the language the Sthaviravada scriptures are said to have been written in) is the ancient name for the Pali language, but even then the Sthaviravada were just one of several competing schools at the time. And that's not getting in to the problematic claim that you can get to the heart of Buddhadharma strictly through textual study, when the texts were never meant to be used or understood in isolation from actual practice and oral teachings in the context of the Sangha—indeed, there were only oral teachings for several centuries before the scriptures were even written down.
Of course, this fellow mistakenly claims that the Theravada descends from the Sarvastivada rather than the Sthaviravada, even though the Sarvastivada were a rival sect whose canon was in Sanskrit. A simple goof? Perhaps, but after he's spent so much of the video insisting that we accept his vague credentials...
But the real issue here is that the question itself rests on false assumptions. Early, late, this sect, that sect—all forms of Buddhadharma agree on the doctrine of what in Pali is called anatta. And it's true that the Buddha's arguments in the scriptures is to go through the various things that might be taken to be the essential self and demonstrate how none of them fit the criteria. The subsequent arguments seems to rest on the assumption that either there must be an unspoken essential self or soul, or else the negation amounts to nihilism—i.e. a positive statement of nonexistence. Neither is the case.
Of course, existence and nonexistence are not essential qualities in Buddhist thought: they're entirely relative concepts, useful fictions. There is nothing that exists as such, but there also is nothing whose nature is that it does not exist. It's not that the atta exists or does not exist, so much as it is demonstrated in Buddhist discourse to be an incoherent concept. The khandhas are not merely the gross body that decays: they encompass the entire mind-body complex, including everything that one might identify as an essential component of selfhood. After denying that all demonstrable phenomena fit the criteria for selfhood, all that is left is the undemonstrable, and that is where the Principle of Lightness comes in: if your theory posit the existence of unobservable phenomena without needing to do so in order to explain certain observable phenomena, then you have left the realm of reason and objectivity and drifted off into believing things just because you want to. And that is not how Buddhadharma operates: the reasoning of the suttas is rational, systematic, skeptical, and empirical, according to the standards of the day and the metaphysical framework they're couched in.
Of course, everybody loves to come in and say that X religion has drifted away from the original teachings and is now teaching the opposite. I've done it myself in other contexts. But anatta really is one of the core bits of Buddhadharma without which it would fail to differentiate itself from other Indian traditions.
The guy is constantly appealing to his own authority as an expert, which is fallacious and only makes me doubt his knowledge of the subject matter. If he really knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't need to protest so much.
He takes for granted that that Pali canon represents an accurate picture of the earliest form of Buddhism before sectarian divisions, but any real academic Buddhologist would know better. We have no record of Buddhist scriptures prior to sectarian divisions. The Pali canon is a source for Theravada doctrine in particular, not pre-sectarian Buddhism. It might represent the scriptural canon of the original Sthaviravada from which the Theravada is said to descened if we accept the hypothesis that Paisaci (the language the Sthaviravada scriptures are said to have been written in) is the ancient name for the Pali language, but even then the Sthaviravada were just one of several competing schools at the time. And that's not getting in to the problematic claim that you can get to the heart of Buddhadharma strictly through textual study, when the texts were never meant to be used or understood in isolation from actual practice and oral teachings in the context of the Sangha—indeed, there were only oral teachings for several centuries before the scriptures were even written down.
Of course, this fellow mistakenly claims that the Theravada descends from the Sarvastivada rather than the Sthaviravada, even though the Sarvastivada were a rival sect whose canon was in Sanskrit. A simple goof? Perhaps, but after he's spent so much of the video insisting that we accept his vague credentials...
But the real issue here is that the question itself rests on false assumptions. Early, late, this sect, that sect—all forms of Buddhadharma agree on the doctrine of what in Pali is called anatta. And it's true that the Buddha's arguments in the scriptures is to go through the various things that might be taken to be the essential self and demonstrate how none of them fit the criteria. The subsequent arguments seems to rest on the assumption that either there must be an unspoken essential self or soul, or else the negation amounts to nihilism—i.e. a positive statement of nonexistence. Neither is the case.
Of course, existence and nonexistence are not essential qualities in Buddhist thought: they're entirely relative concepts, useful fictions. There is nothing that exists as such, but there also is nothing whose nature is that it does not exist. It's not that the atta exists or does not exist, so much as it is demonstrated in Buddhist discourse to be an incoherent concept. The khandhas are not merely the gross body that decays: they encompass the entire mind-body complex, including everything that one might identify as an essential component of selfhood. After denying that all demonstrable phenomena fit the criteria for selfhood, all that is left is the undemonstrable, and that is where the Principle of Lightness comes in: if your theory posit the existence of unobservable phenomena without needing to do so in order to explain certain observable phenomena, then you have left the realm of reason and objectivity and drifted off into believing things just because you want to. And that is not how Buddhadharma operates: the reasoning of the suttas is rational, systematic, skeptical, and empirical, according to the standards of the day and the metaphysical framework they're couched in.
Of course, everybody loves to come in and say that X religion has drifted away from the original teachings and is now teaching the opposite. I've done it myself in other contexts. But anatta really is one of the core bits of Buddhadharma without which it would fail to differentiate itself from other Indian traditions.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, he does a lot of assuming. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" seems pretty conclusive though.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Belief in atta is neither here nor there when it comes to moral teachin. Lack of moral fiber reflects a general lack of cultivation and understanding. Abstract philosophical concepts aren't going to change that one way or the other. And the ancient Buddhist method has been to introduce the teachings to people in stages, all without positing a fictitious self.
When Buddhism first appeared, people seem to have generally accepted that you would inherit karmic consequences for your actions, both in this life and in future lives. The very basic Buddhist teachings don't contradict that; in fact they use that sense of consequences in order to steer people towards useful behaviors. At that stage it doesn't really matter whether there is ultimately a self who inherits the consequences of karma. You tell people that there are consequences that they'll have to face, and then tell them how best to act in light of that.
The trick is that moral behavior changes people. It creates new karmic tendencies that allow for new perspectives and make one receptive to more profound teachings. It's at that point that you can start to deconstruct the conventional ideas about selfhood. After all, you never said there was an essential self that would inherit karmic consequences, just that "you" would. But guess what? Now that you're a decent human being you don't want anybody to experience negative consequences of your actions, whether you or someone else. And that plants the seed of understanding the lack of difference between self and other. And in a sense, "you" are the one who will inherit the consequences, just not in the way you used to think.
Once a person has cultivated sufficient love and compassion and practical selflessness, then they are ready for the most profound teachings, and to truly understand the nonexistence of both actor and action. And that compassion and wisdom are the same things, since morality flows directly from a perfect understanding of the nature of reality and selflessness. That's the heart of the Dharma and the path to Buddhahood, but few people start out karmically primed to understand it.
Note that at no point does one need to posit an abiding self, as Buddhist moral teachings never do. And that's crucial, since Buddhist moral theory ultimately rests on the doctrine of anatta. To posit atta only to take it away again wouldn't be skillful; it would be dishonest. At the same time, you don't necessarily push anatta on people who aren't ready to process it. The Dhammapada is an excellent introduction to Buddhism for someone who needs to develop moral practice first before getting into the deeper teachings.
With every negation a me is asserted.
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Well, there is "Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta", which I think occurs in the Dhammapada as well as a couple of suttas. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" is usually taken to mean that there is no self in the conditioned or the unconditioned, including Nibbana.
The notes accompanying the Sabba Sutta here are worth a read:
Sabba Sutta: The All
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. I cannot continue here without breaking rule. I reiterate that 'Anatta' means 'not atta'.
Last edited:
You seem to think of that as a significant distinction from "no atta".
I don't think I can be convinced of that, seeing how diaphanous and ephemerous such concepts as atta/atman are.
In any case, you are of course welcome to post your piece in the Hindu DIR, Same Faith or wherever else you deem appropriate.
I don't think I can be convinced of that, seeing how diaphanous and ephemerous such concepts as atta/atman are.
In any case, you are of course welcome to post your piece in the Hindu DIR, Same Faith or wherever else you deem appropriate.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Srivijaya
Active Member
Thanks for putting this guys vid up, it made for an interesting session. I think most people nailed it with the responses.
I was tempted to give him some time because his basic premise, that the Pali suttas don't refute Atman/self, is correct but Buddha never taught that there was one either. He avoided affirming or refuting metaphysical positions put to him, as people here have pointed out.
The dude is big on metaphysics, neo-platonism and such like, so he's looking for an Atman in Buddhism. For someone who claims to have spent a long time studying and translating the scripture, it's odd he never encountered his soul-mate Sāti the Fisherman's Son.
That aside, the dude lost any sympathy I might have had with his take on breathing meditation:
This is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to start.
I was tempted to give him some time because his basic premise, that the Pali suttas don't refute Atman/self, is correct but Buddha never taught that there was one either. He avoided affirming or refuting metaphysical positions put to him, as people here have pointed out.
The dude is big on metaphysics, neo-platonism and such like, so he's looking for an Atman in Buddhism. For someone who claims to have spent a long time studying and translating the scripture, it's odd he never encountered his soul-mate Sāti the Fisherman's Son.
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta: The Greater Craving-Destruction Discourse
That aside, the dude lost any sympathy I might have had with his take on breathing meditation:
This is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to start.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
All that Sakyamuni was teaching was life is suffering. actually nothing else and then he put forth the 4 noble truths and the 8 folded path as a guide to get away from suffering and he did teach meditation, Everything else that we know as Buddhist teaching today he did not teach 
So the answer is, we only need to understand 4 noble truths and follow the 8 folded path. and do daily meditation and one day we will see the true answer our self too
So the answer is, we only need to understand 4 noble truths and follow the 8 folded path. and do daily meditation and one day we will see the true answer our self too