-
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!
What do you understand by Anatma?
- Thread starter LooseEnd
- Start date
By my understanding, it is a reminder of the conveniency of not inventing ghosts in the shell.
A denial of the existence of a soul or, more properly, a mystical "Atman" (a Hindu concept).
A defense of the study of things as they show themselves to be, without undue distraction from a phantom "true essence" that seems to be just as existent and determinant as the immediate convenience makes it.
A denial of the existence of a soul or, more properly, a mystical "Atman" (a Hindu concept).
A defense of the study of things as they show themselves to be, without undue distraction from a phantom "true essence" that seems to be just as existent and determinant as the immediate convenience makes it.
Thanks. Could you please explain more as to how you would connect the non existence of "Atman" with the concept of "Samsara".
That there is no inherently existing self as perceived by the senses, nor a discrete (individual) soul. There is only the mindstream. Shentong, however, holds that the mindstream has an inherent ineffable nature. That is, something exists to experience rebirth and eventually attain nirvana. However, because of the rejection of the individual soul, the mindstream is not reborn as a single individual. A reborn individual is the sum total of a number of mindstreams. Think of how a supernova, one star, explodes its elements into space. These elements then combine to form new and different objects.
Ablaze
Buddham Saranam Gacchami
The notion of anatta (not-self) is meant to illustrate the transitivity of identity. It is not an absolutist negation of selfhood. Instead, it shakes the foundations of personality we have been conditioned to believe in. Specifically, it is a refutation of the Brahmanic/Vedic (ancient Indian) notion of a permanent, enduring, transcendental, eternal, persistent Self, termed Atman. The Buddha denied the Vedic notion of selfhood, "eso ham asmi, eso me atta" (this is mine, this is my self) with its counter-statement, "netam mama, neso ham asmi, na meso atta" (this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self). There is no self that is ultimate and immortal, as the Brahmanic/Vedic notion of Atman would suggest. Rather than uphold this Soul-theory, the Buddha describes self as impermanent, non-enduring, conventional, mortal, and not greater than the sum of its parts.
Basically, the Buddha taught that there is a transitory, empirical self that could be said to exist conventionally, but ultimately no trans-empirical equivalent like a Soul. There is no characteristic or set of characteristics that remains constant throughout life, or in supposed future lives. Self is malleable. The Buddha refuted the notion of a Self in both the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, consciousness) and apart from them.
However, at the same time, the Buddha never went to the extreme of denying a self altogether. It would be foolish to suggest that the self is non-existent. He only asserts that it does not exist apart from phenomenal experience. Thus, the anatta doctrine is a rejection of the noumena so highly esteemed by the Brahmins. Anatta is in no way an ontology proclaiming "there is no me." It is a phenomenological method of re-examining what we refer to as self.
As the self is conceptually constructed, it has only a conventional existence. In the same sense that a chariot is reducible to its component parts, which alone do not constitute the chariot, and even together amount to nothing mystical or transcendental - the conventional self is likewise made up of five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Like a chariot, explains a bhikkhuni (nun) in the Vajira Sutta, the self is just a conventional designation for an assemblage of parts, a heap of phenomena. The aggregates are these heaps. There is no self to be found in them. We are amalgams of these aggregates, like a chariot built of many parts. Yet neither together nor alone do they constitute a true self.
Self is an instantaneous phenomena, not a persistent entity. It exists only from a certain point of view, not apart from that point of view. A mirage is not completely non-existent, although its external reference point is illusory. It simply does not exist in the way it appears to exist. Its existence is deceptive, relational, and observer-dependent, much like the self.
It should be obvious that the body is constantly changing. The body one has at this moment is not the same as the body one had an an infant, and the body we will have in old age is not the same as the body we have in our youth. Cells are constantly dying and being reborn through the processes of apoptosis and the recycling of cellular debris, whether we realize it or not. Hair and skin are dead already. They grow and undergo replacement. The body is in no way an unchanging thing that we can call an ultimate self.
Now the brain or mind is often argued to be the root of selfhood. Although our predispositions, biases, personality traits and whatnot are said to be "contained" in the brain, the neural connections that make up the brain are in no way stable. Constantly firing in a multitude of directions, they produce an array of thoughts. The inner workings of the brain are not still and unmoving. Hence, there is no reason to believe the brain or mind is the foundation of an unchanging self, the absolute epitome of what makes us who we are.
Thus, this psychophysical being who we take ourselves to be is impermanent like all other phenomena. Its existence is conventional, yet it lacks an enduring selfhood.
The Buddha denied the immortal, unborn and Supreme Self. Holding views of a Self (in any form) is a hindrance to the path. One cannot find a Self or being that is not separate from change. Hence there is no permanent Self. Ultimately, there is no true Self, only the Sense of Self that arises and ceases, moment by moment.
Basically, the Buddha taught that there is a transitory, empirical self that could be said to exist conventionally, but ultimately no trans-empirical equivalent like a Soul. There is no characteristic or set of characteristics that remains constant throughout life, or in supposed future lives. Self is malleable. The Buddha refuted the notion of a Self in both the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, consciousness) and apart from them.
However, at the same time, the Buddha never went to the extreme of denying a self altogether. It would be foolish to suggest that the self is non-existent. He only asserts that it does not exist apart from phenomenal experience. Thus, the anatta doctrine is a rejection of the noumena so highly esteemed by the Brahmins. Anatta is in no way an ontology proclaiming "there is no me." It is a phenomenological method of re-examining what we refer to as self.
As the self is conceptually constructed, it has only a conventional existence. In the same sense that a chariot is reducible to its component parts, which alone do not constitute the chariot, and even together amount to nothing mystical or transcendental - the conventional self is likewise made up of five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Like a chariot, explains a bhikkhuni (nun) in the Vajira Sutta, the self is just a conventional designation for an assemblage of parts, a heap of phenomena. The aggregates are these heaps. There is no self to be found in them. We are amalgams of these aggregates, like a chariot built of many parts. Yet neither together nor alone do they constitute a true self.
Self is an instantaneous phenomena, not a persistent entity. It exists only from a certain point of view, not apart from that point of view. A mirage is not completely non-existent, although its external reference point is illusory. It simply does not exist in the way it appears to exist. Its existence is deceptive, relational, and observer-dependent, much like the self.
It should be obvious that the body is constantly changing. The body one has at this moment is not the same as the body one had an an infant, and the body we will have in old age is not the same as the body we have in our youth. Cells are constantly dying and being reborn through the processes of apoptosis and the recycling of cellular debris, whether we realize it or not. Hair and skin are dead already. They grow and undergo replacement. The body is in no way an unchanging thing that we can call an ultimate self.
Now the brain or mind is often argued to be the root of selfhood. Although our predispositions, biases, personality traits and whatnot are said to be "contained" in the brain, the neural connections that make up the brain are in no way stable. Constantly firing in a multitude of directions, they produce an array of thoughts. The inner workings of the brain are not still and unmoving. Hence, there is no reason to believe the brain or mind is the foundation of an unchanging self, the absolute epitome of what makes us who we are.
Thus, this psychophysical being who we take ourselves to be is impermanent like all other phenomena. Its existence is conventional, yet it lacks an enduring selfhood.
The Buddha denied the immortal, unborn and Supreme Self. Holding views of a Self (in any form) is a hindrance to the path. One cannot find a Self or being that is not separate from change. Hence there is no permanent Self. Ultimately, there is no true Self, only the Sense of Self that arises and ceases, moment by moment.
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
It is my understanding that anatma simply means that nothing which is perceived is permanent, unchanging, or self-existent (independent) and that none of it is you nor does any of it belong to you. The point is to promote non-attachment and equanimity towards all things. Unfortunately, there has been no other topic in Buddhism that has been debated as much, nowadays. So, people are too attached to it 
I dont think it's worth worrying about past the point of it being used as a tool for non-attachment. I think it's better to think of it that way instead of as some absolute ontological assertion that there is no self at all. Like ablaze mentioned, any views on self are considered an obstacle.
I dont think it's worth worrying about past the point of it being used as a tool for non-attachment. I think it's better to think of it that way instead of as some absolute ontological assertion that there is no self at all. Like ablaze mentioned, any views on self are considered an obstacle.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
Yeah, it literally is as simple as:
"Form, Rādha, is nonself, feeling is nonself, perception is nonself, volitional formations are nonself, consciousness is nonself."
That's about it
All of these things are inconstant and changing. If you cling to them, you liable to get stuck there, in anguish. Don't even cling to no-self, or you may get stuck. Without clinging to form, feeling, perception, views, mental formations, consciousness, your mind can be released from these things in the here & now. Forms (& feelings, perceptions, views, mental formations, and consciousness) do not cease to exist, but continue to change. Your mind is released from them, yet you still continue on in the here & now.Yeah, it literally is as simple as:
"Form, Rādha, is nonself, feeling is nonself, perception is nonself, volitional formations are nonself, consciousness is nonself."
That's about it
I like this sutta. I'll hide the rather long snippets from it to save space, except this one passage:
"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]
Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile
Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma assumes about form: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about feeling: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about perception: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about the view-position 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present." [9]
When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present."
"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone doesn't think, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is externally not present."
<...>
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"This, monks, is called a monk whose cross-bar is thrown off, [10] whose moat is filled in, whose pillar is pulled out, whose bolt is withdrawn, a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.
"And how is a monk one whose cross-bar is thrown off? There is the case where a monk's ignorance 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 one whose cross-bar is thrown off.
"And how is a monk one whose moat is filled in? There is the case where a monk's wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, 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 one whose moat is filled in.
"And how is a monk one whose pillar is pulled out? There is the case where a monk's craving 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 one whose pillar is pulled out.
"And how is a monk one whose bolt is withdrawn? There is the case where a monk's five lower fetters are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose bolt is withdrawn.
"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]
"He assumes about feeling: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about perception: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about fabrications: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"He assumes about the view-position 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present." [9]
When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone thinks, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present."
"But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?"
"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone doesn't think, 'O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don't obtain it!' He doesn't grieve, isn't tormented, doesn't weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It's thus that there is non-agitation over what is externally not present."
<...>
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"This, monks, is called a monk whose cross-bar is thrown off, [10] whose moat is filled in, whose pillar is pulled out, whose bolt is withdrawn, a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.
"And how is a monk one whose cross-bar is thrown off? There is the case where a monk's ignorance 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 one whose cross-bar is thrown off.
"And how is a monk one whose moat is filled in? There is the case where a monk's wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, 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 one whose moat is filled in.
"And how is a monk one whose pillar is pulled out? There is the case where a monk's craving 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 one whose pillar is pulled out.
"And how is a monk one whose bolt is withdrawn? There is the case where a monk's five lower fetters are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose bolt is withdrawn.
"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]
"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and grasp it by the coils or by the tail. The water-snake, turning around, would bite him on the hand, on the arm, or on one of his limbs, and from that cause he would suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.
"But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.
"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and pin it down firmly with a cleft stick. Having pinned it down firmly with a forked stick, he would grasp it firmly by the neck. Then no matter how much the water-snake might wrap its coils around his hand, his arm, or any of his limbs, he would not from that cause suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas. [6]
"Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of any statement of mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you don't understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there you should cross-question me or the experienced monks.
"But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.
"Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and pin it down firmly with a cleft stick. Having pinned it down firmly with a forked stick, he would grasp it firmly by the neck. Then no matter how much the water-snake might wrap its coils around his hand, his arm, or any of his limbs, he would not from that cause suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don't study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas. [6]
"Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of any statement of mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you don't understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there you should cross-question me or the experienced monks.
Morning Star Dhamma
Member
Here's a perspective that might be helpful: No-self or Not-self?.
Ekanta
om sai ram
IMO, I would put it like this:
"There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. "
The Three Characteristics And The Uncreated
brahma-bhūta tathāgata
"Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathāgata." [It 57]
i.e. brahma (Brahman) bhūta (become) tat (that) āgata (gone)
Hence in the words of the Tathāgata himself, we see that the unoriginated is Brahman.
Buddha/tathāgata is identification of Self with Brahman (brahma-bhūta tathāgata).
Hence Atman (Self) is Brahman.
Anything else imagined to be self (the originated) is anatman.
Its actually nothing strange in the above. Since truth is one, realization is one. Its just put in different words.
The special thing about buddhism is that it doesnt emphasise atman/brahman, it points out the path to Brahman by analysing what its not (i.e. anatman), probably so people should not make up ideas about it, but thread the path.
Its like the story of the "Parable of the poisoned arrow":
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
Parable of the arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. "
The Three Characteristics And The Uncreated
brahma-bhūta tathāgata
"Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathāgata." [It 57]
i.e. brahma (Brahman) bhūta (become) tat (that) āgata (gone)
Hence in the words of the Tathāgata himself, we see that the unoriginated is Brahman.
Buddha/tathāgata is identification of Self with Brahman (brahma-bhūta tathāgata).
Hence Atman (Self) is Brahman.
Anything else imagined to be self (the originated) is anatman.
Its actually nothing strange in the above. Since truth is one, realization is one. Its just put in different words.
The special thing about buddhism is that it doesnt emphasise atman/brahman, it points out the path to Brahman by analysing what its not (i.e. anatman), probably so people should not make up ideas about it, but thread the path.
Its like the story of the "Parable of the poisoned arrow":
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."
Parable of the arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Ekanta: brahma (Brahman) bhūta (become) tat (that) āgata (gone)
1. brahma (Brahman) bhūta (becomes) tatha (thus) gata (gone), or
2. brahma (Brahman) bhūta (becomes) tatha (thus) āgata (arrived).
Buddhist friends, kindly opine, though the meaning is not much different.
Sanskrit 'sandhis' create problems. IMHO, second is correct. I will ask Jaskaran.
1. brahma (Brahman) bhūta (becomes) tatha (thus) gata (gone), or
2. brahma (Brahman) bhūta (becomes) tatha (thus) āgata (arrived).
Buddhist friends, kindly opine, though the meaning is not much different.
Sanskrit 'sandhis' create problems. IMHO, second is correct. I will ask Jaskaran.
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
So what's the misunderstanding?
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I meant to say "here on RF". The replies in this thread are quite good.
The usual misunderstanding is that anatta means "no self" - as opposed to meaning "not self", in reference to dependent arisings which are mistakenly perceived as self. But that has been clarified plenty of times recently already.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, it's a method, not a belief.