Jump to content

Talk:Anattā: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,338,621 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Anatta/Archive 3. (BOT)
m reverting malfunctioning bot edit
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
1=
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=C|importance=high}}
{{philosophy|importance=|class= C|auto=yes|eastern=yes|religion=yes}}
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|eastern=yes|religion=yes}}
}}
}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Anatta/Archive
|archiveprefix=Talk:Anattā/Archive
|age=2160
|age=2160
|header={{aan}}
|header={{aan}}
Line 13: Line 13:
|numberstart=3
|numberstart=3
|format= %%i
|format= %%i
|search ="yes"}
|search =yes
}}
}}
{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}


== living beings - category error: false. ==
== Bronkhorst ==

{{yo|Ms Sarah Welch}} Bronkhorst (1993), ''The Two Traditions'', p.99, note 12: "It is possible that original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul (Frauwallner 1953: 217-53; Schmithausen 1969: 160-61; Bhattacharya, 1973)". See also [[Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism]]. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 06:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
:See also Bronkhorst (2009), [http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Buddhist%20Teaching%20in%20India%20Book%20Preview.pdf ''Buddhist Teaching in India''], p.22 ff. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 08:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

::Not wanting to necessarily cause trouble here, but Bronkhorst's (2009) evidence for this appears to be sparse, and is based on [[Oskar von Hinüber]]'s Dhammapada (pp6-7) which argues the case from the 'texts' (actually carefully curated oral lineages) of Buddhism and Jainism as evidence - probably the most significant one being the [[Samaññaphala Sutta]] which mentions six Sramana traditions, one of which is [[Jainism]]. My understanding is that all the Sramana traditions recognised [[Avidyā]] as the cause of Samsara, and also the term [[Avidyā]] is always strongly associated with [[Ātman]]. So, my understanding of what distinguished Buddha's position was specifically [[Anatta]] - for which he was accused by the other Sramana traditions of being [[Nāstika]], something which he strongly denied –&nbsp;not because he accepted the [[Vedas]] (which he did not), or because he accepted [[Ātman]] (which he did not) but because he accepted [[Karma]] and [[Rebirth]], which the [[Cārvāka]] and the [[Ājīvika]] did not also cf. [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html The Kaccayanagotta Sutta]. ([[User:20040302|20040302]] ([[User talk:20040302|talk]]) 11:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC))

{{od}}
{{ping|Joshua Jonathan}}, {{ping|20040302}} Agreed. Bronkhorst is speculative, with "it is possible", and after checking all the references @JJ mentions, Bronkhorst evidence is indeed sparse (not just on soul, but also on karma/rebirth doctrines). Yet, the Bronkhorst hypothesis is interesting, notable and I will add it to the article for NPOV. The article already states that "[Early Buddhist] texts do not admit the premise "Self does not exist" either because ...", which parallels Bronkhorst:2009's conclusion in the last lines of page 24. Avidya indeed is associated with Atman in Buddhist texts, an idea that is quite different than the non-Buddhist Indian traditions ( Bronkhorst:2009's page 25). One significant unknown for all ancient Buddhist, Hindu, Jaina texts is the date when they were written down, and how well they preserved or modified the original ideas; for that reason, Bronkhorst hypothesis is worth a mention in this article. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

:yes - though I'm still not really sure that it is worth mentioning. The evidence given to advance the idea comes from the same sources as the evidence that pretty strongly suggests otherwise. Likewise, the notion of 'soul' is very distinct from Atman, and the notion of soul as we understand it was unknown to Indian thought at the time. The fact that Buddha did not deny the existence of a soul is a bit like saying that Buddha did not deny the existence of Valhalla. Cf. especially [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html how the author shows scholars wish to tie atman to Buddhism] ([[User:20040302|20040302]] ([[User talk:20040302|talk]]) 07:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC))

::@20040302: I welcome adding a note from an RS that says what you feel about Bronkhorst. You write, "the notion of soul as we understand it was unknown to Indian thought at the time". This is not mainstream scholarly view. The evidence in the manuscripts, and interpretation/ commentaries/ comparative analysis by scholarly reliable sources on this since the 19th-century, particularly the recent 40 years, is overwhelming that they did innovate the concept of "soul/ unchanging self/ essence", know the concept and discuss it. Read the Vedic, post-Vedic or Sramana literature, or the scholarly literature on it. Some of this evidence, from Buddhism-related scholarship, is already cited in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anatta&oldid=720632803 current version] of this article. If you have scholarly sources that have not been summarized on this, please share or feel free to add a summary from them into the article for NPOV. We just need to stick to summarizing the reliable scholarly sources. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 12:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ms Sarah Welch}}, I have a very busy schedule so it is not easy for me to be able to contribute every day. Re. the topic in hand, I think I may have not explained myself clearly. I am not disputing that the notion of Atman (which has many different interpretations, based upon just which sramanic tradition one follows) was extant in Indian thought. Merely that the notion of the Soul as found in the [[Abrahamic religions]] is not to be conflated with the notion of [[Atman]] as found in the Sramanic religions. There are scholars who have made such a mistake, but it is completely mainstream to consider that the notion of `Atman` and the Abrahamic `Soul` are distinguishable. For instance, some Abrahamic traditions distinguish between the 'Spirit' and the 'Soul', whereas I am not familiar with such a distinguishing feature in the Dharma traditions. It is for these reasons that I suggested that, while Buddhism remarked upon 'Atman', it had nothing to say about the Abrahamic Soul. Even though it is possible that the first group of [[Cochin Jews]] were contemporaneous with Lord Gautama Buddha, they would not have featured (due to location, size of the community, and lack of missionary work) in the early sutras.

:As referenced above, [[Glasenapp]] (1950) disputes some of his contemporaries: ''Again and again scholars have tried to prove a closer connection between the early Buddhism of the Pali texts, and the Vedanta of the Upanishads; they have even tried to interpret Buddhism as a further development of the Atman doctrine. There are, e.g., two books which show that tendency: The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha, by J.G. Jennings (Oxford University Press, 1947), and in German language, The Soul Problem of Early Buddhism, by Herbert Guenther (Konstanz 1949) [...] Where Guenther has translated anattan or anatta as "not the self," one should use "a self" instead of "the self," because in the Pali canon the word atman does not occur in the sense of "universal soul."'' , and so on. ([[User:20040302|20040302]] ([[User talk:20040302|talk]]) 10:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

::@20040302: The 1947 and 1949 publications are a bit old, and there has been a lot of scholarship in the last 65 years. The article does not discuss Abrahamic religions, and your comment on "is not to be conflated" is a strawman argument, reflecting your personal opinions/ wisdom / prejudice on this, rather than what the article is stating. The term Atman is translated as "soul, Self, essence", in mainstream scholarship related to Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. For example by Harvey, Williams, Gombrich, King, Keown etc. Your assertions about "Atman in Sramanic religions" is strange and difficult to parse, as it is presented without a source, and we should not confuse Sramanic religions such as Buddhism and Jainism. You are free to hold opinions/ wisdom/ prejudice such as "scholars who made such a mistake" etc, but allow me to ignore such personal opinions/OR. We also need to avoid WP:Forum-y discussion on this talk page, such as "Abrahamic Soul" (whatever that means), because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anatta&oldid=720632803 current version of this article] does not use that phrase. FWIW, it does not state "in the Pali canon the word atman occurs in the sense of universal soul" etc. But I will take a look at Jennings, Guenther and meditate on this a bit. Thanks. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 12:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

:::My two cent's worth - Bronkhorst knows what he is talking about. There are no assertions in early Buddhist literature stating "the atman does not exist." The assertion is always something like "form is not atman, feeling is not atman... etc" There are very few early texts that can be charitably read as even implying that there is no such thing as an atman -- and for that matter, it is hard to see how upanishadic authors (at least of the Yajurveda branches) would object to Buddhist discussions of anatman. The Maitri Upanishad even comes out and says that one who knows brahman becomes anatman and that brahman itself is anatman. Joseph Walser 18:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Joseph Walser--Joseph Walser 18:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::I think that 20040302 is right when noting that avidya is connected to atman, implying that the Buddha arfgued for anatman. See [[Pratītyasamutpāda#Commentary on Vedic cosmogeny]], for arguments that ''avidya'' was incorporated from other shramanic traditions, and that anatman at first served as a denial of such cosmogenies; eventually ''avidya'' was incorporated into Buddhism, with illogical consequences in the case of ''Pratītyasamutpāda''. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 03:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::The term ''anatta'' (''anatman'') is itself an etymologically interesting and meaningful term. Many sutta such as ''Anatta-lakkhana Sutta'' (''Pañcavaggi Sutta'') discuss and mention anatta, but given the context and goals of these surviving suttas perhaps they had no need to state that "there is no such thing as an atman", nor "there is such a thing as an atman" either. We have the later commentary traditions. We also have questions about what survived and what didn't (absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence), we have issues with dating the ideas in the Pali canonical texts... perhaps written for the first time about 400 years after Buddha's death? The ''Maitri Upanishad'' of much significance in Hinduism is a relatively late text, likely influenced by early Buddhist and Samkhya thought. It says a lot of things.... the metaphysical Brahman is everything and many things. For example, ''Brahman'' is food, is breath, is this world in the beginning, also this world in the end after it disappears, the light, the sound, the thought, the knowledge, the inconceivable highest atman, immeasurable, unborn, the infinite, that with form, that without form, the prana, the prana-less, the atman, the atman-less, the grounded, the ground-less, the free, the fearless, the eternally peaceful, and so on (see pages 327-386, Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Vol 1). FWIW, lest the remarks above are unclear, I note that Bronkhorst states two things... one in the main text and another in the note mentioned and quoted by JJ above. The Bronkhorst source states in the main text, "A firm [early Buddhists] tradition maintained that the Buddha did not want to talk about the soul, or even denied its existence." Bronkhorst then explains this further with that note. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 02:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

== Proposed merger ==
I propose to merge this page with the page [[Atman (Buddhism)]]. Though both pages obviously deal with opposites, the information on the two pages is similar, and the quality of the two pages could be improved if they would be integrated. After all, atta and anatta are [[antonym]]s and cannot be explained separately.[[User:S Khemadhammo|S Khemadhammo]] ([[User talk:S Khemadhammo|talk]]) 11:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

:Opposites or contrasting concepts may be better explained as individual articles, just like [[Atheism]], [[Theism]], [[God]], [[Satan]], [[Demon]], etc. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 22:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
::I agree with [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]]. [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 23:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

== Questioning validity of assertion ==

"The Theravada tradition has long considered the understanding and application of the Anatta doctrine to be something possible for the practicing monk, and not for the lay Buddhists because it is a psychologically difficult doctrine and requires the destruction of "I am" tendencies. "

I know of no canonical evidence to support this statement. Perhaps the author is confusing wrong personality view (sakaya ditthi; the first of the defilements/fetters) with the higher fetter of conceit (mano/mana). The Pāli Nikāyas cite hundreds of lay followers gaining stream entry which is characterised in part with the abandoning of wrong identity/personality view. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:E000:2510:8C00:E8A6:DF48:67E5:9CD5|2605:E000:2510:8C00:E8A6:DF48:67E5:9CD5]] ([[User talk:2605:E000:2510:8C00:E8A6:DF48:67E5:9CD5#top|talk]]) 07:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I don't know who wrote it, but it seems to me incorrectly summarized from the source cited. I have rewritten the sentence and tagged the section for possible [[WP:OR]].--[[User:Farang Rak Tham|Farang Rak Tham]] ([[User talk:Farang Rak Tham|talk]]) 07:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

::I see a discussion on page 94 onwards. Perhaps it wasn't worded right, and unclear. We can just quote exact. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 15:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
::Note the Sutta Pitaka discussion in Collins, BTW. Gombrich says something similar. On a general note, this section and one that follows on the Thai movement attracts edit warriors in this and other articles. We need to keep an eye, while also trying to better and carefully summarizing the sources. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 15:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
::: My fault, I overlooked that part on page 94. And yes, not trying to start some edit war here, if it looked that way.--[[User:Farang Rak Tham|Farang Rak Tham]] ([[User talk:Farang Rak Tham|talk]]) 17:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

== Walser edits ==
Joseph Walser: I have reverted your edits per WP:COI and out of caution whether the added content is due, WP:Primary and not mainstream yet. Is there a link where you can share a copy of your paper with JJ, me and other editors who watch this article? Or you can wiki-email the link to one of us. We can review it and see what/how best to summarize anything from it in this article. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 19:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
: There is no evidence of much impact yet, but this could change. Right now [https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?cites=9787931090521815383&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en I see two cites on Google Scholar, one of which is Walser's own].--<span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC">[[User:Farang Rak Tham|<span style="color:blue;font-weight:900">Farang Rak Tham</span>]] [[User talk:Farang Rak Tham|(Talk)]]</span> 20:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
::I acknowledge that I went about this the wrong way and have deleted everything. I will email you the article directly. Somebody needs to look at the reference to Nagarjuna. The page says that he asserts that the Buddha taught anatman. The full verse says that the Buddhas point to atman, teach anatman, ahd teach neither atman nor anatman. Nagarjuna appears to have had some affinity withthe Pudgalavadins, so he is hardly one to quote in order to demonstrate that anatman is a signature doctrine of Buddhism. Vasubandhu, yes. Nagarjuna, not really.--Joseph Walser 10:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Thank you Joseph. I have contacted you offline and do appreciate your candor as well as assistance in pointing out some of the weaknesses in this article. {{ping|Joshua Jonathan}} would you check and scrub the Nagarjuna/Vasubandhu-related content, I agree with JW. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 13:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


The lede stated ''In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.''
One more observation that ought to be addressed on this page (I will not edit it myself): this page asserts that the doctrine of anatta is both the central doctrine of Buddhism and that it was formulated to oppose Hindu ideas of atman. This opinion does show up in sources like Harvey and Collins and has achieved a kind of consensus in the literature. But facts matter. There are no suttas in the Pali canon in which the Buddha discusses the doctrine of anatman with a representative of the Brahmanical tradition. The Buddha has a lot of discussions with Brahmins (and uber Brahmins/Mahasalabrahmanas), but anatman is not mentioned in any of those discussions. If anything, it appears that the doctrine of anatman was more for non-Brahmanical communities. Brahmin enthusiasts of Buddhism in the Pali canon usually are taught the dhyanas with no mention of anatman. We can speculate why this is the case, but we can't present the Buddha's teaching here as arguing against the Vedic tradition on this point if there are in fact no suttas that do so. Nor can we present the Vedic tradition as being monolithic on the issue of atman. The Samaveda branches were adamant that the atman was "existence" (sat). But when they did so, they were arguing against the Taittiriyas and the Maitrayaniyas whose upanishads argue that atman/brahman was "non-existence" or "emptiness" respectively. I am not sure exactly what the difference would be between the Buddhist anatman and saying that the atman is non-existence or between Nagarjuna arguing that the atman is emptiness and the Maitrayaniyas saying that the atman/brahman is, well... empty. To pit Buddhism against Hinduism paints with too broad a brush, even for Wikipedia.
Finally, I challenge anyone to find a scholar other that Potter who thinks that Mahayana begins at the time of Ashoka or that it ends 100 years before Xuanzang comes to Nalanda in the 7th century. Someone should also add that currently there are more scholars who think it started in Gandhara than who think it started in Andhra Pradesh. The latter is based on very old scholarship. Joseph Walser 13:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser


The qualification that this refers only to living beings is false for '''all''' Buddhism, especially (but not solely) the Mahayana tradition of Nagarjuna following Candrakirti.
Joseph Walser 13:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Joseph Walser <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Candrakirti's Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7 states that 'self' is ''an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness (Anatta)''
:Joseph Walser: Where does the article state, "it was formulated to oppose Hindu ideas of atman"? The article is stating that atman/anatman doctrine is one of the differences, something you and your ''Journal of the American Academy of Religion'' paper acknowledge is the common view. We are not making any statements about "why it was formulated" or "whether it was formulated to oppose Hindu or Jain view", are we? Your comment on Mahayana makes sense, but this article makes no mention of Gandhara or Andhra Pradesh, does it? [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


This citation is translated in Vol. 3 {{ISBN|1-55939-166-9}}
Looks like someone took out the phrase "The ancient Buddhist texts present an extensive discussion and rejection of the [[Vedas|Vedic]] concept of ''Attā'' (soul, self)" which is what I was objecting to. Though you claim that the article is not making any statements concerning why it was formulated, the section on Anatta being the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, again, is misleading. It states that "Anatta is a central doctrine of Buddhism, and marks one of the major differences between Buddhism and Hinduism." That is a bold statement and should be qualified. It was and is the central doctrine for some Buddhists, but I have run into Buddhists who have never heard of it. There are also Brahmanical texts (as I indicated above) that appear to come very close to Buddhist anatta texts. In other words, anatta is the dividing line between Hinduism and Buddhism for folks like Vasubandhu and Ratnakirti, but not for everybody. This Wikipedia section makes it sound like the categories of "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" stand in opposition like "even numbers" and "odd numbers." Religions don't work that way. Joseph Walser 14:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[User:20040302|20040302]] ([[User talk:20040302|talk]]) 10:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
[[File:Di Lac Worship Tam Thai.JPG|thumb|Different expressions of faith.]]
:Joseph Walser: The relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism is complex indeed. Historically fuzzy. This article, however, must focus on ''anatta'' / ''atta'' / ''anatman'' / ''atman'', rather than the complexities of that relationship. Whether a layperson born in a Buddhist family, or who adopted Buddhism for personal reasons, understands the core doctrines, the historical debates and disagreements between the early Buddhist schools/later traditions, or prefers to practice it in different ways (see image) is not our concern in an encyclopedic article on ''anatta''. Beyond Vasubandhu, Ratnakirti and others, this doctrine is much discussed in the commentaries by other Hindu/Jain scholars such as Adi Shankara. On your suggestion that we qualify 'central doctrine' statement, I will check the sources. Specific suggestions on sources with page numbers to check would be most welcome. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


In other words, the article should describe an entity called "Buddhism", even if (for the sake of argument) there were no Buddhists who would recognize it. I see that you have added to the number of scholars who claim anatta to be the central doctrine of Buddhism. Fair enough. And there are plenty more such references to be found. It just seems to me that the assertions of all of these scholars are normative instead of prescriptive. It is like saying "Christianity teaches the doctrine of pre-destination" or "divine kenosis." In a certain light, and with certain qualifications this is true. But most folks in church on Sunday won't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Do they, then, not fit into the category or has the category not been nuanced enough to include them? I have to move on, but this is something to think about. Joseph Walser 16:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I also notice that there is real confusion (also found in many cited sources) between the assertion of Anatta and the assertion of 'person' and the personal self. Most of which, some scholars believe (eg. Elizabeth Napper) was based on erroneous assumptions of early Buddhist scholars concerning the scope of Anatta. ([[User:20040302|20040302]] ([[User talk:20040302|talk]]))
:Joseph Walser: A section of Buddhists recognize it, no doubt, else we won't have a zillion publications on it nor all these traditions in Thailand/Japan/etc with their monks and leaders intensely discussing and disagreeing about the self/no-self doctrine. The meta discussion about what all is religion... a social network? a glue of Sunday/annual traditions, rites-of-passage, and festivals? a fog of heritage? all of these and more in prescriptive terms?... is not appropriate for an encyclopedic and reference article on anatta or other concepts/doctrines. We are bound by the wikipedia community-agreed content guidelines for what we can and cannot appropriately include here, as well as how we state it. Once again, if you or anyone suggests specific sources with page numbers to improve this article, that would be most welcome. I urge Joshua Jonathan to take a look at the Mahayana article about your concerns about Gandhara/Andhra etc. Except for one OR/vandalism revert, I have neither edited nor watch that article. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


== Notice: Page moved ==
::Jospeh may have a point here. I've also often wondered about your strong statements on the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism regarding atman/anatman. Shankara may have stated this strongly, and the Buddha may have taught anatman as a central doctrine, but Buddha-nature-like teachings are also central to some of the main strands of Budhist tradition. Maybe those strands were influenced by Vedic-Brahmanical thought, but there are indeed nuances to this Buddhism/anatman - Hinduism/atman distinction. I'll try to take closer looks later; the topic is very interesting, and Joseph's book seems worth to spend soem money to purchase it. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 04:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, please note that I [[Wikipedia:Moving a page|moved]] this page from “Anatta” to “Anattā” just now. [[Anatta]] is now a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] to this new page. I have also fixed all the [[Wikipedia:Double redirects|double redirects]]. -[[User:Colathewikian|Colathewikian]] ([[User talk:Colathewikian|talk]]) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
::Interesting article by Joseph: [https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/86/1/94/4065446?redirectedFrom=fulltext ''When Did Buddhism Become Anti-Brahmanical? The Case of the Missing Soul'']. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
:::JJ: If the RS say "central doctrine" or use such strong language, so should the article. Since you state "often wondered", please reflect that you may have a biased view of Buddhism, maybe because you studied Ramana Maharishi on self/Self before studying Buddhism. Instead of speculating on such biases, it is best to focus on what the various sides of the peer-reviewed scholarship are stating and summarize them per our npov guidelines to the best of our abilities. No websites and random dhamma views posted in blogs/forums, else we end up with Robert Walker-like versions and fringe modernistic revisionism. FWIW, the article already summarizes Tathagata/Buddha-nature. Joseph Walser already sent me another email with thanks note for the change I made today. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 07:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
::::It has nothing to do with Ramana Maharshi. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 08:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's keep away from ad hominum arguments, they tend to be irrelevant. Joshua may have studied with Bozo the clown, but this would have no bearing on whether or not his assertion is true about Buddhism or not. It either is or is not, regardless of whom he studied with (and I happen to think that he is on to something here). Let's stay focused. Peer reviewed scholarship has come down on both sides of whether anatta is the central doctrine of Buddhism. For those who argue that the suttas do not deny a self, we find C. A. F. Rhys Davids 1941, 656–57; Frauwallner 1953, I. 224ff; Schmithausen 1969, 160 (citing Frauwallner); Pérez Remón 1980; Oetke 1988, 153; and more recently Bronkhorst 2009, 21ff., and a nuanced argument in Wynne 2011. On the opposite end of the debate we find Collins 1982, 250–71; Gombrich 1988, 21 and 63; and Harvey 1995. Most of these sources are cited in Bronkhorst 2009, 23, notes 42–43. Pretty much every scholar acknowledges at some point that the Buddha never says (in the early canon) that there is no soul/self. Some Buddhist philosophers, centuries later, are adamant that the soul does not exist and Naiyayika and Vedantin philosophers are responding to them. If WE assert that the soul's nonexistence is the central tenet of the Buddha, we are putting words in his mouth. We can report what the Buddha said. We can report what Buddhist scholars or pre-modern Buddhist philosophers said. But we run into trouble if we say that "this is what the Buddha would have said if only he were as smart as we are." Better to accurately ascribe who holds these doctrines and move on. If we continue with the assertion that anatta is a central tenet "of Buddhism" or even "of the Buddha" and then go on to acknowledge that the doctrine is hardly central for many Buddhists, then we are picking up where Henry Steel Olcott left off and we might as well go on a tour of Buddhist countries in order to deliver this new "Buddhist Catechism" to the Buddhists ignorant of the "central doctrine". Might I suggest that this would be as presumptuous today as it was in 1881.
Moving on. There are a few references to scholars who depict the Maitri Upanisad as "Post-Buddhist." This is weird. I think they must mean "Post-Buddha" since Buddhism is not dead yet. In any case, there are also scholars who assign an early date to the Maitri. Max Mueller was one (Deussen was arguing against him when he called it post-Buddhist). Hopkins notes that it is quoted in a reasonably early part of the Mahabharata and Filliozat notes what appears to be a reference to it in the works of Hyppolytus (2nd century). By all accounts it is a composite text. Some sections of it do appear to be quite late, but not all of them. I think that Signe Cohen (Early Upanisads) does a nice job summarizing the issues concerning the dating of this text (as she does with all the Upanishads) and adding her own linguistic dating of it. Apparently disturbed by the reference to Brahman as niratman and shunyam, the scholars who argue for its posteriority to "Buddhism" want to explain these anomalies as a kind of Buddhist influence. I don't buy it, but that argument is out there. Joseph Walser 17:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Joseph Walser <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Lead ==
:Joseph Walser: JJ and my discussions have a long history, I admire him, and we work collaboratively and constructively in many articles. I presume you are referring to "post-Buddhist" in some scholarly publications since this article or this talk page doesn't use that phrase, does it? Given the context, it must mean "post-Buddha", yes. Now, where do we go from here, given our [[WP:FORUM]] and [[WP:TALK]] guidelines. How do we improve this article specifically? I will go through these sources again. It will help if you would identify any sources with page numbers, such as those you mention above, which state "anatta is not a central doctrine of Buddhism"? If you do so, I will support adding something to that effect as well for NPOV. On your point about "self" and "no-self" in the suttas, the article already states all three views for NPOV: Buddha remained "silent when asked whether there is a 'self' or not"; later influential Buddhist scholars who stated "Buddha taught the doctrine of no-self" (Buddhism, of course, is more than just its early texts); and third, "these [early] texts do not admit the premise 'Self does not exist' either". If there is something more we should add, please suggest with sources. You mention Bronkhorst. In ''The Two Traditions'', Bronkhorst states in the main text, "A firm tradition maintained that the Buddha did not want to talk about the soul, or even denied its existence." Bronkhorst clarifies this further by adding a note, "it is possible that original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul". On rest... neither you nor I nor anyone can claim to be the spokesperson of few hundred million Buddhists, or "many of them", so we must set aside claims such as "acknowledge that the doctrine is hardly central for many Buddhists"! That may be better suited for a blog, because I have yet to see peer-reviewed sources making such a sweeping statement. The chronology of early Upanishads remains contested, and while my sentiments are closer to yours on it and the Buddhism-Hinduism relationship, in wikipedia articles we remain bound by the community agreed content guidelines. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
:<small>(ps)JW: if you end your comment with four "~", like <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, wiki code will convert it into your sign and date it. Helps the talk page watchers. Thanks, [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 18:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)</small>
Thanks. Obviously, given my self-cite gaffe, I am new to this. As for the Maitri chronology, I mention Mueller, Hopkins and Filliozat just to add the the bibliography on the date of the upanisad. I will give full sources and page numbers (they are all in the article, whose reference I deleted from the main page) when I get a few moments to my self (probably next week). Ok, now let me try it... Joseph Walser 18:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joseph Walser|Joseph Walser]] ([[User talk:Joseph Walser#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joseph Walser|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I checked Wynne (2011) that JW mentions above. Wynne writes (pp. 103-104):
:{{talk quote|The denial that a human being possesses a “self” or “soul” is probably the most famous Buddhist teaching. It is certainly its most distinct, as has been pointed out by G. P. Malalasekera: “In its denial of any real permanent Soul or Self, Buddhism stands alone.” A similar modern Sinhalese perspective has been expressed by Walpola Rahula: “Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self or Ātman.” The “No Self” or “no soul” doctrine (Sanskrit: anātman; Pāli: anattan) is particularly notable for its '''widespread acceptance and historical endurance'''. It was a standard belief of virtually all the ancient schools of Indian Buddhism (the notable exception being the Pudgalavādins), and has persisted without change into the modern era. [...] both views are mirrored by the modern Theravādin perspective of Mahasi Sayadaw that “there is no person or soul” and the modern Mahāyāna view of the fourteenth Dalai Lama that “[t]he Buddha taught that … our belief in an independent self is the root cause of all suffering".<br>– Alexander Wynne (2011), ''The atman and its negation'', Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies.<br> (bold emphasis is mine, see discussion above - MSW)}}
:Wynne then goes on to state that except for ''Vajira Sutta'' or perhaps a few more discourses which explicitly state this idea, this is hardly attested in early Buddhist literature. OK, agreed and fine enough. Then Wynne discusses the Upanishads, followed by Collins point (p. 110) that we must not only look for explicit statements but "very high proportion of the discussions of not-self" in various versions found in other suttas. In his sections 3 and 4, Wynne discusses self-consciousness and dependent origination in early Buddhism (JJ, you may want to review it since you have working on the related wiki articles). There is much more in Wynne's paper, of course, including the closing conclusions such as Buddha rejected "that he is a nihilist (''venayika'')". What is of significance in Wynne is the background review and in that light, this article does a decent job in reflecting the background and the various sides as required by wiki community agreed content guidelines. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 03:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Does {{gi|despite the failure to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman}} belong in Wikipedia voice? I assume a Hindu might call consciousness the empirical coordinate. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
== Alexander Wynne ==


== Use of Anattā vs. Anātman in Mahayana Section ==
The Alexander Wynne is taken out of context.
He quotes Gethin as saying
{{quote|[T]he five khandhas, as treated in the Nikāyas and early abhidhamma, do not exactly take on the character of a formal theory of the nature of man. The concern is not so much the presentation of an analysis of man as object, but rather the understanding of the nature of conditioned existence from the point of view of the experiencing subject. Thus at the most general level rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṃkhārā and viññāṇa are presented as five aspects of an individual being’s experience of the world...}}
And Hamilton saying "not a comprehensive analysis of what a human being is comprised of... rather they are factors of human experience." Neither of these are statements of agreement with Thanissaro that "non-self in the five aggregates does not necessarily mean there is no self."
Alexander Wynne's own quote about not-self turning into no-self is based on his own view that the "Vajirā Sutta represents a relatively late stratum in the Pāli Suttapiṭaka." Leaving out that context changes things considerably because that is the foundation of his belief. If he is wrong about the date of the Vajira Sutta then his view collapses. [[User:Dharmalion76|Dharmalion76]] ([[User talk:Dharmalion76|talk]]) 14:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


Just a note that it feels incongruous to use "anattā" in the Mahayana section when the discourse in that tradition rarely uses Pali terms, and certainly not for this concept. Would anyone be opposed to changing it to "anātman" in that section, or do people feel that consistency is more important than congruity? <span style="color:#008000;font-family:times, sans serif;">[[User:Djlayton4|DJLayton4]] ([[User talk:Djlayton4|talk]])</span> 15:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:Hello,
:Congruity seems to be the pattern used on other pages such as [[prajna]], [[maitri]] and [[karma]]. So if that is the case than yeah i think making the page congruous with the respective traditions languages makes sense. [[User:Wikiman5676|Wikiman5676]] ([[User talk:Wikiman5676|talk]]) 04:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


== Is Etymology and Nomenclature really necessary? ==
:Wynne states "Although this teaching denies the notion of a ‘self’, since the denial is focused on the lack of ‘self’ in the five aggregates, it would not seem to state that a person is without a true identity per se. This is because the list of five aggregates is not an analysis of what a human being is made of." Before going on to quote Gethin and Hamilton.


This is already a pretty long article, and in my opinion, having Etymology and Nomenclature at the top is largely padding that doesn't serve to inform the reader about what the meat of the concept really is past the (probably necessarily) simplistic opening paragraph. Especially since this is likely one of the first articles people trying to learn about Buddhism might read, the paragraph about "non-Self" vs "not-Self" uses too obscure terminology. It's a good section, but it should be at the end of the article or on Wiktionary. [[User:Makhnoboi19|Makhnoboi19]] ([[User talk:Makhnoboi19|talk]]) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
:The statement that was deleted seems like a pretty accurate summary of of these scholars views to me. You can go on to argue that these don't match Thanissaro's view precisely or something like that, but even then I see no reason to just delete these scholars viewpoints entirely. A scholar quoting another scholar is an acceptable source so long as they are attributed correctly. And in fact thier viewpoints are required since [[WP:NPOV]] requires all significant minority viewpoints be presented fairly. Given the entire page presents a notion of no self and this one section presents the minority but still significant viewpoint of non-self, I think it's pretty due to include them. Unless you think these scholars aren't reliable or something. Also, I think your statement on Wynne is flipped. Reading the conclusion on page 77 he seems to be arguing that the Vajira Sutta is a late addition ''because'' of the early interpretation of not self, rather than the other way around. [[User:Wikiman5676|Wikiman5676]] ([[User talk:Wikiman5676|talk]]) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:06, 2 April 2024

living beings - category error: false.

[edit]

The lede stated In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.

The qualification that this refers only to living beings is false for all Buddhism, especially (but not solely) the Mahayana tradition of Nagarjuna following Candrakirti.

Candrakirti's Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7 states that 'self' is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness (Anatta)

This citation is translated in Vol. 3 ISBN 1-55939-166-9

20040302 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I also notice that there is real confusion (also found in many cited sources) between the assertion of Anatta and the assertion of 'person' and the personal self. Most of which, some scholars believe (eg. Elizabeth Napper) was based on erroneous assumptions of early Buddhist scholars concerning the scope of Anatta. (20040302 (talk))

Notice: Page moved

[edit]

Hi all, please note that I moved this page from “Anatta” to “Anattā” just now. Anatta is now a redirect to this new page. I have also fixed all the double redirects. -Colathewikian (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Does despite the failure to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman belong in Wikipedia voice? I assume a Hindu might call consciousness the empirical coordinate. Srnec (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Anattā vs. Anātman in Mahayana Section

[edit]

Just a note that it feels incongruous to use "anattā" in the Mahayana section when the discourse in that tradition rarely uses Pali terms, and certainly not for this concept. Would anyone be opposed to changing it to "anātman" in that section, or do people feel that consistency is more important than congruity? DJLayton4 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congruity seems to be the pattern used on other pages such as prajna, maitri and karma. So if that is the case than yeah i think making the page congruous with the respective traditions languages makes sense. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Etymology and Nomenclature really necessary?

[edit]

This is already a pretty long article, and in my opinion, having Etymology and Nomenclature at the top is largely padding that doesn't serve to inform the reader about what the meat of the concept really is past the (probably necessarily) simplistic opening paragraph. Especially since this is likely one of the first articles people trying to learn about Buddhism might read, the paragraph about "non-Self" vs "not-Self" uses too obscure terminology. It's a good section, but it should be at the end of the article or on Wiktionary. Makhnoboi19 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anattā&oldid=1216892248"