Talk:Anattā

Alexander Wynne

[Per diff:] The Alexander Wynne is taken out of context. He quotes Gethin as saying

[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. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

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.

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. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wynne interprets the teaching as 'not-self' and quotes Gethin and Hamilton as saying that the Buddha wasn't making ontological statements of fact but those Gethin and Hamilton quotes don't explicitly agree with Wynne's interpretation that it leaves open the door for a 'self'. I think the scholars are absolutely reliable but I feel that Wynne wasn't being fair about the context. That section of Gethin's article is prefaced with "To explain the khandhas as the Buddhist analysis of man, as has been the tendency of contemporary scholars, may not be incorrect as far as it goes, yet it is to fix upon one facet of the treatment of the khandhas at the expense of others." In this context Gethin wasn't even discussing anatta. In Gethin's Foundations of Buddhism he has a whole chapter entitled "No Self Personal Continuity and Dependent Arising" so to say that Gethin agrees that there is no teaching of 'no-self' doesn't appear to be supported by his actual writings. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that is a fair point. I will look into those scholars direct works first. Although I do believe that part on Wynne and the Vajira Sutta doesnt make sense, since his conclusion is actually the other way around. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676:I am looking into some other references and Richard Gombrich's What The Buddha Thought might be a source which agrees with Thanissaro to some degree.

There is what we may think of as a Buddhist answer to the triad 'being, consciousness, bliss'. It is the triad referred to as 'the three hallmarks' (P: ti-lakkhana) , that is, the hallmarks of phenomenal existence. These are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, absence of self. The order betrays the Upanisadic reasoning. Things are impermanent, i.e., ever-changing, and by that token they are not satisfactory, and by that token they cannot be the atman. The third hallmark is very often mistranslated (sometimes by me too, in the past) as 'not having a self or essence'. That is indeed how later Buddhists came to interpret it, but that was not its original meaning - in fact, it is doubly misleading. Both Pali grammar and a comparison with the Vedanta show that the word means "is not atman" rather than "does not have atman". Comparison with the Vedanta further shows that the translation 'self is appropriate, as the reference is to living beings. However, as time went by the term was taken as a possessive compound and also taken to refer to everything, so that it became the one-word expression of the Buddha's anti-essentialism.

Gombrich, Richard What The Buddha Thought Equinox Publishing Limited pages=69-70 ISBN 978-1845536145

Would this make for a good replacement for the Gethin and Hamilton quotes? At least Gombrich is a direct quote and we know it isn't taken out of context. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a great source to me. Thanks, I really appreciate the help! Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

living beings - category error: false.

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)

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

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)

Lead

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)

Use of Anattā vs. Anātman in Mahayana Section

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)

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)

Is Etymology and Nomenclature really necessary?

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)