Atma- analysis of Self

As in there is Atman -and Brahman. I think that should be consistent across the board, in some shape or form?

with metta

Like for example citta is consistent in suttas, abhidhamma, and medieval buddhist philosophy?

I’m saying that Brahmanical literature consistently say that Atman is present. It’s the binary choice I was referring to - either a text says it’s present or not. As for the various forms it might be present as look at the Brahmajala sutta DN1. Whether present internally, or externally, past present future etc all such ‘placements’ aren’t that significant to this discussion. If you don’t know what Atman and Anatma is probably you should discuss some thing more in line with what you do know!

Atma is Self. If this concept is fuzzy- it’s because it cannot be pinned down in this conversation. Frankly that to me is another indication that it’s a made up concept and but possibly naturally present for evolutionary reasons, that is to easily think about this collection of mental and physical phenomena, which offers an evolutionary advantage over thinking that things are not-self. This advantage is not relevant in many modern contexts, and might be a disadvantage.

With metta

And so is nibbana, asankhata, dipa, para, amata, nirodha. Quite many things are ‘present’ in buddhism. But that doesn’t bother you at all. What bothers you is what is ‘present’ in other traditions. Because your tradition represents truth, and others are made up and fuzzy.

“Atma is Self”, easy. And what is this ‘Self’? Suddenly not easy. So it must be fake…

I hope you don’t think I want to convince you of anything. I’m quite sure I can’t. I’m arguing for those who are still figuring out what in Buddhism is religion and what is spirituality. You defend your suttas and ‘Buddhism’ at all costs. That for me is religion. And I hope I am forgiven for saying the Buddhism as a religion is worth as much or little as any other religion.

1 Like

I’m not sure it’s that clear. In some suttas anatta seems to be negating self-view, our sense of being somebody, our sense of being “me”. In other suttas the negation seems to be of Atman or “soul”, an eternal essence.

3 Likes

In these documents, (the Upanishads), the term most frequently used with reference to a living, breathing body is atman, a term liable to misunderstanding and mistranslating because it can also mean the spiritual self or the inmost core of a human being, besides functioning as a mere reflexive pronoun.
Olivelle (The early Upanishads)

I believe you still have a hard time to integrate Buddhism into Indian philosophy. And that you have a tendency to want to make of Buddhism, some sort of 21st century anglo-empiricist charvaka.
My previous post might help to understand the nuances. As well as the underlying asankhata/avyakata concepts involved.
My two cents on the matter.


@Martin

My answer to that, in Olivelle’s quote above.

1 Like

Prove it , that God never existed !
I can’t . Can you ?
Brahman / Atman, what is it ?
Where is it ?
How do you know for sure ?
By what standard one apply ?

Asking for proof of Atma or Anatma is pointless and therefore there is no point talking about it.

Nirvana doesn’t have any concepts like God-heaven weighing it down so it seems the most simple and honest answer to what is your religion’s/path’s goal, not doubting the simplicity actually makes it harder (and scary) to understand.

Anatta doesn’t necessarily make the Buddha’s dhamma superior- in fact it makes it more unappealing. So the Buddha took a great risk in revealing what he saw was the truth, to his colleagues in the Dhamma.

With metta

Oh dear , but the topic is about analysing the Atman ! Pointless ? Or is there a fallacy occur in the attempt ?
Please bear with me , you are trying to perform dissection on the Atman , the autopsy surely will need to provide a sample specimen beforehand .
Now , instead of analysing Atman , you ended up in analysing the five aggregates !
If you don’t know your subject and how would you investigate it ?
Isn’t that there is a mistake in the approach in the first place ?!

1 Like

Analysis, yes; but asking for proof of anatta ie of something that doesn’t exist, is pointless. You cannot prove that things do or don’t exist - see the Kaccayanagotta Sutta for the Buddha’s view on it. :blush:

With metta

This sutta, the Kalaka sutta, is a classic and is relevant here:

The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2]

"If I were to say, ‘I don’t know whatever in the cosmos… is seen, heard, sensed, cognized… pondered by the intellect,’ that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, ‘I both know and don’t know whatever in the cosmos… is seen, heard, sensed, cognized… pondered by the intellect,’ that would be just the same. If I were to say, ‘I neither know nor don’t know whatever in the cosmos… is seen, heard, sensed, cognized… pondered by the intellect,’ that would be a fault in me.

"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn’t construe an [object as] seen. He doesn’t construe an unseen. He doesn’t construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn’t construe a seer.

"When hearing…

"When sensing…

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn’t construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn’t construe an uncognized. He doesn’t construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn’t construe a cognizer.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is ‘Such.’ And I tell you: There’s no other ‘Such’ higher or more sublime. AN4.24

With metta

One should consider AN 4.24 with some dubiousness (no parallel).

However the Kaccānagotta sutta (Sn 12.15) is indeed interesting.

One who rightly sees and knows, as it really is, the arising of the world, does not hold to the non-existence of the world.
One who rightly sees and knows, as it really is, the cessation (passing away) of the world, does not hold to the existence of the world.
SA 301 (Parallels on SN 12. 15 & Sf 168).

In other words, when the sensory world arises, there is existence - (as per definition of the word “world”, or somewhat of the “All” in Buddhism).
When the sensory world passes, there is non existence.

A Buddhist will see both (middle way).

You don’t need to go to MIT to understand that.

And here, we are obviously talking about the little (Upanishadic) inner self, (that in Buddhism can’t be continuous, and is therefore devoid of bliss).
And also about the self as the “inner core of man”, that might liberate itself through asankhata. (see above Atma- analysis of Self - #198 by suci1)

We are definitely not talking here, about the big Self (in the Avyakata).

1 Like

Not quite!!
Is and is not is a duality. They must co-exist within the fabricated.
Middle-way allows one to transcend between them.
Very subtle difference…and also non dual.

Let’s be simple ,
The point is, You said Atman doesn’t exist , You also said cannot prove that things do or don’t exist , but , in that meaning when you imply something really does not exist isn’t both of that already contradicting each other !?

Secondly , Atman doesn’t exist in the first place (as you said) , therefore analysing it,
is a Futile attempt ! Would you agree ?
Why do you want to do this (examine something you said doesn’t exist) ?

1 Like

But can one produce a specimen of something that doesn’t exist?

The answer is above , you started a topic to analyse Atman not me . If it doesn’t exist in the first place , why would you want to examine it ? Fallacy fall over your side.
Please read my post again .

I agree with your reasoning - which is why ‘anatta’ is either the final result insight of anicca practice and cannot be practiced as such. So it would be not a dogma but something one might know only at the end.

Or it can be used as a meditation technique, an anatta-sanna. Meaning: I bring it back to my mind as a repetitive tool against the arising experience in the mind. Just like marana-sati it doesn’t mean that ‘death is there’ at the moment - I contemplate it as a vague tool, again not as dogma of truth.

1 Like

It was me who started the topic. A few things - we can discuss and analyse concepts. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a ‘concept’. These were later helpfully known as pannapti. It’s possible for us to imagine things or concepts that don’t exist. As they don’t exist, it isn’t possible to find acceptable proof of their existence (say for example a photograph of the moon would be a certain type of evidence or its gravitational pull if monitored might be another, and so on). It isn’t that Buddhism teaches that the Self is the five aggregates. That would be a misapprehension of the issue. Rather the five aggregates have been mistaken to be a self. And because of the lack of samadhi in the normal human mind it is unable to see that the aggregates are impermanent, moment by moment but thinks the Self is continuous or everlasting. It thinks the Self is a positive or at least ‘ok’ thing, while seeing the five aggregates arise and passing away it is clear that they are unsatisfactory or even repulsive (nibbida), and layers of conditioning or ignorance must be peeled away to see it for what it truly is.

With metta

2 Likes

Factors of entering the stream:

  1. Association with kalyanamittas
  2. Listening to the true dhamma
  3. Contemplation of the dhamma
  4. Practice according to the dhamma- dhammanudhamma patipada

So our analysis would fall into step 3. It’s said that some people rarely do understand Anatta merely by contemplation. The majority might need to see the phenomena arising and passing away with their own eyes.

Correct. Useful before realising anatta and even more afterwards to recall or recapture that moment of insight to fully integrate its meaning into oneself (pun not intended). We can still use the word Self, so as not to bring confusion when speaking to others, just as the Buddha did. This doesn’t mean they do not understand anatta but is familiar with ‘both sides of the fence’, and is able to think and behave appropriately.

With metta

1 Like

First , the five aggregate Not equal to the self is by Buddhism definition .
By Brahmanism definition , Atman is something beyond the five aggregate .
As I said earlier ,
Instead of analysing Atman , which you said never existed ,
You analyse the five aggregate .
That’s all I am saying .
The logic is you don’t have to and no need to find something that you think non existence .

1 Like