Talk:Anattā

Controversial

"The concept of anatta has, from early times, been controversial amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day."

According to Harvey, Perez-Ramon's personal interpretation is problematic. Now does the quote mean to convey the controversy among first and second generation Buddhologists as Harvey does in the linked page? If so that doesn't warrant presence in the intro. If "controversial" means that some Mahayanists use the word "atman" in a different way, then that should be stated a different way. What is it? What is the full quote from the source? Mitsube (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is -- the statement seems quite clear and self-explanatory. Perhaps you need to read it again. Re Harvey: you are misquoting him as he does not exactly say that "Perez-Ramon's personal interpretation is problematic" -- have another look at the link your provided. Anyway, that is just Harvey's opinion -- who is to say that he is right in that respect ? You also say "some Mahayanists use the word "atman" in a different way". The quote makes no mention of Mahayana, does it ? What about the Pudgalavadins ? --Anam Gumnam (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read it again, I still believe that "It still fails to avoid the problem of coherently relating craving to the 'Self.'" => "problematic."

Pudgalavadins had a different concept labeled with a different word, did they not? Certainly "pudgala" was likely controversial if it was an essence. It seems to have been a minor sect details of which are quite obscure and I don't have much material about them. I have just read something that tells me they labeled the conventional "self" a "pudgala." So it's a sort of mindstream doctrine? Not actually that controversial. Some good sources on this would help.

There is nothing about a "controversy" in this article so a peacock sentence like that with no explanation does not belong in the lead paragraph by any means. I don't believe the concept is at all controversial. Even people like Dolpopa would surely still say that it is true. The Buddha used the word to mean that our grasping at self is a miscognition of the reality of the skandhas. I.e. "I am this" is always wrong and distracting. Some Mahayanists then went down metaphysical roads that aren't actually that closely related to this idea, which was phenomenological, not metaphysical. So they ended up saying, "Those statements are true, but these other statements are a higher teaching about an ultimate reality beyond the range of thought except for enlightened people." So this is not the controversy here. In fact the shentong/rangtong controversy is not closely related to this either. Mitsube (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Mitsube, the statement on controversy is not really needed. In fact it only confuses the audience about the topic. Instead, the introduction paragraph must stress on the fact that Anatta is not a metaphysical assertion, but rather a technique of viewing things to know their real nature. It in fact forms part of "right view" in the eightfold path. The concept of "right view" in the eightfold path clearly talks of viewing all experience in three main ways: that every experience in this universe is impermanent, that every experience is in some way leading to suffering and finally that no phenomenon in this universe has anything to do with the notion of a I, me, mine or myself (i.e. every phenomenon is 'not-self') It is critical to point out that Buddhism does not make a blanket statement that everything is not-self to confuse one of the natural notion of ego and self, but that the view of not-self is to be developed by training in right view (samma ditthi). It is important to understand that while when one understands that all experience is impermanent, it applies to everything but the experience of nirvana/nibbana. But when one understands that nothing is worthy of being deemed as a self or anything to do with it, it applies even to nirvana/nibbana. So nibbana is not a higher self.

Dear friend, this is not what the Buddha taught! Of course the exact meaning of 'in this universe' and 'experience' has to be defined, but as such the statements that "every experience in this universe is impermanent, that every experience is in some way leading to suffering and finally that no phenomenon in this universe has anything to do with the notion of a I, me, mine or myself" is not correct! Buddha said very clearly that there is Nirvana, the unborn, without what there could be no liberation. So, there is a permanent phenomenon that is utter peace and which is *beyond* any notion of self or not-self! So, one cannot even state that it has nothing to do with a notion of 'I'! No-self is not just the simple negation of a self, which would be just another philosophical tenet, no-self goes completely beyond any concept of self or not-self (both and neither - see Tetralemma)! That is why the Tathagata refused to say anything about his existence or non-existence after death. - Bhikshu Trinley

Since the opening paragraph does not make the effort to make these points clear, it anyway needs a lot of improvements. To top it off, it befuddles the reader about the real meaning of the word by saying that it is controversial. On the one hand, I completely agree that different schools of Buddhism have different interpretations of the term, but I think it is scholastically incomplete to make an open-ended statement like that, saying that the concept is controversial, without exactly pin-pointing the origin of the controversy if any.AutoInquiry (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence would be fine if it read: "The question of how to interpret the concept of anatta has, from early times, been controversial amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day." The Sammityas were Pudgalavadins, and they were one of the largest sects throughout the history of Buddhism in India. But we don't know much about them now, it is true.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reformed brahmanism

Please provide the full context of the quote beyond what can be found at a certain polemical website. This is an extreme minority view in the Buddhist studies community. Mitsube (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Mahayana scriptures declare the existence of "atman," which in these scriptures is equated with buddha-nature.

Not. Sabbe sankhara anicca dukkha and anatta are recognized by every single one of the Buddhists schools, no exceptions. So it's not a recognization of "some kind of..."; it is just very hard to understand/explain. It's easier to just ommit that part in this article and try to ask different Lamas and Ngakpas of the visions of this problematic... and western philosophers. See: Mhulamadhyamikakarikas by Nagarjuna, that's the philosophical basis for all Mahayana, how could it be then Atman or whatsoever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.107.238 (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is used as a metaphor. Is this not clear from the article? Please let me know how you understand the article. Mitsube (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Other recognized Mahayana scriptures like the Lankavatara Sutra treat those who deny the Self as heretics. Here is an example:

"Those who propound the doctrine of non-Self are to be shunned in the religous rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of Being and non-Being [existence and non-existence]" (F.G. Sutton, Existence and Enlightenment in the Lankavatara-sutra, 98).Songhill (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Bhikku Bodhi

I would like it if someone could include any or all of this quote from bhikku bodhi in his book, 'In the Buddha's Words'. It is about dependent origination, but it pertains to this same self vs. not-self argument:

'Several suttas hold up dependent origination as a "teaching by the middle". It is a "teaching by the middle" because it transcends two extreme views that polarize philosophical reflection on the human condition. One extreme, the meta-physical thesis of eternalism, asserts that the core of human identity is an indestructible and eternal self, whether individual or universal. It also asserts that the world is created and maintained by a permanent entity, a God or some other metaphysical reality. The other extreme, annihilationism, holds that at death the person is utterly annihilated. There is no spiritual dimension to human existence and thus no personal survival of any sort. For the Buddha, both extremes pose insuperable problems. Eternalism encourages an obstinate clinging to the five aggregates(skhandas), which are really impermanent and devoid of a substantial self; annihilationism threatens to undermine ethics and to make suffering the product of chance.

Dependent origination offers a radically different perspective that transcends the two extremes. It shows that individual existence is constituted by a current of conditioned phenomena devoid of a metaphysical self yet continuing on from birth to birth as long as the causes that sustain it remain effective. Dependent origination thereby offers a cogent explanation of the problem of suffering that on the one hand avoids the philosophical dilemmas posed by the hypothesis of a permanent self, and on the other avoids the dangers of ethical anarchy to which annihilationism eventually leads.' --Bhikku Bodhi

If someone could include some or all of this, if they feel it is pertinent, that would be a great help, as i do not feel yet comfortable editing articles. --24.12.229.163 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph duplicity

The paragraph starting: At the time of the Buddha some philosophers and meditators posited a "root".... is just copied and pasted. I was unsure what to do about it.

Thomas B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbeach (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mixing Pali and Sanskrit words.

Word Sutta and Sutra(Pali and Sanskrit word for same thing) are both used in the article in different places. This might cause confusion and there should only be one or the other word used consistently. Somekind of compromise is also possible, e.g. Sutta(Sutra). Also, if someone should choose to use, let's say Sutta(which is Pali), then all the similar cases in article should use the pali word and not mix the languages. This is not problem only in this article, but also in other articles concerning Buddhism in Wikipedia.

In my experience, Sanskrit words are more common in western literature, but many Buddhist texts seem to use Pali.

Aperculum (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Theravadans use Pali, most of the rest of the Indian Buddhist literature used Sanskrit. I think the best general policy is to use the English word where possible and then give both the Pali and Sanskrit in parens.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Suttas and Sutras are not the same thing, so it would be a step backwards to use just one word throughout the article. When referring to a Pali sutta or suttas, the word should be 'sutta' or 'suttas'. When referring to Sanskrit Sutra or Sutras, the word should be 'Sutra' or 'Sutras'. In an article which covers the ground of both suttas and sutras, this distinction actually helps to clarify rather than cause confusion because the reader will know "the suttas say" might be contradicted in what certain "sutras say" owing to legitimate doctrinal differences between, for example, Mahayana Sutras and the Pali suttas. Another look could be taken to be sure this is being followed correctly in the article, but a quick skim indicated to me that it was (it didn't appear to me they were being used interchangeably: 'sutta' references tied back to the Pali Nikayas, especially via Paul Harvey, and 'Sutra' references went to sutras), although there is some ambiguity in how freely the Pali version of the term anatta is used in context where it should be anatman. This is somewhat less of a problem than between sutta/sutra, but still an issue.--Vacchagotta (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

They are two words for the same thing, and the distinction is not as clear as you say. In fact, they are two versions of the same word. Other early schools (particularly the Sarvastivadins) used Sanskrit, and so they have versions of most of the Suttas that they called Sutras. These have been inherited by later Mahayana traditions. So it is not just "Suttas" that say such-and-such, there are also "Sutras" that also say so.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with you in part; however when two languages are involved, there is a distinction, whatever you say. The word in the two languages refer to the same concept but not in effect the same object. No matter how parallel, a Sanskrit sutra is not the same as a Pali sutta. It is simply not the same text, and even in parallel discourses there are some noted differences in the content, though admittedly minor. Also, there are Pali suttas which simply do not exist in any Sanskrit form and vice versa. Peter Harvey, for example, who is the source for most all of the references to suttas in this article, was writing in reference to the Pali suttas, not necessarily to Sanskrit sources. It is simply better all things considered, when the citation is to a Pali text or a source discussing Pali texts, to use the Pali 'sutta' and equally when Sanskrit (or Tibetan or Chinese versions of Sanskrit originals), use 'sutra'. This of course, is just my opinion that I offer without editing the article proper. When both, I propose 'suttas and sutras'. If you are proposing the English word only, then I suppose 'discourses' would be the most ready option.Vacchagotta (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Pali Suttas should be referred to as Suttas, and non-Pali scriptures should be referred to as Sutras. Perhaps I misunderstood, but based on your initial comments I was under the impression that you objected to this solution.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed improperly referenced material...

On 05:55, 23 August 2010 Tengu800 removed the entire Madhyamaka section claiming that it was "improperly referenced material from ancient primary sources. Instead brought in modern Mahayana commentary on the main matter of interpreting Anatta."

Actually, the material is well referenced from modern translations; it belongs to a large and living tradition which relies upon a long commentarial tradition (not that such a thing makes it a requirement for WP). None of the material that was referenced is from primary sources - the material is (admittedly old) academic commentarial work from Nalanda University, with further commentaries made by Tsongkhapa who was another famous academic commentator. There are plenty of far more modern academic works that talk about these things - see the texts written by Sprung, Garfield, Williams, Inada, Streng, Napper, etc. etc. In fact Napper (ISBN 0861710576, pp67-142) summarises and distinguishes an entire host of modern academic commentators and their views on anatta and the middle way philosophy.

The commentary that replaced it concerns the views of just one person, which certainly does not adequately typify the views of Anatta from the Mahayana perspective.

There are many different views of Anatta within various Mahayana schools. It is easy enough to find references to demonstrate that. I have restored the Madhyamaka text and contextualised the Chán text.. (20040302 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Anatta in the Nikāyas

“One uses 'not-Self', then, as a reason to let go of things, not to 'prove' that there is no Self.” This quote of Peter Harvey is indicative of the problem of specious scholarship which opines that the Buddha used anatta as a mere ‘strategy’ for release, and never denied the Brahman Absolute. This entire section on ‘Anatta in the Nikāyas’ should be reworked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.187.46 (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anatta, Anatman, Advaita Vedanta, 5 senses and the concept of Tat Tvam Asi

I disagree with the start of the article, that is certainly not how I read the texts. However, linking that concept concerning the 5 senses with the concept of Anatman in Advaita Vedanta is incorrect because it fails to acknowledge the positioning of Tat Tvam Asi - 'you are that'. Instead, I read anatta and anatman from both advaita vedanta and through buddhism as being an acknowledgement that all we sense (hear and see etc.) is constructed through ourselves but the concept of self is also constructed. The world only exists because of how we interpret our senses through our mind - hence everything is an illusion - as demonstrated by Shankara's example of the rope and snake (so the old saying about a tree falling - it makes no sound because nobody is there to hear it because sound is a construct of how the mind interprets vibrations via the ear drum, but even if someone was there to interpret the vibrations as sound, that person is not really there because there is no essence that can be pinpointed as being - as in the old story about where is the cart?) . The key to anatman can be found most clearly when Ramakrishna came out of his trance and acknowledged that if the world is an illusion of our senses then we ourselves are part of that same illusion. The key to anatta and anatman is realising that yes, the world is an illusion of the senses but there can be no self because we too are part of the world and hence part of the illusion. The mind is a construct of the mind and therefore does not truly exist. In Buddhism the self does not exist through several demonstrations - Nagarjuna's demonstration that mirrors the older Greek demonstration of a river and time. There can be no-self because the second it comes into being it ceases to be. The 'me' of today is not the same as the 'me' when I was a baby, and similarly, the 'me' of this exact moment, is different to a mili-second ago. There is therefore no tangible self beyond that which the mind constructs - but the mind itself changes constantly and the mind of now is not the same as before I started writing this blurb. This has nothing to do with the senses at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.37.82 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Two interpretations?

High, the only difference that has been noted in these two quite long paragraphs is that some interpret no self to mean it should be neither affirmed or denied, and others say that it just doesn't exist. Who is the first group - it's not something I've encountered before? I can think of the pudgalavadins who say that the self exists and is neither the same nor different to the aggregates, but that's not what was said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.174.43 (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest sticking to books, rather than Wikipedia articles like this. This article doesn't even mention Abhidharma once for example. Its pretty nonsensical.Merigar (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The tag "Essay-like|article|date=November 2012" is amusing. When it is hardly possible knowing what is known as a 'self', any attempt describing what anatta is, especially as an encyclopedic subject, we already have lots of loose english translations in this modern day, whether not-self, non-self, egolessness, the absence of a fixed entity known as a self, the absence of an fixed entity in charge, etc, etc.124.197.124.140 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Organization and expansion of the section 'Anatta in the Nikayas'

I organized the section "Anatta in the Nikayas" with subcategories for the ways in which anatta are presented in the nikayas. I did this mainly to get rid of some of the rambling, thinking I'd be able to place everything in a relevant scriptual category somewhere, but was unable to find a place for these two paragraphs. Instead of removing them completely I've put them here as parts may be useful to the article. In particular, some of the sources I think would be a good place to get more information.

The Buddha criticized as unskillful the conception of a unitary soul or identity that is immanent in all things. In fact, according to the Buddha's statement in Khandha Samyutta 47, all thoughts about self are necessarily, whether the thinker is aware of it or not, thoughts about the five aggregates or one of them. As the Khemaka Sutta points out, those who have already attained one of the lower levels of enlightenment may not identify with anything in particular, but may still have the illusion of subjectivity; that is, there may not be anything for which they think "I am this", but they may still retain the tendency to feel "I am".

At the time of the Buddha some philosophers and meditators posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. When asked about this, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, superimposed on experience. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of dukkha experienced in the present. According to one Buddhist scholar, theories of this sort have most often originated among meditators who label a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, and identify with it in a subtle way.

>>It would appear the two paragraphs I "removed" from this section are found elsewhere in the article, and should have been fixed anyway. 75.108.157.56 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I also ran into two problems dealing with citations. SN 4.400 for example doesn't appear to exist. Moreover, none of the suttas in samyutta 4 appear to deal with the relevant passage about the soul, eternalism, or annihilationism. Possibly it refers to a different naming scheme, like "S IV 400". The statements are factual and are found elsewhere in the suttas, so I've left it and added a hidden note. I did the same thing regarding this later quote, “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.”. I'm not sure if it's found in the Mahayana (Sanskrit or Chinese) versions of the sutra, or the related commentaries, but it is not found anywhere in the pali version. All results on google point to books and websites citing other books and websites.

One last note is the wording for the sutta regarding Radha. If we are to follow the pattern found in the other suttas, the wording here is non-standard and most likely incorrect. It's usually not stated "form is not the self" but instead "form is not self" or "form is not-self". "Not the self" carries a different meaning than what's found in the nikayas and I don't know of a single translator that has ever adopted this wording. Sense I do not own a copy of the Majjhima Nikaya to correct the wording, I have left it as is (this is another passage that seems to have been pulled from a website or possibly a book someplace, and not directly from the nikayas, although I don't doubt the actual sutta exists). There are other suttas that could be replaced here, indeed a far more complete sutta is found at SN 18.22 (some teachings are shortened from longer versions, 18.22 appears to be a longer, more complete version, although perhaps the shorter version is what we'd actually want to quote). 75.108.157.56 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Relationship to eternalism and annihilationism

I've removed the section on eternalism and annihilationism because, as mentioned, it's extremely poorly sourced. Likewise, the identification of nihilist with 'vinayika' is suspect, and P. Harvey's text is already way oversubscribed to. I'm not really sure that i would call it a particularly WP:RS, in that Harvey has no hesitation with including his own theories, without any demarcation. If my edit is considered too severe, I am willing to discuss further, or come to a compromise. (20040302 (talk))

Addendum. To be clear, my understanding (which may be poor) is that the normal term for 'nihilist' in the Paili is ucchedavāda. I have written extensively on the issue of eternalism and annihilationism (within the context of the Madhyamaka) on the Madhyamaka talk page which may be of interest to those who wish to restore the section here. (20040302 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC))

Well I can cite it properly, I just didn't want to write overtop of what the previous editor had put there. Specifically SN 12.17 and SN 12.35 would be good citations. Annihilationism and eternalism are subjects in the nikayas and are related to the teaching of anatta. Eternalism is rejected because it implies the existence of an eternal self and annihilationism is rejected because it implies the existence of a temporary self (that is later destroyed upon death).

Nihilism is also described by the Buddha in SN 24.5, where it's clear nihilism is just a type of annihilationism (or maybe a specific interpretation).

As for the translations here, nihlism translates to natthikavada whereas your word, ucchedavāda, translates to annihilationism.

Is the reason you don't like the section because Madhyamaka has a specific doctrine surrounding this? Because they translate the words differently? I see the use of the word "essentialism" over there... In the Pali it's pretty strait forward and I can refer you to Bhikkhu Bodhi's notes in some of his translations where he quotes the abhidhamma. I personally wasn't using Harvey as a source, that was what was already in the article. 75.108.157.56 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ok, some of that sounds reasonable. I used SN 12.17 as a reference myself in the talk I refer to above. As I mention in that talk, though, I am wary of the conflation / confusion that may be brought in via the door of explaining anatta in relation to eternalism - in that eternalists are far more adequately addressed by the doctrine of anicca. Also, I am wary of this section being merely based on Pali traditions.. To be honest I am unsure that this very lengthy article warrants the section at all (20040302 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC))

I don't know if you noticed, but the portion you removed, and the two paragraphs I removed before that, are found in the section "anatta and moral responsibility". The same person quoting Peter Harvey over and over again wrote much of the same stuff in both sections.

As for any "Pali bias" in the nikayas section, this can partially be attributed to the nikayas themselves being (originally) in Pali, with the only other complete tradition existing in Chinese. The way I assume the article is organized is that it has a section for the nikayas, and then the very next section is about texts found in Mahayana. I don't think the nikayas section should necessarily carry a Theravada/Pali bias, as it is shared between both traditions, but I think it kind of makes sense the way it is.

Other sections also appear to have a pali bias, which I agree could be fixed. If anything stands out you're more than welcome to make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.157.56 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

yes, sorry - think it very reasonable to rely upon Pali in a Nikaya section; and agree that really there is much more work to be done. I will do my best to contribute but right now I'm away for a couple of days. (20040302 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC))

Clean-up

I'm cleaning up the WP:OR of a certain (blocked) editor over a range of articles. This one's next. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of effort has been made by some editors to "prove" that there is room in Buddhism for an eternal "self"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don`t understand why this article has a big section: Anatta in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras. Is this really the right place to explain and discuss the role of self/atman in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras? JimRenge (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Western philosophy section is all original research based on primary sources.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, and remove it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, who cares about modern movements such as Thai forest tradition? Sounds like an advertisement.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Those who want to defend the notion of an eternal self in Buddhism. I think that the tathagatagarbha/buddha-nature is to be seen in its proper context, namely Chinese Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you should remove all the Thai stuff.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"I am" and self (Vedic and Hindu philosophy)

Interesting. Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadattah Maharaj follow the same reasoning: the sense of "I am" is the Self. This always seemed to contradict basic Buddhist notions, using the "wrong" ontological notions. This "confirms" it, at least for me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Original research

The following pargraph, which I removed from the lead, is WP:OR:

"The ancient Indian word for essence is atta (Pāli) or ātman (Sanskrit), and is often thought to be an eternal substance that persists despite death. Hence the term anatta is often misunderstood as refering to the denial of a self or essence. But if there is no essence for anything, one could argue that even the Noble eightfold path has no essence at all, i.e., no essential or central teaching at all. In the early texts however, this view is criticized, and nibbana is the essence of the teaching, and every experience or mental factor has an essence to the extent that it leads to nibbana. In Mahayana however, this view and the explicit denial of self are found."

• The first sentence is acceptable, though unsourced; but it fits better in the article than in the lead, since it gives an introductory explanation;
• The following three sentences ("Hence"; "But"; "however") develop an argument;
• Next comes a quote to "source" this argument;
• Which is WP:OR.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was the one that posted the above verbiage, and I agree that the present form is much better. ScientificQuest (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Horrible

I don't know what happened, but the article looks horrible now. All these recent additions read like a personal narrative or opinion. Lets leave out all the meta commentary about what Buddhism "is" or "isn't", or how Buddhism or anatta is "misunderstood". It simply adds fluff to the article. I could remove entire sections that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. My suggestion is to summarize and condense the article. Like most forms of writing, the key to a good article is knowing when to leave things out. 75.108.159.239 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nibbanna and anatta

This section used to be a lot better. Instead of fixing it, I just removed it. There's no reason for it to be more than a couple sentences long. Nobody cares about different Buddhist philosophers and their personal disagreements with each other. I recommend a simple summary of the two or three viewpoints present here, without reference to any of these disputes between academics, or any argument whatsoever for why one view is better than the other.

Remember that there are multiple viewpoints, and that they all need to be given equal weight in the article. Do not list two contrasting opinions and then present an argument for why your opinion is better than the other. 75.108.159.239 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Again

Again a long post by @ScientificQuest:. I don't think it's nonsense what you write, but it reads like a personal analysis, from a Theravada point of view. Why don't you start a blog or so? This is the third time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua: This is not my personal opinion. I have cited articles, translated works, and if you want I can provide you actual quotes by eminent Buddhist scholars in the western world such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Bodhi. and Gil Fronsdal. Yes, of course it is a Theravada perspective - but:

1. I have written ONLY in the Theravada section of the article. I did not touch the Mahayana section. Given that there is already a section saying "Anatta in Mahayana", the article should rightfully include at least a substantial section from the Theravada perspective. Are you an expert in the Theravada perspective to be able to say that my post is not generally held in the Theravada world? What are your qualifications to make such a claim?

1. Given that Anatta is a Pali word, it merits a significant portion of this article. Can you give me strong reasons why the Theravada perspective must not be represented at all? Is there a Wikipedia guideline that says that perspectives of different religious sects should not be written, while clearly indicating that it is a perspective of that specific sect, and also citing specific sources? I am not speaking for all of Buddhism. But what guideline prevents us from writing the facts?

If this were indeed my own personal opinion, I would have surely written a blog. But this is not my opinion. I am quoting actual scholars. Indeed I did include more citations from Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi, but that is a matter of finding appropriate reference documents from the literature. I am already attending a masters in Buddhist studies program where Gil Fronsdal is the dean, and I have clearly heard this repeated several times by many sources, and this perspective is seemingly present in most of the Theravada world in the 21st century. It is agreed that before the late 19th century the Theravada world was NOT united in their opinion on this matter and debates raged on this matter. But the scholarly record clearly shows that since 1940s there has been a greater consensus. In fact those that do NOT take this view on Anatta have now become the fringe minority! And I can cite sources for even this claim from peer reviewed articles from the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society and the Journal of the Pali Text Society.

Finally, none of this is my original research. This is the commonly held opinion as seen in peer reviewed journal papers. That being so, is it not a Wikipedia value and goal to present the generally accepted scholarly perspective?

Please enlighten me. I don't know much about the specifics of the Wikipedia rules.ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

HI SQ. I appreciate your efforts, and I don't think it's nonsense. But it reads like a personal opinion. I'm happy to read that you attend a masters program; it also means that you know how to work with sources. So, use them! Threat Wikipedia as an academic research article, and use those sources, and use the best you can find. I know that Harvey wrote a book on this theme; Gombrich and Bronkhorst may also have info. And I guess there may be more. Then, other editors may still be critical, but at least you can refer then to those sources. WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV give further clues on working with sources. Succes!

@JimRenge: @Tengu800: Any additions or helpfull comments here? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: Bikkhu Bodhi is not an academic source; you can use him as an additional source, but academic sources are preferred. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi ScientificQuest, just to say, that Joshua Jonathan has done many major edits of articles on Buddhism recently that have been contentious. In particular massive rewrites of Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Nirvana (Buddhism) and Dzogchen. I am in the process of preparing a DRN notice about his activities, and found this through your post to his user talk page. I plan to mention this article also, for his reverts of your edits, and for his major edits in July 2013 removing all the material on the anatta debate in Thailand -and other sections. For our draft notices, see User_talk:Dorje108#Dispute_overview_.28latest_version.2C_very_short.29. I don't know anything about your topic area, but seems to me that given my experience of his previous actions on other articles, and given that you are doing a masters in Buddhist studies, that it is unlikely that his reverts of your many edits of this article were justified. He also has what many of us consider to be eccentric views on what are acceptable sources to use for articles on Buddhism so I wouldn't take his remark on Bikkhu Bodhi too seriously - this is part of an on going dispute about what sources are acceptable and he is presenting his own view on the dispute here. Robert Walker (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)