Talk:Anattā

More comments

Hello, The comment I would make is that Anatta is the 'enlightenment moment', that nearly everyone who discusses Anatta start with the Buddha's comment that his great insight was that we have no seperate soul, then invariable people say 'but', or 'however' etc. Stop! The message is quite clear if somewhat challenging, if people have not experienced or grasped the depth or meaning of Anatta can they leave the discussion. Western thought and philosophy are so tangled with the duality proposed by Christianity that its almost impossible to imagine a singularity where everything is of this demension. Anatta is misunderstood, it stands alone and does contradict other teachings, especially Karma. So be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.45.20 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Anatta nowhere in the Nikayas is used as a denial of the Atman

Anatta nowhere in the Nikayas is used as a denial of the Atman (skt: atman, pali: attan), as such:

I don't think the doctrine is the point, the term is pretty simply, its no soul, or no separate soul! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.45.20 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[SN 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul. Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”

Anatta is never used in standalone anywhere in doctrine. All 662 occurrences of the term are qualifiers of phenomena as being "na me so atta" (not my soul). As such the personal conjecture of religious Buddhism is often wholly contradictory to doctrine.

The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).

Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman], such as passage (SN 1.169).

     Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane, consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism.

     The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if there “was no- soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra (and Vedanta as well) is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm (and the most common repeating passage in sutta) as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), this most common utterance of Gotama the Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutta, to hold the view that there was “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = natthika (nihilist). Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That[Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa/ or khandhas, mere self as = anatta) i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite’ [SN 2.77] both of this positions are existential antinomies, and heresies of annihilationism])’”. In contrast it has been incorrectly asserted that affirmation of the atman is = sassatavada (conventionally deemed ‘eternalism’). However the Pali term sasastavada is never associated with the atman, but that the atman was an agent (karmin) in and of samsara which is subject to the whims of becoming (bhava), or which is meant kammavada (karma-ism, or merit agencyship); such as sassatavada in sutta = “atta ca so loka ca” (the atman and the world [are one]), or: ‘Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi ‘the all is entirety’, and sabbamekattan ‘the all is one’s Soul’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of perpetualism]). Sasastavada is the wrong conception that one is perpetually (sassata) bound within samsara and that merit is the highest attainment for either this life or for the next. The heretical antinomy to nihilism (vibhava, or = ucchedavada) is not, nor in sutta, the atman, but bhava (becoming, agencyship). Forever, or eternal becoming is nowhere in sutta identified with the atman, which is “never an agent (karmin)”, and “has never become anything” (=bhava). These antinomies of bhava (sassatavada) and vibhava (ucchedavada) both entail illogical positions untenable to the Vedantic or Buddhist atman; however the concept of “eternalism” as = atman has been the fallacious secondary crutch for supporting the no-atman commentarialists position on anatta implying = there is no atman. 

This is not a blog. Ogress _smash! 00:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some possible origins of this "blog". NB: "soul" is a poor translation of "atman", I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't spoil the identity of this gentleman, but he's received 'excellent' reviews for his translations, qualified as "fake" and totally non-knowledgeable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem with Buddhism and Anatta, Budhism splits over the concept of a reincarnate soul and impermanence. Karma is dependent on a reincarnate soul, the ego is dependent on a reincarnate soul. Maybe the truth is that there is no reincarnate soul. This is the point of the discussion, if you wish to fantasize that you have a reincarnate soul, that you are an 'old' soul or that you are 'nearing' enlightenment then you may wish to be brave enough to accept the possibility that you have no separate 'soul'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.45.20 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC) So we are back with the Karma thingo again,. Look I'm not the Western Australia Monk, I'm not going to tell you who I am as the 'authority of the person is not important,. You keep referring to the Buddist teachings etc, that's all well and good but this is a page about Anatta, and by any measure its being bent by the demand that it fits into your Karma understanding and the duality of the soul, transcendental nature etc. I find it quite bizarre,. its like someone writing on the 'Black' wiki page that its more like white than black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.45.20 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to cling to?

Surely the concept arises from the simpler prescription that any 'clinging/attachment' stands in the way of nirvana and one of the strongest human 'clingings' is to the idea of an "I" or self. So anatta simply suggests that clinging to the idea of a self stands in the way of enlightenment.

The article doesn't provide the Buddha's different explanation of re-incarnation, which without the concept of a soul, is difficult to explain: what then passes from one life to the next? The Buddha supposedly (sorry, don't have the reference) explained it as being similar to the passing of a flame from one candle to another. In my view, the whole notion of karma and denial of a soul unnecessarily complicated Buddhism almost as much as the Trinity made things difficult for Early Christianity. For one, the Buddha entered into territory where humans have no direct knowledge, thus breaking with the Buddha's own suggestion that such speculation was unprofitable. But the whole would have been less complicated if, as Adi Shankara suggested (and was condemned for being a Buddhist), Buddhism had allowed for a soul that would have to be surrendered in one's final life if one wished to become enlightened.

Apologies for embarking on a discussion of the topic, but hope this at least illustrates some of the puzzles I see in the concept of anatta.

--50.68.134.51 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)