Talk:Anattā/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 major rewrites of Karma in Buddhism, Four Noble Truths, Nirvana (Buddhism) and Dzogchen in some cases without any prior discussion. 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 Dispute overview. 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. His views on acceptable sources for articles on Buddhism are contended by other editors, so I wouldn't take his remark on Bikkhu Bodhi too seriously - this is part of an on going dispute about what counts as acceptable sources in this topic area and he is presenting his own view in this dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert, stop your WP:HARASSMENT, and contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is harassment. I'm in process of preparing a DRN notice on your activities and it is reasonable to investigate other edits by the editor concerned in the context of a major issue like this. I found out about this through his post to your talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In the context of all your other behavior, it is harassment.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 11:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What I see here is that ScientificQuest did many edits of the article which you reverted without discussion. He said he could find more citations to back up his content. Following the wikipedia guidelines, it was not correct to just delete his content and not give him the opportunity to add citations to it. The reversion was also done without any discussion of the actual content removed. Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There are so many problems with that statement, I don't know where to begin.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems as best I understand it. Robert Walker (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He's been reverted two times before, with the support of Jim and Vic. SQ can reinsert his info any time, with sources. I'm looking forward to it, because I've good hopes that he's a valuable editor, who's able to use the sources he's been reading in a useful way. And now please stop here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

SQ, you have written: "Finally, none of this is my original research. This is the commonly held opinion as seen in peer reviewed journal papers." Please cite these peer reviewed journal papers. Using sutras as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them is considered bad practice. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view.

"(...) 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." Please present the evidencence , it would be very useful! JimRenge (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pre Buddhist Upanishads?

The section Relation to Vedic and Hindu philosophy talks about the "Pre Buddhist Upanishads" and then goes on to mention the Chandogya Upanishad, which current scholarship seems to date to around 500 BCE - about the same time as the Buddha. Is this work then strictly speaking "Pre-Buddhist"? Chris Fynn (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No (I guess). As far as I know, only two Upanishads seem to predate Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion

I am amazed at your claim that Bhikkhu Bodhi would not qualify as a reliable source. Bodhi is the President of the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy Sri Lanka. He is the author of several of the most highly cited (Springer Citation index says it is more than 100, Google scholar says more than 115) translations of the various Nikayas of the Pali Canon. Citations of Bodhi include people like Richard Gombrich, D J Kalupahana and many others. Bhikkhu Bodhi's student Bhikkhu Analayo is a professor at the Center of Buddhist Studies at the University of Hamburg.

I have a MS in Electrical Engineering and also MS in Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have a full-time job in the electronics industry, and am now also doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit (distance-learning program) from Benares Hindu University. So I know very well about citing sources in academic articles. But the criteria you mention (rejecting widely read scholars on Buddhism) is nowhere understood in academia and in fact goes completely against good academic policy. In religion, those that practice the religion know much more than those who just publish to increase their h-index.

A Wikipedia article is NOT an academic Journal paper and the standards of such papers cannot be applied here. It is meant to present a neutral position of various sources, not synthesizing new material from the sources themselves.

Hence I argue that Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Analayo, or Thanissaro Bhikkhu (and any other scholar monk - which by the way itself is a very stringent criterion) would qualify as far better sources for articles on religious doctrines. University Professors may or may not have the maturity required to understand a religious doctrine. And as is the commonly acceptable criterion for religious knowledge, when there is a dissonance between a university professor or an academic (even if it is me) and a reputed scholar monk, the words of the reputed scholar monk override those of the academic. ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Analayo, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu indeed are not reliable sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

SQ, I've got a MA (theology) and a MSc (psychology of religion & sociology of organisations); I've been editing Wikipedia for three years now; and I'm practicing Buddhism for more than 25 years now; so, I know something about scientific citations, about how Wikipedia works, and about Buddhism. This being said, let me repeat: you've got very interesting information to share. I'm looking forward to more of it. But just simply cite your sources.

Regarding "religious knowledge": Wikipedia is not about religious knowledge, it's about verifiable information. Please do read WP:RS. If you think that "the words of the reputed scholar monk override those of the academic", then don't edit Wikipedia, but do start your own blog. As a Dutch administrator stated: "Being enlightened is not a criterium for Wikipedia; reliable sources are." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In this Joshua Jonathan is stating a personal opinion in a topic that has been subject of RfC here: RfC: Are texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts reliable secondary sources?. The RfC was equally balanced with strong oppose as well as support votes. In such a situation Joshua Jonathan's view on this matter surely shouldn't be taken as wikipedia poliy! I would argue myself strongly that scholar bikkhus are of course acceptable sources for wikipedia articles on Buddhism, and indeed, more reliable sources, generally, than many of the Western scholars. There are also Western academic scholars that are excellent or course. And surely will be scholar bikkhus surely who are not so good. It is on a case per case basis and not on the basis of whether they are a bikkhu or the country or tradition or method of study by which they learnt their scholarship. And your arguments for your sources to be accepted seem excellent to me. I'm fully in support of your views here!! Robert Walker (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ScientificQuest: If someone like Bhikkhu Bodhi is cited by as many scholars as you say he is, then why do you need to directly cite Bhikkhu Bodhi? You can probably just cite the works of those scholars where they summarize, explain and analyse what Bhikku Bodhi says. Citations or quotes by scholars in secondary sources does not mean that the sources they are citing qualify as good secondary sources. Secondary sources are those which critically analyse what primary - and other secondary - sources say, so naturally they quote or cite the sources they are examining.

Now I don't think we can say that all books or articles by scholars who are also Buddhist monks, nuns or religious teachers are poor or unreliable sources as some seem to be trying to argue. Of course where scholar who is also a Buddhist practitioner is primarily writing in his/her role a Buddhist teacher or for a publisher of Buddhist books they will likely be presenting only, or mainly, the Insiders view which may (at least for outsiders) be one sided or biased, but if that same scholar is working in a modern academic setting and writing an article for a peer reviewed journal or a book for a serious academic publisher, which have different sorts of standards, then they may be presenting a more neutral view. By the same token just because a person is a prestigious professor doesn't mean that everything that person writes on a subject is balanced and neutral - sometimes such people may write very opinionated pieces. Some academics, based on their research and interpretations, write books with controversial, contrary or novel views or interpretations not widely shared by other academics - of course if those views on a subject are significant, they should be included in any WP article on that subject - but not in a way which implies those views are the norm or widely held.

You are right when you say that Wikipedia articles are NOT an academic Journal paper and the standards of such papers do not apply here. Of course - the main job of academic journals is to present original research by academics in the field - while the job of an encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, is to have articles which summarize and represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic of the article.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you Chris. If there is a Wikipedia article on Einstein's theory of relativity, we do quote and cite Einstein himself, along with other sources. The number of citations is so many that there is really no doubt about the validity of Einstein's theory, and his own work is directly read, instead of reading later citations of his work. Furthermore, if a text is used as a textbook in a world-class university at a graduate level, (which is clearly listed as a valid reliable source on [this page|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources]) then I don't see why one wouldn't cite the work itself. In any case, as you can see below, it is not that I cannot cite peer-reviewed journal papers. But I strongly feel that citing them on a religious matter is empty - it doesn't indicate that the people actually practicing the religion really believe what these academics are writing in Journals. Hence I hold the view that peer-reviewed Journal publications would NOT be as reliable as the those practicing the religion itself. If this were an article about the culture of the country, or the history of the religion, I would concede fully that peer-reviewed academic Journal papers would weigh more than a religious person, because out of enthusiasm for their own religion, a religious person might make tall claims about its history. But when it comes to understanding a matter of religious doctrine, the people of the religion themselves matter more, because they are less likely to misrepresent the actual religion - obviously they want their religion to be well-understood by others. But academics writing about a religious doctrine are less likely to spend the time required to fully grasp a doctrine and may do a superficial analysis.ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: Sure if an article is about Einstein or his theories you can directly quote Einstein, and if the article is about Bhikkhu Bodhi you can quote him. It is easy to verify what either wrote - and where they wrote in English, it should need little or no interpretation. As far as what the Buddha taught or said we don't have anything we actually know he said ~ or even what language he used. We just have compilations of texts representing what different groups claim or believed he said. On any subject like Annata, based on what they believe the Buddha said, there will also be many different interpretations amongst Buddhists of just what Buddha meant when he purportedly talked about Annata. Then different scholars of Buddhism will likely have different views of what these different (contemporary and historical) groups of Buddhists actually believe or understand on the subject Annata. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's the whole point here. Why does him being a Bikkhu disqualify him as a secondary source in this topic area? Why say that you can only use Bikkhu's as sources when the things they say are backed up by Western sources. It just makes no sense to me. Try doing it the other way around, that theologians can't be used as sources if they are Christian? Robert Walker (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Fynn - you're 100% right about the fact that we only have compilations of texts representing what different groups claim or believed he said. And indeed on subjects like Anatta there are clearly differing opinions. That is precisely why, authors of peer-reviewed Journal papers are no more accurate than a Buddhist monk in interpreting what the Buddha really meant by Anatta. However, given that Buddhist monks come in a tradition of people that practice and believe in Buddhist doctrines, even if their opinion is not evidence of what the Buddha taught, it is definitely a representative of the active opinion of several practicing Buddhist communities. On the contrary, the opinion of some academic author is just his own personal analysis or synthesis of the doctrine - which may or may not accord with how the doctrine is actually practiced in the religious community. Hence citing those authors could sometimes mislead people about the actual beliefs of a religious community. ScientificQuest (talk)

Note however, that on matters of history I would NOT admit Bhikkhus as relevant sources. For example, Bhikkhu Bodhi in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha claims that "...these words were surely from the Master's repertory...", while Gil Fronsdal is very careful to point out the fact that there is really no evidence that what we have today as scripture was what the Buddha actually spoke, or even that these were exactly what the original compilers of the Suttas collected. So matters of history definitely deserve to be cited with empirical evidence, but on matters of doctrine, we have to get it from the right source - which is the one that has mastered the doctrine and put it into practice - or at least try to do so.ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Sources on Anatta

Alright! Here are some of the sources that I shall be using. I shall mention them here so you can examine them right-away. When I do use them, I request the following:

1. I should be allowed a reasonable amount of time to word, quote, and edit the article properly and provide the right sources.
2. Even if I agree to present these sources, I insist on presenting the fact that the statements I make on the Anatta page will be supported by these sources as well as sources like Thanissaro Bhikkhu etc. The reason being that it must be very well known that these ideas about anatta are not the personal opinions of some academic quack, but are actually adopted and practiced by monks in the Theravada world as well.
3. In case there is a statement that is not properly sourced, I request that instead of arrogantly reverting all my edits, someone that is sincerely concerned ask me directly for secondary sources. It is important to help me understand what that means in Wikipedia since I am clearly new to this process. Is this acceptable?

Now some of the sources (this is not all, but since I'm not editing the article right now, I'm picking these off-hand):

1. Albahari, Miri. "Against No-Ātman Theories of Anattā." Asian Philosophy 12.1 (2002): 5-20.
2. Fontana, David. "Self-assertion and self-negation in Buddhist psychology", Journal of Humanistic Psychology 27(2), 175-195, 1987
3. Yozan Dirk Mosig. "Conceptions of the self in western and eastern psychology", Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1-2):39, 2006
4. J. Perez-Remon, Self and non-self in early Buddhism, vol 22, Walter de Gruyter, Mouton Publishers, the Netherlands, 1980

ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ScientificQuest: A better way to proceed - particularly if your edits are likely to be challenged by other editors of this article - might be to make a copy of this article in your own userspace and make the changes you want to there. Then, on this talk page, you can invite other editors to look at those proposed changes or additions and comment. Once there is some sort of consensus that your changes or additions should be included in the article you can migrate those changes here. This way avoids confrontations and edit wars. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Bah! I have a full-time job and I'm working on multiple graduate degrees. If you want to make editing a page this hard for me, I'd rather not do it at all! Wikipedia editors are not worth so much of my time. I'd rather spend that time more constructively than argue with mindless Wikipedia editors and try to win their consensus. Please remember that facts are facts - they don't change based on the lack of consensus. I refuse to care about the opinions of editors who themselves have no credentials in Buddhism, unless they too present equally strong evidence.ScientificQuest (talk)

@ScientificQuest: That was only a suggestion of one way to proceed if you think your edits are likely to be controversial. Reaching some sort of consensus, or at least agreement from a few other editors involved in this article, may in fact save time over making controversial edits which might descend into an edit war which could go on and on for ages. Of course if your edits are well sourced and attributed you can just go ahead an make them. BTW Please don't be so dismissive of others, I've been studying Buddhism for 45 years, living in Buddhist countries for more than 25 years, am fluent in Tibetan language (written and spoken), and have been editing Wikipedia articles for almost 10 years. Like you I also have a full time job. I'm sure some other editors are at least as qualified as you or I and are just as busily engaged outside Wikipedia. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I'll consider your suggestions. But can I first know if the sources I have mentioned are acceptable? If I present such sources, would it be fine?ScientificQuest (talk)

They sound Yummy!!! Go ahead, I'm looking forward. I'll give comments at the talkpage. Chris, thanks for your friendly reply. Nevertheless, I've given my credentials above, so I'd prefer not be called "mindless". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from the details you have provided they look perfectly acceptable. If the views of these writers present may be controversial, just present them in a neutral way and clearly attribute them to the particular scholars - and avoid presenting them as if they are widely held if they aren't or that they represent some kind of definitive "truth". Try to present all the significant views on Annata in a summary style (without giving minority views undue weight because you happen to like their arguments) and leave it to the reader to make any judgements they want to. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris - that's a totally unreasonable request and also counter to the Wikipedia advice on forking articles. By the time his version is ready the mainspace version is likely to have changed - and then you have the problem of the history trail. Robert Walker (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the introduction to a book of translations of the Sutras as a source

User:ScientificQuest and User:Joshua Jonathan - this came up in a facebook discussion of this debate and thought it would be helpful. Of course a translation of the sutras is a primary source. But SQ's citation wasn't to any of the translations, but to the introduction' to the translations.

His cite says: "See Introduction of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, by Bhikkhu Ñānamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications".

For the introduction, see The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha.

An introduction to a book of translations by a famous translator is of course an excellent secondary source. Another example of an excellent secondary source in a discussion of a particular sutra would be a footnote to a translation of that sutra by an expert scholar translator. Robert Walker (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Constructive comments

Hi SQ. I'll try to give some constructive comments to your last series of edits, which I reverted:

• Lead: "In Buddhism [etc] recommended" - then folows already the Theravada perspective, instead of a "general" (if that exists) perspective.
• Nikayas - Theravada: apparently you changed "Nikayas" into "Theravada." Theravada is not the same as the Nikayas or the oldest Buddhism; it's a certain interpretation of the Nikayas.
• "Anatta is not a rejection of a self, but is a strategy to see things differently. At the same time, beliefs in the existence of a self are not compatible with the Buddha's teachings either." - unsourced; reads like an essay.
• "Because most philosophers focus on asserting or rejecting a self, (Many Indian philosophers before, during, and after the Buddha propounded various theories of self. Even the philosophy of Romanticsm involved the assumption that the self is one with the universe, which is a form of self-view.) when people approach Buddhism, they assume it is answering the same questions. Thus they approach the Dhamma with the assumption that anatta is the basic framework, and wonder how karma could ever fit into such a framework. (For example: "If there is no self, then who or what is reborn?") But this brings assumptions that have no bearing on the Buddha's way of teaching. The Buddha's central teaching framework was karma, which details the strategies of skillful action that can lead to long-term happiness." - was this text yours? I don't know. But this too reads like an essay.
• "The Buddha's central teaching framework was karma, which details the strategies of skillful action that can lead to long-term happiness." - sounds very nice, and yet... karma does not "detail", on the contrary; it was one of several terms being used in the oldest Buddhism. And skilful action is not supposed to lead to "long-term happiness", it's supposed to lead to liberation. "Long-term happiness" sounds like modern well-being jargon.
• "In early Buddhism, a view or a belief was also considered an action, because views do have consequences. For example, if one believes that there is no moral impact of actions then the consequences can be very harmful, causing one to behave very dangerously. Another example from modern history is the Nazi belief in racial superiority, which led to the Holocaust and the Second World War."

• "a view or a belief was also considered an action, because views do have consequences." - great sentence! Though I do question the "because"; what's the source? The examples are problematic, I think; at least they should be attributed.

• "The gradual path of the Buddhist practice can be seen in two different parts: one leading up to concentration, and one proceeding from concentration. The path leading up to concentration depends on the other seven path factors (Anupubbikatha) (source: Ganakamoggallana Sutta: The Discourse to Ganaka-Moggallana" (MN 107), translated from the Pali by I.B. Horner. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.107.horn.html)" - this is a Theravada view. it's quite ancient, but not the oldest Buddhism. See Vetter, "Ideas and practices of earliest Buddhism", and Bronkhorst "The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India".
• "progressively subtler happiness" - you may be right here, but you're giving an overview, c.q. interpretation, of primary sources. Is it relevant, is it WP:UNDUE? I don't know... Do you?
• "Although all of these levels of happiness are skillful, and recommended on the way to liberation, they still do not match the happiness of complete liberation from samsāra [rest of section]" - Is this relevant, such a long section on the Theravda-view of the Path? it seems too long to me.
• Identity-view (sakkāya diṭṭhi) - interesting section, but again, reliance on primary sources, and no attribution.
• "But this does not mean that the perception of self is totally destroyed upon liberation. There are parts of the Pali Canon," - ai... interpretation of primary sources; and again, essay-like.
• Existence and Non-existence - interesting, but no context.

I hope this helps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Pudgalavāda in Tibet?. One important aspect this Wikipedia article currently lacks is the views of the Pudgalavādins who did believe in some kind of self and were an important orthodox Buddhist school at one time. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks! I'll copy it my e-reader. You know, anatta, "non-I", is the reason that I'm a Buddhist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: There is also a wide divergence of opinions on "non-self" amongst different Mahayana authors of Tibet. e.g. Tsongkhapa and his followers (the Gelug) place a strong emphasis on the validity of conventional reality/truth including a conventional self, others completely deny the validity of conventional reality, and then there are the Shentongpas whose critics claim are Atmavadins. Some Tibetan writers also make a clear and important distinction between the Indian Cittamatrin and Yogacara schools and their views in while others (like much western scholarship) lump the two together. Actually the whole topic of Anatta / Anatman in Buddhism is vast. It might be better just to briefly summarize the different views in this article and then have separate articles that individually discuss each of the main views. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in mind - that he had had only one day to work on it. When content is first added to a wikipedia article it typically does have many errors. So - it's not a reason to revert all his edits that you found a few issues in them. And what's more this is just one wikipedia editor finding issues in another editor's content. With no particular reason to suppose that you are better qualified than him, except that you are more experienced at editing wikipedia.

And you have many errors in your early drafts of your articles also. I discussed a few of them in Talk:Karma in Buddhism and then gave up when it was clear you weren't going to roll back. But your writing on Buddhist topics is certainly not error free when you first post, and often these errors persist right to the present. So it seems rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me. Robert Walker (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Constructive Feedback

Hi Joshua, Chris, Victoria, and Robert. Please don't mind my personal note - since I made some bad personal remarks here earlier, I figure it is only right for me to write a personal apology. And again, instead of writing on your individual talk pages, I decided to own it up in public.

Joshua, thanks a lot for your very constructive feedback. I really appreciate this line-by-line feedback of exactly what went wrong in my post. It keeps it to facts, and states exactly what the problem is with the style. Coming from a background of writing for academic Journals, I can see my tendency to write original research - because arguably that's what academics do (unless perhaps they're editing Wikipedia pages). So I acknowledge your criticism and I stand corrected. When I first saw you roll back my edits, I did not get a detailed line-by-line analysis of my post or a clear explanation for why it was reverted so drastically. Instead I got short a message on my talk page saying "I have reverted your changes...this is the third time...blah blah..." This led me to believe that I was being victimized. And I also believed that someone had started believing that the Anatta page on Wikipedia belonged to them. In my own little story you were the villain and I was the victim and I therefore may have said personal things about you. (I hope I got the facts so far.) I apologize for using dismissive words or perhaps even getting a little indignant. But I appreciate the criticism - especially because it is fact-based and says exactly what you find is wrong with each part of it.

Since you took the pains to do this for my write-up, I will respond back and write a short set of edits and propose them on the main Anatta page. Feel free to correct the language and style if you want - I might be new to that. So please, let us make this a collaborative effort. I really feel that this page needs some edits, and they can really make the page constructive in the long run. But I am not an expert at editing Wikipedia and will need your help here in ensuring the wording is good. I agree to try and keep my statements unbiased - but if you spot something wrong, please point it out on my talk page (with exact line and citing what exactly you find wrong with it) and we can work on it together.

Is that agreed? Shall we all start afresh and forgive our excesses? If I have hurt anyone else, please accept my sincere apologies.

All that said, I would like to still record my disagreement with some of you on one matter. I do NOT think that authors of peer-reviewed Journal papers would necessarily have a good understanding on matters of religious doctrine. I can say this being a person in the field, and being an academic myself. There are a lot of quacks out there in academia and it is not worth the time and energy of a serious researcher to rebut the poorly researched Journal articles of some other quack. And if a good researcher does write a rebuttal, his rebuttal would be published as citing the first crappy article!! This is not the case in the sciences - there if an experimental result is not verifiable, a Journal can retract a paper. But in areas like philosophy, where each philosopher is himself/herself allowed to interpret another philosophy, it is next to impossible to get papers retracted. Instead, both the poorly researched paper and the good paper get published as two different points of view! I know this first-hand because I have to sift through the crap for my master's thesis.

But more importantly, when we talk of doctrinal matters, we are talking about what people in the religious community actually believe - not the history or socio-political context of the scriptures or anything. For the latter, I agree that peer-reviewed Journal papers would be better to cite. But for an encyclopedia to present a truthful unbiased fact on matters of religious doctrine, it should take into account what the practicing religious community actually thinks about that doctrine, rather than solely relying on academic quacks who don't really practice the religion. And Anatta is a matter of doctrine - not history or science.

I agree that sources like Bhikkhu X or Bhikkhu Y shouldn't be used exclusively, that is, I believe they can be used, along with other secondary sources if available - but if not available, then used along with other primary sources to get a proportionate balance of views in the article. But I feel that their scholarship does have an overriding effect on doctrinal matters - not on historical or socio-political matters. This is especially because they're world-wide reputed, cited widely by other scholars, and their written works are actually used as textbooks in universities - now that fact alone potentially qualifies such a source as a secondary source by own standards. I know that Chris asked me to cite those that cite Bhikkhu X and Bhikkhu Y. But many of them cite them in a way that doesn't represent the actual religious idea, but proposes some of their own novel ideas which the religious community at large doesn't believe! Not all secondary sources are like that, some are good - and that's why I have agreed to produce secondary sources too.

However, if it is a matter of the history of a religion, or the history of a religious text, then I fully agree that peer-reviewed Journal papers are more reliable on the average.

ScientificQuest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the apologies! They are highly appreciated. I understand your point on "academic" versus "practitioners"; I think you can use both. Though academics are preferred, "insider sources" can also be used. Just be carefull to contextualise them. When you've got doubts about academic sources, please share your doubts; most people around here love a good academical discussion. Maybe you should take a look at Kensho; it's a mixture of academic and "insider sources", which gives a critical account, but also uses "illustrations" from inside. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi SA, thanks for your reply, and some things you said were very helpful. I will not say any more at this point and will leave this conversation because JJ took me to ANI with a proposal of a topic ban, and then an interaction ban with him, with this conversation as one of the two main reasons for the proposal. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Madhyamaka - Primary deletion.

I note that today the entire contribution to the Madhyamaka section was deleted for being a primary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anatta&oldid=645294568

I'm not impressed. Secondary sources are better sources that Primary sources, but something is better than nothing. Moreover, there is a very rich commentarial tradition within the Himalayan tradition, with established monastic universities following academic rigour and peer review that matches current western scholarship. The conclusions of this analysis has been repeated by many modern sources. cf. Jay Garfield, and others.

If you do not like to see primary sources, then do something about it, rather than just delete. (20040302 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

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)

These comments may look like a blog post, but the points are cogent and relevant. There is a reasonable expectation that there are citable sources in support of them. Granted the author has left others to discover and report those citable sources. But if this article were informed only by less than scholarly publications it might suggest the teaching is ultimately that there is no such thing as "me". I very much doubt that's what the teaching is or that such a thing could be taught responsibly to anyone with a spouse or children.75.118.189.31 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2016 (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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anatta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105023250/http://www.tysonwilliams.com/archives/what_is_the_nature_of_the_mindstream_that_reincarnates_from_lifetime_to_lifetime.html to http://www.tysonwilliams.com/archives/what_is_the_nature_of_the_mindstream_that_reincarnates_from_lifetime_to_lifetime.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bronkhorst

@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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

See also Bronkhorst (2009), Buddhist Teaching in India, p.22 ff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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 – 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. The Kaccayanagotta Sutta. (20040302 (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC))

@Joshua Jonathan:, @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. 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 how the author shows scholars wish to tie atman to Buddhism (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 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@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. (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 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. 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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. 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 antonyms and cannot be explained separately.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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ms Sarah Welch. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2510:8C00:E8A6:DF48:67E5:9CD5 (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

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.--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. 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. 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.--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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence of much impact yet, but this could change. Right now I see two cites on Google Scholar, one of which is Walser's own.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

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. @Joshua Jonathan: would you check and scrub the Nagarjuna/Vasubandhu-related content, I agree with JW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Joseph Walser 13:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Joseph Walser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

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? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like someone took out the phrase "The ancient Buddhist texts present an extensive discussion and rejection of the 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

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. 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article by Joseph: When Did Buddhism Become Anti-Brahmanical? The Case of the Missing Soul. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Ramana Maharshi. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(ps)JW: if you end your comment with four "~", like ~~~~, wiki code will convert it into your sign and date it. Helps the talk page watchers. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Walser (talk • contribs)

I checked Wynne (2011) that JW mentions above. Wynne writes (pp. 103-104):

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".
– Alexander Wynne (2011), The atman and its negation, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies.
(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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)