How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

[tiltbillings]

With Hindus, many have a belief in atman. Why push it? It's someone's belief. Yeah, they are going to try and see the Buddha's dharma through that pov, but isnt that understandable? Muslims do that with Christianity and Judaism, they read the same books but spin it their way.

Why push it? Because it might make a difference, or it might not; because debate can have an entertainment value. Also, it is a time honored thing between Buddhists and Hindus. Just don't get into an aggressive, hostile mind set, or you might end up like Aryadeva, the Madhyamika who was such a powerful debater and awfully annoying in that he could successfully beat any one's position that some Hindus killed him.

Imagine getting in the middle of that debate..!?

In my view everything is emptiness/no-thing-ness at its core, so folks can call things as they like.

A lot of Buddhists would not agree with that.

I could be wrong,

Yep.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Greetings


Im still in debate with a Hindu (follower of non-dualism school) and he keeps asserting that there is Atman/Brahman

Denying Atman is in some sense, affirming it. When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

If you outright reject the existence of sentient beings, who is currently speaking and who are you speaking to? And what is it that bears karma and is reborn? It is sentient beings: sentient beings bear karma and are reborn, but sentient beings are notself. I wouldn't bother with the Hindu. He might be deluded, maybe not.

Darn that's a good post.

[jcsuperstar]

i u tilt

[Cittasanto]

Greetings


Im still in debate with a Hindu (follower of non-dualism school) and he keeps asserting that there is Atman/Brahman

Denying Atman is in some sense, affirming it. When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

If you outright reject the existence of sentient beings, who is currently speaking and who are you speaking to? And what is it that bears karma and is reborn? It is sentient beings: sentient beings bear karma and are reborn, but sentient beings are notself. I wouldn't bother with the Hindu. He might be deluded, maybe not.

there is a sutta where the buddha is asked the same questions generally and gives the same responce.

No self, self, not self, all possitions

[nathan]

no matter how you view your self
and no matter how they describe it
most every religion swiftly proceeds to getting over it

[Individual]

Denying Atman is in some sense, affirming it.

One does not have to deny it. All that is necessary is to show that when the notion is pushed, it ends up looking just like one or other of the khandhas. As Douglas Adams said: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands, or atman ends up making no sense.

What precisely is this "Douglas Adams" you are referring to? What's a Douglas Adams?

Do you acknowledge the existence of the mind? Of course you do. Do you acknowledge the existence of many minds? I assume so. Do you acknowledge that, of the many minds, every mind is connected with only a single body? I assume you acknowledge that too... And so, well, that's a sentient being: A single mind connected within a single body.

When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

Please quote the text for this claim.

I took it from Ven. Thanissaro's essay here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.

'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'

'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

'No, Lord.'

'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings Individual



what about

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."

and

"But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?"

"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone has this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present."

both from

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Individual]

Greetings Individual



what about

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."

and

"But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?"

"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone has this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present."

both from

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have seen before in biblical debates, where a person will cite one passage from the Bible supporting one position and, as a counterargument, another person will cite another passage from the Bible apparently contradicting the previous passage... and yet, without apparently explaining the contradiction. This is a lazy dialectic and it would disturb me to see the same trend in discussions of the Tipitaka.

Remember that the Tipitaka also states that an inference can be made from the text which is perfectly logical, and yet still be completely, totally false. Why do you think the Buddha might say that outright denying the existence of self implies eternalism?

I don't think criticism fo Advaita needs two threads in a Buddhist forum, but I will say that the "Atman" of Advaita is not the same as the "atman" of Buddhism, and it's a misunderstanding to suggest that the Atman of Advaita equates with taking the universe or the cosmos to be self. The universe, the cosmos, and whatever might be beyond is Brahman: Brahman is the foundation for Atman, yet Atman is that which is conscious of Brahman. You can call this convoluted and I would agree... Very convoluted, yet equally convoluted as regarding the Five Aggregates as Paramattha-Dhamma. It's simply a useful convention, not ultimate truth itself. I suspect Advaitins would admit that as well. If they don't, they're superstitious.

[Ceisiwr]

Hey

I have seen before in biblical debates, where a person will cite one passage from the Bible supporting one position and, as a counterargument, another person will cite another passage from the Bible apparently contradicting the previous passage... and yet, without apparently explaining the contradiction. This is a lazy dialectic and it would disturb me to see the same trend in discussions of the Tipitaka.

You put forward the argument that

When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

Hence i quoted

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."

and

But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?"

"There might, monk," the Blessed One said. "There is the case where someone has this view: 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.' He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought occurs to him, 'So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!' He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It's thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present."

To show that the above sentence grinds against these passages. I didnt explain it because i thought it was obvious, i was also interested to hear your take on said passages

Why do you think the Buddha might say that outright denying the existence of self implies eternalism?

He doesnt, He said "I have a self" is erroneous and "I have no self" is the same since both start from "I"

However he states that the world and khandas are void of a self and that all conditioned dhammas are anatta. This is a denial of self without falling into the trap of "I have no self". Instead its seen as void of self

I have self is clinging

I have no self is clinging

all conditioned dhammas are not-self is non-clinging

the world is void of a self or what belongs to a self is non-clinging


The difference is from the starting point of the outlook, the first two start from a given of "I" while the last two dont

metta

[Ceisiwr]

My take on this sutta

'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

'No, Lord.'

'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'

This is an interesting sutta but seen in light of other suttas and the general teachings i dont think it means that Buddha doesnt state "there is no self" but only that Vacchagotta would have been confused if he heard it

For one thing we know that Vacchagotta clung to other theories and doctrines and has got confused by Dhamma before

metta

[Ceisiwr]

Its also interesting that, from what i have read and can remember, this is the only sutta that states the view "there is no self" is annihilationism

In all other suttas (from memory) and from a quick glance at the brahmajala sutta, annihlationists always proclaim "I have no self" or "there is a self but it gets destroyed at death"

metta

[Individual]

My take on this sutta

'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

'No, Lord.'

'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'

This is an interesting sutta but seen in light of other suttas and the general teachings i dont think it means that Buddha doesnt state "there is no self" but only that Vacchagotta would have been confused if he heard it

For one thing we know that Vacchagotta clung to other theories and doctrines and has got confused by Dhamma before

metta

This leaves three questions open, though.

First, i your interpretation is true, why would this sutta have been included in the Tipitaka if it's only only about as important as the details of the Jataka tales

Second, what is the significance of Ananda (and the sutta's title)? That is, if the sutta is primarily about Vacchagotta simply being a confused person, of what concern is it to Ananda? As a somewhat related question, would you say that the average person (such as an Advaitin) is as equally confused as Vacchagotta? If there are many people like Vacchagotta, is it not unskillful to go around preaching, "THERE IS NO SELF!! THERE IS NO SELF!! YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU SAY THERE IS A SELF!! THERE IS NO SELF!!"

Lastly, the most important question that is left open: What exactly is a Vacchagotta? You're claiming that the entire meaning of the sutta (and therefore notself) is dependent on a property (ignorance) as a sub-set or relation to a fictional object (Vacchagotta)... for the sake of disproving the existence of said object (self) generally. That is circular. If there is no self, then there is no Vacchagotta. If there is no Vacchagotta, you cannot use the ignorance belonging to him as a basis for a claim about notself.

[Ceisiwr]

Hey

First, i your interpretation is true, why would this sutta have been included in the Tipitaka if it's only only about as important as the details of the Jataka tales

As i said in the post above, from what i have read and can remember, this is the only sutta that states the view "there is no self" is annihilationism. In all other suttas (from memory) and from a quick glance at the brahmajala sutta, annihlationists always proclaim "I have no self" or "there is a self but it gets destroyed at death"


I think then that perhaps we have a slight corruption of the text on our hands. If i am correct then it should read as

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.

'Then I have no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'

'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that he has no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [craig- the taking of the view "I have no self"] (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

'No, Lord.'

'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'

So my take is he was asking

Do i have a self
silence
Do i have no self
silence

reason - Said yes to self this would be ignorant understanding, said that he had no self it would be the same since the question was framed in the sense of "I have no self" and was coming from an "I"

Then the Buddha states "all dhammas are not self" and then if he were to give the answer (in line with supermundane understanding) "there is no self" this would have confused Vacchagotta into thinking "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?" because he was approaching the Buddha and framing his whole questions in terms of "I"

Its kinda the same tact the Buddha took with "cosmos is eternal or not eternal?. He remainded silent here since they were questions that were coming from the preconceived notion of "I"

As a somewhat related question, would you say that the average person (such as an Advaitin) is as equally confused as Vacchagotta? If there are many people like Vacchagotta, is it not unskillful to go around preaching, "THERE IS NO SELF!! THERE IS NO SELF!! YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU SAY THERE IS A SELF!! THERE IS NO SELF!!"

Part of the problem is that

A) All the teachings are now on offer to read whereas in buddhas time different levels of teaching were given to different people in accordance with what they could understand

B) Not everyone has the skills to teach Dhamma effectively

As for the last part of

THERE IS NO SELF!! THERE IS NO SELF!! YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU SAY THERE IS A SELF!! THERE IS NO SELF

I havent come accross a Buddhist put it accross in this way, ever

Lastly, the most important question that is left open: What exactly is a Vacchagotta?

A name, a convention

If there is no self, then there is no Vacchagotta. If there is no Vacchagotta, you cannot use the ignorance belonging to him as a basis for a claim about notself.

"Vacchagotta" exists only as a convention, as a name given to a heap. There is no owner of ignorance, there just is ignorance

metta

[Ceisiwr]

I have a self... I have no self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self... or... This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

The problem is "I have no self" not "there is no self"

[tiltbillings]

Denying Atman is in some sense, affirming it.

One does not have to deny it. All that is necessary is to show that when the notion is pushed, it ends up looking just like one or other of the khandhas. As Douglas Adams said: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands, or atman ends up making no sense.

What precisely is this "Douglas Adams" you are referring to? What's a Douglas Adams?

Do you acknowledge the existence of the mind? Of course you do. Do you acknowledge the existence of many minds? I assume so. Do you acknowledge that, of the many minds, every mind is connected with only a single body? I assume you acknowledge that too... And so, well, that's a sentient being: A single mind connected within a single body.

The point of this little outburst? Is this supposed to be example of problematic questions for Buddhists? Not very good, are they? On the other hand the questions I offered to Craig do address directly issues of the atman/agent issue. Now his Hindu friend might be able to adequately counter those questions, but not with the lame-itude you are offering.

When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

Please quote the text for this claim.

I took it from Ven. Thanissaro's essay here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You obviously did not read with any care whatsoever the text you just quoted. It certainly does not support your contention. Try again.

I will say that the "Atman" of Advaita is not the same as the "atman" of Buddhism,

And so you have, but if we are talking about an atman that is a supposed permanent agent behind things that is part of, no different from, some sort of godhead concept, then the Buddha critique works just fine.

It's simply a useful convention, not ultimate truth itself. I suspect Advaitins would admit that as well. If they don't, they're superstitious.

And you base this upon what?