Im still in debate with a Hindu (follower of non-dualism school) and he keeps asserting that there is Atman/Brahman
Ive given the ususal of anatta but as they have "neti-neti" he just agrees with me and still states there is Atman/Brahman. Ive argued that all dhammas and nibbana are without self but he just then says that the word self is just a word and that Atman/Brahman is behind that still just as its behind "I" and consciousness which he agrees are anatta
His argument is that Nibbana is this Atman/Brahman reality since its permanent and outside of the khandas, thus the Buddha was able to function and teach (since he had realized Atman/Brahman)
Here are some of his points
Atman/Brahman is not a thingie. Atman is not atta, which refers to individual souls, which is called ego (ahamkara) in Vedanta parlance. Ahamkara is VOID and ignorance.
I repeat that Atman is not atta.
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3.
and
Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)
When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.-----
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky
The above two passages clearly show that there is Verily, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. You may call this by any name, it does not matter
This is plain copy of Upanishads and this much alone is my point. Atman in Veda/Vedanta parlance is Aja (unborn), unoriginated, unformed, indivisible, has no inner or outer cognition, cannot be said to have no cognition, is free of action, is unchangeable.
As a follower of Veda, I agree fully:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.
There is no need for further discussion.
Buddha was not a Brahmana, and neither he believed in self. It does not refer to a person of Brahman caste. It refers to an enlightened, who cannot be different from Brahman -- the unlimited Pragnya.
The writer paints the whole of Vedanta with one brush. The definition of 'Atman'-'atta' as the unchangeable eternal individual soul, is only held by dualists and not by non-dualists and also to some extent by qualified monists.
The whole contrast is pointless. It dis-regards that Vedanta has shruti that Atman is "NOT TWO". It is similar to the arguments between advaitins and dvaitins, who dis regard the clear cut abheda shruti by contrasting them with non-abheda mantras and other empirical teachings of Veda/Upanishad.
It does not take great intelligence to aver that one who holds to the unchangeable eternal individual soul, does not even aspire for a moksha proper. Such a devotee's mukti is bhakti/worship in eternal dual mode.
Upanishad says "Atman is fearless". On the other hand, it also says "One who sees a second is not free of fear" and "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death", we believe that "Atman" is indivisible "Not Two". We also believe that dualistic belief (even if vedantic) does not result in freedom from fear and death.
So, where is the validity of the contrast?
I can show that Atman is indeed "Not Two" as per Upanishads. It also is 'not a being and neither a non being'. So, starting with a premise of 'attas' which refers to 'many beings' in the Pali context, the whole issue is confused.
The simple thing to remember is:
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3.
There is a great clarity here that there is 'AN Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'. So, it is a clear cut advaita. There are not 'many Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'.
An enlightened having escaped from the world of born, the originated, the created, the formed cannot yet make a second Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed' . Monism is the only truth for the enlightened and thus Guru Tattva is also non-dual.
He also keeps quoting this
Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3.
There is a great clarity here that there is 'AN Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'. So, it is a clear cut advaita. There are not 'many Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'.
I have a hard time to get around this one since the pali text describing nibbana is exactly the same as the upanishadic description of Brahman/Atman
Any ideas? Ive made some points with him but these few above prove difficult (also i thought it would be interesting topic of discussion )
metta