How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by tiltbillings »

clw_uk wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
clw_uk wrote:



Have a feeling hes gonna go with "it just is" or something like that
Just is what? is your reply. Keep at: what does it do?
I think thats a good way actually, he did say at one point that it is the "knower"

If he states that "it just is" then it isnt a knower, it doesnt feel, see, act, move, like, dislike, cognize so therefore its nothing isnt it
What does it know? How does it know? How can it without changing? Etc. Knowing is a function of the khandhas.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Hoja
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by Hoja »

mikenz66 wrote: As I tried to gently point out above I honestly don't think that such arguments help anyone.
It could be true, especially if the goal is to "convert" the other faction, but also the debate that clw_uk his having is pushing him to learn more about the Dhamma and that's good.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by Individual »

clw_uk wrote: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.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by christopher::: »

Kind of in line with Individual's point, in the days when i used to spend more time at the grey forum i often wondered what fellow Buddhists from a number of traditions were refering to when they talked about being reborn in the Pureland, attaining a rainbow body, etc.

Who obtains a rainbow body, who is reborn?

But i never pressed about it, cause these are longstanding beliefs, which people hold dearly to. The contradiction (in my mind) with the Buddha's teachings of anatta was something i did not press.

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.

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. Even something like a soul, rainbow body, atman- even a pureland -- might exist for a period of time, i think, but not eternally. In the end all things, even sentient beings, dissolve into (fill in the blank)... Void, Unborn, Nothingness, Brahman, Spirit, Space, etc...

That's what i believe anyway, I could be wrong, just it seems impossible to PROVE these things, with logic, reasoning or science. That's why they are often called "spiritual beliefs."

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual wrote: 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.
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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

Individual wrote:
clw_uk wrote: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.

:namaste:
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by jcsuperstar »

i :heart: u tilt
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by Cittasanto »

Individual wrote:
clw_uk wrote: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
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by nathan »

no matter how you view your self
and no matter how they describe it
most every religion swiftly proceeds to getting over it
:anjali:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by Individual »

tiltbillings wrote:
Individual wrote: 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.
tiltbillings wrote:
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?"'
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by 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;
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by Individual »

clw_uk wrote: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.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by 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
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: How to deny Atman - Help defending Buddhadhamma

Post by 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
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Post Reply