Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings DorjePhurba,
DorjePhurba wrote:Retro, would you say the argument that this writer put forth is valid? They seem to make a case the buddha taught there was some sort of soul.
No, I don't think the argument is valid.

Parts of it make sense in isolation (e.g. anatta as not-self, rather than no-self).

What I find distasteful is the taking of the conventional usages of the term 'self' and trying to wedge them into meaning (capital S) Self or "soul".

That said, it's not worth arguing with these Vacchagottas. I'd rather take the Buddha's lead.

SN 44.10: Ananda Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by zavk »

jcsuperstar wrote:its not a she but a he....
Oh... so I'm assuming the name is not pronounced like, say, 'Denise' in Denise Richards, but more like 'Dennis' as in this?

With metta,
zavk
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by DNS »

Body is not self, feelings are not self, perception is not self, mental constructs are not self and consciousness is not self…When one sees this one becomes detached from these things, being detached the passions fade, when the passions have faded one is free, and being free one knows one is free’ (Samyutta Nikaya 3. 66)

Yet there is still some debate among some about whether the Buddha taught no-self. :shrug:
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by Paññāsikhara »

Their basic argument is that "anatta" denies atta in the five aggregates, but not elsewhere.

I suggest that they investigate the various statements in the suttas that indicate that it is a denial of not only "the aggregates = atta", but also that "aggregates are in atta", "atta is in aggregates", or that "outside of the aggregates there is a soul". These four forms, for each of the five aggregates, is known as the "twenty peaked mountain of identify-view". The Buddha rejected them all.

And yes, it does sound like some certain 'net trolls out there, one or two specific ones, in fact.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Paññāsikhara wrote:Their basic argument is that "anatta" denies atta in the five aggregates, but not elsewhere.

I suggest that they investigate the various statements in the suttas that indicate that it is a denial of not only "the aggregates = atta", but also that "aggregates are in atta", "atta is in aggregates", or that "outside of the aggregates there is a soul". These four forms, for each of the five aggregates, is known as the "twenty peaked mountain of identify-view". The Buddha rejected them all.

And yes, it does sound like some certain 'net trolls out there, one or two specific ones, in fact.
It would be really very nice of you if you would in the very least provide a few textual citations.
>> 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
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by cooran »

Hello DorjePhurba, all,

Please read this chapter by Ven. Walpola Rahula called THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL: ANATTA in his esteemed book What the Buddha Taught:
http://www.quangduc.com/English/basic/6 ... ht-06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by Paññāsikhara »

tiltbillings wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:Their basic argument is that "anatta" denies atta in the five aggregates, but not elsewhere.

I suggest that they investigate the various statements in the suttas that indicate that it is a denial of not only "the aggregates = atta", but also that "aggregates are in atta", "atta is in aggregates", or that "outside of the aggregates there is a soul". These four forms, for each of the five aggregates, is known as the "twenty peaked mountain of identify-view". The Buddha rejected them all.

And yes, it does sound like some certain 'net trolls out there, one or two specific ones, in fact.
It would be really very nice of you if you would in the very least provide a few textual citations.
<<reaches over to dissertation, search "twenty" ... flip ... flip ... copy, paste >>

viṃśatiśikhara-samudgataḥ satkāyadṛṣṭi-śailaḥ

<<copy past>>

For example, at 22:117 iii 164: “… sappurisadhamme avinīto rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ …”; SN 35:90; MN 44; see Lamotte (2001: 1640) for a more extensive list.

<<reaches over to find Snr Lamotte's magnum opus...copy past>>

The emptiness of beings (sattvaśūnyatā) serves as antidote to the fatal satkāyadṛṣṭi or belief in an individual. This is a wrong view (dṛṣṭi) mistakenly attributing a self to the five aggregates of attachment (upādānaskandha). Indeed, Śāriputra said that the five upādānaskandha are called satkāya by the Buddha (S. IV, p. 259): Pañcime upādānakkhandā sakkāyo vutto Bhagavatā), and the Teacher himself stated that the five skandhas, rūpa, etc., must be present in order that satkāyadṛṣṭi be produced (S. III, p. 185).

Led astray by this wrong view, the ignorant worldly person considers the rūpa as the ātman (rūpaṃ attato samanupassati), or the ātman as possessing the rūpa (rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ), or the rūpa as present in the ātman (attani vā rūpaṃ), or the ātman as present in the rūpa (rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ). And it is the same for the other skandhas: vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra and vijñāna (M. I, p. 300; III, p. 17; S. III, p. 3-4, 15-17, 42-43, 46, 56, 102, 113-14, 138, 150, 164-165; S. IV, p. 287, 395; A. II, p. 214-215; Mahāvyut., no 4685-4704). The worldly person thus nourishing four prejudices (abhiniveśa) in regard to each of the four skandhas, we speak of the vimśatiśikharasamudgataḥ satkāyadṛṣṭiśailaḥ: the twenty-peaked mountain of the satkāyadṛṣṭi (Gilgit Manuscripts.III, 1, p. 21, 7-8; Divyāvadāna, p. 46, 25; 52, 24-25; 549, 16; 554, 20; Avadānaśataka, I, p. 385, 12).

<< aah! good old Snr Lamotte, where would I be without him... relying on my own brain?! heaven forbid!! >>

I'll leave out the other ones from non-Theravadin sources, just to be a good boy. :P
Last edited by Paññāsikhara on Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Chris,
Chris wrote:Please read this chapter by Ven. Walpola Rahula called THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL: ANATTA in his esteemed book What the Buddha Taught:
http://www.quangduc.com/English/basic/6 ... ht-06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With due respect to Walpola Rahula, I think by establishing it as a debate between Soul and No-Soul (or Existence and Non-Existence if you will) he has missed the middle way pronounced by the Buddha.

SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
The Buddha had ample opportunity to say "there is no soul" if that's what he intended to teach, but he didn't... he repeatedly said that (insert long lists of dhammas mentioned earlier in the topic) are anatta, not self.

That teaching is accurate, sufficient, and entails no speculative views.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by Paññāsikhara »

With due respect to Retro, I think one has to appreciate the distorted views that Rahula was refuting.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings bhante,

At least he later went on the explain it as per the Buddha in the...

SN 44.10: Ananda Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

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

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question 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 [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — 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 — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"
He later goes on to correctly say...
According to the Buddha’s teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion ‘I have no self’ (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the opinion ‘I have self’ (which is the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea ‘I AM’. The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of any opinions or views, but to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call ‘I’, or ‘being’, is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence.
The Buddha did not teach "no self", because if he had, people would have interpreted it as ‘I have no self’ and transformed the Buddha's Dhamma into a speculative soul theory, rooted in the conceit of asmi (I am). Better to remain silent than establish others in wrong view.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by Sanghamitta »

It seems to me, and I am no Buddhist scholar just a would-be Buddhist student, that that the No Soul v No Self discussion goes right to the very heart of the difference between the Theravada and the Mahayana.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
enkidu
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by enkidu »

retrofuturist wrote: That said, it's not worth arguing with these Vacchagottas. I'd rather take the Buddha's lead.

SN 44.10: Ananda Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you for this.
Sanghamitta wrote:It seems to me, and I am no Buddhist scholar just a would-be Buddhist student, that that the No Soul v No Self discussion goes right to the very heart of the difference between the Theravada and the Mahayana.
Could you elaborate?
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by Sanghamitta »

Probably best left there enkidu. I am sure we can all reach our own views on the issue.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by cooran »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Chris,
Chris wrote:Please read this chapter by Ven. Walpola Rahula called THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL: ANATTA in his esteemed book What the Buddha Taught:
http://www.quangduc.com/English/basic/6 ... ht-06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With due respect to Walpola Rahula, I think by establishing it as a debate between Soul and No-Soul (or Existence and Non-Existence if you will) he has missed the middle way pronounced by the Buddha.

SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
The Buddha had ample opportunity to say "there is no soul" if that's what he intended to teach, but he didn't... he repeatedly said that (insert long lists of dhammas mentioned earlier in the topic) are anatta, not self.

That teaching is accurate, sufficient, and entails no speculative views.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hello Retro,

Did you actually carefully read the chapter? Can you point to anything in the actual chapter where you find a clear error in the Mahathera's understanding (with quotes please)? I am sure it would be of great interest to Theravadins everywhere.

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the traditional view of Anatta

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Chris,
Chris wrote:Did you actually carefully read the chapter?
Yes, though not in full at the time I posted my reply which you quoted... though I had previously read the chapter a few years ago when I first came across this fine text.
Chris wrote:Can you point to anything in the actual chapter where you find a clear error in the Mahathera's understanding (with quotes please)? I am sure it would be of great interest to Theravadins everywhere.
I'll take your question at face value to save from making allegations of wrong speech.
Walpola Rahula wrote:THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL: ANATTA (plus all subsequent references to "No Soul" or "No Self")
I believe anatta does not mean 'no soul'... it means 'not soul'... there's a big difference there, as I have explained in previous posts. The Ananda Sutta quoted above shows they are not synonymous expressions. If despite that, you believe they are synonymous and interchangeable, then there is no purpose here in me explaining my position any further.
Walpola Rahula wrote:Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Ātman.
Well, this clearly isn't true. The Buddha didn't explicitly deny the existence of the soul for the reasons given above about how that would be widely misinterpreted by worldlings experiencing the conceit (mana) of "I am" (asmi). On the other hand, many others have explicitly denied the existence of a soul. David Hume comes to mind as one obvious example. In fact, I even explicitly denied the existence of the soul when I was a child. Thus, hardly "unique in the history of human thought".

That is all.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply