Atman in Buddhism? (Nikaya)

[dpcalder]

It has always been my understanding that the Pali Canon straightforwardly rejects the existence of Atman, but some apparently allege that the Nikaya teaches it? Any thoughts on this?

Link - https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Atman ... _in_Nikaya

For example:

"At no time or location in the Nikayas is the Atman rejected. What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).

In the Nikaya sutras, the Atman is the “light (dipam), the only refuge” [DN 2.100]. As contrasted to the five aggregates, which are anatman (Pali: anatta), are not the Soul, are “na me so atta” (are not my Soul).

What do the Nikayas have to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta; Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah, [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.).

Contextual doctrinal examples being: "The Soul (Attan) is Charioteer"[J-2-1341]. ”Ananda, dwell with the Soul (attan) as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge.” [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163]. “The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270] "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator.”[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam]"

[DooDoot]

while some of the quotes above are nonsense, the suttas do contain the word 'self' used in a conventional way, such as:

160. Oneself truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain.

Attā hi attano nātho, ko hi nātho paro siyā, attanā hi sudantena, nāthaṁ labhati dullabhaṁ.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html

the above is merely a general moral teaching and not a supramundane teaching. other examples are:

‘This act with the body that I want to do doesn’t lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both.

‘yaṁ kho ahaṁ idaṁ kāyena kammaṁ kattukāmo idaṁ me kāyakammaṁ nevattabyābādhāyapi saṁvatteyya, na parabyābādhāyapi saṁvatteyya, na ubhayabyābādhāyapi saṁvatteyya—

https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/sujato

as for the term "Atman', i doubt it is ever mentioned in the Pali suttas because its conception in the Vedas was too primitive

Atman, (Sanskrit: “self,” “breath”) one of the most basic concepts in Hinduism, the universal self, identical with the eternal core of the personality that after death either transmigrates to a new life or attains release (moksha) from the bonds of existence. While in the early Vedas it occurred mostly as a reflexive pronoun meaning “oneself,” in the later Upanishads (speculative commentaries on the Vedas) it comes more and more to the fore as a philosophical topic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atman

when the Buddha refer to "atta" is the suttas, it was concerned with "ego" rather than "soul"

kind regards

[Dhammanando]

See the posts of member ancientbuddhism in the "Anattā thread".

viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760

[Ceisiwr]

It has always been my understanding that the Pali Canon straightforwardly rejects the existence of Atman, but some apparently allege that the Nikaya teaches it? Any thoughts on this?

It’s crap.

Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi

[mjaviem]

No self for me sometimes sounds like void of humanity without the warmth that makes us human beings. I guess the point is exactly this, to understand that there's no humanity with its inherent suffering and that's the liberation.

[Dhammavamsa]

Buddha taught us to dispel the illusion of "having a Self". Since Buddha said there is not a "Self", therefore there is no "Self" in ultimate sense.

[auto]

as for the term "Atman', i doubt it is ever mentioned in the Pali suttas because its conception in the Vedas was too primitive

Atman, (Sanskrit: “self,” “breath”) one of the most basic concepts in Hinduism, the universal self, identical with the eternal core of the personality that after death either transmigrates to a new life or attains release (moksha) from the bonds of existence. While in the early Vedas it occurred mostly as a reflexive pronoun meaning “oneself,” in the later Upanishads (speculative commentaries on the Vedas) it comes more and more to the fore as a philosophical topic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atman
when the Buddha refer to "atta" is the suttas, it was concerned with "ego" rather than "soul"

kind regards

Suttas are primitive too, its the commentaries what elaborate and from these you can see how far off you may be if you would have to figure out alone what is written in the Sutta.
Its a good example from the quote you posted how modern interpreters reject commentaries because what they read from the source text is way different and obviously these source texts are clear as sky for their simple minds.

[Spiny Norman]

In the suttas, anatta is essentially a negation of Atma. Comparing the suttas to texts like The Upanishads is instructive and revealing.

[auto]

as for the term "Atman', i doubt it is ever mentioned in the Pali suttas because its conception in the Vedas was too primitive

Atman, (Sanskrit: “self,” “breath”) one of the most basic concepts in Hinduism, the universal self, identical with the eternal core of the personality that after death either transmigrates to a new life or attains release (moksha) from the bonds of existence. While in the early Vedas it occurred mostly as a reflexive pronoun meaning “oneself,” in the later Upanishads (speculative commentaries on the Vedas) it comes more and more to the fore as a philosophical topic.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atman
when the Buddha refer to "atta" is the suttas, it was concerned with "ego" rather than "soul"

kind regards

Sutta example of term atta referring to oneself,

Why is that?
Taṁ kissa hetu?
It’s because they’re developed.
‘Bhāvitattā’tissa vacanīyaṁ.

why can't mind or if it is an incarnation become self aware? how that would be any way detrimental or be a fetter somehow?

[cappuccino]

Buddha taught us to dispel the illusion of "having a Self". Since Buddha said there is not a "Self", therefore there is no "Self" in ultimate sense.

No-self or Not-self?
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[mjaviem]

Buddha taught us to dispel the illusion of "having a Self". Since Buddha said there is not a "Self", therefore there is no "Self" in ultimate sense.

No-self or Not-self?
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

I haven't read it. How does ven. Thanissaro explain a self beyond the five aggregates? Is this a matter of faith about what lies beyond human experience? How is a self defined?

[Spiny Norman]

Buddha taught us to dispel the illusion of "having a Self". Since Buddha said there is not a "Self", therefore there is no "Self" in ultimate sense.

No-self or Not-self?
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Sorry, but this is nonsense. If you want to explore Atma then study appropriate texts like The Upanishads.
The suttas negate Atma, it's actually quite straightforward.

[cappuccino]

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

Ananda Sutta
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)

[cappuccino]

I haven't read it.

you should

[Spiny Norman]

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

Ananda Sutta
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)

Sorry, but this is sill nonsense. Read the Upanishads.