This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Some random stuff:
The prefix "a" indicates negation. a.natta ("no self")
The wording of: Buddhist principle of selflessness (anatta).
Should probably be: Buddhist principle of egolessness (anatta).
and linked to: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egolessness
since anatta and egolessness are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.141.185 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2003 (UTC)
There is obviously a breakdown in the normal process of article-creation. This section is for meta-discussion on how we can resolve the problem. I suggest everybody first read the following: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
Please be constructive. No name-calling. Respect! RandomCritic 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing the bizarre Buddhism/Hinduism sectioning, as Hinduism has no doctrine of anatman, and having multiple headings for different traditions, at least in the Eastern philosophy and religion WP articles, is used to denote different versions of the same doctrine. Also, the information was sketchy and misleading.
Removing paragraph on nirvana as the goal of Buddhist practice, as it isn't especially pertinent in the anatta article.
Also did some clean-up in other parts. कुक्कुरोवाच
start --
Nick-in-South-Africa 16:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Kukkurovaca Reverting anatta/rebirth switch, as the problems are logically equivalent<
If your position is that you accept that they are logically equivalent then there was no good reason to change them back! In the interest of harmony Ive rephrased the thing to avoid an the problematic phrase entirely:)
The reason I changed them is that I do not accept that saying: >Students of Buddhism often find the doctrine of anatta troubling, because it seems to contradict the Buddhist concept of rebirth< (what it was and what you reverted it to) is the same as saying: >Students of Buddhism often find the doctrine of rebirth troubling, because it seems to contradict the Buddhist concept of anatta<(what I changed it to and you changed it back from for no good reason because you argue that they are equivalent, and Ive now changed again to make the position clearer)
If one can accept the concept of anatta but have a problem with the whole concept of rebirth then the 'troubling' concept is rebirth and not anatta. I posit that many more students of Buddhism who include many rationalist/ empericalist/ sceptics will have a problem with the concepts of rebirth than anatta. This is the position taken in the Book ‘Buddhism without Belief’ by Stephen Batchelor. end -- Nick-in-South-Africa 16:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
+++Students I have encountered "have a problem" with rebirth (although my teacher taught of the rebirth of the separate self during our daily lives, like when you see someone who ticked you off last week and the anger arises.) But past life experiences do come up in practice, and the bottom line is, we don't know why that is. It just can't really be explained- it is THUS. But the teaching of anatta IS the central teaching of Buddhism, and one that, while simple to cognize, is extremely difficult to get. It is unsettling to say the least, it turns the student inside out and upside down. The Wisdom sutras caution over and over about Bodhisattvas who are stricken with terror when confronted with Emptiness.+++ (Lisa M, Portland, OR)
>Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how "I" can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how "I" can be the "same" person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago. <
Not sure if it's just me, but the above argument is particularly eyebrow raising. The argument is that there is no more problem conceiving the difference between the moment to moment transient state of a metabolizing organism than the purported link between completely different organisms with no provable linkage, call me old fashioned but that's a stretch! Do significant number of Buddhists hold this view or do Buddhist that are attached to the concept of rebirth generally concede that the whole concept is a matter of belief? -- Nick-in-South-Africa 17:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Hallo to whomever wrote the new introductory version on "anatta". I personally love most of what you have added - you will find no greater supporter of the viewpoint you express than myself. I have spent the past 25 years arguing for it! But as editors of an encyclopaedia such as this we have to strive to be balanced and impartial. So I do think that, for example, it is simply not factually correct to state that the "majority" of Buddhists take the view that the non-Self doctrine relates only to the ephemeral elements of the being and that there is some higher, eternal Self beyond that, untouched by the "non-Self" teachings. As much as I myself deplore this fact and believe that the general understanding of "non-Self" is seriously wrongheaded and distortionist, the truth is that most Buddhist schools do not express the stance that you (and I) uphold. So I think we do need to stick to the word "minority" here. Also, the piece needs to be tidied up grammatically here and there. All together, though, I personally think the additions are excellent. But I am sure that nearly everybody else will wildly disagree with me (and with you!). Warm wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Your concerns of being "balanced and impartial" are irrelavent to doctrinal inaccuracy. Foremostly an encyclopedia is meant to accurately reflect, in the case of religions, the doctrine it is referencing. What "most Buddhist schools" express in their secular commentary is irrelavent, all religoius debates and references are and must be SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in Doctrine); not to reflect what the "masses accept/hold dear" I have replaced the word majority, back to minority, since that is factually accurate as the view itself is concerned... From Ken W. 17th December 2005 8:30PM EST.
Attasarana has little experience with Wikipedia, but could possibly be a very valuable source, if he can learn some degree of pluralism. His contribution to this article is impressive, but POV, and he seems to be reluctant to accept non-Nikaya Buddhism as being legitimate; I am attempting to encourage him to discuss his contributions, but so far to no avail. The contents of his work are in Talk:Anatta:Attasarana ( 20040302 18:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC))
--You,User:20040302, have commited an unsubstantiated claim and fallacy in presuming presecular doctrinal citation is "POV" (point of view). The point of any encyclopedia is accurate, factual and substantiated information devoid of later secular slants, specifically all religious information and debate is Sola Scriptura (based in Doctrine), not conjecture or POV. Your re-edit which reads "doctrine of anatta" is nothing found in either the Nikayas, the Lankavatara, the Sadharmapudarika, the Mahaparinirvana sutra and others, its a secular commentary by later-day Nihlists upon Buddhism, it in fact has no scriptural basis in fact or in logic, ergo your re-edit which read "doctrine of anatta" is both a baseless claim and an illogical non-doctrinal conjecture utterly foriegn to Buddhism. Without a sutric citation to back up your claims, of which one doesnt exist, I'm afraid youve only stated as fact, something utterly untrue as well as illogical. "At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul" -Itivuttaka- Gotama.
Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes. Both are wrong and their error is most grievous.
For if they say the self is perishable, the fruit they strive for will perish too, and at some time there will be no hereafter. Good and evil would be indifferent. This salvation from selfishness is without merit.
I don't think this quote merits being the first paragraph, as it appears to me more relevant for the reincarnation article, rather than anatta. ( 20040302 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
it seems very misleading to discuss anatta without a single mention of buddha's own view that people have grossly misunderstood his point and that talk of enduring self and perishing self are both in error.
I'm sure your pali is better than mine, Nick. However, wouldn't the phrase "sabbe dhammā anattāti" translate well as "all phenomena are not a soul"? Those are the words uttered by the Buddha in the Cūlasaccaka Sutta, the 35th sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya.
I've flagged this for questionable NPOV. Anatta is interpreted as "not-self" (as in, lacking an independent soul) by the majority of "Buddhists" I'm familiar with (including myself). There does, of course, exist the minority. However, this article seems to imply that claiming the doctrine of Anatta supports the concept of no soul is like claiming the Earth is flat.
Anatta is an Adjective, at no time in any sutta, Nikaya or Mahayana sutra does anatta occur as the denial of soul (atman, Pali: Attan). Youve just commited a Bandwaggon fallacy and privided no empirical citations from Sutras to back up your baseless claim, therefore it is rejected outright.
"what does anatta mean Lord?"..."Just this..form is not the Soul (anatta),,,,neither are feelings,,,etc etc" CITATION: Samyutta Nikaya book 3.196
"The Khandhas are what is meant by the term Anatta"-Khandhavagga-Samyutta XI "at no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul"-Anguttara 3
Buddhologist Dr. Hajjime Nakamura- "At no time shall the audience confuse my opponents conjectures with the Doctrinal scriptural passages i present as evidence"
Your post is Illogical, the concept of "doctrine of Anatta" does not exist in ANY Sutta, in ANY Nikaya, dozens of citations are given, so your illigical in this baseless claim as well. - Buddhologist, Pali translator. S.A., Nowhere in the article does it claim that "doctrine of Anatta supports the concept of no soul". You need to reread the article, its obvious you didnt read it.
The Nikaya translations quoted in the section Presecular position on anatta as presented in the Nikayas used to back the overall claim are dubious and without any citation. Please verify the reliability of these translations and then perhaps we can discuss the factual accuracy of the section itself.
Remember that no original research is an official Wikipedia policy.
You have not read the Article at ALL, there are dozens of citations. Your claim is baseless and without substantiation. - Buddhologist, Pali translator. - S.A.
Renowned Buddhologists and scholars that agree with the premise of the main section are: Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids, George Grimm, S. Radhakrishnan, J. Perez-Ramon, G.C. Pande, I.B. Horner, Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Nikhilananda, Chandradhar Sharma, Dr. Nakamura and many others.....
"dubious" is a CLAIM, "without citation" is wholly a lie, since many many citions are present. I outright reject your objection and baseless praddle. Provide logical evidences, or dont respond.
Original Poster in this thread, "original research" does not apply to the fact that Anatta is A: an Adjective B: all 662 occurances of same are: A is anatta, B is anatta. Your post is spitefull not an intelligent rebuttal to the many citations and logic presented in the Core of the definition- Buddhologist., S.A.
All 662 occurances of the term anatta are as an Adjective, there exists not ONE doctrinal passage which upholds the secular conviction of modern Buddhism that "anatta means there is no soul taught in Buddhism". ABCDEF not X (Atman), therefore X doesnt exist is a logical fallacy "The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha’vagga-Att. 3.270] "The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129]
There are a lot of spiteful retractions on this page which are baseless conjecture and rooted in secular agendas. Nowhere in any Nikayan Sutta is there is "no-Soul doctrine", period. Without logical evidences, dont comment further.
- Buddhologist., S.A.
It follows that only the Nikayas go back to a period which predate the formation of Buddhist sects, which is important in discerning doctrinal matters. [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 12].
Also it is of great note that from the standpoint of doctrinal evolution, that the stage of thought as reflected in sectarian controversies is much later that the formation and recording of the NIKAYAS.
Only the Nikayas thusly, reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Sangha was in doctrine at one. [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 13].
“The vast majority of the Nikayas appear to have existed in record no later then 460 B.C." [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 14].
An examination of the Sanchi inscriptions [one of Buddha’s stupas], show that some time before the early 4rd century B.C. there was already a well established collection of Buddhist sermons of the NIKAYAS. [Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"].
Since only the Nikayas make no note of the massive schisms within the Buddhist Sangha, this is further evidence that it is only the Nikayas themselves that predate all sectarian divisions within the Buddhist Sangha. [Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"]
RandomCritic, You have made too many baseless claims not substantiated in doctrine, in the Nikayas. Anatta is an adjective, period. There is no "anti-anatta" POV, only a missunderstanding of the terms contextual ussage, which is seems you suffer from as well. Mrs. CAF Rhys Davids has nothing do with with 1000s of Doctrinal passages in the Nikayas. “What does ANATMAN mean Lord Gotama? ....Anatman means only this: FORM is anatman, ...FEELINGS are anatman........"----SN 3.196. All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine), otherwise we are discussing personal convictions which may or may not reflect the religion as such. Therefore, id kindly ask you to reference Buddhism when your attempting to discuss Buddhism, otherwise your making no intelligent point on the topic.
Im Afraid unless you have an intelligent and doctrinal substantiation to present, your trying to skew an article based upon your opinions rather than doctrine. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
The "Digital Dictionary of Buddhism" is neither Doctrine nor doctrinally substantiated. One might as well quote the Theravada dictionary on Buddhism which is based not in Doctrine but Abihdhamma secular texts. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
In FACT, "All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", period, your opinions are irrelavent. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
Unless your can intelligently refute the doctrinal citations which are NUMBERLESS, I've reinserted the original text. In fact, there is no person on this planet that knows more about the term Anatta/Anatman than myself. If you wish to refute ANY FACT or citation posted, then do so, otherwise your opinions and secular agenda are ruining the article. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
There have been many attempts by secularists to remove doctrinal material and logical definition of this term from the article thread. I'm afraid unless these peoples have an intelligent and doctrinal substantiation to present, your trying to skew an article based upon your opinions rather than doctrine.
"All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", period, these baseless opinions are irrelavent to the words definition. If what debates the definition of a term in Christianity the first and foremost reference is the Bible, not the Pope, or Oral Roberts, etc.; the same logic applies to Buddhism as well, to say X is Buddhism requires support in doctrine, not the accepted view by X number of secularists as pertains modern Buddhism.
"ANATTA [Pali] Adjective. 1. Used to describe any one of 22 nouns in sutra to be devoid of the Soul. 2. Ex: 'Form is not-Soul (anatta), nor feelings.' [Pali-English Dicitionary 1941 A.P. Mahasharma. Montilal].
“What does the term ANATMAN mean Lord Gotama? ....Anatman means only this: FORM is anatman, ...FEELINGS are anatman........"- Gotama Buddha Samyutta Nikaya book 3, verse 196
Unless your can intelligently refute the doctrinal citations which are NUMBERLESS, I've reinserted the original text. In fact, there is no person on this planet that knows more about the term Anatta/Anatman than myself. If you wish to refute ANY FACT or citation posted, then do so, otherwise your opinions and secular agenda are ruining the article.
[User - Nat Krause] Has made many baseless conjectures and offered no contribution to the definition, either by way of logic, citation, or philosophical discussion before making massive texts removals. I forward that such actions are Sophistic attempts that are agenda driven secular attempts at subterfuge. How do you know that you have grasped the truth of what you say? You must have some criterion, otherwise you will be unsure. Nat Krause without doctrinal criterion, the definition of anatta is merely a reductionistic and futile sophistry "I said so. No, I said so". Substantial claims, Nat, you must learn, require substantial evidences
Buddhologists that posit the Soul within Buddhism and that anatta is undeniably an adjective are here listed just a few of many as follows: Radhakrishnan, F.L. Woodward, Dr. Kanai Lal Hazra, Dr. CAF Rhys Davids, Dr. Joaquin Perez-Ramon, Govind Pande Chande, I.B. Horner, E.M. Hare, Dr. Peter Masefield,George Grimm, Dr. Harsh Narain, Prof. And Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
No-Soul in Pali is not anatta, but Natthatta; there are only 5 occurances of "no soul" NATTHATTA' at SN 4.400, where Vaccagotta asks Gotama “is it so then, Lord Gotama that there is no soul?” (natthatta’).
Nat, any attempt on your part to intelligently discuss the Buddhist term ANATTA without using your personal belief system has been an utter failure. Thankfully, your opinions are not found within the doctrine of Buddhism. It is odd that your are attempting to inseminate others with your fanatical opinions as opposed to trying to skillfully disseminate the doctrine of Buddhism.
No religious definition can exist outside of scripture, be it Buddhist, Christian or otherwise. There is no doctrinal substantiation for the term anatta/anatman outside of that posted on the main thread; views to the contrary require substantial evidences, citations, and logic. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
Again, you have made endless baseless claims and are utterly unlearned in the contextual ussage of this term in Buddhist doctrine.
As for the "analyses of Western scholarship" I've provided a list of Western Buddhologists who are in full agreement upon same. It seems you have a knack for manufacturing endless CLAIMS but are utterly incapable of providing evidences, as such, your viewpoint is without merit as regards the definition of anatta/anatman.
Youve also commited a Strawman fallacy in saying I have presented "my views" when in fact i have given more than ample citations and logic to same. Unless your are able to make an intelligent contribution based upon citations, logic, reasonings, you are trolling wikipedia.
"Idiosyncratic viewpoints" is another baseless claim and strawman fallacy you have presented, again, with no evidences to same, since ample citations are presented with references. After three exchanges with yourself, its obvious you have nothing to contribute to the definition of anatta nor can you intelligently discuss same.
Every time you remove the original section, it will be reposted, until time itself ends. It COULD be removed if you provided ONE shred of logical evidence that it is in anyway incorrect OR the citations untrue, but you are incapable of same, therefore the section stands.
I suggest before you comment again, you give evidences for your baseless claims. The lowest form of arguement is one who makes a 1000 claims with no evidences, something which Gotama called PROFANE (Puthujjana).
"Ananda....the sermons i gave and that will be recorded shall be the final word if dispute is found" Digha Nikaya 2.189
"My teachings (after i am gone) shall settle any dispute if there is doubt between you"----------Itivuttaka. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
I have not used diff. numerical addys. At no time have I hidden my identity, therefore that claim is an utter fabrication.
I have never quoted CAF Rhys Davids at any time, thats a complete lie and baseless claim. Its odd you would employ such an obvious Strawman Fallacy.
G.C. Pande (govind chandra pande) has many many books listed on amazon.com and others out of print, your incapacity to find them is suspect.
One such book is "Studies in the Origins of Buddhism", published by Montilal Banarsidas.
"Maurice Walshe, Nyanatiloka, Walpola Rahula, Nyanamoli Thera, Nyanaponika Thera" are all Theravada Abhidhamma trained secularists, your reference to them is a biased non-neutral reference. We might as well quote the POPE as a neutral scholar of Catholocism! Try harder, your arguement is the weakest I've come across in a long time.
"demonstrably wrong statements about the Pali language and translations" is another one of your many baseless claims, im afriad, all claims require substantiations. The endless train of baseless claims is not helping your case in the eyes of any and all onlookers.
You have provided not one iota of doctrinal nor logical substantiations as per the term Anatta.
Your claim that "anatta is used as a noun in the Nikayas" has not ONE citation to back up same, in fact I know ALL 662 occurances of anatta, all are as an Adjective, provide proof the contrary or dont speak at all.
Nattha (there is no) + attan (Nom. Attan- Soul, Atman-Skt). Im afraid your claim as per this is also utterly without substantiation. Natthatta', also is a heresy in Suttana.
It is perception (knowledge sañña) of WHAT IS not the Soul (anattasañña). That Adjectival Nat, not a noun. Also, it is: "knowledge of WHAT IS impermanence, WHAT IS impurity, WHAT IS disadvantage, letting-go, absence of desire, cessation, of WHAT IS not the Soul".
In all 662 occurances of anatta and anatta compounds, there are is no instance where anatta is used as other than an adjective or adjectival modifier.
Here are ALL compounds of anatta in Suttana: Variants/compounds of Anatta’ anatta’ Anattena anatta’ti anatte anatta’va anatta’yeva’ti anatta’yeva Anatta’nupassi’suttam. Anatta’nupassi’suttam. anatta’nupassi’ Anatta’nupassino anatta’nupassanena Anatta’nupassanekattam. Anatta’nupassana’suññata’nupassana’nañca anatta’nupassana’sankha’ta’ anatta’nupassana’vut.t.ha’navasena anatta’nupassana’visesoyeva anatta’nupassana’vasena anatta’nupassana’vase Anatta’nupassana’va anatta’nupassana’yeva anatta’nupassana’ya anatta’nupassana’mukheneva anatta’nupassana’mukhena anatta’nupassana’ña’n.ena anatta’nupassana’ña’n.e Anatta’nupassana’ña’n.am. anatta’nupassana’ anatta’nupassananti Anatta’nupassanattha’ya Anatta’nupassanam. anatta’nanti anatta’nattaniye anatta’nattaniyameva anatta’nam.yeva anatta’nam. Anatta’dhi’noti anatta’dhi’no anatta’disabha’vam.yeva anatta’tipi anatta’ka’ropi anatta’ka’rena anattasuttam. anattasambhu’to anattasambhu’ta’ Anattasambhu’tam. anattasabha’ve anattasaññi’ anattasañña’paricitena anattasañña’paricitañca anattasañña’ti anattasañña’ Anattasaññanti anattasaññañca anattasaññam. anattalakkhan.e Anattalakkhan.asuttam. anattalakkhan.ameva anattalakkhan.añca anattalakkhan.am. anattaniyam. Anattani anattana’va anattadhammo”ti anattadhammo anattadassanam. anattatopi anattatoti Anattato anattam.
- None of the above are found as other than modifying any one of 22 Nouns being: Ru’pa form vedana’ feelings sañña’ perceptions san’kha’ra’ impulses viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness sabba (aggregates/ “the all”) cakkhu eye cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms cakkhusamphasso vision contact tan.ha’ lusts-desires mano mind/mentation manoviñña’n.a mental formations manosamphasso mental contact Sota ear gha’na nose jivha’ tongue ka’yo body ra’go lusts kot.t.hika cell "body-cell" asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul asubham. disgusting asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering
Again, nat, youve given no help to your position.
"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no-Soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga XIV
- S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
(literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]) has only five occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha. Anatta’ is not “no-Soul”, but natthatta’ which is deemed, by Gotama, to be ucchedavada annihilationist heresy. [SN 1.96] "The nihilist (natthika) goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" To espouse negation of the Soul is heresy in Buddhism, contrary to the personal dogma of 'modern Buddhism' who misconceive the via negative methodology (na me so atta, neti neti, anatta) so common to Indian philosophical systems.
To hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).
Vimanavatthu #1252-1253 “My name was Piyasi, I held sway over the Kosalans; I held the view of a nihilist (natthikaditthi), was of evil habbit and was miserly; I was an anti-foundationalist/annihilationist then (ucchedavada).
Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That[Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa)-i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”.
PTS Rhys Davids Pali-English Dictionary: anatta (predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul. Most freq. in combn. with dukkha & anicca -- adj. (pred.): S IV.152 sq.; S IV.166; S IV.130 sq., 148 sq.; Vin I.13 = S III.66 = Nd2 680 Q 1; S III.20 sq.; 178 sq., 196 sq.
All 22 things in suttana which are said to be Devoid of the Soul:
A, B, C, D, etc. are ANATTA (listed below) Ru’pa form vedana’ feelings sañña’ perceptions san’kha’ra’ impulses viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness sabba (aggregates/ “the all”) cakkhu eye cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms cakkhusamphasso vision contact tan.ha’ lusts-desires mano mind/mentation manoviñña’n.a mental formations manosamphasso mental contact Sota ear gha’na nose jivha’ tongue ka’yo body ra’go lusts kot.t.hika cell "body-cell" asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul asubham. disgusting asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering
KN J-1441 Akkhakandam: “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” - “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”- Gotama Buddha
Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.- "Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100
Buddhologist Dr. Nakamura--- "At no time shall the audience confuse my opponents conjectures with the Doctrinal scriptural passages i present as evidence"
Buddhologist Dr. Nakamura is quite famous, well over 20 books on Buddhism. In several of his books he outright states there is no denial of the Atman in Buddhist suttana.
Udana 1.81. There IS, followers, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed. - Gotama Buddha
“If there were no Soul, Subhuti, then the Tathagata, the Buddha could not save anyone trapped in Samsara” - [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
For the fouth time youve made numberless claims but can provide no evidences. Do not reply again unless you have an intelligent contribution as per the term Anatta. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
I'm afraid that after five responses now, you have provided no citations, logic, justifications, and substantiations as regards the term anatta. Unless you are capable of backing up your claims as per anatta, then one can only presume your reasons for persistent removal of texts is solely due to a secular agenda, instead of (logically so) attempting to improve or correct any mistakes that may or may not exist in the main body of the text on anatta. No other conclusion can be reached, such that repeated requests upon yourself to justify intelligently your position have not been answered in any way shape or form.
“What is the Soul? It is the Real, the Eternal, the Master, the One to be depended upon, or also, that True-Nature (svabhava) which does not suffer change, this is the Soul.” [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
“Oh followers! Do not abide like the fools do in hankering after the non-eternal, the not-Self, the sorrowful, the impure; and be like those people who take stone, wooden sticks, and gravel for the true beryl gem, the Soul!” [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
Nettipakaranapali v.86- “anicce niccanti, anattani attati” - “What is anatta is impermanent, what is eternal is the Soul”
I presume your unaware of the fact that the term ANATMAN is used both in the Upanishads and by Samkara. There are, however, no followers of the Upanishads and Samkara however that missunderstand the Neti-Neti (The Atman is not this, not that [Anatman]) contextual ussage of said term. No coincidence exists to the fact that anatta is used in the exact same context in Buddhist sutta as by Samkara himself (Eg. This is not the Soul, nor that).
The only heresy in Buddhist doctrine according to Gotama is: Anguttara Nikaya 2.51 -"anattaya ca attano" - "to [see] Soul in what is not the Soul"
Maybe you could comment upon why the 'realm of Immortality' (amataya dhatuya) is "outside the scope of what is anatta, is gained by the citta (will/mind)"-Majjhima 1.436
You need to be reminded "Nat Krause" (since you have said elsewhere this is not your real name) that: “Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probata” - “The wise man states nothing as true that he cannot prove.”
You can either dirrectly refute the numberless citations and logic put forward, or respond no more. You are woefully using Wikipedia to expunge upon others your secular agenda rather than making a helpful contribution; most certainly given the fact that you have, in five responses now, nothing whatsoever to contribute to the term anatta in the way of evidences or professionalism upon said term.
"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no-Soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga XIV
- S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
Foremostly, you’ve fallaciously presumed said translation was mine, I never claimed same.
Thanks for introducing your “substantiation”, being: self in the selfless (anattani attaa ti). However, the translation is “[falsely seeing] anattani attaa (Soul in what is not the Soul)”. The term anatta is Syn. with anicca and dukkha, its meaning was well known to the Aryasavkas of Gotama.
The adjectival is clear in (anattani attaa ti). In english it is the same; if one were to say “[it is foolish to look for the] Pure in the filthy”. Nat, what IS filthy? Form is filthy, feelings are filthy, perceptions are filthy.
By your great illogical conceptions, Nat, you would presume Buddhism’s main pillar is a “doctrine of [what is] filthy”, or, in this case “doctrine of anatta” (which does not exist in any Pali passage, only in C.E. commentaries). However Nat, the quest for the PURE (vishudiya) is “Gotamas path”- Udana.
Its really hard to know where to start with your ignorances, Nat. By your presumption Buddhism is merely secular Humanism. Like most, you confuse the empirical khandhic self (namo-rupa) of flesh and blood and bone with The Self, the Soul, that “which is most dear (paramo piya)”, which is “the only refuge (attasarana anannasarana”. Nat, you cannot even be spiritual anything and deny the Subjective Self, the Soul; only a Humanist. However Buddhism is the “quest and path of immortality”; "mine is AMATAGAMIMAGGA (path to immortality)".
Nat, use your brain, son. What is impure? What is anatta? What is impermanent? What is dukkha?
Since you dislike any Indian commenting upon Buddhism (you seem to conceive this as a “dirty Hindu sticking his nose into Buddhism”, as if Buddhism itself was the “Anti-Christ” religion to Vedanta!), you might want to read “Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism” by Perez-Ramon. A doctoral dissertation upon the claims by modern pseudo-Buddhism as evidenced in doctrine. Perez-Ramon is a well acknowledged Pali scholar of acclaim.
It is of great note, Nat, that you believe and uphold strongly the secular Abhidhamma position of Buddhism. One might as well ask why anyone would foremostly praise the words of any Pope before and above that of the Bible. I would like a response, Nat, why your in fact not a truth seeker nor find logical conviction in the fact that if we speak or debate Buddhism, its doctrine is the grounds for verity, not the commentarial views of Buddhaghosa, H.H.D.L, any Lama, Rinpoche, Zen master, etc. The entire basis, as you have said “accepted belief by millions of Buddhists that anatta……”. We might as equally say that “Billions of Catholics believe”. Your fallacious position is attempting to argue X and referencing Y for support of same (i.e. the beliefs and views of 1700+ years of secular “Buddhism” [Buddhism in name only]).
The empirical self is not in question by anyone, son, its fate “is the grave”-Eckhart. Neither Atheist, nor Creationist, nor Buddhist denies the fate of the namo-rupic self of flesh and blood. This is something secular Vajrayana has not taught you. "The Khandhas are what is meant by Anatta"-Khandhavagga-Samyutta. This self (namo-rupa/psycho-physical) is not in question, nobody is in denial of this self composed of the humors of phenomenal existence…That which is in question by the Nihilists is the Self (attan/Atman), or ones Self-nature (svabhava).
"The Lord, the Bhagavat, (buddha) has never taught the unreality of the Soul"- Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
As for Attan; Buddhadatta Mahathera's PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY ....page 8.......Atta' [attan]: SOUL "A Dictionary of Pali" by Margaret Cone: Attan (atta): [Sanskrit Atman], The self, the soul, as a permanent unchangeable, autonomous entity; p.70, Pali Text Society.
The very same Pali term Attan is “the only refuge” Dn 2.100. The very same Pali term Attan is called “everlasting” (accutam). The very same Pali term Attan is called eternal (niccam)- SN 1.169
Mahanidesapali 2.235 “niccato sukhato attatoti” Eternal bliss in the Soul
MN 1.141 What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did with them as they wished or burned them up, would it occur to you: These people are carrying us off, are doing as they please with us, and are burning that which we are? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul! Just so followers, what is not who you are, do away with it, when you have made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and welfare for as long as time lasts. What is that which is not who you are? Form, followers, is not who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences, nor sentience. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
I'm going to edit according to two rules.
I will tag explanation of each edit/delete. So please defend each edit rather than resorting to wholesale revert. Vapour
Hmm, this looks like a version of "Jew for Jesus". Only this time, it is Hindu trying to convert Buddhist. "Gautama for Vedannta"? Vapour
"Anatta is an adjective"
"supposedly permanent"
"in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence;"
"none of these skhandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)".
All above deleted for being a mere soapbox edit for "Buddah for Vedanta" movement. Please learn the meanining of NPOV, Verification and No Origina Research policies.
"Buddhist teaching tells us that all empirical life is impermanent and in a constant state of flux, and that any entity that exists does so only in dependence on the conditions of its arising, which are non-eternal. Therefore, any Self-concept (attanuditthi) sense one might have of an abiding Self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension; since the conceptualization of the Self or soul is just that, and not an ontological apprehension of same."
Considering that Mahayana Buddhism are often accused of being hindunised version of Buddhism, there are some validity in reference to some Mahayana sutras which looks like reincorporating the concept of atman. Only problem is this part "explicitly referring to the ultimately real, pure, blissful Self". This looks like another one of "Buddah for Vedanta" spindoctoring to me. I believe that actual statement was more nuanced. I will delete this for being original research. However, I have no objection to reviving this part if it is done as a direct quote from sutras. Vapour
On second thought, this section is too small. Merged with dependent origination section. Vapour
O.K. This appear to be about reincarnation. The title changed to something more comprehensible. Vapour
"The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named Kutadanta." Inapropriate reference. Please get reference from sutras, at least instead of something titled "Gospel of Buddha". Vapour
"Others seek a proxy not for the ātman but for Brahman, the Indian monistic ideal that functions as an ātman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta."
For buddhism, it is motive/intention which is carried to next life. So there is no paradox. If you think there is a paradox, you can present it as such as long as you have verifiable reference. Try not to interpret buddhist sects POV with your POV. Vapour
"Later, the Yogacara school, a branch of Mahayana doctrine, argue that, at death the body & mind disintegrates, but if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being (i.e. a fetus developing the ability to harbor consciousness)."
"Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how "I" can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how "I" can be the "same" person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago. A further difficulty with the anatta doctrine is that it contradicts the notion of a path of practise. Anatta followed to its logical extremities rejects the reality of a Buddhist practitioner able to detach him/herself from clinging."
The idea that Nikaya is the oldest text is so NPOV. In fact, what is the oldest tripitaka isn't settled question. Pali Cannon is the oldest "full" compilation of Tripitaka but some translation of Sanskrit sutras in Chinese and Tibettan is said to be older. And to what extent surviving Chinese/Tibettan/Sanskrit/Pali cannon represent Nikaya school is big question. Moreover, the entire content appear to be summary of "Buddah for Vedanta" POV. The whole section deleted for being a soapbox of unknown person's original research. Vapour
Though reference to these two sutras may be valid wikipedia entries, the current content appear to be an original-research interpretation of these two sutras. Words like "distinctive" or "remarkable" or "controvercial" isn't really appropriate. I would say it is o.k. to revive the reference, but only if one can make direct quote from the online text. Vapour
I will not object to "Tathagatagarbha and Mahaparinirvana" restoration. However, interpretation of these two sutras from buddhist schools or academic or other verifiable source is helpful IMO. Vapour
On this very point of the controversial nature of the TG Self/non-Self teachings, and how others apart from myself have also stated this to be the case: here are a couple or three quotes from the books of reputable scholars on the Buddha Nature doctrine and its relation to Emptiness teachings (i.e. non-Self writ large). The first comes from Dr. Shenpen Hookham's The Buddha Within (State University of New York Press, 1991):
"Tathagatagarbha - Buddha Nature - is a central concept of Mahayana Buddhism crucial to all the living practice traditions of Tibetan and Zen Buddhism. Its relationship to the concept of emptiness has been a subject of controversy [my emphasis] for seven hundred years."
Elsewhere in the same book, Dr. Hookham (who is both an Oxford University Ph.D. in Buddhism and a recognised Buddhist lama) speaks of how two different types of person tend to be drawn to Buddhism (the analytical, and the intuitive) and how they will tend to side either with the the Rangtong or Shentong approach to Buddhism respectively. As is well-known by Tibetan Buddhists, the Shentong approach takes its stand on the Tathagatagarbha sutras and insists that they mean what they say in their qualifying/ delimiting of "non-Self" and their advocacy of a true Self or abiding Essence. Dr. Hookham writes:
" ... this division of interest in Buddhism in the West is refelected in the rangtong-Shentong controversy [my emphasis] in the Tibetan tradition." (p. 54).
Another historically renowned Buddhist master, Dolpopa of Tibet, brought down years of controversy upon his head because of his championing of the Tathagatagarbha teachings - his insistence that there is not only "non-Self" but an eternal, real Self. Dr. Cyrus Stearns, in his major book, The Buddha from Dolpo (State University of New York Press, 1999) comments:
"Without question, the teachings and writings of Dolpopa, who was also known as 'The Buddha from Dolpo' ... and 'The Omniscient One from Dolpo Who Embodies the Buddhas of the Three Times' ...contain the most controversial [my emphasis] and stunning ideas ever presented by a great Tibetan Buddhist master. The controversies [my emphasis] that stemmed from his teachings are still very much alive today among Tibetan Buddhists, more than six hundred years after Dolpopa's death." (p. 2).
Those teachings are of course a championing of Tathagatagarbha doctrines on the Self.
There are other authors whom one could quote to support the point that the TG teachings are controversial amongst Buddhists (and always have been) - but I think most Buddhist editors of Wikipedia will not disagree with me that the Tathagatagarbha sutric doctrines on Self and non-Self are indeed a focus of controversy - as we witness at this very moment! So the word "controversial" is quite appropriate in relation to the TG take on "non-Self". Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have wiped "Buddha for Vedanta" POV. Whoever wrote this, please understand that sites such as this or that cannot be regarded as a reliable sources according to policies and guideline specified by the site. When your POV gain more prominence, your POV may be presented as a (significant) minority POV. At this point, you are just vandalising the article by your attempt to use wikipedia as your soapbox. Vapour
Please understand that advocacy of your POV by citing scriptures is still regarded as a violation of soapbox ban. Moreover, please understand the meaning of " original reseach" as specified in this site. If you think your interpretation is supported by reputable scholars, forget your interpretation and cite these reputable scholars instead. Vapour
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra
used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman)
which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]
Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta).
Contrary to some popular books written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta.
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from the macrocosmic, to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body or the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent)
and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.”
Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates).
Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta).
The commonly held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.
The Pali term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada).
Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), nearly so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).
is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])’”.
Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated through the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”.
Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’” [MN 1.232] The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.” The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact complements it.
[Nettippakarana 44] “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha’)" [SN 3.234] The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi “Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis.” [MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.” [MN 1.436] “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!”
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.).
"The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97] "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha’vagga-Att. 3.270] "The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129] "Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9] "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna’sa-Att. 4.151] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4]
It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]
but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta’) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha)
"Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]-Gotama “The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270]
and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama)
a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22].
It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.
Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending”
Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates.
Due to secular propagation,
a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as status quo,
however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism’s denial of soul,
or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”.
"The aggregates are to be transcended (nissaranam)" SN 3.35
The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169.
In fact the phrase “Doctrine of anatta”, or “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries.
As the saying goes, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”.
Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a “Doctrine of anatta” as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.
The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436]
The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta.
Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is “beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts” thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only through “the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not”- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.
Stephen Hodge, I’m afraid to state the obvious that user Random Critic is a typical secularist blind to countless 1000s of scriptural passages as pertains original Buddhism. Not a truth-seeker himself, his mission is to guard his incorrect, secular, and illogical views of Buddhism. Like the Catholic Church, which is nothing Jesus taught (Catholicism), that is often accused of protecting in secret and destroying Gnostic-like manuscripts and gospels, Buddhism too has this breed amongst its rank and file.
Random Critic, in debate, has been proven that he is unaware and adverse to the fact all religious debates are Sola Scriptura (In Doctrine) and unceasingly refuses to refer to same to support his unsubstantiated claims as pertains Buddhist doctrine.
Unfortunately Random Critics' position is identical to that of Theravada and most of Mahayana to wit the denial of all things other than 6: the 5-khandhas and agnosis (avijja); as such this is merely nothing more than Materialist-Humanism, wherein, thru the denial of ones Subjective Nature (Svabhava-Atman), all that is left is a compassion-based Humanistic Nihilism.
Surely the "light-within (dipam)"-Dn 2.100, and "Immortality (amata)"-Sn 5.9, has no place in what is concurrently passed off to the general public as "the teachings of the Buddha". One might as well deny Christ in Christianity as to remove the "only refuge", the Soul from the doctrine of Buddhism; whether illogical or non-doctrinal, the center doesn’t hold for a Liberation (vimutta) ontology such as Buddhism to espouse such nonsense.
“It cannot be otherwise that the Soul is the refuge, the light within, the refuge of the Tathagatas of the three periods”-[Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
Udana 1.81. There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not ,disciples, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed.
"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered" -SN 2.106
"I have NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana
"Gotama is a TEVIJJAN (Comprehensor/Expert in the Vedas)"- common passage
“The Buddha is a teacher of Monism (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]
"Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-Itivuttaka
[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”- Gotama
"I have not made a new path monks, I have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka - - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
How Dhammapada commentary explains Dhammmapada #279 Tattha sabbe dhamma’ti pañcakkhandha’ eva adhippeta’
Dhammapada Att. 3.407 “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in meaning”
Theravada has used as its last defense for 1500 years now, the “sabbe dhamma anatta” defense to ‘prove’ that all is ‘void’ of a Soul in Buddhist doctrine, or that there cannot be a Soul whatsoever, for as they say “all Dharmas” encompasses everything in entirety. The Theravada say this phrase found in the Dhammapada (and other locations) means in translation “All Dharmas are Soulless”. However, in fact, under close examination the Theravada view falls apart very quickly and their self-created dogma disappears under close scrutiny. Here ends the “sabbe dhamma anatta” debate.
Dhammmapada #279 Phrase dissected Dhammapada #279 “Sabbe dhamma’ anatta'” sabbe (noun [see SN 4.15 below], direct object, in accusative. Sabba is nominative, ‘the ‘all’) The ‘all’partakes of the Soul; however the Soul does not partake of, is not in, the ‘‘all’. Sabbe Dharmas are not the Soul (anatta). Sabba is described as the “five aggregates” in the Pali commentary to this passage.
dhamma’ (proper noun, plural, subject, undeclined in nominative, dharmas)
anatta' (adjective, modifying sabba. An [is not] atta' [attan: Soul]; Buddhadatta Mahathera's Pali-English Dictionary; page 8: Atta' [attan]: soul.). ‘all’ 275 occurrences of anatta' in sutta are adjectival, never as a noun in standalone but rather modifying a noun in negation to its correlation to being identifiable with the Attan.
Sabba in standalone This single passage below at Samyutta 4.28 shows that Dhamma is not the crux of the infamous "sabbe dhamma’ anatta", but rather sabba. SN 4.28 “sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta" The ‘‘all’, bhikkhus, are not the Soul. SN 4.21 “sabbam., bhikkhave, addhabhu'tam" Bhikkhus, the ‘all’are afflictions. SN 4.19 “sabbam., bhikkhave, a'dittam." Bhikkhus, the ‘all’are ablaze.
Elaboration with proofs
SN 4.15-29 is the full explanation of the meaning of sabba. It is abundantly clear without debate that sabba is indeed the psychophysical phenomena or the ‘the ‘all’. The absurd notion that sabba is an adjective modifying Dhamma is impossible.
Firstly Dhamma is in the nominative plural; secondly sabba is the standalone accusative direct object in the cases directly above, namely SN 4.28, which proves that Dhamma is not the direct object of anatta'.
Anatta is the adjective in this sentence as it must be in ‘all’ 662 of its occurrences in the Nikayas. It is incorrect to say that "‘all’ Dhammas are noself" or some other such sectarian concoction. Dhamma is in the nominative plural in agreement with sabba, not in the accusative, which would be "dhammam." or plural accusative "dhamme" sabba (nominative) is the direct object of anatta' which is why it occurs as sabbe (accusative plural).
Dhamma is not the direct object of this sentence but rather the subject. One cannot know the meaning of this three-word phrase, which occurs 17 times in Sutta without knowing sabba's meaning at Samyutta Nikaya book 4 verse 15. The sectarian dogma that has grown around this three-word phrase is not found nor can it be attributed to these passages based upon Sutta, context, nor SN 4.15; but only on much later nihilistic slanted commentary. Dhamma in this three word phrase, as Dhammapada #277 and #278 show, is interchangeable with sankha’ra’.
Completely in line with the Sabbe sutta at SN 4.15, sabbe is "‘the ‘all’". This is shown above and below at the Dhammapada that the 17 occurrences of “sabbe dhamma’ anatta'” are occasioned by san.kha'ra' (phenomena). Sabba’s meaning is not "‘all’" nor the adjective of this phrase, that is reserved for anatta'. It has been falsely believed by many that Dhamma is the direct object of the sentence given its location of the middle in the phrase, but this is incorrect since it is undeclined and sabba in its many other occurrences above show in fact that sabba is the crux of what is anatta, afflictions, and ablaze.
One might think Khandhas (skhandas), are the conventional term for ‘the ‘all’, but in actu’all’y khandhas means "mass" or "collection" and do not always carry negative connotation in Sutta as it pertains to the "five khadhas". The "five heaps" is a much more accurate translation for khandha. Khandha is also used in context pertaining to Gotama Buddhas' teachings as khandhas, or "collection/mass of doctrine". Khandha implies "masses", whereas sabba implies "matter/ ‘the ‘all’", especi’all’y sensory related matter; sabba: Lat. solidus & soldus "solid". Both mass (khandha) and matter (sabba) are encompassed by the term san.kha'ra' (phenomena).
Dhammapada 277. “Sabbe san.kha'ra' anicca'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are impermanent; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. 278. “Sabbe san.kha'ra' dukkha'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are suffering; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. 279. “Sabbe dhamma' anatta'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ dharmas are not the Soul; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. The above three passages show certainly that Dhamma’ is taking a different meaning than standard implication of “power/doctrine/Sa’sana” and is replaceable with sankha’ra’ in this context. It is even highly plausible that sankha’ra’ was replaced with dhamma’ by the redactors to imply something Buddhism does not teach.
Other occurances of Sabba in Sutta SN 2.125 sabbe san.kha’ra’ netam. mama nesohamasmi na meso atta’ti ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are not me, are not who I am, are not my Soul. SN 3.43 sabbe san.kha’ra’ anicca’ dukkha’ viparin.a’madhamma’ti ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are not everlasting, suffering are dhammas in flux. AN 1.32 sabbe te dhamma’ anit.t.ha’ya ‘The ‘all’ dharmas are not fixed
SN 4.15 Sabbasuttam. The Sabba Sutta At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, I will teach you on sabba (‘the ‘all’)! Pray listen closely. And what, bhikkhus, is sabba? The eye and its corresponding forms, the ear and its corresponding sounds, the nose and its corresponding smells, the tongue and its corresponding tastes, the body and its corresponding sensations, the intellect and its corresponding dhamma. This, O' bhikkhus, is c’all’ed sabba.
Whosoever, bhikkhus, should proclaim thusly: "Having abandoned these ‘the ‘all’ (sabba), I sh’all’ manifest different set of ‘the ‘all’ (sabba)"-that surely would be only mere (foolish) presumption on his part. If he were questioned on this matter he would only reap his own vexation. How so? It would be utterly outside his abilities to talk about this.
Here ends the Theravada fallacy that Sabbe dhamma' anatta means "All Dharmas are Selfless". The Theravada and other will use any possible crowbar in its failed attempt to turn Buddhism into a Soul denying Nihilism.
Dhammapada Att. 3.407 “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in meaning” - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Some random stuff:
The prefix "a" indicates negation. a.natta ("no self")
The wording of: Buddhist principle of selflessness (anatta).
Should probably be: Buddhist principle of egolessness (anatta).
and linked to: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egolessness
since anatta and egolessness are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.141.185 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2003 (UTC)
There is obviously a breakdown in the normal process of article-creation. This section is for meta-discussion on how we can resolve the problem. I suggest everybody first read the following: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
Please be constructive. No name-calling. Respect! RandomCritic 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Removing the bizarre Buddhism/Hinduism sectioning, as Hinduism has no doctrine of anatman, and having multiple headings for different traditions, at least in the Eastern philosophy and religion WP articles, is used to denote different versions of the same doctrine. Also, the information was sketchy and misleading.
Removing paragraph on nirvana as the goal of Buddhist practice, as it isn't especially pertinent in the anatta article.
Also did some clean-up in other parts. कुक्कुरोवाच
start --
Nick-in-South-Africa 16:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Kukkurovaca Reverting anatta/rebirth switch, as the problems are logically equivalent<
If your position is that you accept that they are logically equivalent then there was no good reason to change them back! In the interest of harmony Ive rephrased the thing to avoid an the problematic phrase entirely:)
The reason I changed them is that I do not accept that saying: >Students of Buddhism often find the doctrine of anatta troubling, because it seems to contradict the Buddhist concept of rebirth< (what it was and what you reverted it to) is the same as saying: >Students of Buddhism often find the doctrine of rebirth troubling, because it seems to contradict the Buddhist concept of anatta<(what I changed it to and you changed it back from for no good reason because you argue that they are equivalent, and Ive now changed again to make the position clearer)
If one can accept the concept of anatta but have a problem with the whole concept of rebirth then the 'troubling' concept is rebirth and not anatta. I posit that many more students of Buddhism who include many rationalist/ empericalist/ sceptics will have a problem with the concepts of rebirth than anatta. This is the position taken in the Book ‘Buddhism without Belief’ by Stephen Batchelor. end -- Nick-in-South-Africa 16:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
+++Students I have encountered "have a problem" with rebirth (although my teacher taught of the rebirth of the separate self during our daily lives, like when you see someone who ticked you off last week and the anger arises.) But past life experiences do come up in practice, and the bottom line is, we don't know why that is. It just can't really be explained- it is THUS. But the teaching of anatta IS the central teaching of Buddhism, and one that, while simple to cognize, is extremely difficult to get. It is unsettling to say the least, it turns the student inside out and upside down. The Wisdom sutras caution over and over about Bodhisattvas who are stricken with terror when confronted with Emptiness.+++ (Lisa M, Portland, OR)
>Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how "I" can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how "I" can be the "same" person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago. <
Not sure if it's just me, but the above argument is particularly eyebrow raising. The argument is that there is no more problem conceiving the difference between the moment to moment transient state of a metabolizing organism than the purported link between completely different organisms with no provable linkage, call me old fashioned but that's a stretch! Do significant number of Buddhists hold this view or do Buddhist that are attached to the concept of rebirth generally concede that the whole concept is a matter of belief? -- Nick-in-South-Africa 17:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Hallo to whomever wrote the new introductory version on "anatta". I personally love most of what you have added - you will find no greater supporter of the viewpoint you express than myself. I have spent the past 25 years arguing for it! But as editors of an encyclopaedia such as this we have to strive to be balanced and impartial. So I do think that, for example, it is simply not factually correct to state that the "majority" of Buddhists take the view that the non-Self doctrine relates only to the ephemeral elements of the being and that there is some higher, eternal Self beyond that, untouched by the "non-Self" teachings. As much as I myself deplore this fact and believe that the general understanding of "non-Self" is seriously wrongheaded and distortionist, the truth is that most Buddhist schools do not express the stance that you (and I) uphold. So I think we do need to stick to the word "minority" here. Also, the piece needs to be tidied up grammatically here and there. All together, though, I personally think the additions are excellent. But I am sure that nearly everybody else will wildly disagree with me (and with you!). Warm wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Your concerns of being "balanced and impartial" are irrelavent to doctrinal inaccuracy. Foremostly an encyclopedia is meant to accurately reflect, in the case of religions, the doctrine it is referencing. What "most Buddhist schools" express in their secular commentary is irrelavent, all religoius debates and references are and must be SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in Doctrine); not to reflect what the "masses accept/hold dear" I have replaced the word majority, back to minority, since that is factually accurate as the view itself is concerned... From Ken W. 17th December 2005 8:30PM EST.
Attasarana has little experience with Wikipedia, but could possibly be a very valuable source, if he can learn some degree of pluralism. His contribution to this article is impressive, but POV, and he seems to be reluctant to accept non-Nikaya Buddhism as being legitimate; I am attempting to encourage him to discuss his contributions, but so far to no avail. The contents of his work are in Talk:Anatta:Attasarana ( 20040302 18:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC))
--You,User:20040302, have commited an unsubstantiated claim and fallacy in presuming presecular doctrinal citation is "POV" (point of view). The point of any encyclopedia is accurate, factual and substantiated information devoid of later secular slants, specifically all religious information and debate is Sola Scriptura (based in Doctrine), not conjecture or POV. Your re-edit which reads "doctrine of anatta" is nothing found in either the Nikayas, the Lankavatara, the Sadharmapudarika, the Mahaparinirvana sutra and others, its a secular commentary by later-day Nihlists upon Buddhism, it in fact has no scriptural basis in fact or in logic, ergo your re-edit which read "doctrine of anatta" is both a baseless claim and an illogical non-doctrinal conjecture utterly foriegn to Buddhism. Without a sutric citation to back up your claims, of which one doesnt exist, I'm afraid youve only stated as fact, something utterly untrue as well as illogical. "At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul" -Itivuttaka- Gotama.
Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes. Both are wrong and their error is most grievous.
For if they say the self is perishable, the fruit they strive for will perish too, and at some time there will be no hereafter. Good and evil would be indifferent. This salvation from selfishness is without merit.
I don't think this quote merits being the first paragraph, as it appears to me more relevant for the reincarnation article, rather than anatta. ( 20040302 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
it seems very misleading to discuss anatta without a single mention of buddha's own view that people have grossly misunderstood his point and that talk of enduring self and perishing self are both in error.
I'm sure your pali is better than mine, Nick. However, wouldn't the phrase "sabbe dhammā anattāti" translate well as "all phenomena are not a soul"? Those are the words uttered by the Buddha in the Cūlasaccaka Sutta, the 35th sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya.
I've flagged this for questionable NPOV. Anatta is interpreted as "not-self" (as in, lacking an independent soul) by the majority of "Buddhists" I'm familiar with (including myself). There does, of course, exist the minority. However, this article seems to imply that claiming the doctrine of Anatta supports the concept of no soul is like claiming the Earth is flat.
Anatta is an Adjective, at no time in any sutta, Nikaya or Mahayana sutra does anatta occur as the denial of soul (atman, Pali: Attan). Youve just commited a Bandwaggon fallacy and privided no empirical citations from Sutras to back up your baseless claim, therefore it is rejected outright.
"what does anatta mean Lord?"..."Just this..form is not the Soul (anatta),,,,neither are feelings,,,etc etc" CITATION: Samyutta Nikaya book 3.196
"The Khandhas are what is meant by the term Anatta"-Khandhavagga-Samyutta XI "at no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul"-Anguttara 3
Buddhologist Dr. Hajjime Nakamura- "At no time shall the audience confuse my opponents conjectures with the Doctrinal scriptural passages i present as evidence"
Your post is Illogical, the concept of "doctrine of Anatta" does not exist in ANY Sutta, in ANY Nikaya, dozens of citations are given, so your illigical in this baseless claim as well. - Buddhologist, Pali translator. S.A., Nowhere in the article does it claim that "doctrine of Anatta supports the concept of no soul". You need to reread the article, its obvious you didnt read it.
The Nikaya translations quoted in the section Presecular position on anatta as presented in the Nikayas used to back the overall claim are dubious and without any citation. Please verify the reliability of these translations and then perhaps we can discuss the factual accuracy of the section itself.
Remember that no original research is an official Wikipedia policy.
You have not read the Article at ALL, there are dozens of citations. Your claim is baseless and without substantiation. - Buddhologist, Pali translator. - S.A.
Renowned Buddhologists and scholars that agree with the premise of the main section are: Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids, George Grimm, S. Radhakrishnan, J. Perez-Ramon, G.C. Pande, I.B. Horner, Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Nikhilananda, Chandradhar Sharma, Dr. Nakamura and many others.....
"dubious" is a CLAIM, "without citation" is wholly a lie, since many many citions are present. I outright reject your objection and baseless praddle. Provide logical evidences, or dont respond.
Original Poster in this thread, "original research" does not apply to the fact that Anatta is A: an Adjective B: all 662 occurances of same are: A is anatta, B is anatta. Your post is spitefull not an intelligent rebuttal to the many citations and logic presented in the Core of the definition- Buddhologist., S.A.
All 662 occurances of the term anatta are as an Adjective, there exists not ONE doctrinal passage which upholds the secular conviction of modern Buddhism that "anatta means there is no soul taught in Buddhism". ABCDEF not X (Atman), therefore X doesnt exist is a logical fallacy "The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha’vagga-Att. 3.270] "The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129]
There are a lot of spiteful retractions on this page which are baseless conjecture and rooted in secular agendas. Nowhere in any Nikayan Sutta is there is "no-Soul doctrine", period. Without logical evidences, dont comment further.
- Buddhologist., S.A.
It follows that only the Nikayas go back to a period which predate the formation of Buddhist sects, which is important in discerning doctrinal matters. [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 12].
Also it is of great note that from the standpoint of doctrinal evolution, that the stage of thought as reflected in sectarian controversies is much later that the formation and recording of the NIKAYAS.
Only the Nikayas thusly, reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Sangha was in doctrine at one. [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 13].
“The vast majority of the Nikayas appear to have existed in record no later then 460 B.C." [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 14].
An examination of the Sanchi inscriptions [one of Buddha’s stupas], show that some time before the early 4rd century B.C. there was already a well established collection of Buddhist sermons of the NIKAYAS. [Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"].
Since only the Nikayas make no note of the massive schisms within the Buddhist Sangha, this is further evidence that it is only the Nikayas themselves that predate all sectarian divisions within the Buddhist Sangha. [Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"]
RandomCritic, You have made too many baseless claims not substantiated in doctrine, in the Nikayas. Anatta is an adjective, period. There is no "anti-anatta" POV, only a missunderstanding of the terms contextual ussage, which is seems you suffer from as well. Mrs. CAF Rhys Davids has nothing do with with 1000s of Doctrinal passages in the Nikayas. “What does ANATMAN mean Lord Gotama? ....Anatman means only this: FORM is anatman, ...FEELINGS are anatman........"----SN 3.196. All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine), otherwise we are discussing personal convictions which may or may not reflect the religion as such. Therefore, id kindly ask you to reference Buddhism when your attempting to discuss Buddhism, otherwise your making no intelligent point on the topic.
Im Afraid unless you have an intelligent and doctrinal substantiation to present, your trying to skew an article based upon your opinions rather than doctrine. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
The "Digital Dictionary of Buddhism" is neither Doctrine nor doctrinally substantiated. One might as well quote the Theravada dictionary on Buddhism which is based not in Doctrine but Abihdhamma secular texts. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
In FACT, "All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", period, your opinions are irrelavent. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
Unless your can intelligently refute the doctrinal citations which are NUMBERLESS, I've reinserted the original text. In fact, there is no person on this planet that knows more about the term Anatta/Anatman than myself. If you wish to refute ANY FACT or citation posted, then do so, otherwise your opinions and secular agenda are ruining the article. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
There have been many attempts by secularists to remove doctrinal material and logical definition of this term from the article thread. I'm afraid unless these peoples have an intelligent and doctrinal substantiation to present, your trying to skew an article based upon your opinions rather than doctrine.
"All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", period, these baseless opinions are irrelavent to the words definition. If what debates the definition of a term in Christianity the first and foremost reference is the Bible, not the Pope, or Oral Roberts, etc.; the same logic applies to Buddhism as well, to say X is Buddhism requires support in doctrine, not the accepted view by X number of secularists as pertains modern Buddhism.
"ANATTA [Pali] Adjective. 1. Used to describe any one of 22 nouns in sutra to be devoid of the Soul. 2. Ex: 'Form is not-Soul (anatta), nor feelings.' [Pali-English Dicitionary 1941 A.P. Mahasharma. Montilal].
“What does the term ANATMAN mean Lord Gotama? ....Anatman means only this: FORM is anatman, ...FEELINGS are anatman........"- Gotama Buddha Samyutta Nikaya book 3, verse 196
Unless your can intelligently refute the doctrinal citations which are NUMBERLESS, I've reinserted the original text. In fact, there is no person on this planet that knows more about the term Anatta/Anatman than myself. If you wish to refute ANY FACT or citation posted, then do so, otherwise your opinions and secular agenda are ruining the article.
[User - Nat Krause] Has made many baseless conjectures and offered no contribution to the definition, either by way of logic, citation, or philosophical discussion before making massive texts removals. I forward that such actions are Sophistic attempts that are agenda driven secular attempts at subterfuge. How do you know that you have grasped the truth of what you say? You must have some criterion, otherwise you will be unsure. Nat Krause without doctrinal criterion, the definition of anatta is merely a reductionistic and futile sophistry "I said so. No, I said so". Substantial claims, Nat, you must learn, require substantial evidences
Buddhologists that posit the Soul within Buddhism and that anatta is undeniably an adjective are here listed just a few of many as follows: Radhakrishnan, F.L. Woodward, Dr. Kanai Lal Hazra, Dr. CAF Rhys Davids, Dr. Joaquin Perez-Ramon, Govind Pande Chande, I.B. Horner, E.M. Hare, Dr. Peter Masefield,George Grimm, Dr. Harsh Narain, Prof. And Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
No-Soul in Pali is not anatta, but Natthatta; there are only 5 occurances of "no soul" NATTHATTA' at SN 4.400, where Vaccagotta asks Gotama “is it so then, Lord Gotama that there is no soul?” (natthatta’).
Nat, any attempt on your part to intelligently discuss the Buddhist term ANATTA without using your personal belief system has been an utter failure. Thankfully, your opinions are not found within the doctrine of Buddhism. It is odd that your are attempting to inseminate others with your fanatical opinions as opposed to trying to skillfully disseminate the doctrine of Buddhism.
No religious definition can exist outside of scripture, be it Buddhist, Christian or otherwise. There is no doctrinal substantiation for the term anatta/anatman outside of that posted on the main thread; views to the contrary require substantial evidences, citations, and logic. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
Again, you have made endless baseless claims and are utterly unlearned in the contextual ussage of this term in Buddhist doctrine.
As for the "analyses of Western scholarship" I've provided a list of Western Buddhologists who are in full agreement upon same. It seems you have a knack for manufacturing endless CLAIMS but are utterly incapable of providing evidences, as such, your viewpoint is without merit as regards the definition of anatta/anatman.
Youve also commited a Strawman fallacy in saying I have presented "my views" when in fact i have given more than ample citations and logic to same. Unless your are able to make an intelligent contribution based upon citations, logic, reasonings, you are trolling wikipedia.
"Idiosyncratic viewpoints" is another baseless claim and strawman fallacy you have presented, again, with no evidences to same, since ample citations are presented with references. After three exchanges with yourself, its obvious you have nothing to contribute to the definition of anatta nor can you intelligently discuss same.
Every time you remove the original section, it will be reposted, until time itself ends. It COULD be removed if you provided ONE shred of logical evidence that it is in anyway incorrect OR the citations untrue, but you are incapable of same, therefore the section stands.
I suggest before you comment again, you give evidences for your baseless claims. The lowest form of arguement is one who makes a 1000 claims with no evidences, something which Gotama called PROFANE (Puthujjana).
"Ananda....the sermons i gave and that will be recorded shall be the final word if dispute is found" Digha Nikaya 2.189
"My teachings (after i am gone) shall settle any dispute if there is doubt between you"----------Itivuttaka. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
I have not used diff. numerical addys. At no time have I hidden my identity, therefore that claim is an utter fabrication.
I have never quoted CAF Rhys Davids at any time, thats a complete lie and baseless claim. Its odd you would employ such an obvious Strawman Fallacy.
G.C. Pande (govind chandra pande) has many many books listed on amazon.com and others out of print, your incapacity to find them is suspect.
One such book is "Studies in the Origins of Buddhism", published by Montilal Banarsidas.
"Maurice Walshe, Nyanatiloka, Walpola Rahula, Nyanamoli Thera, Nyanaponika Thera" are all Theravada Abhidhamma trained secularists, your reference to them is a biased non-neutral reference. We might as well quote the POPE as a neutral scholar of Catholocism! Try harder, your arguement is the weakest I've come across in a long time.
"demonstrably wrong statements about the Pali language and translations" is another one of your many baseless claims, im afriad, all claims require substantiations. The endless train of baseless claims is not helping your case in the eyes of any and all onlookers.
You have provided not one iota of doctrinal nor logical substantiations as per the term Anatta.
Your claim that "anatta is used as a noun in the Nikayas" has not ONE citation to back up same, in fact I know ALL 662 occurances of anatta, all are as an Adjective, provide proof the contrary or dont speak at all.
Nattha (there is no) + attan (Nom. Attan- Soul, Atman-Skt). Im afraid your claim as per this is also utterly without substantiation. Natthatta', also is a heresy in Suttana.
It is perception (knowledge sañña) of WHAT IS not the Soul (anattasañña). That Adjectival Nat, not a noun. Also, it is: "knowledge of WHAT IS impermanence, WHAT IS impurity, WHAT IS disadvantage, letting-go, absence of desire, cessation, of WHAT IS not the Soul".
In all 662 occurances of anatta and anatta compounds, there are is no instance where anatta is used as other than an adjective or adjectival modifier.
Here are ALL compounds of anatta in Suttana: Variants/compounds of Anatta’ anatta’ Anattena anatta’ti anatte anatta’va anatta’yeva’ti anatta’yeva Anatta’nupassi’suttam. Anatta’nupassi’suttam. anatta’nupassi’ Anatta’nupassino anatta’nupassanena Anatta’nupassanekattam. Anatta’nupassana’suññata’nupassana’nañca anatta’nupassana’sankha’ta’ anatta’nupassana’vut.t.ha’navasena anatta’nupassana’visesoyeva anatta’nupassana’vasena anatta’nupassana’vase Anatta’nupassana’va anatta’nupassana’yeva anatta’nupassana’ya anatta’nupassana’mukheneva anatta’nupassana’mukhena anatta’nupassana’ña’n.ena anatta’nupassana’ña’n.e Anatta’nupassana’ña’n.am. anatta’nupassana’ anatta’nupassananti Anatta’nupassanattha’ya Anatta’nupassanam. anatta’nanti anatta’nattaniye anatta’nattaniyameva anatta’nam.yeva anatta’nam. Anatta’dhi’noti anatta’dhi’no anatta’disabha’vam.yeva anatta’tipi anatta’ka’ropi anatta’ka’rena anattasuttam. anattasambhu’to anattasambhu’ta’ Anattasambhu’tam. anattasabha’ve anattasaññi’ anattasañña’paricitena anattasañña’paricitañca anattasañña’ti anattasañña’ Anattasaññanti anattasaññañca anattasaññam. anattalakkhan.e Anattalakkhan.asuttam. anattalakkhan.ameva anattalakkhan.añca anattalakkhan.am. anattaniyam. Anattani anattana’va anattadhammo”ti anattadhammo anattadassanam. anattatopi anattatoti Anattato anattam.
- None of the above are found as other than modifying any one of 22 Nouns being: Ru’pa form vedana’ feelings sañña’ perceptions san’kha’ra’ impulses viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness sabba (aggregates/ “the all”) cakkhu eye cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms cakkhusamphasso vision contact tan.ha’ lusts-desires mano mind/mentation manoviñña’n.a mental formations manosamphasso mental contact Sota ear gha’na nose jivha’ tongue ka’yo body ra’go lusts kot.t.hika cell "body-cell" asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul asubham. disgusting asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering
Again, nat, youve given no help to your position.
"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no-Soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga XIV
- S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
(literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]) has only five occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha. Anatta’ is not “no-Soul”, but natthatta’ which is deemed, by Gotama, to be ucchedavada annihilationist heresy. [SN 1.96] "The nihilist (natthika) goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" To espouse negation of the Soul is heresy in Buddhism, contrary to the personal dogma of 'modern Buddhism' who misconceive the via negative methodology (na me so atta, neti neti, anatta) so common to Indian philosophical systems.
To hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).
Vimanavatthu #1252-1253 “My name was Piyasi, I held sway over the Kosalans; I held the view of a nihilist (natthikaditthi), was of evil habbit and was miserly; I was an anti-foundationalist/annihilationist then (ucchedavada).
Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That[Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa)-i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”.
PTS Rhys Davids Pali-English Dictionary: anatta (predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul. Most freq. in combn. with dukkha & anicca -- adj. (pred.): S IV.152 sq.; S IV.166; S IV.130 sq., 148 sq.; Vin I.13 = S III.66 = Nd2 680 Q 1; S III.20 sq.; 178 sq., 196 sq.
All 22 things in suttana which are said to be Devoid of the Soul:
A, B, C, D, etc. are ANATTA (listed below) Ru’pa form vedana’ feelings sañña’ perceptions san’kha’ra’ impulses viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness sabba (aggregates/ “the all”) cakkhu eye cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms cakkhusamphasso vision contact tan.ha’ lusts-desires mano mind/mentation manoviñña’n.a mental formations manosamphasso mental contact Sota ear gha’na nose jivha’ tongue ka’yo body ra’go lusts kot.t.hika cell "body-cell" asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul asubham. disgusting asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering
KN J-1441 Akkhakandam: “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” - “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”- Gotama Buddha
Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.- "Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100
Buddhologist Dr. Nakamura--- "At no time shall the audience confuse my opponents conjectures with the Doctrinal scriptural passages i present as evidence"
Buddhologist Dr. Nakamura is quite famous, well over 20 books on Buddhism. In several of his books he outright states there is no denial of the Atman in Buddhist suttana.
Udana 1.81. There IS, followers, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed. - Gotama Buddha
“If there were no Soul, Subhuti, then the Tathagata, the Buddha could not save anyone trapped in Samsara” - [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
For the fouth time youve made numberless claims but can provide no evidences. Do not reply again unless you have an intelligent contribution as per the term Anatta. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
I'm afraid that after five responses now, you have provided no citations, logic, justifications, and substantiations as regards the term anatta. Unless you are capable of backing up your claims as per anatta, then one can only presume your reasons for persistent removal of texts is solely due to a secular agenda, instead of (logically so) attempting to improve or correct any mistakes that may or may not exist in the main body of the text on anatta. No other conclusion can be reached, such that repeated requests upon yourself to justify intelligently your position have not been answered in any way shape or form.
“What is the Soul? It is the Real, the Eternal, the Master, the One to be depended upon, or also, that True-Nature (svabhava) which does not suffer change, this is the Soul.” [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
“Oh followers! Do not abide like the fools do in hankering after the non-eternal, the not-Self, the sorrowful, the impure; and be like those people who take stone, wooden sticks, and gravel for the true beryl gem, the Soul!” [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
Nettipakaranapali v.86- “anicce niccanti, anattani attati” - “What is anatta is impermanent, what is eternal is the Soul”
I presume your unaware of the fact that the term ANATMAN is used both in the Upanishads and by Samkara. There are, however, no followers of the Upanishads and Samkara however that missunderstand the Neti-Neti (The Atman is not this, not that [Anatman]) contextual ussage of said term. No coincidence exists to the fact that anatta is used in the exact same context in Buddhist sutta as by Samkara himself (Eg. This is not the Soul, nor that).
The only heresy in Buddhist doctrine according to Gotama is: Anguttara Nikaya 2.51 -"anattaya ca attano" - "to [see] Soul in what is not the Soul"
Maybe you could comment upon why the 'realm of Immortality' (amataya dhatuya) is "outside the scope of what is anatta, is gained by the citta (will/mind)"-Majjhima 1.436
You need to be reminded "Nat Krause" (since you have said elsewhere this is not your real name) that: “Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probata” - “The wise man states nothing as true that he cannot prove.”
You can either dirrectly refute the numberless citations and logic put forward, or respond no more. You are woefully using Wikipedia to expunge upon others your secular agenda rather than making a helpful contribution; most certainly given the fact that you have, in five responses now, nothing whatsoever to contribute to the term anatta in the way of evidences or professionalism upon said term.
"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no-Soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga XIV
- S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
Foremostly, you’ve fallaciously presumed said translation was mine, I never claimed same.
Thanks for introducing your “substantiation”, being: self in the selfless (anattani attaa ti). However, the translation is “[falsely seeing] anattani attaa (Soul in what is not the Soul)”. The term anatta is Syn. with anicca and dukkha, its meaning was well known to the Aryasavkas of Gotama.
The adjectival is clear in (anattani attaa ti). In english it is the same; if one were to say “[it is foolish to look for the] Pure in the filthy”. Nat, what IS filthy? Form is filthy, feelings are filthy, perceptions are filthy.
By your great illogical conceptions, Nat, you would presume Buddhism’s main pillar is a “doctrine of [what is] filthy”, or, in this case “doctrine of anatta” (which does not exist in any Pali passage, only in C.E. commentaries). However Nat, the quest for the PURE (vishudiya) is “Gotamas path”- Udana.
Its really hard to know where to start with your ignorances, Nat. By your presumption Buddhism is merely secular Humanism. Like most, you confuse the empirical khandhic self (namo-rupa) of flesh and blood and bone with The Self, the Soul, that “which is most dear (paramo piya)”, which is “the only refuge (attasarana anannasarana”. Nat, you cannot even be spiritual anything and deny the Subjective Self, the Soul; only a Humanist. However Buddhism is the “quest and path of immortality”; "mine is AMATAGAMIMAGGA (path to immortality)".
Nat, use your brain, son. What is impure? What is anatta? What is impermanent? What is dukkha?
Since you dislike any Indian commenting upon Buddhism (you seem to conceive this as a “dirty Hindu sticking his nose into Buddhism”, as if Buddhism itself was the “Anti-Christ” religion to Vedanta!), you might want to read “Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism” by Perez-Ramon. A doctoral dissertation upon the claims by modern pseudo-Buddhism as evidenced in doctrine. Perez-Ramon is a well acknowledged Pali scholar of acclaim.
It is of great note, Nat, that you believe and uphold strongly the secular Abhidhamma position of Buddhism. One might as well ask why anyone would foremostly praise the words of any Pope before and above that of the Bible. I would like a response, Nat, why your in fact not a truth seeker nor find logical conviction in the fact that if we speak or debate Buddhism, its doctrine is the grounds for verity, not the commentarial views of Buddhaghosa, H.H.D.L, any Lama, Rinpoche, Zen master, etc. The entire basis, as you have said “accepted belief by millions of Buddhists that anatta……”. We might as equally say that “Billions of Catholics believe”. Your fallacious position is attempting to argue X and referencing Y for support of same (i.e. the beliefs and views of 1700+ years of secular “Buddhism” [Buddhism in name only]).
The empirical self is not in question by anyone, son, its fate “is the grave”-Eckhart. Neither Atheist, nor Creationist, nor Buddhist denies the fate of the namo-rupic self of flesh and blood. This is something secular Vajrayana has not taught you. "The Khandhas are what is meant by Anatta"-Khandhavagga-Samyutta. This self (namo-rupa/psycho-physical) is not in question, nobody is in denial of this self composed of the humors of phenomenal existence…That which is in question by the Nihilists is the Self (attan/Atman), or ones Self-nature (svabhava).
"The Lord, the Bhagavat, (buddha) has never taught the unreality of the Soul"- Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
As for Attan; Buddhadatta Mahathera's PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY ....page 8.......Atta' [attan]: SOUL "A Dictionary of Pali" by Margaret Cone: Attan (atta): [Sanskrit Atman], The self, the soul, as a permanent unchangeable, autonomous entity; p.70, Pali Text Society.
The very same Pali term Attan is “the only refuge” Dn 2.100. The very same Pali term Attan is called “everlasting” (accutam). The very same Pali term Attan is called eternal (niccam)- SN 1.169
Mahanidesapali 2.235 “niccato sukhato attatoti” Eternal bliss in the Soul
MN 1.141 What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did with them as they wished or burned them up, would it occur to you: These people are carrying us off, are doing as they please with us, and are burning that which we are? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul! Just so followers, what is not who you are, do away with it, when you have made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and welfare for as long as time lasts. What is that which is not who you are? Form, followers, is not who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences, nor sentience. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
I'm going to edit according to two rules.
I will tag explanation of each edit/delete. So please defend each edit rather than resorting to wholesale revert. Vapour
Hmm, this looks like a version of "Jew for Jesus". Only this time, it is Hindu trying to convert Buddhist. "Gautama for Vedannta"? Vapour
"Anatta is an adjective"
"supposedly permanent"
"in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence;"
"none of these skhandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)".
All above deleted for being a mere soapbox edit for "Buddah for Vedanta" movement. Please learn the meanining of NPOV, Verification and No Origina Research policies.
"Buddhist teaching tells us that all empirical life is impermanent and in a constant state of flux, and that any entity that exists does so only in dependence on the conditions of its arising, which are non-eternal. Therefore, any Self-concept (attanuditthi) sense one might have of an abiding Self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension; since the conceptualization of the Self or soul is just that, and not an ontological apprehension of same."
Considering that Mahayana Buddhism are often accused of being hindunised version of Buddhism, there are some validity in reference to some Mahayana sutras which looks like reincorporating the concept of atman. Only problem is this part "explicitly referring to the ultimately real, pure, blissful Self". This looks like another one of "Buddah for Vedanta" spindoctoring to me. I believe that actual statement was more nuanced. I will delete this for being original research. However, I have no objection to reviving this part if it is done as a direct quote from sutras. Vapour
On second thought, this section is too small. Merged with dependent origination section. Vapour
O.K. This appear to be about reincarnation. The title changed to something more comprehensible. Vapour
"The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named Kutadanta." Inapropriate reference. Please get reference from sutras, at least instead of something titled "Gospel of Buddha". Vapour
"Others seek a proxy not for the ātman but for Brahman, the Indian monistic ideal that functions as an ātman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta."
For buddhism, it is motive/intention which is carried to next life. So there is no paradox. If you think there is a paradox, you can present it as such as long as you have verifiable reference. Try not to interpret buddhist sects POV with your POV. Vapour
"Later, the Yogacara school, a branch of Mahayana doctrine, argue that, at death the body & mind disintegrates, but if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being (i.e. a fetus developing the ability to harbor consciousness)."
"Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how "I" can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how "I" can be the "same" person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago. A further difficulty with the anatta doctrine is that it contradicts the notion of a path of practise. Anatta followed to its logical extremities rejects the reality of a Buddhist practitioner able to detach him/herself from clinging."
The idea that Nikaya is the oldest text is so NPOV. In fact, what is the oldest tripitaka isn't settled question. Pali Cannon is the oldest "full" compilation of Tripitaka but some translation of Sanskrit sutras in Chinese and Tibettan is said to be older. And to what extent surviving Chinese/Tibettan/Sanskrit/Pali cannon represent Nikaya school is big question. Moreover, the entire content appear to be summary of "Buddah for Vedanta" POV. The whole section deleted for being a soapbox of unknown person's original research. Vapour
Though reference to these two sutras may be valid wikipedia entries, the current content appear to be an original-research interpretation of these two sutras. Words like "distinctive" or "remarkable" or "controvercial" isn't really appropriate. I would say it is o.k. to revive the reference, but only if one can make direct quote from the online text. Vapour
I will not object to "Tathagatagarbha and Mahaparinirvana" restoration. However, interpretation of these two sutras from buddhist schools or academic or other verifiable source is helpful IMO. Vapour
On this very point of the controversial nature of the TG Self/non-Self teachings, and how others apart from myself have also stated this to be the case: here are a couple or three quotes from the books of reputable scholars on the Buddha Nature doctrine and its relation to Emptiness teachings (i.e. non-Self writ large). The first comes from Dr. Shenpen Hookham's The Buddha Within (State University of New York Press, 1991):
"Tathagatagarbha - Buddha Nature - is a central concept of Mahayana Buddhism crucial to all the living practice traditions of Tibetan and Zen Buddhism. Its relationship to the concept of emptiness has been a subject of controversy [my emphasis] for seven hundred years."
Elsewhere in the same book, Dr. Hookham (who is both an Oxford University Ph.D. in Buddhism and a recognised Buddhist lama) speaks of how two different types of person tend to be drawn to Buddhism (the analytical, and the intuitive) and how they will tend to side either with the the Rangtong or Shentong approach to Buddhism respectively. As is well-known by Tibetan Buddhists, the Shentong approach takes its stand on the Tathagatagarbha sutras and insists that they mean what they say in their qualifying/ delimiting of "non-Self" and their advocacy of a true Self or abiding Essence. Dr. Hookham writes:
" ... this division of interest in Buddhism in the West is refelected in the rangtong-Shentong controversy [my emphasis] in the Tibetan tradition." (p. 54).
Another historically renowned Buddhist master, Dolpopa of Tibet, brought down years of controversy upon his head because of his championing of the Tathagatagarbha teachings - his insistence that there is not only "non-Self" but an eternal, real Self. Dr. Cyrus Stearns, in his major book, The Buddha from Dolpo (State University of New York Press, 1999) comments:
"Without question, the teachings and writings of Dolpopa, who was also known as 'The Buddha from Dolpo' ... and 'The Omniscient One from Dolpo Who Embodies the Buddhas of the Three Times' ...contain the most controversial [my emphasis] and stunning ideas ever presented by a great Tibetan Buddhist master. The controversies [my emphasis] that stemmed from his teachings are still very much alive today among Tibetan Buddhists, more than six hundred years after Dolpopa's death." (p. 2).
Those teachings are of course a championing of Tathagatagarbha doctrines on the Self.
There are other authors whom one could quote to support the point that the TG teachings are controversial amongst Buddhists (and always have been) - but I think most Buddhist editors of Wikipedia will not disagree with me that the Tathagatagarbha sutric doctrines on Self and non-Self are indeed a focus of controversy - as we witness at this very moment! So the word "controversial" is quite appropriate in relation to the TG take on "non-Self". Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have wiped "Buddha for Vedanta" POV. Whoever wrote this, please understand that sites such as this or that cannot be regarded as a reliable sources according to policies and guideline specified by the site. When your POV gain more prominence, your POV may be presented as a (significant) minority POV. At this point, you are just vandalising the article by your attempt to use wikipedia as your soapbox. Vapour
Please understand that advocacy of your POV by citing scriptures is still regarded as a violation of soapbox ban. Moreover, please understand the meaning of " original reseach" as specified in this site. If you think your interpretation is supported by reputable scholars, forget your interpretation and cite these reputable scholars instead. Vapour
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra
used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman)
which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]
Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta).
Contrary to some popular books written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta.
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from the macrocosmic, to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body or the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent)
and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.”
Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates).
Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta).
The commonly held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.
The Pali term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada).
Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), nearly so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).
is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])’”.
Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated through the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”.
Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’” [MN 1.232] The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.” The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value; it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact complements it.
[Nettippakarana 44] “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha’)" [SN 3.234] The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi “Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis.” [MN 1.511] “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness.” [MN 1.436] “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!”
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.).
"The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97] "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441] "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692] "The Soul is Svabhava(Self-Nature)." [Maha’vagga-Att. 3.270] "The Soul is the refuge to be sought" [Suttanipata-Att. 1.129] "Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9] "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna’sa-Att. 4.151] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4]
It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]
but this is not what modern writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta’) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha)
"Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]-Gotama “The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270]
and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama)
a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22].
It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.
Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending”
Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates.
Due to secular propagation,
a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as status quo,
however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism’s denial of soul,
or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”.
"The aggregates are to be transcended (nissaranam)" SN 3.35
The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169.
In fact the phrase “Doctrine of anatta”, or “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries.
As the saying goes, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”.
Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a “Doctrine of anatta” as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.
The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind away from these and gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436]
The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta.
Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is “beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts” thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only through “the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not”- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.
Stephen Hodge, I’m afraid to state the obvious that user Random Critic is a typical secularist blind to countless 1000s of scriptural passages as pertains original Buddhism. Not a truth-seeker himself, his mission is to guard his incorrect, secular, and illogical views of Buddhism. Like the Catholic Church, which is nothing Jesus taught (Catholicism), that is often accused of protecting in secret and destroying Gnostic-like manuscripts and gospels, Buddhism too has this breed amongst its rank and file.
Random Critic, in debate, has been proven that he is unaware and adverse to the fact all religious debates are Sola Scriptura (In Doctrine) and unceasingly refuses to refer to same to support his unsubstantiated claims as pertains Buddhist doctrine.
Unfortunately Random Critics' position is identical to that of Theravada and most of Mahayana to wit the denial of all things other than 6: the 5-khandhas and agnosis (avijja); as such this is merely nothing more than Materialist-Humanism, wherein, thru the denial of ones Subjective Nature (Svabhava-Atman), all that is left is a compassion-based Humanistic Nihilism.
Surely the "light-within (dipam)"-Dn 2.100, and "Immortality (amata)"-Sn 5.9, has no place in what is concurrently passed off to the general public as "the teachings of the Buddha". One might as well deny Christ in Christianity as to remove the "only refuge", the Soul from the doctrine of Buddhism; whether illogical or non-doctrinal, the center doesn’t hold for a Liberation (vimutta) ontology such as Buddhism to espouse such nonsense.
“It cannot be otherwise that the Soul is the refuge, the light within, the refuge of the Tathagatas of the three periods”-[Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]
Udana 1.81. There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not ,disciples, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed.
"I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered" -SN 2.106
"I have NOT come teaching a new path"-Udana
"Gotama is a TEVIJJAN (Comprehensor/Expert in the Vedas)"- common passage
“The Buddha is a teacher of Monism (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]
"Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-Itivuttaka
[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”- Gotama
"I have not made a new path monks, I have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka - - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
How Dhammapada commentary explains Dhammmapada #279 Tattha sabbe dhamma’ti pañcakkhandha’ eva adhippeta’
Dhammapada Att. 3.407 “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in meaning”
Theravada has used as its last defense for 1500 years now, the “sabbe dhamma anatta” defense to ‘prove’ that all is ‘void’ of a Soul in Buddhist doctrine, or that there cannot be a Soul whatsoever, for as they say “all Dharmas” encompasses everything in entirety. The Theravada say this phrase found in the Dhammapada (and other locations) means in translation “All Dharmas are Soulless”. However, in fact, under close examination the Theravada view falls apart very quickly and their self-created dogma disappears under close scrutiny. Here ends the “sabbe dhamma anatta” debate.
Dhammmapada #279 Phrase dissected Dhammapada #279 “Sabbe dhamma’ anatta'” sabbe (noun [see SN 4.15 below], direct object, in accusative. Sabba is nominative, ‘the ‘all’) The ‘all’partakes of the Soul; however the Soul does not partake of, is not in, the ‘‘all’. Sabbe Dharmas are not the Soul (anatta). Sabba is described as the “five aggregates” in the Pali commentary to this passage.
dhamma’ (proper noun, plural, subject, undeclined in nominative, dharmas)
anatta' (adjective, modifying sabba. An [is not] atta' [attan: Soul]; Buddhadatta Mahathera's Pali-English Dictionary; page 8: Atta' [attan]: soul.). ‘all’ 275 occurrences of anatta' in sutta are adjectival, never as a noun in standalone but rather modifying a noun in negation to its correlation to being identifiable with the Attan.
Sabba in standalone This single passage below at Samyutta 4.28 shows that Dhamma is not the crux of the infamous "sabbe dhamma’ anatta", but rather sabba. SN 4.28 “sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta" The ‘‘all’, bhikkhus, are not the Soul. SN 4.21 “sabbam., bhikkhave, addhabhu'tam" Bhikkhus, the ‘all’are afflictions. SN 4.19 “sabbam., bhikkhave, a'dittam." Bhikkhus, the ‘all’are ablaze.
Elaboration with proofs
SN 4.15-29 is the full explanation of the meaning of sabba. It is abundantly clear without debate that sabba is indeed the psychophysical phenomena or the ‘the ‘all’. The absurd notion that sabba is an adjective modifying Dhamma is impossible.
Firstly Dhamma is in the nominative plural; secondly sabba is the standalone accusative direct object in the cases directly above, namely SN 4.28, which proves that Dhamma is not the direct object of anatta'.
Anatta is the adjective in this sentence as it must be in ‘all’ 662 of its occurrences in the Nikayas. It is incorrect to say that "‘all’ Dhammas are noself" or some other such sectarian concoction. Dhamma is in the nominative plural in agreement with sabba, not in the accusative, which would be "dhammam." or plural accusative "dhamme" sabba (nominative) is the direct object of anatta' which is why it occurs as sabbe (accusative plural).
Dhamma is not the direct object of this sentence but rather the subject. One cannot know the meaning of this three-word phrase, which occurs 17 times in Sutta without knowing sabba's meaning at Samyutta Nikaya book 4 verse 15. The sectarian dogma that has grown around this three-word phrase is not found nor can it be attributed to these passages based upon Sutta, context, nor SN 4.15; but only on much later nihilistic slanted commentary. Dhamma in this three word phrase, as Dhammapada #277 and #278 show, is interchangeable with sankha’ra’.
Completely in line with the Sabbe sutta at SN 4.15, sabbe is "‘the ‘all’". This is shown above and below at the Dhammapada that the 17 occurrences of “sabbe dhamma’ anatta'” are occasioned by san.kha'ra' (phenomena). Sabba’s meaning is not "‘all’" nor the adjective of this phrase, that is reserved for anatta'. It has been falsely believed by many that Dhamma is the direct object of the sentence given its location of the middle in the phrase, but this is incorrect since it is undeclined and sabba in its many other occurrences above show in fact that sabba is the crux of what is anatta, afflictions, and ablaze.
One might think Khandhas (skhandas), are the conventional term for ‘the ‘all’, but in actu’all’y khandhas means "mass" or "collection" and do not always carry negative connotation in Sutta as it pertains to the "five khadhas". The "five heaps" is a much more accurate translation for khandha. Khandha is also used in context pertaining to Gotama Buddhas' teachings as khandhas, or "collection/mass of doctrine". Khandha implies "masses", whereas sabba implies "matter/ ‘the ‘all’", especi’all’y sensory related matter; sabba: Lat. solidus & soldus "solid". Both mass (khandha) and matter (sabba) are encompassed by the term san.kha'ra' (phenomena).
Dhammapada 277. “Sabbe san.kha'ra' anicca'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are impermanent; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. 278. “Sabbe san.kha'ra' dukkha'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are suffering; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. 279. “Sabbe dhamma' anatta'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ dharmas are not the Soul; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. The above three passages show certainly that Dhamma’ is taking a different meaning than standard implication of “power/doctrine/Sa’sana” and is replaceable with sankha’ra’ in this context. It is even highly plausible that sankha’ra’ was replaced with dhamma’ by the redactors to imply something Buddhism does not teach.
Other occurances of Sabba in Sutta SN 2.125 sabbe san.kha’ra’ netam. mama nesohamasmi na meso atta’ti ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are not me, are not who I am, are not my Soul. SN 3.43 sabbe san.kha’ra’ anicca’ dukkha’ viparin.a’madhamma’ti ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are not everlasting, suffering are dhammas in flux. AN 1.32 sabbe te dhamma’ anit.t.ha’ya ‘The ‘all’ dharmas are not fixed
SN 4.15 Sabbasuttam. The Sabba Sutta At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, I will teach you on sabba (‘the ‘all’)! Pray listen closely. And what, bhikkhus, is sabba? The eye and its corresponding forms, the ear and its corresponding sounds, the nose and its corresponding smells, the tongue and its corresponding tastes, the body and its corresponding sensations, the intellect and its corresponding dhamma. This, O' bhikkhus, is c’all’ed sabba.
Whosoever, bhikkhus, should proclaim thusly: "Having abandoned these ‘the ‘all’ (sabba), I sh’all’ manifest different set of ‘the ‘all’ (sabba)"-that surely would be only mere (foolish) presumption on his part. If he were questioned on this matter he would only reap his own vexation. How so? It would be utterly outside his abilities to talk about this.
Here ends the Theravada fallacy that Sabbe dhamma' anatta means "All Dharmas are Selfless". The Theravada and other will use any possible crowbar in its failed attempt to turn Buddhism into a Soul denying Nihilism.
Dhammapada Att. 3.407 “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in meaning” - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana