Ātman (Buddhism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:About Template:Lead too short Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists Template:Asian philosophy sidebar Ātman (Template:IPAc-en), attā or attan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature's discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchanging atman (self, soul).<ref>John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, Template:ISBN, p. 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".</ref><ref name=anatmansources>[a] Anatta Template:Webarchive, Encyclopædia Britannica (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (“the self”).";
[b] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, Template:ISBN, p. 64; Quote: "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence.";
[c] Dae-Sook Suh (1994), Korean Studies: New Pacific Currents, University of Hawaii Press, Template:ISBN, p. 171;
[d] Katie Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana? Which is “Boundless”Template:Webarchive, Philosophy Now;
[e] David Loy (1982), Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?, International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp. 65–74;
[f] KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, Template:ISBN, pp. 246–249, from note 385 onwards;
[g] Bruno Nagel (2000), Roy Perrett (editor), Philosophy of Religion: Indian Philosophy, Routledge, Template:ISBN, p. 33</ref>

Etymology

Cognates (Template:Langx) ātman, Pāli atta, Old English æthm, and German Atem derive from the Indo-European root *ēt-men (breath). The word means "essence, breath, soul."<ref name=dougharperatman>Atman Template:Webarchive Etymology Dictionary, Douglas Harper (2012)</ref>

Ātman and atta refer to a person's "true self", a person's permanent self, absolute within, the "thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations" separate from and beyond the changing phenomenal world.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The term Ātman is synonymous with Tuma, Atuma and Attan in early Buddhist literature, state Rhys David and William Stede, all in the sense of "self, soul".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The Atman and Atta are related, in Buddhist canons, to terms such as Niratta (Nir+attan, soulless) and Attaniya (belonging to the soul, having a soul, of the nature of soul).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Early Buddhism

"Atman" in early Buddhism appears as "all dhammas are not-Self (an-atta)", where atta (atman) refers to a metaphysical Self, states Peter Harvey, that is a "permanent, substantial, autonomous self or I".Template:Sfn This concept refers to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism, where a distinction is made between the personal self, jivatman (impermanent body, personality) and the Real Self, Atman.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>[a] Template:Cite book, Quote: "In working with the higher consciousness, and in learning to understand one's higher nature and purpose, Assagioli (1991, 1993) believes that a person contacts and expresses the Higher Self (Transpersonal Self or Spiritual Self) equivalent to the Atman (universal Self or Soul of the Hindu Upanishads).";
[b] Template:Cite book;
[c] Template:Cite book</ref> The early Buddhist literature explores the validity of the Upanishadic concepts of self and Self, then asserts that every living being has an impermanent self but there is no real Higher Self.Template:Sfn The Nikaya texts of Buddhism deny that there is anything called Ātman that is the substantial absolute or essence of a living being, an idea that distinguishes Buddhism from the Brahmanical (proto-Hindu) traditions.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "Self" can be found.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In Buddha's view, states Wayman, "eso me atta, or this is my Self, is to be in the grip of wrong view".Template:Sfn All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, and therefore can't be taken to be an unchanging "Self".Template:Sfn Instead, the Buddha explains the perceived continuity of the human personality by describing it as composed of five skandhas, without a permanent entity (Self, soul).Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Pudgalavada

Of the early Indian Buddhist schools, only the Pudgalavada-school diverged from this basic teaching. The Pudgalavādins asserted that, while there is no ātman, there is a pudgala or "person", which is neither the same as nor different from the skandhas.Template:Sfn

Buddha-nature

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

Buddha-nature is a central notion of east-Asian (Chinese) Mahayana thought.Template:Sfn It refers to several related terms,Template:Refn most notably Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-dhātu.Template:Refn Tathāgatagarbha means "the womb of the thus-gone" (cf. enlightened one), while Buddha-dhātu literally means "Buddha-realm" or "Buddha-substrate".Template:Refn Several key texts refer to the tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-dhātu as "atman", Self or essence, though those texts also contain warnings against a literal interpretation. Several scholars have noted similarities between tathāgatagarbha texts and the substantial monism found in the atman/Brahman tradition.<ref>Jamie Hubbard, Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, 2001, pp. 99–100</ref>

The Tathagatagarbha doctrine, at its earliest, probably appeared about the later part of the 3rd century CE, and is verifiable in Chinese translations of 1st millennium CE.Template:Sfn

Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

In contrast to the madhyamika-tradition, the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra uses "positive language" to denote "absolute reality". According to Paul Williams, the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra teaches an underlying essence, "Self", or "atman".Template:Sfn This "true Self" is the Buddha-nature (Tathagatagarbha), which is present in all sentient beings, and realized by the awakened ones. Most scholars consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an 'essential nature' in every living being is equivalent to 'Self',Template:Refn and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book, Quote: "Some texts of the tathagatagarbha literature, such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra actually refer to an atman, though other texts are careful to avoid the term. This would be in direct opposition to the general teachings of Buddhism on anatta. Indeed, the distinctions between the general Indian concept of atman and the popular Buddhist concept of Buddha-nature are often blurred to the point that writers consider them to be synonymous."</ref>

According to Sallie B. King, the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra does not represent a major innovation.Template:Sfn Its most important innovation is the linking of the term buddhadhatu with tathagatagarbha.Template:Sfn According to King, the sutra is rather unsystematic,Template:Sfn which made it "a fruitful one for later students and commentators, who were obliged to create their own order and bring it to the text".Template:Sfn The sutra speaks about Buddha-nature in so many different ways, that Chinese scholars created a list of types of Buddha-nature that could be found in the text.Template:Sfn One of those statements is: Template:Quote

In the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra the Buddha also speaks of the "affirmative attributes" of nirvana, "the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure."<ref>Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, Mahayanism: A Critical Exposition of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1975, pp. 141, 142</ref> The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explains: Template:Quote

Edward Conze connotatively links the term tathagata itself (the designation which the Buddha applied to himself) with the notion of a real, true self: Template:Quote

It is possible, states Johannes Bronkhorst, that "original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul [Ātman, Attan]", even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied it existence.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Template:Dead linkWhile there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, adds Bronkhorst, it is clear from these texts that seeking self-knowledge is not the Buddhist path for liberation, and turning away from self-knowledge is.<ref name=bronkhorst25/> This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as "the principal means to achieving liberation".<ref name=bronkhorst25>Template:Cite book</ref>

"Self" as a teaching method

According to Paul Wiliams, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:Template:Sfn Template:Quote

In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.<ref>Peter Harvey, Consciousness Mysticism in the Discourses of the Buddha. In Karel Werner, ed., The Yogi and the Mystic. Curzon Press 1989, p. 98.</ref>

Ratnagotravibhāga

The Ratnagotravibhāga (also known as Uttaratantra), another text composed in the first half of 1st millennium CE and translated into Chinese in 511 CE, points out that the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "self-love" (atma-sneha) – considered to be a moral defect in Buddhism.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The 6th-century Chinese Tathagatagarbha translation states that "Buddha has shiwo (True Self) which is beyond being and nonbeing".Template:Sfn However, the Ratnagotravibhāga asserts that the "Self" implied in Tathagatagarbha doctrine is actually "not-Self".Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Current disputes

The dispute about "self" and "not-self" doctrines has continued throughout the history of Buddhism.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> According to Johannes Bronkhorst, it is possible that "original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul", even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied its existence.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> French religion writer André Migot also states that original Buddhism may not have taught a complete absence of self, pointing to evidence presented by Buddhist and Pali scholars Jean Przyluski and Caroline Rhys Davids that early Buddhism generally believed in a self, making Buddhist schools that admit an existence of a "self" not heretical, but conservative, adhering to ancient beliefs.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> In his book, The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism, scholar Kamaleswar Bhattacharya wrote that, while Shakyamuni Buddha did indeed teach against a permanent self within the ever-changing aggregates, both he and early Buddhists believed in an impersonal, universal atman.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, Bronkhorst suggests that these texts clearly indicate that the Buddhist path of liberation consists not in seeking self-knowledge, but in turning away from what might erroneously be regarded as the self.<ref name="bronkhorst253">Template:Cite book</ref> This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as "the principal means to achieving liberation."<ref name="bronkhorst253" />

In Thai Theravada Buddhism, for example, states Paul Williams, some modern era Buddhist scholars have said that "nirvana is indeed the true Self", Template:Cite quote while other Thai Buddhists disagree.Template:Sfn For instance, the Dhammakaya Movement in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric of anatta (non-self); instead, nirvana is taught to be the "true self" or dhammakaya.Template:Sfn The Dhammakaya Movement teaching that nirvana is atta, or true self, was criticized as heretical in Buddhism in 1994 by Ven. Payutto, a well-known scholar monk, who stated that 'Buddha taught nibbana as being non-self".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn The abbot of one major temple in the Dhammakaya Movement, Luang Por Sermchai of Wat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram, argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners. He points to the experiences of prominent forest hermit monks such as Luang Pu Sodh and Ajahn Mun to support the notion of a "true self".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Similar interpretations on the "true self" were put forth earlier by the 12th Supreme Patriarch of Thailand in 1939. According to Williams, the Supreme Patriarch's interpretation echoes the tathāgatagarbha sutras.Template:Sfn

Several notable teachers of the Thai Forest Tradition have also described ideas in contrast to absolute non-self. Ajahn Maha Bua, a well known meditation master, described the citta (mind) as being an indestructible reality that does not fall under anattā.<ref>pp. 101–103 Maha Boowa, Arahattamagga, Arahattaphala: the Path to Arahantship – A Compilation of Venerable Acariya Maha Boowa's Dhamma Talks about His Path of Practice, translated by Bhikkhu Silaratano, 2005, http://www.forestdhammabooks.com/book/3/Arahattamagga.pdf Template:Webarchive (consulted 16 March 2009)</ref> He has stated that not-self is merely a perception that is used to pry one away from infatuation with the concept of a self, and that once this infatuation is gone the idea of not-self must be dropped as well.<ref>Template:CitationTemplate:Cbignore</ref> American monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha's statements on non-self as a path to awakening rather than a universal truth.<ref name="Selves">"Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html Template:Webarchive</ref> Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Buddha intentionally set aside the question of whether or not there is a self as a useless question, and that clinging to the idea that there is no self at all would actually prevent enlightenment.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Bhikkhu Bodhi authored a rejoinder to Thanissaro, writing that "The reason the teaching of anatta can serve as a strategy of liberation is precisely because it serves to rectify a misconception about the nature of being, hence an ontological error."<ref>Template:Citation</ref>

Buddhist scholars Richard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne argue that the Buddha's descriptions of non-self in early Buddhist texts do not deny that there is a self. Gethin writes that anatta is often mistranslated as meaning "not having a self", but in reality meant "not the self".<ref name=":1">Template:Cite book</ref> Wynne say that early Buddhist texts such as the Anattalakkhana Sutta do not deny that there is a self, stating that the five aggregates that are described as not self are not descriptions of a human being but descriptions of the human experience.<ref name=":0">Template:Cite journal</ref> Wynne and Gombrich both argue that the Buddha's statements on anattā were originally a "not-self" teaching that developed into a "no-self" teaching in later Buddhist thought.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to the Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10), where the Buddha stays silent when asked whether there is a 'self' or not,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> as a major cause of the dispute.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

See also

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

References

Template:Citation style

Notes

Template:Reflist

Citations

Template:Reflist

Works cited

Template:Incomplete citations Template:Refbegin

Template:Refend

Further reading

  • {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

Template:Buddhism topics

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sarg.dev/index.php?title=Ātman_(Buddhism)&oldid=476932"