Atman vs Anatman

Posted by Bhikku Yogi on Advaitin List

Note to the moderators: The topic in discussion is surely allowed by the moderators and it appears to be an interesting topic for discussion among the members on the group since of the posts that appeared yesterday a majority were on this topic, especially in response to Mr. Frederico. I do not assume to be a scholar on Buddhism and am in no way a scholar of Advaita Vedanta. But I shall try my best to explain this matter to the members. Let me assure the moderators that I do not wish to show either systems of philosophy as inferior or superior in the process. Dear members, It is interesting to note that there are such a variety of views on Anatta (Anatman) of Buddhism. It is be surprising that people get confused with a concept so simple to understand. I am neither a Theravada nor a Mahayana or a Vjrayana (Tibetan) Buddhist. I belong to none of these schools of Buddhism especially because I being a monk have renounced all sense of belonging. For that matter, I cannot even be characterized as a Buddhist - only a person following the Arya Dhamma (Noble path). At the very outset I shall make it amply clear that I am not intending to proselytize, but since the matter was allowed to be discussed, I am just posting it here. I would appreciate it if members having any further queries would write directly to me rather than speculate on the group, since it would not appropriate for me to discuss something out of the scope of 'Sankara's view of Advaita Vedanta' as held by the list for too long. I hope to be allowed just this one post and any further queries be kindly sent to me directly in case members expect a response. If however, you wish to only specualte and criticize Buddhism, you may do so at your will. Anatta or Anatman does not imply "no soul" or "there is no soul". This is a misconception. The correct Pali term for saying "there is no soul" or "no soul" is "naatthiatta" and not "anatta". The term anatta therefore means "not soul" just like ananta means "not ending" and does not mean "there is no end". The Buddha explains very clearly and in several places in the Canon he clearly says that anatta is not a doctrine. It is not a metaphysical assertion as many might beleive. It is a technique of developing wisdom. It is important to know how and where to interpret the Buddha. In this connection he says that those that infer where it is not intended and those that donot infer where intended, do injustice to his teaching. Very often quite a few Buddhists beleive and even very openly write commentaries on the Canon saying that Anatta is a doctrine and an absolute metaphysical assertion of "there is no self". This is a grave injustice to a teaching that should not be inferred from. Why? Because the Buddha himself made it amply clear that it is incorrect to make both the statements "there exists a self" and "there does not exist a self". There is a long sutta (in the Digha nikaya) wherein a Buddhist monk's miconception is described. (This is about 50 years after the Buddha's death) He incorrectly thinks that Gotama the Buddha taught that "there exists no self". A Buddha named Shariputra (Sariputta in Pali) explains to him using two brilliant analogies that this is not the teaching of Gotama the Buddha and that this is an incorrect notion as well. Sariputta at that time was as influential as Mahakassapa.
1

Before going into the issue of why the Buddha said that neither of the assertions is appropriate, it is important to consider that in a land of diverse cultures and philosophies, the sense of use of several words changed with time, location and also the people that used these words. Nowhere in the Pali Canon is the word Atman or Attan used in the Upanishadic sense. This is the firm opinion of many Buddhists since they agree very notably in several places that the term Atman as used in the Canon is different from that of the Upanishads. The mulamadhyamaka karika of Nagarjuna is another place where this assertion and distinction is made amply clear. Since the Atman of the Pali Canon is different from that of the Upanishads, Buddhism does not deny or contradict anything in the Upanishads. In fact Ajativada of Gaudapada in the Mandukya Karika, which he asserts is not in conflict (avirodhah) with Buddhism. The term atman is used in the Pali Canon as a sense of 'ego consciousness', an 'I', consisting of a 'my' etc. The terms Atmaja (literally one [male] born of me) and AtmajA (literally one [female] born of me) is indicative of this meaning for the word Atman, that developed during the Buddha's time. One may note that these terms are always used as "putram" or "putri" in the early Vedic period and only in the later Upanishads [probably being composed at the time of the Buddha], do we find a reference to these terms. In classical Sanskrit (late Panini Sanskrit), the word Atman meant a persisting entity that is responsible for life. It is said to 'enter' a body and leave another at the time of death. This again is not the Upanishadic sense of the word Atman which has no entering, no leaving, no here, no there and does not possess a body. That is why, Shankara stresses again and again that the Atman of the Upanishads is not known elsewhere. He insists that the one seeking enlightenment must seek Atman as known in the Upanishads. Now that it is established that the Atman of the Buddha was not the same as the Upanishadic Atman, one might ask if he acknowledged the Upanishadic Atman. Is there a permanent, nonchanging, deathless? Yes, but the Buddha called it Nibbana. He did not call it the self. In fact the Buddha taught that all that is changing is causative of sorrow and stress and is hence not the self. Corresponding to this a monk asks him in one of the Suttas, if something constant and non-changing can be called self? The Buddha's reply to this indicates that in his opinion, considering Nibbana or the Deathless as self amounts to developing an attachment and a passion for Nibbana. He explains that the reason such a question is posed is because of one's passion for the notion of 'I' and hence he searches for a self in Nibbana. He further instructs a monk to only directly know Nibbana to be the cessation of all sorrow and to never delight in it, or develop an attachment for it or to imagine things in it or to imagine things emanating from it. Further a school of philosophy called the Sankhya school of philosophy posited a root cause of the Universe and called it Brahman. According to them, Brahman is the creator of the Universe. The Buddha rejects this idea as non-conducive and irrelevant to the path of enlightenment. He says that he teaches the nature of stress, its origin and the path to its cessation and not any doctrine of origin. This is also asserted in the Brahmajala Sutta in another way - the Buddha makes none of the 64 different metaphysical statements possible. He distinguishes himself from the nihilist whom he calls "natthika", (Pali equivalent of nastika), the eternalist (aatthika), the origin-prophet, the destruction-prophet etc. He talks of a path to the truth and nothing else. In the madhyamika texts however, the Buddha talks of the womb of the Tathagata. It is important to understand again that this is not an entity in the usual sense as we might think. It does not move from one body to another. It is not localized. In fact its description in the Madhyamika texts is very much similar to the description of the Atman of the Upanishads.
2

Nevertheless, like the Atman, it is also beyond description. The term 'tathagata' is used very often even in the Pali Canon. The tathagata is said to be one gone beyond all the things known or unknown in this universe. He is said to be one gone beyond all sorrow. However the Madhyamika texts posit a womb of the tathagata (tathagata garbha). This is said to be the nature of the tathagata and is said to be dormant in all of us. When developed fully, one becomes a tathagata. Thus in other words, the tathagata garbha is not an entity, but a latent potential to become enlightened. Nowhere in any of the Buddhist texts is an entity called Atman posited. But I seriously doubt if even the Upanishads treat Atman as an entity in as much as one conditioned by the nature of entities. The Atman is said to be unconditioned. In Buddhism, Nibbana is the only unconditioned phenomenon. I see only a similarity between the teachings of the Buddha and those of Sankara. To me there appears no conflict. If however, any of the members feel they were at lockhorns, I shall withdraw. * * * Namaste Bhikku Maharaj, May i request you to clarify the above opinion of yours? Regarding the usage of the words 'AtmajaH', son, and its feminine form 'AtmajA', a search in the Valmiki Ramayanam and the Mahabharatham yielded a whopping close to 500 instances in each of these epics. I do not know if these epics predate Buddha. In the Raghuvamsam and Kumarasambhavam of Kalidasa, these words are used. Again, i am not sure of Kalidasa's date. In the Upanishads and other scriptures, the word Atma is used in a variety of senses. In the Kathopanishad mantras 'AtmAnam rathinam viddhi' )I.iii.3), the word Atma is commented upon as samsArin. And in 'Atmendriyamanoyuktam bhoktetyAhurmanIshiNaH' (I.iii.4), AtmA is sharIram, gross body. In the Bhagavadgita there are several usages of the word Atman where the meaning 'antaHkaraNam' mind, is given by the Bhashyam. Eg. Ch. vi. 6,7,8 verses. Thus, there are instances in the ancient Indian scriptures where Atma means differently, the ego, mind and body. I have not made a search of the other major Upanishads, the texts of Rigveda, etc. for the presence of the word Atmaja/AtmajA. Could it be said that these above mentioned scriptural texts were 'composed' after the Buddha's time? I liked your post giving a lot of clarifications. Pranams, Subbu * * *
Dear Sri Subrahmanian, Thank you for notifying me about the large number of instances of the word Atmajah in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata? The fact that you pointed out that the word 'Atma' is used in various senses even in the Upanishads is really not known to me. I had presumed that the primary meaning of word 3

was what the Vedantins posit as an unending, unchanging, unwavering, constant, truth, perfect bliss and perfect wisdom. I did not know of other meanings in the Upanishads. In the Pali Canon, the word Attan in my [although limited] understanding is only in one sense - 'ego consciousness'. I claim this more firmly because all Buddhists teachers all over the world [to my knowledge] use it in that sense only. I have heard of a text by the name of Yogavasishtha Maharamayana, written by a sage Vasishtha [in the Pali Canon we find reference to him as Vasettha - this text should therefore be before Buddhism]. I have heard that the text has a philosophy which is predominantly Advaita Vedanta mixed with Buddhism. I understand that usually Vedantists do not consider these texts as 'valid scripture'. Yet I have heard that this text is extolled by sages like Bhagavan Ramana, Shri Ramakrishna and several of the Sringeri pontiffs. In this text - which is said to be composed before Buddhism by at least 200 years, the word 'Atman' is used in three different senses! Your point that the Upanishads also use the word in several senses at least indicates that the word does have several meanings in different contexts. I wonder if my statement that the other meanings of the word Atman are not as ancient as the Upanishads and probably originated at the time of the Buddha is valid. It is clear that it could have developed before Gotama the Buddha, but surely the sense of the word Atman as used in the Pali Canon is not the same as the primary meaning as used in the Upanishadic Canon and also the word surely does seem to have several meanings. It is a small wonder that this is the case especially since Ancient India was a very diverse land with people from various diverse cultures mixing a lot. Neither Ramayana nor Mahabharata have references to Buddhism. It is very likely that they were composed before Buddhism by about 200 years, but perhaps not more, especially due to the fact that the style of Sanskrit in these texts appears to be a peculiar alloy of Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Panini Sanskrit. This argument though used very often for most ancient Indian texts, is not entirely valid. Tennyson is an example of a modern English poet writing in archaic English. However, I am just making a guess since usually teachings are for the benefit of the people and not for a display of command over a very old language. Hence I expect that the teachings of Upanishads etc. would be in languages prevalent and widely used in those times and not written specifically in an archaic manner to confuse the people. Kalidasa was surely after Buddhism was well established in India. His dates are disputed, but are surely between 3rd Century CE and 5th Century CE. He is usually associated with the reigns of Chandragupta Vikramaditya and his successor Kumaragupta [4th Century CE]. Surely his works are after Buddhism. In fact, he wrote social dramas and they were popular only after the first main social drama of India written by a Jain - Mricchakatikam. The meanings of the word Atma as sharIram (gross body), etc. in the Kathopanishad is somewhat news to me, although I remember having been confused with that Upanishad long time back. I had decided that when I do not understand it, I'd rather give it time and work on it later. This meaning was particularly prevalent in Magadha, especially due to the influence of the Charvakas. The Pali Canon uses the word Attan as 'ego consciousness' and one of the components of this ego is said to be form 'rupa' or body [sharIram]. I wonder if this Upanishad was composed at a time when Buddhism was already well established or when Buddhism was just beginning to take ground. However, it is known to be a later Upanishad [believed to be close to 700-600 BCE], the oldest Upanishads dating to close to 1200-1000 BCE. Although I am not an expert at history, I am only taking reference to the known and documented history of ancient India. I am aware that most Indians do not believe it, but I think it is really not about dates, but a relative understanding of timelines that I would rather think about. -Bhikku Yogi