Universal Atman in Buddhism

Recommend, review and discuss dharma books here.
Locked
Sherlock
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Sherlock »

People ahould ask themselves whether the greatest scholar in 8th century India was more credible about the scriptures he had studied all his life and defended against Hindu debaters or if modern Hindu scholars are more credible.
Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Bakmoon »

David Reigle wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:If the whole point of the Buddha's refuting of self only applied to the aggregates for the purpose of clearing the ground to teach a supreme self that is separate from the aggregates, then why is it that in the hundreds of passages when he applies the teachings of non-self to the aggregates he never follows it up by giving a teaching on a universal self? He could have easily said "Form etc are all impermanent, dukkha, and non-self, but there is a reality beyond them that is permanent, blissful, and actually IS a self"? If the whole point of rejecting the aggregates as self were to demonstrate the true self, then the Buddha must have been horribly inept to not just say so.
If the whole point of the Buddha's refuting of self only applied to the aggregates for the purpose of clearing the ground to deny a supreme self that is separate from the aggregates, then why is it that in the hundreds of passages when he applies the teachings of non-self to the aggregates he never follows it up by giving a teaching denying a universal self? He could have easily said "Form etc are all impermanent, dukkha, and non-self, but there is no reality beyond them that is permanent, blissful, and actually IS a self"? If the whole point of rejecting the aggregates as self were to deny the true self, then the Buddha must have been horribly inept to not just say so.
Easy. If we operate according to the standard Buddhist understanding that the rejection of the aggregates as self was not a prelude to another teaching then it would be unnecessary and superfluous for him to follow it up with more teaching.

If we follow your reading under which the teaching on the aggregates as self IS a prelude to another teaching (that of a universal self), the fact that the teaching is never presented as a prelude to another teaching (which according to you is the whole reason why this teaching even exists) is a massive hermeneutical stumbling block. The silence of the texts on this issue is a contradiction to your reading of the text, but not the standard Buddhist one.
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Wayfarer »

Matt J wrote:I think Leigh Brasington makes a good argument that the Buddha was familiar with, and rejected the Atman here:

http://www.leighb.com/ud1_10.htm

He compares the Bahiya Sutta with the Birhadaranyaka Upanishad.

Compare:

'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

With:

"The unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the uncognized cognizer... There is no other seer but he, no other hearer, no other thinker, no other cognizer. This is thy self, the inner controller, the immortal...." Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23.
I have always been inclined to accept this argument from the Upanishads about the unknown knower; I think it is quite true. However, that 'unknown knower' is then named or made an object of cognition, it actually contradicts the very point that is being made in the first place. It is exactly that contradiction that the Buddha had in his sights, in my opinion; the tendency to objectify or reify, which becomes the basis of clinging to dogmas.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
David Reigle
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by David Reigle »

Malcolm wrote:In the Tibetan translation of the Uttaratantra commentary by Asanga, paramātman is translated as dam pa'i bdag, but it only occurs there.
Thanks, Malcolm, for this helpful information. For those who may want to see what is said there: The first of the two references to paramātman in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga is in the commentary following verse 1.36, discussing the four qualities or perfections of śubha, ātman, sukha, and nitya, or purity, self, happiness, and permanence, given in 1.35. Shortly after the quote about these from the Śrīmālā-sūtra, the commentary says:

pañcasūpādāna-skandheṣv ātma-darśinām anya-tīrthyānām asad-ātma-grahābhirati-viparyayeṇa prajñā-pāramitā-bhāvanāyāḥ paramātma-pāramitādhigamaḥ phalaṃ draṣṭavyam

As translated by Karl Brunnhölzl, p. 363:

“By way of being the opposite of the tīrthakas, who are other [than us] and regard the five appropriating skandhas as a self, taking delight in clinging to a nonexistent self, the attainment of the pāramitā of the supreme self should be regarded as the fruition of [bodhisattvas’] having cultivated prajñāpāramitā.”

The second of the two references to paramātman in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga is in verse 1.37:

sa hi prakṛti-śuddhatvād vāsanāpagamāc chuciḥ
paramātmātma-nairātmya-prapañca-vyupaśāntitaḥ || 1.37 ||

As translated by Karl Brunnhölzl:

“Because the [dharmakāya] is naturally pure
And free from latent tendencies, it is pure.
It is the supreme self because the reference points
Of self and no-self are at peace.”

Karl’s “reference points” translates prapañca, which has also been translated as “elaboration,” diversification,” “proliferation” (of concepts).
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by dzogchungpa »

David Reigle wrote:Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.
David, I don't know much about Dzogchen, but I came across the following quotation from a well-known scholar that might shed some light on this issue:
Malcolm wrote:If we have to have a soul, it might as well be vidya, it is after all, permanent, unconditioned, a knower, stainless, and free from the three realms. But If we don't have to have one, vidya still has these characteristics. It is our essenceless essence.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

David Reigle wrote:
Malcolm wrote:In the Tibetan translation of the Uttaratantra commentary by Asanga, paramātman is translated as dam pa'i bdag, but it only occurs there.
Thanks, Malcolm, for this helpful information. For those who may want to see what is said there: The first of the two references to paramātman in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga is in the commentary following verse 1.36, discussing the four qualities or perfections of śubha, ātman, sukha, and nitya, or purity, self, happiness, and permanence, given in 1.35. Shortly after the quote about these from the Śrīmālā-sūtra, the commentary says:

pañcasūpādāna-skandheṣv ātma-darśinām anya-tīrthyānām asad-ātma-grahābhirati-viparyayeṇa prajñā-pāramitā-bhāvanāyāḥ paramātma-pāramitādhigamaḥ phalaṃ draṣṭavyam

As translated by Karl Brunnhölzl, p. 363:

“By way of being the opposite of the tīrthakas, who are other [than us] and regard the five appropriating skandhas as a self, taking delight in clinging to a nonexistent self, the attainment of the pāramitā of the supreme self should be regarded as the fruition of [bodhisattvas’] having cultivated prajñāpāramitā.”

The second of the two references to paramātman in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga is in verse 1.37:

sa hi prakṛti-śuddhatvād vāsanāpagamāc chuciḥ
paramātmātma-nairātmya-prapañca-vyupaśāntitaḥ || 1.37 ||

As translated by Karl Brunnhölzl:

“Because the [dharmakāya] is naturally pure
And free from latent tendencies, it is pure.
It is the supreme self because the reference points
Of self and no-self are at peace.”

Karl’s “reference points” translates prapañca, which has also been translated as “elaboration,” diversification,” “proliferation” (of concepts).
Well, this is how the whole passage reads:
  • From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed.

    The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p282302

You might want to see the rest of my post.
Malcolm wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
If you say that Tathagatagarbha does not exist primordially, somehow, in the continuua of sentient beings, you are saying Buddhahood is caused, and therefore "conditioned."
The Uttaratantra states:
  • Unconditioned, effortless,
    not realized through other conditions,
    endowed with wisdom, compassion and power,
    buddhahood is endowed with two benefits.
But what does this really all mean?

When we examine Asanga's comments on this, he states:
  • When these are summarized, buddhahood is described with eight qualties. If it is asked what those eight qualities are, they are unconditioned, effortless, not realized through other conditions, wisdom, compassion, power, the abundance of one's own benefit and the abundance of others' benefit. [Buddhahood] is unconditioned because it is the nature of lacking a beginning, middle and end. It is called "effortless" because peace is endowed with the dharmakāya. It is not realized through other conditions because each person must realize it for themselves. It is wisdom because those three things are realized. [Buddhahood] is compassionate because [the Buddha] shows the path. It is powerful because it is free from suffering and affliction. The former three [unconditioned, effortless and not realized through other conditions] are for one's own benefit; the latter three [wisdom, compassion and power] are for others' benefit.

    In that regard, the conditioned is fully understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end. This is seen as a differentiation made through the dharmakāya. Because all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub]. Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced. Here, udayo [to produce] is not the arising of a desire for realization. As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth, out of the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha effortlessly engaged in without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists
So let us parse this out a little bit.

Asanga states in his commentary on the Uttaratantra:
  • ...the conditioned is understood as arising somewhere, and also understood as abiding and perishing. Because those do not exist [arising, abiding and perishing], buddhahood itself is unconditioned without a beginning, middle and an end.
Buddhahood is unconditioned because the trio of arising, abiding and perishing are false. Not because in contrast to things that arise, abide and perish, buddhahood does not arise, abide and perish.

Buddhahood however has a cause, as he writes:
  • Buddhahood is not realized through other conditions because it is realized through wisdom oneself produced.
Buddhahood is also effortless, because, as he writes:
  • ...all proliferation and concepts are pacified, [buddhahood] is effortless [lhun gyis grub]...As such, the tathāgata is unconditioned due to the truth; and from the characteristics of non-engagement, all the activities of the buddha are engaged in effortlessly [lhun grub], without impediment and without interruption for as long as samsara exists
As for tathāgatagarbha always existing in the continuums of sentient beings; if you think somehow tathāgatagarba is something other than or different than a sentient beings mind, there there is a fallacy of the tathāgatagarbha being something like an atman. But there is no atman in the tathāgatagarbha theory, not really. the supreme self, (paramātma) is explained very clearly in the Uttaratantra:
  • The supreme self is the pacification of the proliferations of self and and nonself.
But what does this mean? Asanga adds:
  • The perfection of self (ātmapāramitā) is known through two reasons: due to being free from proliferation of a self because of being free from the extreme of the non-buddhists and due to being free from the proliferation of nonself because of giving up the extreme of the śrāvakas.
He explains further:
  • From cultivating prajñāpāramita in order to turn away from seeing the five addictive aggregates as self, the non-existent self in which the others, the nonbuddhists, delight, one attains the result, the perfection of self. In this way all the others, the nonbuddhists, accept natureless things such as matter and so on as a self due to their being deceived by a characteristic of a self according to how those things are being apprehended, but that self never existed.

    The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.
There are some people who, ignoring the Nirvana Sutra's admonition to rely on the meaning rather than on the words, fall headlong into eternalism, unable to parse the Buddha's profound meaning through addiction to naive literalism.

Tathagatagarbha is just a potential to become a buddha. When we say it is has infinite qualities, this is nothing more nor less than when the Vajrapañjara praises the so called "jewel-like mind":
  • The jewel-like mind is tainted with
    evil conceptual imputations;
    but when the mind is purified it becomes pure.
    Just as space cannot be destroyed,
    just as is space, so too is the mind.
    By activating the jewel-like mind
    and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood,
    and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.
    There is no buddha nor a person
    outside of the jewel-like mind,
    the abode of consciousness is ultimate,
    outside of which there isn't the slightest thing.
    All buddhahood is through the mind...
    Matter, sensation, perception
    formations and consciousness
    these all arise from the mind,
    these [five] munis are not anything else.
    Like a great wishfulfilling gem,
    granting the results of desires and goals,
    the pure original nature of the true state of the mind
    bestows the result, Buddha's awakening
There is no other basis apart from this natural purity of the mind that is inseparable clarity and emptiness. We can call it whatever we want, but still this fact remains. The Lankāvatara rightly observes that tathāgatagarbha is just a name for emptiness and the ālayavijñāna for those afraid of emptiness. Jayānanda writes that ālayavijñāna is the mind that comprehends the basis, i.e. emptiness. How else can the mind be purified of evil conceptual imputations other than by realizing emptiness? Emptiness free from all extremes is the pure original nature of the true state of the mind, so why bother confusing oneself with all kinds of rhetoric? The mind itself has two aspects, emptiness and clarity, ka dag and lhun grub, and these are inseparable. This inseparable clarity and emptiness is call the ālaya in gsar ma and the basis in Nyingma. This also known as tathagatagarbha when it encased in afflictions, the dharmadhātu from its ultimate side, the ālayavijñāna from its relative side and so on. It really is not that complicated.

M
Last edited by Malcolm on Thu May 07, 2015 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
zengen
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 1:38 am
Location: Canada

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by zengen »

I read the Lankavatara Sutra many years ago and I remember in the sutra, the Buddha rejects the notion of an Atman. The term Atman is a concept that widely appears in Hinduism, but this concept is not in accord with Buddha's teachings.
Last edited by zengen on Thu May 07, 2015 10:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There is no meaning to cyclic existence.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by dzogchungpa »

dzogchungpa wrote:From Bronkhorst's preface to "Buddhist Teaching In India":
The Buddha himself was clearly averse to any kind of speculation, and he positively avoided “philosophically” important questions.
Something to keep in mind, perhaps.
Sherlock wrote:The Buddha in the Hinayana canon. Mahayana Buddha talked quite a bit on these questions.
I wonder why that was? :shrug:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi »

dzogchungpa wrote:
David Reigle wrote:Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.
David, I don't know much about Dzogchen, but I came across the following quotation from a well-known scholar that might shed some light on this issue:
Malcolm wrote:If we have to have a soul, it might as well be vidya, it is after all, permanent, unconditioned, a knower, stainless, and free from the three realms. But If we don't have to have one, vidya still has these characteristics. It is our essenceless essence.
Points of dharma are contradictory if taken out of context.

Unless we understand that impermanence is one of the three marks of existence, we will not have a full understanding of the first noble truth.

Unless we understand that our mindfulness and concentration have to be unwavering and unchanging, always and for all time, we will not consistently progress in meditation.

Both of these points are dharma, they are both necessary to understand properly.

The different yanas, especially, often use terms in ways which are contradictory, even mutually exclusive altogether. This doesn't compromise the coherence of the dharma in any way.

The "permanence" of right concentration is a vital point to understand regardless of whether you are talking about shamatha, vipashyana, mahayana slogan practice, union of emptiness and bliss, or the rigpa of ati. It has nothing to do with the three marks of existence.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

dzogchungpa wrote:
David Reigle wrote:Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.
David, I don't know much about Dzogchen, but I came across the following quotation from a well-known scholar that might shed some light on this issue:
Malcolm wrote:If we have to have a soul, it might as well be vidya, it is after all, permanent, unconditioned, a knower, stainless, and free from the three realms. But If we don't have to have one, vidya still has these characteristics. It is our essenceless essence.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by dzogchungpa »

Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
David Reigle wrote:Some of the Tibetan schools, including Dzogchen if I am not mistaken, hold ye shes to be eternal.
David, I don't know much about Dzogchen, but I came across the following quotation from a well-known scholar that might shed some light on this issue:
Malcolm wrote:If we have to have a soul, it might as well be vidya, it is after all, permanent, unconditioned, a knower, stainless, and free from the three realms. But If we don't have to have one, vidya still has these characteristics. It is our essenceless essence.
Yes, that bit in the red is very poetic. :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J »

Well, you had the Samkhya running around --- although I don't know if they were fully formed in the Buddha's day, but they may have been. But the Upanishad's posit a self apart from the body and mind, and did the Samkhya philosophers. All the skandhas of the Buddha would fall roughly under the banner of prakirti, which was put forth as separate from purusha. I imagine a Samkhya would agree with the Buddha that none of the skandhas are the self, but that the self was independent of the skandhas.

I think David is right to point out that this is a glaring omission. However, it is not necessarily clear (at least to me) that these doctrines were fully developed in the Buddha's day. And when the doctrines were fully developed, the Buddhists were quick to refute them.
Jikan wrote: Just speculating here, but it could be because he didn't think it was necessary to do so. Were any of his interrogators nineteenth-century spiritualists or their inheritors, depth psychologists, or anyone else finding it needful to posit such a thing in the first place?
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Matt J wrote:Well, you had the Samkhya running around --- although I don't know if they were fully formed in the Buddha's day, but they may have been. But the Upanishad's posit a self apart from the body and mind, and did the Samkhya philosophers. All the skandhas of the Buddha would fall roughly under the banner of prakirti, which was put forth as separate from purusha. I imagine a Samkhya would agree with the Buddha that none of the skandhas are the self, but that the self was independent of the skandhas.
Yes, correct. The the pre-Buddhist Upanishads do posit such as self. And the Buddha studied Samkhya with Ārāḍa Kālāma, at least according to the Buddhacarita (circa 100 BCE).

I already pointed out that the Yoga Sūtras criticize yogins who become absorbed in Prakriti, and that this was really a critique of Buddhists.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Matt J wrote:
I think David is right to point out that this is a glaring omission. However, it is not necessarily clear (at least to me) that these doctrines were fully developed in the Buddha's day. And when the doctrines were fully developed, the Buddhists were quick to refute them.

It is not a glaring omission at all.

In any case, [apart from Chinese Buddhism, in which the doctrine of self has tragically reasserted itself like weeds in a garden left untended] there is a solid textual and instruction lineage tradition dating from the time of Ashoka to the present day which asserts that the teaching of the Buddha is in essence nairatmya, The trend of Buddhism called Pudgalavada was popular indeed, but it was never a transcendent self they asserted, merely an "inexpressible" self that was neither the same as nor different than the aggregates (which Vasubandhu polishes off very nicely in the refutation of the pudgala).

People who think they can ferret out the Buddha's meaning through textual analysis are very sad. Buddhadharma is, and always has been from the beginning an oral exegesis tradition, without which one cannot understand its doctrines.

Then of course, the Buddha refutes Samkhya, Vaiśeṣikaḥ Paśupatis, and so in the Lanka. One can hardly account for such refutations if one upholds the Buddha maintained a purusha like the Samkhyas, etc.
User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by daverupa »

Malcolm wrote:
Matt J wrote:I think David is right to point out that this is a glaring omission...
It is not a glaring omission at all.
Correct:
SN 35.23 wrote:At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.

If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”
SN 35.24 wrote:Bhikkhus, I will teach you the Dhamma for abandoning all. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma for abandoning all? The eye is to be abandoned, forms are to be abandoned, eye-consciousness is to be abandoned, eye-contact is to be abandoned, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is to be abandoned.

“The ear is to be abandoned … The mind is to be abandoned, mental phenomena are to be abandoned, mind-consciousness is to be abandoned, mind-contact is to be abandoned, and whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is to be abandoned.

“This, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma for abandoning all.”
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by DGA »

Matt J wrote:Well, you had the Samkhya running around --- although I don't know if they were fully formed in the Buddha's day, but they may have been. But the Upanishad's posit a self apart from the body and mind, and did the Samkhya philosophers. All the skandhas of the Buddha would fall roughly under the banner of prakirti, which was put forth as separate from purusha. I imagine a Samkhya would agree with the Buddha that none of the skandhas are the self, but that the self was independent of the skandhas.

I think David is right to point out that this is a glaring omission. However, it is not necessarily clear (at least to me) that these doctrines were fully developed in the Buddha's day. And when the doctrines were fully developed, the Buddhists were quick to refute them.
Jikan wrote: Just speculating here, but it could be because he didn't think it was necessary to do so. Were any of his interrogators nineteenth-century spiritualists or their inheritors, depth psychologists, or anyone else finding it needful to posit such a thing in the first place?
Yes. It seems to me that the stakes are different now, though: that the upanishadic stuff stands in as a kind of proxy for the idealism & universalism held dear by contemporary spiritual seekers tied to the all-religions-are-ultimately-one religion, the perennial philosophy set. I don't think contemporary authors are arguing on behalf of ancient philosophers for their sake; they're trying to solve current problems for themselves. It's a lot easier to say that Swedenborg was a "Buddha of the North" (Suzuki) or that Steiner and Buddhaghosa were on the same page (A Zajonc) if you don't have to deal with the ways in which Buddha Dharma doesn't conform to the contours of nineteenth-century idealist thought or its current popular forms.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J »

Sure, the Buddha says things like that, but he also says (as we know from all these debates):
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

If I were a Samkhya, I might say, "Exactly, that's what we call the purusha." In fact, this is what a lot of the Atman supporters say. A lot of these words are used to describe the Atman. So why not be clear?

Edit:

I suppose we could point to this as the refutation:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
daverupa wrote:
Correct:
SN 35.23 wrote:At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.

If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”
Last edited by Matt J on Fri May 08, 2015 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Matt J »

I still think there is a subtle difference. I think Buddhists and Advaitins would agree that the physical/mental world is mithya or empty. In fact, Advaitins use the exact same dependent origination formula the Buddha gave in the Pali Suttas: when this arises, that arises, etc.

Where Buddhists criticize Advaitins for clinging to a self and are eternalists, some modern Advaitins claim that Buddhists haven't pierced through the anandamayakosha to realize the ultimate and are therefore nihilists.

To crudely paraphrase the way I see the debate, I would think the Advaitin would say that the empty non-dual universe arises in awareness, whereas a Buddhist would say that awareness arises in an empty, non-dual universe.
Wayfarer wrote: I have always been inclined to accept this argument from the Upanishads about the unknown knower; I think it is quite true. However, that 'unknown knower' is then named or made an object of cognition, it actually contradicts the very point that is being made in the first place. It is exactly that contradiction that the Buddha had in his sights, in my opinion; the tendency to objectify or reify, which becomes the basis of clinging to dogmas.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi »

The differences are substantial.

The essence in Mahayana is not the unity of the "self" or "soul" with another thing, it is a "truth realm". If its nature can be designated at all, it is not nirguna or saguna, but simply "as it is". If a practitioner realizes this "truth realm", she may refer to it as a "truth body". Such a practitoner is referred to as "one who has gone in this way". If this practitioner still possesses obscurations, it is referred to as the "embryo" of someone who "has gone in this way".

These terms are not used to designate the essence in Sanatana Dharma or Advaita.

Crucially, the path to realizing this essence in Buddha Saddharma is summarized not as "tat tvam asi", which is a statement of personal identity, but "when this arises, that arises", which is a statement of conditional relationship.

Thus in Sanatana Dharma, the real is that which can be identified as not maya. In Buddha Saddharma, ignorance is only one of twelve causes of phenomena, all of which are interdependently linked. Thus phenomena are real only in the sense that they are caused to have a certain function within the context of conditionality.

In my limited experience any attempt to intellectually reconcile these two views in ecumenism ends in embarassment.
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Universal Atman in Buddhism

Post by anjali »

Malcolm wrote:If we have to have a soul, it might as well be vidya, it is after all, permanent, unconditioned, a knower, stainless, and free from the three realms. But If we don't have to have one, vidya still has these characteristics. It is our essenceless essence.
^This.

I don't really have much to contribute to the discussion. Instead, I'll offer up a peculiar observation about the universal atman model.

The classic analogy for the Atman-is-Brahman view is the moon reflected in many different bodies of water. One source of light reflected many times; the one Brahman reflected as many individuals.

The Buddhist alternative to that view is the multiple mindstreams model. The analogy for this view is Indra's Net, where each pearl reflects all other pearls; all mindstreams are reflected in every individual mindstream.

As a computer geek, these two analogies remind me of the client-server (centralized) network vs. the peer-to-peer (distributed) network.
distributed vs central networking
distributed vs central networking
hubandspoke_peertopeer.gif (9.38 KiB) Viewed 5450 times
So in a sense, this ancient debate is the first debate on the merits of different network architectures--at the cosmic level. Hey, I said it was a peculiar observation. ;)
Image
Locked

Return to “Book Reviews”