Talk:Anattā

living beings - category error: false.
The lede stated In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.

The qualification that this refers only to living beings is false for all Buddhism, especially (but not solely) the Mahayana tradition of Nagarjuna following Candrakirti.

Candrakirti's Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā 256.1.7 states that 'self' is ''an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness (Anatta)''

This citation is translated in Vol. 3 ISBN 1-55939-166-9

20040302 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I also notice that there is real confusion (also found in many cited sources) between the assertion of Anatta and the assertion of 'person' and the personal self. Most of which, some scholars believe (eg. Elizabeth Napper) was based on erroneous assumptions of early Buddhist scholars concerning the scope of Anatta. (20040302 (talk))

Notice: Page moved
Hi all, please note that I moved this page from “Anatta” to “Anattā” just now. Anatta is now a redirect to this new page. I have also fixed all the double redirects. -Colathewikian (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Does belong in Wikipedia voice? I assume a Hindu might call consciousness the empirical coordinate. Srnec (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of Anattā vs. Anātman in Mahayana Section
Just a note that it feels incongruous to use "anattā" in the Mahayana section when the discourse in that tradition rarely uses Pali terms, and certainly not for this concept. Would anyone be opposed to changing it to "anātman" in that section, or do people feel that consistency is more important than congruity? DJLayton4 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Congruity seems to be the pattern used on other pages such as prajna, maitri and karma. So if that is the case than yeah i think making the page congruous with the respective traditions languages makes sense. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Etymology and Nomenclature really necessary?
This is already a pretty long article, and in my opinion, having Etymology and Nomenclature at the top is largely padding that doesn't serve to inform the reader about what the meat of the concept really is past the (probably necessarily) simplistic opening paragraph. Especially since this is likely one of the first articles people trying to learn about Buddhism might read, the paragraph about "non-Self" vs "not-Self" uses too obscure terminology. It's a good section, but it should be at the end of the article or on Wiktionary. Makhnoboi19 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)