Talk:Anattā/Archive 2

Better intro
'''Hey...Um, sorry about that. I accidentally deleted parts of the article after trying to access source code for another program...ASCII can be annoying. Anyway, it won't happen again. Cheers!'''

I think we need a better intro to this page. I don't know much about anatta, but that is after reading the intro. I just doesn't seem very elucidating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thenavigator1 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Response to RandomCritic

 * As usual, Attasarana is using bad translations. The term "atta" is properly to be translated "oneself", and seen in context it is clear that this is the proper translation. .Thitatta, for instance, simply means "self-controlled". RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * nirvanic Is not a word. Please correct
 * Your entirely illogical beyond belief. If attan (atta’) were merely oneself, then “eso khandhassa na me so atta (anatta)”, or “form is anatta, feelings are anatta” would be untrue. For this person so-and-so is the self. Gotama would be a self-contradictory fool to claim "these khandhas are not-yourself (anatta)", when, of course, they are yourself, are oneself. This person so-and-so composed of phenomena is ones mere self which is anatta, dukkha, anicca.


 * Atta is merely "oneself"; the conventional concept of a unified person to which one can reflexively refer. When you say "for this person so-and-so is the self", you are speaking for yourself, not for the Buddha or for Buddhists.  "Self" (or any equivalent name for a person or individual) does not refer to the skandhas individually or as a group or to something besides the skandhas; rather, it is a "mere sound" (Milindapañha II, 1).  It has grammatical function but no more.  I realize this is a difficult concept, and an inability to grasp it is nothing to be ashamed of, but the point of the article is to explain this difficult concept.  Trying to gloss over the difficulties and make them easy only distorts the meaning.RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you incapable of admitting the namo-rupic self of the 5-khandhas? This person so-and-so (“Bob, Sue, John”) which is “composed of the 5 khandhas”-SN 3, is “anicca, dukkha, anatta”. The empirical self is not in question, not by myself, nor any nihilist, nor Atheist, or otherwise. Said self of flesh and blood is fated to the grave “all which is born must pass”- Gotama Digha. Said self is anatta, said self is a conglomeration.

Your refutation: "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.

Buddhadatta Mahathera's Pali-English Dictionary -page 8..Atta' [attan]:  SOUL

Might I point you to the Pali scholars V. Perniola and Wilhelm Geiger, both of whom defacto state the obvious, that being there are no reflexive pronouns in Pali.


 * What nonsense. Of course there are reflexives in Pali.  I notice that you leave out the definitions: "oneself" and "oneself, himself, yourself" that are in the very sources you quote.  And you advertise yourself as a Pali scholar?  Or any sort of scholar? RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Like most uneducated “Buddhists”, Random, you confuse the self with The Self. The most common passages in Buddhism are that “these aggregates (the empirical namo rupic self) are AN-ATTA (not-Self, or, if you desire, not-mySelf). “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22].


 * "There are no unicorns" or "there is no unicorn in the garden" or even "a dog is not a unicorn" implies the existence of unicorns, then, according to you. How you justify going around calling other people "illogical" is beyond my ability to explain. RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One can only conclude that you entirely blinded your illogical position as pertains secular Buddhism. Certainly so you make no doctrinal citations nor logic to support your claims.


 * Cut the insults.RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Like most Theravadins, you want a double standard; wanting anatta to mean “no Soul”, but where Atta’ is called the “only refuge”, the “light within”, you want atta’ in said instances to merely mean oneself, a reflexive.


 * I do not want anatta to mean anything, and I do not think it means "no Soul", because "Soul" is a poor translation of atta when translating from Pali. It might be a suitable translation if one were translating into Pali, and may be appropriate with reference to some non-Buddhist philosophies.  It is, however, not suitable when dealing with Buddhist philosophy.RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotama himself would be the Supreme Fool without equal to BOTH state that the empirical self is "anicca, dukkha, anatta" and also claim "oneself" is also the "only refuge"-Dn 2.154, and the "light within", as well as the "Charioteer"-J-1441.


 * Wrong citation. Perhaps you should doublecheck; or does it suit you that nobody should be able to find the passages you are citing?
 * Anyway, perhaps the Buddha is being just a little bit more subtle than you give him credit for. You might, instead of trying to force your ideas on him, try to figure out what he might be saying.  He does, after all, explain exactly what he means by "having oneself as refuge" (namely, mindfully contemplating body and mind), and it's hardly consistent with the notion that he is advocating worship of some divine Super-Self.RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its often seen that you, without substantiation, claim myself not to be a Pali scholar; however this, like your other claims, are merely countless baseless conjectures. I have been reading and translating Pali for longer than you have set foot upon this Earth. Unless you back up your future claims with scriptural citations, you cannot be taken seriously in the least.


 * Oh, no. I have excellent substantiation.  I have seen you engaged in extraordinary mistakes on the most elementary matters.  I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator.  There is a special word for someone who claims qualifications he utterly lacks, but I believe it would be impolitic of me to use it here.  Nonetheless, it would be a great mistake for anyone to rely upon your translations or interpretations without double- and triple-checking the source and, if possible, an independent, scholarly translations.RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The unending Strawman fallacies you commit in claiming that scriptural citations presented are either: A: mere POV, or B: "bad translations" is a very commmon sophistic ploy to divulge yourself of any responsibility in intelligently responding. Its profane and base at best.


 * You consistently use bad translations, because you don't know enough Pali to tell a good translation from a bad. That's not my problem.  That's yours.  If you do it often, you will find your translations criticized for their flaws, that's all.  You could try learning Pali if you don't want to face continued embarrassment.RandomCritic 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]


 * The point, as is made very clear in the Brahmajala and other suttas, is that the Buddha (or early Buddhists) were faced with sophistic arguers who would claim that "the self" was the body, the feelings, sensation, or any of a great number of other possible dhammas or aggregates. The Buddhist suttas are anxious to debunk all of these notions. And yet, if -- as Attasarana apparently claims -- the Buddha thought that citta was atman, he could have said "Citta is atman". He did not. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you confuse self with The Self, the body and its constituents “along with Vinnana (consciousness)” is the self, the self which is anatta, that very self which is “fated to arise as well as pass (away)”-Udana. The empirical self is anatta; that very self is not in question, its only destination is the grave.


 * The aggregates are not in question, the Khandhas are anatta. You’ve just committed a strawman fallacy. At no time have I claimed the body was the Self, the soul. This person “So-and-so composed of the bodily humors is the mere self, that self from which the "wise turn from in search of The Self”.

Are you forgetting: Dhammapada Att. 3.407 “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in meaning”. Your refuted.


 * Wrong again, he in fact did say the Citta is the Atman (without coincidence, so do the Upanishads and Samkara).

“The light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]

"Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]

[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind (suppatitthitacitto)”

[SN 1.26] Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power!

[AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the-Soul' (thitattoti)"

[AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul is having become-Brahman."

2. Nowhere is there such a tradition as ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Brahmanism’ which are terms coined by Occidental scholars. The claim than the Buddha was ‘anti-Hindu’ or ‘anti-Brahman’ is unproven.

3. Buddha’s unconditioned Attâ (soul) had nothing to do with the five khandhas schema which are conditioned and mere attributes. Nowhere in any five khandha scheme is Attâ refuted. What is refuted is that the five khandhas are the Attâ (soul).

4. The lexical rule that Attâ is to be used strictly in a pronominal fashion, or simply should be used as a signifier for the finite body, is unwarranted.

5. The Buddha never considered Attâ to be (wrong view).

6. If the Buddha disbelieved in an Attâ (soul) why did he not deny the Attâ unambiguously?

7. Why didn’t the Buddha identify the Attâ (soul) with the physical body?

8. Why is the Attâ (soul), in the Atthakatha (commentaries) squarely equated with the Tathagata which is considered to be transcendent?

9. Why is there no strict philosophical treatment of the Attâ in Occidental literature? It seems odd that an historic study and not a philosophic study is the preferred treatment of the Attâ/anattâ dispute by Western scholars.

10. Modern Buddhist commentators are certainly wrong when they assert that a work bears a certain meaning which it does not seem to possess in a particular context. This is to say, being more precise, modern Buddhist commentators are off the mark when their interpretation does not close down certain textual ambiguities and contradictions.

11. By denying outright the soul, by default, the Theravadins and modern Buddhists imply that the five aggregates are ultimate. This of course is absurd. They have merely shifted Buddhism to empiricism by ignoring pro-soul statements. According to them, what is real is what makes sensory knowledge possible, namely, the five aggregates which, ironically, according to the canon, are suffering being synonymous with Mara the Evil One (the Buddhist devil)!

12. It begs the question to assume that the no-soul doctrine had been established at the beginning of the Buddha’s ministry and that Attâ (soul) was, in every respect, an abhorrent term. Still, for such a supposedly abhorrent term, there are countless positive instances of Attâ used throughout the Nikayas, especially used in compounds which are easily glossed over by a prejudicial translator. In meeting these instances, not surprisingly, these same prejudicial translators have erected a theory that Attâ is a reflexive pronoun. This is rather hard to prove since Pali has no reflexive pronouns.

13. Much later, the Theravadins were compelled to invent a two truth theory. With the numerous instances of Attâ (soul) being found in the canon, without any pejorative implications, they fabricated the Abhidhamma taxonomy which they claim was first delivered in heavens by the Buddha to the gods who could better understand a no-soul theory than mere humans!

14. In the Nikayas, hetrodox uses of soul are noted, which are called ‘attânudittha’. One main hetrodox use of soul is in the idea of Eternalism in which the soul is regarded in a physical sense which lives in perpetuity like the cosmos.

15. What is sometimes elaborated upon in the Nikayas is the heterodox uses of Attâ (soul)‹not its outright, categorical rejection.

16. That the Buddha denied the theories of Perpetualists and Annihilationism is true. But Mahavira, the Jain, denied both positions as well. But did Mahavira deny, altogether, the principle of a soul? No he did not. Neither did Gotama the Buddha.

17. The Buddha says many times that we are not to regard our Attâ (soul) as being connected with the five aggregates. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana


 * Oh, no. I have excellent substantiation. I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet time and time and time and time again you have provided no substantiation. You cannot be taken seriously in the slightest, for you make countless claim you cannot and do not substantiate, be it either about myself or about Buddhism in general.

That you have no "hesitation" in calling me unqualified is not in question,…. This, however, is all you have, one claim after another, like rubber checks written on an empty bank account.

Since you cannot support your claims with either citations or logical abductive reasoning, one can only conclude your secular and Nihilistic position has left you as immobile.

Might I remind you that one cannot even be religious or spiritual and deny the Soul, only a secular Humanist, nothing more than a "Moral Atheist",… as such, any connection you claim to any spirituality (Religion) must be rejected outright.

To claim liberation (Vimutta) and deny that which obtains it is both illogical and adoctrinal at its very core. The only noun in suttana which is liberated is the citta (cittavimutta), as well as the only noun “freed of the 5-khandhas” [Nettippakarana 44] “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha)”, as well as the only noun = Nibbana and Buddhahood.

‘the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-Att. 4.68]

“The purification of one’s own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha” [DN 2.49]

“How is it that one is called a ‘Buddha’?...gnosis that the mind/will (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a ‘Buddha’.” [MN 2.144]

[MN 1.301] "What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign."

[AN 1.282] “He gathers the citta inside the immortal realm”.

Citta is the only noun in Buddhist doctrine which is said to be the basis/medium for the recollection of past lives: “directs his will (citta) to the recollection of past lives” [DN 1.81].


 * The Citta is the ontological will, or metaphorically in the scriptural context of Buddhist doctrine (as well as the Upanishads too for that matter, which translates citta as "Pure-Consciousness"), is the “Light” which is unmanifest. “The light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]. The metaphysical nexus of purification in Buddhism is the non-empirical and pre-corporeal citta. As per Buddhism, the inchoate (self-nescient) will (citta) is manifest as an attribution and self-sublimated, as the  empirical consciousness (vinnana), the finest attribute of samsaric and empirical existence. In short, this ‘white-light’ Will (citta), when manifest upon ‘blue’ form is blue-vinnana (consciousness), or when manifest upon ‘red’ form, is red-vinnana (consciousness). The sati (recollection) and samadhi (assimilation) methodology of Buddhism is to make this primordially pure but inchoate Will (citta), choate (self-Knowing) such that further identification with its phenomenal attributes has been forever cut (bhavanirodha nibbanam).


 * Just as there is no Light (citta) in what is merely illumined (vinnana/consciousness) from afar, but merely En-lumined by this non-empirical Light, so to is the apex of Buddhism the disidentification with this causal nexus beginning with phenomenal consciousness (vinnana) by making the will (citta) self-choate by the erasure of nescience (avijja/avidya) thru means of gnosis and sati and samadhi methodologies. [12-1 Upadisa] “Just as a man (erroneously) looks upon his body placed in the sun as having the property of light (citta) in it, so, he looks upon the intellect (vinnana) pervaded by the reflection of Citta as the Self (inner-nature of the Citta).”

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 atta’ (Soul/Atman) doctrine, it in fact compliments it.

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 the Buddha frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), 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 perculiary apposite.


 * After a very lengthy examination of your endless baseless claims and conjectures, one after another and another ad infinitum, Critic, I feel it best to differ to Zen master Hakuin as pertains your position:
 * "If you cannot debate Buddhism with ease, then you must admit that your comprehension of it is pathetic at best"- Zen master Hakuin, -- - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana
 * RandomCritic: You say of user Attasarana, "I have no doubt and no hesitation in saying that you are completely unqualified as a Pali translator". This implies that you must be a qualified Pali translator to be in a position to determine this.  But when I look at your user page, I am confronted with a big blank. On the other hand, as you are one of these people who conveniently chose to hide behind a childish pseudonym, I am unable to find anything you have published that would corroborate your implicit claim of superior Pali language knowledge -- are you perhaps K.R. Norman in disguise ?  Putting aside the polemics and literary style, the general reading of the Nikayas on anatta/atta that user Attasarana is putting forward are not as eccentric as you might assume.  Are you perhaps an under-graduate and have been confined to your stipulated reading lists ?  Other scholars of repute who have noted many of the points that Attasarana mentions: Alex  Wayman, Tillman Vetter (the leading Dutch Pali expert at Leiden University), Lambert Schmidthausen, Perez-Remon and Stanislav Schayer are a few names that spring to mind. As I mentioned earlier in a response to Yoji (aka Vapour), I am minded to re-write or start anew with this article and produce something that will hopefully be agreeable to most reasonable and fair-minded users. I must warn you that I do, however, have a living to earn and hence cannot produce material at the drop of the hat to satisfy the whims of others.--Stephen Hodge 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Hodge: if you know any Pali, then you know that my critique of Attasarana's skills is valid. If you do not know Pali, then you had no grounds for endorsing his "translations", and my linguistic explanations will make no sense to you.  I can only suggest that you study the language for yourself, in that case.  I am sorry that you find my handle childish, but it is a matter of no significance at all and I see no reason for you to bring it up.  I am disinclined to provide any personal information on Wikipedia, as it easily opens up opportunities for abuse.  I realize that it is convenient to substitute judgments on personalities for judgments on material, but it is also lazy and sloppy.  I neither know or care anything about Attasarana, or you, outside of the contributions made to Wikipedia pages and other web pages you have called attention to, and my critique is based on this material -- not on claims of expertise (which, you will note, I have not bothered to and will not make for myself). The important thing is that I am trying to help improve this article, and the primary obstacle at this point to improvement is Attasarana's continued misuse of edits and violation of Wikipedia norms, e.g. by constant reverts, removing NPOV flags, using multiple accounts, and removing information from the talk page.  You might also be disturbed by his careless use of citations, which frequently fail to match the text provided at all.
 * As far as other scholars who have non-mainstream interpretations of anatta, by all means cite them and they can be accommodated in a paragraph dealing with nonstandard views. However, the main problem at present is the failure of the article to present mainstream Buddhist interpretations.  I appreciate your offer to rewrite the page, however, I have concerns about your ability to present a neutral point of view, as I understand you are not a disinterested party.  I don't think there is any reason for you to rush.  If Attasarana ceases to damage the page, I am sure that other contributors can produce a much more professional and accurate page. You might want to wait until then, when there is a positive basis to work on.
 * I have changed the title of this section as it was, essentially, a personal attack, both falsely suggesting that this is a matter of my personal views (which are not relevant here) as well as falsely stating what they are. You may dismiss this as a matter of "literary style".  In fact, it goes to the heart of how work is done on Wikipedia. Without a certain degree of respect we can't produce respectable articles.  I hope you understand that. RandomCritic 21:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know Pali, and also Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian. I have been involved in Buddhist studies for almost 40 years and have probably read more Buddhist texts and studies than you have by a long chalk. I also specialize in Buddhist lexicography and text editing. I say this not to impress --  I'm just a lot older than you and, hopefully, more experienced -- but just to let you know that I do know a little bit about Buddhism.  So, while I would concede that some of Attasarana's translations leave something to be desired, chiefly in the choice of English equivalents (like "Soul" for "self"), I don't think his overall grasp of Pali or the issues under debate are as bad as you seem to think.  It's just that you seem to disagree with his interpretations.  I also notice that you conveniently side-step the question of your own Pali qualifications.  Please enlighten us, once and for all.  Did you do a couple of semesters at university or did you teach your self ?  No harm in either, but it would be nice to know.
 * I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this. I don't hide my credentials -- you can do a Google search of my name (+ buddhism, for disambiguation) and over 80,000 hits will return, though containing duplicates, of course.  Unless one has real fears of persecution, this habit of using pseudonyms is rather childish in my opinion and more suited to informal chatrooms.   You also say, "I realize that it is convenient to substitute judgements on personalities for judgements on material", but you indulge in excatly the same thing.  Quid pro quo, my friend.
 * You also mention that your critique is not based "claims of expertise ", but it is implicitly that. Get the beam out of your own eye first !  You also say that you are "trying to help improve this article".  How ?  I don't see any edits to the article that you have done.  I may have missed them, so could you point them out, please.
 * As far as Attasarana's conduct is concerned, I have a little sympathy with him, but I am also inclined to agree that the article itself could be improved considerably with less polemics, less verbosity and more citations. It is nothing like the article which I would write, even though I think that it contains material that has wrongly been marginalized or ignored in "mainstream" accounts of Buddhism. Just because the main thrust of that article is currently a minority view, this does not make it ipso facto wrong or eccentric or worthy to be dismissed in a few lines as has been suggested here.  I have observed the same phenomenon in studies dealing with Yogacara over the past three decades -- see the work of scholars such as Dan Lusthaus, Alex Wayman, Janet Willis and Lambert Schmidthausen.  They have virtually overturned the formerly prevailing paradigm of understanding which was based on traditional commentaries and sectarian distortions.
 * You say "the main problem at present is the failure of the article to present mainstream Buddhist interpretations". Well the fault lies with you or others -- get writing !  I have absolutely no objection to this and await your contributions with interest.
 * You say that you "have concerns about your ability to present a neutral point of view, as I understand you are not a disinterested party". I am not quite sure how to respond to this !  You probably know nothing whatsoever about me nor have read anything by me except what I have put on these discussion pages.  I have no association with Attasarana whatsoever and hold no brief for him.  I am quite capable of writing a neutral article on this or any other Buddhist topic -- if you care to look at a copy of the "Dictionary of Buddhism" ed. Damien Keown (OUP 2003), have a look at the entries there -- I wrote almost one third of them and edited many others in an advisory capacity.  This will probably not interest you greatly, but ought to refute your unfounded aspersions about my neutrality -- you don't get published by institutions such as OUP by being biased and unscholarly.
 * You say "I am sure that other contributors can produce a much more professional and accurate page". Perhaps, but I do not see many hurrying to do that.  If nothing appears by the time I have produced a revised entry on the "anatta/atta" section, I'll post that.  Then we can have a sensible and informed debate about who is disinterested or not !  You never know, you might be surprised and more importantly, learn something at the same time.
 * As for changing the title of this sub-section, this does not concern me -- you can call it what you like.--Stephen Hodge 22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hodge: I cannot and do not estimate any person based on their own claims of their talents or abilities: only by what they themselves exhibit and what I can myself double-check. For instance, I double-checked your claim of "over 80,000" Google hits on your name (combined with "Buddhism").  In fact such a search yields only 603 hits -- a much less impressive total.  That in itself is a matter of no consequence, and I prefer to think that it is merely the result of a casual error on your part rather than conscious deception (you apparently told Google to search for "Stephen", "Hodge", and "Buddhism", in any combination or order), but it indicates why I do not simply trust what people say about themselves -- including who they claim to be and what they claim to know.
 * Now, I have not seen you display any knowledge of Pali, and I find it troubling that you dismiss Attasarana's poor (or wrong) citations and bad translations. I have pointed out that he interprets a phrase as a single word (and a technical term, moreover); does not seem to understand the difference or the relation between a noun and an adjective; does not recognize the locative case; presents an impossible grammatical interpretation of Dhp. 279; and makes multiple (and usually tendentious) errors in the translations of single words.  You either haven't read this; have just blown it off; or don't follow it.  I suppose "didn't read it" would reflect best on you.  But I ask you, assuming some small dose of knowledge on your part: does this garble -- "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)." -- sound to you like something that an experienced Pali translator would produce? Please note: he thinks that anattā can have a direct object; he thinks that sabbe in the phrase sabbe dhammā is accusative.  These are not issues of differing interpretations; these are issues of fact.
 * Formally, Attasarana's contributions are not less of a disaster. There is much editorializing, but nothing in the way of citation.  Certainly, there are PTS citations scattered all over -- not always correctly -- but these are not actually Attasarana's sources.  After all, the quotations are mostly in English, and he has already admitted that the translations are not his own.  So whose are they?  Where does this material actually come from?  I have asked this question, but Attasarana has not seen fit to answer. The answer, however, would be far more useful than Attasarana's divagations
 * I am not claiming "expertise", but that is hardly needed to see that Attasarana has no idea what he is talking about. You, on the other hand, are claiming expertise in Pali, but seem to have either missed or dismissed these errors; I'm not sure which is more disturbing.   It is very surprising, from a supposed scholar, that you accept Attasarana's claims of his own scholarship at face value.  It is curious that you demand credentials from me, but none from Attasarana; you condemn me for using an internet handle, but this doesn't bother you about Attasarana. Perhaps this answers your question about why someone might doubt your neutrality.
 * As for your demands for personal information about me and my history, they are impertinent and immaterial, and I have no intention of satisfying your curiosity and opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harrassment, and other forms of attacks. You may stop asking. RandomCritic 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Stephen Hodge, after finding Nat Krause didnt know what Roman indexing in Pali was, he admitted the following on his discussion page, so your conclusion was correct:
 * It's true that I don't know anything about Pali.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor have I claimed otherwise. Attasarana seems to think I am the same person as RandomCritic. Sorry for the interruption.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nat, do I detect a hint that you are enjoying all this :)--Stephen Hodge 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No comment.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 08:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The poor "Buddhists" (so-called) haven’t a clue about anatta. This is what happens when one doesn’t have the first clue whatsoever about via negativa, negative dialectics. The Upanishads use it, Samkhara used it, the Gita uses it, Christian mystics from Boehme to Eckhart use it, Plotinus and Plato use it. All fans of the before mentioned understand it fine, but the modern so-called "Buddhists" do not understand it at all, not the slightest.


 * Poor ole Gotama (himself not the best of teachers), could have outright and unambiguously denied the Atman "bhikkhus! Natthattati!!" (Followers, there is no Soul!), ...however this is not the case; and yet much of modern so-called Buddhism is utterly sure of the commentarial trash they read and consume from their masters to the conclusion that Buddhism denied the Atman. It is foremostly non-doctrinal, secondly illogical beyond the scope of insane stupidity. Must one point out the fact that one cannot be spiritual/religious and deny the Soul, only a Humanistic-Atheist who drones on about morality; this is the superficial cult of Pietism, which, of course, is the basis for all modern "Buddhism". For, to reject the soul, all that can be left is petty moralistic Humanism, not spirituality, not liberation, not Immortality (amata), not the Unborne (ajata), the Unbecome -Udana 1.81.


 * If we bought into modern secular pseudo-Buddhism Gotama was a petty Moralist traveling India say "Fie, you wicked Atman-loving Hindus!".
 * "Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single center of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests" -- [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]


 * The word "Hinduism" comes from the word sindhu, the Indo-Aryan word for "the sea," and came to apply to the peoples in the region east of the Indus River. The word “Hinduism” has no connection to any specific religion at all but a peoples and area.- User Attasarana.

Response to RandomCritic II
RC: "In fact such a search yields only 603 hits -- a much less impressive total". SH:  Yes, I was quite surprised myself at the initial large number of hits and realized that I had stupidly over-estimated  in the manner you suggest. Anyway, as you say, it is a matter or no consequence.--Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) RC: "Now, I have not seen you display any knowledge of Pali, and I find it troubling that you dismiss Attasarana's poor (or wrong) citations and bad translations". SH: I presume you mean "have ignored" or "have not dismissed" Attasarana's efforts. I might need to review all the acres of text that he and you have compiled, but since Attasarana's quotes are obviously from other sources, though occasionally modified, I have not thought it very important to comment on those. Looking through your comments, as far as I can see, your main contentions seem to be a couple of typos ("namo" for "nāma") and ("tathatta" for "tathāgata"), the admittedly bizarre explanation of sarve dhammā anattā, a misquote from the Nettipakarana, and frequent objections to his lexical translations. It is sometimes a bit difficult to sort out who is asserting what because name/date stamp are frequently missing. Anyway, the first category is not really worthy of mention. The second example does rightly deal with something that is totally incoherent. Now, just to show you that I do read Pali reasonably well, sabbe dhammā anattā must by any normal grammatical reading be understood as "all dhammas are anatta" -- sabbe: masc.pl.nom of the adj sabba, dhammā: pl.nom. of the masc. noun dhammo, and anattā: masc.pl.nom. of the adj anatta. These are combined as follows sabbe qualifies dhammā, hence "all dhammas"; with the addition of the adj anattā here, one gets what is sometimes called a nominal or equational sentence, extremely common in Sanskrit, Pali (and Latin, Greek etc), where A = B.  Also something not often mentioned is the word order: In Sanskrit -- and similarly in Pali, I believe -- the logical subject often follows the comment in nominal sentences, so probably this should actually be read as "Not self are all the dhammas" -- which is thought-provoking. I have not dealt here with your probably mistaken understanding of the import of that sentence -- some other time perhaps, Next, there is the misquote from the Nettipakarana. You are, of course, quite right, Attasarana cannot have read the entire passage.--Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

SH: No major disagreements so far. It is your third category of criticisms that is open to question -- the translation of individual lexical units. Here I shall first let you into a little secret. The majority of people who translate pre-modern/religious texts start out with a theory of meaning. They have consciously or unconsciously decided in advance what the text ought to say, especially if they are members of the same faith body that reveres the texts they are translating. This in the case of Pali texts, most translators, like Bhikkhu Bodhi, Maurice Walshe or Nanamoli, adopt and apply the prevailing Theravadin assumptions to their translations. You do the same thing when you speak of "atta" and say that "its normal meaning is simply as a reflexive pronoun "myself, himself, oneself", that "atta is merely "oneself"; the conventional concept of a unified person to which one can reflexively refer" or "it has grammatical function but no more".  Of course, this is the nub of the matter.  You have adopted the prevailing Theravadin interpretation as though it were ipso fact true.  The use of any translations done on this basis are actually not NPOV.  You have not established that "atta" when used in apparently affirmative contexts (those contexts which talk of a real self that contrasts to the fake self denied by the anatta methodology) is merely a reflexive pronoun.  What you are actually saying is that the prevailing Theravadin interpretation is such and such.  Thus you assume your preferred translation of the famous "make atta an island/lamp" etc must be correct, while it can very naturally, logically and grammatically be translated as "make the [real] self an island/lamp". Speaking on this vary same passage, Alex Wayman says, "We can hardly imagine ātman being put on a par with the Dharma if ātman means the self of delusion." (The Sravakabhumi Manuscript, Univ of California Press, 1961; p167). GHe is not the only scholar to advance that view. If you want many dozens of more example where atta cannot logically be dismissed as a mere pronoun, I suggest you look at J Perez-Remon's Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism (Mouton 1980). --Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RC: Formally, Attasarana's contributions are not less of a disaster. SH: I think I have already made my position on these quite clear by now.--Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RC: You accept Attasarana's claims of his own scholarship at face value. SH: No, I don't actually. This whole discussion began when somebody vandalized his contribution with scant discussion or negotiation. I deplore this kind of behaviour. What was needed was for somebody to edit the article properly, not to trash it. That is the principle I was and am defending.--Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RC:  It is curious that you demand credentials from me, but none from Attasarana; you condemn me for using an internet handle, but this doesn't bother you about Attasarana. SH: Attasarana, for better or worse, gives his website address. You and Yoji made frequent reference to this website to attack Attasarana -- as well as Dr Page's own site to attack him. Given that, are not the pair of you a trifle cowardly in not providing any tangible information whatsoever about yourselves anywhere ? All that Google shows up are your contributions to Wikipedia and a few other inconsequential items. Yoji Hajime cannot be googled because I don't know the kanji for his name.--Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RC: [snip] opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harassment, and other forms of attacks. SH: I wonder why ? I've never had that problem -- I just get mountains of spam.--Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive ?
I suggest this page now be archived. It has grown extremely long and as all heated discussion seems to have come to an end or parinibbuta'ed, would it not be constructive to draw a line under this phase of the Anatta Talk in readiness for the next as and when it may arise ? Interested parties will still be able to access this page for their edification and amusement --Stephen Hodge 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Attasarana's citations of G. C. Pande
In essence, what you have stated as fact, is that the nihilists have run out of conjecture, opinions, secular dogma, complete lack of doctrinal claim substantiation, and khandha-praising humanism. This of course is a logical conclusion, and of certainly true. - User Attasarana.

I had the opportunity to check the references cited by Attasarana from Studies in the Origins of Buddhism by G. C. Pande. I find it somewhat worrisome that none of the quotations he has given are actually verbatim from the book, although, apart from the dates given, they are generally similar. I'm not sure what conclusion to take from this in terms of evaluating Attasarana's conclusions and his other citations. Below, I compare the quotations as he gave them on this talk page with equivalent passage in Pande's book.

Attasarana: "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" (pg. 12) Pande: "It follows that the scriptures, which are mostly the Nikayas, go back to a period whent he sects were, in important doctrinal matters at least, as yet one." (pg. 12)

Attasarana: Only the Nikayas thusly, reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Sangha was in doctrine at one." (pg. 13) Pande: "The Nikayas, thus, appear to reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Sangha was, in appearance at least, doctrinally one." (pg. 13)

Attasarana: “The vast majority of the Nikayas appear to have existed in record no later then 460 B.C." (pg. 14) Pande: "The major portion of the Nikayas, thus, appears to have certainly existed in the 4th cent. B.C." (pg. 15)

I also checked the following quotations from Attasaran's preferred version of Nikaya Buddhism:

Attasarana: 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." (pg. 13) Pande: "Also, it should be noted that from the standpoint of doctinal evolution, the stage of thought reflected in sectarian controversies is latger than that common in the Nikayas." (pg. 13)

Attasarana: "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 ." (pg. 14) Pande: "An examination of the Bharhut and Sanchi inscriptions shows that 'some time before the second century B.C. there was already a collection of Buddhist texts, which was called the "Pitakas", and was divided into five "Nikayas"...'" (pg. 15; contains a quote from Maurice Winternitz)

Attasarana: "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." (pg. 16) Pande: "The fact that the Nikayas take but slight notice of the issues contested by the earliest sects certainly suggests that they had practically reached completion in the 1st century A.B. [After Buddha]" (pg. 16)

&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The most interesting topic within this material, whether Pande original or the Attasarana recension is the question of the dating of the Nikayas.  One should bear three things in mind here.  First the idea of canonicity -- whether one is dealing with a closed canon with allows no further additions or an open canon that does see additions being made.   The advent of a closed canon is likely to coincide with the recording of the Nikayas in writing -- an event quite late for all schools.


 * The second thing is the dating of a fairly standardized, but still open canon. Frauwallner postulates in his "Earliest Vinaya", on the basis of comparison, that all the Vinayas, possibly also including the Mahasanghika version, go back to a common ancestor which was compiled in Mathura just prior to the extended  missionary  activities during the reign of Asoka (c273-322BCE).  He suggests that this Vinaya was a conscious literary creation modelled on the early puranas.  Its structure comprised three major portions: a life of the Buddha, the Vinaya proper, and an account of the parinirvana.   At a later stage, the various sects removed the first and latter portions and re-located them elsewhere.   Now, without going into details, Frauwallner suggests that it would have been natural to assist the same missionary activities for a similar compilation of sutras to be made, drawing from a large selection of currently available material, again in view of the broad overlap of the various agamas/nikayas surviving today -- but that compilation would not have been a closed canon, since other material has clearly been added -- as may be seen with the Theravadin Anguttara-nikaya.  So we have the strong possibility that a standardized but not closed canon was in existence by the time of Asoka.   As Pande and Attasarana suggest, this compilation was largely free of sectarian differences, though not entirely.


 * But to come to my third point, there is the question of stratification within this quasi-standardized canon.  Pande tried to arrive at some kind of chronology for his stratification, though not all scholars are happy with his methodology.   More recently, it has been suggested that a more satisfactory scheme of stratification can be developed on the basis of the strata of ideas rather than on the basis of stratifying the texts themselves.   I have alluded elsewhere to some of the surprising results of ideological stratification:  no 5 skandhas, no 12-fold pratitya-samutpada, no 8-fold path (at first), the centrality of the jhanas/dhyanas rather than vipasyana, the restricted application of the no-self doctrine, the possibility (indeed, likelihood) of some kind of "true self" concept, etc, etc.   All of this pre-Nikayan material can and needs to be summarized in a new article on Pre-Nikayan Buddhism (aka What the Buddha Really Really taught).  Needless to say, this can esily be presented as NPOV, with lots of nice citations to satisfy even the most pernickety editors.


 * The upshot of this is that there are two chronologies to consider: the dates of the compilation of a standardized canon, closed or otherwise, and the relative chronology of the ideas with that canon. Interesting food for thought, eh ?--Stephen Hodge 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Stephen Hodge, with all respect, youve flipped your bean in not stating the obvious (incapacity to see the forest for the trees it seems). Foremostly, the Abhidhamma is an ENTIRELY diff. variety of Pali. Those who can read Pali will tell you this fact. Its as far apart as Gheto English and ancient Scottish English,...even someone who cannot read Pali, can even see the diff.

Second, the Katthavatthu, the 1st book of the profane Abhidhamma beings with a heated debate between two sects of "buddhism" regarding gotamas position on the Atman. Buddhaghosa and his Sarvastivada (Theravada ancestors) henchmen use and continue to use the Abhidhamma ("Highest-Dhamma") to surplant the Nikayas. Even demons Pali tranlators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi admit outright many 100s of points of doctrine in the Nikayas that "contradict" the Abhidhamma position, namely SN 4.400, for instance, where Antarabhava (in-between existence [after death, but before reincarnation]) is mentioned, and of which Bhikkhu Bodhi admits to in the Nikayas and states in his Samyutta translation footnotes "this contradicts the position of Theravada orthodoxy".

The Abhidhamma is entirely like the Book of Mormon, a "new improved doctrine" used by later-day sects to surplant the original doctrine. For Theravada, if it doesnt pass thru the "Abhidhamma-filter" of dogmatic Nihilism, it just doesnt exist.

The demon-Theravada position of a "Tipitaka" is a lie propogated for so long and so often, the common dolt hasnt a clue that this is nothing more than a religious joke nearly 1700 years in the making. The "Pali Canon" doesnt exist except in the dogma of several schools of Buddhism anymore than Jesus taught the "book or Mormon" written by Joseph Smith in 1800's America. - User Attasarna.


 * Dear Attasarana, judging from the number of typos in your response, I infer that you dashed it off in a hurry, having your thumb in so many pies.  Additionally, its content also suggests that you did not have enough time to read my posting carefully.    Have another look, please.   Where do I talk about Abhidharma collections, Pali or otherwise ?   I do not mention it because I was discussing stratification in the four (or five) Nikayas/Agamas in general.    Of course, the rise of matrikas, the precursors of the various Abhidharmas,  is relevant to the ideological stratification of the suttas/sutras in the Nikayas / Agamas, but it is rather a truism to tell us that the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma as a set of texts is of late origin.
 * Your comments about a "Pali Canon" are also misplaced.  Where do I talk about a specific "Pali Canon" ?   Textual and ideological stratification can be found in all surviving Agama/Nikaya collections.  You might care to note that I have used the word "canon" with lower case deliberately.   You no doubt know the meaning of "canon" as well as I do, but to remind you, it denotes "a collection of books or texts accepted as genuine/authentic".   All of the "Eighteen Schools" would have had such sets of texts -- at least the Dirgha, Madhyama, Samyukta and Ekottara -- that they regarded as authentic, though the range or number of sutras in these sets varies.   Whether and when each of these canons in the different schools became closed of a closed or remained open is of vital importance in stratifying the ideological content.
 * You might find material that supports your key arguments if you looked at the ideological stratification of the Nikayas/Agamas.  The earlier the ideological stratum, the stronger the corroboration for your position.   The problem is that the reasoning involved might be too complex and subtle for the average Wiki editor or reader.--Stephen Hodge 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst supporting your position on virtually all points stated, your proclivity towards pathetic minutia is typical myopic 'scholastic' fodder, you take no position on anything,...the typical stance of "fence sitting" pseudo-intellectuals, Mr. Hodge. While utterly in favor of your position as regards the dubious nature of modern pseudo-Buddhism, your not in any ways unlike the biologist who is skilled at dissecting a frog but it dumbfounded as to how or why said frog jumps or eats flies;...as such, your incapacity to attack (not politically correct enough a term?) the pseudo-Buddhists merely on the basis of logic and simple philosophy is quite evident.


 * Point being, Mr. Hodge, a true philosopher doesn’t need to cite Sutta to utterly destroy the position of modern heretical existentialistic and nihilistic "buddhists". Defacto modern buddhism preaches purity of one or more of the "mara-khandhas"(SN 3.194), and admits to only 6 things, the 5 khandhas and avijja. As per my earlier post, like most scholars you cant see the forest for the trees. Your talk of "ideological stratum", "stratification of" is merely petty logomachy, and unrequired verbosity. Simple intelligence and wisdom suffices, with a great wisdom based in philosophy, to utterly annihilate modern buddhism's position on the Atman. A self-negation paradox cannot be enjoined, for the Subject always precedes the object of negation.


 * In Gotamas day, its recorded people became "Arhants within 2 weeks" (some did), and while I myself have many 1000s of books on buddhism's history and as regards its suttas/dates recorded, etc., your intellective dissection of irrelevant minutia has no bearing on vimuttatta (emancipation), nor is reflective of a true Philosopher, of which, even in Plotinus' day in 270 C.E., there were "far too few",…as for my “typos”, I am guilty of same, I don’t spell check useless typing, of which all of Wikipedia nearly qualifies.- User Attasarana, owner attan.com.

A Way Forward for the Anatta Article
I would also like to make a suggestion regarding this Anatta article. Whether they like it or not, all editors must comply with the Wiki concepts of NPOV, which involves, among other things, presenting objectively, and in a non-disparaging manner, explanations or views they strongly disagree with as individuals, as well as their own favoured positions. Accurate citations and references are also a sine qua non. Providing these principles are adhered to, then the two (or possibly three) positions that have been the focus of considerable acrimony reecently will be fairly represented. It is up to the Wiki user to make up his/her/its mind which, if any, is the most likely and coherent account.

To this end, I suggest interested parties look at the revised Hinayana article sandbox and the related discussion at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox. I think something along those lines should be implemented in the case of "anatta/atman" and the related "atta/atman" articles. A more satisfactory, and hopefully better, result is likely through cooperation rather than through vituperation. Any takers ?--Stephen Hodge 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A statement
It is deeply disappointing to see such personal bickering between buddhists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.8.55 (talk • contribs).


 * "Buddhists don't bicker" = Popular Buddhist Myth No. 537. Sorry to disappoint, but they have been doing it almost from the start, 2500 years ago.  It is regrettable, though.--Stephen Hodge 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wounded by an Arrow
As a reader interested in clarifying certain Buddhist concepts, I am disappointed with this article. In style it seems to me to be more argumentive than informative. But interestingly the form of its presentation reveals the flaw of its content.

Is not the author's insistence on demonstrating his version of a "Buddhist soul theory" use precisely the approach that the Buddha himself was negating? Specifically, using verbal arguments in an attempt to conceptualize what is ineffable? Does this not create greater ignorance by perpetuating a mental state that spawns meaningless generic propositions to be defended? Wouldn't mainstream Buddhists agree that futile arguments regarding the concept of soul are beside the point? Wouldn't they say our most important task would be an exhaustive personal examination of why as individuals we would need to advance such arguments in the first place?

It is said that the Buddha likened the mind that poses such questions to a man who when fatally wounded by an arrow insisted on knowing, before the arrow was removed, the name of the man that shot the arrow, how old he was, what tribe he was from, whether he was facing into or away from the sun, if seasoned wood was used to construct the arrow, whether that wood came from bark or senew, what season the wood was cut, on whose land the tree resided ...

Does not the author's insistence of using what he describes as interpretations based on original texts and rejection of later refinements and clarifications accepted by mainstream Buddhist thinkers such as the Dalai Lama remind one of the unbending religious fundamentalism that has become so prevalent as of late?

In my opinion, if the reader wants an intuitive realization of what constitutes clinging, whether it be what the author considers to be a soul or for that matter any other mental construct, all he or she needs to do is to read between the lines of this article. Furthermore, this article's argumentative and non-generalistic nature makes it unsuitable encyclopedic use. Those interested in an unbiased view of what mainstream Buddhism calls anatta would be better served looking somewhere else. Nakedzx 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It figures...
That the article on anatta should be such an ungodly mess is hardly surprising. But what I'd like to see done here, and what I've never seen done before, is to see this whole atta/anatta argument placed in its proper context. In reality, this argument has less to do with discussing Buddhist practice and dogma than it does with imagining a supposed "origin" of Buddhism and then fighting over what that origin must be, an hypostatized origin which by its very nature is not to be found in Buddhism as it was every actually practiced at any point in its history. This phenomenon of reconstructing "origins" is itself a late 19th century phenomenon, and by extension the whole atta/anatta argument is really working with concepts which can be traced back to Victorian Orientalists and what they wanted Buddhism to be. On the one hand, we have the rationalist camp of T.W. Rhy Davids who were working from the assumption that Buddhism was the "empirical" religion which threw away things which were not directly observable like souls and supreme deities. Anything that contradicted this assumption was termed obvious degeneration of the original teaching. On the other hand, you have the Upanishadic camp, people like Mrs. Rhys Davids and Edmund Holmes, who felt that Buddhism was really little more than Upanishads version 2.0, that everything in the Nikayas had to be translated as such, and that everything that went against this was obvious degeneration of the original teaching. Scholars in both camps had their own academic, psychological, and spiritual reasons (or should I say "hang-ups") which lead them to view Buddhism as they did. It's just as Stephen Hodge said in one of the above entries:
 * Here I shall first let you into a little secret. The majority of people who translate pre-modern/religious texts start out with a theory of meaning.  They have consciously or unconsciously decided in advance what the text ought to say, especially if they are members of the same faith body that reveres the texts they are translating.  Thus, in the case of Pali texts, most translators, like Bhikkhu Bodhi, Maurice Walshe or Nanamoli, adopt and apply the prevailing Theravadin assumptions to their translations.Stephen Hodge 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is also the case with the people on the other side of this argument who wish to see an Upanishadic Self in Buddhism. So, what do you do when everyone in this argument is seeing Buddhism only as they want to see it? And need I mention neither party giving a damn what practicing Buddhists, Eastern or Western, have to say about any of it (modern practitioners are just practicing a "corruption" of the "original" teaching, remember...) ?

I repeat, this argument has precious little to do with what Buddhism ever taught in its history, and has everything to do with what Victorian Orientalists wanted Buddhism to be. And what they wanted Buddhism to be was a dogmatic system only they had complete understanding of, and only they had complete access to, because, in reality, they were the ones who constructed it in the first place.


 * Dear Anonymous, could you please sign and date-stamp your contributions to Talk Pages ?  I think there is a lot of sense in what you say, but I don't think your analysis of the problem reflects the position of all participants.   The kind of people you are talking about, on both sides of the fence, are prescriptive in their approach.  However, for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article, the approach should be descriptive -- one ought to attempt an outline the situation as various Buddhists through ages have seen it, but also mention should be made of the findings of modern scholarship concerning the likely form of the Buddha's teachings even though these are contrary to what some present-day devotees might want.   Thus, in my case, I am not so concerned with what I might want Buddhism to be or to have been, but what an objective and agnostic examination and analysis of the textual material suggests to have been the case.   It is now fairly well recognized that even some of the apparently basic concepts of Buddhism are unlikely to belong to the earliest stratum of Buddhism.


 * I did make a suggestion about what should be done with this entry above, but surprisingly there were no takers.   I think the article needs to be carefully planned and structured in isolation in a sandbox, with discussion from all interested editors.   I would like to make a start myself with this but, at present, available time and health are restricting me.--Stephen Hodge 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments
Stephen

My apologies for not signing. I am relatively new at this.

To the extent that I understand it, I find resonance it everything you have to say.

You have an interesting bio. I have a question that can be answered or treated rhetorically as you prefer. Do you meditate? I do. What brought me to the anatta page was a Google search from which I intended to find additional perspectives on perfecting my practice. Although I do not have your background or experience I have read more than a dozen books written or translated by authors that appear to be regarded as those that reflect the popularized version of Tibetan Buddhism. They include the Dalai Lama, Robert Thurman and numerous other Tibetan scholars that have translated the work of Candrakirti, Nagarjuna and others.

Does this soul/no-soul debate advance a greater understanding of the subject in question? My primary interest was not and is not the position of all participants. It is a greater understanding of what contemporary and ancient scholars call anatta.

Any suggestions on additional sources? Nakedzx 20:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Nakedzx, it's no big deal about not signing in -- just a matter of convenience for other users.  I sometimes wonder if I have put too much or too little on my User Page, but as you ask, yes, I do meditate and have done so for over forty-five years and I also taught others for almost twenty years.  I am not sure why you are asking this, but I suspect it might have something to do with evaluating experiential knowledge derived from practice and theoretical knowledge derived from study, especially academic study.  In my view the two need not exclude each other -- both can supplement and help the other.   A potential problem arises when the findings of academic study conflict with faith-based practices or traditional beliefs.   It is interesting that, even within the Buddhist tradition, the practice of meditation can also lead to different conclusions.


 * You mention that you have been doing some reading on Tibetan Buddhism, though there is a hint that your studies have been confined to Gelukpa material. Myself, I have never found the Gelukpas appealing, but rather have been involved with Nyingma and Kagyu stuff.  But as for your question, do you see yourself as a follower of Nagarjunarism, Chandrakirtism or similar ?  If you consider yourself a follower of Buddhism, then you must surely be interested in what the Buddha himself might have taught.  I am not suggesting a kind of Buddhist fundamentalism, but would it not perhaps be helpful to understand what the Buddha might have actually taught ?   To do this, one should examine the earliest sources -- the Pali Nikayas and their parallel Agamas -- and see if it is at all possible to peel away the layers of later acccretions and misunderstandings.  I have often touched on this problem in other messages elsewhere on Wiki, but it has become clear that these early texts are stratified and contain material that was very likely composed after the Buddha's passing.  The atta/anatta topic is one of these interesting areas.


 * A number of recent scholars have concluded that nowhere does the Buddha give an outright denial of an atta -- all he does is says what an atta is not.  Moreover, I think there is other irrefutable textual evidence that suggests the existence of some kind of "entity" equivalent to the atta was assumed by the Buddha, either occasionally using the term "atta" or functional synonyms like citta or vijnana on occasion, used anomalously.  So the question for a practising believer is actually quite important.   Supposing people like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti and all their Madhyamika friends got it completely wrong and lying hidden at the very core of Buddhism is actually an atta which they deny ?  This misapprehension is entirely feasible:  do you think that what the Pope teaches and does has much to do with the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua ben Yusuf who was later deified as the Christian Messiah ?   If what passes as Buddhism in many circles today bears little resemblance to what the historical Buddha taught, then does this not present some substantial difficulties with respect to practice ?   Though I suppose the practical bottom-line for many practitioners is to do what works for them -- while keeping an open mind at the same time to other possibilities.   You could do well by getting hold of The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism (Brill 1988) by the noted Pali scholar Tillman Vetter, a book I frequently recommend to people wanting to get an idea what earliest Buddhism was probably like. You should be able to get it through an inter-library loan if you live anywhere near civilization.  And finally, and needless to say, I think the current Wiki article on anatta is rather unbalanced and needs a complete overhaul -- which will need the input of several people.--Stephen Hodge 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Nakedzx. I am not sure exactly what you are seeking in terms of reading material, but I think Stephen's suggestions above are eminently sensible and deserve to be taken very seriously. It is probably better for your practice, as Stephen indicates, to focus very carefully on what the Buddha of the suttas/ sutras teaches (often very different from what the books about Buddhism and the present-day Buddhist teachers say) rather than spending too much time on all these other commentators who came many hundreds or even thousands of years later. On the non-Self/ Self question, a good book (if you can get it) is "Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism" by Joaquin Perez-Remon (Mouton, 1980). It takes a positive stand on the Self question and also looks at how some of the earliest commentarial material did not support the view of a total and utter non-existence of Self (this is important for meditation practice, as Stephen has intimated). You might also like to read a book called "The Buddha from Dolpo" by Cyrus Stearns on a major Tibetan Buddhist master - Dolpopa - on his very positive understanding of the Self and Nirvana teachings. But, as I said, all of these should (in my humble opinion) take second place to the suttas and sutras themselves. Good luck to you! Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, Tony

Thanks for your excellent observations and references. They are a reminder of what makes Wikipedia potentially great. In my practice, as in life, my goal is to develop a mind that assimilates and learns without formulating unfounded conclusions. Although I do not have sufficient knowledge of Buddhism to know whether its development parallels that of Christianity it does seem to me that its approach seems fundamentally different. That is, Buddhism seems to use a logic based, revise-whatever-does-not-work approach whereas popular representations of Christianity, at least in the U.S., seem rather dogmatic in comparison. I should also say, in an attempt to ward off further polarization, that when the dogma is removed there is much of value there. But I'm not sure how that comparison relates to difficulties in meditation practice. My current focus has been the development of equanimity which I would relate to non-conclusiveness, non-judgementalism or as you said Stephen, open-mindedness. In that effort I will look for whatever is available for Tillman Vetter and Dolpopa. In the meantime, don't consider this to be my final comments. Nakedzx 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur! Mindman1 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this about?
I couldn't work out what people are arguing about. What is in despute above about?--Timtak 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I got rid of my point of view.

NPOV
Attasarana is determined to have this page as *his* page, rather than a collaboratively written, consensus opinion piece with a npov as is the spirit and principle of wikipedia. His childish bias is evident in such NPOV defying antics as calling Theravada teaching as 'non-doctrinal'... it's so bad it's almost funny.


 * First paragraph had to be corrected, no doctrinal citation exists for the ussage of anatta as a noun, period. All religious claims must be Sola Scriptura, in Doctrine. POV claims in the first paragraph cannot be maintained. All 576 occurances of anatta as as Adjective, or adjectival, without exception.

Personal conjecture cannot be tolerated when discussing doctrinal terms. --Attasarana(talk)

Inflammatory Language
The article entitled 'Anatta' contains inflammatory language that reflects all too clearly the personal passions of the writer. This does not belong in an encyclopedia article and should be confined to the discussion page.

Using a Wikipedia Article as a Battleground
The article entitled 'Anatta' is being used as a battleground for opposing points of view. Naturally, opposing points of view may be represented in an encyclopedia article, but unnecessary vehemence should and will be toned down, while retaining any factual information that may be present.

Making the article easier to read - 2006-11-01
It is my intention to make the article easier to read by:
 * inserting a note at the beginning to explain the different translations of the word anatta, then
 * using only the term anatta throughout the article, instead of one or more of its various translations, wherever it makes sense to do so. Kipholbeck 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

pleased/disturbed
I am not a scholar of Buddhism, nor am I able to decipher Pali.

Furthermore I am not interested in canon.

Furthermore I am not unbiased

This may mean I shouldn’t have anything to do with this.

But I think I should.

I have been a Buddhist for most of my life, and have thought about Buddhist things for most of my life.

I came across this article because I had been listening to a monk who had visited our city recently. He had mentioned the term anatta. I was familiar with the term, however I was interested in both seeing a scholarly discussion on what it meant for me, and what it meant for others. Reading this article at first disturbed me. I am familiar with the concept of anatta presented in the article. It is not the only concept however. The article seemed to me to dismiss these other concepts as perhaps being 'un-Buddhist'. Buddhism as I find it is a very fragmented religion with significant deviation in thought to dismiss any one of them as 'un-Buddhist' is not helpful. The article only addresses one of these areas of thought. And that is central. It is not that it is biased, although I think it is, it is that it does not segment that bias and recognize it as such. As in 'the X school of thought, with whom I agree, says the following on the concept of no-self".

Although I am not a scholar I am very familiar with the argument(s)/debate(s) occurring here because I have had it with myself regularly. It is a source of suffering.

There are two things I would like to contribute to it.

1) The 'problem' that occurs when we describe things as not self and inadvertently indicate self I feel arises out of the way we think. We think in terms of self, and our language is spoken in terms of self.  By having to describe self we place focus on self, we place focus on the duality of self-no self, which in turn creates self.  In my opinion it is the question, 'what is self?', or 'what is not self?' that is at fault, not the Buddha’s answer, nor the modern Buddhist’s answer, which, given the pre-established focus provided by the self focused nature of the question, can only ever be half complete.

In my opinion the answer to the question “what is self?” can only be given in the negative because, in our minds and language, in our conception, this is the only part of the answer that can be correct. It appears to be an incomplete answer because of the nature of the question. To be a complete answer the Buddha, or the modern Buddhist or philosopher, would need to say what the self is, to which he can only answer, again, what it is not.

and as to the opposite question that then gets posed, 'is there then no self?' we are again posed with a similar difficulty in conception and language because to answer we must say that there 'is' a 'no self'. At which point we form a concept of a thing that is the no-self and create an identification with that thing, which creates self. Which is both illogical, and opposite to what I think Buddhism is about.

2) At the end of the last sentence I wanted to say 'the goal of Buddhism’ which brings me to the next issue. One 'problem' in Buddhism which arises from realizing, at the logical extreme, as noted in the article, that one cannot attain enlightenment and be pursuing the goal of attaining enlightenment at the same time.  To have a goal is to be a thing which has a goal, to be a thing which has a goal is to not have become disillusioned of self, or of being a thing.  Again I think this arises out of the focus we place on self in our minds and language.  You cannot say, I am enlightened, and be enlightened, it is a contradiction.  Our language does not let us say this logically.  To say it logically would sound absurd and have no meaning; ' enlightened' it isn't even a sentence.  However considering the focus that language/thought puts on self, in the context of that language/thought it cannot make sense if something is said which stops focusing in that way.

I would suggest, as one other poster here suggested, for the reader to look between the lines of the article and this conversation; that is self, that is suffering.

The more I come to understand, I think, the more I realize that, for me, Buddhism is very much something which must be 'observing', rather than 'something that I learn'.

No self IMO is the shifting of focus away from self. And even this still creates the self concept. I know it is incorrect even as I say it. Ultimately I think you must know what no-self means to know what no-self means. You must be enlightened to be enlightened. No-self no-self. Which is why it may be difficult to effectively communicate this concept in an encyclopedia.

Whether this has any place in an encyclopedia I will let others decide. To avoid being a hypocrite I will say that my thoughts have been strongly influenced by Theravada teaching, and then have progressed ( I imagine) from there, according to my own inquiry’s and experience into and on the subject and should be considered as coming from that context and bias.

18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Entry Suggestion
I note that a tag has been placed on this "anatta" entry, urging deletion. I would oppose such deletion at this stage -until a better version has been produced (here in the discussion pages on a trial basis)and received substantial support from Wiki editors. I have made a move towards improving the current article by restoring the section on "Tathagatagarbha and non-Self", which was unjustifiably removed. Other persons may like to help shape and improve the rest of the article. But until a better version of the entire article has been written and offered for consideration, I would say it is best not to delete the present article as it now stands, but to keep it, so that others may make suitable amendments. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence about Nirvana is never specifically designated by the Pali Buddha as being "Self" or "not-Self".
I do no think this sentence should be included in this article. It seems to make it sound like Nibbana is a place which can contain the self (or even just a place). Nibbana in the Pali Suttas is the cessation of anger, greed, and delusion. Anyways, the line in Dhammapada 20 is very curious since the first two statements on reality specifically mention conditioned phenomena as transitory and then as sorrowful, but the third statement mentions dhammas as not-self. Look at (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban2.htm)...it argues that the word dhamma might not always include Nibbana, but also explicitly gives a passage where Nibanna is included in the meaning of dhamma. The rest of the article focuses on how Nibanna is not "not-Self" although the author does state that this is a "tentative opinion" (and not an assertion) and so forth. Getting back to the point, to state that this passage does not include Nibbana is to put a POV...since it is very odd to have a sequence of conditioned, conditioned, and then dhamma. Why not just use conditioned phenomena (sankhara)in place of dhamma if he meant it in that way (everything would be consistent then!). Probably the best way to look at Nibbana is not in the context of Self or not-Self, since it really does not refer to that argument. Actually AN 4.174 quite clearly states that one should not look at Nibbana in that perspective. So I want to remove this statement or have it at least changed to something like there is "debate" on whether the Pali Buddha ever designated Nirvana as "not-Self". I think that would be more NPOV. Tony? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucifereri (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

""Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Note 1. The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other "All's" in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha's omniscience (literally, All-knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation. Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed."
 * Thanks for the reasonable comments. I think it is not POV to say that the Buddha never explicitly and specifically stated that "nibbana is anatta". It is simple fact! The use of the term "all" clearly does not always mean truly "all" (including Nirvana) in the Pali suttas. For example, the Buddha says, when speaking of the state of the liberated arhat, that "when all dhammas have been swept away", there remains no way of speaking of the arhat. Does that mean that Nirvana has been swept away too? Clearly not. Also, note the passage in the Pali canon where the Buddha defines "all" as the sense organs and their fields. Ven. Thinassaro (while not espousing a positive Self doctrine) comments thus, after translating the passage (and we note the odd interpretation of the commentators, who do not always seem to reflect what the Buddha actually says!):

If the central teaching of the Pali Buddha was that absolutely everything is non-Self and that nirvana too is non-Self, one might expect him to say so very clearly and explicitly, at least once in the whole of his recorded career!! But he never does. Strange. So I think my sentence should remain, as being factually accurate.At the very least, one can say that there is ambiguity here - and so I have added the word "unambiguously" to try to be more fair to your side of the argument. But my statement that the Buddha does not categorically, and in terms, assert that Nirvana is non-Self is in fact correct. Thanks, though, for your reasonable and sensible comments. All best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

--

So, I agree with this statement "The use of the term "all" clearly does not always mean truly "all" (including Nirvana)". But the problem I have is that in some cases (and this does occur in the Suttas) dhamma is referenced to include formations and Nibbana. The following example: Yávatá bhikkhave dhammá sankhatá vá asankhatá vá, virágo tesam dhammánam aggam akkháyati, yadidam madanimmadano pipásavinayo álayasamuggháto vattúpacchedo tanhakkhayo virágo nirodho nibbánam. (Anguttara 4.34)

Whatever things (dhammá), monks, there are, formed or unformed, the topmost of those things is declared to be dispassion, that is to say, the ending of intoxication, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of yearning, the interruption of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, extinction.

So the line from Dhammapada can be seen by both sides: one saying it refers to Nibanna, and the other saying no it does not. Those are two POVs then; furthermore, it is odd that the first two aspects of "Reality" (anicca and dukkha) are explicitly referenced to formations (sankhárás) while the third on not-self is to dhammas (dhammas include sankhárás), instead of the normal formations word (sankhárá). That change ("Sabbe sankhara ..., Sabbe sankhara ..., Sabbe dhamma ...) really confounds everything! The above statements by no way really prove that the term dhamma always includes Nibbana (look at the example you gave :)), but it does make one think about any statement concerning Nibanna. Anyways I suppose the problem I have then is that of ambiguity (as you noted) since it is not clear if he denied to Nibbana self or not-self.  Furthermore, I might argue that having Nibbana be declared self or not-self is systematically incorrect with respect to the Pali Suttas. The problem is not all the POVs are represented.  I do not think that the Buddha categorically affirmed self in Nibbana (actually his Noble Silence indicates he would not answer such questions).

So to conclude, I agree that that sentence is correct; I just do not think it is complete. I am going to edit it to also include that self (as well as not-self) is not categorically accepted in relation to Nibbana (AN 4.174)in an unambiguous and explicit way; if you do not agree please revert and discuss further :). Thanks for the insightful comments. Lucifereri 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallo Lucifereri. Thanks for your comments. I think your suggestion of adding "Self" is perfectly fair and reasonable. I have no objections to that. It is, after all, factually true of the Buddha's statements in the Pali Canon (although in the Mahayana there are, of course, direct statements by the Buddha which equate Nirvana with the Self). So I think we can now agree on the new formulation of this point. Best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for the pleasant conversation. I also changed "non-Self" to "not-Self". Also, in regards to the Mahayana Sutras, I was hoping you could point me to some good parts of the Tathagatha-garbha Sutras about atman; I also remember a quote in one of the sutras that states that Tathagatha-garbha is also sunyata (if you know of it I would like to the know its location). I am not very familiar with the Mahayana, so that is why I ask; I just want to learn more about the other schools. I doubt this is the appropriate place to ask for this information but I do not know how to pm on wiki (if that is even possible).

Thanks! Lucifereri 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallo Lucifereri. Thank you for the very nice message. Yes, I shall be happy to point you in the direction of more info on the Tathagatagarbha teachings. You could try my own website on the Nirvana Sutra (sorry about the self-promotion!): www.nirvanasutra.org.uk It has lots of key quotes from the Nirvana Sutra (as well as the entire text) - and a link to other Tathagatagarbha sutras. You might find my essay, "Buddha Nature Is Not Mere Upaya", on my website, helpful and clarifying regarding conditionality, emptiness and the Self. It is important to be very careful when linking Emptiness with the Tathagatagarbha or the Self: it does NOT mean that the Tathagatagarbha does not inherently exist, is just a stream of conditioned phenomena or suchlike; instead, when these scriptures state that the TG or the Self [True Self, of course -  not the worldly ego) is empty, they mean empty of all defects, suffering and impermanence. In other words, the Self is nirvanic -  charcterised by eternity, bliss and purity. Hope that helps. Thanks again for your interest. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 12:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

-- I thought it was necessary to add an observation in this section regarding the Anguttara chapter 4 sutta 34 [AN II.34] citation in support of the idea that Nibbana can be classed as a thing amongst sabbe dhammaa (for the purpose of saying it is anatta). Even this passage can very naturally be interpreted in a different way, with only the effort of going back to examine it in context, to go back and read the entire sutta. Put back into context, the thing that immediately becomes evident is that the statements using the word dhammaa, back in their original context, occur sandwiched between statements about the Buddha and about the Sangha, and that the sutta speaks about faith in each one. So the sutta exhorts us to have faith in the Buddha, two kinds of dhammaa (the eightfold path being the example of a "sankhata" dhamma, and Nibbana as a "asankhata" dhamma and the highest of either sankhata or asankhata dhammas), and the Sangha. So it becomes rather clear that we are talking about the triple refuge/triple gem, which makes it entirely viable here to read dhammaa here as dhammaa in the sense of Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha; in other words, "teaching, norm, discipline, ideal." So when we say of the eightfold path here that it is a "sankhata dhamma," it is in reference to it being eightfold, of eight parts, remembering of course that sankhata has a basic meaning of "made up of more than one thing; complex, compounded". So: "Of teachings that are complex, the eightfold path is the highest," and likewise: "Of teachings both complex and simplex, dispassion (etc: Nibbana) is the highest." The passage continues: Ye bhikkhave dhamme pasannà, agge te pasannà. "Bhikkhus, those who have placed faith in this teaching have place faith in the highest." So it seems to add up that, rather than obliquely classifying Nibbana as a thing amongst "sabbe dhammaa," as it has for so long been cited as doing, the passage in question merely names Nibbana as one of the Buddha's teachings, and not suprisingly, the highest! Vacchagotta 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with this sentence
I couldn't quite wrap my brain around this sentence to fix it: "However, the Buddha did explicitly teach anattā - the non-existence of a intrinsic, lasting person or ‘soul’ - throughout his teaching career; not in a negative, nihilistic way of 'non-reality', but rather by showing 'why it is' and how to see it integrated positively in the law of kamma ~ cause and effect, directing the contemplative “When you see with detachment, All fabrications are inconstant…” naturally leads one to the wisdom that “...All fabrications are unsatisfactory…” ~ because of unawareness and desire resulting in self-identification with the changing events, realization of which leads the mind to release of self-identification through restrained observation of things ‘as they are’ ~ tathatá, leading to pure awareness, seeing that ~ “...All phenomena are not-self...”, the direct realization of the impossibility of an everlasting anything, self or witness." For one thing, it seems to be a rather impressively-sized run-on sentence. I'm not sure what all the ~ are supposed to mean. I'm unclear on how some of the ideas expressed fit together. I'm also unclear on why some phrases are include within 'single quotes'; for instance, what does the phrase "but rather by showing 'why it is'" mean other than simply "but rather by showing why it is"?

Everybody should take note of the fact that this article was completely rewritten by an anonymous editor on November 13. That's why it's not wikified. I wasn't very familiar with the older version, so I have no opinion as to which is better.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just when things were looking up
I was pleased with the progress being made by Tony Page and everyone working on this article, when lo and behold, the content has been reverted to the old one sided and highly problematic article. Be forewarned, attasarana and his advaita bunch consider this their territory and they are not likely to give it up easily.


 * And, in the blink of an eye, it's gone.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One never knows where one stands with this article -- it flip-flops back and forth to different states. I was trying to add italics/diacritics to yesterday's (GMT) version and now it's changed again.  Perhaps if I add necessary italics and diacritics to all possible versions, at least some of them might survive.--Stephen Hodge 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sorry that it worked out that way. I very much appreciate copy-edits of this sort. Unfortunately, this article is, as you say, quite unstable, and I felt it was necessary to restore one of the earlier versions.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unorthodox Understanding
An editor shifted the carefully balanced Introduction of this entry to the end of the article (an incongruous position for it). The article then had no Introduction. I think this was utterly unjustified. I have restored the Intro and deleted the "unorthodox understanding" heading, which was unnecessary. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 13:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Theravada Buddhism and Anatta
The run-on sentence in this section of the article has been reorganized. I hope this helps for this sections presentation and readability.


 * Thank you. Wikipedia needs more edits of this sort.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

fallacy commited by Nate Krause
"However, the Buddha did explicitly teach anattā - the non-existence of a intrinsic, lasting person or ‘soul’ - throughout his teaching career"

Fallacy of composition A is not X, B,C,D,E are also not X, therefore X doesnt exist.

To 'teach anatta' (which the Upanishads do as well as Samkara) is no denial of X, to deny X of Phenomena an-X (anatta) is common via negativa in sutta. "there are no Elephants in Alaska, only fish, bears, and deer; therefore Elephants dont exist", just such a fallacy of composition. I suggest intelligent thought in the future before making unintelligent statements.

"anatta, anatta, what does anatta mean Lord? Just this, form is not the atman (anatta), neither too feelings, etc." - SN 3.196

22 nouns are called anatta in Sutta, nothing more; ABCDEF are an-atta. --Attasarana(talk)

Reverting massive edits. Errors in intro and body, no conjecture allowed in term definition
INTRO:> The Buddhist teaching of "anatta" / "anatman" (non atma, non Self, non Soul) refers to what Rawson (1991: p.11) states as "...meaning non-selfhood, the absence of limiting self-identity in people and things..."…… This intro is both commentarial, conjecture and also, for a newcomer, very clouded as to meaning. All religious claims as pertains translation/meaning must be sola sciptura, ie with substantiation in sutta, even if in the extreme, Mahayana sutra.

Massive changes to this text require A: Substantiation, B: doctrinal support C: logical consistency. --Attasarana(talk)

Noticeably, there are many baseless claims in the article starting with “contrary to Vedanta…….Buddhism taught…..”. This is a baseless claim. Accuracy requires evidences with book and verse (preferably standard roman indexing) from Sutta and or Sutra. There are countless time the Atman is referred to = nicca (permanent), namely such as SN 1.169, j-1441, Udana 94, Itivuttaka 83. To make the baseless claim that Gotama only talked about the objective and empirical self (namo-rupa/ 5 khandhas) is without substantiation in Sutta.

No claims of accuracy can be made about the adjective anatta without evidences from sutta, and that cannot be diverged from UNLESS under secular subsections such as “Theravada (view on anatta)”, etc. --Attasarana(talk)


 * Ultimately, I can have no opinion on the relative merits of the two versions of this article in terms of their substance. The important thing, from my perspective, is that the version you have removed at least cites secondary sources which is necessary if we are going to say anything about the subject except quoting word-for-word from the primary sources (and, even then, we encounter major problems in terms of which primary sources we choose to quote, and which translations choose to use). Now, I would be happy to look the other way on the requirement for secondary sources if the person writing the article is a bona fide expert on the subject. However, I can hardly credit your bona fides, Attasarana. Moreover, you have shown yourself above to be unreliable in citing secondary sources, and, on Talk:Brahman, for instance, my attempts to track down your citations of sutta were fruitless.


 * I request, Attasarana, that you refrain from editing Wikipedia in the future, because you must cite sources here, but, unfortunately, we are unable to trust any sources cited by you.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You have commited several fallacies in your above baseless statement. Secondary sources, as you mention them, are never a reference for doctrinal terms and elaboration, Sola scriptura, only doctrinal citations are, never conjecture, opinions, nor your sectarian mahayana "secondary sources"

As per your claims that you "cannot trust my citations" you give no evidences for same, NOR are you capaable of same.

Your Nazi-like attempt at dominating buddhism on wikipedia is both a travesty and a sectarian agenda based upon your skewed non-doctrinal indoctrination. As for translations, most i use are not my own, however since i know defacto that you cannot read Pali, then your CLAIM that "X citation/translation is untrustworthy" is a impossible statement for you to make. No massive changes to the article can be permited unless you can show by doctrine, that X statement is wrong, and of this i know you cannot achieve.

Your massive re-writes of this passage cannot be permited since you both DO NOT, and obviously CAN NOT discuss any and all changes--Attasarana(talk)


 * Regardless of your personal opinions on the matter, the way Wikipedia works is that it requires secondary sources to be cited. You are welcome to quote primary sources as much as you like on your own website. As for the quality of your citations, I will give two examples of the problems: your citations of G. C. Pande on this page, and this unenlightening discussion on Talk:Brahman, which you abandoned before explaining yourself.


 * I'm planning to take a break from Wikipedia for a while, so I won't be around to deal with Attasarana. I'm sure other editors will be able to handle the situation just fine.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Nat, but wikipedia is not your totalitarian playground for propagation of sectarian and non-doctrinal skew.

"unenlightened discussion" is ad hominem, and a baseless claim, Nat, you should be above this. Ive provided endless citation on anatta in Sutta to refute you, of this you cannot argue, only pontificate and play cyberlord with wikipedia with blatent disregard for the primary source as reference, ie suttana.

In the future, unless you can deny such passages as SN 3.195 and the like, you should refrain from altering wikipedia to fit your sectarian and conjecture-based views upon the term anatta and all other buddhist philosophical lexicon....


 * Repeated request for DISCUSSION made upon you and other nihilists like yourself have gone unheeded, mediation will be requested in the future, upon which you will have no substantiation to support your non-doctrinal positions- User Attasarana. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.50.3 (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Nihilism in doctrine
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”.


 * 1) 1. 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)….[#1253] “…a recluse  Kumarakassapa gave me a talk on the Dhamma and drove from me those  (previously held) evil views! (annihilationism/nihilism).”

Sutta states explicitly that natthatta’ (no-Soul) = natthika (nihilism) = ucchedavada (Annihilationism). If you do hold the view that there is "no-Soul", you are a Natthika (nihilist); i.e. a Ucchedavadin.
 * 1) 2. natthatta'ti (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]” has only 5 occurrences (all at SN 4.400) anywhere in Sutta/Atthakatha (even the worthless Abhidhamma). Anatta’ is not “no-Soul”, but natthatta’ which is deemed, by Gotama, to be Ucchedavada annihilationistic heresy.


 * 1) 3. Petekopadesapali 40 Ucchedavada=Natthika


 * 1) 4. SN 1.96 Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation “The nihilist…goes to terrible hell…from darkness to darkness”. What Bhikkhu Bodhi failed to realize is that SN 4.400 Natthatta (no-Soul) is = Ucchedavada (Annihilationism) which is = natthika as per (petekopadesapali 40, etc.). If Bhikkhu Bodhi knew that these three were synonymous with each other, he would certainly reconsider his translation of natthika as “nihilist”.


 * 1) 5 To hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).


 * 1) 6. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite (atoms)’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])’”. -- webmaster attan.comAttasarana(talk)

Massive errors in changed article
"In distinct contrast to the Vedic theories of the ‘Ātman’ contemporary to his time, the Buddha rejected these in one clean sweep in the doctrine of anattā".

This claim in the massive edit the nihilists keep reposting (along with countless others like it) is not only a baseless claim/conjecture of sectarian origins, but also contradicted in Vedantic texts.


 * I still don't see what the Vedanta has to do in this article at all... Andkaha(talk) 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Upanishads and Samkara use the term Anatman as well as buddhism. to say the above is an outrageous fallacy and error without measure.

Samkara (founder of Advaita Vedanta) in his core text, the Upadisa Sahasri uses the term anatman no less than 20 times. To say buddhism is in "contrast" to Vedanta is utterly nonsensical and without basis. Anatta rejected nothing except the denial of Selfhood in Phenomena.

ABCDEF not X, therefore X is denied is a gigantic fallacy being commmited here by the corruptors of the anatta article. It belies an affirmation of an ignorance of via negativa (neti neti) common to buddhism same as all of Vedanta. -- webmaster attan.comAttasarana(talk)


 * Buddhism is not Vedanta. Vedanta is a is a school of philosophy within Hinduism. Andkaha(talk) 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One should never make claims without substantiation, Andkaha. In the future, I suggest you make a claim then give evidences; regardless, you are wrong.


 * I thought that the link to the Vedanta article would be enough as it says what I just wrote... Andkaha(talk) 12:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

“The Buddha is a teacher of non-dualism (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]

"Gotama is a VEDASOTTHIM (Sage of the Vedas)"- Patisambhidamagga


 * Buddha was obviously well versed in the vedic texts and I think it is important to view his teaching in the light of his contemporary society. But are you saying that the Buddha was teaching the Vedas? Andkaha(talk) 12:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." (this passage also proves [from earlier context] that Brahma (god/s) is utterly diffferent than the word Brahman). [DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.”


 * I thought that was "I teach the way to the end of suffering"... See e.g. the four noble truths... Andkaha(talk) 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!” [3.646 Pat-Att.] “To have become Brahman [is the meaning of] Brahmabhuto.” [Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).” [It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.” [SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.” [SN 5.5] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.” [SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman."
 * --Attasarana(talk)


 * Sariputta thought the Brahmin Dhànanjàni the Brahma Vihara practices before he died (M ii.5.7), and he (the Brahmin) was reborn in the world of Brahma. But the Buddha told Sariputta that it would have been better if he had thought him the way to the great liberation, saying "But why did you, Sariputta, although there was something further to be done, having established the brahman Dhananjani (only) in the less, in the Brahma-world, rising from your seat, depart?". Andkaha(talk) 12:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andkaha, its unfortunate that you are unintelligently confusing Brahmadevi (devas, ie mere gods) with Brahman (Godhead). I am not referring to the "Brahma-world(s)", but to Brahman. Your grand error corrected:


 * It has been asserted by modern so-called Buddhism-in-name-only that Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.” For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say  Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60]. webmaster www.attan.com -- webmaster attan.comAttasarana(talk)

Bias
I don't know, being a little inexperienced on the subject but this article seems very POV on the issue of a soul in Buddhism. Consistently only one view is stated, which I would think is a problem with the amount of different interpretations on the issue. Also most of the basis for the one view comes from orthodoxy and tradition as supporting it and ruling out all others, which seems to run very opposite of the core tenants of Buddha. It just reeks of lacking objectivity. All the sources cite certain scholars who've taken to fully supporting their position, as well.


 * Please make intelligent statements, "interpretation" must be based upon doctrinal citations. Your claim that there is "POV" in this article is mere baseless conjecture, utterly devoid of evidences. Endless citations in the article contradict your "objective" claim. The sources cited are doctrinal passages, not scholars, your error again ---Attasarana

Baseless conjecture? I know for certain there are very many Buddhist scholars who happen to support the view of "no soul" in Buddhism, through brief research alone. The "intepretation" is "interpreting" the doctrines and writings themselves (and even if you don't agree with this view it's necessary in an unbiased encyclopedia to show this). Endless citations does not objectivity make, especially when the citations are in support of one view alone. The sources I referred to were George Grimm and Perez-Remon being cited (both known for a pro-soul view), your own uploaded image, and links to sites supporting this, not whatever scriptures that're being cited. The Brahmajala Sutta also states belief in a soul is wrong because it is because of clinging and longing.


 * I might remind you, Sir, that Perez-Ramons book "Self and non-Self in early Buddhism" uses no less than several thousand doctrinal citations to back up his position, something any who deny the Soul as regards buddhism, cannot do. Those thousands of citations in said book is what us pali translators like to call "Substantiation", and/or "Evidences in Doctrine"; something you may want to familiarize yourself with.


 * Anatta is an adjective, 22 nouns are called anatta, it has 576 occurances in the Nikayas, and i know all 576 occurances of them. So, if you are up for an intelligent debate on the contextual ussage of anatta, proceed, for there is nobody on earth that knows more about the term anatta, than myself. ---Attasarana


 * Your unwise error again, "buddhist scholars" are not doctrinal references, all doctrinal and religious claims are SOLA SCRIPTURA (in doctrine), not conjecture, opinions, views, positions,...dont reference them in the future, rather doctrine. "Interpretation" requires X interpretation be based, somehow, in doctrine. the Brahmajala sutta refers to "ATTANUDITTHI", or "heretical (nu) views (ditthi) as regards the Atman (atta)", your error once again. In fact the Upanishads as well disparage any and all "mere speculation upon/about/regarding the Atman"- Br. Up. An empirical belief in the Soul is not the Soul. In the future, please refrain from responding unless said responses are well thought out.

"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] ---Attasarana
 * And I might remind you that more learned people than possibly you and I have argued for a different interpretation of the doctrines that are comparable with there being no soul. Some of the heretical views regarding Atman in the sutta include viewing the soul as an eternal entity, when from as best the doctrines seem to indicate Buddha would rather have disregarded the question.


 * You have just made a long string of unsubstantiated claims. Atman in sutta is never equated to sassatavada. In the future, back up your claims with doctrinal citations, or say nothing at all, your wasting breath and space without logical evidences.


 * There exists not one citation like "heresy of eternal soul...", etc. nor could you ever quote one of your "unnamed experts" about same with a doctrinal citation attached. I am a Pali translator and have been backwards and forwards thru the suttas more time than could be counted. "At NO TIME has the Tathagata taught that there is no soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga-2


 * And, "no soul" in Pali is Natthatta, not anatta.

1. Scholars like Davids, Conze, Humphrey, Schrader, Horner, Pande, Coomarswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sogen, Suzuki, Julius Evola, and Nakamura, just to name some important scholars, disagree with the claim that Buddha categorically denied an eternal (nicca) soul, whose teachings then, would be classified as Annihilationist and Materialist.

2. Nowhere is there such a tradition as ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Brahmanism’ which are terms coined by Occidental scholars. The claim than the Buddha was ‘anti-Hindu’ or ‘anti-Brahman’ is unproven.

3. Buddha’s unconditioned Attâ (soul) had nothing to do with the five khandhas schema which are conditioned and mere attributes. Nowhere in any five khandha scheme is Attâ refuted. What is refuted is that the five khandhas are the Attâ (soul).

4. The lexical rule that Attâ is to be used strictly in a pronominal fashion, or simply should be used as a signifier for the finite body, is unwarranted.

5. The Buddha never considered Attâ to be (wrong view).

6. If the Buddha disbelieved in an Attâ (soul) why did he not deny the Attâ unambiguously?

7. Why didn’t the Buddha identify the Attâ (soul) with the physical body?

8. Why is the Attâ (soul), in the Atthakatha (commentaries) squarely equated with the Tathagata which is considered to be transcendent?

9. Why is there no strict philosophical treatment of the Attâ in Occidental literature? It seems odd that an historic study and not a philosophic study is the preferred treatment of the Attâ/anattâ dispute by Western scholars.

10. Modern Buddhist commentators are certainly wrong when they assert that a work bears a certain meaning which it does not seem to possess in a particular context. This is to say, being more precise, modern Buddhist commentators are off the mark when their interpretation does not close down certain textual ambiguities and contradictions.

11. By denying outright the soul, by default, the Theravadins and modern Buddhists imply that the five aggregates are ultimate. This of course is absurd. They have merely shifted Buddhism to empiricism by ignoring pro-soul statements. According to them, what is real is what makes sensory knowledge possible, namely, the five aggregates which, ironically, according to the canon, are suffering being synonymous with Mara the Evil One (the Buddhist devil)!

12. It begs the question to assume that the no-soul doctrine had been established at the beginning of the Buddha’s ministry and that Attâ (soul) was, in every respect, an abhorrent term. Still, for such a supposedly abhorrent term, there are countless positive instances of Attâ used throughout the Nikayas, especially used in compounds which are easily glossed over by a prejudicial translator. In meeting these instances, not surprisingly, these same prejudicial translators have erected a theory that Attâ is a reflexive pronoun. This is rather hard to prove since sa and sayam are the reflexive pronouns of the Pali language, not Attâ.

13. Much later, the Theravadins were compelled to invent a two truth theory. With the numerous instances of Attâ (soul) being found in the canon, hardly any with pejorative implications, they fabricated the Abhidhamma taxonomy which they claim was first delivered in heavens by the Buddha to the gods who could better understand a no-soul theory than mere humans!

14. In the Nikayas, hetrodox uses of soul are noted, which are called ‘attânudittha’. One main hetrodox use of soul is in the idea of Perpetualism in which the soul is regarded in a physical sense which lives in perpetuity like the cosmos.

15. What is sometimes elaborated upon in the Nikayas is the heterodox uses of Attâ (soul)‹not its outright, categorical rejection.

16. That the Buddha denied the theories of Perpetualism  and Annihilationism is true. But Mahavira, the Jain, denied both positions as well. But did Mahavira deny, altogether, the principle of a soul? No he did not. Neither did Gotama the Buddha.

17. The Buddha says many times that we are not to regard our Attâ (soul) as being connected with the five aggregates. webmaster attan.com---Attasarana


 * Those are lovely views to be sure, but whether you deem the opposing viewpoint "wrong" or not doesn't mean the article is very unfairly lop-sided in favor of your one interpretation, which is strictly against wikipedia rules. And the Brahmajala Sutta (according to our very own wikipedia article) states that eternalistic beliefs hamper the path to final liberation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.206.163 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * A mere view isnt substantiated in Sutta, those however are. Your personal conjecture that the article is "lop-sided" is just that, an unsubstantiated claim. Sassatavada never mentions or = Atman, but that "atta ca so loka ca"; that the Self/Atman and the world were inseperable, Sassatavada is Kammavada, or the view that escape from samsara was impossible. SN 2.77 states that "Sassatavada = bhava", and that "Ucchedavada = vibhava". Bhava, ie becoming, ie kamma-making Agencyship (karmin). Even the Upanishads reject this position, as well as Buddhism.


 * I might remind you that ANY doctrinal "interpretation" requiers substantiation in Sutta, your position has none. As such, your reference to your an any others interpreation is fallacious since said position has no doctrinal support.


 * Congratulations! You just made a very baseless CLAIM that that Sassatavada (common called "eternalism") = Atman. Congrats! No such passage exists, anywhere. I would warn you again not to make baseless claims you cannot substantiate in Sutta.

Mahanidesapali 2.235 “niccato sukhato attatoti” Eternal bliss in the Soul Nettipakaranapali #86 “anicce niccanti, anattani attati”  “What is anatta is impermanent, what is eternal is the Soul” Silakhandhavaggapali Att. 2.377 atta’nan niccameva “Soul is eternal”

Sassatavada is the Vaisesika school, comes from the word S’a’s (leaping, perpetual reoccurance). SN 2.20 “the experience and the experiencer were inseperable”, thereby creating a impossibility for disconjunction of causation.

sassatavada is the heresy that mere action (kamma) was Utmost, and that good rebirth/Heavens was the best one might achieve. As per: “The meritorious are REBORN in heavens (devaloka), the evil go to hell (niraya), but the WISE are nowhere reborn, theirs is emancipation (vimutta)"—Dhammapadanapali

You continue to insult yourself by making baseless claims, conjectures, fallacies and worst of all assuming your views or any others, superceeds doctrine, dont make that mistake again. For saving face, dont continue to belittle yourself by making unsubstantiated claims.---Attasarana
 * Alright, I don't know a lot of fancy words that relate to the doctrines. I do know however that a vocal segment of Buddhists contend that anatta means no soul. Really, I don't care if it's substantiated in any suttas or not, but that some scholars think so, and some practioners do too requires addressing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.206.163 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Congrats again, essentially all you have said is: "I dont have facts or logic behind me, but some scholars think anatta means 'no soul', so thats what I'm stickin' with!".

You have said: "I do know however that a vocal segment of Buddhists contend that..." - this is called a 'BANDWAGGON FALLACY'. Your fallacy would also presume that since Muslims outnumber Buddhists 10,000 to 1, the "vocal segment", therefore its illogical to be a Buddhist.


 * You have said "Really, I don't care if it's substantiated in any suttas or not", a more unwise statement could not be made, most assuredly. As for "requires addressing", it is several times in the article, which only proves you have not read it in full. Many biblical folks believe the TRINITY is part of Christianity, even though it is never mentioned in the Bible, not to mention that most 'Christians' are Catholic, of which nearly all nuances of Catholocism have no premise in the Bible.


 * It is apparent that you are unaware that anatta is an adjective, to your claim that "anatta means no-soul" would imply anatta occurs as noun somewhere in sutta, which is never does.22 nouns are called anatta. ABCDEF are anatta, there is no such thing as "anattavada" (doctrine of anatta) in sutta, anywhere, regardless of translation, only THAT (A-X) which is anatta.


 * "what does anatta mean Lord Gotama? Just this, form is anatta (not-soul), feelings are anatta, perceptions are anatta......this is the meaning of anatta"- SN 3.196.  ALL Translations of SN 3.196 are exactly the same. Your position, which was ever so without any evidences, is utterly refuted. webmaster attan.com  ---Attasarana


 * You're right, I have said "I dont have facts or logic behind me, but some scholars think anatta means 'no soul', so thats what I'm stickin' with!". That many Buddhists and Buddhist scholars contend it is enough for it to be given more attention in the article, with their views as why anatta means no soul presented as equally and objectively as the views that Buddhism revolves around the soul. Actually, never mind. I don't mind that you want to force your own narrow view on others without being inclusive or unbiased. Good luck with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.206.163 (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Now you are confusing "my view" with doctrine, another sublimation fallacy presuming that since i quote doctrine as evidences, I am in fact only quoting my personal conjectures. Anatta does mean no-soul, as an adjectival of 22 nouns, ABCDEF are not-soul. Anatman is a term used by Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta, however no fool has ever presumed Samkara taught that there is no Atman. "Bias" is "conjecture/opinion/doxa alone", i.e. without doctrinal support, this is clearly not the case. Your error once again. webmaster attan.com  ---Attasarana
 * Your view on the doctrine is what you quote supports the point that Buddha believed in the soul. Other people have taken the same things you have and taken it to mean something else entirely. Whether this view on what the scripture said is wrong or not isn't the point, the point is that it's been interpreted as such by scholars and students. Just like we'd need to present the side of Holocaust deniers, no matter how stupid/wrong/against all logic it may seem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.195.221 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The two selves in Buddhism
The greatest fool in Buddhist doctrine was one who “saw Self (atman) in (mere) self (anatta)” (“anattani ca attati”) [AN 2.52], certainly one of the most common refrains in Buddhist sutta. Some of the greatest harbingers of the incapacity to differentiate the empirical (namo-rupic) self from The Self are most certainly the ‘Buddhists’ who never end in revelry of quoting Gotama to the effect that all ‘phenomena are Selfless (anattoti)’. The empirical self is = anatta, [SN 3.196], that very khandic (namo-rupic) self which modern ‘Buddhism’ alone acknowledges, but not that other Self which is the “light and refuge” [Dn 2.154].


 * This seems like ur point of view on what the self and Self are. What other Self? --Lucifereri


 * Since when is doctrine "my view", fallacy. The khandhas are the mere self, regardless of translation. “The ‘fair’ self (kalyanam attanam)…the ‘foul’ self (papam attanam)” [AN 1.149]; webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * What are ya talking about? I never denied that the khandhas make up the "mere self"?  The question I had  was "What other Self" is being referred to? --Lucifereri


 * The other Self is "light, dipa, refuge, saranam", that same Self you deny which Buddhism upholds.---Attasarana

What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) are 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 (The Self) is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It cannot be denied that what is anatta is indeed the mere and petty self for [SN 3.196], and countless other passages, the mere self of psycho-physicality is = anatta = khandhas; that same self which the disciple is instructed to have his will (ctta) reject in the face of illumination and insight.


 * Are u interpreting dhamma as "things"? sankhara in the previous two quotes is defined to be things or conditioned phenomena.  Dhamma can also translate into conditioned and unconditioned phenomena (Nibanna).  This statement is not identical with that bhramanical quote (and what was the point of the next quote?).  The doctrine is not about what the soul is not, it is about the self is not.  Citta is mind or consciousness and not will. --Lucifereri


 * Baseless claim. 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. 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”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’ 275 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 an.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 it 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 theterm san.kha'ra' (phenomena). ---Attasarana


 * RandomCritic has already critiqued some of these such as your phrase: "Dhamma is in the nominative plural in agreement with sabba" and such...I refer upwards. Thanks! --Lucifereri 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nibbana in sutta is only Nirodha "bhavanirodha nibbanama". Dont state DOXA. You need a lesson in neti neti methodology. Now you are confusing self with Self (Atman), the mere self IS rupa-vedana-sanna-sankhara-vinnana. Such a heretical statement proves you have read little if any sutta. Citta is will, or Nous, dont make claims you cannot substantiate. Consciousness is Vinnana, not citta. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * As is clear from even the stuff I wrote below I also really mean citta as mind, but I dunno if it is will. Nibbana is actually also considered "uncoditioned", right?  Sabbe sankhara referes to formed things (everything in sankhata, but not asankhata).  Sabbe dhamma seems to refer to both sankhata and asankhata.For evidence look at Anguttara IV.34:


 * Whatever things (dhamma), monks, there are, formed (sankhata) or unformed (asankhata), the topmost of those things is declared to be dispassion, that is to say, the ending of intoxication, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of yearning, the interruption of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, extinction.


 * What this seems to say is dhamma (things) refer to both formed and unformed, thus there might be an implicit reference to Nibbana. Actually I am of the camp that Nibbana is neither atta or anatta, but this statement is still pretty strong in linking the term dhamma with Nibbana, and then sabbe dhamma anatta seems to get more substantiation.  There is more that can be inferred, but I would like to see how you respond to this. --Lucifereri


 * Your doxa (opinions) are subservient to doctrine. Substantiate your claims, or dont make them. ---Attasarana


 * Further proof that you do not read other's arguments...I did provide citations from the Suttas, and those claims are the same as most Pali Buddhists's doctrines. Read my argument again.  --Lucifereri 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the Metaphysician, the common-fool (puthujjana) who knows “only of his self, is fated to most certainly die when his time comes”, but of that noble Aryan sage who has claimed the summit of wisdom and is “freed the will/nous (cittavimuttati)”, he is a “dead man walking”; meaning he has “died to that mere self and lives in The Self”. Such a person in quest for same is commanded “die before ye die!”, or that before physical death come and lest you still suffer the delusion of The Self to be this (foul) self of flesh and bone you have dispirited and disobjectified the will (Self-assimilation = Atman) in upon itself (samadhi, liberation).


 * Citta is mind...Where is this quote from? --Lucifereri


 * Citta as mind or will is irrealvent, take your pick, the Noun CITTA is the only noun "freed of the 5 khandhas" MN 1.436 ---Attasarana


 * Citta is will or mind, regardless, Citta is "Freed of the 5 khandhas" Mn 1.436 webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * Actually it states that he turns his mind (citta) away from the 5 khandhas and focuses on amata dhatu (the unconditioned). Why not just say focus on atta (in which I mean the essential and non-empircal Self) here instead of amata dhatu? --Lucifereri


 * Citta is = atman, both in the Upanishads, and Buddhism; this is why. the light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]


 * [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind (suppatitthitacitto)” [SN 1.26] Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power! [AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the-Soul' (thitattoti)" [AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul is having become-Brahman." [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a diamond-mind (vajiru’pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind.” [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto)? He comprehends things as they are or have become; that being suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. Just as a flash of light in pitch of night illuminates things; so to is him who possesses holy vision into the nature of things are they are or have become such that he comprehends suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. This is one who possesses a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto).” ---Attasarana

The common fool who ruminates over immortality envisages the survival of the personality (of person so-and-so; Bob, Sue); confusing the empirical self of “flesh, urine, blood, bone, feces” [Dhm] with the Spirit (atman). This empirical self is in doubt by none, that very same self “headed to the grave” and which “goes in its own time”. The Metaphysician knows that any ‘self’ created in time must also perish in those same (“fires of”) time. [Dhm. 147] "Behold! That painted puppet this body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that fools fancy and swoon over”; of which Buddhism in no way quarrels with modern and corrupt ‘Buddhism’, that of which this very self, the temporal phenomena of that person so-and-so is equally as much ‘dukkha, anicca, and anatta”.


 * Eh? U should stop using "fool" to designate the other viewpoint here.  Dhm. 147 does not use the word Metaphysician or is in regad to that.  I thought this line was about the body?  The last statement is misleading, since those three occur in a different part of the Dhammapadda (and the first two are in reference with conditioned phenomena and the last one with all dhammas). --Lucifereri


 * Fool, or BALA, is a term used by Gotama countless times. That you dont know this only proves you have not researched Buddhist doctrine. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * So here is the problem...this is not acient India, this is a wiki discussion area. Practices from thousands of years do not translate sometimes to present, and at the risk of not offending another individual it might be worthwhile to refrain from using such words.  I actually of course know that the Buddha used the term "fool" often enough, but u never used the term in a quote...so I really do not see that baseless "proves you have not researched" comment. --Lucifereri


 * I have only mentioned fool as pertains buddhist sutta, some Theravadins translate Bala as 'idiot', regardless, this point is off topic (i.e. Anatta). ---Attasarana

The ‘reflexive position’ taken by illogical modern ‘Buddhism’ proclaims the Pali term Attan (Skt. Atman, Self) to be merely a reflexive term meaning “oneself, himself, herself”, however the reflexive and empirical mere self is, regardless of translation, “anatta” i.e. “na me so atta” (not my Soul), or also “eso khandhassa na me so atta” (these aggregates [forms, feelings, perceptions, experiences, consciousness =mere self] are no the Self, the Soul). As pertains the reflexive self, of who proclaim “myself, himself, herself” we are referring to “that person so-and-so (Larry, Sue, etc.)”, the empirical and psycho-physical (namo-rupa) self of blood and sinew which is “doomed to fall into the grave at long last”, the very same self the poetic dead are said to cry out to the living “what you are, we (the dead)  once were,. what we are you shall be!”. Even more illogical is the double standard of commentarialist and sectarian ‘Buddhists’ who desire anatta to mean ‘no-Soul’ as well as atta to mean simply ‘myself, himself, herself’; wherein illogically atta in the adjective anatta is, to their ignorant minds = Soul (‘no-soul’), but atta in standalone = ‘myself’. As illogical an end result, modern Buddhism has proclaimed atta = anatta! Its quite hard to fathom any position more senseless than this, however this is one of the countless reasons modern ‘Buddhism’ is illogical without end. However doctrinally and logically so, what IS anatta (the five psycho-physical aggregates of the mere self) are indeed ‘myself’, in so meaning the mortal (mata) self composed of the bodily humors which is fated to death. That mere self is never implied nor meant when Buddhism speaks of immortality and the path leading to same (amatagamimagga) [SN 5.9], of which “the body cannot pass that gate to fare beyond,..only the Soul (The Self)” - Homer


 * This position is not only of modern Buddhism...it has been seen throughout Buddhism's long history (with only, I believe, a minority believing in the "Self"). When did they point out "atta = anatta"?  Ur doing the same thing...any time atta comes up u translate it as "Self" (at least as far I see it).  Who cares what Homer says (in terms of Buddhism)?  What was the point of SN 5.9? --Lucifereri


 * Also irrelavent, the TRINITY is seen throughout Christianities long history, regarless, its not mentioned in the Bible. Stop confusing doctrine with DOXA (opinion), be it old or new is irrealvent. End Subject. ---Attasarana


 * This is doxa, is unsubstantiated. You shall notice you quote yourself, however I quote doctrine. This is the very reason why you have lost any debate before one has started. webmaster attan.com. The concept of "pure khandhas" doesnt exist in any sutta regardless of translation. Tell me that X which obtains Immortality (amatagamimagga) SN 5.9, you cannot (will not). ---Attasarana


 * The problem I have is this: you call considering atta as myself illogical: why?  Defining anatta as not-self or not-Self is fine (although I think it generally refers to not-self).  It is a matter of interpretation and there is nothing inherently illogical.  The last statement is ("atta = anatta") is not actually a reduction since ur claiming that something is illogical just because you do not like.  Tradition is important in Buddhism:  the Buddha specifically defined in the Vinaya that 10 monks were need to ordain a new monk.  This guarantees some form of tradition and interpretation.  Now, what translation of SN 5.9 are u using (who translated it and such)?  I am not seeing it here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.009.bodh.html? --Lucifereri


 * You are being sophistic, now, what you feel anatta refers to is irrelavent. Anatta has exactly 662 occurances in the Nikayas, all are alike, ABCDEF are anatta, nothing more. ---Attasarana


 * Gotama, time again, defines the fool as he who "saw The Self/Atman in mere self (anatta, 5 khandhas, namo rupa)". You might wish to take that to heart as regards your position. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * The problem I have is u using it outside of quotes. If it is within quotes I have no problem with it, geeze...brother, chill out :). --Lucifereri

The great dictum of the Upanishads is “That (Brahman) thou art” (tat tvam asi). “That” is here, of course, the Atman or Spirit, Sanctus Spiritus, the Greek pneuma; this Atman is the spiritual essence, impartite whether transcendent or immanent; and however many and various directions to which it may extend or from which it may withdraw, it is the unmoved mover in both intransitive and transitive senses. It lends itself to all modalities of being but never itself becomes anyone or anything. That than which all else is vexation- That thou art. “That”, in other words, is Brahman, or Godhead in the general sense of Logos or Being, considered as the universal source of all Being. That which is “in” him as the finite (1) in the infinite (2-infinity, i.e. phenomena, namo-rupa), though not a “part” of him.


 * This is off-topic. --Lucifereri


 * Your views are only that, and do not reflect doctrine, which is all the worse. Worse still, you are inconsistent. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * How is this incosistent? What is the point of quoting Hindu texts here?  Where this in the Buddhist Suttas? --Lucifereri

Referring back to "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", the common fool doesn’t have an atman as such that we might agree with heretical modern ‘Buddhism’ which denies Selfhood in the absolute; for those same peoples who, in the grand bloom of ignorance, accept the foul self and deny the Great-Self, they are objectively (self-khandhas) assured that no underlying Subject (The Self) is immanent, or transcendent. Just as a man might have gold on his land, undiscovered and unknown, he has no gold, no wealth, even though it be his by measure of being present upon his very lands; so too those common fools (puthujjana), the ‘Buddhists’ who are certain and proud in their ignorance that this temporal personality, this self, is all there is. Theravada, in great illogic, goes one further to say that Gotama’s denial of nihilism (ucchedavada) was aimed at meaning that even the empirical self, since it itself was merely a composite and temporal construct, had no existence to be annihilated; thereby subverting the doctrinal ‘heresy of nihilism’ to be placed upon the view of denying the empirical self rather than The Self, the Atman. Of course, to ‘have an atman’ implies possession, and certainly so the immanent Subject, The Self, is a possession by nothing and by nobody; in this too the wiseman agrees with the common materialist who ignorantly proclaims “I don’t have an atman/Soul”, most certainly that foul self does not ‘have’ The Self any more so than that object which is illuminated from afar ‘has (of itself) light’.


 * "Fool" again...and "heretical" modern Buddhism? Ur viewpoint of Theravada is off...interestingly, the quotes ur using come from Theravadan scriptures?  What is this critique with no sources? --Lucifereri


 * My view is irrelavent. Theravada is materialism, Fact: Theravada admits to only 6 things, the 5 khandhas and avijja. This is inescapable, Theravada is materialism, it denies an ontological substrate to phenomena. ---Attasarana


 * None of your opinions have either citations or logical substantiation. Theravada didnt exist until almost 450 AD, the Nikayas are nearly 900 years earlier [Buddhist sects in India]. Dead wrong. The Abhidhamma is Theravadin, not the Nikayas.


 * Actually each of the early schools had their own Abhidhamma. What I am saying is the Nikayas you have come from the Theravada rendition of them (by chance you do realize the Pali scriptures were written down in Sri Lanka).  450 AD?  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html Seems to say that it existed in Burma by 100 AD (let alone Sri Lanka which it states had Theravadins in 240 BC)?  They also provide a sources.  Where are your sources (sinc YOU NEVER LIST ANY SOURCES DOWN!)--sorry if that is harsh, but I just want to see peer reviewed sources, please. --Lucifereri


 * Even the Theravadins ADMIT OUTRIGHT that "parts of the nikayas contradict theravada orthodoxy view"- Bhikkhu Bodhi. Now what? You are soundly refuted. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * Nope, one Theravadin does not mean every Theravadin. Please cite this please :).  I would like to see the context. --Lucifereri


 * This is the position of Abhidhamma as well, not just B. Bodhi, i.e. "all theravada", you are refuted. ---Attasarana


 * What rubbish...nowhere in the Abhidhamma does it say the Abhidhamma contradicts Buddhism. Next your contradiction of Bhikkhu Bodhi (I am guessing is that thing in SN) which I read and he actually explains how it fits in so never mind.  Anyways, I will respond to the others on Monday, thanks for responding :-P.  --Lucifereri 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

“There are two within us” [Plato’s Republic 439d, 604b]; in the expression of “self-control” implying that there is one that controls and the other (self) subject to control, for we know that “nothing acts upon itself”; for the one self “becomes”, and the other self “is”. “The ‘fair’ self (kalyanam attanam)…the ‘foul’ self (papam attanam)” [AN 1.149]; i.e. the “great Self” (mahatta) and the “petty” (appatumo) [AN 1.249], or that “self whose Lord is the Self” [Dhm 380]. In that modern so-called Buddhism has denied The Self, it has constructed an illogical impossibility in thereby positing empirical purity of which the doctrine of Buddhism itself, not to mention logic alone most heartily protests, for there is no possibility of empirical purity within the teachings of Buddhism.


 * Plato has no place here. Ur argument is starting too look like sophistry...who cares what others (not knowledgable of Buddhist thought) think in regards to Buddhist thought.  That Dhammapadda quote (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.25.than.html) was about how one should depend on oneslef for one's salvation.  Maybe it might be easier to show how things are "illogical" by stating premises (and sources for the premises), and pointing down to a contradiction.  Having this long  explanation of ur pov does not help at all.  Please do that and  then a discussion on how "illogical" things are can come about. --Lucifereri


 * You have illogically now claimed the refuge (dependence) is therefore the mere self (oneself) i.e. the Khandhas, to "claim the khandhas are the refuge" is heresy 101 brahmajala sutta "attati ca anattati". ---Attasarana


 * Illogical nonsense, "oneself" refers to the empirical self, there is no salvation in the "marakhandhas" Sn 3.194. Now you are implying Immortality (amata) is gained by and thru the "5 evil mara khandhas"- Sn3. Obviously you have never read the Khandhavagga of the SN! Praise of any aspect of the BODY (namo-rupa) is the Pinacle of heresy in Buddhism; congratulations for doing same! [Dhm. 147] "Behold! That painted puppet this body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that fools fancy and swoon over; True Essence is not part of it! For the body befalls utter destruction.[Dhm. 148] "This body is soon worn out. It is that very same abode for disease and sicknesses that is broken apart. The body is soon cast away, that very putrid heap. It is always in death that life meets its end!" webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * I am not praising any part of the body (hold on are you assuming I am Buddhist and trying to annoy me...hopefully not :)). What I am saying is the Buddha is not pointing out a soul here he is just saying that one should rely on one's effort to realize Nibbana. --Lucifereri


 * The body is the mere self, is oneself, that you reference it in such passages as "attasarana anannasarana" proves you confuse the mere self for The Self. ---Attasarana

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 so-called Buddhism means 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), 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). "What of this short-lived body which is clung to by means of craving? There is nothing in it to say ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘me’." [MN 1.185]. "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 us? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul." [MN 1.141]. “What do you think, is form lasting or impermanent? Impermanent Gotama. Is that which is impermanent suffering or blissful? Indeed its suffering Gotama. Is that which is impermanent and suffering and subject to perpetual change; is it fit to declare of such things ‘this is mine, this is what I am, this is my Soul? Indeed not Gotama!” [MN 1.232].


 * No he says this is not "my self"...so that first sentance of urs is incorrect in terms of the example given. MN 1.141 I have does not use soul :)...who translated ur copy?  Here is a larger translation of (MN. 1.141):

"What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness." --Lucifereri


 * Now you are inconsistent, you eiter want anatta to mean "not my self", wherein "my" isnt present in anatta, or you want anatta = 'not-Self', or at time, you desire anatta = no-soul. Inconsistency is a hallmark of lack of wisdom on X subject.---Attasarana


 * Extremely unintelligent and illogical, congrats. Now you have said anatta = not-my self. Inconsistent, first you say anatta = no soul, now its "not-my self"! This person so and so does nout HAVE (possession) a Soul, yes, Upanishads say the same of the foul body which is "devoid of that noble Atman"- Mand. Up. Tell me son, who is "giving up the 5 khandhas", you cannot. "Drop the 5 khandhas, they are the BURDEN"; who is dropping them? You cannot say. Again, you are confusing mere self with The Self, the 5 khandhas ARE your self = person so and so = empircal = namo-rupa = mara [SN 3.195] “What venerable is the dharma of Mara/Evil (maradhamma)? The five aggregates are the dharma of Mara.” webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * Where did I claim anatta is no-soul??? In terms of scriptures, I personally think the Buddha did not refer to either soul or no-soul in relation to Nibbana...any other point of view seems to be a wrong view.  Actually, the idea is being aware of the impermanance, sorrowfullness, and the lack of essence of the 5 khandhas.  Anyways, "son" ), I never was talking about there never being a soul, I just said that answer to the question of its existance is meaningless (as illustrated in the Buddha's Noble Silence--point blank asked to answer and he did not).  The moment you start thinking of a soul you start to personalize it (IMO, please do not flame). --Lucifereri


 * Wrong again, "nibbana thitattoti" (Nirvana is meant 'Fixed in the Atman'). Countless other passage like this very one, if you want more citations like it, just ask. ---Attasarana


 * This is about letting go of the "I" (hence the grass and such example). The next statement in the quote makes clear what this sutta is about.  So what about 1.232...no positive thing saying the self (in ur terms at least) exists.  Just saying that this and that can never be considered part of the self.


 * 100% dead wrong, Positive appalations of the Self in sutta are ENDLESS, the SElf is "most dear", the "light", the "refuge", the "bliss", etc. dont make baseless claims, it harms your position to no end. ---Attasarana

Buddhism’s command, same as that of Plotinus and the Pythagoreans before him, was the utter disobjectification of the will by inversion of that primordial attribute which is uncaused and without beginning (attribute/avijja). For only the wise and illuminated fully know the two selves, differentiate the two by means of wisdom with which they are endowed, and certainly do not see “Self in what is (mere) self (anatta)”. webmaster attan.com --Attasarana(talk)


 * "Primoridal attribute"...sounds like yogacara. I think u misunderstand the point of Buddhism...it is to end suffering in this lifetime, not to unify or find a soul.  This is best illustrated in the Four Noble Truths. --Lucifereri


 * Four nobles are 1.sickness 2.disease (identification) 3.diagnosis 4.cure. By your reckoning, buddhism is spirutual Suicide!Absurd, illogical, non-doctrinal, and certainly heretical. You are confusing Nihilism (natthikavada) with Buddhism. What you "think of" me is irrelavent, Buddhist doctrine doesnt support your position that A: you can purify the "mara-khandhas", B: immortality (amata) but nothing obtains it. C: Liberation (vimutta) but not that which gains it. Four noble truths speak of the erasure of dukkha by means of "eliminating the ROOT (Mula) of dukkha, being avijja", nothing more. Avijja is an attribute of What? Dont you know? The only noun in sutta which is "Freed of avijja" is the citta. Citta is also "Freed of the 5 khandhas". "the light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479] webmaster attan.com --Attasarana(talk)


 * The Four Noble Truths are 1. Sorrow\Unsatisfactoriness (and so forth...) exists, 2. The cause of sorrow (craving), 3. The cure to sorrow exists (Nibbana), 4. The cure (The Noble Eightfold Path). I am not saying Buddhis is spirtual suicide at all, and no I am not confusing anything with Nihilism.  I am sorry if I insulted you here, what I meant was to say the focus of Buddhism has and and always will be the Four Noble Truths, not the quest for a soul.  I really did not mean to "think of you" in a bad way. --Lucifereri


 * Did you forget the fact that:: “The purification of one’s own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha” [DN 2.49] “How is it that one is called a ‘Buddha’?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a ‘Buddha’.” [MN 2.144]. i.e. Buddhahood = pure citta. webmaster attan.com --Attasarana(talk)


 * So what? Where does pure citta come from? --Lucifereri


 * "visuddhicitta" or pure citta comes from, in sutta, wisdom (panna),and by means of samadhi (assimilation), any 'buddhist' should know this 101 fact."Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]--Attasarana


 * Also Nibbana = pure citta. “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling (after anything)” [MN 2.265] “This said: ‘the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-Att. 4.68] webmaster attan.com --Attasarana(talk)


 * Normal translation (from more peer-reviewed sources) of MN 2.264 use Deathless and not imomortality (PLEASE CITE!). I normally use Bhikkhu Bodhi's or accesstoinsight.org/:  "This is the Deathless, the liberation of the mind through not clinging" (from Bhikkhu Bodhi).  This obviously does not have the same meaning the quote your using.  Who's translation are you using? --Lucifereri


 * Wrong again. [AN 5.113] “Followers, the beginning of ignorance can never be discerned (beginningless) such that it cannot be said “Here is the First where ignorance is not, here is the contingency which generated it.” Such that it should be discerned, followers,“ignorance is a condition”(Purima, bhikkhave,  koti  na  pañña’yati  avijja’ya–‘ito pubbe avijja’ na’hosi, atha paccha’ samabhavi’’ti. Evañcetam, bhikkhave, vuccati, atha ca pana pañña’yati– ‘idappaccaya’ avijja’’ti.).<You stand refuted. webmaster attan.com  ---Attasarana

This article will be pretty fun to rewrite\revert. This is full of POVs and uncited meanings. Webpages should not be cited for this (unless it has been accademically reviewed in a PROPER way...usually books are better, which I see none of). This is also disturbing because the view this article portrays is not a majority view. Once I rewrite this article (whenever I get around to it), it will have citations to sites like accesstoinsight or to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations of the Pali scriptures. If u want to use ur own please, show clearly where they come from (I do not want to search a web page for the translations, just a link to the place called translated suttas or whatever). Have any of those translations been peer-reviewed?


 * You have just stated a "FALLACY OF PLACE", another form of sophistry, congrats. Only approx. 30% of the Nikayas are online, ergo your request for a link to same is nonsensical. You are incapable of doing anything but sophistry, most certainly you would loose before you started in any formal debate in front of other wherein you would have to give evidences and logic for a lecture. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * True, I am guilty of that sophistry (just trying to say your POV is not majority view, but is presented in this article as such), but that does not mean you are right at all! But I never just argued sophistry here.  Anyways, CITE the translations u use, it matters not if it is online or not online (better if it is not I would say). --Lucifereri


 * Thats called a "Reductionism fallacy", by your premise, since Buddhism is a Minority, one should be a Muslim. I and other buddhologists are "right", due to several things, namely A: its in doctrine B: its logical C: we dont confuse Doxa (opinion) with doctrine.--Attasarana


 * You can "rewrite" the article as you so desire, but without evidences from sutta, it will be reverted back to the original. All doctrinal lexicon are SOLA SCRIPTURA (in doctrine). And without same, your DOXA based article will not stand for more than a few hours at best. Your attempt to subvert Buddhism into a materialist nihilism wherein liberation is merely psychological acceptance of 'everything is dukkha-anicca-anatta' is a sectarian and Empiricist view which in no way reflects Buddhism as such.webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * Because an argument is popular does not mean it is inherently incorrect (or correct). Anyways, you have not shown your interpretation is the only possible one, so you must present other POVs (at least equally).  Your position is not completely valid IMO from the Suttas.  I am not at all denying the existance of the soul just saying that the question of its existance matters not (IMO).  But I would like to see a more BALANCED article rather than something from a person who does not cite real sources. --Lucifereri


 * Mr. Lucifereri, your incapacity to differentiate self/5khandhas/namo-rupa from The Self (atman, purisha, attan) is proof enough of your non-apprehension of the most basic fundamentals of Buddhist and Vedantic philosophy. Your claim to being a "Budddhist scholar" is unfounded based upon A: your unsubstantiated rebuttals B: your fallacies of place commited in the above, and certainly not last of all that you C: can certainly not read pali, contrary to the claim that you can. ---Attasarana


 * My alias is Lucifereri (I changed the X, hopefully you do not mind). I could care less about Vedantic philosophy.  I am not saying I am a scholar or not, all I am saying is it is definite that you are not (sorry if this is at all insulting, but this is my opinon after reading what you wrote).  I also included more citations, but I really am trying to question you ones.  Fallacy of PLACE?  Could you describe this...do you mean that you can list any source because nothing can ever truly be substantiated (I got this from a comment you left to Nat Krause).  Hopefully this is not what you mean, because this would eventually lead to a much more boring end to this dialogue.  Anyways, on to the next point...I do not read Pali well actually: that is true for sure :-P.  And your translations are pretty far off from the standard translations.  I am actually working on that but it would be very incorrect of me to say that I am a better reader\translator of Pali than you (from what I have seen you have more experience);  my question is on how valid your translations are compared to the professional ones.  Please cite (preferably peer revied documents). --Lucifereri


 * I notice you make reference to Bhikkhu Bodhi, oddly, even B. Bodhi himself in the notes of the SN mentions endlessly that the "X passage in the nikayas is contrary to theravada view/position"; namely Annatara, or "inbetween existence", i.e. after death but before reincarnation, which as you well know, Theravada OUTRIGHT rejects, their "instant rebirth" position is NOWHERE found in the Nikayas: Yasmim. kho, vaccha, samaye imañca ka’yam. nikkhipati, satto  ca  aññataram. ka’yam. anupapanno hoti, tamaham. Tan.hu’pa’da’nam. vada’mi. Tan.ha’ hissa, vaccha, tasmim. samaye upa’da’nam. Hoti’”ti. SN 4.400  At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body (kayam) in rebirth (anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel to be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the beings] fuel to be thirstfulness. ---Attasarana


 * First of all, I do not care about the Theravada position that much. Next, Bhikkhu Bodhi goes on to clarify how "it is made to fit" in Theravada (at the death moment the rebirth consciousness has not yet arisen). --Lucifereri


 * You say you "dont care about Theravada", but the only person you ever mention is its spokesman! Illogical at best. --Attasarana


 * As said, even B. Bodhi admits in the Samyutta Notes of his translation, that "This view doesnt agree with Theravada", i.e. he admits X passage doesnt reflect Theravada position. --Attasarana

Your position that Buddhism is Empiricist psychology instead of a liberation ontology of a class of fine Metaphysics in the Vedantic tradition is without support in the Nikayas. That you suffer the delusion that the Nikayas 'belong' to the Theravada is both illogical and not even a 'consensus' view by the vast majority of Buddhologists. ---Attasarana


 * Nope, what I am saying is that anything that you translate into another language requires proper background which you have not demonstrated at all. When someone translates they can add "bias" to those translations, either on purpose or not on purpose.  What I am saying is is that citable translations belong in the realm of designated Pali scholars and not some random person on the internet. --Lucifereri


 * There are no "designated Pali scholars", this is Sophistry 101. almost 100% of the Pali translations on metta.lk are by unknown "non-designated" theras living in S.E. Asia. You walked into that bear trap.--Attasarana


 * Attasarana actually has support for his understanding of Self and non-Self from the highest source: the Buddha himself! In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and other Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha repeatedly insists that there is a (True) Self and a fictitious, worldly self. The worldly ego is comprised of the mundane, transitory skandhas - whereas the True Self is the eternal, changeless, inconceivable (acintya) Buddha himself - whose dhatu (element, principle) inheres in all beings and needs to be "seen and known". So although many people are hostile to this Dharma, it has the Mahayana imprimatur of the Buddha himself. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, we are generally talking about Pali Buddhism here (but your comments on Mahayana are welcome :)). The Tathagathgarbha sutras do have some interesting messages of what is called the True Self (is this just atman in the sutras?  If so why add the "True" in the translations...), but according to Lankavatara Sutra VI, this is not the same as the philospher's atman, right...concepts such as soul and separate essences are manifestations of mind.  I am not competent enough to speak more about this topic, but if you give me an e-mail address that I can contact you at, I would love to ask some interesting (and good-natured :)) questions of Mahayana, and especially some of the sutras you just talked about.  --Lucifereri


 * Hallo Lucifereri. Thanks for your friendly comments. Sometimes in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha speaks of himself as "the True Self" and sometimes just as the "Self" (atman). The main "self/ self" distinction in all of these sutras (including the Lankavatara Sutra - which also accepts the reality of the Self, in the "Sagathakam" section) is that between the temporal skandhaic ego and the everlasting, changeless Self of the Buddha. I do not, regrettably, have time to go into more of this here now, but you can look at my website on the Nirvana Sutra, which has lots of info on these teachings (which have until recently been systematically suppressed, hidden and/ or distorted by many "Buddhists", sadly). The website URL is: www.nirvanasutra.org.uk. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What's this "u" that peppers the above comments ? I thought this was the English Wikipedia. As far as I know, "u" is a polite form of address or title in Thai. --Stephen Hodge 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I sometimes use u or you (I am not Thai)...I use "u" since I am used to doing that when I instant message ("u" to represent "you")...I will try to watch out in the future. --Lucifereri


 * I have been told that someone has 'stolen' Mr. Hodges nick, and that ALL of the above was NOT written by Stephen Hodge, but by another person who is usurping his USER NAME. As such, I am not counter Mr. Hodge, but another person in hiding. ---Attasarana


 * Yes, that's right - it was 'stolen' or, as I would prefer to say, mis-attributed by somebody, that person being no other than you Attasarana youself. Look at the page history (compare the version by Goethean at 18:30 with your version of 18:38) and you will see what I originally wrote, which you kindly deleted and then moved my signature to something I neither wrote nor agree with -- contrary to Wiki policies.  Knowing you, I don't attribute this to malice, but mere ignorance and continued unfamiliarity with Wikipedia editing.  I do however ask you to i) restore my original comment, ii) delete my name from where you relocated it and iii) remove your other references to me in the above or I shall add my own comments.--Stephen Hodge 22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Attasarana is right. The above, attributed in toto to Stephen Hodge, is not by him. I saw this page earlier in the day and only a comment about bad spelling ("u" instead of "you") was from Stephen Hodge. Also, anyone who knows Stephen Hodge's scholarship and his understanding of Dharma would know that he had not authored the whole of the posting above that is attributed to him!. Regards to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 19:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did move your signature up one line, however another person had signed the ENTIRE passage with your name. I have removed your name from the above, and anytime I reference 'stephen hodge' in the above, I am talking to an unsigned person who had wrongfully used your name. I have replaced your comment, Hodge, however i did not try to usurp your name on the unsigned comments above, it appeared to all be your writing, however that wasnt the case..---Attasarana


 * Thank you for restoring my comment. However, you are wrong about somebody else signing the entire passage with my name -- it should have been obvious from the indent spacing that the comments with which you have problems were not by me, as well as the fact that I was criticizing the illiterate laziness of that writer: I would hardly criticize myself, would I ?.  Because so many people, like yourself formerly, don't bother to log in or to sign their names properly, this sort of confusion can easily arise.  If you look at the page history, you will see that your adversary is somebody who chooses to call himself "Lucifereri".  I have however deleted part of one of your comments, because it still refers to me even if not by name.--Stephen Hodge 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I am starting to sign everything I do now, but did I somehow sign the entire passage with your name?  If so, sorry about that.  Lucifereri

"No-soul" = NATTHATTA', not anatta
No-Soul: NATTHATTA'.(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 3.196] Anatta = 5 khandhas = mere self; nothing more.

[SN 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, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul. Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled.” --webmaster attan.com Attasarana(talk)


 * Source please??? Who translated with "soul"...atta means "self", not "soul".  I also noted how you pointed out that no-sELF is considered one of the extremes and  a wrong view...did u forget that the other extreme that is also a wrong view is believing in the soul?  Please see Brahmajala Sutta.  In essence, belief in a soul or no soul is never the point...the only point in Buddhism is to attain Nibanna which is the cessation of greed, anger, and delusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucifereri (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Wrong, no such passage exists in the Brahmajala sutta, it states that ATTANUDITTHI, "views/conjectures about (ditthi) the Atman" are heretical, not the Atman itself. The Upanishads teach the very same thing. Yes, mere BELIEF (ditthi), VIEWS are all michaditti (heretical view) in sutta, which in no way differs from the Upanishads or Samkara. You fail to see, due to agnosis, that simple nuance. Nobody can negate the negator, you talk of cessation, however NIRODHA is subjugation, you fail to see Immortality (amata) is said of a Subject (atman) which obtains same. "amatagamimagga" SN 5.9. Refrain from unintelligent comments for your welfare, and/or learn more about philosophy. All forms of Metaphysics, including Platonism REJECT "views/opinions on/about the soul". You seem unaware of this obvious thing. webmaster attan.com ---Attasarana


 * So, how am I wrong if I said according to sutras that believing in a soul or no soul is wrong view when you also say that the "mere BELIEF" is wrong view too? Actually I have learnt my fair share of philosophy, but how do any of my comments here have anything to do with my knowledge in philosophy (ie, Western philosphy)?  Attasarana, I would sugget you not jump to any conclusions, especially negative ones, of other people simply because they do not agree with you:  it shows that all your trying to do is win the argument by trying to paint a negative image.  Anyways, I am talking primarily about Buddhist philosophy, and I could not care less about what any other philosophies say when the topic is only about Buddhist philosophy.  If you want to write a Buddhist Philosphy as Compared with other Philosophies page, then that would be the correct forum for such a discussion;  this however, IMO, is not.  So now, I will really break down your first few sentances:
 * 1. I never said atman is wrong view, I said belief in it is a wrong view (so your first statement has no place).
 * 2. Nice, they teach the same thing on views...so what?  Upanishads do not *seem* to have any real value here (so far).
 * 3. Nibbana is the cessation of greed, anger, and delusion.  That is it (does not Nibbana mean a blowing out, a cessation).  Amata Dathu is the Deathless;  immortality is an interesting way of translating it too.
 * 4. Where is this quote from?  Do you mean SN Book 5 page 9 (PTS)?  I did not see amatagamimagga popup in a google search.
 * Anyways, thanks for the responses :-P. --Lucifereri

Attasarana I
Attasarana, gives us the translation of his moniker as “The Soul is Refuge”; is merely a back-read atmavādic translation of a line from Dīgha Nikaya 16 2.25-26 ‘… bhikkhu attadīpo viharati attasaraṇo…’ “Monks, abide as islands unto yourselves, as a refuge unto yourselves…” - ‘atta’ in this case read as a reflexive pronoun. -   - His name is Ken Lee Wheeler. He has published hack literature on Buddhist topics under the penname Shakya Aryanatta and divides up his time otherwise in Yahoo Buddhism chat rooms as ancientbuddhism, where he and his sycophant followers harass and propagate his schlock translations from the Pali Canon - he is infamous for bombarding the private mailboxes of his critics with unsolicited obnoxious messages and calls private phones to leave unsolicited obnoxious voice messages to those dislikes.


 * Publishing personal information about editors is strictly forbidden under Wiki rules.  Editors who do so are liable to be suspended. I suggest Attasarana reports this incident. --Stephen Hodge 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

- As anyone here can see, he is easy enough to refute, although he will never accept correction when valid translations and academics are presented. -   - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.203.235 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm adding this back, since Attasarana deleted it without discussion...but he had a pretty valid reason to do so. So Attasarana, if you want to delete any part of the above, please, discuss here and then we can all agree what needs to be deleted.  The first paragraph contains no attacks and just a point in translation so that I do not deem worthy of deletion.  The second paragraph is of course more questionable (but there are multiple people who might agree with this).  Please consider just leaving it or we should just discuss it because some my below comments below would look out of place without it.  Anyways, this is in no terms vandalism (what I am doing)...I am just restoring and then we can delete whenever.  WHY are there comment add\removal wars going on? --Lucifereri 06:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen his pen name Attasarana and such before...just go to E-sangha and you will see the user Attasarana as banned...and they also list him as Ken Lee Wheeler. If you look at the few articles he was able to converse you will notice a very similar argumentation style.  While I think Attasarana does not know how to properly convince others of his viewpoint (his aggresivenes is no less than insulting at times), I do not think all his views are baseless (as he claims are anyone else's but his...in my reading of what he says), since it depends on how one "interprets" and "reads" these texts (although I agree with the above translation using the reflexive).  I believe there has been a minority view for quite a while that there is a soul in Buddhism (it obviously did not start with Attasarana or Dr. CAF Rhy Davids), and so I see value in representing Attasarana's viewpoint.  I also recognize that Mahayana seems to have more substantiation of this view.  I just think if we were able to represent all three viewpoints, we would be able to present the concept of Anatta more fairly as an encyclopedic article on Buddhism.  But without a proper overseer watching over edits to this page, I am afraid your rv will soon be rv rv :(.  --Lucifereri 11:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussing or disclosing personal details is strictly forbidden under Wiki rules. You are likely to be suspended for this if Attasarana makes a complaint.--Stephen Hodge 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is unfortunate, since I added the deleted material so that my comment on that deleted material was not out of context. Next of course, I did say that thing about E-Sangha and the banning (since of course I was responding to this individual), but I was also pointing out to that same individual that Attasarana arguments did have value regardless of how he argues for them.  Either way, though, I can see where I made the mistake.  I also find it unfortunate that Attasarana's responses (and mine, I suppose, like the above...) many times (it is generally a systematic practice IMO) also include personal attacks (which is of course against wiki policies...) but those are not being brought up to question.  However, most people who understand the multiple interpretations of Buddhism also understand that Attasarana's version of the document is biased towards one side...I have asked about mediation with wiki moderators and the process of obtaining it, but unfortunately no body has responded on how to do that either.  Thanks for the heads up...but, Stephen, you should actually take it up on yourself also to report this (by this, the above ip's and my violation) since it did apparently break wiki policy.  --Lucifereri 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not into reporting people -- you were not the original guilty party and I assume that you were unaware of the rule anyway.--Stephen Hodge 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unaware, but that is no excuse...I should have read the rules anyways (and this should have been common sense). --Lucifereri 23:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for taking Wikipedia procedures so seriously. There doesn't seem to be a written rule addressing this specifically, but I have checked with a few other Wikipedians whom I respect, and have reached the conclusion that it is not a serious breach of Wikipedia ethics to reveal other names used by Attasarana (I don't see how we have any idea, really, what Attasarana's actual legal name is). The reason we don't want Wikipedians revealing each other's names is that it impinges on their anonymity and could thus result in harrassment. However, Ken Wheeler is not anonymous to begin with&mdash;he is a (self-)published author on the same subjects discussed here and he has used other internet forums under this name. What's more, the identity of these alter egos is directly relevant to other articles on Wikipedia, if not this one, because Attasarana has elsewhere attempted to cite this article, written by "Ken L. Wheeler", i.e. he is citing himself. It would definitely be wrong if someone attempted to provide additional personal information about Attasarana that could be used to harrass or harm him, such as his home address or place of employment, but no one has done that. Under the circumstances, I don't know if mentioning that these two are one and the same is precisely a good thing, but I don't think it should be treated as a serious breach of good behaviour, either.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Buddhism link
I need a good reason why I should not take this website link down. First of all, who translated the suttas they quote in the page (with this information, I can then look up academic info on the source, ie, critiques, ideology of the translator, how respected the transalator in regards to his peers, and such...the reason for this is nobody was faulty translations :))? Second I have a problem with the almost propagandist view it puts up on "Soul" in Buddhism. Quotes on the page are used many times out of context...example: the quote about union with bhramha (NOT bhraman as the web page uses...there really is no reference to a neuter bhraman in Pali Buddhism that I know of...there can be, please point it out) was given to an individual who asked how to achieve union with bhrama. This was explained by attaining the jhanas...later on (in a different sutta), that same monk lets go of that jhana to attain Nibanna, which is achieved through Vipassanna! Union with bhrama here means being born in the bhrama world, and in another sutta bhrama is denied the charactersitic of the all-powerful god head. Being the largest website makes no difference at all and having a label such as "original Buddhism" is so mis-leading...this is not a majority viewpoint on original Buddhism. To talk about "original Buddhism" one must at least talk about the various schools that existed after the Parinibanna of the Buddha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucifereri (talk • contribs).


 * To nonsensically claim that the term ""original Buddhism" is so mis-leading", is itself only laughable; implying Buddhism is not backsourced to the historical Gotama Buddha. However the TERM Buddhism exists NOWHERE in sutta, only "i teach BRAHMAYANA (path to Brahman)" SN 5.5. Absolutely no sects are "original" to earliest buddhism, and THAT, in fact, IS a "majority view" of Buddhologists.


 * Why talk about whether the term Buddhism appears in scriptures (read the rest before commmenting)? Obviously it does not appear (as I doubt the term Christianity appears in the Bible).  What I was saying was have linked called "Original Buddhism" that points to you ideologies is misleading and it is rightfully so (it is like propaganda...this is the "original" stuff and everything else is not).  Did you by chance write or contribute to http://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Dhammapada-Buddha-Shakya-Aryanatta/dp/0971254109/sr=1-2/qid=1172128321/ref=sr_1_2/104-9656467-2115919?ie=UTF8&s=books?  What do you mean by no sects are "original" to earliest Buddhism?  Of course nothing is like that since things change over time, but the lineage of the Sangha can (at least supposedly) be traced back directly to the Buddha's time.  But there is no argument here about what is "Original" or not...I just do not think you can label yourself as the representative of "Original" Buddhism. --Lucifereri 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your baseless claim that "said quotes are out of context" is contrary to the rules of doctrinal religious debates wherein "all coherrent passages expressing meaning are full context". As such, you are refuted.


 * Context is important in anything expressed via language. Come now, you have to agree that the Buddha only showed that individual jhanas and not the final liberation of Nibbana (read the sutra!).  But he still said that was the way to union with Brhama.  That means Nibbana is a higher state. --Lucifereri 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To talk about X translation, would presuppose you can read/translate pali, unless you show same, then your comments are ad hominem and subsidiary position which must be ignored.


 * Actually, the burden of proof lies with you. As in any academic work (translation is an ACADEMIC work, religion is debatable) that is submitted into journals or for publication, there is peer review and the author's work must stand against the scrutiny of his peers.  I am not very well versed in Pali, but it is not my responsibility...it is yours.  So please provide citations to who translated the work you are quoting and who plubished it.  That will give enough information for any third party to judge that work.  Otherwise, your quotes from those sources are basically void (from MY outlook) since I do not have sufficient knowledge to converse with you whether I agree with a different translation versus the standard ones.  Note, I am not saying the translations you provided are poor or incorrect: I am saying that I cannot validate them myself (and that is essentially my fault :)).  Anyways, if you continue to use these quotes without citing who the autor is (and I use different sources), because of the nature of the differences in the sources we each use, I fear we may be hard pressed to come to a consensus agreement. --Lucifereri 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are also confusing Brahma-loka/brahma-devi (Deva, mere gods, god realms) with the term Brahman (the Absolute). Correct that error.


 * Actually I do the know the basic differences. What I am saying is my sources use the term Brhama and not Bhraman. At least I tell you what sources I use. --Lucifereri 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been asserted by modern "Buddhism" that Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.” For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say  Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60]. [DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." (this passage also proves [from earlier context] that Brahma (god/s) is utterly diffferent than the word Brahman).[DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of  Brahman may be gained.”[DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that  Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!” [3.646 Pat-Att.] “To have become Brahman [is the meaning of] Brahmabhuto.” [Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).” [It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.” [SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.” [SN 5.5] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”[MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.” [SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman." You are refuted yet again by means of doctrine. - User Attasarana


 * List the sources that you used to get the translation. All my sources still translate it to Bhrama (plus different translations of some of what you are quoting). --Lucifereri 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article to the consensus version. The link to anatta.com should be removed if Attasarana reverts to his version again. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "anatta.com"? I dont own any such site. You have your link wrong. - User Attasarana


 * And you are a vandal and a spammer. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem attacks are off topic. I am a Buddhist scholar and expert in Buddhist doctrine. Dont make revisions without substantiations. I notice your consensus position is, of course, a "bandwaggon fallacy". - User Attasarana


 * Perhaps. It is also official Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Logic behind adding attan.com in main page

 * I have been asked by a main wiki editor to substantiate the reasons for the addition of www.attan.com in the main page as a link, certainly so, regardless if one agrees with the basis of said site, I have added a link to same since there exists no other website that goes into more discussion, much less detail upon the term ANATTA. To imply selfless promotion is superimposition of a premise I have not made in providing the link.


 * As for formerly not formally signing my comments or changes, this WAS true, however at no time have I been guilty of hiding my ISP addy, or concealing my identity.- Attasarana


 * Well, not entirely true -- using a pseudonym is tantamount to concealing identity, though you are not alone in this: most of the Wiki users do this, but at least yours makes some sort of sense, unlike the weird names that some here use that seem more fitting for street-side grafitti than a purportedly serious encyclopaedia. But no matter -- the point about signing properly is for the convenience of other users.  I, for example, have a large watchlist, but this function of Wiki only notes changes made by people who have signed off properly.  So your edifying dditions are now apparent and noted, while those by this Lucifereri are not flagged in watchlists.--Stephen Hodge 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I am a bit new to this, so I am trying to learn how it works (that's why I never actually signed any changes). Next, who cares about what alias a person uses for their editing--the one I wanted to originally use was taken so I made up something...oh well :-P.  Next, why does Attasarana act like he owns this article?  It is public domain; look at the current history--there are version wars going on because a certain individual is pushing his agenda (using translations whose source(s) he will never point to).  Anyways, because no other good links exist does not mean that the additon www.attan.com is justified.  So, Attasarana, when you read this please give me some souces. Thanks! --Lucifereri 08:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that you are now signing properly, although this page gets confusing at times because others interleave their comments so it gets difficult to sort out who is who at times.
 * As far as names are concerned, I wonder what difficultly people have with the names their parents gave them. Apart from obvious cases of possible persecution or harrassment, I think that Wiki would be a lot more civil if people used their real names -- have you noticed that the trouble-makers never use their real names ?  To people of my generation, using these weird pseudonyms conveys all sorts of negative impressions -- not necessarily applicable to you, but which probably have not ocurred to you.  However, my immediate instinct is not to take such users too seriously.  Do you know of any authorative encyclopaedias where the editors use such aliases ?  If people want to use an alias, why can't they choose something that at least sounds like a name.  Probably it's a generational thing, but people who use the typical "Wiki style" alias come across to people like me as immature poseurs.
 * As for translations, as I have mentioned in the past elsewhere on Wiki, the problem with all translations is that they are biased -- sometimes benignly, sometimes not. Translators, especially with Buddhism, nearly always start out with a theory of what the text is (or ought to be) saying. They then proceed on that understanding.  Bhikkhu Bodhi is one such example.  I have come across quiet a few cases where his translations are distorted to fit orthodox Theravadin views.  Thus our colleague Attasarana does not, I belive, use BhB's translations because he conceals, distorts or otherwise obfuscates the meaning of key terms that corroborate Attasarana's position.  So many people, past and present, have convinced themselves that the Buddha could not possibly have said anything positive about a Self, and so when confronted with strong contradictory evidence to the contrary use imaginative sleight of hand to conceal this evidence, like the old "it's just a reflexive pronoun" trick.--Stephen Hodge 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Stephen. The only reason I do not use my real name is due to privacy, and that is about it; although, I agree with that comment about encyclopedia editors rarely use such "weird pseudonyms", but I guess that's the nature of the beast (that is, I mean, wiki).


 * As for translations, I completely agree that any thing that is translated is biased; and that, of course, is unfortunate. However, for any third party to view a set of translations as correct (or not), one must be able to at least verify the source that the said translation is coming from.  That source should have been peer reviewed; without expert review of the translation, no third party with a limited knowlede of Pali can confirm the validity of the translation.  I find it hard to believe that there are no other translators that take Attasarana's viewpoint; so, if it was published and peer reviewed I would be satisfied by using both Bhikkhu Bodhi's and Attasarana's translations.  Actually, it would be quite interesting to have some sources for Attasarana's translation:  the wiki article can have an introduction about what Anatta means and the controversy around its true meaning in the Pali suttas.  The article can then continue with one of two different approaches.  The first approach is to have three separate sections:  one for the meaning of the no-soul group, one for the group that says the concept of soul is of no importance, and one for the soul group.  The other approach is to have one section discussing the differences and then showing examples taken from the Pali text and the different translations (through citations of course) that have been produced from that text (of course the article should not itself attack the translations, which have been properly cited...it should only show these translations and what they mean to different individuals).
 * Anyways, while I definitely encourage any individual to take up the challenge of translating the Pali text (which I have not yet attempted :-P), it is important that it is done by an individual who has not just taken some classes: proper credentials are necessary (a degree and such). Why?  Different languages employ phrases that might not necessarily be meant to be taken literally;  context is also very important.  For example (I will find the citation later on if necessary), Albert Einstein's famous quote "God does not play dice" indicates (and has indicated to multiple people) that Einstein may have truly believed in a personal God.  Of course the following quote refutes that interpretation: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954).  Some context should be used when translating the document (this is an opinon and so I cannot really back it up :-P, but I think it is important to a degree...).  Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucifereri (talk •


 * That is the most senseless fallacy of place I have read in quite a long time. Its another form of sophitry. In essense, your arguement is the CORE tenent of Skepticism, such that since you cannot logically or doctrinally refute any evidences given, NOR read Pali, or reference sources, you first think I myself have to have everything formally "peer reviewed" before posting here any citations which outright contradict yourself. That, sir, is the most pathetic form of Sophistry that exists, and is entertained by Skeptics far and wide. Neither Buddhologist IB Horner, nor FL Woodward, nor CAF Rhys Davids, nor Dr. Rhys Davids, nor Bh. Bodhi were under diress for 'peer review' of their pali translations, nor are mine. This "jump thru a few more hoops for me" sophistry in your above comment is, without a doubt, the most pathetic thing I have read here on wiki. It reminds me of certain governments that install so many criterion/hoops to jump thru, nobody in their right mind would do other than laugh at such absurdity. Attasarana


 * Short answer, sadly you are under that duress since you are not sharing your translations with anyone. Also, PTS translators (although CAF's translations as well as Woodward's come into question by some people...because they sometimes deviate from the "norm", but at least I can find these criticisms) and Bhikkhu Bodhi are on a totally different level than you...they have been read by millions of people and have been critiqued as such by their readers.  To get any peer review, just publish the documents and someone will read them and eventually they will get reviewed as such...do a search on Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations...after a simple search I found an "excellent translation" comment by some monestary.  Anyways, I will get more in-depth on the answer to this post eventually.  As regards to your last comment, I expected no less from you (or should I say no more?).  --Lucifereri 15:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Buddhologists who admit to the affirmation of the ontological Self/Atman in Buddhism are but a few: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, Joshi lal Mani, Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy, …etc.etc. Or is this list too short for you?--Attasarana


 * I will address the above two points later today (hopefully). Some short stuff:  Radhakrishnan, was a Hindu commenting on Buddhism?  Also BTW, if anyone is interested look up a review of What the Buddha Taught at amazon.com...I think you(Attasarana) wrote a couple of those reviews, too, since one has almost the same list (in order) I think and both have the same arrogant and rude manner of speech (and the neti-neti concept I supposedly did not know about, haha). Of course if he is saying the Buddha taught that Nirvana was no-soul or soul, I might also disagree :-P. --Lucifereri 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont make the fallacy of using the "hindu" comment; that is a low form of ad hominem Sophistry. "Gotama is a VEDASOTTHIM (Sage of the Vedas)"- Patisambhidamagga 2-174-Attasarana. “The Buddha is a teacher of MONISM (advayavadin [i.e. Advaita])”[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13].


 * “It is a heresy to hold the view that I have taught a “philosophy of my own (new/novel)”.” "i HAVE NOT come teaching a new path"--Udana 03 [MN 1.68]


 * "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-Attasarana


 * "Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests" -- [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]-Attasarana


 * The word Brahmanism seems originally to have been used, and popularly still to be understood, to denote the religion of those inhabitants of India who adored Brahma as their supreme God, in contradistinction to those who professed Buddhism, and, in more recent times, Muhammadanism. But this is founded upon a misconception. Brahma was never universally worshiped; and his acknowledgement  as the supreme God is not even true, still less a prominent characteristic of Brahmanical religions and sects.  [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2.799b ]-Attasarana


 * The word "Hinduism" comes from the word sindhu, the Indo-Aryan word for "the sea," and came to apply to the peoples in the region east of the Indus River. The word “Hinduism” has no connection to any specific religion at all but a peoples and area. [Encyclopedia of Vedanta. Montilal Publ. 1988]-Attasarana

contribs) 03:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
 * BTW, I did realize I forgot to sign the previous statement but then when I came back to it, I found that it was already conveniently signed :). --Lucifereri 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment to support the spirit of Stephen's remarks above: those who have convinced themselves that nowhere in Buddhism does the Buddha speak positively of a truly real and enduring Self will even sophistically say that when the Buddha speaks (in the Mahayana) of an eternal, changeless Self he really means a constantly changing non-Self! Using such a silly white-means-black back-to-front methodology one could just as well say the real teaching of the Buddha is: "Suppress all good; cultivate all evil; pollute your mind: this is the (real) teaching of the Buddhas"!!!

Oh, for Mahayana, I am sure there might be positive teachings...for Theravada I am not so sure :-P. --Lucifereri 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you are suffering under the delusion that the Nikayas belong to the Theras, they dont, Theravada didnt exist until nearly the 4th century AD. Ahibhidhamma and Buddhaghosa belong to the Theravada, not the Nikayas, and that is a "consensus" view of Buddhologists as well, son. The Abhidhamma Pali is as diff. from Nikayan Pali as 10th century English is from modern day english. In fact many pali translator who can read Nikayan pali have a very hard time reading Abhidhamma pali which is much much later in origin. .- Attasarana


 * Hi Attasarana. Usually I find it is easier to read more modern text than older text (Chaucer for example...anyways, this is an opinion on English, so I could easily be wrong in terms of Pali).  I think I stated that accesstoinsight.org/ (which seemingly provides sources) lists Theravada as being founded in 250 B.C (where is your information from)?  Since you have not cited any of the Sutta quotes (from some English peer-reviewed translations), your arguments hold almost no weight.  Just to let you know, I want to re-vert this doc to a former state with the reason that it introduces orignal research.  I can also write a section on your viewpoint (although I will leave a citation needed marker)...do you think this a fair and reasonable resolution?  --Lucifereri 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are suffering the delusion that at some point I have claimed most or all translations are "mine", I have not, nearly 90% are by Woodward, Davids, Dr. AKC, IB Horner, H. Nakamura, Kosho Yamamoto, and others; ergo this is a strawman fallacy. Metta.lk and accesstoinsight.com translations are all almost entirely 100% made by Bhikkhus (and some Bhikkhunis) in S.E. Asia, none of which are "peer reviewed". Your "peer review" position is a red herring and diversionary form of Skepticistic sophistry to divert the discussion from the fact that you yourself have no intelligent and substantiated position with which to debate/discuss the term anatta itself. I kindly warn you from continued personal attacks and to stick to the topic at hand; i.e. debate on anatta via Sola scriptura, or doctrinal discussion in a logical fashion as pertains the contextual usage of anatta in suttana. There is nobody on planet earth, regardless if you presume that to be an egotistical claim, that knows more about the term anatta, its usage, context, definition, and relevancy. You are not the criterion for "weight" in sutta citations, another fallacy. If you would like the pali cited, I will provide same.---Attasarana


 * ---"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..---Attasarana


 * Buddhadatta Mahathera's PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY ....page 8.......Atta' [attan]: SOUL.---Attasarana


 * STOP THIS! Why do you keep doing this (you did this before in another thread).  Everybody note that PTS also includes "himeself, herself, oneself" as a defintion.  This is sophistry (rightly pointed out unlike most of Attasarana's accusations)...you are misleading anyone on the definition of attan:  interested readers, here is the Pali Text Society definition...judge for yourself and not what either Attasarana or I say:  http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:533.pali .  --Lucifereri 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please correct your horrific error, you are confusing the Mr. Rhys Davids PTS Dictionary with the Margeret CONE PTS Dictionary, if you read the passage, you would have seen this obvious fact. Correct your error please. Since you are wrongly assuming I am quoting the Rhys Davids PTS dictionary, your CLAIM of "Sophistry" is baseless at very best. Your error.

-Attasarana

Reminding goethean of his error on Anatta page
Written to goethean by wiki moderator: Hi there. When you're in a content dispute with other editors, please don't write "rv v" as your edit summary. This implies that the other users' edits are vandalism. Content disputes and vandalism are two different things, and calling another user's edits vandalism is uncivil. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have reminded you goethean, dont make revisions without substantiations, you have not given evidences here in talk but reverted anatta countless times. Whereas myself, I have given more than ample logic and citations. That you rather "dispute content" must be substantiated, further 'rv-ing' of Anatta is a commision of vandalism by yourself.- Attasarana


 * Attasarana has given NO CITATIONS AT ALL!!! PLEASE CITE as I and many others have requested.  Your using original research (your own translations) and throwing away published material (peer-reviewed PTS and Bhikkhu Bodhi translations), so do not make such a claim as giving "more than ample logic and citations".  What is the proper term to use when reverting a document that gives no proper translation references? --Lucifereri 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a sophistic ruse. A: I make countless citations, as you well know. B: Contrary to the below comment, I do not reject "others translations". C: You are commiting a fallacy of place. D: Over 80% of the translations I cite are not my own. E: I have never said or implied most translations are "mine", another fallacy you have commited. F: Any interpretation requires said be based upon a doctrinal citation, regardless of translation. F: If you deny any translation, I will also provide the Pali, whereupon you can buy a Pali-Eng. dictionary and translate them yourself, if you can. ---Attasarana


 * Oh, so you accept the translations from accestoinsight.com and Bhikkhu Bodhi...accept or reject? Actually in the above statement I wanted to know where your translation came from.  You never listed who you obtained the translation from.  I do not trust your translations (sorry if this is insulting but RC had some interesting points). --Lucifereri 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That B. Bodhi and others admit that ABCDEF are anatta (NOT-X), as well as I myself accept, in no way is logical grounds for the false fallacy of composition that "therefore X is denied"; ironically the same error you yourself continue to make. ..---Attasarana


 * Please understand that that is not what I am saying at all. I fail to see how you can not understand my own viewpoint by now.  I actually, though, have no problem with people accept the self or no self in Buddhism as these views should be fairly represented.  --Lucifereri 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ---"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..---Attasarana


 * Why do you keep doing this (you did this before in another thread). Everybody note that PTS also includes "himeself, herself, oneself" as a defintion.  This is sophistry (rightly pointed out unlike most of Attasarana's accusations)...you are misleading anyone on the definition of attan:  interested readers, here is the Pali Text Society definition...judge for yourself and not what either Attasarana or I say:  http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:533.pali .  --Lucifereri 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please correct your horrific error, you are confusing the Mr. Rhys Davids PTS Dictionary with the Margeret CONE PTS Dictionary, if you read the passage, you would have seen this obvious fact. Correct your error please. Since you are wrongly assuming I am quoting the Rhys Davids PTS dictionary, your CLAIM of "Sophistry" is baseless at very best. Your error.---Attasarana


 * Will not of course. Because it is defined to include the terms I have said...your one sided viewpoints have no place on wiki.  And I will not bother looking up Margaret Cone's translation of words versus Mr. Rhys Davids PTS, since both are available and Dr. Rhys Davids is also available online.  This, as you have claimed so many times about me, is sophistry...do you want me to show you?  Go here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sophistry .  You are misleading people into thinking that the de facto translation by PTS is that attan means soul when it obviously does not, but you fail to represent that view anytime you define attan.  Now I know I just made an accusation, and I am sorry for that ad hominem attack, but I am not baseless in that claim of sophistry.  --Lucifereri 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Buddhadatta Mahathera's PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY ....page 8.......Atta' [attan]: SOUL.---Attasarana


 * Why do you keep doing this (you did this before in another thread). Everybody note that PTS also includes "himeself, herself, oneself" as a defintion.  This is sophistry (rightly pointed out unlike most of Attasarana's accusations)...you are misleading anyone on the definition of attan:  interested readers, here is the Pali Text Society definition...judge for yourself and not what either Attasarana or I say:  http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:533.pali .  --Lucifereri 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am warning you from making extremely senseless and heretical claims like "Attasarana has given NO CITATIONS AT ALL!!!". This is both absolutely untrue but additionally so, laughable. ---Attasarana


 * It has been true and is true. You need to give info on whose translations your using.  Call it laughable if you may, but it is true.  --Lucifereri 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sophistry, I will provide the PALI and let you translate it for us,...I suggest you save your pennies for a Pali english dictionary in this case. ..---Attasarana


 * Sophistry, sophistry, sophistry...man this term is a word both of us have used (and abused) so often in our pointless rhetoric that it has lost its meaning by now...so I could not care anymore about your usage of it (nor should you have mine :-P). I have the PALI for the text thank you, and I will definitely not translate this material.  I think I will restrict translations to those who I know are well respected as Pali Scholars.  You do not give any reasons to prove that you are a reasonable scholar in Pali (note this does not mean you are not, nor am I claiming you are not...the claim is that I have no proof to believe you are a Pali scholar and so I cannot accept based on word of mouth...this does not constitute an personal attack so stop calling it as such) so I unfortunately cannot accept that claim (which you made multiple times during the argument).  --Lucifereri 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Attasarana does not cite a large amount of the information and does not actually point out which translations (in English) of the Pali Suttas he uses. Under the currently accepted (and widely accepted translations) from PTS and Bhikkhu Bodhi, much of his arguments do not have weight.  Also, Attasarana, these "accepted" Suttas do not easily fall into your fake "bandwagon fallacy" term:  they have been peer reviewed and published, and a majority of Pali Sutta readers appreciate these authors efforts in rendering the Suttas in English.  I might re-edit this article, but I am waiting for Attasarana's comments on a previous thread (since he had time to comment on this, I assuming he will get to that thread today). --Lucifereri 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "his (attasarana) arguments do not have weight", this is what is known in formal logic as a "baseless claim". Substantiation is required before claims are made. ..---Attasarana


 * "they have been peer reviewed and published", this is an unsubstantiated claim, as a member of the Pali Text Society and having talked with countless Pali translators, I know this claim to be wholly untrue. Metta.lk and accesstoinsight.com translations are all almost entirely 100% made by Bhikkhus (and some Bhikkhunis) in S.E. Asia, none of which are "peer reviewed". Your "peer review" position is a red herring and diversionary form of Skepticistic sophistry to divert the discussion from the fact that you yourself have no intelligent and substantiated position with which to debate/discuss the term anatta itself. I kindly warn you from continued personal attacks and to stick to the topic at hand; i.e. debate on anatta via Sola scriptura, or doctrinal discussion in a logical fashion as pertains the contextual usage of anatta in suttana. There is nobody on planet earth, regardless if you presume that to be an egotistical claim, that knows more about the term anatta, its usage, context, definition, and relevancy. ---Attasarana


 * I doubt you have talked with "countless" translators...anyways time for the best part. No I am not making an error since also I am talking about Bhikkhu Bodhi's work which is also published.  Next, all of the source you have talked about have been on the internet for a while and have had their chance to stand criticism and such (you can search for it online).  Thus they have been peer-reviewed.  Actually I made no such personal attacks (you have been "laughing" at my "pathetic" arguments as you have said so often in many different parts of the discussion...these are also personal attacks from you?), I just said that your arguments have no weight until I know the translators (ie, sources)...anyone care to explain how this is not a personal attack to Attasarana?  And also explain why you do not call others arguments "laughable" and "pathetic"...geeze how one-sided is this? --Lucifereri 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was a Buddhist monk for many years, have written four books, and write everyday and research Pali and sanskrit as often, you are incorrect on that presumption. I suggest you learn Pali, and take a course in formal logic-Attasarana


 * As far as I understand, from reading various "discussions" that he has taken part in, he provides his own translations. Also, as far as I understand, he does not accept the translations of other scholars because they are, according to him, simply not the legitimate words of the Buddha. Whether they are peer-reviewed or not doesn't matter to him. Andkaha(talk) 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * D: Over 80% of the translations I cite are not my own. E: I have never said or implied most translations are "mine", another fallacy.


 * No, you just have skipped over the question asked by many people so many times until now... --Lucifereri 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have said regarding myself "according to him, simply not the legitimate words of the Buddha", this is a STRAWMAN FALLACY, I have at no time made any such claim or postion. Refrain from sophistry. If you can provide doctrinal evidences and or logic supporting your position that "buddhism denies the Atman in suttana", provide it; but you and "Luciferian's" personal ad hominem attacks are only proving you both have absolutely NO capacity to formally debate/discuss your nihilisitc positions as pertains buddhism and the adjective anatta.---Attasarana


 * I will not bother anymore to represent my viewpoint at all with you...anyone who has actually read my arguments understands clearly what position I take on this issue, which of course, you do not know. You also do personal ad hominem attacks...you called my arguments "laughable" and "pathetic", how can you justify your double standard...what are the attacks I am committing???  Anatta, an adjective?  I know of some who would disagree :-P... --Lucifereri 11:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Luciferereri, I see you are tempted to rewrite this article. I look forward to reading your endeavour with interest. Note that "discussions" about this page have been going on for a very long time without resolution. I suggest, if you have not done so already, that you read all the previous messages, including the archived ones.

Given the nature of the topic of the article, I think it will be very difficult ever to reach a consensus over its contents. One problem that I note in these discussions is a confusion between what the Buddha may or may not have taught and what later Buddhist schools say he taught. There is potentially a very large chasm between the two.

The first step would be to present a reconstruction of what the Buddha probably DID actually teach -- along the lines of Tillman Vetter's well known study of early Buddhist teachings and practices. Much of this confirms Attasarana's basic position. Thus, there are now a number of recent bona fide scholars who seem willing to concede that there is no evidence in the Pali Nikāyas that the Buddha actually denied the existence of a Self (ātman), though this understanding has failed to percolate down to the general Wiki type of editor. Vetter suggests that the Buddha himself only critiqued the pudgala type of concept or the sat-kāya view. At a later stage, the subtle differences were lost and, with the rise of the Pudgalavādins within Buddhism, denial of the existence of the Self was introduced as a defensive knee-jerk reaction. It should be noted, in passing, that the stratified nature of the Nikayas is well-known and this should be taken into account -- much of what is attributed to the Buddha anyway was probably never taught by him, even such hoary favourites as the pratītya-samutpāda, the five skandhas etc etc, counter-intuitive though this may seem. You might also like to look up Lambert Schmithausen's paper on the two approaches within early Buddhism, those based on dhyana and on prajna without dhyana respectively. I would suggest that the originators of many cherished Buddhist tenets were the pro-prajna monks who never bothered to practice dhyana -- there is much more to this, but cannot go into it right now.

So, a sensible way to construct this article would be to present what the Buddha himself may or may not have taught about a Self -- taking into consideration the various synonyms that occur on occasion such as citta and vijñāna. But this presentation should be based solely on the scriptural evidence -- WITHOUT the interpretative use of the atthakathas etc. But this is where Attasarana's problem lies. BhB's translation that you think are so praiseworthy rely heavily on the atthakathas -- thus presenting, by definition, the Theravadin viewpoint. There is no reason why we should accept atthakatha explanations as ipso facto true and reliable. Thus, I mention in passing, I have just finished a translation of the huge Vastu-samgraha by Asanga contained within the Yogacara-bhumi-shastra. This is a summary commentary on most of the Samyukta-āgama. While going through it, I was surprised to find that there virtually no points of exegetical agreement between it and the Pali atthakatha. This shows that within Indian Buddhism there was a wide range of interpretational positions.

If Attasarana feels that he can demonstrate that BhB's translations, for example, are inaccurate or misleading, then what is he to do to satisfy you ? I think he gives the Pali text and location of most of his quotes, so the really interested can look them up elsewhere. Interestingly, there does not seem to be a a hard and fast Wiki rule about sourcing translations. I believe that the relevent guideline merely says that a recognized, published version is to be preferred. You say that you have found glowing praise for BhB's translations -- would the monastery you mention happen to be Theravadin ?

So, after the part of the article dealing with what the Buddha may or may not have actually taught -- with all the proof quotes one might want, then the article should move onto the anatta position of the various Buddhist schools, which should be more straightforward and less contentious. But here again a note of caution. I assume that you think that the predominant position throughout Buddhist history was "no self", but you would be wrong there. The school of Buddhism thought to have had the largest number of adherents by a long chalk was the Sammitiya which espoused Pudgalavada. It is merely a historical accident that their literature has not survived, thus distorting the picture.

Anyway, that's enough for the moment.--Stephen Hodge 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot comment with any degree of authority on the Pali suttas (my area of specialiasation is specifically the Tathagatagarbha sutras), but it seems to me - as a practising Buddhist myself, a long-term student of Buddhist suttas/ sutras in general, and as an Oxford Doctor of literary analysis - quite clear when I read the suttas that nowhere does the Buddha categorically and unambiguously deny the reality of the Self. Attasarana's understanding seems much, much closer to what I read in the suttas than what is claimed by the "no-Soulists". Utter denial of a Self is not a message that is communicated to me when I look at what the Buddha says in those various suttas. "No Self" seems like an unwarranted distortion to me. The Buddha simply warns against constructing speculations and views (not founded on direct knowledge) about what the Self is, and urges rejection of, and non-clinging to, what is NOT the Self. Attasarana's position is, interestingly, fully supported by the Tathagatagarbha sutras. His position is also buttressed by many Tantras. Stephen Hodge (who knows infinitely more about the history of Buddhist ideas than I do) is also right to indicate that the absolutist "no Self" or "no Essence" position is not one held by some of the greatest minds and teachers in Buddhism (e.g. Dolpopa, Longchenpa, Vasubandhu, Sokei-An ...). My own final take on the matter would be that in the Pali suttas the Buddha never definitively denies the reality of the Self (and seems in fact on many occasions to speak positively of Self), and that in the Tathagatagarbha sutras the Buddha emphatically and unequivocally affirms the reality of the Self! All best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats ok, Tony, since there are no 'authorities' as per rules of formal debate, but only experts. Suffice to say you are more than qualified to talk about any aspect of buddhism, Tony.


 * Modern buddhism (so-called)as per the postion of Luciferian, and his like are espousing a radical pluralism. They have ignored the absolutism of the Buddha and elaborated a system of radical pluralism and which was emphatic in denying the Self, admitted Nirvana as an eternal positive reality, calm and blissful. But these nihilists have degraded Nirvana to the level of an eternal substance (asamskrta dharma) set over and above the worldly objects (samskrta dharmas) in which there was cessation of misery. This (view) was corrected by early Mahayana which revived the absolutism of the Buddha and treated Nirvana as the transcendental Absolute at once immanent in the phenomena, the ‘dharmata’ of all dharmas.-Attasarana


 * Even if, as some so-called scholars do, the word atta (atman) in attadipa (light of Soul) is interpreted as meaning just ‘oneself’ without any reference to an ontological reality called “Self” and the phrase ‘attadipa’ is taken to mean ‘you yourself are your light’, it has to be admitted that the Buddha is asking his disciples to seek light within and not outside. Now, if there is no true “Self/Atman”, then who is to seek the light and where? And if all objects, as the Buddha says, are perishable (anicca) and miserable (dukkha) and the light is to be sought only in the subject, then the reality of the transcendent subject is clearly implied in the passage.-Attasarana


 * due to an imperfect understanding of the teachings, forgot the Absolutism of the Buddha and created a metaphysics of radical pluralism in the form of the theory of momentary elements in their commentarial and illogical writtings.-Attasarana


 * FAMOUS THERAVADA BUDDHOLOGIST RENOUNCES HIS FAITHS NIHILISTIC POSITION:

A.P. Buddhadatta, the well known Sinhalese Pali scholar and head of the Aggarama at Ambalangoda in Ceylon (appointed as the Agga-Mahapandita at the Council of Rangoon) wrote on 4th March 1947 concerning the English edition of George Grimm's main work in a letter to his daughter: " I read that book [DOCTRINE OF THE BUDDHA by George Grimm], and (found it to be) as you have stated in your letter that ‘he (Grimm) recovered of the old genuine doctrine of the Buddha which had been submerged'. When we (Theravada) read our Pali texts (Abhidhamma) and commentaries (Buddhaghosa, Vishudhamagga), we get the idea that Buddhism is a sort of Nihilism….Thus I was puzzled for a long time to understand the true meaning of Buddhism though I was born a Buddhist. Many peoples do not go so far in these matters (of doctrine)."[Doctrine of the Buddha, ISBN 81-208-1194-1; publ. Montilal Banarsidass publishers. First Edition: Berlin, 1958; reprint 1999. Preface, page 9]. -Attasarana


 * As you yourself have noticed, Tony, the common manyfolk (puthujjana) in the ilk of Luciferian make the 'fallacy of composition' in so assuming from doctrinal passages that since ABCDEF are not X, therefore X is denied; in the same fashion they no more know what via negativa apophatic methodology is and how it is employed in buddhism than half naked native in central brazil knows what ice is. By their illogical conclusions, the Upanishads denied the Atman as well since both the Upanishads and Samkara used at length the term anatman.-Attasarana


 * It would be nice to have Stephen Hodge make some intelligent contributions/changes to the anatta page, and maybe, of course, some nice additions. Unlike many others here who think doctrinal citations and reference to earliest buddhism is 'not in the spirit of the article', I am sure Hodge can make some nice intelligent contributions here.-Attasarana


 * Anyone who supports your argument is welcomed to add additions?...you complained that other users are totalitarian...look at this, you are specifying (on a Wiki article!!!) who can make contributions! Most people who have commented against you think that citations are important...they just disagreed with your versions and your argument, and thus you blotted them out.  I hope the other editors getting praised here understand that this document as it is now is very one sided;  I am going to revert it soon...hopefully it does not get reverted back.  At least now I can look forward to reading how (*sarcastic*) laughable and pathetic my point here is...and how I am committing sophistry as well as being a Skeptic and heretic....some of the nice (but not all) words you (Attasarana) used towards me :-P. --Lucifereri 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, I had mentioned Stephen Hodge for working on anatta, not for agreeing with any position of mine, over that of yourself, but his capacity to make intelligent conclusions whereupon he can provide evidences and logical substantiantion; something you yourself have not, to date, done. I like to debate those with, as you so put it, a "point", but I have seen none from yourself so far.-Attasarana


 * For example, I have spent months debating back and forth 'educated' theravadin monks in S.E Asia on topics in buddhist philosophy, they have a point, provide reasonings behind their positions, they provide evidences (even though their evidences dont draw the conclusions they make from said evidences). These people, while wrong, have a point and argue same, eventually every one of them has folded, either in silence, or capitulation, or in anger, but their "point" is argued with noble intent; however of yourself, I have not seen this as pertains debating the meaning/implication of anatta in sutta.-Attasarana


 * Luciferian, to date, you have presented NO arguement, for an arguement requires at minimum, 4 criterion, Premise, Logic, Evidences, Conclusion; bearing this in mind, I have seen no arguement from yourself, rather a personal attack and screaming for, Sophisticly, a "peer review".--Attasarana


 * Thanks, Attasarana, for your kind comments. Much appreciated. I have to say that your reading of the suttas makes perfect sense to me (whereas the "no Self" version of Buddhism strikes me as being riddled with internal contradictions). There clearly is a mysterious Something within the human being that is a guide, an island, a light. If that were just the changing skandhas, it would be unstable and illusory - not worthy of being a refuge. But fortunately the skandhas are not the whole story by any means. They are just the blocking obstructors to what lies within. This is the teaching of the Buddha in the Tathagatagarbha sutras -  and it is interesting to me to see that you have found the same doctrine in the Pali suttas (with which you are far more familiar than myself -  I do not have your in-depth knowledge here). As for Stephen Hodge, he always writes intelligently and knowledgeably and, as you say, values -  as you do - the supremacy of Buddhic statement over later commentarial sophistry. But Stephen can speak for himself! His intelligence and erudition are always welcome on Wiki Buddhism, that is for sure! Best regards to all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how this kind of reading can be supported. Attasarana continues to interpret attan only as soul and that is how he lists it (even though others and I have pointed out that the very PTS dictionary also defines "himself", "herself", and "oneself" as possible definitions).  Attasarana also continues on and claims himself the de facto world standard in Pali Buddhism on the concept of anatta: (Attasarana: "There is nobody on planet earth, regardless if you presume that to be an egotistical claim, that knows more about the term anatta, its usage, context, definition, and relevancy.").  After reading this I have realized that I have had no meaningful converstations with this individual (he assumes he is right and no other viewpoint can be taken...although his viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, doctrinally other viewpoints can be supported depending on the translation, and this article is about anatta in Buddhism as it is also practiced now); furthemore, rewriting this article to represent the multitude of possible views will be fruitless since it will be immediately translated back by Attasarana.  I also find it disturbing that he seems to put me in the "no soul" camp when I have stated that I tend think of myself as a person who does not view Nibanna with soul or not-soul...seems to disregard anything I say.  He often accuses me of making personal attacks but he in turn uses words such as "laughable" and "pathetic" frequently...does this not sound aggresive?  Finally, I would like to ask your help or anyone else's help for that matter in contacting a major wiki editor to oversee this process since this is not getting anywhere.  --Lucifereri 03:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you falsely presume you can find even one Citation where anatta imputes a denial of the atman, present said citation. I know ALL 662 occurances of anatta in the Nikayas....ALL OF THEM. Please provide a single occurance to wit that anatta is contextually denying the Atman (attan).---Attasarana


 * You talk of "view" (DITTHI), however the Brahmajala sutta is ripe with showing mere views to be the "basis for all heresies and of heretical view (micchaditthi)"Dn1. Nibbana in sutta is "bhavanirodha", as well as "nibbana thitattatoti" (Nirvana is meant 'Fixed in the Soul').


 * Oddly enough, your constant low and base cries for "peer review", base sophistry though they are, harken back to something Proclus the ancient Neoplatonist said in response to another Sophist who demanded "having others confirm his views", in which Proclus replied: "That two or more dogs of the same breed and same proclivity might sniff each other dogs hind-quarters as a gesture of agreement/complicity (i.e. consensus) doesnt conclude accuracy.". Or, in translation, 10,000 Theravadins of the same "breed" and "view" sniffing each other in agreement as a show of 'consensus' doesnt conclude anything other than "like to like".--Attasarana


 * I can sense your frustration, given the fact that your position is purely subjective and without substantiation in doctrine. Your 'cry for help' however is meaningless, since this is a reasonably calm discussion on the talk boards of wiki. One might suggest that you are 'crying wolf' as a last ditch effort to subvert any meaningful discussion by those who are in fact experts in buddhist doctrine and Pali.--Attasarana


 * Let me close by quoting your favorite Pali translator, BHIKKHU BODHI: SN 3.196--- "I hear anatta, anatta,...What pray tell does anatta mean Lord? Just this, forms are not self (anatta), nor feelings, nor.....etc. This is the MEANING OF ANATTA".--Attasarana


 * This is quite interesting...you claim that I have not cited sutta...go back to the Two Selves thread and answer those remarks I made...not only do I cite where I got it from the Pali Scriptures...I also have informed everyone on the translator\translator(s) I use (unlike you for the most part of the discussion...finally we know who your using...). No, I am not calling for "peer review" anymore (as long as you are using the sources you claim and not your own "versions" of the translation)...get over it, I called for peer reviewed articles when you were no providing them (for quite a while);  this is unfair attempt at misconstruing what I requested.  You finally listed them and if you look at the time stamps, I doubt I would be asking for peer-reviewed articles after you posted your sources and anyone can see that.  The only issue is when you give a translation, please inform the audience whether it is yours or someone elses!  I always thought that bhavanirodha nibbānam meant the cessation of becoming means Nibbana...actually I find multiple websites that concur too, so I really do not know if you know what u are talking about.  So basically, from that peer review paragraph of yours, it seems like I have to just agree with you...I could care less if you think your understanding of anatta is the de facto standard;  u have not shown any credentials at all yet (actually, from previous posts now, we all know how you are too...which actually downplays your entire point...).  No crying wolf, just your "baseless" (hey, I guess I am taking one of your terms :)) arguments...baseless, why?  You keep thinking that I am saying there is no soul according to scripture, when I am actually saying a concept of no soul can seemingly emerge from different translations of scripture...I of course have fully expressed my view on whether atta or anatta are fit to describe Nibbana--whether you read my points or not is your problem...but stop misrepresenting individuals.  No frustration at all, actually...I enjoy these kinds of debates to a certain degree...but your abrasive language and arrogance has no place here. Anyways, to conclude, I have no time to waste on these offshot arguments...I will probably stop responding to your arguments here (except for the Two Selves thread, I suppose), and possibly start a new thread to discuss the validity of all the arguments presented with sources...I would also like some official wiki editor to overview this (if they exist) to stop either you, me, or anybody else from controlling the thread, using abrasive language, and so on so that we can finally reach a consensus (and no, there is no consensus, look at how many people disagree with you!) on this issue. --Lucifereri 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I merely stated that sutta only says "bhavanirodha nibbanam", your claim of myself "so I really do not know if you know what u are talking about", is not based upon anything I have said, so refrain from Sophistry. However also:“This said: ‘the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-Att. 4.68]...“'The subjugation of becoming means Nirvana'; this means the subjugation of the five aggregates means Nirvana.” [SN-Att. 2.123], now tell me X, that which is NOT the 5 khandhas which subjugates them (answer: citta). Let us see your 'credentials', Luci, this is another ruse, a low and base form of Sophistry, either present evidences from Sutta, or conceed that your position is subjective, personal, opinion (DOXA) based. I would not agree with you that you "dont have the time", rather the truth is, you "dont have the evidences" -Attasarana

attasarana, That is a typical specious argument of yours. The Buddha explicitly denied the existence of an eternal self throughout the Nikāyas.


 * Ad hominem, and baseless claim. -Attasarana

"Venerable Sir, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent, Venerable Sir, is there right view?" ... “The world, Kaccāna, is usually exerted and inclined to being bound to attachments; its things to be identified with and preferences. Although such a one [posessed of Right-View] does not identify with or make determinations of these attachments; its things to be identified with and preferences, nor does he take up the thought “I have a ‘Self’”(na upādiyati nādhiṭṭhāti– ‘attā me’ti). Of this there is no waver or doubt - ‘It is only the arising of affliction that comes into existence; it is only the decline of affliction that is extinguished.’ Knowledge of this does not depend on others. It is to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view. SN. 2.15


 * "The Atman does not arise, only phenomena,.."- Br. Up., The Upansihads differ in no way from Buddhism in this position. -Attasarana


 * Thanks to Attasarana, Stephen Hodge, Lucifereri and all others for this discussion. I honestly don't know how one contacts an "adjudicator" on issues such as this. I think myself that the best adjudicator is each individual reader, who will decide which position supports its case with strong evidence and which does not. The vigorous debate which is conducted in these pages is surely a good thing, so that readers can look at evidence from both sides and reach their own conclusion. I make no secret of the fact that as far as I can judge the matter myself, Attasarana has presented compelling evidence from the suttas that the Self is not denied by the Buddha and is indeed accepted as a reality. I think it's very healthy that Attasarana's understanding gets a substantial airing, as this vision of Dharma is usually unjustly suppressed and squashed in most treatments of Buddhism. I myself am not saying that you yourself, Lucifereri, are a great fan of "no Soul" (you have indicated that you are essentially on the fence on this quesiton of Soul/Self and Nirvana) - but that, as Stephen Hodge has said, the no-Self position (which is widely proclaimed these days as the heart of Buddhism) is not a view that has always dominated Dharma throughout history. I think we should let these Talk pages stand as testimony to vigorous debate -  and let readers make up their own minds. Best wishes to everyone in this discussion. I think there's nothing more I can add at this point. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, I of course agree with the comment that every individual is the best judge of informaton...I just do not see how Attasarana's version of the doc fairly represents this. I of course, do not judge anyone based on what they believe, but I still do not see how Attasarana has proved his viewpoint to me...but I could take a step back and say, wow, maybe I am just as guilty as he is...as he is not listening to my point, I might not be listening to his point.  So this might be considered a more or less fundemental difference in our interpretations and who we individually think is the greater authority in regard to translation.  I really do not think this, but it does stand as a possibility.  I think it might be more proper to say no-Self might not have always dominated since we cannot always be too sure what early Buddhism actually said...though, this is more or less speculation with sutta reference BOTH SIDES use to promote their viewpoint.  Theravada was founded in 240 B.C. and if its main arguments have remained the same as it is now, then we see no-Self appearing early (although speculative questions remain about the other 200 or 300 years before that).  Either way, I just want all 3 viewpoints represented...and I see no reason why that cannot be done by three different editors for this article (Attasarana can edit Self, I can edit not Self and not not-Self, and another individual can edit no-Self)...there can be constructive criticism on the articles and before changes or reverts take place, discussion occurs.  Thanks!  --Lucifereri 12:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You miserably fail to see that there is no denial on my behalf, nor of Tony, nor of Hodge, as pertains not-Self (anatta) "appearing early", in fact original to earliest Buddhism, but your and your ilk confusing the context and meaning of said via negativa adjective. 22 Nouns are called anatta, of all 662 occurances of anatta, nary once is said word employed to deny the Atman, but deny the Atman OF those 22 nouns. A is not-X, B is not-X (anatta), C is not-X,...that you and your, due to deficiency of some kind conclude "ABCDEF not X, therefore X doesnt exist", is a fallacy you have presupposed of Buddhism which doesnt exist in any translation. -Attasarana

Please note, Sephen and Tony, that Attasarana is now adding arguments to the middle of the doc above some points others made that never meant to address that insertion. This thread will be pretty hard to read moving forward. --Lucifereri 11:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Attasarana, why not go back to the "Two Selves in Buddhism" topic and finish the argument there...this thread is a mess, at least that was in much better condition, and you failed to respond to the arguments I presented. Thanks! --Lucifereri 12:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not very in depth in my understanding of I'd say the majority of people here with this article, but I pose this: If the modern understanding of Christ and Christianity was completely and near totally different from what Christ himself taught, wouldn't it be necessary to make explicit the different interpretations of Christ's teachings, and the way the majority of modern practitioners understand Christ? Whether it's "right" or definitively "wrong"? (And in a contentious issue like the example I've used I'm doubtful either side will claim to be in the wrong) I think we should take that thinking and try to achieve a balanced article appealing to both the "no-soulists" and the "soulists" and try to present as close to we can the different understandings of what Buddha taught and based on what scriptures. Thanks for listening. --142.162.177.194 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "no-soulists", as you call them are represented in the article and mentioned at length, namely under the sub-section of THERAVADA. -Attasarana


 * I would love to see Luciferian to translate the pali term MAHATTA (maha+attan), as such: Evam attano pañña'ya mahattabha'vam (The Atman is meant become the Great-Self (i.e. Brahman)", in fact, of course, Mahatman (mahatta: Pali) is a very common compound of the Upanishads, and countless 100s of occurances in the Pali Nikayas. Maybe Luciferian will inform us it translates as "great-yourself". "the light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479] -Attasarana


 * I know I said I will not answer anymore until you answere my questions on the Two Selves thread, but this is the only one I will answer since it was easy to lookup: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:3925.pali .  Note this the Pali Text Society...the translation is GREATNESS.
 * At this point let me point you to SN. 2.61 (Bhikkhu Bodhi, see, I play fair, I tell you who the translator is too):
 * If there is the view, 'The soul and the body are the same,' there is no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, 'The soul is one thing, the body is another,' there is no living of the holy life. Without veering towards either extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: 'With birth as condition, ageing-and-death'-and so forth the Sutta continues with links of the Dependent Origination.
 * SN. 2.63 holds all the views (including the above two) are cut off with the cessation of ignorance. Now go answer the other thread (please :))! --Lucifereri 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Greatness is merely Maha, the compound is Mahatta', or Sanskrit Mahatman. Might I remind you that Stede overtook finishing the PTS Dictionary from MR. Rhys Davids, because the later had a mental breakdown and suffered temporary insanity. Congrats for quoting the insane Mr. Rhys Davids. I assume you know, that his wife, CAF Rhys Davids not only translated 10 times the Pali texts has her husband, but refuted her husbands position on the Atman in buddhism, as all Buddhologists are well aware. -Attasarana


 * DID YOU EVEN GO TO THE LINK? Here is link for Maha:  http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:3923.pali, and here is a link Mahatta:  http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:3925.pali .  Sorry, are you making up translations now?  Anyways, looking at the below YOU ARE SPAMMING THIS THREAD!  We need a better way than this to deal with this...put down a few quotes not like 20, geeze...and also, ANSWER THE OTHER THREAD!  Here's a deal, since you are disrespectful about answering other's responses, I will not answer yours until you answer mine :-P.  Doing what your doing (spamming and not responding to the other thread) is not a discussion. Anyways, all I will do from now until Monday is revert the articles...then I will continue with the talk page.  Goetheon was justified in his changes...u originally changed the article to your version without consensus...YOU ARE IN THE WRONG!  --Lucifereri 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop screaming, son, and losing your patience. I dont need to go the link, I know the Rhys Davids PTS Dictionary backwards and forwards, and own 3 copies of same, I almost know it by memory over learning Pali over 10 years, something you yourself know nothing about. I have answered 20% of the other thread, wherein you have been contradicted. Wikipedia requires evidences for RV, merely RV will get you banned without evidences and discussion. Your claim that "Goetheon was justified in his changes" is a baseless claim, nothing more, all the more so since he is not talking here. Stop yelling and present doctrinal evidences for your position, which I know very well you cannot, quoting A, presuming it supports B, is something I am all too familiar with. -Attasarana


 * Screaming...maybe next time I will italicize...that was there for EMPHASIS. So you concede you were wrong according to those translations...thx.  Next,  you have not answered my questions, thus I think I am correct, and thus I can rv.  The problem with you is that you were the first person to vandalize the article without consent...how do I know, cuz I added something before the vandalism of urs started (which is vandalism because u changed the doc because thought u were right and u did not ask others if it was alright).  Why not get a wiki authority to confirm ur point or my point...it should be easy enough :)...and stop threatening others.  So yes, Goetheon is justified and you are not...you have yet to prove your point to other editors of this article...u took advantage of the fact that one of the editors (Nat Krause) took a break to do your dirty work.  Also, I could not care less if you claim to be the de facto standard of the world on anatta; an unidentifed individual claiming such nonsense makes no difference.  Sorry for being so aggresive, but that is the truth of the matter.  You were banned from E-Sangha for such things too (here is what Buddhists there have to say about you: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=9011 ...now empahsis...YOU HAD THE SAME NICK THERE AND SPAMMED THE SAME WAY YOU DID HERE...YOU WERE BANNED, AND YOUR SPAMMING ON BHIKKHU BODHI'S TRANSLATIONS BACKFIRED TOO :-P...IN THE END THEY THOUGHT BHIKKHU BODHI'S WAS EVEN MORE LAUDORY :)).  Have a nice weekend everybody.  --Lucifereri 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That you have said "So yes, Goetheon is justified and you are not" is both unwise and rather miserable; unless my eyeballs dont work, I see no substantiation made here on talk:anatta by this person as pertains his RV-Attasarana


 * I explained that you were the first person to change the article to a very biased version, then you changed it. Anyways, point being, he was changing it back to the right version.  I also edited my comment on the above to remove that comment about your (what I thought, but cannot, of course confirm) name...sorry about that.  But your nick was banned from E-sangha, and that is true worthwhile (I think) to have here. --Lucifereri 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Vandalize" is a baseless claim. I dont have to "convince" you or any other editor, only prove you wrong. The point of ANY debate is not turning someone, or convincing them, only refuting them, I suggest you learn that fact. I have been banned from countless boards for posting doctrinal evidences contrary to modern-buddhism, as such, this proves nothing. -Attasarana


 * Your unwise position would thereby also presume that any Buddhist who is banned from an Islamic meeting would be a premise for some conclusion. This unwise statement is called a "veiled ad hominem" As plato said "the wise love him for the very same reason the fools hate him", or Proclus: "Any who seeks the approval/love of fools is counted among those same fools". I suggest that you are quickly slipping down a slippery slope and suggest you recompose yourself and make a stab at substantiating your position, if any. -Attasarana


 * SN 2.61 is extremes are only meant antinomies to the Absolute (Soul, Brahman), such as "is, is not, both is and is not, neither is or is not", as such "is it this (body)", is "not this (body)" is one of the "4 extremes" even the Upanishads deny as mental speculation not based in ontological gnosis/synthesis. Once again, you have quoted A, thinking it implies B (buddhism denied the Atman). -Attasarana


 * Now let me quote you Majjha ("middle") is in Sutta, In Buddhism, the “middle” is refered to as MAJJHATTA’TA’ (being within the Soul), not “middle-path”. Where there is no “coming and going”, ie the “middle-path” is only found within self-discovery, ie the Soul.Maha’niddesa Att. 2.466 Majjhattata’  cittassa’ti “Consciosness recollection is to be in the pith of the Soul (Majjhatta’)” Ja’taka Att. 2.126 majjhattabha’vena tit.t.ha’h²ti “One is fixed in the pith of the Soul (Majjhatta’)” Cariya’pit.aka Att. #270 “The Soul is pith of the Soul (Majjhatta’) such that the Soul becomes itself the Soul” Maha’vagga Att. 3.162 Majjhattapayogo vuccati  attano “Yoking with the pith of the Soul is said to be the Soul” Culaniddesa Att. #51 Majjhattata’ti cittassa majjhe t.hitabha’vo “The pith of the Soul is the consciousness become fixed in that very pith(majjhe)”Apada’na Att. #293 Buddha’nam  majjhattatam  dassento “The Buddha points to the pith, being the Soul” Itivuttaka Att. 2.7 majjhima’  adukkhamasukha’ti “The pith is neither pleasure nor pain (Selfhood/Svabhava)”. Thank you for reminding me of yet another aspect of Buddhism which upholds the Atman, the term Majjha. By the way, Brahman = Majjha in the Upanishads.-Attasarana


 * While you are at it, please re-translate "So he turns his mind/will (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these khandhas; therein he gathers his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436], that is, if you can convince us that the "realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya)" is somehow connected to or with the "mara-khandhas"- Sn 3.194 - B. Bodhi translation of SN3.194-Attasarana


 * To answer your non-conclusions about Nibbana, and that X-Noun that obtains it:The purified mind/will (citta) being equal to Parinirvana: Said immediately after the physical death of Gotama Buddha wherein his mind (citta) is =parinirvana=the essence of liberation. A triple emphasis on the citta of the Buddha at death: [DN 2.157] “No longer with (subsists by) in-breath nor out-breath, so is him (Gotama) who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated.” The perfect (anasava) mind (citta) being = parinirvana: [SN 3.45] “The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana).”-Attasarana
 * "The "no-soulists", as you call them are represented in the article and mentioned at length, namely under the sub-section of THERAVADA." In the original article they seem to be presented as being in fact heretical and wrong in their understanding, as untrue to the teachings. In fact most of the section seems to be a refutation of their arguments. It seems to be to be very biased whereas the other version is less biased in presenting both sides (but still imperfect). --142.162.177.194 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The real reason the nihilists are invested in their view on anatta

 * The renowned Theravadin Nyanatiloka has said: "Thus with this doctrine of Selflessness, or anatta, stands or falls the ENTIRE structure of Buddhism". -Attasarana


 * In fact countless Theravadins have made this very same claim, such that the entire structure of Buddhism, by their OWN admission would fall “into the pit of being cohabitational with the position of Vedantic and Upanishads thought”, which in fact it does. Gotama himself was none other than a commentator upon the often hidden and cryptic meaning behind and of the Upanishads, which were inaccessible to the many not mention unreadable. “It is a heresy to hold the view that I have taught a “philosophy of my own (new/novel)”...” [MN 1.68]. "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 made a new path monks, I have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka  96-Attasarana


 * Yes, “Buddhism shall fall upon the very word anatta!” But what does it fall upon, certainly so itself. The fear of the Theravadins is removing their illusionary stigma that Buddhism was something “new and foreign” to mother India, and Gotama himself a sort of ‘Anti-Christ Superstar'; to the Upanishadic position of assimilation and ontological gnosis; however nowhere do the Nikayas present such a position. In fact, if one so ignorantly bought into modern-buddhist view and certainly that of Theravada, Gotama was a materialist who traveled India screaming "You ignorant Atman-loving Hindus!"-Attasarana


 * The word "Hinduism" comes from the word sindhu, the Indo-Aryan word for "the sea," and came to apply to the peoples in the region east of the Indus River. The word “Hinduism” has no connection to any specific religion at all but a peoples and area. -Attasarana


 * The word Brahmanism seems originally to have been used, and popularly still to be understood, to denote the religion of those inhabitants of India who adored Brahma as their supreme God, in contradistinction to those who professed Buddhism, and, in more recent times, Muhammadanism. But this is founded upon a misconception. Brahma was never universally worshiped; and his acknowledgement  as the supreme God is not even true, still less a prominent characteristic of Brahmanical religions and sects.  [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2.799b ]-Attasarana


 * "Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests" -- [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]-Attasarana


 * The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox. At the time frame of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni, Vedic methodology had become a corrupt system of rites and petty ritualism (eerily reminiscent of modern ‘Buddhism’ today), such as: “the Buddha is critical of the two dead ends in which he takes the Brahmins to have excessive indulgence in the pleasures of the senses, and excessive asceticism; both of which diverge from the old true Vedic ideal of the rishis of few wants. The true brahmin is that which the Buddha clearly approves of, such that he proclaims his Arahants to be the ‘true brahmins’” [DN 1.167; Ud. 3, 4, 6, 29; Sn 612,656, 284-306; Dhp. 383,423]. Buddhism, as are the Upanishads, a means of emancipation (vimutta) from samsara(transmigration) through the perfection of wisdom and making the mind (citta) inherently coherent, therein being established in one's Soul [DN2-Att. 2.479]. Modernity, in refutation to Buddhism, has inverted the teachings of Buddhism to imply that mere superficial compassion, secular morality, and merit making are the core of Buddhism [this superficial view of the path is denied at MN 3.72], and that Buddhism denies empirically the notion of autonomous stasis, i.e. the Soul. There are only two absolutes in Buddhism: “Emancipation of mind (cittavimutti) and emancipation by wisdom (pannavimutti), this is a designation for both ways liberated” [DN 2.71]; emancipation of mind achieved through Jhanic Samadhi, and emancipation by wisdom achieved through transmundane gnosis thereby eliminating avijja (nescience/agnosis/ignorance) which is the impetus for perpetual transmigration and the very root of suffering itself. Having achieved these two is deemed amata [immortality SN 5.8] and “emancipated in the Soul” [SN 3.54]. -Attasarana


 * One surely would ask, why then is there a need for Buddhism, if in fact it is true that Buddhism in no way treads contrary to the Vedas or the Upanishads? Firstly, Buddhism is to Vedanta, as Plotinus is to Plato, that being that Buddhism is highly more condensed philosophically, infinitely less verbose, and is not, generally, steeped in highly complex mytho-poetic metaphor that only supreme experts of Vedanta and sanskrit are able to see clearly through to realize content. Secondly, Buddhism, as the sramananic movement it was, sought to deprive from the select ‘elite’ of 500 B.C.E. Vedic masters, that hidden means which kept those who were “intelligently ripe”, and desired emancipation from samsara, from achieving that same goal without having to pass through a convoluted maze of pomposity, rite, and unobtainable prestige required to sit at the foot of him who would illuminate the path to immortality. In saying this, it must be pointed out that Buddhism was never an ‘everyman’s religion’, for as Gotama himself said, his teachings were for but those of “little dust in their eyes” [MN 1.168], however there were those Aryan-minded few who were “wasting away from lack of hearing the teachings”, and to them he was inclined to instruct the ancient path leading from mortality to immortality. “I have seen” says the Buddha, “the ancient path, the old road, which was tread upon by the illumined Brahmins of old, that is the path I follow. Just like an over covered path lost long ago is that which I have rediscovered” [SN 2.106]. As it happens, the only thing denied in oldest doctrine by the historical Buddha was that one was a "Brahmin by birth" (Brahmabandhu), rather than a "Brahmin by gnosis" (Brahmavit). -Attasarana


 * Even in the ONE book the nihilists like to reference, "Selfless Persons" by Steven Collins, he himself in his book never makes the conclusion for the denial of the Atman in Buddhist doctrine, in so saying himself, albeit unintelligently "Buddhist metaphysics could be reduced to a kind of pragmatic agnosticism in which the self is not so much denied as declared inconceivable. Anatta then simply advises against uselessly trying to conceive it (the Self)." [Page 10, Selfless Persons, Steven Collins]. Attasarana


 * Atta hi paramo piya "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].- Attasarana


 * 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”. 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 and anti-foundationalist/annihilationist  then (ucchedavada)….[#1253] “…a recluse  Kumarakassapa gave me a talk on the Dhamma and drove from me those  (previously held) evil views! (annihilationism/nihilism).” Attasarana

HELLO? Does anyone have a copy of this (apprently horrible and expensive) book: http://www.amazon.com/Buddhisms-Highest-Revelation-Shakya-Aryanatta/dp/0971254117/sr=1-1/qid=1172345722/ref=sr_1_1/104-9656467-2115919?ie=UTF8&s=books ? I would like to see if any of the above (which I did not really bother reading, except for a couple of sentances) came from it... Thanks. --Lucifereri 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I Suggest you refrain from personal attacks and ad hominem sophistry, or wiki will block your comments, either temp, or permanently. Stick to the topic, namely anatta and doctrinal substantiation. -Attasarana


 * Yasmim. kho, vaccha, samaye imañca ka’yam. nikkhipati, satto  ca  aññataram. ka’yam. anupapanno hoti, tamaham. Tan.hu’pa’da’nam. vada’mi. Tan.ha’ hissa, vaccha, tasmim. samaye upa’da’nam. Hoti’”ti SN 4.400  At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body (kayam) in rebirth (anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel to be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the beings] fuel to be thirstfulness.  -Attasarana


 * Theravada redefines Buddhism to accord with its own anti-foundational views within the Milindapanha at: Milinda #40 “Just so O king, is the continuity of a person or thing maintained. One comes into being, another passes away; and the rebirth is simultaneous.” (Milinda is Abhidhammic literature and it not part of Orthodox Buddhism) -Attasarana


 * This simile of Samsaric ‘transmigration’ (found in Abhidhamma as well) is explained as “one flame to another” without gap or interim which is not the view of Nikayan (presectarian) Buddhism. The admission by Theravada of an autonomous entity/being/citta which, after death, is in between khandic psycho-physical/corporeal involvement is altogether too much for Theravada to embrace since this is in full rejection of Theravada/Abhidhamma dogmatic nihilism which runs contrary to and opposite that of the Nikayas themselves. -Attasarana


 * What personal attacks? I just presented a link to a book (gave an opinion on that book) and asked if anyone could verify something for me...no attacks, faulty accusation! Oh by the way, you are not wiki;  each other editor hold as much power over this article as you do (no attack here, stating a fact)...this is a consensus style article.  --Lucifereri 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucifereri has said: "Does anyone have a copy of this (apprently horrible and expensive) book?". If you deny this is a personal and ad hominem attack, I suggest you rethink that position. Recieving spiteful 1-star reviews from the countless Theravadins who know about myself has no bearing on the book being "horrible". That Atheists commonly give 1-star reviews to Christian books on amazon.com is also no indication of the intelligence of the author, nor the intelligence of the contents. Saying that, there are 4 other books on amazon.com that Theravadins are not aware of. -Attasarana


 * So the book is yours...I asked the question before and it was left unanswered (on a separate thread...)? How would I know it is your book (although I do claim that I thought it might be because of the similarities with its basic premises and your arguments...and that is why I asked the original question sometime ago)?  Anyways at least one of the 1-star reviewers bought the book and was suprised by its contents...so I would not say it was reviewed completely unfairly...somebody bought it and disagreed with it; some of my favorite philosophy books have been bashed on amazon. I am judged that book was "bad" due to the reviews (except reviews from Dark Star publishing members themseleves...this was a suprise, almost like but not quite self-reviews)...you are right about one part which I should correct myself on...it was wrong of me to judge that book (as "horrible") without reading it (and that I do apologize for that), but outside of that, the book is poorly reviewed (quite possibly for the wrong reasons), and so my initial judgement goes with reviews of that book:  but the book might have merit on its own...unfortunately I am not willing to dish out $200 for a copy of that book (that is the new & used prize that is listed on amazon).  There, I re-thought my position--how about you do the same with those other attacks of yours? Anyways, are these passages from that book?  Please understand that all I want are 3 positions to be equally represented (I am not saying your position is wrong, it might very well be correct, but the problem is in the Buddhist world there are 3 major POVs, with no-soul being the most popular).  All I want is for the 3 positions, regardless of popularity and merit to be equally represented;  this is an encyclopedia article, it should just give basic information on the 3 topics with sources (your sources as well as Bhikkhu Boddhi's and so on are welcome) listed.  The reader should be able to judge for herself\himself.  If you disagree, I guess that is alright, but can you just give me a reason, please?
 * Correction: the book review I meant in the above was for the Authentic Dhammapada book by the same author
 * You also made a comment that it was your views that got you kicked out of E-Sangha and other places...go back and check if you want to...there are people in the forum that believe there is a soul and they are not banned...the difference is that they do not belittle their oponents (in argument of course) with such attacks as "laughable" and "pathetic". I do recommend that you read those threads by those individuals, since they engage many people and while there is bickering every now and then, both sides truly debate.  --Lucifereri 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That citta=atman in Buddhism, it bears extensive mention here
“How is it that one is called a ‘Buddha’?...gnosis that the mind/will (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a ‘Buddha’.” [MN 2.144] -Attasarana

“The purification of one’s own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha” [DN 2.49] “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling (after anything)” [MN 2.265] “This said: ‘the liberated mind/will (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana”[MN2-Att. 4.68] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind/will (citta)”[Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]

“'The purification of one’s own mind/will', this means the light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul(attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479] -Attasarana


 * Parinirvana = pure citta

[DN 2.157] “No longer with (subsists by) in-breath nor out-breath, so is him (Gotama) who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahman) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated.” The perfect (anasava) mind (citta) being = parinirvana: [SN 3.45] “The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound (parinirvana).”-Attasarana


 * What is the meaning of the most important word in Buddhism, the Citta, in short? The Citta is the ontological will, or metaphorically in the scriptural context of Buddhist doctrine (as well as the Upanishads too for that matter, which translates citta as "Pure-Consciousness"), is the “Light” which is unmanifest. “The light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]. The metaphysical nexus of purification in Buddhism is the non-empirical and pre-corporeal citta. As per Buddhism, the inchoate (self-nescient) will (citta) is manifest as an attribution and self-sublimated, as the empirical consciousness (vinnana), the finest attribute of samsaric and empirical existence. In short, this ‘white-light’ Will (citta), when manifest upon ‘blue’ form is blue-vinnana (consciousness), or when manifest upon ‘red’ form, is red-vinnana (consciousness). The sati (recollection) and samadhi (assimilation) methodology of Buddhism is to make this primordially pure but inchoate Will (citta), choate (self-Knowing) such that further identification with its phenomenal attributes has been forever cut (bhavanirodha nibbanam).-Attasarana


 * Just as there is no Light (citta) in what is merely illumined (vinnana/consciousness) from afar, but merely En-lumined by this non-empirical Light, so to is the apex of Buddhism the disidentification with this causal nexus beginning with phenomenal consciousness (vinnana) by making the will (citta) self-choate by the erasure of nescience (avijja/avidya) thru means of gnosis and sati and samadhi methodologies. [12-1 Upadisa] “Just as a man (erroneously) looks upon his body placed in the sun as having the property of light (citta) in it, so, he looks upon the intellect (vinnana) pervaded by the reflection of Citta as the Self (inner-nature of the Citta).”  In summation, the Citta is nowhere as pertains the body, and certainly not the brain (as erroneously presumed by pseudo-buddhist researchers), but is the unmanifest Light which constantly feeds light, or rather life, into this dead form of many constituents. We are to see our True-Selves (svabhava) as this unmanifest Light, rather than its petty corporeal reflection/manifestation, being consciousness and its lower superstructure (the body).]-Attasarana


 * 1. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain the state of “non-clinging” (anupada) “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling (anupada) after anything” [MN 2.265].


 * 2. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain the state of being “taintless” (anasava) [DN 2.35, MN 1.501, MN 3.20, SN 3.45...etc etc].


 * 3. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain/is gathered in “the realm of immortality”: “he gathers his mind within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436]. “This is immortality, that being the liberated citta” [MN 2.265]. [AN 1.282] “He gathers the mind inside the immortal realm”.


 * 4. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to be the basis (arammana) for Parinibbana. Said immediately after Gotama’s physical death: [DN 2.157] “No longer with (subsists by) in-breath nor out-breath, so is him (Gotama) who is steadfast in mind (citta), inherently quelled from all desires the mighty sage has passed beyond. With mind (citta) limitless (Brahma) he no longer bears sensations; illumined and unbound (Nibbana), his mind (citta) is definitely (ahu) liberated.” The taintless (anasava) mind (citta) being = parinirvana: [SN 3.45] “The mind (citta) being so liberated and arisen from defilements, one is fixed in the Soul as liberation, one is quelled in fixation upon the Soul. Quelled in the Soul one is unshakable. So being unshakable, the very Soul is thoroughly unbound Parinirvana).” “This said: ‘the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana” [MN2-Att. 4.68].


 * 5. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is differentiated from the five aggregates (rupa/vedana/sanna/sankhara/vinnana): “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!” [MN 1.436, AN 4.422]. [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.”


 * 6. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which, when perfected by samadhi and panna, is = Soul (attan): "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind (citta)” [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168]. “'The purification of one’s own mind', this means the light (joti) within one’s mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]. [AN 2.6] "Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the-Soul' (thitattoti)”. [AN 1.196] "With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul has become Brahma”. [MN 1.213] "The collected and quelled mind is the Supreme Soul”.  "Steadfast-in-the-Soul(thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4].


 * 7. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to be the basis/medium for the recollection of past lives: “directs his mind (citta) to the recollection of past lives” [DN 1.81].


 * 8. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to be “its own foundation/not based in anything” (anarammana), therein philosophically anything which is “a thing in itself”, i.e. “without a foundation of its own” is hence the basis for marking the mind as the Absolute (when wisdom and samadhi are culminated): [Pati-A 2.478] “The sovereign-mind which is its own support (an-without + a’rammana=support) means the sovereign-mind is the foundation”. [Dh-A 4.26] “Ones own mind is the foundation of the Soul”. [MN-A 2.297] “Nibbana is the foundation, that being the emancipated-mind (citta)”. [Sn-A 2.583] “Emancipation is meant the foundation, that being the establishment of the emancipated mind”.[Theragatha-A 1.138] “Supramundane samadhi is the foundation of Nibbana, that being the exceedingly quelled mind (citta)”


 * 9. Citta is the ONLY NOUN which is compared to the “indestructible” diamond: [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a diamond-mind (vajiru’pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind.”


 * 10. The entire Aryan path itself is said to both being and end with the citta (mind) as its basis: [MN 1.197] “Followers, the Brahma life is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind alone, which is the quintessential final core”. [MN 1.301] “What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign”.


 * 11. The citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to go to the light/heaven realm: [SN 5.370] “His mind goes heaven-bound to auspiciousness.”


 * 12. Most importantly, the citta is the ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain freedom from nescience/ignorance/agnosis (avijja): [MN 1.279] “When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance.”


 * 13. The ONLY NOUN which is said to obtain the state of emancipation (vimutta) is the citta (cittavimutta)- common pali term.


 * 14. As per the ‘superior’ path VS. the ‘inferior’ path, the mind is the sole basis for the ‘superior’ path: “ariyacittassa anasavacittassa ariyamaggasamangino” [MN 3.72] “The Aryan citta, the taintless citta; this is that with which the Aryan path is endowed with”.


 * 15. The citta is the ONLY NOUN which is deemed “the highest absolute”: [MN 1.298] “Emancipation of the mind is the highest absolute.” [MN 1.298] “Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind, the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind is the highest supernal.”


 * 16. The entire basis for Buddhism itself is said to be for/ as regards the citta: “The purification of one’s own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha” [DN 2.49].“How is it that one is called a ‘Buddha’?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a ‘Buddha’.” [MN 2.144] [AN 1.6] "I do not have, followers, insight into anything or any dharma which, when made to become and made to expand that brings greater bliss than the mind (citta). The mind, followers, when made to become and made to expand, brings the greatest bliss." [SN 1.26] Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power!


 * 17. The citta is the ONLY NOUN which is deemed to achieve ‘freedom from becoming (bhava)’. All thing “as become must pass. The borne, the become, the made, the create has no other fate than to pass just as they have arises”. The philosophical implication that the citta can transcend causation/becoming cannot be denied. "My mind (citta) is emancipated from desire (kama), emancipated from becoming (bhava), emancipated from nescience/ignorance (avijja), ‘Emancipation! Emancipation alas!’…there exists no fruit more exquisite and perfect that this." [DN 1.84]-Attasarana


 * Citta is the Absolute The mind is the absolute as illuminated in scripture time and again: [MN 1.197] “Followers, the Brahma life is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind alone, which is the quintessential final core.” [DN 2.81] “Through perfection of wisdom’s fulfillment the mind is emancipated from all defilements. That is-desire defilements, becomings defilements, and ignorance defilements.” [DN 2.233] “The light of ones mind.” [SN 5.158] “Maha’puriso, Maha’puriso I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Mahapuriso mean? A mind emancipated having assimilated the Soul (vimuttacittatta’), I say Shariputra, this is a Mahapuriso. Without mind emancipated having assimilated the Soul Shariputra, one is not a Maha’puriso.” [AN 1.282] “He gathers the mind inside the immortal realm.” [MN 1.36] The mind is originally pure. [MN 1.213] “Friend Shariputra, a follower delights in solitariness, and in delighting in solitariness he tranquilizes the mind in yoking it to the very Soul, he does not neglect his jhanas, he is endowed with insights, and perfectly devoid of the profane.” [MN 1.235] “A follower who has an emancipated mind possesses three transcendental qualities: transcendental illumination, transcendental mastery of the light, transcendental liberation.” [MN 1.239] “When suffering and feelings arise upon him, it does not penetrate into his mind since his mind is Soul become.” [MN 1.249] “When my steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then I directed my mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. I knew thusly as it truly was such that: This is suffering, this is the source of suffering, this is the subjugation of suffering and this is the path of illumination leading away from all suffering.” [MN 1.249] “When my discourse is completed, Aggivessana, I make absorbed my mind upon the sign of my very Soul wherein I remain fixed, am subdued, and make it as unto this singleness. This is the bliss I perpetually reside within.” [MN 1.279] “When his steadfast mind was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directes his mind towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind is emancipated from becoming, his mind is emancipated from ignorance.” [MN 1.296] “Friend, how many contingencies are there for the perfection of making unmanifest the emancipation of mind? Two contingencies: turning away from determinately manifest phenomena and turning towards the unmanifest realm.” [MN 1.297] “What friend is emancipation of the mind by means of devoidness (shunyata)? Herein a follower has gone to a clearing in the forest and the root of a tree and investigates thusly: ‘This is devoid (sunna) of the Soul and what the Soul subsists upon.” This is called emancipation of the mind by means of devoidness.” [MN 1.298] “Emancipation of the mind is the highest absolute.” [MN 1.298] “Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind, the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind is the highest supernal.” [MN 1.301] “When the mind is made to become, one gains Suchness of Soul.” [Pat.isambhida’magga-Att. 1.236] “To bring to unification the mind is to be fixed upon the Soul.” [Suttanipata Att. 2.410] “Mind inter-sighted is the Soul.” [Theragatha Att. 2.151] “The mind is the Soul.” [Itivuttaka Att. 1.168]  “The Supreme Soul is the mind yoked to steadfastness; the steadfast mind is dedicated to the Soul.” [Itivuttaka Att. 1.168]  “The Supreme Soul is the Soul.” [Sagathavagga Att. 1.237]  “The Soul is the mind.” [Sagathavagga Att. 1.112] “The mind is the Soul.” [SN 3.152] “On account of the mind being defiled, sattas are defiled; on account of mind being pure, so too are sattas purified.” [AN 1.147] “How is one Lord of the Soul? He has made mind (citta) sovereign and quelled, so is he Lord of the Soul, for he dwells in the purity of the Soul. This, followers, is how one is deemed ‘Lord of the Soul’.” [AN 1.207] “The Aryan disciple keeps the Brahma-sabbath. He dwells in Brahma. Owing to Brahma is he mind (citta) is calmed, that blissfulness arises and his mind is wiped clean of defilements.” [AN 2.6] “Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called ‘fixed-in-the-Soul.’” [AN 4.402] “When, followers, when ones mind is thoroughly ripe with wisdom, he can say that birth is destroyed, the Brahma-faring has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done, for there is naught but this very Soul.” [Udana #47] “The entirety of everything is encompassed by the mind, there is nothing which exists higher or more beloved than ones Soul. Since there is not other dearer than ones Soul, him who holds love of the Soul is without harm.” [Itivuttaka #115] “One is supremely liberated of mind (citta) who has Samma’ gnosis. Emancipated he is That, verily That (Brahma).” [SN 5.410] “I proclaim there is absolutely no difference between a layperson with a mind (citta) which is liberated and that mind of a bhikkhu which has been liberated for a century. [Saggathavagga-Att. 1.272] “Develop (mind upon) signlessness means: the sign of permanence is made known of the Soul, is the meaning of Vipassana signlessness.” [SN 1.188] “I’m burning alive with sensual lusts! My mind (citta) is engulfed by this inferno; pray tell me how I might unbind it, of out pity for me Gotama.” It is through an inversion of perception that your mind (citta) is engulfed. Inflexure (your mind [invert, revert upon itself]) away from the signs of the pleasing which are connected with taints. Envision experiences (phenomena) as otherness, as suffering, as not the Soul. Unbind (quench) the mighty fire of lusts such that you are not consumed again and again (transmigration). Develop the mind (citta) upon (gnosis) of the foul (the body), for this is sovereignty wherein one is supremely quelled; recollect (hinder to, recollection of beforeness) that which is before the body, being disgusted with it (body). Develop this signlessness…and you shall be on who fares within equanimity.” [MN 3.280] “Rahula’s mind (citta), by not clinging (after phenomena) was liberated from all taints. On the spot arose the eye of Dhamma that: “the all (phenomena) which is of the nature to arise, is also of the nature to fall prey to subjugation.” [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4] “Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo).” [KN 4.82]  “Whether he walks, stands, sits, or lays on his side; so long as his mind (citta) is sovereign upon his very Soul, he is thoroughly quelled.” [Theragatha-Att. 1.51] “Parinirvana is to be steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti).” [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] “Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind(suppatitthitacitto)” [SN 1.26] “Those followers absorbed, their minds (citta) flawless having assimilated the Soul; a charioteer (Soul) in control of the reigns, sages like them guard this supranormal-power!” [Jataka-2-1341] “The Soul is Charioteer.” [AN 2.6] “Him who is Lord of the mind (citta) possessed with supernormal faculties and quelled, that One is called 'fixed-in-the-Soul' (thitattoti).” [AN 1.196] “With mind (citta) emancipated from ignorance…this designates the Soul has become Brahma.” [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a diamond-mind (vajiru’pamacitto)? That one who has destroyed the taints (asavas) and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. Just as there is nothing which a diamond cannot cut, be it stone or gem; so to is one with a diamond-mind who has destroyed the taints and has both a liberated mind (citta) and is liberated by wisdom. This is one who possesses a diamond-mind.” [AN 1.124] “What, followers, is a being who has a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto)? He comprehends things as they are or have become; that being suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. Just as a flash of light in pitch of night illuminates things; so to is him who possesses holy vision into the nature of things are they are or have become such that he comprehends suffering and the path leading to the subjugation of suffering. This is one who possesses a mind of Light (vijjupamacitto).” [AN 1.6] “I do not have, followers, insight into anything or any dharma which, when made to become and made to expand that brings greater bliss than the mind (citta). The mind, followers, when made to become and made to expand, brings the greatest bliss.” [AN1.10] “The mind (citta) is primordially luminous, but due to defilements which come from without, it is defiled.  The mind (citta) is primordially luminous once again, when defilements which come from without are cleansed from it.” [MN 1.197] “Followers, this Brahma-faring is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind (citta) alone, which is the quintessential final core.” [MN 1.213] “The collected and quelled mind is the Supreme Soul.” [MN 1.301] “What is samadhi (the culmination of the entire Aryan path) for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign.” [SN 5.73] “What is the one benefit, Master Gotama, which you exist for? The one thing that the Tathagata exists for is the fruit and emancipation by gnosis, illumination (vijja).” [MN 2.265] “This is immortality, that being the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling (after anything).” [MN2-Att. 4.68] “This said: ‘the liberated mind (citta) which does not cling’ means Nibbana.” [Silakkhandhavagga-Att. 1.168] “Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means one is supremely-fixed within the mind.” [SN 1.233] “Your mind is supremely emancipated, like the full moon on the fifteenth day in dark of night!” [SN 3.83] “Attained the steadfast Soul, their mind (citta) is calm; they’re cleansed of the entire world, taintless they have become Brahma.” [DN2-Att. 2.479] “'The purification of one’s own mind', this means the light (joti) within one’s mind (citta) is the very Soul (attano).” [DN 2.49] “The purification of one’s own mind (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha.” [MN 2.144] “How is it that one is called a ‘Buddha’?...gnosis that the mind (citta) is purified (visuddham)…such is how one is deemed a ‘Buddha’.” [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163] “The Tathagata is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards within the signless inflexured (mind upon itself) mind (citta). There within, Ananda, dwell with the Soul as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge.”-Attasarana


 * Mr. Attasarana, this is also representative of the Upanishads, wherein tat tvam asi, Thou-chit, is meant Brahman. Brahman is sat-chit-ananda, the pure-consciousness, or as you prefer to say, the mind, is also the atman. You should mention this in your passage that both Gotama Shakyamuni was a teacher of the chit, just as the Gita and the Upanishads do as well. Dr.SanjayKrishnan 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New to Anatta Boards
I am new here to Buddhist discussions, but I must say I am heartily dismayed at the false representation that Buddhism had at some point given dismissal to the atman, or the purisha as common to the sanata dharma. I grew up being taught and instructed in the equal representation of Advaita Vedantic interpretations of the Upanishads and that Buddhism found no fault in same.

I have reinstated the correct scriptural position on anatman in the main page. I read that discussion is of paramount importance when doing so, therein I am making the proposition for myself to discuss anatman here in talk, as I am sure I can make reasonable positions from my spiritual education in the teachings of Buddhism that Gautama Shakyamuni had not denied the atman in his dharma. Respectfully signed, Dr.Sanjay Krishnan, professor of Philosophy @ C.D.U. Dr.SanjayKrishnan 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that "Dr. Sanjay Krishnan" has been confirmed as an alter ego of Attasarana, who was attempting to evade a temporary block that was issued to him for continual incivility and other misbehaviour. I don't know exactly what "C.D.U." is supposed to refer to, but there is no Prof. Sanjay Krishnan at Charles Darwin University or Catholic Distance University. So far as Google is aware, there does not seem to be a Sanjay Krishnan who is a professor of philosophy at all.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Attasarana II
Attasarana, gives us the translation of his moniker as “The Soul is Refuge”; is merely a back-read atmavādic translation of a line from Dīgha Nikaya 16 2.25-26 ‘… bhikkhu attadīpo viharati attasaraṇo…’ “Monks, abide as islands unto yourselves, as a refuge unto yourselves…” - ‘atta’ in this case read as a reflexive pronoun.


 * The claim that "atta" in this context is a reflexive pronoun is a good example of the a priori assumption that the Buddha denied the existence of a Self. Though this "reflexive pronoun" ploy here is very common, the context of this phrase hardly seems to allow "atta" to be translated reflexively.  Otherwise, we have the rather ludicrous situation in which the Buddha is equating "yourself", i.e "your samsaric existence", with the Dharma as a means of liberation !  Also, "island" for dīpo is bit suspect too.--Stephen Hodge 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So a couple comments on this.
 * First, I see "island" (as well as "lamp") being an acceptable translation for this word from PTS...I also read that dipa in Pali = dvipa in Sk not dipa in Sk (this is sort of claimed by Walshe...he says something to the effect that this is what it should be, but we are not completely sure...at least that is what I think he is saying). Can you explain further why it is suspect, or is the answer too technical (I am no Pali scholar)?  (This is just a curiosity, since I do not see how using "island" or "lamp" changes the definition of the sentance either way).
 * Anyways, for the second comment (DN 16 2.25-26 also appears basically in the same form at DN. 26), the text that follows DN 16 2.25-26 explains the methodology of viewing "himself(?)\Self(?) as a refuge" as none other than practicing the four foundations of Mindfulness. So it seems to mean that to view himself (or possibly Self) as a refuge is to be mindful of body, feelings, mind, and the so-called mind made objects (I am using Walshe's translation of DN).  So I am finding it hard to see absurdities in either interpretation.  Thanks ahead of time.  --Lucifereri 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.


 * No vandalism here. --Lucifereri 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

His name is. He has published hack literature on Buddhist topics under the penname ,,,,and divides up his time otherwise in Yahoo Buddhism chat rooms as ancientbuddhism, where he and his XXX followers harass and propagate his XXXXX translations from the Pali Canon - he is infamous for bombarding the XXXXX of his critics with XXXXXX and XXXXXX to those dislikes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.95.62.153


 * Revealing or discussing personal information is strictly forbidden under Wiki rules.--Stephen Hodge 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.


 * I think others on this thread (including Attasarana and I) are guilty of some "personal attacks" from time to time...(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks, "Your prose is horrible, it could have been written by a third grader."

"Once again, you have shown that you have no interest in being neutral." "You clearly don't know what you are talking about." "This is just typical for you and your ilk." are all considered forms of personal attacks) from Attasarana calling others arguments "pathetic" and "laughable" and using "ilk", too, to my saying that his arguments are not neutral, and even the mention of that book. So I think this is just unfair to single out one individual when there are multiple people who are doing it to varying degrees.  Thanks.  --Lucifereri 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above unsigned IP deleted massive portions of this discussion, and has not signed his comments. The above section is an extreme example of vandalism and profanity. Do not remove my or others texts from here in discussion. A moderator has been summoned to have you block for this vandalism. Be respectful. I have removed the unbeneficial and harmful comments made by an unsigned user, this IP 69.95.62.153 is now being watched for further mass deletions and vandalism. Be kind, not harmful. Dr.SanjayKrishnan 05:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I would not call this extreme profanity (or extreme vandalism for that matter...), for more on stuff like this, here is the Wiki Conflict of Interest site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest:


 * Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.


 * Examples of these types of material include:


 * 1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
 * 2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
 * 3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.


 * Thanks! --Lucifereri 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

13:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This will continue until attasarana is removed and banned from here as he has been on other respectable discussion boards. Thank You!


 * There are a number of unsigned comments above. Would the writer please log in and sign them properly.--87.114.71.247 17:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is not the best heading under which to add this comment -- this Talk Page has recently become a real mess -- but here goes.
 * Looking dispassionately at both versions, my conclusion is that there is bias and deficiency in both versions, but actually -- and surprisingly -- less in the Attasarana version and more so in the non-Attasarana one. There are, needless to say, some problems with the Attasarana version, the chief of which in my view is that portions of it are a bit prolix and somewhat polemical rather than encyclopaedic.  As I suggested quite a while back, it might be a good idea to build a new version in a sandbox that will satisfy most people.  Obviously some compromise will be needed from all parties and respect shown for divergent accounts.  Until something like this is done, I would give my support to the Attasarana version -- with the caveats I mention -- until something better is produced.  The non-Attasarana version typically downplays the well-known likelihood or possiblity that the Buddha did actually teach a positive corollary to the anatta doctrine, to a degree that borders on censorship.  Somebody needs to build on and revise the Attasarana version -- and contrary to some people here, I regard the continued reverts to the non-Attasarana version as the probable vandalism here.
 * Having said this, I do not endorse nor find very helpful Attasarana's sometimes intemperate and emotional language here on the Talk Page, though I can understand his frustration. Although he too indulges in ad hominem attacks, the recent disclosure of his personal details, whether true or not, are deplorable and go way beyond anything he is guilty of here.--Stephen Hodge 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but supporting the page that's more in line with your own view seems suspect. I'm guilty of it too, both pages seem to emphasize their own view as the correct one but Attasaran's seems to brook no argument, so I especially support the sandboxing a new page idea. You're doing a great deal to make the article more neutral and of a higher quality, keep up the good work.--142.163.115.65 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing Anatta
I have taken the first step to get this article into shape. I have just re-arranged the component sections into a more logical sequence. The next task that needs to be done is to reduce the verbosity of the very long "Anatman in the Nikayas" section. It overwhelms the reader with too much information that comes across as polemical in intent -- plus it introduces irrelevent material that might be more appropriate for an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. I personally might not be able to do this immediately as I am due to have an eye operation in a couple of days :( However, if nobody else has done so by the time I can work again, I'll have a go.--Stephen Hodge 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been following some of the discussion concering this article (and even though I've been trying to have a nice vacation from Wikipedia, it's difficult to sit idly by) and I'd like to try to produce a temporary compromise version of this article that can stand until we develop a new and better article. I have very little respect for Attasarana's opinions by themselves, but I do respect Dr. Hodge's opinion that the Attasrana version is preferable, so I'm going to be working with Attasarana's version. I'll basically chop out parts that seem like they might objectionable. The result will very likely not be particularly good, but, hopefully, it will not be very bad, either, which should make it suitable for a temporary article. I'm also going to try to combine the two versions of the article's intro. Everyone (except for Attasarana, who is currently blocked) should feel free to edit the new neutral version, and, in particular the intro. Cheers, Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Nat, glad to see you are back. So you too are working on a revised edition of this contentious article.  I have made a very small start by re-arranging the sub-paragraphs into a more logical structure -- in each version for good measure.  There are obviously some major gaps in this article -- there is no mention of the Pudgalavadin, Madhyamika or Yogacarin take on this subject, nor is there even a proper Vajrayana section either.  As I mentioned above, I am about to have an eye operation later this week and have a lot of other matters to attend to beforehand -- which why I have left a number of things unanswered here on this Talk Page and elsewhere (my apologies to thsoe concerned).  And obviously I'm not going to be able to contribute much immediately afterwards.  But I have been drafting out on paper the kind of structure and content that I would like to see discussed and, hopefully, reflected in a future version of this article.


 * The main problem that I see here is bias and unwillingness to compromise from several quarters. As an encyclopaedic article, the desideratum should be, of course, NPOV -- which I mean in the sense that a future version should just report "real" facts, not opinions overt or not so overt presented as fact.  One problem here is also that everybody wants the last word -- which is why I am dissatified with, for example, the current section (non-Attasarana version) on Theravada & Anatta, where the Theravada view comes across as ipso facto the true version of the Buddha's teachings on anatta, rather than just the current orthodox Theravadin view (actually there are dissenters even within Theravada).  The article is also rather incohesive -- again due to its lack of structure and its piecemeal origins. It is for this reason that I suggest a sandbox version to work with initially -- but could you hold back on this until I am up and running again.  Though in the meantime, interested parties might want to look at the Hinayana / Sandbox Article entry.  The level and extent of discussion on the accompanying talk page is what I would expect for an Anatta sandbox article.


 * One reason for the lack of cohesion in this article is perhaps because each contributing editor -- to either version -- does not have a grasp or an interest in the whole picture. Almost everybody just seems to want to get their bit in -- without even, it seems to me, taking time to read what precedes and what follows.  Hence the current unsatisfactory mess -- in both versions.--Stephen Hodge 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just wanted to give fair warning that, since I plan to replace the current version of the article with an edited version of Attasarana's version later today, this will wipe out the entire current version of the article; therefore, you might not find it worthwhile to continue editing the current version. I've incorporated the diacritics and other minor edits you made to the Attasarana version before the last round of reversions.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I wish you a successful surgery and speedy recovery.)


 * Thanks for the well-wishing. I found your draft version lurking on your user page and made a few small changes.  It's late here now, so I'll wait to see your "official" replacement -- I'll take a copy to hospital and read it while I'm waiting for snip-snip.--Stephen Hodge 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Might I suggest that most of this talk Page now be archived as it has become rather lengthy ?--Stephen Hodge 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Stephen, I agree we need to address all those gaps...might I suggest to cover a few them, a small section on the History of Anatta in Buddhist Thought? Thanks for all the info you have shown me on this topic (as well as wiki policy :-P).  Anyways, best wishes on a successful surgery :).  --Lucifereri 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Attasarana's website
Stephen Hodge, please read carefully the following website, owned and maintained by Attasarana, and tell us if this is the POV of Buddhism wikipedia wants here.

http://www.attan.com/start.html

69.95.62.249


 * Dear 69 etc etc, I am not interested in Attasarana's POV and I find certain aspects of the above website quite distasteful and hence could not endorse many aspects of that site. In my view, as far as Wiki is concerned, user Attasarana is his own worst enemy.  However, when the polemics and other infelicities are pruned away, the basic facts which he adduces concerning the limitations of the Buddha's reported teachings on anatta are largely sound -- most of them have been noted by a number of respectable scholars, both early and more recent.  I am sure this can be explored in greater detail in a future Anatta sandbox article.--Stephen Hodge 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatta in the Nikayas
The numbering system of the sutta references in this section are unknown. Also the translations and interpretations are more than a little suspect. I will try to help clear this up if I have time.

Below are two references on numbering systems in use:

http://www.cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/abbrev.html

http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0dwe/bs12.html

[User:70.108.148.28|70.108.148.28]


 * Based on my experience dealing with Attasarana in the past, I believe he is using the latter system (viz volume and page number from the PTS translation) in some of his references, even though he as explicitly denied this (see here). If you could help straighten this out, that would be great.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation system is not at all unknown. It's the PTS Roman indexing system, which is used widely, preferred for its precision and simplicity. It refers to the volume and page number of the PTS Roman Pali edition such that, for example MN 2.265 refers to the PTS Romanized Pali Majjhima Nikaya Volume 2, page 265. It should be noted that these numbers refer to page numbers in the Pali, NOT to the page numbers in the translation as Nat mistakenly said. For example, the reference to the Deathless (amata) that occurs at MN 2.265 cited in the article ends up on 873 of the PTS english-language volume. So in PTS English translations, Romanized Pali page numbers occur in brackets in the text (e.g."What exists, [265] what has come to be, that I am abandoning.'"--marks the start of page 265 of the corresponding Pali text, but occurs on page 872 of the translation). In the PTS translations, the volume and page numbers of the corresponding Romanized Pali generally also appear in the header of each page of translated text for quick reference.

So far as I could tell, Attasarana's denial was not a denial of using the PTS Roman indexing. He was just insisting that the second numbers involved referred to verse numbers rather than page numbers. While this is strictly incorrect, I suspect that he insisted it to distinguish between the numbers as they refer to the Pali version, and the page numbers of the English translation volumes(which would yield incorrect results if used). In other words he didn't want people looking for MN2.265 on page 265 of the translation, when the correct way is to look for [265] in the text itself (which makes it look like a verse number reference, even though it isn't).

It should also be noted that the PTS Roman edition is not the same as the BJT (Buddha Jayanti Tripitaka of Sri Lanka), which is available for free from the Journal of Buddhist Ethics.-- Vacchagotta 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining that, Vacchagotta. Since I've never seen the paper edition, I never realised that the page numbers they were giving were for the Pali version. As for what Attasarana meant, it's possible to speculate, but ultimately I have no idea since he refrained from clarifying. I could only go by his statement, "Of course is has nothing to do with page number, I mentioned no such nonsense at any time. I said VERSE."&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I took it upon myself to reformat the Anatta in the Nikayas section; my small contribution to cleaning it up, I only standardized the sutta citations to PTS Roman indexing given in footnotes following each citation, for clarity.Vacchagotta 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about the current intro
The current intro of the article makes the following important set of claims:

Is this really true? How do we know or estimate the majority view among Buddhists? Tathagatagarbha thought, as far as I'm aware, is quite influential in East Asia and Tibet, where a lot of Buddhists live. The view described here might well be the consensus view in Theravada (I would imagine so, but there may be facts I'm unaware of), but I don't see how we can say more than that with confidence. Also, trikaya doctrine is, unless I'm mistaken, important in all forms of Mahayana, not just Vajrayana.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very good point. So, from the page Tony recommended (www.nirvanasutra.org.uk) I read: "And yet despite being greatly revered and strongly influential in the East...", seems to imply that the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (which insists on a True Self) is important to East Asia.  From my exprience in forums, (probably Western) Mahayanan Buddhists seem to not (in majority) consider the True Self of that sutra (but, hey, this my exprience in Mahayana which is a bit limited :-P).  Hopefully, Tony might able to give a better explanation on it since, I believe, he is an expert in this area.
 * I think the second paragraph of the intro should be changed from "a variant understanding" to "another understanding" or "another popular understanding" depending on the answer to Nat's question: to me "a variant" means something away from the norm and I believe (according to Conze) there has been at least some sort of minority view in this area since the early days of Buddhist thought (such as the Pudgalavādins). Thanks for all the hard work here! --Lucifereri 09:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the question of "another undertanding" (rather than a "variant understanding): yes, I agree with you, Lucifereri. Your suggestion is more neutral, certainly. Anyway, my thanks to yourself and to Nat for your work on this "anatta" entry. Best wishes to you both. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hallo Nat and Lucifereri (good to see you back again, Nat!). Thanks for the very kind comments, Lucifereri. I do actually support Nat's view that the Tathagatagarbha and the trikaya doctrines are very widespread in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism (even in much of Tibetan Buddhism). I think that you are onto something, Lucifereri, when you speak about Mahayana in Western countries: it is my experience that the form of Buddhism that tends to get promulgated in the West is less keen on emphasising the Tathagatagarbha (as essential ontic Reality) and the trikaya teaching. Here in England, the main approaches tend to be Theravada (which is generally - although not quite always - hostile to the notion of a real Self / Essence) and Gelukpaism (to which the idea of an eternal, unchanging Self or Essence is total anathema!). What needs to be remembered about the Mahaparinirvana Sutra in particular and the core Tathagatagarbha texts in general which belong to that same family of scirptures is that they were barely known in the West even as little as thirty years ago. Some of us (a tiny number) are attempting to rectify that. These sutras have been quite deliberately suppressed, denied or distorted (in their teachings) in the West (and not only in the West!) for many years. After grudging acceptance that these teachings do in fact exist within Buddhism, the current academic ploy is to downplay them as "mere" upayas ("tactics") and metaphors which do not at all mean what they seem to indicate. Of course this approach is never adopted when it comes to prajnaparamita texts, or the writings of Chandrakirti, or Tsongkhapa, etc, etc. There are huge double standards in operation here, I'm afraid. But I digress!


 * Thanks, clears up a bit of confusion. I will change the "variant understanding" phrase; I doubt I should (due to my lack of knowledge in this specific area...I am not even exactly sure what Gelukpaism really is even though I have heard the name of that school before, haha...also I have no citations :-P) edit the rest of the introduction.  I guess, maybe, something along the lines of Self / Essence being popular among East Asia, while some thinkers think that it is an academic ploy (although it is probably relevant also to point out the double standard explained by Tony when talking about the "academic ploy" ;)).  My two cents.  Thanks! --Lucifereri 12:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Lucifereri, for your friendly reply. What I mean about the "academic ploy" (this is just my own view - not necessarily one which should be mentioned in those terms in the main article itself) is that in recent years scholars, at last becoming aware of the Tathagatagarbha teachings, have clearly felt that these doctrines are so "un-Buddhistic" (because these scholars have a pre-conceived notion of what Buddhism "is") that they have tried to explain them away as being just an untrue "ruse" or a concession to attract into Buddhism rather frightened types who cannot face the stark reality of no Self/ no Essence. I call this a "ploy" by the scholars, as it is really dishonest and does not pay due attention to what the Tathagatagarbha sutras themselves repeatedly say (which is that the Tathagatagarbha teaching is culminational, supreme, final and definitive). Such scholars never apply the same methodology to the Emptiness teachings: they never say, for example, that when the Buddha says all things are empty, he really means they are full and perfect - or that when he says "cultivate goodness and purify your heart" he really means "cultivate evil and contaminate your heart"! Yet these same people will claim that where the Buddha teaches the Self in the TG sutras, he really means "no Self at all"!! Does this seem a little unfair, even ridiculous and of double standards to you? If we don't listen carefully to the Buddha's words in the sutras, we can easily end up creating our own version of Buddhism which has nothing to do with what the Buddha himself was at pains to communicate (I am speaking of the Mahayana here - I know less, in detail, of the Pali suttas). Anyway, thanks again for your kind help. I am not so knowledgeable on the Pali suttas, so am less confident to add anything there  - but I think we can perhaps leave the later "anatta and Tathagatagarbha" section more or less as it is, as it is firmly based on the primary texts. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 13:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. Sorry for the confusion...I understood what you meant by "academic ploy" and I think all three of your comments are appropriate when applied to the current state of affairs :-P.  It is in essence a double standard.  But, in fairness, the Buddhist teachings do employ these "this may look like this, but it really means that other thing there" tactics in multiple places, so those authors have some grounding on their "claims".  Also composition dates and such also get called into question.  But what I truly find extremely unfair (and disturbing), though, is that the authors you refer to might only express their opinion on the given line(s) (since as you said it fits into their view) in question and not any other possible interpretations.  An encyclopedia article should express the interpretations that are possible (not only the "majority" or "common" interpretations and of course to a reasonable limit).
 * Editing parts of this comment since I did not read the updated one above. I think it might be worthwile for you to edit the intro to this section (majority view seems a bit out of place given the information you provided) to provide a more fair description.  I doubt this "majority" view is based on any statistics.  Thanks, this is has been very informative.  --Lucifereri 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Lucifereri! I appreciate your nice comments. But perhaps yourself and Nat can work on that Intro and then I can also have a look at it? I'm a bit busy with other Buddhist work at present, so may not be able to do much for a couple of days or so. I'd be interested to see how you and Nat shape the Intro. I personally liked Attasarana's intro on "Anatta is an adjective ...", but not everyone shares my enthusiasm! Also, perhaps we should mention something about the Pudgalavadin view on non-Self and Self and have a section on that in the article? Maybe yourself or Nat knows a lot about the Pudgalavadin Buddhists? Regrettably, I am not terribly well informed on that topic - beyond knowing that the Pudgalavadins taught an ongoing personhood which continued up to entry into Nirvana. Perhaps Stephen Hodge (when he has recovered from his surgery) can think about adding a section on the Pudgalavadins (a fascinating area of Buddhist thought, I am sure). All good wishes to you and Nat. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not an "academic ploy". It's standard Mahayana practice from the time of the Lotus Sutra. It presented the early Buddhist teachings as merely skilful means. The Sandhinirmocana Sutra presented the emptiness teachings as merely skilful means. Throughout Mahayana history, each version describes all the others as merely skilful means. Perhaps Mahayanists have no right to complain if scholars do it back to them? How is anyone supposed to tell what the "real" Mahayana is? How is Wikipedia supposed to cope? Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New version
The new attempt at a compromise version is now inhabiting this article. If you wish to edit it further, please have at it.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ī== A preliminary attempt at the Anatta in the Nikayas section==

Although the below is not the final version of my take on this section (it uses quotes to a some translation I do not know of...we need to discuss this somewhere else :-P; citations need to be more clearly made; I need to combine the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs or maybe separte them into two better paragraphs; and some extra examples): the essential structure is here, though. But more importantly, am I missing something here, or am I incorrect in something, or is the neutrality of this article in question? Sorry in advance for posting it here, but I would prefer getting comments on it before moving on... --Lucifereri 12:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

“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 Buddhist term anatta (anatman in Sanskrit), which means "not-self," is considered one of the three seals of reality; the other two seals being anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). In the suttas, the co ncept of anatta generally refers to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Self (or soul) and explains how the five skandhas (or five aggregates: body, consciousness, feelings, perception, and volition) cannot in part or as a whole be seen as the Self. However, attempting to use anatta to describe Nibanna is controversial. One of the most cited quotes in scripture used to apply anatta to Nibanna is "Sabbe dhammá anattá" [Dhp. 277-279], which generally translates to "All dhammas are not-self". The controversy surrounds the meaning of the word dhamma: in some suttas the meaning of dhamma connotates both the five skandhas and Nibanna, while in other suttas the term dhamma is equivalent only to the five skandhas. Further complicating the matter is the fact that "Sabbe dhammá anattá" is perceeded by "Sabbe sankhárá aniccá" (All formations are impermanent) and "Sabbe sankhárá dukkhá" (All formations are suffering), where anicca and dukkha are explicity applied only to conditioned phenomena (sankhara) instead of dhamma. Thus, If dhamma's meaning includes Nibanna then that would imply Nibanna to be not-Self; if dhamma's meaning does not include Nibanna, only the five skandhas are not-Self (with no implication to what Nibanna is) [citation: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban2.htm. This is a document by Ñánavíra Thera...I need a proper citation here]. Also, depending on the translation, certain suttas seem to imply that there truly is a Self that one awakens to in Nibanna. . Finally, the suttas have the Buddha claiming that he neither taught the (extreme) view of eternalism nor the (extreme) view of nihilism (“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” [MN 1.140.). Thus, three possible interpretations of anatta emerge, each depending on how one interprets the Pali Suttas: there is no-Self one awakens to, there is a Self one awakens to, and the question of whether one awakens to a Self or not is inappropriate.

Also of importance, there exists a scriptural passage where the Buddha is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta: “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’” [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196]. --Lucifereri 12:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Atta-dīpo
So a couple comments on this. First, I see "island" (as well as "lamp") being an acceptable translation for this word from PTS...I also read that dipa in Pali = dvipa in Sk not dipa in Sk (this is sort of claimed by Walshe...he says something to the effect that this is what it should be, but we are not completely sure...at least that is what I think he is saying). Can you explain further why it is suspect, or is the answer too technical (I am no Pali scholar)? (This is just a curiosity, since I do not see how using "island" or "lamp" changes the definition of the sentance either way). Anyways, for the second comment (DN 16 2.25-26 also appears basically in the same form at DN. 26), the text that follows DN 16 2.25-26 explains the methodology of viewing "himself(?)\Self(?) as a refuge" as none other than practicing the four foundations of Mindfulness. So it seems to mean that to view himself (or possibly Self) as a refuge is to be mindful of body, feelings, mind, and the so-called mind made objects (I am using Walshe's translation of DN). So I am finding it hard to see absurdities in either interpretation. Thanks ahead of time. --Lucifereri 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Lucifereri, now, I'm back at home and just about able to see what I'm typing, here is a short analysis of this passage.


 * First let's have the basic passage in Pali, removing the verb "viharatha" or "viharati" which applies to both clauses -- the passage occurs in the Nikayas with a couple of variants which are irrelevant here. Placing these clauses  as follows helps highlight their parallel nature.


 * atta-dīpo atta-saraṇo anañña-saraṇo,
 * dhamma-dīpo dhamma-saraṇo anañña-saraṇo


 * What we now see is a string of six compounds. Compounds are widely used in Sanskrit and Pali, so consequently they are well described and categorized in grammatical works.  Without burdening you with all the details, each of these six compounds here, taken in isolation are called karmadhāraya (P: kammadhāraya) compounds.  These are appositional compounds functioning as nouns, in which the relationship between the two elements in each one is one of identify or similarity.  Thus "atta-dīpa" means "atta [which] is an island" or "atta [which] is like an island".  The same form of analysis applies to each of the other compounds.   Obviously, atta and dhamma are not literally islands etc, so the compound should be understood to convey a relationship of similarity.


 * So far so good, I hope. Now in this passage, these compounds are used in a special manner.  Whereas in isolation, the above compounds are formally karmadhārayas and thus are nouns, here they are used as bahuvrīhi (P: bahubbīhi) compounds.  Bahuvrīhi compounds are always adjectival and because they refer to something outside of the compound itself, they are sometimes called exocentric compounds.   Being adjectives, they must qualify something, but in Sanskrit / Pali, this something is often omitted and just understood.   Here we are to understand the missing qualificand as "bhikkhu" or just "one".


 * A very literal translation of atta-dīpo etc in context would be "an atta-islanded [one/ a bhikkhu] ... a Dhamma-refuged [one / bhikkhu]" etc. More elegantly, we might like to put "[one /a bhikkhu] for whom atta is like an island, ...    [one /a bhikkhu] for whom Dhamma is like a refuge".


 * Still with me ?  Now it is third compound in each set that is crucial to an understanding of this passage.  It, uncontroversially, translates as " [one /a bhikkhu] for whom no other is like a refuge".   But if we say that "some X and no other is like a refuge", then we cannot logically have X and Y, two different and unrelated things as the sole refuge because this has just been excluded.  In other words, there must a sense here in which both atta and Dhamma mean the same thing and share an identity.


 * If one says that "atta" here is reflexive and just means "yourself", then can this possibly be equated with Dhamma ?  I think not, for what is signified by "yourself" ?   It is only a conventional label for the five skandhas.   So is the Buddha equating the Dhamma and the five skandhas (through their conventional label "yourself") ?  And is he saying that one should live with these five skandhas as a sole refuge ?     I think not.  Surely, reason demands that we understand this "atta" as something more that the conventional "atta" that labels the five skandhas.


 * Your mention of the section on the four foundations of mindfulness that ensues in some occurrences of the above "atta-dīpo" passage is relevant, but not, I feel, in the way that you would have it.  The purpose of training in the four foundations of mindfulness is precisely to unhitch "atta" from the five skandhas etc.   This is corroborated by the Attadīpa-sutta found in the Samyutta-nikāya (III.42, BhikBod trans Vol I p882).   In that sutta, the Buddha enjoins one to stop identifying "atta" with each of the five skandhas and thereby attain freedom from suffering etc.   Note that BhikBod quotes the commentary on this text which says "What is meant by 'self' ?  The mundane and supramundane Dhamma".   Which is, of course, the correct interpretation.  Then, quite gratuitously, BhikBod opines that "This comment overlooks the obvious point that the Buddha is inculcating self-reliance".   If it were so obvious, one wonders why the commentator failed to mention this !


 * One can also note in passing the phrase "dhamma-kaṭam atto", meaning "Dhamma-formed atta" which occurs in the Theragatha (ThG vv199-200).  This also established the identity of "atta" (in this context) and "Dhamma".   It would be irrational to claim that the "atta" here refers to the five skandhas qua a conventional "oneself / yourself".


 * Finally, as you suggest, the meaning of "dīpo" is ambiguous. It probably does mean "island" as modern scholars believe, but there is evidence from Chinese parallel passages that it was also widely understood from ancient times as "lamp".   But, as you say, this is not too important in the overall context.


 * Hope this have been of help and interest to you.--Stephen Hodge 02:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the illuminating analysis of that famous "Self as island" passage. What you say makes eminent sense to me. Yes, the Dhamma is equated with the Atta here, both in terms of grammatical structure and in terms of the content - where "and nothing else" (to be taken as one's island and refuge) applies equally to "Dhamma" and "Atta". They are clearly intimately linked, if not identical. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, interestingly, this tradition is continued: the Buddha specifically says that Dharma is Atman. It would be absurd to suggest that at the end of his life (in the Pali sutta), after a lifetime of teaching that there is no Self and that this is the core of his Dhamma, the Buddha would then say "rely on Dhamma, which is basically your changing, impermanent skandhas". That type of "island" would soon get washed away by the flood of change! Also, in the Vinaya we read of how the Buddha tells a group of young men who are in search of a particular woman, "What is better for you: that you seek after this woman, or that you seek after the Self?" Clearly an interior reality of great value is being referenced here. Also, the idea that the Buddha has no Self and is not a "witness" (as is often asserted by the "conventionalists") is provably wrong, since during the actual experience of Awakening no less, what does he do? He WATCHES the play of samsara; he WATCHES and WITNESSES the dying of beings and their re-arising according to their karma; he WATCHES and WITNESSES all his own past lives (not the lives of someone else - not of dehumanised "causes and conditions", but of himself in other bodies); he WATCHES and WITNESSES the destruction of the negative factors which hinder the obtention of Awakening. There is very much a witness Self in operation here - although it is not the ordinary ego of daily experience. It is a Buddhic Self. And the argument that this is while the Buddha has his skandhas and so is not definitive does not hold water, since the Buddha says elsewhere in the Pali texts that even now, in his present embodiment, he cannot be determned or found. In other words: he is not those remaining skandhas! He is mysteriously beyond. But he is always a Seer. Hope this adds a little to the discussion. All best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Stephen. Hope you are feeling well after the surgery.


 * Hey Stephen, happy to see you back (and well :)). Thanks for the intriguing argument (fyi, I do know what exocentric compounds but never what they were called in Sk\Pa ;)); I only skimmed it so far (I am a bit busy right now, so I will get to this in a bit).  This is a quick (and dirty) response until I have time to give a proper reply with Sutta quotes...The only thing I am confused about is about the equivalence of those two phrases...with the translations that most Theravadins use, these two phrases (attadipo...dhammadipo...) would be contradictory;  I always thought they meant something along the lines of, noone but you yourself can emancipate you, and the second being that only the true Dhamma can help with that emancipation (so then the reflexive use is allowed).  How would you write rely only on yourself to free yourself (in the same structure as the above phrase) in Pali in such a way that it is not ambiguous;  this is an actual question (since I really do not know, hahaha)?  What is interesting about the passage about the four foundations of mindfulness is that it does not refer to atta although I agree it means not to view any part as a separate Self.  Another issue is how roundabout this is; why not, if he meant to equate them, just say (clearly) dhamma is atta (as perhaps in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra)?  Thanks (I will follow this up with something sooner or later).  --Lucifereri 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some questions
Firstly, I'm glad to see some progress with the anatta article! I think outlining the interpretive problems in dealing with it, and then describing all the possible ways the doctrine of anatta has been historically understood without pursuing the, in my opinion, fruitless question of which may have been the "original" position taught by the Buddha, is the best way to go. [User:Lotus]


 * Yes, it's slow work.  I agree that the ideal format should be along the lines that you suggest - but there will always be editors who want to have the last word.   I do not agree that attempts to delineate what the Buddha may have actually taught to be entirely fruitless, though one ought to proceed with caution.--Stephen Hodge 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Now to bring up some issues for consideration in this discussion happening on the talk page. [ Let me apologize in advance for my shaky Pāli, I'm still just a grad student, but I hope you won't hold that against me :-) ] I've been thinking about passages like "kacci pana tvaṃ bhikkhu attā sīlato na upavadatī'ti" at SN 35.75, where the Buddha asks a monk if he has any reason to find fault with himself with regard to virtue/moral conduct.  The same kind of thing can be seen at AN 4.121, where, explaining attānuvādabhayaṃ, the Buddha describes a monk asking himself "kiñca taṃ yaṃ maṃ attā sīlato na upavadeyyā'ti." Also, at MN 65, we see the phrase: "Attāpi attānaṃ upavadati."  Now, I've seen instances in the work of Caroline Rhys Davids where she translates such passages as having to do with a Self (big "S") blaming the naughty self (little "s") which has committed the misdeeds  (specifically referring, if I remember correctly, to the explanation of "attādhipateyyaka" given in AN 3.40). A more "conventional" translation (as a side-note, I wonder whether "conventional"/ "conventionalist" has become a dirty word in this discussion?) would be something along the lines of "you find fault with yourself" "I might blame myself" "He censures himself." [User: Lotus]


 * But the way in which these are phrased is curious. Stripped down, we have tvaṃ attā upavadati, maṃ attā upavadeyya and similar.   They may, as you suggest, just be idiomatic expressions for doing something to oneself, but again they may convey something extra.  One way to determine this would be to compile a list of examples and counter-examples of such constructions from the Pali texts and also Sanskrit.   In each of the above, attā is the subject and hence the verb is third person singular, while the "me" or "you" is accusative as the object.   This construction seems to create a distance between attā and maṃ / tvaṃ.  This comes across more clearly if we omit attā and just have tvaṃ / maṃ upavadati -- "X censures you", "X censures me" etc.   The editors of PED were evidently not happy with a straight reflexive here when they say "[here] attā comes very near to the European idea of conscience".   There would seem to be other, clearrer ways in Pali and Sanskrit of expressing the notion of "doing something to oneself".  So without necessarily endorsing Ms Rhys Davids, I think there is a bit more here that meets the eye with the standard (conventional) translation.--Stephen Hodge 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

However "atta" is to be taken here, it is obviously an important part of a monk's moral practice, one of the things that keeps him on track (one of four, according to the list at AN 4.121; one of three, according to AN 3.40). If it is indeed to be taken as "Self" with a capital "S", that would be a major doctrinal point, that a transcendent, pure, eternal, immanent (one of C.A.F. Rhys Davids' favorite words) "Self" is present and evaluating one's conduct here on earth at every step. One would expect copious amounts of religious writings on the topic, chapters and chapters even, explaining what would be a sublime and complicated teaching. And yet we find nothing, just a bunch of ambiguous passages where "atta" could be this, but it could also be that. [user:Lotus]


 * Not necessarily. Again, I am not happy with some of Ms Rhys Davids' conclusions, but I can find fault with your conclusion too.   That there is not copious amounts of writing on the topic is exactly what one would expect if the Buddha had adopted a rigorous via negativa approach.  In other words, he would have lots to say about what is not Self, but would refrain from any significant statements about the Self, precisely because it is inexpressible and anything one says about Self is de facto false, falling back into.   Note that later, Yogacarin writers such as Asanga, Vasubandhu or Sthiramati are quite happy to talk about the "inexpressible self" (anabhilāpya-ātman).   There does definitely seem to be indications of a two-tier model both in the Nikayas and in later texts.   Apart from the likelihood that two types of attā are mentioned, there are also clear signs that citta and vijñāna also have two types, although this reading of the texts is often ignored by convinced anattavādins.   I think that the second element of each pair connotes the same thing, whetehr one wants to call it a Self or whatever.--Stephen Hodge 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who think that such teachings were originally there but that later "monkish" Theravada editors simply edited it all out.... there's only so much editing a person, a school, a tradition can do...  I really don't think there would be any way to coordinate such a massive re-editing campaign so that all texts in all of the Theravada world would have the Self cut out of them. I'm not denying that passages like the one you guys have been considering in the Mahāparinibānna Sutta can be read in a variety of different ways, but to call one reading the "original" or the only possible one, is an exercise in orthodoxy. In the attempt of uncovering the "original," it denounces all other readings as "deviations," "corruptions," "perversions." What about the possibility that these passages were purposefully left ambiguous from the very start? [user:Lotus]


 * There are traces there if you know what and where to look, but I agree that such teachings were not edited out -- either they were just never included (plausible) or they did not exist because the Buddha refused to talk about the Self since he used a via negativa approach.   If you suggest that some passages were purposefully left ambiguous, what would be the motivation for this on the part of the Buddha or the compilers of the texts ?--Stephen Hodge 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And I think that I can reach at least a somewhat plausible reading of the atta-dīpo atta-saraṇo... passage. In a religion where self-dependence and self-reliance seem to be highly valued and praised (one of the epithets of the Buddha, after all, being sayambhū; also, consider the Buddha comparing a monk who has cast off the five fetters to a slave who has become "attādhīno" at DN 2, or the common description of someone becoming aparappaccayo satthusāsane), the idea that the Buddha would command monks to be self-reliant (but not Self-reliant) is definitely a possibility worth considering. If we view this in light of Occam's razor, this would probably be the easiest conclusion to come to, in that it wouldn't require one to make the grand leap of positing that centuries of Buddhist thinkers and commentators have gotten it all wrong (although, in general, Buddhist scholars seem to get a kick out of saying Buddhaghosa always gets it all wrong...I never was able to figure out why), or making some crass statement about "monkish editors" butchering texts. Still, razors aside, I would have to concede that the "pro-Atta" reading is a possible one, and a significant one, which shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the subject :-) Lotus 22:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But how do you explain the "and no other refuge" part that must equate attā and dhamma ?  How is attā in the sense of "yourself" -- an insubstantial impermanent and painful bundle of skandhas -- compatible with the Dhamma ?   What in your bundle of skandhas could you rely upon ?
 * You also say "centuries of Buddhist thinkers and commentators have gotten it all wrong", but there is a persistent tradition throughout Buddhism that does indeed say that some Buddhist thinkers and commentators got it wrong. Two somewhat incompatible and persistent positions seem to have arisen at a very early stage in the history of Buddhism based on the dhyana / prajna opposition.--Stephen Hodge 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What does "as pertains" mean?
Can anyone explain what "as pertains" means in the article? I have a vague idea what the writer is getting at, but I am not sure. I do not think it is standard English and I would like to change it to something that is. Will check back later.


 * There is a slight grammatical error here: it should be "as pertains TO". Apart from that, I have no difficulty with the meaning.  It means something like "related to", "concerning", "with regards to".--Stephen Hodge 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but that still doesn't seem right. "As *it* pertains to" would make sense to me ... Kipholbeck 23:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I thought it was the meaning per se you did not understand, rather than niceties of grammatical usage.  Anyway, I have tried to fix the problem.  But most of this article is a mess and needs a major overhaul at some stage -- see the lengthy discussions about this above.--Stephen Hodge 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I agree about the article. My understanding is that encyclopedia articles should be understandable to the "intelligent layperson". I consider myself to be one, but the article makes my eyes want to turn backwards in my head :) . Kipholbeck 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you write it?
How do you write "anātman" or "anatta" in Devanagari? Le Anh-Huy 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pain
The article mentions pain in passing, as one of the impermanent stimuli from which one can turn his mind away. This seems a very fundamental issue, as many people's belief systems regard pain as more fundamental than morality; for example, the Christian who accepts that something is wrong because you'll go to hell (in vulgar conception) if you do it. It also seems an issue that is experimentally testable and practically useful, as the alleviation of pain is a major industry.

I know next to nothing of Buddhism, but the description in this article rings true to me - while I certainly have not suffered the pains borne heroically by a large percentage of ordinary people, such pains as I have experienced have seemed to be ameliorated to a fair degree by taking time to consider the nature of pain and what meaning it actually has, and whether it is fundamental to the conscious experience or somehow an illusion or instinctive reaction external to the core of one's being.

I think that experts in Buddhism could better clarify things to the uninitiated by considering narrowly the phenomenon of pain and explaining, in simple terms, what mental methods can be used to reduce its impact in the short term. Wnt (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Title
Why is it Pali? Standard practice is to use Sanskrit for pan-Buddhist terms. Is it being implied that it's mainly Theravada? That may be so, as seems to be suggested above (Carmen Blacker told us the Japanese are not interested in this "Hinayana" doctrine), but that would have to be properly sourced. Peter jackson (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it does seem to be fairly common among scholars to use Sanskrit as a neutral language for pan-Buddhist terms like this one. When in doubt, Wikipedia follows that practice, too. Still, I'm not sure if there is a matter of doubt as to which term is more common in English. "Anatta" strikes me subjectively as the normal term to use, and, anyway you slice it, it gets a lot more google hits than "anatman" does.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which raises the question, do we follow the practice of scholars or that of ordinary people? Peter jackson (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddha-nature
In contrast with the uncited material in this excuse for an article, "the 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self ('atman'); rather, it is a positive language and expression of 'sunyata' (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices." as Buddhist nun and PhD holder in Buddhist studies Heng-Ching Shih reports. Mitsube (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My impression from your hatchet work, here and elsewhere, is that you do not know much about the tathagatagarbha doctrines. Your so-called "expert" quote does not reflect what the TEXTS themselves say, but is merely an opinion.  Thus, in the Mahaparinirvana-sutra, Chapter 13 opens thus, "Blessed One, is there a self in the twenty-five modes of existence or not ?”  “The self is the tathāgata-garbha.  Though all beings do indeed have the buddha-dhātu, it is obscured by the emotional afflictions.  Even though it is present within them, beings are not able to see it."  Elsewhere, the Mahaparinirvana-sutra also specifically attacks the sunyata approach to the Dharma: "By having cultivated the notion of non-self (anātman) with regards the tathāgata-garbha and having continually cultivated emptiness, suffering will not be eradicated, but one will become like a moth in the flame of a lamp."  Since this sutra is the main primary source for the subject, its stance should be noted or reflected in this and related articles.


 * So rather than chopping out bits that you do not understand, why don't you give the people who wrote the articles originally some time to supply citations that are accurate accounts of the subject ?--Anam Gumnam (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the article linked to. The sutras in question state that a being "has" buddha-nature in the sense that he/she will attain all the virtues of a Buddha at some point in the future. The Buddha-nature sutras were likely written because excessive emphasis on sunyata can possibly confuse one into a nihilistic view. A more positive teaching was later required to counteract this. As the Buddha is portrayed as saying, and as you will see for yourself if you read up a little bit, he is not proclaiming a self in the sense of the philosophers, i.e. in the Upanishadic sense. Mitsube (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem all over wikipedia. Whenever there is mention of the Buddha's core message of anatta/sunyata it is always contradicted immediately after by a "but this isn't actually true." It's only in wikipedia that this is seen. Texts on Buddhism simply aren't like this. The confusing imbalance between Buddhism on the one hand and misinterpretation of some late non-Buddha vacana texts on the otherhand is worrisome. It reflects badly on wikipedia. Can it be fixed? I'm not sure. Mitsube (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)