Difference between revisions of "Anatta" - New World Encyclopedia
Scott Dunbar (talk | contribs) (Various edits) |
Scott Dunbar (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Images OK}} | {{Images OK}} | ||
| − | In [[Buddhist philosophy]], '''anatta''' ( | + | In [[Buddhist philosophy]], '''anatta''' (Pāli) or '''anātman''' ([[Sanskrit]]) refers to "non-self" or "absence of separate self." One scholar describes it as "...meaning non-selfhood, the absence of limiting self-identity in people and things..."<ref>Rawson (1991: p.11)</ref> Its opposite is Atta (Pāli) or Ātman (Sanskrit), the idea of a subjective Soul or Self which survives [[transmigration]], which the [[Buddha]] explicitly rejects. |
| − | What is normally thought of as the "[[Atman|self]]" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("[[skandhas]]"). This concept has, from early times, been [[controversy|controversial]] amongst [[Buddhism|Buddhists]] and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day.<ref>Joaquín Perez-Remon, ''Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism''. The Hague ; New York : Mouton, 1980. ISBN 9027979871 ISBN 9789027979872</ref> In the [[Pali Canon|Pali ''suttas'']] and the related [[āgama (text)|āgamas]] (referred to collectively below the ''nikayas'') the [[Gautama Buddha|Buddha]] repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five '' | + | What is normally thought of as the "[[Atman|self]]" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("[[skandhas]]"). This concept has, from early times, been [[controversy|controversial]] amongst [[Buddhism|Buddhists]] and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day.<ref>Joaquín Perez-Remon, ''Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism''. The Hague ; New York : Mouton, 1980. ISBN 9027979871 ISBN 9789027979872</ref> In the [[Pali Canon|Pali ''suttas'']] and the related [[āgama (text)|āgamas]] (referred to collectively below the ''nikayas'') the [[Gautama Buddha|Buddha]] repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five ''skandhas'' of living being are "not-self", but that clinging to them as if they were an immutable self or [[soul]] (''ātman'') gives rise to unhappiness. |
| − | Anatta, along with ''[[dukkha]]'' (suffering/unease) and ''[[anicca]]'' (impermanence), is one of the three | + | Anatta, along with ''[[dukkha]]'' (suffering/unease) and ''[[anicca]]'' (impermanence), is one of the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterize all phenomena. |
==Anatta in the Nikayas== | ==Anatta in the Nikayas== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of the Buddha, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to [[Immortality]] ([[amata]])” <ref>MN 2.265, SN 5.9 (PTS)</ref>, wherein liberation of the mind ([[cittavimutta]]) is effectuated through the expansion of [[wisdom]] and the meditative practices of [[sati]] and [[samadhi]], must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based ([[avijja]]) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”. Teaching the subject of anatta in [[sutra]] pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’”<ref>MN 1.232 (PTS)</ref> | Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of the Buddha, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to [[Immortality]] ([[amata]])” <ref>MN 2.265, SN 5.9 (PTS)</ref>, wherein liberation of the mind ([[cittavimutta]]) is effectuated through the expansion of [[wisdom]] and the meditative practices of [[sati]] and [[samadhi]], must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based ([[avijja]]) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”. Teaching the subject of anatta in [[sutra]] pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’”<ref>MN 1.232 (PTS)</ref> | ||
| − | The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson | + | The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is, is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya] 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.”<ref>MN 3.196 (PTS)</ref> |
The [[nikayas]] state that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. | The [[nikayas]] state that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. | ||
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) 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] <!--(Possible yet questionable translation. Discuss on talk.)“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 is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). | What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) 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] <!--(Possible yet questionable translation. Discuss on talk.)“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 is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). | ||
| − | |||
The Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” but he distiguished his views from the [[nihilism|nihilists]] (natthika) who denied the Soul. The Buddha said, “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” <ref>MN 1.140 (PTS)</ref> | The Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” but he distiguished his views from the [[nihilism|nihilists]] (natthika) who denied the Soul. The Buddha said, “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” <ref>MN 1.140 (PTS)</ref> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
The phrase ''anatmavada'' is not found in the nikayas, existing only in Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. | The phrase ''anatmavada'' is not found in the nikayas, existing only in Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries. | ||
| − | :“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without | + | :“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!” <ref>MN 1.436 (PTS)</ref> |
===Anātman in other Indian traditions=== | ===Anātman in other Indian traditions=== | ||
| − | The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the [[Upanishad]]s and lavishly so in the writings of [[ | + | The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the [[Upanishad]]s and lavishly so in the writings of [[Shankara]], the founder of Advaita Vedanta. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method, wherein nothing affirmative can be said of what is “beyond speculation, beyond words, and concepts” thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava) can never be known objectively, but only through “the denial of all things which it (the Soul) is not.”<ref>Meister Eckhart</ref> |
==Interpretive problems== | ==Interpretive problems== | ||
| − | |||
Students of Buddhism often encounter an intellectual quandary with the teaching in that the concept of anatta and the doctrine of [[rebirth (Buddhism)|rebirth]] seem to be mutually exclusive. If there is no self, no abiding essence of the person, it is unclear what it is that is reborn. The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named [[Kutadanta]]. | Students of Buddhism often encounter an intellectual quandary with the teaching in that the concept of anatta and the doctrine of [[rebirth (Buddhism)|rebirth]] seem to be mutually exclusive. If there is no self, no abiding essence of the person, it is unclear what it is that is reborn. The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named [[Kutadanta]]. | ||
| − | There have been a number of attempts by various schools of Buddhism to make explicit how it is that rebirth occurs. The more orthodox schools | + | There have been a number of attempts by various schools of Buddhism to make explicit how it is that rebirth occurs. '''The more orthodox schools''' claim that certain of the dispositions or psychological constituents have repercussions that extend beyond an individual life to the next. More innovative solutions include the introduction of a [[Pudgala]], a "person", which functions comparably to the atman in the rebirth process and in [[karma|karmic]] agency, but is regarded by its advocates as not falling prey to the metaphysical substantialism of the atman. |
Others seek a proxy not for the atman but for [[Brahman]], the [[Indian philosophy|Indian]] [[Monism|monistic]] ideal that functions as an atman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta. Such a solution is the Consciousness-only teaching of the [[Yogacara]] school attempt to explain the seeming paradox: at death the body and mind disintegrates, but if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being. | Others seek a proxy not for the atman but for [[Brahman]], the [[Indian philosophy|Indian]] [[Monism|monistic]] ideal that functions as an atman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta. Such a solution is the Consciousness-only teaching of the [[Yogacara]] school attempt to explain the seeming paradox: at death the body and mind disintegrates, but if the disintegrating mind contains any remaining traces of karma, it will cause the continuity of the consciousness to bounce back an arising mind to an awaiting being. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 61: | ||
:''All processes are impermanent … All processes are afflicted … All phenomena are not ‘Self’; when this is seen with knowledge, one is freed from the illusion of affliction. This is the pathway to purity. (''Dhammapada'', 20. 227 – 279)'' | :''All processes are impermanent … All processes are afflicted … All phenomena are not ‘Self’; when this is seen with knowledge, one is freed from the illusion of affliction. This is the pathway to purity. (''Dhammapada'', 20. 227 – 279)'' | ||
| − | Therefore, the goal of the Buddhist contemplative is to develop [[freedom]] of the will/mind (citta) from entanglement with things as they seem; through the delusions of desire and consequential self-identity with events, resultant fear, aversion and projected hopes—to awaken to things as they are; coming home to a natural understanding of reality with ones given abilities at work in an ever changing evolution of experience. “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the | + | Therefore, the goal of the Buddhist contemplative is to develop [[freedom]] of the will/mind (citta) from entanglement with things as they seem; through the delusions of desire and consequential self-identity with events, resultant fear, aversion and projected hopes—to awaken to things as they are; coming home to a natural understanding of reality with ones given abilities at work in an ever changing evolution of experience. “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five skhandhas (pañcakkhandha)” [Nettippakarana 44] |
== Anatta in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras == | == Anatta in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras == | ||
Revision as of 22:47, 7 July 2008
In Buddhist philosophy, anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to "non-self" or "absence of separate self." One scholar describes it as "...meaning non-selfhood, the absence of limiting self-identity in people and things..."[1] Its opposite is Atta (Pāli) or Ātman (Sanskrit), the idea of a subjective Soul or Self which survives transmigration, which the Buddha explicitly rejects.
What is normally thought of as the "self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas"). This concept has, from early times, been controversial amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and remains so to this day.[2] In the Pali suttas and the related āgamas (referred to collectively below the nikayas) the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five skandhas of living being are "not-self", but that clinging to them as if they were an immutable self or soul (ātman) gives rise to unhappiness.
Anatta, along with dukkha (suffering/unease) and anicca (impermanence), is one of the three dharma seals, which, according to Buddhism, characterize all phenomena.
Anatta in the Nikayas
The Buddhist term anātman (Sanskrit) or anatta (Pali) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, the Soul, the ontological and subjective self (Atman). Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta).
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent), and all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha and anatta.”
Anatta refers to the absence of a permanent soul pertaining to any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”,[3] which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), nearly the most common utterance of Gautama Buddha in the Nikayas.
Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of the Buddha, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [4], wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated through the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he “saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature”. Teaching the subject of anatta in sutra pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’”[5]
The one scriptural passage where Gautama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is, is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya] 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.”[6]
The nikayas state that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated.
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) 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]
- ↑ Rawson (1991: p.11)
- ↑ Joaquín Perez-Remon, Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism. The Hague ; New York : Mouton, 1980. ISBN 9027979871 ISBN 9789027979872
- ↑ SN 4.400 (PTS)
- ↑ MN 2.265, SN 5.9 (PTS)
- ↑ MN 1.232 (PTS)
- ↑ MN 3.196 (PTS)
