Talk:Anattā/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

First message

Some random stuff:

The prefix "a" indicates negation. a.natta ("no self")

The wording of: Buddhist principle of selflessness (anatta).

Should probably be: Buddhist principle of egolessness (anatta).

and linked to: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egolessness

since anatta and egolessness are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.141.185 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2003 (UTC)

NPOV Talk - Whole article

There is obviously a breakdown in the normal process of article-creation. This section is for meta-discussion on how we can resolve the problem. I suggest everybody first read the following: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

Please be constructive. No name-calling. Respect!RandomCritic 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you then start the ball rolling and start being respectful youself ? Others might reciprocate.--Stephen Hodge 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Removing the bizarre Buddhism/Hinduism sectioning, as Hinduism has no doctrine of anatman, and having multiple headings for different traditions, at least in the Eastern philosophy and religion WP articles, is used to denote different versions of the same doctrine. Also, the information was sketchy and misleading.

Removing paragraph on nirvana as the goal of Buddhist practice, as it isn't especially pertinent in the anatta article.

Also did some clean-up in other parts.कुक्कुरोवाच

start --Nick-in-South-Africa 16:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) Kukkurovaca Reverting anatta/rebirth switch, as the problems are logically equivalent< If your position is that you accept that they are logically equivalent then there was no good reason to change them back! In the interest of harmony Ive rephrased the thing to avoid an the problematic phrase entirely:)

The reason I changed them is that I do not accept that saying: >Students of Buddhism often find the doctrine of anatta troubling, because it seems to contradict the Buddhist concept of rebirth< (what it was and what you reverted it to) is the same as saying: >Students of Buddhism often find the doctrine of rebirth troubling, because it seems to contradict the Buddhist concept of anatta<(what I changed it to and you changed it back from for no good reason because you argue that they are equivalent, and Ive now changed again to make the position clearer)

If one can accept the concept of anatta but have a problem with the whole concept of rebirth then the 'troubling' concept is rebirth and not anatta. I posit that many more students of Buddhism who include many rationalist/ empericalist/ sceptics will have a problem with the concepts of rebirth than anatta. This is the position taken in the Book ‘Buddhism without Belief’ by Stephen Batchelor. end --Nick-in-South-Africa 16:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

+++Students I have encountered "have a problem" with rebirth (although my teacher taught of the rebirth of the separate self during our daily lives, like when you see someone who ticked you off last week and the anger arises.) But past life experiences do come up in practice, and the bottom line is, we don't know why that is. It just can't really be explained- it is THUS. But the teaching of anatta IS the central teaching of Buddhism, and one that, while simple to cognize, is extremely difficult to get. It is unsettling to say the least, it turns the student inside out and upside down. The Wisdom sutras caution over and over about Bodhisattvas who are stricken with terror when confronted with Emptiness.+++ (Lisa M, Portland, OR)

I don't actually care if the issue of anatta v. rebirth is included at all; I think it's a silly topic, myself. However, it is an existent topic, and a defensible one, as some Buddhists have had considerable trouble with it: for example, the Yogacara and Pudgalavada schools. ::grin:: My point regarding which should come first is simply that, as this is the Anatta page, the material should only be included if it is primarily a problem with the doctrine of Anatta; if the problem is with the doctrine of rebirth, than that should go in the rebirth article. I think that pertinence is a fairly "good reason" for doing something on WP. Your "sidestep" however, is perfectly satisfactory.

The bit "The Buddha avoided metaphysical discussions generally, but discussed" I originally deleted because it's simply wrong; the Buddha didn't avoid metaphysical discussions generally, he avoided certain specific metaphysical discussions, such as the origin of the world and the condition of the enlightened after enlightenment. Pratitya-samutpada, anatta, and other important, characteristically Buddhist topics the Buddha focused on are totally metaphysical. I also don't see why it's necessary to include a comment on the scope of the Buddha's metaphysical treatment here in the first place. So, my stance on that point is, either edit it into an accurate and pertinent statement, or take it out.कुक्कुरोवाच 18:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kukkurovaca I think that it’s fair that reference should be made both here in the anatta article and in the rebirth article on the common problem many have on the seeming mutually exclusivity of anatta and rebirth. It seems that the duplication is justifiable and reasonable in the circumstances and especially relevant to both. I have no problem losing the bit about the Buddha not entering into metaphysical discussion, this was not my prose, I have no attachment to it and am inclined to agree with you, rather take it out as it detracts from the exposition of anatta. I shall leave that to you --Nick-in-South-Africa 21:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

>Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how "I" can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how "I" can be the "same" person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago. <

Not sure if it's just me, but the above argument is particularly eyebrow raising. The argument is that there is no more problem conceiving the difference between the moment to moment transient state of a metabolizing organism than the purported link between completely different organisms with no provable linkage, call me old fashioned but that's a stretch! Do significant number of Buddhists hold this view or do Buddhist that are attached to the concept of rebirth generally concede that the whole concept is a matter of belief? --Nick-in-South-Africa 17:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the point isn't that rebirth is somehow a self-evident truth (it's not), but that if rebirth occurs, it's not in any automatic conflict with anatta, unless momentary existence is as well. And for some, of course, there is a problem with accounting for both daily existence and reincarnation without an atman, which of course gives us the Pudgala, Buddha-nature, and other debates.कुक्कुरोवाच

Kukkurovaca My reaction is the same as your argument is the same but using different words! My point is that the concept of anatta is to anyone with a little bit of objectivity, quite self evident. It’s very straightforward to observe that there is no abiding, static self, what we are is in a state of change moment to moment from conception through to death and decompostion. There is after all no evidence for an abiding self other than our feeling or sense of 'me'. This 'me' feeling is easy to explain by what is known from science and psychology. The concept of rebirth does not succumb to this or indeed any objective approach and is seemingly in direct logical contradiction with the concept of rebirth, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Thus I posit that one can accept the concept of anatta easily based on observation and knowledge of reality but the concept of re birth requires belief. --Nick-in-South-Africa 07:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hm. Well, to be quite frank with you, I have no interest in reincarnation, personally, and I agree that it's not a particularly convincing doctrine. However, this is my POV and I try to check it when editing articles about Buddhism, a tradition in which reincarnation is generally assumed as a fact of nature. I object, however, to the suggestion that anatta is "based on observation and knowledge" in contradistinction to belief; belief as at the heart of all knowledge, even knowledge based on observation. Anatta is indeed more parcimonious, but nowhere does Buddhism claim to accept Occam's razor as an epistemological principle. (Though some thinkers like Nagarjuna clearly embody it in their work.) Nor do I see the mutual exclusivity.

Now, I've known people who believe in reincarnation (or "rebirth" or whatever folk want to call it), and whose appeal is to their direct experience of past-life memories, etc. I don't find this argument convincing, but maybe that's just because I haven't had a similar experience. In any case, theirs too is an appeal to knowledge based on observation. It is not that the one belief (in anatta) is somehow valid or obvious or self-evident and that the other belief (in reincarnation) is not; it is simply that you and I find the one compelling for ourselves and the other not, while the majority of Buddhists find both compelling. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:38, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Nick, I am not sure I understand your question. The idea is that just as the person I am right now has a strong influence from the person I was two minutes ago, it is just as true that I am also influenced by those of generations past. I personally believe that the whole problem is located in the unfortunate use of "reincarnation" in many instances where rebirth is meant. Luis Dantas

Luis The argument that anybody alive today has been influenced by past generations is fine. However to my understanding 'reincarnation' and 'rebirth' are exactly matching synonyms and acceptance of rebirth/reincarnation requires accepting that some entity or essence of self gets to come back after death, and that's not the same argument. What do you see as the difference between rebirth and reincarnation? --Nick-in-South-Africa 07:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Nope, reincarnation is actually impossible according to buddhist rebirth doctrine. That is both my personal opinion and that of my contacts from the Theravada, Soto Zen and Tibetan Vajrayana schools. I am pretty sure the same is also true of Jodo Shinshu. The difference between the two concepts is pretty much what you point out: there is no self to reincarnate, but there are karmic tendencies that get reborn. Reincarnations, if they happened in reality, would be something like resuming one's life from the point it stopped in death (incidentally, that would make for quite a different world from the one we live on - but I digress). Rebirth involves no "essences" nor "entities". It is just the natural progress of expressing desires and attachments that are not duly resolved yet. It is possible and likely that many people through the centuries failed to understand the difference, but it is still a clear-cut difference, always was. To be fair, there are those who claim] that this doctrine is meant as a didactical tool rather than a metaphysical truth. For practical purposes it does not matter. If a being's sense of self changes, it is very accademic to claim either that it is the same being as in the past or that it is not the same being. Luis Dantas

....So the old one about the infant Dalai Lama's first utterances being "...anyway, as I was saying...", does not square with Buddhist theology?--Nick-in-South-Africa 14:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I never heard of that (and would welcome a reference :), but that is not necessarily the case. All that would indicate is that Tenzin Gyatso somehow inherited a sense of self from someone else. That is a far cry from actually being someone reincarnated. Incidentally, I am not sure there is such a thing as an actual Buddhist theology - or perhaps even more acuratelly, we could say that there are several, mainly defined by national custom. Luis Dantas

>I am not sure there is such a thing as an actual Buddhist theology< well from what I understand I'd go further, anyone who describes themselves as a Buddhist would seem to have rather missed the point; but then what do I know, I'm not a Buddhist--Nick-in-South-Africa 22:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

What would that point be? Luis Dantas 23:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Luis, The point was meant to be ironic and humorous, my apologies if it didn’t work for you. That said the cliché is true, many a true word is said in jest. If one describes oneself as a Buddhist it is a poor choice of words to my mind in the context of the Dharma (teachings of the Buddha) because for most with a non Buddhist paradigm or World view it suggests attachment to Buddhist doctrine, which rather contradicts the alleged Siddhatha's alleged teaching and gets the mind moving in the wrong direction.--Nick-in-South-Africa 16:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What makes you say that "Most with a non Buddhist paradigm" associate the term "Buddhist" with attachment? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:17, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Kukkurovaca, Because most educated people in developed countries are more familiar with the main theistic religions and thus tend to look at Buddhism with this mindset; they tend to look for equivalences. So using an analogy the point Im making is a bit like the foreigner touring Ireland who stops to ask an Irish farmer the way to Dublin and receiving the reply “Ach to be sure, you shouldn’t start from here!”--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, still not quite up to speed. Is your claim (1) that theistic religion automatically implies attachment, and (2) that the label "Buddhism" is, as it were, guilty by association? Because I'm not sure either that most people think of Buddhism as a "real" religion (in fact, I think the opposite problem occurs--people thinking of Buddhism as something modular you can just stick on an existing worldview), or that theistic religion is intrinsically tied to attachment. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:30, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Kukkurovaca, Yes I do think theistic religions are very much attachment centric, and that's to my mind the BIG difference between theistic religions and Buddhist teaching. The very core of Buddhist teaching is geared to developing a mind posture of constructive non-attachment.

The issue you describe of Buddhism being seen as a bolt on option to an existing World view does occur to some extent. However this is an increasing trend generally in developed countries in all religions. People seem to choose their beliefs 'a la carte', only a small proportion are rigidly dogmatic and believe the full gambit of theology within their declared religion.--Nick-in-South-Africa 10:45, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand your point now, Nick. No apologies were needed, but I would like to remind you that many (most?) Buddhists understand that the need for familiar references is natural to Samsara. It is certainly true that a Buddhist is expected to avoid unneeded attachment. It is just as true that one can't really help it in many real life situations. We attempt to simply realize that fact and flow with it, instead of developing attachment to the idea of being attachment-free. Luis Dantas 22:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that to describe oneself as a Buddhist is to miss the point (as it is simply claiming allegiance to the teachings of the Buddha), but then I'm not a Buddhist either, so ::shrug::. Now, people are really making far too much of this reincarnation/rebirth thing; it's the same concept, but with orthodox Indian philosophy it implies a substantial essence that transmigrates, with some schools of Buddhism it implies something very like a substantial essence that transmigrates, and with the rest of Buddhism it does not imply a substantial essence that transmigrates. The same can be said of my moment-to-moment existence as a person engaged in activity. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:43, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. Luis Dantas

There is quite a bit of support for buddhist un-substantial rebirth in modern science. First there's the basic genetic inheritance, then there's the (semi-buzzword) concept of memes. On the most fundamental level rebirth in buddhism is, in my opinion, identical to the concept of dependent origination, which in turn is identical to cause and effect in science. Fragments of karma in these shapes (genes, memes and other types of more controllable action) do flow around, that's pretty clear. [[User:boxed|boxed] 12:21, 2005-10-18 CET

Recent Massive Alterations and Additions

Hallo to whomever wrote the new introductory version on "anatta". I personally love most of what you have added - you will find no greater supporter of the viewpoint you express than myself. I have spent the past 25 years arguing for it! But as editors of an encyclopaedia such as this we have to strive to be balanced and impartial. So I do think that, for example, it is simply not factually correct to state that the "majority" of Buddhists take the view that the non-Self doctrine relates only to the ephemeral elements of the being and that there is some higher, eternal Self beyond that, untouched by the "non-Self" teachings. As much as I myself deplore this fact and believe that the general understanding of "non-Self" is seriously wrongheaded and distortionist, the truth is that most Buddhist schools do not express the stance that you (and I) uphold. So I think we do need to stick to the word "minority" here. Also, the piece needs to be tidied up grammatically here and there. All together, though, I personally think the additions are excellent. But I am sure that nearly everybody else will wildly disagree with me (and with you!). Warm wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns of being "balanced and impartial" are irrelavent to doctrinal inaccuracy. Foremostly an encyclopedia is meant to accurately reflect, in the case of religions, the doctrine it is referencing. What "most Buddhist schools" express in their secular commentary is irrelavent, all religoius debates and references are and must be SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in Doctrine); not to reflect what the "masses accept/hold dear" I have replaced the word majority, back to minority, since that is factually accurate as the view itself is concerned... From Ken W. 17th December 2005 8:30PM EST.

Pulled Article

Attasarana has little experience with Wikipedia, but could possibly be a very valuable source, if he can learn some degree of pluralism. His contribution to this article is impressive, but POV, and he seems to be reluctant to accept non-Nikaya Buddhism as being legitimate; I am attempting to encourage him to discuss his contributions, but so far to no avail. The contents of his work are in Talk:Anatta:Attasarana (20040302 18:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

• Hallo again. Thanks for the comments. Good to know that you share my view that Attasarana has things to say which are worth hearing. To be fair to him, I think Attasarana does not deny all non-Nikayan texts as expressive of "genuine" Buddha-Dharma (I note that elsewhere he supports the teachings of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra on the Self, for instance). I think it would be good if Attasarana's very valuable and noteworthy information were given a highlighted section in the main "Anatta" entry (a section of its own, I mean). I know most Buddhists will not share his views (although I myself am totally at one with Attasarana in his take on Self and non-Self in Buddha-Dharma), but still there should be room, I believe, for important sutta/sutra-based commentaries such as this in the main body of the text. It seems a shame to me to relegate his useful information (even if many question the interpretation of it) to a kind of "back page". Can I prevail upon you and other Wiki editors to restore it, under its own separate heading??? Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 21:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there Tony - yes, I agree in principle. This article has been off my watchlist however, it was only in light of the Atman article that I discovered these changes.. Attasarana needs to learn how to edit WP style - I hope he will take some time to learn that. (20040302 07:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

--You,User:20040302, have commited an unsubstantiated claim and fallacy in presuming presecular doctrinal citation is "POV" (point of view). The point of any encyclopedia is accurate, factual and substantiated information devoid of later secular slants, specifically all religious information and debate is Sola Scriptura (based in Doctrine), not conjecture or POV. Your re-edit which reads "doctrine of anatta" is nothing found in either the Nikayas, the Lankavatara, the Sadharmapudarika, the Mahaparinirvana sutra and others, its a secular commentary by later-day Nihlists upon Buddhism, it in fact has no scriptural basis in fact or in logic, ergo your re-edit which read "doctrine of anatta" is both a baseless claim and an illogical non-doctrinal conjecture utterly foriegn to Buddhism. Without a sutric citation to back up your claims, of which one doesnt exist, I'm afraid youve only stated as fact, something utterly untrue as well as illogical. "At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul" -Itivuttaka- Gotama.

No, the point of an encyclopedia is to document all views, whether you think of them as "slanted" or not. Jpatokal 04:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you are used to writing academic literature for academics, and therefore, your particular community has a set of conventions as to what is, and what is not acceptable (This is most evident by the statement all religious statements must be Sola Scriptura (based in Doctrine - this is not a Wikipedia Rule ) . An encyclopedia has a broader audience, and needs to meet the issues of that audience, which often includes informing practioners about the views of their own schools. I refer you to Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles for some relevant pointers. (20040302 07:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul". Soul is, of course, a technical term, which can be interpreted in several distinct ways. Certainly Candrakirti makes it clear that according to the Middle-way school, when we identify 'self' as 'essence', then it does not exist. Regardless, I doubt that any Buddhist school denies the conventional, day-to-day appelation of self - as found in statements regarding activities eg: "I saw my mother yesterday", however, it appears that there is less agreement concerning a metaphysically existent soul, or selfhood that is distinct from that. It is pretty clear to me that a deep-rooted belief in essence directly leads to attachment and aversion, from which suffering arises. I do not need to depend upon scripture to see that, and yet that is what I find being stated in the Twelve Nidanas, which lie at the very root of Buddhism, forming the foundation of the Four Noble Truths. As for the metaphysical existence (or not) of a soul - I doubt that one can meaningfully talk about such things without some careful definition.

If we read Mahavagga-Att. 3.270 - "atman is one's svabhava", then we have exchanged 'soul' with 'nature' - so, if we identify this statement in terms of paramartha, maybe we see what is known as the Mahayana tathagathagarbha - buddha-nature, which is the sole refuge; however, this is not really what is meant by the term 'soul' in an everyday sense (samvrti). Svabhava has several distinct meanings in Buddhism (which changes according to school) for instance (middle-way school) - it is something to be ultimately asserted (when equated with paramartha), to be completely denied (when equated with intrinsic existence), and to be conventionally asserted (when equated with samvrti). So similarly, according to the context of the definition, atman is to be asserted or denied accordingly. (20040302 08:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

First paragraph

Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes. Both are wrong and their error is most grievous. For if they say the self is perishable, the fruit they strive for will perish too, and at some time there will be no hereafter. Good and evil would be indifferent. This salvation from selfishness is without merit.

Buddha: The Sermon At Rajagaha

I don't think this quote merits being the first paragraph, as it appears to me more relevant for the reincarnation article, rather than anatta. (20040302 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

it seems very misleading to discuss anatta without a single mention of buddha's own view that people have grossly misunderstood his point and that talk of enduring self and perishing self are both in error.

Cūlasaccaka Sutta

I'm sure your pali is better than mine, Nick. However, wouldn't the phrase "sabbe dhammā anattāti" translate well as "all phenomena are not a soul"? Those are the words uttered by the Buddha in the Cūlasaccaka Sutta, the 35th sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya.

Flagged

I've flagged this for questionable NPOV. Anatta is interpreted as "not-self" (as in, lacking an independent soul) by the majority of "Buddhists" I'm familiar with (including myself). There does, of course, exist the minority. However, this article seems to imply that claiming the doctrine of Anatta supports the concept of no soul is like claiming the Earth is flat.

Anatta is an Adjective, at no time in any sutta, Nikaya or Mahayana sutra does anatta occur as the denial of soul (atman, Pali: Attan). Youve just commited a Bandwaggon fallacy and privided no empirical citations from Sutras to back up your baseless claim, therefore it is rejected outright.

"what does anatta mean Lord?"..."Just this..form is not the Soul (anatta),,,,neither are feelings,,,etc etc" CITATION: Samyutta Nikaya book 3.196

"The Khandhas are what is meant by the term Anatta"-Khandhavagga-Samyutta XI "at no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no Soul"-Anguttara 3

Buddhologist Dr. Hajjime Nakamura- "At no time shall the audience confuse my opponents conjectures with the Doctrinal scriptural passages i present as evidence"

Your post is Illogical, the concept of "doctrine of Anatta" does not exist in ANY Sutta, in ANY Nikaya, dozens of citations are given, so your illigical in this baseless claim as well. - Buddhologist, Pali translator. S.A., Nowhere in the article does it claim that "doctrine of Anatta supports the concept of no soul". You need to reread the article, its obvious you didnt read it.

Unverified section

The Nikaya translations quoted in the section Presecular position on anatta as presented in the Nikayas used to back the overall claim are dubious and without any citation. Please verify the reliability of these translations and then perhaps we can discuss the factual accuracy of the section itself.

Remember that no original research is an official Wikipedia policy.

You have not read the Article at ALL, there are dozens of citations. Your claim is baseless and without substantiation. - Buddhologist, Pali translator. - S.A.

Renowned Buddhologists and scholars that agree with the premise of the main section are: Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids, George Grimm, S. Radhakrishnan, J. Perez-Ramon, G.C. Pande, I.B. Horner, Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy, Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Nikhilananda, Chandradhar Sharma, Dr. Nakamura and many others.....

"dubious" is a CLAIM, "without citation" is wholly a lie, since many many citions are present. I outright reject your objection and baseless praddle. Provide logical evidences, or dont respond.

Original Poster in this thread, "original research" does not apply to the fact that Anatta is A: an Adjective B: all 662 occurances of same are: A is anatta, B is anatta. Your post is spitefull not an intelligent rebuttal to the many citations and logic presented in the Core of the definition- Buddhologist., S.A.

All 662 occurances of the term anatta are as an Adjective, there exists not ONE doctrinal passage which upholds the secular conviction of modern Buddhism that "anatta means there is no soul taught in Buddhism". ABCDEF not X (Atman), therefore X doesnt exist is a logical fallacy "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] 

There are a lot of spiteful retractions on this page which are baseless conjecture and rooted in secular agendas. Nowhere in any Nikayan Sutta is there is "no-Soul doctrine", period. Without logical evidences, dont comment further.

- Buddhologist., S.A.

Definition PRESECULAR BUDDHISM

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. [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 12].

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.

Only the Nikayas thusly, reflect the first and earliest period of the history of Buddhist thought when the Sangha was in doctrine at one. [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 13].

“The vast majority of the Nikayas appear to have existed in record no later then 460 B.C." [Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Govind Pande Chandre; page 14].

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. [Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"].

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. [Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"]

This is really not the article to present an extended defense of Neo-Atmavada. The emphasis of the article should be on the use of the anatta doctrine in Buddhism. If something is to be said about anti-anatta POV, then it should be in a separate section taking up an amount of space in proportion to the number of its defenders. For this reason I've deleted the lengthy "presecular" (a meaningless term btw) section. The rest of this article needs a thorough overhaul as well.

I should note that Caroline Rhys Davids was a Theosophist and her writings about Buddhism suffer greatly from distortions caused by commitment to that sect's positions. An article on a Buddhist philosophical concept ought really to depend upon Buddhist sources, not upon Hindu or Theosophist ones. RandomCritic 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RandomCritic, You have made too many baseless claims not substantiated in doctrine, in the Nikayas. Anatta is an adjective, period. There is no "anti-anatta" POV, only a missunderstanding of the terms contextual ussage, which is seems you suffer from as well. Mrs. CAF Rhys Davids has nothing do with with 1000s of Doctrinal passages in the Nikayas. “What does ANATMAN mean Lord Gotama? ....Anatman means only this: FORM is anatman, ...FEELINGS are anatman........"----SN 3.196. All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine), otherwise we are discussing personal convictions which may or may not reflect the religion as such. Therefore, id kindly ask you to reference Buddhism when your attempting to discuss Buddhism, otherwise your making no intelligent point on the topic.

Im Afraid unless you have an intelligent and doctrinal substantiation to present, your trying to skew an article based upon your opinions rather than doctrine. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Re: "Anatta is an adhjective, period", please see the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism on anatta. Among the definitions given are "The lack of existence of an inherent self, soul, or ego, from the standpoint of Buddhist analyses. (Skt. Pali anattan, anattā, Tib. bdag med pa'i rnam pa, bdag me byuṅ)" and "The no-soul doctrine"

The "Digital Dictionary of Buddhism" is neither Doctrine nor doctrinally substantiated. One might as well quote the Theravada dictionary on Buddhism which is based not in Doctrine but Abihdhamma secular texts. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

As for the claim that "All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", I see no reason at all to believe that this is true. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In FACT, "All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", period, your opinions are irrelavent. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

I gather that User:Attasarana (aka 4.131.50.83, 4.131.51.169, 4.131.51.186, 4.131.54.64, 4.131.55.70, 4.224.189.82, 4.224.189.190, etc.). It's clear from the site that Attasarana is primarily interested in propagating a personal religion which incorporates elements from Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and Neoplatonism, and is evidently hostile to Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana Buddhism. I am concerned that the user is trying to make Wikipedia an extension of his website, and I note that he has placed a good deal of this POV material in a large number of articles under a great many different unique designators, mostly beginning with 4.131 and 4.224. This does not appear to me to be activity congruent with the purposes of Wikipedia.

While in principle there is no reason not to document Atmavada views critical of traditional Buddhist views somewhere on Wikipedia, if they represent the viewpoint of an identifiable group or faction, as far as I can tell, Attasarana's "Presecular Buddhism" consists of just one person -- Attasarana. If this is in fact the case, it seems to me that there's no particular reason for Attasarana's material, insofar as it constitutes a representation of his personal philosophy, to be on Wikipedia at all.RandomCritic 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless your can intelligently refute the doctrinal citations which are NUMBERLESS, I've reinserted the original text. In fact, there is no person on this planet that knows more about the term Anatta/Anatman than myself. If you wish to refute ANY FACT or citation posted, then do so, otherwise your opinions and secular agenda are ruining the article. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

June 2006 Recent reoccuring texts removals

There have been many attempts by secularists to remove doctrinal material and logical definition of this term from the article thread. I'm afraid unless these peoples have an intelligent and doctrinal substantiation to present, your trying to skew an article based upon your opinions rather than doctrine.

"All religious debates are SOLA SCRIPTURA (based in doctrine)", period, these baseless opinions are irrelavent to the words definition. If what debates the definition of a term in Christianity the first and foremost reference is the Bible, not the Pope, or Oral Roberts, etc.; the same logic applies to Buddhism as well, to say X is Buddhism requires support in doctrine, not the accepted view by X number of secularists as pertains modern Buddhism.

"ANATTA [Pali] Adjective. 1. Used to describe any one of 22 nouns in sutra to be devoid of the Soul. 2. Ex: 'Form is not-Soul (anatta), nor feelings.' [Pali-English Dicitionary 1941 A.P. Mahasharma. Montilal].

“What does the term ANATMAN mean Lord Gotama? ....Anatman means only this: FORM is anatman, ...FEELINGS are anatman........"- Gotama Buddha Samyutta Nikaya book 3, verse 196

Unless your can intelligently refute the doctrinal citations which are NUMBERLESS, I've reinserted the original text. In fact, there is no person on this planet that knows more about the term Anatta/Anatman than myself. If you wish to refute ANY FACT or citation posted, then do so, otherwise your opinions and secular agenda are ruining the article.

[User - Nat Krause] Has made many baseless conjectures and offered no contribution to the definition, either by way of logic, citation, or philosophical discussion before making massive texts removals. I forward that such actions are Sophistic attempts that are agenda driven secular attempts at subterfuge. How do you know that you have grasped the truth of what you say? You must have some criterion, otherwise you will be unsure. Nat Krause without doctrinal criterion, the definition of anatta is merely a reductionistic and futile sophistry "I said so. No, I said so". Substantial claims, Nat, you must learn, require substantial evidences

Buddhologists that posit the Soul within Buddhism and that anatta is undeniably an adjective are here listed just a few of many as follows: 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, Prof. And Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy

No-Soul in Pali is not anatta, but Natthatta; there are only 5 occurances of "no soul" NATTHATTA' at SN 4.400, where Vaccagotta asks Gotama “is it so then, Lord Gotama that there is no soul?” (natthatta’).

Nat, any attempt on your part to intelligently discuss the Buddhist term ANATTA without using your personal belief system has been an utter failure. Thankfully, your opinions are not found within the doctrine of Buddhism. It is odd that your are attempting to inseminate others with your fanatical opinions as opposed to trying to skillfully disseminate the doctrine of Buddhism.

No religious definition can exist outside of scripture, be it Buddhist, Christian or otherwise. There is no doctrinal substantiation for the term anatta/anatman outside of that posted on the main thread; views to the contrary require substantial evidences, citations, and logic. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Wikipedia is intended to present a survey of generally accepted knowledge. Attasarana has his views, but they do not represent the viewpoint of either any traditional Buddhist sect or the analyses of Western scholarship. The question is not whether Attasarana's views are in some sense correct or not; the question is whether they belong in survey articles on Buddhism or Buddhist concepts. Idiosyncratic viewpoints are all very well, but it's not part of Wikipedia's raison d'être to present them; that's what individual web pages are for. Attasarana's got his web page. He doesn't need Wikipedia to present his views. RandomCritic 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I note also that when Attasarana moved material around to insert his own lengthy commentary, my original post mysteriously changed. I trust this was merely accidental, because if it wasn't it would be decidedly uncool. The first sentence actually read:

I gather that User:Attasarana (aka 4.131.50.83, 4.131.51.169, 4.131.51.186, 4.131.54.64, 4.131.55.70, 4.224.189.82, 4.224.189.190, etc.) is also the author of this site, which also uses the "presecular" tag and cites the same sources. RandomCritic 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have made endless baseless claims and are utterly unlearned in the contextual ussage of this term in Buddhist doctrine.

As for the "analyses of Western scholarship" I've provided a list of Western Buddhologists who are in full agreement upon same. It seems you have a knack for manufacturing endless CLAIMS but are utterly incapable of providing evidences, as such, your viewpoint is without merit as regards the definition of anatta/anatman.

Youve also commited a Strawman fallacy in saying I have presented "my views" when in fact i have given more than ample citations and logic to same. Unless your are able to make an intelligent contribution based upon citations, logic, reasonings, you are trolling wikipedia.

"Idiosyncratic viewpoints" is another baseless claim and strawman fallacy you have presented, again, with no evidences to same, since ample citations are presented with references. After three exchanges with yourself, its obvious you have nothing to contribute to the definition of anatta nor can you intelligently discuss same.

Every time you remove the original section, it will be reposted, until time itself ends. It COULD be removed if you provided ONE shred of logical evidence that it is in anyway incorrect OR the citations untrue, but you are incapable of same, therefore the section stands.

I suggest before you comment again, you give evidences for your baseless claims. The lowest form of arguement is one who makes a 1000 claims with no evidences, something which Gotama called PROFANE (Puthujjana).

"Ananda....the sermons i gave and that will be recorded shall be the final word if dispute is found" Digha Nikaya 2.189

"My teachings (after i am gone) shall settle any dispute if there is doubt between you"----------Itivuttaka. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Would you mind posting using your Wikipedia account, Attasarana? Your use of several different numerical addresses suggests that you're morphing in order to prevent people from keeping track of your edits.

So far Attasarana's quoted sources have consisted of Caroline Rhys Davids, who is not reliable on matters of interpretation, and someone named "Govind Pande Chandre", who otherwise seems to be only quoted on Attasarana's own site. Attasarana has also claimed support, without quoting as far as I have seen, from Horner and Nakamura. In addition (s)he's named a number of Hindu partisans and Western fans of the esoteric (of rather dubious character) who have no claim to expertise on Buddhism at all and are certainly not scholars. Against this we have noted Buddhist scholars such as Maurice Walshe, Nyanatiloka, Walpola Rahula, Nyanamoli Thera, Nyanaponika Thera, and many others.

As I have said, I have no objection to a proportionally sized paragraph describing objections to the anatta-doctrine. But the whole bag and baggage of Attasarana's personally-designed "Presecular Buddhism" does not belong on Wikipedia. I should add that calling oneself "S.A. Buddhologist", repeatedly using ALL CAPS, and making demonstrably wrong statements about the Pali language and translations, is not an approach calculated to convincing others of one's expertise (anatta is used as a noun in the Nikayas; Natth'attā does not mean "no-soul" but "there is no self"; puthujjana does not mean "profane" but "an ordinary (uneducated) person").

I have not used diff. numerical addys. At no time have I hidden my identity, therefore that claim is an utter fabrication.

This is not true. You have used at least seven different IP addresses and probably more. I don't claim that you've been disguising your identity as a single editor, but it makes it somewhat more difficult to keep track of your edits. As you have a Wikipedia account as Attasarana, I have to ask why you don't use it.RandomCritic 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never quoted CAF Rhys Davids at any time, thats a complete lie and baseless claim. Its odd you would employ such an obvious Strawman Fallacy.

You twice included material on this very talk page followed by "[Dr. C.A.F. Rhys Davids lecture "On Buddhisms origins"]". Perhaps you were paraphrasing rather than quoting. In either case you claimed Mrs. Rhys Davids (I don't believe she was a "Dr.") as a direct source. RandomCritic 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

G.C. Pande (govind chandra pande) has many many books listed on amazon.com and others out of print, your incapacity to find them is suspect.

As you give his name as "Govind Pande Chandre", it should hardly surprise you.

One such book is "Studies in the Origins of Buddhism", published by Montilal Banarsidas.

"Maurice Walshe, Nyanatiloka, Walpola Rahula, Nyanamoli Thera, Nyanaponika Thera" are all Theravada Abhidhamma trained secularists, your reference to them is a biased non-neutral reference. We might as well quote the POPE as a neutral scholar of Catholocism! Try harder, your arguement is the weakest I've come across in a long time.

This is exactly the point. Attasarana rejects well-accepted Buddhist scholarship and 2500 years of Buddhist commentary. His website claims to be "the only website dedicated to original Buddhism". The only one, of course, because he rejects every other Buddhist sect as erroneous. That makes Attasarana's POV a decidedly minority one. As I've said, it's fine to have a paragraph citing the anti-anatta people like Caroline Rhys Davids and Ananda Coomaraswamy. That's in line with Wikipedia policy on presenting divergent POVs. But "Presecular Buddhism" isn't a sect, it's just Attasarana; and it's totally disproportionate for anti-anatta POV to be dominating an article on anatta.RandomCritic 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"demonstrably wrong statements about the Pali language and translations" is another one of your many baseless claims, im afriad, all claims require substantiations. The endless train of baseless claims is not helping your case in the eyes of any and all onlookers.

• • • You must be able to read Pali and translate same since your entirely convinced X translation is incorrect. Might I ask your credentials as a Pali translator and a reference to any materials you have translated from the Pali into English or otherwise? If, however (as is the obvious case) that you do not read nor can translate Pali, all your claims are not only baseless but hyperbolic and fallacious Sophistry of the worst kind.

You have provided not one iota of doctrinal nor logical substantiations as per the term Anatta.

Your claim that "anatta is used as a noun in the Nikayas" has not ONE citation to back up same, in fact I know ALL 662 occurances of anatta, all are as an Adjective, provide proof the contrary or dont speak at all.

Nattha (there is no) + attan (Nom. Attan- Soul, Atman-Skt). Im afraid your claim as per this is also utterly without substantiation. Natthatta', also is a heresy in Suttana.

I won't claim to be an expert on Pali, since it's a very bad thing to misrepresent one's qualifications. I have studied enough Pali, however, to know the difference between a noun and an adjective, a phrase and a noun, and to know that "is not" is natthi and not nattha. And that in a phrase like Yāvakīvañ-ca, bhikkhave, bhikkhū anattasaññaṃ bhāvessanti "to the extent, O monks, that monks develop knowledge of absence-of-self", anatta can only be a noun and not an adjective, as the construction is exactly parallel to aniccasaññaṃ, asubhasaññaṃ, ādīnavasaññaṃ, pahānasaññaṃ, virāgasaññaṃ, nirodhasaññaṃ ("knowledge of impermanence, impurity, disadvantage, letting-go, absence of desire, cessation"), all of which include nouns. In addition, "a knowledge without self" hardly makes sense in this context.

However, this is beside the point. It is not the job of Wikipedia to adjudicate theological arguments, nor is it the job of a Wikipedia editor to evangelize for a particular interpretation. Wikipedia's purpose is to present generally agreed on facts, and where there is a dispute on the nature of the facts, to present them in a proportionate manner that reflects the degree to which the points of view are accepted. If and when Attasarana's POV comes to be widely taught in universities or widely represented in the scholarly literature, it may justify more thorough coverage. But right now, it's "the only website dedicated to original Buddhism" versus thousands of other sources, which is not much of a contest.RandomCritic 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is perception (knowledge sañña) of WHAT IS not the Soul (anattasañña). That Adjectival Nat, not a noun. Also, it is: "knowledge of WHAT IS impermanence, WHAT IS impurity, WHAT IS disadvantage, letting-go, absence of desire, cessation, of WHAT IS not the Soul".

I'm not Nat. User:Nat Krause is different person. You may have someone in mind who is accustomed to using sockpuppets.

In terms of grammar, btw, you just abandoned your own position and admitted that anatta can be used as a noun. A word that means "What is not self" is a noun, not an adjective. However, this is really beside the point. The question is not the extent of your knowledge of Pali, or grammar in general. The question is the salience and relevance of the POV material you want added to this article.

I suggest that instead of spending a lot of time on the talk page that you edit your material to a point where it is acceptable in and of itself. I.e., shorten it to a single paragraph; cut out the evangelizing; and emphasize your sources without intruding your own interpretation. Something like "Some modern scholars have interpreted the term anatta, as used in the Nikayas, in a manner different from mainstream Buddhist sources. For instance, Ananda Coomaraswamy claims...." and then put in quotes. You don't need to include your personal opinion at all.RandomCritic 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In all 662 occurances of anatta and anatta compounds, there are is no instance where anatta is used as other than an adjective or adjectival modifier.

Here are ALL compounds of anatta in Suttana: Variants/compounds of Anatta’ anatta’ Anattena anatta’ti anatte anatta’va anatta’yeva’ti anatta’yeva Anatta’nupassi’suttam. Anatta’nupassi’suttam. anatta’nupassi’ Anatta’nupassino anatta’nupassanena Anatta’nupassanekattam. Anatta’nupassana’suññata’nupassana’nañca anatta’nupassana’sankha’ta’ anatta’nupassana’vut.t.ha’navasena anatta’nupassana’visesoyeva anatta’nupassana’vasena anatta’nupassana’vase Anatta’nupassana’va anatta’nupassana’yeva anatta’nupassana’ya anatta’nupassana’mukheneva anatta’nupassana’mukhena anatta’nupassana’ña’n.ena anatta’nupassana’ña’n.e Anatta’nupassana’ña’n.am. anatta’nupassana’ anatta’nupassananti Anatta’nupassanattha’ya Anatta’nupassanam. anatta’nanti anatta’nattaniye anatta’nattaniyameva anatta’nam.yeva anatta’nam. Anatta’dhi’noti anatta’dhi’no anatta’disabha’vam.yeva anatta’tipi anatta’ka’ropi anatta’ka’rena anattasuttam. anattasambhu’to anattasambhu’ta’ Anattasambhu’tam. anattasabha’ve anattasaññi’ anattasañña’paricitena anattasañña’paricitañca anattasañña’ti anattasañña’ Anattasaññanti anattasaññañca anattasaññam. anattalakkhan.e Anattalakkhan.asuttam. anattalakkhan.ameva anattalakkhan.añca anattalakkhan.am. anattaniyam. Anattani anattana’va anattadhammo”ti anattadhammo anattadassanam. anattatopi anattatoti Anattato anattam.

- None of the above are found as other than modifying any one of 22 Nouns being: Ru’pa form vedana’ feelings sañña’ perceptions san’kha’ra’ impulses viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness sabba (aggregates/ “the all”) cakkhu eye cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms cakkhusamphasso vision contact tan.ha’ lusts-desires mano mind/mentation manoviñña’n.a mental formations manosamphasso mental contact Sota ear gha’na nose jivha’ tongue ka’yo body ra’go lusts kot.t.hika cell "body-cell" asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul asubham. disgusting asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering

Again, nat, youve given no help to your position.

"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no-Soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga XIV

- S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

(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 1.96] "The nihilist (natthika) goes to terrible hell...from darkness to darkness" To espouse negation of the Soul is heresy in Buddhism, contrary to the personal dogma of 'modern Buddhism' who misconceive the via negative methodology (na me so atta, neti neti, anatta) so common to Indian philosophical systems.

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

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).

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”.

PTS Rhys Davids Pali-English Dictionary: anatta (predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul. Most freq. in combn. with dukkha & anicca -- adj. (pred.): S IV.152 sq.; S IV.166; S IV.130 sq., 148 sq.; Vin I.13 = S III.66 = Nd2 680 Q 1; S III.20 sq.; 178 sq., 196 sq.

All 22 things in suttana which are said to be Devoid of the Soul:

A, B, C, D, etc. are ANATTA (listed below) Ru’pa form vedana’ feelings sañña’ perceptions san’kha’ra’ impulses viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness sabba (aggregates/ “the all”) cakkhu eye cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms cakkhusamphasso vision contact tan.ha’ lusts-desires mano mind/mentation manoviñña’n.a mental formations manosamphasso mental contact Sota ear gha’na nose jivha’ tongue ka’yo body ra’go lusts kot.t.hika cell "body-cell" asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul asubham. disgusting asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering

KN J-1441 Akkhakandam: “Atta’ ca me so saranam gati ca” - “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”- Gotama Buddha

Atta’sarana anan’n’asarana.- "Soul as a refuge with none other as refuge” DN 2.100

Buddhologist Dr. Nakamura--- "At no time shall the audience confuse my opponents conjectures with the Doctrinal scriptural passages i present as evidence"

Buddhologist Dr. Nakamura is quite famous, well over 20 books on Buddhism. In several of his books he outright states there is no denial of the Atman in Buddhist suttana.

Udana 1.81. There IS, followers, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed. - Gotama Buddha

“If there were no Soul, Subhuti, then the Tathagata, the Buddha could not save anyone trapped in Samsara” - [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]

For the fouth time youve made numberless claims but can provide no evidences. Do not reply again unless you have an intelligent contribution as per the term Anatta. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Attasarana, before I respond to what you've said, let me say very directly that it is incumbent on you to be much more polite and civil in dealing with your fellow Wikipedia editors. It is patently not conducive to a fruitful result for you to say things like "therefore that claim is an utter fabrication", "thats a complete lie and baseless claim", or "If, however (as is the obvious case) that you do not read nor can translate Pali, all your claims are not only baseless but hyperbolic and fallacious Sophistry of the worst kind." If you continue this way, I'll eventually have to start ignoring you, and would, under those circumstances, recommend that others do the same. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC) PS: You certainly have been editing as a numerical IP; see, for example, the history of this page.

I'm afraid that after five responses now, you have provided no citations, logic, justifications, and substantiations as regards the term anatta. Unless you are capable of backing up your claims as per anatta, then one can only presume your reasons for persistent removal of texts is solely due to a secular agenda, instead of (logically so) attempting to improve or correct any mistakes that may or may not exist in the main body of the text on anatta. No other conclusion can be reached, such that repeated requests upon yourself to justify intelligently your position have not been answered in any way shape or form.

“What is the Soul? It is the Real, the Eternal, the Master, the One to be depended upon, or also, that True-Nature (svabhava) which does not suffer change, this is the Soul.” [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]

“Oh followers! Do not abide like the fools do in hankering after the non-eternal, the not-Self, the sorrowful, the impure; and be like those people who take stone, wooden sticks, and gravel for the true beryl gem, the Soul!” [Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]

Nettipakaranapali v.86- “anicce niccanti, anattani attati” - “What is anatta is impermanent, what is eternal is the Soul”

I looked this quote up in the Nettipakaranam, an interesting text I hadn't consulted before. Even allowing for Attasarana's translation of every instance of "atta" as "Soul", this is not even an approximately correct translation, and seems to indicate an ignorance of such basic Pali grammar as the function of case endings. One does not translate Pali by looking words up in a dictionary and rearranging them arbitrarily to match a preconceived scheme.

A good deal has been cut out from the Nettipakarana quote; the two phrases cited are not even next to each other in the text, nor in that order. I won't reproduce the whole section because I don't think it's worth my while to insert a lot of IAST characters at present. However, the section it's in is discussing the delusion or corruption (vipallãso) of the unguarded mind, and it says "one is called 'stricken by false views' when one sees impermanence in the impermanent (anicce niccan ti)". It goes on to talk about, as examples of corrupted thinking, misperceptions about the individual: perceiving form originating from the self, or the self having form, or form in the self, or the self in form, and so on for the other skandhas. Then it discusses four occasions, or bases, for corrupted thought: seeing the pure in the impure (asubhe subhan ti), happiness in suffering (dukkhe sukhan ti), self in the selfless (anattani attaa ti) and permanence in the impermanent (anicce niccan ti).

In other words, the thrust of this passage is quite the opposite of what Attasarana claims. It also, rather obviously, uses "anatta" as a noun, in locative case.

I am disinclined henceforth to take Attasarana's translations at face value, much less his interpretations of those translations.RandomCritic 02:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume your unaware of the fact that the term ANATMAN is used both in the Upanishads and by Samkara. There are, however, no followers of the Upanishads and Samkara however that missunderstand the Neti-Neti (The Atman is not this, not that [Anatman]) contextual ussage of said term. No coincidence exists to the fact that anatta is used in the exact same context in Buddhist sutta as by Samkara himself (Eg. This is not the Soul, nor that).

The only heresy in Buddhist doctrine according to Gotama is: Anguttara Nikaya 2.51 -"anattaya ca attano" - "to [see] Soul in what is not the Soul"

Maybe you could comment upon why the 'realm of Immortality' (amataya dhatuya) is "outside the scope of what is anatta, is gained by the citta (will/mind)"-Majjhima 1.436

You need to be reminded "Nat Krause" (since you have said elsewhere this is not your real name) that: “Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probata” - “The wise man states nothing as true that he cannot prove.”

You can either dirrectly refute the numberless citations and logic put forward, or respond no more. You are woefully using Wikipedia to expunge upon others your secular agenda rather than making a helpful contribution; most certainly given the fact that you have, in five responses now, nothing whatsoever to contribute to the term anatta in the way of evidences or professionalism upon said term.

"At no time has the Tathagata taught that there is no-Soul (natthattati)"- Patisambhidamagga XIV

- S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Foremostly, you’ve fallaciously presumed said translation was mine, I never claimed same.

Thanks for introducing your “substantiation”, being: self in the selfless (anattani attaa ti). However, the translation is “[falsely seeing] anattani attaa (Soul in what is not the Soul)”. The term anatta is Syn. with anicca and dukkha, its meaning was well known to the Aryasavkas of Gotama.

The adjectival is clear in (anattani attaa ti). In english it is the same; if one were to say “[it is foolish to look for the] Pure in the filthy”. Nat, what IS filthy? Form is filthy, feelings are filthy, perceptions are filthy.

By your great illogical conceptions, Nat, you would presume Buddhism’s main pillar is a “doctrine of [what is] filthy”, or, in this case “doctrine of anatta” (which does not exist in any Pali passage, only in C.E. commentaries). However Nat, the quest for the PURE (vishudiya) is “Gotamas path”- Udana.

Its really hard to know where to start with your ignorances, Nat. By your presumption Buddhism is merely secular Humanism. Like most, you confuse the empirical khandhic self (namo-rupa) of flesh and blood and bone with The Self, the Soul, that “which is most dear (paramo piya)”, which is “the only refuge (attasarana anannasarana”. Nat, you cannot even be spiritual anything and deny the Subjective Self, the Soul; only a Humanist. However Buddhism is the “quest and path of immortality”; "mine is AMATAGAMIMAGGA (path to immortality)".

Nat, use your brain, son. What is impure? What is anatta? What is impermanent? What is dukkha?

Since you dislike any Indian commenting upon Buddhism (you seem to conceive this as a “dirty Hindu sticking his nose into Buddhism”, as if Buddhism itself was the “Anti-Christ” religion to Vedanta!), you might want to read “Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism” by Perez-Ramon. A doctoral dissertation upon the claims by modern pseudo-Buddhism as evidenced in doctrine. Perez-Ramon is a well acknowledged Pali scholar of acclaim.

It is of great note, Nat, that you believe and uphold strongly the secular Abhidhamma position of Buddhism. One might as well ask why anyone would foremostly praise the words of any Pope before and above that of the Bible. I would like a response, Nat, why your in fact not a truth seeker nor find logical conviction in the fact that if we speak or debate Buddhism, its doctrine is the grounds for verity, not the commentarial views of Buddhaghosa, H.H.D.L, any Lama, Rinpoche, Zen master, etc. The entire basis, as you have said “accepted belief by millions of Buddhists that anatta……”. We might as equally say that “Billions of Catholics believe”. Your fallacious position is attempting to argue X and referencing Y for support of same (i.e. the beliefs and views of 1700+ years of secular “Buddhism” [Buddhism in name only]).

The empirical self is not in question by anyone, son, its fate “is the grave”-Eckhart. Neither Atheist, nor Creationist, nor Buddhist denies the fate of the namo-rupic self of flesh and blood. This is something secular Vajrayana has not taught you. "The Khandhas are what is meant by Anatta"-Khandhavagga-Samyutta. This self (namo-rupa/psycho-physical) is not in question, nobody is in denial of this self composed of the humors of phenomenal existence…That which is in question by the Nihilists is the Self (attan/Atman), or ones Self-nature (svabhava).

"The Lord, the Bhagavat, (buddha) has never taught the unreality of the Soul"- Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

As for Attan; Buddhadatta Mahathera's PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY ....page 8.......Atta' [attan]: SOUL "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.

The very same Pali term Attan is “the only refuge” Dn 2.100. The very same Pali term Attan is called “everlasting” (accutam). The very same Pali term Attan is called eternal (niccam)- SN 1.169

Mahanidesapali 2.235 “niccato sukhato attatoti” Eternal bliss in the Soul

MN 1.141 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 that which we are? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord, none of that is our Soul! Just so followers, what is not who you are, do away with it, when you have made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and welfare for as long as time lasts. What is that which is not who you are? Form, followers, is not who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences, nor sentience. - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Wow. This article is unreadable

I'm going to edit according to two rules.

1. I'm not going to debate whose POV is right or not. I don't care either way. Only concern for me is POV attribution.
2. Because wikipedia is general encycropedia, any edit which is not considerate to people whose IQ is about 90 is in vilation of wikipedia policy.

I will tag explanation of each edit/delete. So please defend each edit rather than resorting to wholesale revert. Vapour

Hmm, this looks like a version of "Jew for Jesus". Only this time, it is Hindu trying to convert Buddhist. "Gautama for Vedannta"? Vapour

Where is it stated that Wikipedia is supposed to cater for "people whose IQ is abour 90" ? And what is an "encycropedia" anyway ? The way that user Vapour aka Yoji etc imperiously makes wholesale deletions without consultation is quite outrageous ! Discuss first and then alter if mutually agreed ! This is just plain arrogant bad manners ! The "Gautama for Vedanta" comment is nonsense. The overall POV outlined in the original piece is perfectly reasonable -- a numer of quite respectable modern scholars have arrived at the same conclusions, which the orginal writer might, however, care to add.--87.113.72.1 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, for example, in regard to size of the article

"Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span—20 minutes. An important consideration is that attention span is lower for children, below average intelligence adults, and all those with attention deficit disorders (groups we would like to serve as well).[1] [2] [3] Compounding this is that many of these groups also have a slower reading speed. Once the attention span limit is approached, most readers will start to lose focus and retention of the information begins to become significantly hampered. All but the most determined readers will quit reading once this starts to happen so going over this needs to be justified by the topic."

I'm not saying we should write children's encycropedia. However, adults with highschool education would be a reasonable idea of who we should be writing to. Vapour

Which is precisely why the Simple English Wikipedia was started. I am quite serious when I suggest you devote your attentions to that version of Wikipedia. As I already mentioned, you should have a look at some other articles, such as "omniscience" and see if they pander to your dumbing-down of articles.--Stephen Hodge 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are making a strawman's argument. The audience for Simple English Wikipedia is explicitly spelt out as children while my citation indicate that the audience for wikipedia is assumed around someone with highschool education or above with no specialised knowledge in said topics. I have already made a reference to wikipedia document which faily explicitly state as such. As of omniscience article, I can cite example like this which clearly demosntrate the futility and idiocy of treating wikipedia like an academic journal. As someone with background in economics, I can tell you that most undergraduate economics student would find it difficult to comprehend the article. I can use Buddhism article to make a false argue that it is o.k. for an article to be +85kb when wikipedia guideline and policy clearly state it is not o.k. If your idea of ideal wikipedia article is an academic article, you are mistaken. So far, you have done nothing except to proclaim your personal POV about what wikipedia article ought to be. Vapour

"a numer of quite respectable modern scholars have arrived at the same conclusions" is funny and silly comment. You are admitting that your edit is your personal original research. Then you are claiming that your conclusion is supported by "a number of quite respectable modern scholars". Why not cite these respectable modern scholars instead. Your failiure to do so is the cause of the problem. Vapour

I don't cite them because I didn't write the article ! You are confusing me with user Attasarana !--Stephen Hodge 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, fault is on you for not sigining your name. I would appreciate if you identify all your past comment. Vapour

Intro

• "The Buddhist term Anātman (Sanskrit) or Anatta (Pāli अनत्त) is an adjective that specifies the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence; eg. "none of these skhandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)"."

"The Buddhist term Anātman (Sanskrit) or Anatta (Pāli अनत्त) denote the absence of a supposedly permanent and unchanging self or soul."

"Anatta is an adjective"

claim unsourced.

"supposedly permanent"

supposeldy, personal POV

"in any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) constituents of empirical existence;"

Please write for 15 years old. This is not academic paper. Inappropriate for encycropedia.

Why ? So we are to write for 15 year-olds with IQs of 90 -- give us a break ! Look at other articles in Wikipedia -- try looking at the article "omniscience" -- and you'll see that they are certainly not written for your ideal target readership.--87.113.72.1 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't say we should wirte Teen encycropedia. I said the article should be readable for all our target audience. While some obscure philosophical or scientific topic may be justified in raising the starndard, main topics of Buddhism (which is identified as core topic by wikipedia) should be readerble to people who might use this article as a reference to their schook project. Vapour

"none of these skhandhas are my Soul, are anatta (non-Self)".

skhandhas (namo-rupa), unexplained. This is an intro. Not the middle of academic debate.

Vapour

• "What is normally thought of as the "Self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical and mental constituents ("skandhas") which give rise to unhappiness if clung to as though this temporary assemblage formed some kind of immutable and enduring Soul ("atman")."

Person who wrote it is either have highly unrealistic expectation of the intellectual level of wikipedia readers, or he doesn't care whether wikipedia reader can comprehend a term such as agglomeration. The sentence is unreadabe. Deleted. Vapour

The sentence is perfectly readable and should be restored. Ditto above my comment. Get a dictionary if you are so challenged by the vocabulary. Who are you to decide the literary level of English Wikipedia ? If you have problems with it, I suggest to transfer your attentions to the Simple English Wikipedia which you might find more to your liking.--87.113.72.1 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"agglomeration" would be considered somewhat obscure english word. If your argument hold true, I could say, "get a physics textbook if you are so challeged by science". I have already explained, citing the wikipedia document, that, wikipedia article are not supposed to be an academic paper. Vapour

• "The non-doctrinal commentarial "anatta" doctrine attempts to encourage the Buddhist practitioner to detach him/herself from this misplaced clinging to what is mistakenly regarded as his or her Self, and from such detachment (aided by moral living and meditation) the way to Nirvana is able successfully to be traversed. All occurrences of anatta in Sutra contextually appear as: "A is anatta (not-Self), B is anatta, etc.""

Alas, when you used "non-doctrinal commentarial", the entire sentence become imcomprehensible. Fogive me. I only have IQ of 100. Vapour

Restore. Ditto comments above -- get yourself involved in Simple English Wikipedia.--87.113.72.1 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto comments above. --- get yourself involved in something like "American Journal of Buddhist Studies".

• "A variant understanding of the doctrine (as enunciated by the Buddha in the Mahayana "Tathagatagarbha" scriptures) insists that the five "skandhas" (impermanent constituent elements of the mundane body and mind of each being) are indeed "not the Self" ("anatta"/"anatman"), since they are doomed to mutation and dissolution, but that in contrast to this ephemeral "mundane self", the eternal Buddha-Principle ("Buddha-dhatu") deep within each being is the supramundane True Self - although this realisation is only fully gained on reaching Awakening ("bodhi")."

Since I didn't get what non-doctrinal commentarial means, this corresponding sentence is lost to me. Plus, You did't explain to me what is Tathagatagarbha means. Is it like Abracatabra? Vapour

Restore -- no problem with content. Ditto comments above -- get yourself involved in Simple English Wikipedia.--87.113.72.1 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you really have to find something from wikipedia document which say that wikipedia writing have to be like an academic paper. I have already made citation for my position. Where is yours? Citing academic paper and writing like an academic paper is not the same thing.

• "The oldest existing descripion of the meaning of the word Anatman/Anatta is found in the Samyutta Nikaya book 3, verse 196: Radha-"Anatta, I hear said Venerable, what does this word mean?", Gotama Buddha-"Form is anatta (not-Soul/Self), feelings are anatta, so too perceptions, experiences, and consciousness (vinnana); this is the meaning of the word anatta. This is both common and consistent Via Negativa or Apophasis (talking away) methodology common to both Buddhism and Vedanta, wherein: "The Atman is not this, nor that (neti neti)"-Upanishads. There is no contextual differentiation made in the usage of the adjective anatman by either Gotama the Buddha nor Samkara (founder of Advaita Vedanta), wherein anatta is used to deny and denigrate any and all phenomena as Selfless, as devoid of the “only refuge”-DN 2.100, the Soul (Sanskrit: Atman; Pali: Attan). "

Please explain to me the meaning of "Introduction"? I thought it is derive from "To introduce". If you propose to a girl in your first date, you will never get second date. By the way, what is Via Negativa or Apophasis (taking away) methodology, or Vedanta or Advaita Vedanta. I think about 1000 of my brain cell just died. Vapour

Restore -- no problem with content. Ditto comments above -- get yourself involved in Simple English Wikipedia or start Moronic Wikpedia--87.113.72.1 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, citing from academic paper and writing like academic paper is not the same. Since I cited a wikipedia docoment while you haven't, your argument does not hold. Repeating failed argument does not make such argument valid. Vapour

• "Anatta is one of the Three Seals of all phenomena (khandhas/skandhas) in Buddhist doctrines and is an important element of wisdom through the apophatic technique used for the mind (citta) to experience Nirvana, the other two 'seals' being Dukkha and Anicca."

O.K. I got three seals part. Me has no idea what is apophatic techinique. So this is changed to "Anatta is one of the Three Seals of all phenomena (khandhas/skandhas) in Buddhist teaching, the other two 'seals' being Dukkha and Anicca." Vapour

• Anatta is always synonymous with foulness and all phenomena in whole or in part

Said who? Vapour

• “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)." [MN 1.436]

Please do not quote something which doesn't compute in the head of monkey brain. Plus, MN. What is dat? Vapour

There is nothing difficult about this. User Vapour's self-description seems very apt, so that is where the fault must lie. User Vapour: please, please go and start Moronic Wikipedia somewhere where you will be happy amongst your intellectual fellows, and stop wasting time here with puerile amendments and quibbles.--87.113.72.1 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see where this quote fall into within the thelogical debate. Non buddhist can't. Again, you are writing this paper like it is an academic debate. You must presume that the readers are non Buddhist. They may understand the above quote in term of English, but they will be left clueless still. Citing from academic paper (or sutras) and writing an academic paper isn't the same. Vapour

Dependent Origination

1. It looks like, someone wish to advance a POV which assert that "modern" Buddhism is a corruption of the original ideal. Firstly, I'm not going to debate whether this POV is correct or not. Hey, it may be correct. Who know?. However, in wikipedia, not only POV are to be attributed, it ought to be "ranked". In wikipedia, not all POV get to be presented. Only significant minority view are presented. The site which is used as a reference to support this POV does not appear to pass the verification criteria of this site. Unless someone can get reference from more credible source, I'm going to delete all of this Hinduism/Buddhism version of "Jew for Jesus". Vapour

"However no doctrinal citations can be made which uphold the view of much of present-day Buddhism as to the denial of the Self or soul.

That the denial of the empirical person or self (This person so-and-so, Bob, Sue, etc.) in Buddhism is not in question, that self "goes to the grave"- Udana; the controversy of current is that regarding the Self or soul and reference to same in Buddhist doctrine as being the basis for 'Immortality' (amata), and the 'Light (dipam) within'. [Dhammapada 147] "Behold! That painted puppet this body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that fools fancy and swoon over.” Logically so, the denial of the former is not the denial of the later.

In many later (secular) sutras, there is provided no confirmation the existence of a self or Atman a concept that was claimed central to many philosophers of his time, however in the oldest texts that exist in Buddhism, the Nikayas, the Buddha did at length affirm to his disciples (aryasavaka) that the "Soul was the only refuge, was the light within" [DN 2.100], and said the "Soul was that which was most beloved" (atta' paramo piya). Rather than directing his listeners to discover Atman, he taught that all clinging to concepts and ideas of a self are faulty and based on ignorance. The Buddha's teaching was apophatic and was not aimed at any concept of self created by birth, imagination, speculation, metaphysical study or through self-ideation. The five aggregates of form, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications and consciousness were described as especially misleading, since they form the basis for an individual's clinging or aversion. He taught that once a monk renounces his clinging for all the five aggregates, through meditative insight, he realizes the bliss of non-clinging, and abides in wisdom. The Buddha clearly stated that all five aggregates are impermanent, just as the burning flame is inconstant in one sense, and that knowledge or wisdom is all that remains, just as the only thing constant about a flame is its fuel, or purpose.

Controversially, there has been and continues to be a minority of Mahayana Buddhists who understand the Buddhist doctrine of "non-Self" ("anatta"/"anatman") as relating solely to the ephemeral elements (the five "skandhas") of the being and not to the hidden and undying "Buddha-Principle" ("Buddha-nature") taught by the Mahayana Buddha to exist within the deeps of each person's mind (see section on "Anatman and the Tathagatagarbha Sutras" below)."

All above deleted for being a mere soapbox edit for "Buddah for Vedanta" movement. Please learn the meanining of NPOV, Verification and No Origina Research policies.

Who or what is "Buddah" ?--Stephen Hodge 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In my language, we tend to pronounce it like that. So when I'm doing wholesale edit, I have tendency to misspel. I don't have a spellckecker. Sorry about that. Vapour

"Buddhist teaching tells us that all empirical life is impermanent and in a constant state of flux, and that any entity that exists does so only in dependence on the conditions of its arising, which are non-eternal. Therefore, any Self-concept (attanuditthi) sense one might have of an abiding Self or a soul is regarded as a misapprehension; since the conceptualization of the Self or soul is just that, and not an ontological apprehension of same."

O.K. I can see that whoever editing this, at least, know his/her stuff. Only problem is the use of the term "ontological". We should not presume that readers have knowledge of philosophy. Plus "all empirical life" and "conditions of its arising" is confusing to first time reader. I also deleted "attanuditthi". This should be explained in the DP article. Vapour

Atman

Considering that Mahayana Buddhism are often accused of being hindunised version of Buddhism, there are some validity in reference to some Mahayana sutras which looks like reincorporating the concept of atman. Only problem is this part "explicitly referring to the ultimately real, pure, blissful Self". This looks like another one of "Buddah for Vedanta" spindoctoring to me. I believe that actual statement was more nuanced. I will delete this for being original research. However, I have no objection to reviving this part if it is done as a direct quote from sutras. Vapour

On second thought, this section is too small. Merged with dependent origination section. Vapour

Interpretative Problem of what?

O.K. This appear to be about reincarnation. The title changed to something more comprehensible. Vapour

"The Buddha discussed this in a conversation with a Brahmin named Kutadanta." Inapropriate reference. Please get reference from sutras, at least instead of something titled "Gospel of Buddha". Vapour

"Others seek a proxy not for the ātman but for Brahman, the Indian monistic ideal that functions as an ātman for the whole of creation, and is in itself thus rejected by anatta."

An original research. Deleted. Vapour

For buddhism, it is motive/intention which is carried to next life. So there is no paradox. If you think there is a paradox, you can present it as such as long as you have verifiable reference. Try not to interpret buddhist sects POV with your POV. Vapour

"Later, the Yogacara school, a branch of Mahayana doctrine, argue that, at death the body & 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 (i.e. a fetus developing the ability to harbor consciousness)."

This is uncourced but doesn't seems to be a NPOV edit. I will delete paradox part but the rest can stay. It's better to have reference though. Vapour

"Some Buddhists take the position that the basic problem of explaining how "I" can die and be reborn is, philosophically speaking, no more problematic than how "I" can be the "same" person I was a few moments ago. There is no more or less ultimacy, for Buddhists, between the identity I have with my self of two minutes ago and the identity I have with the self of two lives ago. A further difficulty with the anatta doctrine is that it contradicts the notion of a path of practise. Anatta followed to its logical extremities rejects the reality of a Buddhist practitioner able to detach him/herself from clinging."

This looks original research as well as POV soapbox. Deleted Vapour

Anatman (anatta) in the oldest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas

The idea that Nikaya is the oldest text is so NPOV. In fact, what is the oldest tripitaka isn't settled question. Pali Cannon is the oldest "full" compilation of Tripitaka but some translation of Sanskrit sutras in Chinese and Tibettan is said to be older. And to what extent surviving Chinese/Tibettan/Sanskrit/Pali cannon represent Nikaya school is big question. Moreover, the entire content appear to be summary of "Buddah for Vedanta" POV. The whole section deleted for being a soapbox of unknown person's original research. Vapour

Who or what is "Buddah" ?--Stephen Hodge 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mine is just a pan of "Jews for Jesus". More techincally accurate expression may be "Sakyamuni for Brahman". JFJ is just a Christian group using Judalism as a front. The same is true for "Buddha for Vedanta". Oh, I apologise for spelling. Vapour

I don't necessarily endorse the views or the tone user Attasarana uses on his private website, but his article is quite legitimate in my view and does not entail a pro-Vedanta viewpoint. If I were writing this article, I could supply further references to corroborate this understanding of the "anatta" problem. The way you keep deleting the article without trying to improve it in an adult manner suggests censorship to me or, at best, extreme bad manners.--Stephen Hodge 13:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what do you mean his article is legitimate? In wikipedia, we will even reject edit from Nobel Prize winner if it doesn't satisfy wikipedia criteria. To be honest, accusation/idea that Mahayana is Hindunised version of Buddhism is not new. What I find it new and original research is to put this argument upside down and argue that modern Buddhism is actually a bastarised and secularised version of Hinduism.

But where in the article does it say this ?? We must be reading different versions.--Stephen Hodge 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ah, how about secular sutra/propagation. An invention of new concept/term/idea is an original research. Whether buddhism is atheistic is a poit of debate. For this reason, taking a side in this debate is not NPOV. Plus, given his view expressed in his website, it is a soapbox edit. As long as he use this page as his soapbox, he get automatic delete from me. If he can edit with proper attribution of POV from verified source. Then his edit can stay. Vapour

Anyone who try to use wikipedia as his or her personal soapbox should be dealt with no matter how good his or her argument is. Yes, please supply further reference from wikipedia verified sources. That would be very helpfull. Vapour

Tathagatagarbha and Mahaparinirvana

Though reference to these two sutras may be valid wikipedia entries, the current content appear to be an original-research interpretation of these two sutras. Words like "distinctive" or "remarkable" or "controvercial" isn't really appropriate. I would say it is o.k. to revive the reference, but only if one can make direct quote from the online text. Vapour

• Have restored the informative "Anatman in TG Sutras" section.. This wholesale and imperious wiping out of a whole valid article section, on ludicrous grounds - and also of another section, on the Nikayas, by another editor - is totally unacceptable. Such behaviour is intolerable and I trust will receive the censure from other Wikipedia editors which it richly deserves. Dr. Tony Page. TonyMPNS 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony's restoring this section. Looking over it, I think it is informative and not particularly POV—that is, it attributes its POV to the Nirvana Sutra, where it belongs. Vapour, if you have some kind of knowledge that this interpretation of the Nirvana Sutra is far outside the mainstream, or that our description of it here is otherwise flawed, please provide citations to that effect. As for its language, I think "controversial" is probably quite right, "distinctive" is hypothetically questionable but seems fine in this context, and "remarkable" is perhaps a bit too much of an opinion to fit Wikipedia style.

The Attanasara material, I think, is a lot more problematic that this Tathagatagarbha material, because the former contains much more strident statements dismissing other conceptions of Buddhism. Also, there has been some question from RandomCritic above about the translations that Attarasana uses, whereas I don't think anyone has ever cast aspersions on the translations of MPNS used by Tony. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have looked carefully through the "Attasarana" material as dispassionately as I can. Overall, it is my impression that the article is reasonably NPOV as it provides citations for each point of the argument which can thus be verified -- indeed more citations, from secondary sources, could be also added -- although this POV is probably unfamiliar to some people here due to their limited familiarity with bona fide specialist research (Tillman Vetter, Alex Wayman, Lambert Schmidthausen come to mind). Some editors may not like the content, but Attasarana does accurately reproduce Nikayan material which corroborates the view that the Buddha of the Nikayas only used "anatta" in the sense that Attasarana relates. However, there may be the occasional use of language that is not NPOV, but this can be easily rectified without junking or compromising the whole article. My main area of concern is focussed on the last 5 paragraphs of the article as it stands today. Of those paragraphs, my feeling is that the 5th from last needs to be re-worded, the 4th from last needs to have the opening sentences re-worded, the 3rd from last needs to be re-worded to a more neutral POV, the 2nd from last is OK by me, and I suggest cutting or re-wording the final paragraph to a bare statement of facts. The manner in which a certain user has taken it upon himself, as we have seen so frequently in other contexts, to cut out this and the following article is quite unacceptable. To me it suggests censorship and immaturity.--Stephen Hodge 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Original Research" business is a red herring. There should be no problem with introducing relevant texts from the Pali Canon or any other Buddhist scripture that bear on the question of no-self and self. This isn't original research, but source-based research, which is a good part of Wikipedia.

However, Attasarana uses bad translations (routinely reading every instance of "atta" as "the Self", when its normal meaning is simply as a reflexive pronoun "myself, himself, oneself") or even entirely false translations, where the supposed meaning bears no relationship to the content of the Pali quoted (see several examples above). This is not "accurately reproduce[ing] Nikayana material". I have been forced to conclude that, despite his claims of scholarship, Attasarana does not know any Pali grammar at all. Furthermore, his quotations are wrapped up in a matrix of presupposition and slant which -- while it has had some support in the past from some (not all) Hindu scholars, and a few (by now very few) Western scholars, and some more Western occultists with no expertise at all -- is not supported by any Buddhist school, past or present.

Attasarana's text is interpretation, and moreover a very personal interpretation, which is pretty much the definition of POV. The gist of his interpretation is that, despite repeated statements in Buddhist texts that "everything is anatta" (without self), there can still be posited a lasting, Vedanta-like Atman. The problem with this is that there is no place whatsoever in the Nikayas where the Buddha teaches such a doctrine, which makes interleaving it through Buddhist doctrines look like an attempt to force a slant on the material. The only thing Attasarana has got going for him and his position, really, is that he indefatigably restores his POV text and that he is uninterested in any sort of compromise, such as a shorter text that summarizes his basic position (which really could be done in two sentences).

The primary aim of this article is to present the Buddhist concept of anatta/anatman. That means that Buddhist commentaries and Buddhist scholarship are going to be our primary guides to the meaning of anatta. This article is linked to from several other articles on Buddhism. People come to this article not seeking to answer the question "how does one person reconstruct Buddhism-as-it-ought-to-have-been in his own, very personal view" but rather "what does anatta mean to Buddhists and how do they use the term? When Buddhists talk about anatta, what do they mean?"

I don't deny that views critical of the Buddhist view can have a place in the article. If someone claims that Buddhists are misinterpreting what the Buddha taught, that can be stated. But it should not be the main thrust of the article -- first and foremost, the obligation is to present what Buddhists mean by anatta. After that, critical views can be aired. However, given that they have a very subordinate position in contemporary scholarship, they should not take up too much space. RandomCritic 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it doesn't matter whether the POV is buddhist or hindu or Bahai. What it matter is attribution of POV from verifiable source, majority of which would be Buddhist in this case. We don't really have substantial disagreement in regard to Attasarana. He is explotiting this article to preach. Vapour

Just making argument with citation from scripture) is still an original research. What this guy have to do is to source the interpretation of the scriptures from what wikipedia consider to be a relaiable source. Orthodox/conventional interpretation are not cited simply because the existence of such view are not questioned by virtue of common sense. Vapour

I disagree. Citing from the sutras and joining the dots is not orginal research. Your position is like saying a mathemetician can talk about 2 and 2, but not say that 2 and 2 make 4. The cumulative deductive upshot of these citations is exactly what user Attasarana states.--Stephen Hodge 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It appear that you do not have a good grasp of wikipedia policies. "[I]t provides citations for each point of the argument which can thus be verified -- indeed more citations, from secondary sources, could be also added" This is by definition NPOV, unverified and original research. I can, for example, argue by citing bible that homosexuality is a sin in Christianity/Judaism. Even so, edit like this is inherently NPOV, original research and unverified argument. From wikipedia point of view, secondary sources is what it count. If quotes are long, one may summarise or describe the source material, but one should never never argue in wikipedia article. Your "join the dot" argument somewhat looks like you are trying to push the limit of the wikipedia policies. Vapour

I find it hard to follow your argument here. You are the self-proclaimed expert on Wikipedia policies, but here you are condemning NPOV (Neutral Point of View) ! I also find it odd how you are selctive in your application of Wikipedia policies. I could do the same thing as your doing with the main Buddhism article -- very few citations there from ANY sources. Shall we start picking holes in that too ? However, see my comment in your User Attasarana section below. When I have finsihed my re-write, we can discuss that.--Stephen Hodge 02:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Opps, sorry about that. "This is by definition, non NPOV, unverified and original research." It's an obvious typo. I'm bit suprised that you couldn't see it (or you actually did). As of the main Buddhism article, I have no objection about you raising verification requirement. Go ahead. Aside from Doctirne and Middle Way part, that article is pretty much broken so I don't really care. I actually appreciate if you can reduce the size. That article has POV cancer. It keep multiplying no matter what. Large portion of my edits have survied without policy invokation mainly on the ground that my edit is not regarded as having POV bias. But this is still no excuse if you or anyone else invoke policies. Anyway, the first rule of Wikipedia is that there are no rule. Second rule of wikipedia is that when someone invoke rules, forget the first rule. Attasarana, on the other hand, is basically a POV vandal because he refuse to make argument based on policies. At this point, he even refuse to debate at all in regard to his revert. Quality of his original research has no relevance in this regard. Vapour

• My thanks to Nat and Stephen for their helpful, constructive comments. Nat, I'll take up your suggestion and delete the word "remarkable" (although I was using it in the sense of "worthy of note" - rather than in the sense of "amazing"). I can see that this adjective can easily convey the wrong impression here. Re. Attasarana's major contributions: I share Stephen Hodge's viewpoint that a lot of informative and accurate material is found there and, while judicious pruning may be in order here and there, the whole mass of information should not simply be unceremoniously dumped. This brings me to "Vapour's" intolerant smashing up of other people's work (which has happened on more than one occasion now): I agree with Stephen's view that it is beginning to look like attempts at censorship and is totally unacceptable - especially as some people who contribute to Wikipedia are genuine specialists in the field about which they write (I am not necessarily referring to myself here: Stephen Hodge springs to mind!). Thanks again for your valuable ideas, Nat and Stephen. All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 07:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not object to "Tathagatagarbha and Mahaparinirvana" restoration. However, interpretation of these two sutras from buddhist schools or academic or other verifiable source is helpful IMO. Vapour

Helpful perhaps, but unrealistic. The article accurately reports what these sutras say -- I know because I translated them. The problem is that nobody has written anything of note about these these sutras in English, although there is the considerable amount of work done by professors Takasaki Jikido and Shimoda Masahiro. But their work is in Japanese which we can both read, but not most readers here.

No it doesn't. Whose POV is it that these sutras are "distinctive" and "controvercial"? Given that these are major mahayana sutras, I have to ask for whom this is controvercial. As I said previously, this site would reject an edit from Nobel Prize winner if it doesn't satisfy its policy. I left uncited summaries of sutras because it didn't appear to be POV edit. It remain to see if this interpretation of "controversy" goes the way of soapbox POV advocacy. Vapour

How do you know ? have you read the sutras in question ?--Stephen Hodge 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing someone's comment in talk page like you just did is considered rude. Please do not do it again.

And I do know "it doesn't" because use of the term like "distincitive" or "controvercial" are by definition NPOV. It doesn't matter if you personally translated the sutra. As I said this site will reject an edit by Nobel Prize winner if his work is yet published in wikipedia verified source. Please stop telling me that his website is high quality because it doesn't mean anything even if you are the greatest buddhist scholar ever lived. Before making your argument please read wikipedia policies. It is painfully obvious from your comments that you haven't bothered much about it. Vapour

The status, significance and interpretation of these texts have been subject to fierce debates for centuries by the Gelukpas, the Jonangpas, the Sakyapas, the Nyingmapas in Tibet. They all have major disagreements about these sutras. The same happened in China, beginning with Faxian. I think your problem is that you do not understand the meaning of "distinctive" or "controversial". OED states that "distinctive" is an adjective derived from "distinction". Several definitions are given for "distinction" but that relevent here is "the fact of being different". Anybody with a grain of intelligence can see that the content of these sutras is different to that of other Mahayana or Nikaya sutras. This is not a POV but a fact which you couild ascertain yourself if you spent more time reading the sutras and less time sabotaging other people's work. OED states that "contraversial" is an adjective derived from "contraversy". "Contraversy: 1. disagreement on a matter of opinion; 2. a prolonged argument or dispute, esp. when conducted publicly." This is exactly the situation that describes these sutras as I mention above. Hence this is a verifiable fact, not a POV. If your mastery of English is somewhat deficient, pls go to the Simple English Wikipedia or better still write some stuff for the Japanese Wikipedia -- plenty of scope there for you.--Stephen Hodge 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How many time do I have to tell you that I don't care the truth of the statement/opinion in edit. Your attempt to argue that these sutras are "controvercial" is pointless. Please understand that this site's idea of NPOV or verification is not what one understand from ordinary English. Use of "controvercial" and "distinctive" are example of peacock terms. It's NPOV and that is why it is not o.k. Just present different interpretation from varifiable source then demonstrate that disagrement exist. Then you don't have to use the term "controvercial". Vapour

• Stephen is right. These Tathagatagarbha sutras have long been controversial. There is even internal evidence within the sutras themselves to indicate that other Buddhists of the time when they were initially being promulgated regarded them as heretical and even of Mara. The irony of the present dispute is that Vapour himself proves the very point he is opposing - by claiming in some of his postings that my Tathagatagarbha contributions are a kind of smuggling-in of Vedanta into Buddhism, whereas I am simply reporting, accurately and faithfully, what those sutras do in fact teach. But for Vapour such teachings are "Vedanta". Thus - Vapour himself proves that these sutras (or more accurately, some of their doctrines) are indeed controversial. It is really extraordinary to me how anyone (coming from an "orthodox" Buddhist position) could claim that such teachings within Buddhism as that of the "sovereign Self" or the "eternal Self" are NOT controversial! I don't believe they should be at all (as I share Attasarana's view that even the Nikayas do not absolutely deny the true Self, by any means). But the sad fact is that the teachings of these sutras on Self and non-Self do tend to stir up a lot of controversy and hence can indeed be fittingly described as "controversial". As Nat has said, this usage here is "quite right". Cheers. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the term "controvercial" not because I believe one way or another. I objected to it because it is one of peacock terms. Why everyone here argue like they are wikipedia newbie? Vapour

• I don't think "controversial" is particularly a "peacock term" (it's not listed as an obvious one in the Wikipedia rules). And I'm certainly not using it in that manner - to garner support for my own viewpoint. In fact, I'm trying to be concessionary to the "orthodox" position on anatta! For me, the Tathagatagarbha explanation of non-Self is not inherently controversial in the slightest. The word "controversial" does, however, have a valid communicative point in the context in which I have used it. I am surprised that Vapour feels that using the word "controversial" for these TG doctrines on non-Self/Self is itself controversial!

On this very point of the controversial nature of the TG Self/non-Self teachings, and how others apart from myself have also stated this to be the case: here are a couple or three quotes from the books of reputable scholars on the Buddha Nature doctrine and its relation to Emptiness teachings (i.e. non-Self writ large). The first comes from Dr. Shenpen Hookham's The Buddha Within (State University of New York Press, 1991):

"Tathagatagarbha - Buddha Nature - is a central concept of Mahayana Buddhism crucial to all the living practice traditions of Tibetan and Zen Buddhism. Its relationship to the concept of emptiness has been a subject of controversy [my emphasis] for seven hundred years."

Elsewhere in the same book, Dr. Hookham (who is both an Oxford University Ph.D. in Buddhism and a recognised Buddhist lama) speaks of how two different types of person tend to be drawn to Buddhism (the analytical, and the intuitive) and how they will tend to side either with the the Rangtong or Shentong approach to Buddhism respectively. As is well-known by Tibetan Buddhists, the Shentong approach takes its stand on the Tathagatagarbha sutras and insists that they mean what they say in their qualifying/ delimiting of "non-Self" and their advocacy of a true Self or abiding Essence. Dr. Hookham writes:

" ... this division of interest in Buddhism in the West is refelected in the rangtong-Shentong controversy [my emphasis] in the Tibetan tradition." (p. 54).

Another historically renowned Buddhist master, Dolpopa of Tibet, brought down years of controversy upon his head because of his championing of the Tathagatagarbha teachings - his insistence that there is not only "non-Self" but an eternal, real Self. Dr. Cyrus Stearns, in his major book, The Buddha from Dolpo (State University of New York Press, 1999) comments:

"Without question, the teachings and writings of Dolpopa, who was also known as 'The Buddha from Dolpo' ... and 'The Omniscient One from Dolpo Who Embodies the Buddhas of the Three Times' ...contain the most controversial [my emphasis] and stunning ideas ever presented by a great Tibetan Buddhist master. The controversies [my emphasis] that stemmed from his teachings are still very much alive today among Tibetan Buddhists, more than six hundred years after Dolpopa's death." (p. 2).

Those teachings are of course a championing of Tathagatagarbha doctrines on the Self.

There are other authors whom one could quote to support the point that the TG teachings are controversial amongst Buddhists (and always have been) - but I think most Buddhist editors of Wikipedia will not disagree with me that the Tathagatagarbha sutric doctrines on Self and non-Self are indeed a focus of controversy - as we witness at this very moment! So the word "controversial" is quite appropriate in relation to the TG take on "non-Self". Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when edit say "who and who say the issue is controvercial" then it is NPOV. It is not NPOV when edit say "the issue (sutra) is controvercial". And I find it hard to believe your reading skill is worse than mine. Read this part. The word "controvercial" or "distinct" are peacock terms. Examples are there to demonstrate a point. Just because it were not mentioned does not put these words outside of how peacock ters are defined. As I said previously, "[j]ust present different interpretations from varifiable source then demonstrate that disagrement exist. Then you don't have to use the term "controvercial"". Vapour

Buddha for Vedannta

I have wiped "Buddha for Vedanta" POV. Whoever wrote this, please understand that sites such as this or that cannot be regarded as a reliable sources according to policies and guideline specified by the site. When your POV gain more prominence, your POV may be presented as a (significant) minority POV. At this point, you are just vandalising the article by your attempt to use wikipedia as your soapbox. Vapour

• - Scriptural Nikayan citations are not "POV", I suggest you gain intelligence in making unsubstantiated claims when it comes to Buddhist doctrine and philosophy- User: Attasarana, Pali translator, Author.

Do you realise that every religious group big and small cite scriptures to justify their view? If your logic hold true, every small groups can use wikipedia as their soapbox. You are simply using citation as a front of your interpretation. For example, it is obvious that, the term "emperical existence" is used to make a distinction between emperical and non emperical existence. Some buddhist school do take somewhat similar position but you use the term without POV attribution. Moreover, you are using this distinction to advance your "Buddha for Vedannta" agenda which is not advocated by these buddhist schools. You are deliberately and inappropriately twisting the POV attribution of buddhist denominations to advance your POV.

This kind of POV advocacy violate number of core wikipedia policies (no soapbox, no original research, verifiability and NPOV). What you have to do is not just cite scriptures, but also to cite your interpretation of such scriputral citation from "reliable" source as defined by the policies of this site. Orthodox/coventional interpretations are not cited simply because it is widely held understanding. Vapour

For User:Attasarana

Please understand that advocacy of your POV by citing scriptures is still regarded as a violation of soapbox ban. Moreover, please understand the meaning of "original reseach" as specified in this site. If you think your interpretation is supported by reputable scholars, forget your interpretation and cite these reputable scholars instead. Vapour

Since this article is proving so contentious, I am attempting to re-write it so that it retains the information that user Attasarana wishes to convey in a neutral form, cutting out the polemics and verbosity that mar this otherwise useful article. It will need more citations from the Nikayas and from bona fide modern scholars. I shall try and supply the latter, but others might like to help with the former. In this way, I believe the substance of the article can be saved and satisfy reasonable and fair-minded people. If my re-write, with any modifications others can usefully make, fails to satisfy, I suggest appealing to some form of neutral adjudication.--Stephen Hodge 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think this suggestion by Stephen is a very good and equitable one. There is too much valuable information in Attasarana's piece for it simply to be junked. Some judicious modifications here and there should allow it to stay - as stay it should, in my view. TonyMPNS 10:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sound fine to me. However, I could add that there is simpler and easier way to go about this. Check each of Nikaya/Hinayana sects. It is obvious that there are plenty of relevant POV which ought to be presented under a section titled "Nikaya Buddhism". More NPOV presentation is firstly to explain how each nikaya schools interpretated aspect of anatta/atman, then move on to Yogacara/Madhyamaka interpretation as well as the idea of Buddha nature which was done within the theoretical framework of orthodox buddhism. If someone want to present POV from verified source that these view are "nihilistic view of modern secular Buddhism which is anti-foundationalist in nature and contrary to the Nikayas, to doctrine" that is fine as long as POV attribution is clear to wikipedia reader. Hey, Bahai interpret Buddha in pretty similar line anyway. The fact that Attasarana is refusing to engage in the debate is bit worrying though. Vapour

Anatman (anatta) in the oldest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas -- Critique

This is a critique of this section. It is not going to be a complete critique, because I have a limited amount of time to spend on this matter, but I will point out all the places where POV or other misleading or irrelevant writing leaps to my eye. First and foremost, of course, is the claim that the POV represented below is that of "the oldest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas". In fact it is one person's interpretation -- and that a highly controversial one -- of some bits of the Nikayas.

I also will note that in many cases the citations given were wrong. In some cases I was able to track down the reference despite the bad citation. In other cases I was not able to. If one is to make an argument based on citations, it is very important that other people be able to doublecheck your claims. Simply having "a citation" is not enough; the citation has to be both obtainable and relevant.

The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra

It's also a noun. This shouldn't really be an issue, as nothing philosophical depends upon it, but Attasarana has some problem with accepting this fact.

Random Critics' has posted here mere conjecture-speculation, no evidences; all religious debates are Sola Scriptura (in Doctrine), dont post personal POV conjecture as 'defacto' Buddhism -Attasarana

Attasarana repeatedly pastes an identical meaningless and misspelt formula throughout my critique. I am afraid that he fails to realize that the burden is on him to demonstrate that the Buddha taught his Vedantic Atman-doctrine. As the continued posting of this formula adds nothing to the discussion, and is moreover both insulting and a sign of not taking this dialogue at all seriously, I have taken the liberty of replacing it by the word "formula" throughout.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, the ontological and subjective Self (atman)

Here we have POV. There is nothing to warrant translating atta as "the Soul"; this is to confuse Buddhist usage with a separate Vedantic usage which doesn't have anything to do with the Pali texts. Atta is not "the Soul" in Buddhist texts, but refers to any eternal or lasting element that could be attributed to anything; discussion of a "world-soul" simply does not appear in Buddhist texts.

Formula -Attasarana

which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]

This is one of many cases where Attasarana confuses the very ordinary word attan (meaning "oneself") with the Vedantic Atman. The proper translation is "as your own lamp (or maybe: island), as your own refuge". The proper reference is DN 16.ii.100, not DN 2.100.

Formula -Attasarana

Gotama is a Tevijjan (man of the Upanishads)-Digha.

Attasarana, I will make this clear once and for all. You do not know Pali. You do not understand Pali. You make the most egregious, elementary errors in Pali. You need to stop misrepresenting yourself as some sort of Pali scholar because you are not. The Upanishads are not mentioned in the Pali Canon. Tevijja (Sanskrit Traividya) has nothing to do with the Upanishads; it means "possessing the three knowledges" -- usually, but not always, referring to knowledge of the three Vedas. This sort of Vedic knowledge is condemned as useless in -- as you might guess -- the Tevijja Sutta (DN 13). There's no indication that the Buddha used the Upanishads at all. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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).

I have not counted all the uses of anatta in the Pali Tipitaka, but I wouldn't accept Attasarana's claim without verification. However, nothing very important hangs on the exact number. It is to be noted, however, that while only all sankhāras (composites) are said to be impermanent and suffering (because Nibbāna is neither impermanent nor suffering), all dhammas are anattā -- and Nibbāna is one of the dhammas. Sabbe dhammā is all-inclusive; it doesn't leave any room for an eternal Atman outside of the dhammas.

Formula -Attasarana

See below for your error on "sabbe dhamma anatta", wherein you are refuted.

I'm afraid you're wrong.

Contrary to some popular books written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things as other than the Soul, to be anatta.

The Buddha never refers to a Vedantic "Soul", so there is no reason to inject one into the discussion. The "doctrine of anatta" question is a red herring. It is true that "Anatta" does not refer to a specific doctrine in Buddhist texts, but who ever said it did? "Anatta doctrine" is just English shorthand for "a doctrine about anatta". Of course, it is not isolated in Buddhist writings, because it is only one of several teachings; it just happens to be the one that stands out as unusual to Western eyes. However, the statement sabbe dhammā anattā (Dhammapada 279) is stated as clearly as it can be: "Everything is without self". This is what is meant by "Anatta doctrine".

Formula -Attasarana

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 as pertains the physical body or the cosmos at large, including 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)

Actually, it's not interchangeable; as I pointed out, Nibbāna is neither dukkha nor anicca, but it is anattā.

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.”

Nibbana IS "Bhavanirodha" (Subjugation of becoming), also the "paramosukkham" (Greatest bliss). Nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE is Nibbana called anatta in the Suttas, the Nikayas.

Nibbana is considered a dhamma in Theravada teaching. "The dhammas fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material phenomena that constitute the process of experience." [1]RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Formula -Attasarana

Anatta refers only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any one of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or Khandhas (skandhas, aggregates).

This is untrue; it refers to the absence of self in all dhammas -- which means, all the constituents of the universe.

Formula -Attasarana

Anatta/Anatman in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta).

Among other things. It also means "the fact that something has no self", "the quality of lacking a self", "self-lessness", "non-self".

ABCDEF is not X (atman), therefore X doesnt exist- this is a Fallacy of great account. Be smarter in the future. Neti neti (this is not it, nor that).

The point is that ABCDEF = Everything, exhaustively, with nothing left over. There is no place where the Buddha teaches an existing Atman. Period. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The commonly held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is a concept, which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the sutras, of Buddhism.

This is just POV. What's ascertainable is that, for a long list of things including "all dharmas", the Buddha taught the absence of self; and that furthermore, there is no text in the Nikayas in which the Buddha teaches the existence of self. To insert a Vedantic atman-belief into Buddhist teachings goes well beyond what the texts will justify.

Formula -Attasarana

The Pali term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where when Gotama was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, equated this question to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada).

The citation should be SN 44.10, or PTS iv 400. The summary is false, and is a good example of Attasarana's poor scholarship in Pali. Natthatta is not a noun for "no soul"; it is simply a statement, "natthi attā" = "oneself does not exist" or "there is no self". This short sutta is very clear as to its meaning: it does not deny anatta at all, but rather affirms it, with the Buddha saying that he cannot affirm the existence of an atta because that is inconsistent with the knowledge (ñā.na) that "all dhammas are without self" (sabbe dhammā anattā). It explains that the Buddha refused to answer negatively when asked whether there was a self or no because he did not want Vacchagotta (the questioner in the sutta) to misconstrue him as saying that there was a self which later became annihilated. This is what "ucchedavāda" means -- it's a doctrine of the destruction of the self, not of the absence of self in the first place. Its opposite is sassatavāda, affirmation of an enduring self, which is what Attasarana appears to be affirming: but the same sutta rebuts sassatavāda just as much as ucchedavāda.

Formula -Attasarana

Again, see below on your refutation on sabbe dhamma' anatta. You dont know Pali or Buddhist doctrine, as is obvious.

This is a phenomenon known as "projection". RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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 so the most common utterance of Gotama Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutra, to hold the view that there is “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = to ucchedavada (SN 4.400) [Annihilationism] = natthika (nihilist).

This re-cites the same sutta discussed above, and misstates its message in the same way. There is no hint in any of these suttas that the Buddha was affirming the existence of a Vedantic world-soul, and he is clearly denying the existence of the individual self in just about every way it can be imagined (as he does exhaustively in the Brahmajala Sutta, DN.1). The word "natthika" nowhere appears in the sutta quoted.

Formula -Attasarana

NATTHIKAVADIN = Ucchedavada in many citations.

But not in this passage.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

That is not the meaning of tathatta. It means "the state of being thus". And you continue to advertise yourself as a Pali scholar?

. It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa)

Namo means "homage". Nāma is "name", or the immaterial parts of the personality. And you continue to advertise yourself as a Pali scholar?

-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 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).”

Nothing about this shows that not affirming a "self" is ucchedavāda.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

You continue to misrepresent (and mis-cite) the same passage. I have already dealt with this matter. I suspect you have never read the sutta in question in its entirety. In addition, you have not bothered to learn the little bit of Pali that I have endeavored to teach you: namely, that "natth' attā" is not a noun, but a phrase. And you continue to advertise yourself as a Pali scholar?

[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])’”.

You're no closer to showing that not affirming the existence of atta is ucchedavāda.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], 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”.

Materialism seems rather irrelevant here, since four of the five skandhas are immaterial.

Four of the 5 khandhas are empirical and phenomenal. Even Materalists admit to immaterial feelings and emtions. Think before you respond next time.

All of the five skandhas consist of dhammas. However, vedanā, samjñā, samskāra and vijñāna are immaterial -- in Buddhist philosophy. I can't speak to your private philosophy. That, however, is not a proper subject of this article. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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’” [MN 1.232] The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 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 (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.” 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 Atman (Soul) doctrine, it in fact complements it.

The five skandhas are supposed to summarize all of the real dharmas which constitute a human being. There is nowhere any assertion of a "self" separate from the five skandhas, as Attasarana claims. The Milindapañha is very clear that there is nothing outside the five skandhas which can be held to constitute a person.

Formula -Attasarana

Citations proving your conjecturous untruth:

English, please.

[Th2 96] “Behold ultimate Truth (thing as they are or as become), these very aggregates as manifest; my mind is emancipated (vimuttacitta) from these, now fulfilled is the Doctrine of the Buddha.”

[Nettippakarana 44] “The mind (citta) is cleansed of the five khandhas (pañcakkhandha’)" [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.” [MN 1.436] “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!”

Are you claiming that "citta" is "Self"? That at least is a claim that can be analyzed. However, in a technical sense "citta" is equivalent to vijñāna; it is also used in a broader, more colloquial sense. In either case it is composite (sankhata) and so is also anatta.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”.

I can't verify this citation from (I guess) the Śatapatha Brahmana, but it is unlikely to be relevant to a Buddhist teaching.

Formula -Attasarana

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 teaching about anatta is a teaching that things do not have self. To say that it is a teaching "of what the Soul is not" is to assume that a "Soul" exists in the first place, but the existence of such a "Soul" is not taught in the Pali Canon in any way.

Excuse your error, the "teachings about what IS anatta" is doctrinally accurate.

Your English is very poor, and you could be saying two quite opposite things here. It is impossible for me to guess. I think you are merely quibbling in any case.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Formula -Attasarana

The Soul is taught, your POV is not doctrine or logical. Correct your illogical conjectures in the future.

Concepts different from your own are not, by that fact, "illogical". Insult, likewise, is not argument.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"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] "Nirvana means the subjugation of becoming" [AN 5.9] "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness (asuñña)" [Uparipanna’sa-Att. 4.151] "Steadfast-in-the-Soul (thitattoti) means steadfast in ones True-nature (thitasabha'vo)" [Tikanipa’ta-Att. 3.4]

As usual, Attasarana is using bad translations. The term "atta" is usually 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)

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]

Another bad citation. You mean Mark 8:34, "let him deny himself" &c. This is totally irrelevant to the subject-matter of this article.

Your personal views are irrelavent of doctrine.

You cannot expect anyone to take seriously the idea that a Christian scripture, separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of years and a wholly different culture, has any relevance to an earlier Buddhist text.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

but this is not what modern writers mean 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)

This is simply untrue. In no place in the Pali canon will you find an affirmation of the Vedantic Atman.

Formula -Attasarana

"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator.”[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam]

"Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96]-Gotama “The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270]

You seem to have run out of citations, as you're recycling old ones. Do you even read them, or do you just cut and paste arbitrary lists of citations without caring if they are relevant or not? Do you even know what your citations mean? As you continue to use incommensurate systems of citation, I suspect not. I don't think you found these texts yourself; I think you just copied them out of other people's books. Why aren't you citing your secondary sources directly?

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)

Denial is not affirmation. This is sophistry.

Denial of ABCDEF as being NOT-X, is not the denial of X, that is a fallacy and ignorant. Par for the course for you.

Your burden of proof is to show that the Buddha ever taught an enduring self. So far, nothing except insults. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real”[Br. Sutra III.2.22].

We are not talking about Śankara or his philosophy - invented more than a thousand years after the Buddha. This is an article about the Buddhist concept of anatta. Śankara has nothing to say about it.

Upanishads and Samkara used the term Anatman as well, therefore we must presume they taught there was "no soul"? Illogical POV. The center does not hold.

Contextless, it means nothing at all. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul.

This is assuming the thing you are trying to prove. Who is being quoted here, btw? This doesn't sound like Attasarana's style.

Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism, anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “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”

This doesn't support Attasarana's position. Anatta is not a teaching of the destruction of an existing self. That doesn't mean that it is an affirmation of an existing self either. Attasarana doesn't seem to "get" that there is no assumption of an existing self in the first place.

Formula -Attasarana

Your confusing the two selves. (namo-rupa, empirical, flesh, blood, urine,etc. with that of The Self (Atman, Attan); a common puthujjana error).

It's nāmarūpa, not namo-rupa. There's no evidence that the Buddha ever taught a capital-S Self (whatever that is, precisely), anywhere. You see it because you are predisposed to see it, and you assume that every use of "atta" is your capital-S Self. But what support do you have for this assumption? None. What consistent methodology do you have for determining when "atta" is capital-S Self? (There are no capital letters in Pali manuscripts, after all!) None. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The empirical self of flesh and blood and feeling (namo-rupa) is not in question, its fate is "the grave". Neither Nihilist, nor Materialist denies the fate of that self.

I don't believe the Buddha uses the term "self" in this way either.

Further investigation into Negative theology is the source which should be referenced in further understanding the methodology which the term anatta illuminates.

Negative theology is a Western concept which, like Śankara, doesn't have any proper place in this article.

Negative theology, also called NETI NETI, or Apophasis is FAR more prevalent in Vedantic, Vedic, and Buddhist texts than any "Western" ones. Your very unlearned on this blatent fact.

You won't find "neti neti" in Buddhist texts. You do not, I hope, think that "negative theology" and "apophasis" are Sanskrit terms. They were invented for describing aspects of Christianity. There is, of course, no theology as such in Buddhism at all.

Gotama would be an idiot to tell of the many things that are not the soul, that are anatta, if in fact there was no soul whatsoever. There would be no need to say ABCDEF are Anatta, he would merely declare once and forever "Followers, there is no Soul". The center does not hold in your illogic.

Attasarana keeps patting himself on the back, but there's very little logic to his argumentation at all. 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.

Due to secular propagation,

POV. This 'secular' conspiracy only exists in Attasarana's imagination.

a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as status quo,

It's the point of Wikipedia to present the status quo of current scholarship, not to be a soapbox for changing it. If Attasarana wants to change it, he can get published in a respectable scholarly journal which can then be cited. No, the website doesn't count.

It's the point of Wikipedia to present the truth, and all religious facts are Sola Scriptura (in doctrine), not secular conjecture. As such, Buddhism is not the views of HHDL, any Lama, Zen Master, Nagarjuna or otherwise, but of the historical Gotama.

This is the big point, and this is where Attasarana is absolutely and 100% wrong. I wish to emphasize this. It is not the job of Wikipedia to present Attasarana's version of the truth. Attasarana has his own website to do that. It is the job of Wikipedia to present generally accepted knowledge. In general, information in Wikipedia can be expected be congruent with that found in published geneal encyclopedias (like the Britannica) and various specialized encyclopedias. The fact that one person happens to be very very convinced of his own "truth" means absolutely nothing on Wikipedia; regardless of how strongly he feels, he must not and should not be allowed to hijack it for his own purposes.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, we are very much, however, interested in what the traditional Buddhist teaching on Buddhist subjects has been -- including the views of Nagarjuna, the Dalai Lama, and others. They have at least as much right, and probably considerably more, to represent what the Buddha taught. Who is Attasarana? What are his qualifications? Why, he's a self-proclaimed "Buddhist scholar" who claims to know Pali but doesn't, uses abusive language, deletes material critical of his position, and generally defies Wikipedia conventions and precedents. Why are we supposed to take Attasarana so seriously -- more seriously than 2500 years of Buddhist scholarship?

Now I have pointed out that, insofar as Attasarana's views agree with those of Coomaraswamy or Horner or Caroline Rhys Davids, that there can be a paragraph to represent this viewpoint. But this isn't good enough for Attasarana. He isn't content with having his POV presented in a manner commensurate to its importance in scholarship -- and it has some, if only as a bias students of Buddhism can look out for. Instead, Attasarana wants to take over the whole page. It must represent his POV, and his alone, and in addition it must condemn every other Buddhist on this planet. This is not what Wikipedia is for.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

however there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddhism’s denial of soul,

There exists no substantiation that the Buddha ever affirmed the existence of an enduring "self", or used self in anything other than as a conventional term. That Buddhism, Theravada and Mahayana together, affirms that there is no enduring self is admitted by Attasarana (see below).

Formula -Attasarana

This is an outright lie since the Atman is affrimed in the Nikayas as well as the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, as well as even the Lankavatara Sutra.

Both Theravada and Mahayana consistently teach the absence of self. The MPS is not often cited as a doctrinal source by any existing sect. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Attasarana and RandomCritic. Attasarana is actually correct to quote the Mahaparinirvana Sutra as supporting the understanding of non-Self as relating solely to the skandhas (and not the eternal Tathagata or Self). Also, the MPNS is held in highest regard and quoted with full approbation by the Jonangpas of Tibet, the Shinnyo-en school of Japan, the Jodo Shinshu school, the Nyingma School, the Kagyu School, the Nichiren School ... Furthermore, Attasarana is correct to say that the Lankavatara Sutra (in its probably oldest section, the Sagathakam) forcibly expresses the reality of Self and castigates those who reject it. This position is also common - the norm - in the Tathagatagarbha sutras, which essentially support much of Attasarana's position on a non-absolutist interpretation of anatman. The Mahabheriharaka Sutra, for instance, says that "at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', "steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' (atman)". Attasarana's view is indeed unpopular amongst most Buddhists, but it has strong support from the Buddha himself in the Mahayana! All the best. Tony. TonyMPNS 13:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”.

There is no affirmation of the existence of a permanent self. The point of denying "self" in several different things is to exhaust the supply of possible realities to which "self" can refer. If nothing real is left to be "self", then "self" has no referent at all.

You repeat your conjectures far too often. Try harder.

"The aggregates are to be transcended (nissaranam)" SN 3.35

Formula -Attasarana

The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169.

There's nothing like this at the citation given, which I assume means PTS page 169.

That is not a rebutal, but your baseless views.

There's nothing baseless about the fact that there was nothing relevant at the point you cited. If you actually understood your own citations, you might have gone back and checked to see what was written at that point and provided the correct citation. However, I'm afraid that these citations aren't even your own, as that best explains their inconsistency. Where did you really get them from? RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your refutation:

Mahanidesapali 2.235 “niccato sukhato attatoti” Eternal bliss in the Soul

Nettipakaranapali #86 “What is anatta is impermanent, what is eternal is the Soul”

Silakhandhavaggapali Att. 2.377 atta’nan niccameva “Soul is eternal”

More mistranslations. I have already refuted one of them (the Nettipakarana). At the time, Attasarana said "but I never said it was my translation", or words to that effect. Yet here he is, re-pasting this bad translation once again, with no regard to whether it is good or not. And he advertises himself as a Pali scholar?

In fact the phrase “Doctrine of anatta”, or “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist Sutra, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada and Madhyamika commentaries.

Buddhism - (Theravada+Mahayana) = 0. Why should Wikipedia promote Attasarana's POV over that of actual Buddhists?

As the saying goes, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”.

POV. Attasarana is calling the mainstream Buddhist view a lie. This is wholly unsuitable for Wikipedia.

"Mainstream" Buddhism is a secular conglomeration mostly unlike that taught in the Suttas. Wikipedia is interested in doctrinal facts as concerns religions, not secular beliefs, i.e. "there is no Soul", etc.

Wikipedia is interested in facts about Buddhism. Not in facts about Attasarana, however interesting he might be. This is an article about Anatta in mainstream Buddhism, not in Attasarana's private eclectic Helleno-Christo-Buddho-Vedantism.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Those interested parties to Buddhism incapable of pouring through endless piles of Buddhist doctrine have defacto accepted the notion of a “Doctrine of anatta” as key to Buddhism itself, when in fact there exists not one citation of this concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we must stick strictly to sutra as reference, wherein the usage of anatta never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain not (AN) our Soul (ATTA). Certainly the most simple philosophical logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it was the Soul, i.e. was in fact anatta.

This is all highly biased argumentation. I'll again point out that the five skandhas include, in intention, every aspect of mind as well as body, and leave no place for an Atman, immaterial or material. Just as much to the point, no such Atman is ever claimed to exist in the Pali Canon.

Formula -Attasarana

"The aggregates are to be transcended (nissaranam)" -[SN 3.35] - Now what?

Relevance, please. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The perfect contextual usage of anatta is: “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]

Not supportive of Attasarana's position.

You didnt read the citation, it supports it perfectly, "So he turns his mind away from these (Khandhas)". -"The aggregates are to be transcended (nissaranam)" -[SN 3.35]

Attasarana is, I think, -- again, I understand his English is poor -- making some sort of unstated assumption about the connection between "mind" and self, or "escape" (nissara.nam) and self. I don't read minds, so I won't try answering an argument that isn't stated. But it should be obvious that whatever it is, Attasarana is reading it into the text, and not out of the text.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara, the founder of Advaita Vedanta.

The Upanishads are only marginally relevant, as it's dubious that most of them antedate the Buddha. Śankara is totally irrelevant.

Gotama is a "Gotama is a man of the Upanishads"-Itivuttaka. Next.

The Buddha condemned the Vedas as a source of knowledge and never mentions the Upanishads. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism, early Christian mystics, and others, 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”- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also called by the Greeks Apophasis.

Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Christian mystics, and apophatic theology are also irrelevant. This is supposed to be an article about the Buddhist concept of anatta.RandomCritic 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Buddhist contextual ussage differs in no way from that of Samkara or the Upanishads. Next!

Given that Attasarana are free with condemnations of "conjecture-speculation", he might try harder to provide some basis for this assertion. But no. RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hodge, I’m afraid to state the obvious that user Random Critic is a typical secularist blind to countless 1000s of scriptural passages as pertains original Buddhism. Not a truth-seeker himself, his mission is to guard his incorrect, secular, and illogical views of Buddhism. Like the Catholic Church, which is nothing Jesus taught (Catholicism), that is often accused of protecting in secret and destroying Gnostic-like manuscripts and gospels, Buddhism too has this breed amongst its rank and file.

Attasarana, this is ad hominem nonsense and completely false to boot. Flinging around insults is not going to gain you respect as a contributor to Wikipedia. If this is the tack you wish to take, there is no point in trying to rebut you point by point. But until you are willing to respect Wikipedia for what it is (and that is not a platform for your private views), you are going to find yourself unable to make a lasting contribution. There is no room for "all-or-nothing". There's room for some sort of presentation of your views, and if you agree to engage in temperate discussion -- don't misrepresent yourself -- cite your real sources -- and generally respect other people, you might be able to get a considerable part of it included in some fashion. However, if you continue to be abusive and confrontational, things are going to turn out differently. Ultimately, this article is too important to be abandoned to your private crusade, and it will be fixed up sooner or later. The question you have to answer is whether you want to be a part of that or not.RandomCritic 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Random Critic, in debate, has been proven that he is unaware and adverse to the fact all religious debates are Sola Scriptura (In Doctrine) and unceasingly refuses to refer to same to support his unsubstantiated claims as pertains Buddhist doctrine.

Unfortunately Random Critics' position is identical to that of Theravada and most of Mahayana to wit the denial of all things other than 6: the 5-khandhas and agnosis (avijja); as such this is merely nothing more than Materialist-Humanism, wherein, thru the denial of ones Subjective Nature (Svabhava-Atman), all that is left is a compassion-based Humanistic Nihilism.

Surely the "light-within (dipam)"-Dn 2.100, and "Immortality (amata)"-Sn 5.9, has no place in what is concurrently passed off to the general public as "the teachings of the Buddha". One might as well deny Christ in Christianity as to remove the "only refuge", the Soul from the doctrine of Buddhism; whether illogical or non-doctrinal, the center doesn’t hold for a Liberation (vimutta) ontology such as Buddhism to espouse such nonsense.

“It cannot be otherwise that the Soul is the refuge, the light within, the refuge of the Tathagatas of the three periods”-[Taisho T .374, trans. Dr. Kosho Yamamoto. . Published 1973 Karibunko press Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra]

Udana 1.81. There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not ,disciples, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed.

"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 come teaching a new path"-Udana

"Gotama is a TEVIJJAN (Comprehensor/Expert in the Vedas)"- common passage

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

"Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-Itivuttaka

[SN 5.5] “The Aryan Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”- Gotama

"I have not made a new path monks, I have only rediscovered what was lost long ago" Itivuttaka - - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana

Correcting the "All Dharmas are anatta" secularist fallacy

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”

Theravada has used as its last defense for 1500 years now, the “sabbe dhamma anatta” defense to ‘prove’ that all is ‘void’ of a Soul in Buddhist doctrine, or that there cannot be a Soul whatsoever, for as they say “all Dharmas” encompasses everything in entirety. The Theravada say this phrase found in the Dhammapada (and other locations) means in translation “All Dharmas are Soulless”. However, in fact, under close examination the Theravada view falls apart very quickly and their self-created dogma disappears under close scrutiny. Here ends the “sabbe dhamma anatta” debate.

Dhammmapada #279 Phrase dissected 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.

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’ 662 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).

As you correctly point out, anattā is used here as an adjective. It is not a verb or a verbal derivative. It cannot, therefore, take a direct object. Sabbe dhammā anattā is a series of three masculine nominative plural nouns, forming a copular sentence without an overt "be" verb. There is no other possible reading. That sabbe takes the pronominal endings, including masculine nominative plural in -e, is a fact known by any student of Pali. But not by you. And you advertise yourself as a Pali scholar? RandomCritic 05:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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 san.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 its 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 the term san.kha'ra' (phenomena).

Dhammapada 277. “Sabbe san.kha'ra' anicca'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are impermanent; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. 278. “Sabbe san.kha'ra' dukkha'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are suffering; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. 279. “Sabbe dhamma' anatta'”ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'. ‘The ‘all’ dharmas are not the Soul; when this is seen by means of wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of clarity. The above three passages show certainly that Dhamma’ is taking a different meaning than standard implication of “power/doctrine/Sa’sana” and is replaceable with sankha’ra’ in this context. It is even highly plausible that sankha’ra’ was replaced with dhamma’ by the redactors to imply something Buddhism does not teach.

Other occurances of Sabba in Sutta SN 2.125 sabbe san.kha’ra’ netam. mama nesohamasmi na meso atta’ti ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are not me, are not who I am, are not my Soul. SN 3.43 sabbe san.kha’ra’ anicca’ dukkha’ viparin.a’madhamma’ti ‘The ‘all’ phenomena are not everlasting, suffering are dhammas in flux. AN 1.32 sabbe te dhamma’ anit.t.ha’ya ‘The ‘all’ dharmas are not fixed

SN 4.15 Sabbasuttam. The Sabba Sutta At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, I will teach you on sabba (‘the ‘all’)! Pray listen closely. And what, bhikkhus, is sabba? The eye and its corresponding forms, the ear and its corresponding sounds, the nose and its corresponding smells, the tongue and its corresponding tastes, the body and its corresponding sensations, the intellect and its corresponding dhamma. This, O' bhikkhus, is c’all’ed sabba.

Whosoever, bhikkhus, should proclaim thusly: "Having abandoned these ‘the ‘all’ (sabba), I sh’all’ manifest different set of ‘the ‘all’ (sabba)"-that surely would be only mere (foolish) presumption on his part. If he were questioned on this matter he would only reap his own vexation. How so? It would be utterly outside his abilities to talk about this.

Here ends the Theravada fallacy that Sabbe dhamma' anatta means "All Dharmas are Selfless". The Theravada and other will use any possible crowbar in its failed attempt to turn Buddhism into a Soul denying Nihilism.

Dhammapada Att. 3.407 “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in meaning” - S.A. Buddhologist, Pali translator, Author of books on Buddhist Philosophy. User Attasarana