Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Help With Understanding Anatman
Buddha_Fan22
Explorer
Hi, I'm trying to understand the concept of anatman. This has been the biggest confusion for me. I know the skandhas are anatman (nonself), but, when Buddha talks about the continuation of consciousness, is this related to how hindus use the word consciousness (atman)?
0
Comments
No.
Forget Hinduism + Buddhism. I think they are as unalike as they are similar.
See this link....
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html
Federica, thanks. You have anything else so I can understand it more?
no the self is not the skhandas how I heard it. because if you examine the skhandas in meditation you can not find a self in them.
I think the very best person to offer scholastic guidance is my good friend (and colleague) @Jason.
I have alerted him, so doubtless he will come to this thread soon to discuss this matter with you closely, himself.
He is both authoritative and knowledgeable, and will give you further sources and links to read up on.
Try here. For references to Anatta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=015061908441090246348:dj4lxnh4dda&cof=FORID:9;NB:1&ie=UTF-8&q=anatman&sa=Search
But Anatman is not the negation of Atman.
It's something totally different.
Starting on another end this is a good introduction to Theravada thought and texts
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf
Starting on even another end which is the end I do recommend to start with
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/Sutta-nipataBM6.pdf
Enjoy.
/Victor
Victorious, thanks!
I have another question. I understand Brahma in Buddhism is a class of devas, but, in my translation of the Dhammapada it says "But who can blame those who are pure, wise, good, and meditative? They shine like a coin of pure gold. Even the gods praise them, even Brahma the Creator."(17:228) I thought there wasn't a creator god in Buddhist teaching.
I know that, but, if there was no soul/self (you get it), there would be nothingness. Thats why I thought the skandhas are nonself, therefore it's not the atman. I know it's a similar way of thinking in the upanishads and not a "buddhist" way of seeing it.
Buddhist Cosmology is very peripheral to the teachings and probably not as well thought through as the more central teachings. So you shouldn't give too much credence to it.
But there is a difference in the use of the word Creator. Christians refer to the Creator of All meaning the Universe. But for Buddhists there are several Creator gods in their own part of creation. As I understand it.
And neither of them Created Samsara. They are themselves part of Samsara.
/Victor
Maybe the topic for another thread? Dont be shy...
All fabricated things are empty.
The Skandhas and the Dependent Origination are two ways to understand how the self illusion manifests.
Forget veda it will not help you understand buddhism. In the beginning it will only confuse you.
Gotama took many terms from veda and changed their meaning to be used in the Dhamma.
You will only confuse yourself trying to compare the two.
Well, hang on: In matters of this nature, you can't really have a foot in both camps, can you?
What is it you want to adhere to exactly?
Hinduism or Buddhism?
There are?
I didn't know that. Where?
Hmmm. I am not fluent in buddhist cosmology. Try the brahmajala sutta I think.
Will get back with more.
Buddhism. Yes, trying to put the two together only creates confusion.
I'll study more on dependent origination. I haven't been paying attention to that as much.
And thank you guys for helping me out!
Maybe there is something here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
And the reference seems interesting...
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/e#a4887
Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 1-3
OP, I've been trying to hash out and understand the teachings on consciousness as they may apply to rebirth. In Mahayana tradition, it's consciousness that is reborn and that carries the karmic seeds from our previous lives. (Which comes perilously close to an "atman"-like concept.) But Theravada has a different interpretation. Though there seems to be some disagreement on precisely what that interpretation is.
In any case, Bhante Sujato says in a video that in order to understand these teachings, it's important to understand the cultural background of the society and times in which the Buddha lived and taught. He says that the Hindu term "vinnana/vijnana" not only referred to "consciousness", but also carried the meaning of "that which is reborn". He says that without keeping that in mind when reading the suttras, we're likely to misinterpret the teachings.
This can open a whole can of worms for debate, IMO. Did the Buddha use the term "vinnana" in the Hindu sense, is that a fair assumption? Or did he intend it more narrowly? Pali scholar Stephen Batchelor (who's controversial, which may or may not be relevant here) says that the Buddha tended to use Hindu terms but stand them on their end, giving them almost an opposite meaning, in some instances. He very much had his own take on things, Batchelor says.
This is an important question, because some Theravada followers say it's not consciousness that's reborn, it's merely the karmic load that tranfers to a new vessel, i.e. a newborn sentient being. If that's true, it means that the Buddha didn't use "vinnana" in the Hindu sense, and thereby remained consistent with his "anatman" teachings.
If you follow me.
Err yeah...
That is the most central and important part of Buddhism. I doubt you will get much out of it unless you become more at ease with Buddhist Concepts.
I do recommend you start in the corners I have provided.
But Hey!
Good luck anywho.
You have the right ambition!
Wish you have the patience too.
/Victor
Theravada followers say it's not consciousness that's reborn, it's merely the karmic load that tranfers to a new vessel, i.e. a newborn sentient being.
That the easiest way i've heard it put.
I wouldn't get too hung up on single-word details such as the mention of Brahma. You will find it in other readings, too. Remember the sutras weren't written by Buddha, his monks wrote them years later. So the influence of their culture, including in part the vedas, are going to be present in some of the writings. Also, Buddha investigated the religions of his time and then rejected them. But he still had to work with people who believed in some of those religious teachings and at the very least people who had those teachings as the basis of their culture. The mere mention of Brahma doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight. When I am talking to Christian friends, I might tell them I am praying for them, when in reality I am doing Tonglen for them but attempting to explain that would not help them in any way. To focus on a single chosen word would be to miss the intention of the action (or in the case of the Dhammapada, the passage).
Talking purely of rebirth for an instant, here is an an analogy I once heard, which I think puts things into the most simple complexity (or complex simplicity):
Take a candle.
Light it.
Now take a second candle.
Light this candle from the first one.
Blow the first candle out.
This second flame:
.....is it the same as the first one, or different?
@karasti
Yup, the nikayas were written 100 years after his death. Yeah, you're right, see the meaning behind the passage and not take it in a "hindu" mindset i guess.
Yes, I've heard that analogy in a video of anatta by Enthusiastic Buddhist. That helped me understand rebirth vs reincarnation.
That's a good question, though. It does have elements of the first one. The candle analogy is one thing we're examining and debating on another forum. There's also the "echo" analogy: someone shouts from a cliff, or from the bottom of a canyon, and the echo of their voice bounces off the sides. The voice isn't the same person shouting over and over, it's just a reflection of their voice.
Do those really answer the more detailed question of whether it's consciousness or karma, or both, that are reborn? What does the candle flame or the echo represent, exactly?
Consciousness (Mahayana) or Kammic load (Theravada).
The flame is affliction, the searing pain of attachment and the scream is the voice of your angst.
Pretty good analogies if you think about it.
what scream? I do not scream. My attachment is lessening by the day, and trust me, I've had plenty to practise on....
It is pointless to scream....
Thank you! This is so simple.
Actually, it's both, for Mahayana. Consciousness is the vehicle that carries the karmic load. But still, it's refreshing to find someone who's so simple and clear on the Theravada understanding.
I wouldn't go that far. lol.
I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but the short answer is, I think the teachings on not-self are more pragmatic than ontological. See this post, for example.
May I ask, @Buddha_Fan22, how far have you studied the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, so far...?
Yes, that's a good way of describing it. An analogy I sometimes use is the "you" of today and the "you" of tomorrow. So the "you" of tomorrow will not be the same as the "you" of today, but the "you" of tomorrow will experience the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today, and of all the previous days. The suttas talk about beings reappearing in different realms according to their actions, which basically describes kamma.
As for anatta, there is an interesting exchange in MN38 between the Buddha and Sati. Sati think it's the same consciousness that "wanders on", assuming an essence or soul that continues from life to life. The Buddha corrects him and points out that consciousness is always dependently arisen. Elsewhere in the suttas it's explained that form and consciousness are mutually dependent, with consciousness "descending" ( arising? ) when a new life is created.
There are?
I didn't know that. Where?
I wantz a god please. I would like several good ones. I have a cupboard, should fit Thor, Superman and Chenresig, three rainbows and a whole truckload of metta . . . in there . . .
@federica The 4 truths and the 8 fold path were my first subjects I've went into. "Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" by Thich Nhat Hanh covers it well.
And do you fully understand them? Do you accept them, and have you absorbed them to the point where they are your main focus....?
Yes, I have.
Well it's a question of living by them 100%.
I am surprised, to be frank with you that you sound so self-assured.
There are even some monks who have simplified their practice and focused on the 4, the 8 and the 5, and are still studying them to fully implement them as their primary focus....
I myself have been doing this for 20+ years, and I still haven't completely got them yet....
@federica Yeah, I'll agree with you there that I've been too fixed on views...
To understand something logically (I think) is entirely different than understanding them in experience and practice. I understand them well enough to thoroughly explain them to others. I am confident in my logical understanding. But I think every teacher I've ever been on retreat with has said to truly comprehend the 4 noble truths is astounding as it is one of the most profound teachings there is. Do I understand them? Sure. Do I TRULY comprehend them? That's another story. I think all of Buddhism is built into them, from the very first teachings to the most complicated. The 4 noble truths contain the whole kit n kaboodle, including emptiness, karma, rebirth etc so I think it's a lot to say one fully understands them.
And that was my point.
If I may say so, @Buddha_Fan22, I get the feeling you're trying to run before you can walk.... scrutinising the differences between anatman and anataman, celestial Buddhas in Mahayana and other quite complicated factors, seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.
Please don't take that as a condemnatory criticism.
I remember meeting a Theravada nun, Sister Brahmavara at Amaravati, and we were discussing the 4, the 8 and the 5, and how essential it was to study them, and she said, to go one better, just "Simplify!"
Shed all baggage, all conditions, all preconceived ideas, all judgements, and Just 'Be'.
Relax. Apply. Address, modify, redress, continue walking.
Such a breath of refreshing, fresh air!
Very true, very true!
I really am not trying to dampen your enthusiasm, but sometimes, it feels like we're doing this -
When we should be doing this....
^ Yes!
Hi, @Buddha_Fan22!
To address the subject of the OP first, the idea of anatman in Buddhism would be that there is no abiding self or soul.
We are but constant momentary becoming, a never-ending succession of psycho-physical processes, with the term "me" used mostly for the sake of convenience.
It's not so much that there is no self, rather that we are interrelated and not independently arisen.
As to the 4NT, one interesting point HH the Dalai Lama makes about the Buddhist path is, first and foremost "to establish a firm grounding in the basic practices of the Buddhadharma."
Then he adds, "for a practising Buddhist, it is really vital to develop an understanding of the Four Noble Truths, and to meditate upon them."
But then, I stay with Fede's advice, and what I usually like to say about my own approach to Buddhism: read, study, investigate, compare, in order to absorb Buddhadharma with your guts, rather than with your brain.
Make the word come to life in your actions, your behaviour, your daily life, but drop the brain overstuffing.
Buddhadharma is meant to be lived.
Newbie!
Gosh yes, in so many ways I STILL feel 'wet behind the ears'.... Tp of the iceberg stuff....
What's that thing about the circle of knowledge, the more you know the more you don't know, something like that. I think it was Ajahn Chah who talked about embracing uncertainty, letting go of the need to know, maybe like beginners mind.
Yes, you're right, each skandha is not your self or anatman. Previously, the student believed the skandhas made up their self. But it turned out that the skandhas were impermanent and suffering—even murderous! So now the student understands of each skandha: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na me so atma).
Edit: As for what transmigrates, it is consciousness rather than the self. Says the Maharatnakuta Sutra:
If someone tells you that going north to the icy tundra will feel very cold, it really won't make much difference what words you use to describe "very cold" until you actually experience it.
In a similar way, follow/walk the path without making any presumptions about the result.
To say that selflessness means nothingness is just an assumption, like saying the icy tundra will feel pointy, or that the rays of the sun will feel like green. Increase the curiosity and dissolve the expectations.