The suttas don't negate atman....

[Aupmanyav]

Try to tell that to one who sins.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe in the existence of one who sins.

Come to think of it, I believe in the existence of neither a stable "one" nor of a true "sin".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Again, as I said in my post 33, how does my karmas matter to me when someone else with no connection to me, is going to bear the consequences?

But there is a connection. Dependent arising means that the "you" of tomorrow will arise in dependence on the "you" of today. The "you" of tomorrow will experience the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today ( and all previous "yous" ).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In terms of the OP, I still can't think of any sutta passages which describe an atman or true self. If anyone else can point to one it would be interesting to discuss it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you asking whether Karma is personal? Because I don't think it is.

Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure how impersonal karma would work.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The "you" of tomorrow will experience the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today ( and all previous "yous" ).

Why should I worry about 'you of tomorrow' whose fate has no effect on me today? Still not convinced. Acceptance of 'atma' at least gives a reason that one may not lend in hell or in an incarnation lower than humans and at a lower comfort level. Otherwise like one philosophy current in Buddha's time, the 'charvaks', we should worry about only about happenings in this life.

"Yavat jivet sukham jivet, rinam kritva ghritam pibet;
bhasmibhutasya dehasya, punaragamanam kutah."
Till you live, live happily, drink ghee* even if on debt;
after the body is turned to ashes, where reincarnation?
* Ghee (Clarified butter) makes food rich and tasty. Unfortunately, at my age my wife does not allow much of it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why should I worry about 'you of tomorrow' whose fate has no effect on me today? Still not convinced. Acceptance of 'atma' at least gives a reason that one may not lend in hell or in an incarnation lower than humans and at a lower comfort level. Otherwise like one philosophy current in Buddha's time, the 'charvaks', we should worry about only about happenings in this life.

We usually operate under the assumption that there will be a tomorrow, and that we will have to live tomorrow with the consequences of what we do today. Of course we could just live for today and not worry about the consequences, but that looks like an irresponsible and unwise approach to take.

But returning to the OP, the question is whether there are any passages in the suttas which show the Buddha teaching about an atman. I'm not aware of any such passages, and I haven't seen any brought up in this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why should I worry about 'you of tomorrow' whose fate has no effect on me today?

To be blunt, because you are not stupid.

Still not convinced. Acceptance of 'atma' at least gives a reason that one may not lend in hell or in an incarnation lower than humans and at a lower comfort level. Otherwise like one philosophy current in Buddha's time, the 'charvaks', we should worry about only about happenings in this life.

There is little to no difference to speak of. Those unwilling to care about the life they know of can't very well care about any others.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure how impersonal karma would work.

Eh. You just explained how, or began to, in #43.

Much like the boundaries of cause and effect between the person you are right now and the person you were yesterday or will be tomorrow are fuzzy and somewhat arbitrary, for even better reasons and with greater effect the quality of life and environment of people also transcend the boundaries of individual personalities.

Karma does not have a mind to tell it to exercise restraint. Our actions do not make a point of stopping short of having consequences in those who have not earned them.

Karma is impersonal. And therefore, religious duty can't very well focus on individual lives (or personal incarnations) without losing its way. I even suspect that the Tathagata saw the need to expose his Dharma largely because the focus on reincarnation had led the Hindu Dharma stray at that time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even Tathagata could not do away with 'karma'. It is a social necessity even if ithe boundaries are fuzzy. I do not think Tathagata ever talked about 'atma'. Actually, he said that we should not dwell upon the mechanics of 'karmas' but concentrate upon alleviation of suffering. And he was very right.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even Tathagata could not do away with 'karma'.

He did not try to, far as I can tell. He actually taught of it. Why are you implying otherwise?

It is a social necessity even if ithe boundaries are fuzzy. I do not think Tathagata ever talked about 'atma'. Actually, he said that we should not dwell upon the mechanics of 'karmas' but concentrate upon alleviation of suffering. And he was very right.

Are you implying that Karma must be used as a social control tool?

I don't think I can approve of that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually, he said that we should not dwell upon the mechanics of 'karmas' but concentrate upon alleviation of suffering. And he was very right.

Yes, the Buddha took a pragmatic approach to kamma, but he also stressed personal responsibility. So for example there are references in the suttas to us being "heirs to our kamma", and "beings re-appearing in different realms according to their actions".

Also the 8-fold path has a strong focus on transforming our personal behaviour, including the path factors of Right Effort and Right Intention.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To be blunt, because you are not stupid.

I do not understand your meaning here.

There is little to no difference to speak of. Those unwilling to care about the life they know of can't very well care about any others.

I think the idea of punishment by God has prevented people from engaging in evil deeds. Of course, that is not true for all humanity since all times. There have been people who have engaged in evil deeds in name of their Gods.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you implying that Karma must be used as a social control tool? I don't think I can approve of that.

IMHO, 'karma' has always been a social control tool. Good deeds and evil deeds, and their results. The monotheists, in addition, tied it to the worship of their particular Gods. Good deeds as well as the worship of their particular Gods. For them, just the first would not do as it does in dharmic religions. As for approvals, people have various views.

Also the 8-fold path has a strong focus on transforming our personal behaviour, including the path factors of Right Effort and Right Intention.

Buddha called it the Noble Eight-fold path. It is none other than 'dharma' in the rest of the dharmic religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not understand your meaning here.

Morality is dependent on and reliant on intelligence. People who are too myopic to realize that moral duty transcend the individual do exist, but I don't think you are one of them.

I think the idea of punishment by God has prevented people from engaging in evil deeds.

I suppose so. As you note yourself, though, that is not really something to encourage or approve of, much less pursue.

It is not unlike noting that oppresive policing reduces open crime. Probably true, but not worth the cost.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddha called it the Noble Eight-fold path. It is none other than 'dharma' in the rest of the dharmic religions.

Right....and?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Morality is dependent on and reliant on intelligence.

That is what I mean. Many people (not all) with not enough intelligence kept away from evil deeds because of fear of God and punishment. I agree it is not the best way to go about, but we must remember that these people were myopic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Right....and?

And .. nothing much. Buddha came to turn the wheel of 'dhamma' and he did to the extent possible. My homage to my guru, Gautama, the Buddha.

 

[LuisDantas]

IMHO, 'karma' has always been a social control tool. Good deeds and evil deeds, and their results. The monotheists, in addition, tied it to the worship of their particular Gods. Good deeds as well as the worship of their particular Gods. For them, just the first would not do as it does in dharmic religions. As for approvals, people have various views.Buddha called it the Noble Eight-fold path. It is none other than 'dharma' in the rest of the dharmic religions.

I see that interpretation as an abuse and degeneration of the concept.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is what I mean. Many people (not all) with not enough intelligence kept away from evil deeds because of fear of God and punishment. I agree it is not the best way to go about, but we must remember that these people were myopic.

How many is many? How legit would it even be to count on them to create doctrine?