Self or no self in Buddhism?

[themo]

The Pali Canon strictly tells us about non-self. Buddha teaches anatta (no-self) doctrine.

However, in some Mahayana sutras such as Tathagatagarbha sutras, Buddha started to teach eternal, imperishable, unchanging self. (Atman)

Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sutra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)

I`m confused, does "eternal, imperishable, immortal" Atman exits in Buddhism or not?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What one has to understand, is that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is not related to the self as in most other religions. It's not an individual soul. It's not an individual ego. It's the buddha nature that resides within all things. It's the only real aspect to this otherwise illusory existence. It's the dharmakaya. Each person does not possess their own "buddha-nature". Each person is part of the universal and all-encompassing buddha-nature. This is a big difference between the atman/soul/ego.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

And as a side note, alot of Buddhist philosophers teach that there is no inherent difference between the buddha-nature and emptiness, that they are in fact one and the same idea.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore , 'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.(13) -Buddha-

Source: Digital Buddhist Library and Museum

While on the surface this might initially seem to suggest a kind of an "ultimate" form of atman, hence the confusion, this would be a misrepresentation givin that the Buddha subsequently describes this as being empty in nature (anatman) as dynaprajna2011 mentioned already. Albiet yet real enough, this remains clingless, fluid, and ungraspable of which there is nothing that can be held on to. From my understanding, the Tathagatagarbha is primarily a help in addressing any fear of anatman while making it clear that this is not to be construed as being the Upanishadic Atman.

 

[themo]

What one has to understand, is that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is not related to the self as in most other religions. It's not an individual soul. It's not an individual ego. It's the buddha nature that resides within all things. It's the only real aspect to this otherwise illusory existence. It's the dharmakaya. Each person does not possess their own "buddha-nature". Each person is part of the universal and all-encompassing buddha-nature. This is a big difference between the atman/soul/ego.

Advaita Hindus basically say the same thing. They say there are no atmans but just one Atman and it`s within all things, it`s not ego but "watcher/witness" inside.

Well, as far as I can understand, this form of Mahayana is much more close to Hinduism than Theravada is.

 

[themo]

Direct quotes from Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

"The Tathagata also teaches, for the sake of all beings, that, truly, there is the Self (Atman) in all phenomena."

"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guṇa), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva).”

“The True Self is the Tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-Principle, Buddha Element, Buddha-Factor]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [mental and moral afflictions) ….”

On the question of the Self, Yamamoto writes that earlier the Buddha taught non-Self to meet the needs of the occasion. Now he teaches the truth of the Self, which remains once the non-Self is done away with:

'What the Buddha says here is that he spoke thus to meet the occasion. But now the thought is established [of non-Self], he means to say what is true, which is about the inner content of nirvana itself ... If there is no more any non-Self, what there exists must be the Self...

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Direct quotes from Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

"The Tathagata also teaches, for the sake of all beings, that, truly, there is the Self (Atman) in all phenomena."

"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guṇa), the Self is eternal (śāśvat&#257, the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva).”

“The True Self is the Tathāgata-dhātu [Buddha-Principle, Buddha Element, Buddha-Factor]. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleśas [mental and moral afflictions) ….”

On the question of the Self, Yamamoto writes that earlier the Buddha taught non-Self to meet the needs of the occasion. Now he teaches the truth of the Self, which remains once the non-Self is done away with:

'What the Buddha says here is that he spoke thus to meet the occasion. But now the thought is established [of non-Self], he means to say what is true, which is about the inner content of nirvana itself ... If there is no more any non-Self, what there exists must be the Self...

This could get pretty involved, so I hope you're ready for a long discussion. Read the Heart Sutra. It has similar sayings about particular Buddhist beliefs, such as there being no karma, no Nirvana, no attainment, etc. This doesn't mean these don't exist. You have to remember one thing: the Buddhist path is called the Middle Way. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the center point between two opposites, but that it transcends any type of dualities to the highest truth, which is shunyata. So, in shunyata, there is neither Nirvana or Samsara, neither increase nor decrease, neither good nor evil, neither attainment nor non-attainment. In the same way, there's neither self nor no-self. There's neither impermanence nor abiding-ness. There's neither suffering nor release. All the things the Buddha taught, even when they seem contradictory to something else he taught, was upaya, skillful means, he taught the listener what they needed to hear in order to progress on the spiritual path. So he might teach no-self to one person, but teach self to another person. The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra was one of the last sermons of the Buddha. He spent a good deal teaching of non-self. Now look what he tells the monks here: "do not cultivate...no-self." Then he says, "meditate on the idea of self." Look closely at these two statements. I've highlighted the important word in each statement. Do not cultivate no-self, why? Because they had been doing that. They had become attached to the idea of no-self. So he tells them to meditate on the idea of self. On the Idea. Once they had become proficient in that, once they had attained enlightenment, they would have realized that both are true, and both are not true. They would realize what's taught in the Heart Sutra, that in shunyata, dualities don't exist. They would have realized this in their meditation. They had become so focused on no-self, that they forgot the Middle Way. If you ask the reason why the Buddha spent so much more time talking about no-self, it's because everyone else was teaching in the absolute idea of atman, the self. He had to spend more time counteracting that, so he could fully reveal the truth of the Middle Way, and that is that both self and non-self are both true and not true. The Buddha taught according to the capacity of his listeners. He taught them what they needed to hear. And he didn't teach his whole Dharma all at once. It was gradually revealed. And there's one more thing, for now. Look at what else the Buddha said: the true self is tathagatagarbha. The true self, that self which is not no-self, is the Buddha nature within each sentient being. This is different than atman. But I think I talked some on that in my last post on this thread. So, I hope that helps, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Advaita Hindus basically say the same thing. They say there are no atmans but just one Atman and it`s within all things, it`s not ego but "watcher/witness" inside.

Well, as far as I can understand, this form of Mahayana is much more close to Hinduism than Theravada is.

There's alot of similarities between Advaita Vedanta and certain schools in Mahayana Buddhism, particularly Zen, and even Dzogchen practice in Tibetan Buddhism. However, there are various schools within both Buddhism and Hinduism. As far as certain Mahayana schools and Advaita, they are nondualistic, so there's alot of similarities. Theravada is more dualistic, and would be closer to Dvaita and probably some Bhakti schools of Hinduism.

 

[koan]

For there to be emptiness, there requires something to be empty. As Themo said, the Heart Sutra encompasses it all.

 

[DreadFish]

Well, I also had my questions about this a while back and I read quite a bit.

First, I should say, there is no such thing as a "doctrine of no-self [or] soul," thats a western idea. The Buddha never said there was no self, he never created a "doctrine," he simply stated what was not the self (anatta = "not self," not "no self"), as in "physical sensations, emotions, thoughts are not my self (anatta), not me."

Now, from what I understand, this idea in the west that Buddhism teaches that there is no soul or self is a complete misunderstanding that has been propagated by many western scholars and those who have studied Eastern ideas and religions since the beginning of such studies (there were other gross misrepresentations by western scholars and researchers about Hinduism back then).

The Buddha said what was not the self, and he said that there was no unchanging, independent, separate self. He was talking about the inter-connectivity of things. There can not be a separate, unchanging self, because no phenomenon has self nature, i.e nothing is, what it is, simply because that's what it is. Everything is defined through inter-connectivity. Red is only red by contrast next to other colors, there is no "red-ness" that exists out there and defines what red is. Likewise, there is no "me-ness" that makes me who I am and what I am independently from my own side. In that way, there is no self. Self is defined by what is not self, its relative.

Ekanta posted a good link in another thread in the dharmic section about this: Buddhists: the eternal, lexical rule, brahmanism

It has been said that the enlightened person sees the self in/as all things, and all things in/as himself.

Anyway, its not important. Just let go of the self and the idea and dont worry about whether it exists or not. This idea was never meant to be such a big deal, it was rather to brush off the question so that it does not create distractions.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Well, I also had my questions about this a while back and I read quite a bit.

First, I should say, there is no such thing as a "doctrine of no-self [or] soul," thats a western idea. The Buddha never said there was no self, he never created a "doctrine," he simply stated what was not the self (anatta = "not self," not "no self"), as in "physical sensations, emotions, thoughts are not my self (anatta), not me."

Now, from what I understand, this idea in the west that Buddhism teaches that there is no soul or self is a complete misunderstanding that has been propagated by many western scholars and those who have studied Eastern ideas and religions since the beginning of such studies (there were other gross misrepresentations by western scholars and researchers about Hinduism back then).

The Buddha said what was not the self, and he said that there was no unchanging, independent, separate self. He was talking about the inter-connectivity of things. There can not be a separate, unchanging self, because no phenomenon has self nature, i.e nothing is, what it is, simply because that's what it is. Everything is defined through inter-connectivity. Red is only red by contrast next to other colors, there is no "red-ness" that exists out there and defines what red is. Likewise, there is no "me-ness" that makes me who I am and what I am independently from my own side. In that way, there is no self. Self is defined by what is not self, its relative.

Ekanta posted a good link in another thread in the dharmic section about this: Buddhists: the eternal, lexical rule, brahmanism

It has been said that the enlightened person sees the self in/as all things, and all things in/as himself.

Anyway, its not important. Just let go of the self and the idea and dont worry about whether it exists or not. This idea was never meant to be such a big deal, it was rather to brush off the question so that it does not create distractions.

Right. You cannot separate different views in Buddhism and make a doctrine out of them. You have to take everything as an organic whole, or it simply doesn't work. In this case, the ideas of no-self and impermanence, and Dreadfish said it quite well how this works. I read an article awhile back, I think at Access to Insight, which is a Theravada site, and while I can't remember the name of the article, the topic was on "no-self" or "non-self" and they said pretty much the same thing Dreadfish has here. Each one of us does not exist independently of everything else, we are all interconnected to everything else, and exist because of the existence of other things. This is called Dependent Origination.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Now, from what I understand, this idea in the west that Buddhism teaches that there is no soul or self is a complete misunderstanding that has been propagated by many western scholars and those who have studied Eastern ideas and religions since the beginning of such studies (there were other gross misrepresentations by western scholars and researchers about Hinduism back then).

The Buddha said what was not the self, and he said that there was no unchanging, independent, separate self. He was talking about the inter-connectivity of things. There can not be a separate, unchanging self, because no phenomenon has self nature, i.e nothing is, what it is, simply because that's what it is. Everything is defined through inter-connectivity. Red is only red by contrast next to other colors, there is no "red-ness" that exists out there and defines what red is. Likewise, there is no "me-ness" that makes me who I am and what I am independently from my own side. In that way, there is no self. Self is defined by what is not self, its relative.

Right, Not to mention that the western view remains notably dualistic which of course, inflames and entangles the misinterpretations even further on so to the point of confusion.

I got caught into that as well. Much easier to see now in that light. TX.

 

[DreadFish]

In fact, with this newfound understanding of the first teachings of Shakyamuni, I think that the Buddha's teachings are very similar to Ramana Maharshi's teachings. Both talk about directly regarding the self as a means for realization.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

In fact, with this newfound understanding of the first teachings of Shakyamuni, I think that the Buddha's teachings are very similar to Ramana Maharshi's teachings. Both talk about directly regarding the self as a means for realization.

I've had that same thought.

 

[koan]

There is no real self, just causes and conditions. If you don't think about something, what happens?

 

[no-body]

Yes, to both

You can get into all sorts of complicated word play and philosophy, the Buddha certainly tried... what it comes down to I think is pointing to the fact that things exist independent of our thoughts in the eternal now. We look at a tree and say "that is a tree" but "that is a tree" are just words. The same being that pervades the tree pervades me and you too so all is one, the separation is in our minds.

 

[Engyo]

Things are always changing. They have no permanent, separately existing self, apart from causes and conditions. This is true of the multiverse itself, all the way down to the tiniest sub-atomic particle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In fact, with this newfound understanding of the first teachings of Shakyamuni, I think that the Buddha's teachings are very similar to Ramana Maharshi's teachings. Both talk about directly regarding the self as a means for realization.

People like Ramana Maharshi are exceedenly rare to come across. Perhaps once or twice in any givin lifetime. I cant express on how this man's teachings and genuineness has affected me already. Only one other person has resonated insofar as much on a personal level, and that is Alan Watts.

 

[wmjbyatt]

All the explicit teachings of the Sutras and such are contradictory. Consider this excerpt from the Heart Sutra:

There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.

The Dharma is called "the inexpressible Dharma" for a reason. The actual, explicit formation of sentences can never quite express the true Dharma. So the teachings exist as guides, as fingers pointing to the moon, as the old metaphor goes. But they are not the moon itself (well, they sort of are, but again, this is the weakness of the language).

 

[Twilight Hue]

All the explicit teachings of the Sutras and such are contradictory. Consider this excerpt from the Heart Sutra:



The Dharma is called "the inexpressible Dharma" for a reason. The actual, explicit formation of sentences can never quite express the true Dharma. So the teachings exist as guides, as fingers pointing to the moon, as the old metaphor goes. But they are not the moon itself (well, they sort of are, but again, this is the weakness of the language).

Red hot ball of iron.