Talk:Anatta

From Academic Kids

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)

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 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html)] 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