Atman-Brahman in Buddhism

[Skull]

The work on the subject, in French, by Kamaleswar Bhattacharya has been translated into English now. Here is a link on both books and the late Bhattacharya's other related writings:

http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/

[Skull]

From Bhattacharya's conclusion, p. 207:


The Buddha certainly denied the åtman. That åtman,
however, is not the Upanishadic åtman. Better still: the true
spiritual åtman, for the Upanishads as for the Buddha, is the
negation of that which men generally consider to be the
åtman, that is, the psycho-physical individuality.

In actual fact, our controversy is nothing but an argument
over words. The authentic åtman, being the negation of
the empirical åtman, is anåtman; and anåtman is a negative
expression which indicates the authentic åtman, which is ineffable
and—from the objective point of view—“non-existent.”

There is no contradiction between åtman and anåtman. The
åtman, which is denied, and that which is affirmed, through
that negation itself, pertains to two different levels. It is only
when we have not succeeded in distinguishing between
them, that the terms åtman and anåtman seem to us to be
opposed.

[wundermonk]

Hello skull,

While the empirical self is indeed ultimately denied by all astika schools as transient, unreal and hence sublateable, a spiritual atman that is unchanging and undergoes transmigration is positively affirmed. This is the same self that is mired in samsara and ultimately attains moksha/nibbana.

I have not been able to read the document you have presented. Perhaps this is talked about there. Did Buddha affirm the existence of something/anything at all, in your opinion?

Thanks.

[Skull]

Since buddhas and bodhisattvas are real, dedicating eons to helping and teaching beings, the question turns on understanding reality. I am avoiding 'existence' and 'affirmation' because Mahayana teaches that non-conceptual awareness is indescribable, as is buddhahood, dharmakaya etc.

So a short answer is yes, buddha says, in the Srimala Sutra and other tathagatagarbha teachings that there are positive qualities, each of which is empty of inherent existence. Thus Reality has a nature that lacks nature - tathata or Suchness it is named.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Hello,

What Buddha negated is Anatma which is considered as Atman by us. So negation of Atman and Anatman is the same thing. The real self can not be negated because in Upanishada Atman is said to be that thing which can not be negated.

[srivijaya]

This topic has sparked a very long thread at a Buddhist forum I frequent.

I personally feel that the whole debate is flawed from the outset, as it relies upon assertions of what exists versus what does not exist. Within some sections of western Buddhism today I have detected a very strong nihilistic undercurrent, which I consider to be a cultural phenomena. This is countered from time to time by other Buddhists who are likely to be accused of adhering to eternalist doctrines and I think this disquieting and paradoxical situation forms the background for much of the debate.

Unfortunately for both sides Buddha never gave any teachings on this topic - in fact he avoided it entirely, despite being repeatedly asked. He taught that such musings were not conducive to unbinding. A thicket of views, he described it.

But what of anatta? Can that be posited as a metaphysical position?

Many western Buddhists erroneously claim it means that there is no self. Others, following Tibetan teachings, say there is a conventional self but no ultimate self. Again, these are both positions which Buddha never championed and in no way represent anatta.

Anatta is experiential - the powerful realisation that all aggregates and objects of the witnessing consciousness are not-self. It is a release from habitual self-grasping. It is not a metaphysical position. Others have built positions of various kinds out of it but Buddha never did.

Whether Atman exists or not has to be a futile question - searching for a concept or idea to cling to when the state of non-duality is beyond all such things. In the liberated state self and other become meaningless categories.

Namaste

[Skull]

"one self-existent impersonal Spirit , the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return) , the Self-existent , the Absolute , the Eternal... is Brahman."

My questions are, which of the oldest Upanishad(s) plainly explain Brahman this way, without reliance on any commentators' interpretation.

Do they or it equate Atman with Brahman also, again ignoring any commentaries.

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams Skull for posting some good reading material.

This debate of weather the self, the soul, the atman and Brahman is finally reached in Buddhism will always go on imo. I am not scholar but well read enough to know that the debate needs to be looked at from a different perspective rather than comparing different shastra's and traditions against each other.

Siddharta Gautama in an essence taught that it is the defilements that needed to be worked on, and the problem we have at this moment in time lies within the 5 aggregates or kleshas, and there is no inherent self existence within the defilements or the kleshas, or as wundermonk puts it the objective self, the individual. From the Uphanishad point of view lets take the verse from Srimad Bhagavad Gita http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-24.html which means in many ways that the soul or atman does not need to be saved, it remains unaffected in all situations , consciousness is usually understand both in Vedanta and Buddhism as Chitta, and Chitta can either take the form of the conditioned compounded self where it becomes Mind or it turns back into its orginal nature chaitanya. In the 4th state of consciousness Turiya we understand it in two ways, the rudimentary understanding is that of the witness and the ultimate understanding is that of pure transcendent nature free from any trace of phenomena, it cannot be imagined but only experienced, so the Buddha cut out mental proliferation on that Self and dealt exclusivley with the Kleshas and developed skillful means, ie Samatha, jhana, Vipassana and Satipatthana.

For me its a very simple thing and not even a debate, and I see it as something that comes down to a choice of practice and what and how you approach the ultimate truth, the enlightened sages, rishis used what ever tricks they could to make paths to unbind the conditions which make up the objective individual.

Ys
Md

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Verse VII of the Mandukya Upanishad describes Turiya:

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

====

This is from Kevatta Sutta :

Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end, luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

Note [1] Points to MN 49 and in a note in MN49 vinnanam anidassanam was explained.

This is note 9 from MN 49

Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12.64:
"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

[Skull]

Aside from discussing the nature of bodhi, Mahayana followers like me wonder if the varied Hindu paths emphasize the bodhisattva vow? That is, returning voluntarily after liberation, to help for countless lives the countless unenlightened beings?

Too much focus on liberation and unity with the 'eternal, all pervading' atman will result in ignoring all other beings.

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Namaste Skull Ji,

Its a good question, and I think that any sincere aspiring or attained transcendentalists or sadhaka that aspires for the enlightened goal what ever that may be will be naturally engaged in works that benefit all beings. but the questions begs what is the ultimate benefit, both Buddhists and Hindus agree that liberation from samsara is the goal and is the highest attainment and gives the ultimate relief from the distress and sufferings that come in the realms of samsara, Mahayana seems to think that Hinayana is a lesser path and has no concern for all beings and they are not engaged in Altruistic activities, and elevates itself as the path of the Bodhisattva as being superior to the attainment of Buddha, its not always like this but this misconception can creep in.

[QUOTE]Too much focus on liberation and unity with the 'eternal, all pervading' atman will result in ignoring all other beings/QUOTE]

I feel its a tough one to really put in this way, because full focus on our svarupa or eternal identity brings in the sense of one-ness or not being a separate entity, the individual Jiva more or less works for his own selfish needs and is dictated within his selfishness within the modes of nature, goodness, passion and ignorance, so until one comes to the stage of wanted liberation or to be situated again it ones own true nature then there will always be a trace of selfishness.

The problem of selfishness does not lie within the teachings of any particular school , for me this will remain within the individual, as most the practices of and complete understanding of any of the main accepted schools will have compassion, altruism and the search for total liberation as main tenants.

As for weather anyone once the objective self has been purified and arrives back at his original nature comes back into the world so to speak and works till each jiva is also back to his original nature within Hinduism may not totally exists, because once one has arrived back in his original nature he see's that nothing is separate from itself, so the concept of samsara and liberation does not exists, so what then exactly needs to be done....? I think most the deeper teachings of Buddhism also agrees with this

[wundermonk]

Hi,


As for weather anyone once the objective self has been purified and arrives back at his original nature comes back into the world so to speak and works till each jiva is also back to his original nature within Hinduism may not totally exists, because once one has arrived back in his original nature he see's that nothing is separate from itself, so the concept of samsara and liberation does not exists, so what then exactly needs to be done....?

The Jivanmukta is an elightened being who while being alive and after having burned away all prior karma, continues to operate in this world with no new karmic accumulation.

[silence_speaks]

Indeed the differences between the teachings of Buddha and Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) are only in vocabulary :D

Buddha says there is no Atma, by which he meant there is no individuality ... and Shankra says jivo, brahmaiva na parah ... there is no jiva or individual other than the "Whole" !

Shankara rejected two schools : the shunyavada or the idea that "something is born out of nothing" and skhanika vijnana vada ... the idea that "awareness is born and dies every instant ... and between thoughts there is no awareness" ! He rejected these two schools, but we do not find these schools in modern day i suppose. Today we find most buddhists agree on "Buddha Nature" or some such understanding which is primordial Awareness ... on this point Advaita Vedanta is 100% in agreement.

Love!
Silence

[Skull]

M108dasa:
once one has arrived back in his original nature he see's that nothing is seperate from itself, so the concept of samsara and liberation does not exists, so what then exactly needs to be done....? I think most the deeper teacings of Buddhism also agrees with this
***************

Both before full buddhahood, theoretically, and at full buddhahood (even before as great bodhisattva) samsara is known as identical with nirvana. But the question of what 'needs to be done' at that point never arises for Mahayana, because vows were taken over many lives to continue to help those still deluded.

Without that powerful, compassionate intent or bodhisattva vow such service for others will not happen for kalpa after kalpa. Even if liberation makes such service possible, as a jnani or jivanmukta, that may be for only one lifetime.

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams,

Not exactly sure where your going with this, as it seems your understanding of compassion and service within Sanatana Dharma is lacking. If this is about measuring whose religion is best then i will fall silent. I always find vows rudimentary and artificial, when the sadhaka is advancing the qualities of true altruism arise spontaneously.

[Skull]

I guess from your response to my original question about "if the varied Hindu paths emphasize the bodhisattva vow? That is, returning voluntarily after liberation, to help for countless lives the countless unenlightened beings?" - the answer is no, for 'vows are rudimentary and artificial - always'. By the way, a 'vow' is not just or even always verbal, but a clear intention or will.

Thanks for clarifying.

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Namaste,


To briefly clarify, what is meant by taking a vow, like the Bodhisattva vows is as you say to induce a will, but that will inherently exists within consciousness when one has advanced, so the altruistic values of wanting to save all beings will Arise naturally, and one will be working for the benefit of all living beings by default.

[riju]

Guatam Buddha firmly rejected the permanence of ATMA as believed in Sanatan religion in those days.
He said that the reason of sufferings is belief in permanence of ATMA.

[riju]

Guatam Buddha was silent about BRAHMAN . He would avoid the answer to this direct question.
His reply was that the answer in not relevent to Exustence or Buddhahood .
To be more clear....It is a waste of time and energy to think or talk or discuss about BRAHMAN

[Shivambrahmin]

There are 2 academic books which compare and contrast Hindu and Buddhist philosophy:

Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism (https://books.google.com/books?id=p1bASTAOhjoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Richard+King+advaita&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI__LU54qkxwIVg6CACh3oXAqi) by Richard King
The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta (https://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Michael+comans+advaita&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIrNCa84qkxwIVx5mACh1aiQkr) by Michael Comans

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Skull ji



Aside from discussing the nature of bodhi, Mahayana followers like me wonder if the varied Hindu paths emphasize the bodhisattva vow? That is, returning voluntarily after liberation, to help for countless lives the countless unenlightened beings?

the same principle exists in the Vaisnava Guru who when taking a deciple takes on that deciples Karma and himself vows to deliver the deciple , ..this means that the Guru must return for the sake of those deciples , allthough this point is not discussed so readily as it is in Mahayana Buddhism it is none the less present and active , ....

I slightiy fear that the aspiration towards Bodhichita has been promoted in the west in a way as to appeal to the western mind , .....in that , in some ways there seems to be less empasiss on the initial attainment of the all important enlightened state of being , ....without which there can be no freeflowing of compassion .

In Hinduism the decision to take Sanyas (if taken genuinly) comes from that pure mind of Bodhichitta thus it is taken without the need to broadcast ones intentions , ...such is the nature of true surrender , .....vows such as these are between the Guru and his supreme Lord .


Too much focus on liberation and unity with the 'eternal, all pervading' atman will result in ignoring all other beings.

in some respects where personal liberation from ignorance and samsaric suffering occur Bodhichitta will spontaniously manifest , ...if not then as is deliniated with in the teachings of buddhism there are levels of temporary heavens from which the practitioner must eventualy return , ....but when realisation is utterly complete there is no return and no desire to attain heavenly realms only the pure mind of bodhichitta which canot do any other than manifest for the sake of Sentient beings , ....