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/
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/
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.
Basically, there is not even one buddha, only great wisdom. Bodhisattva Hsuan Hua
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.
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.
Basically, there is not even one buddha, only great wisdom. Bodhisattva Hsuan Hua
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.
Hari On!
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks