Anatta-what was buddha denying?

There seems to be lots of interpretation regarding Anatta ( pali not self).some interpret Anatta to be Nihilism, some interpret it to mean as lack of self in phenomena only therby deducing some universal self.

To understand Anatta one has to first understand atta/atman and its meaning in Indian brahmanical thought. Atta in pali is same as Atman in sanskrit both denote 'essentialhood'.

Vedic philosophy was based on agni/fire oblation sacrifical rituals. In the Vedas, Agni is called Jata-vedas or the knower of all births as he knows the births of all creatures as their indwelling Self(atman).

Fire or agni therefore is a metaphor in brahmanical philosophy so as to denote dynamism principle of creation and therefore the idea of motion or cosmos.Fire was considered to have manifested as well as unmanifested(avaykta) state, the manifested was the one with form(akhara) and was the medium to communicate with the Brahman( unmanifested).

That unmanifested(avyakta) or Brahman is the essencehood or universal (ground of being).Atman also termed as purusha was considered as individual self or jiva atman in earlier literature , that introduced the problem of multiple selves or purushas ,so to solve that problem, the atman /purusha in each individual was equated to be same as Brahman, which means that smaller self ie essence in all individuals was same as universal self

Thats what upanishad is talking about when it talks about Self -which means microcosm is same as macrocosm substantially.(note advaita of sankara is different in which reality is spoken only in terms of Atman(which gets equated as vijnanatmana or consciousness) and the phenomena is spoken as being error or nescience)



Atmana in early Brahamanical doctrine talked about kosas or sheaths or layers , five such layers of atmana were talked about.

Brihadaryanka upanishad which could be dated before buddha is one of earliest known upanishad which talked about such atman or self.

Atman in brihadaryanka was explained to be seated in each individual around the heart( known as citta) and when one died that atman took flight to soma(moon) for transmigration and to sun for mukti(liberation)

Such were the presuppositions during time of buddha and that was idea of self or atman which was about some essential self which transmigrated and was seated in the heart area , this self was supposed to perform vital functions(prana) and death was understood to be loss of that vitality



Anatta is therefore a compound word suggesting not self instead of the interpretation not of self/soul.Buddha used the concept of Anatta to deny ,kkhandas (parts/composition) had no such self or essentialism.Anatta therefore would suggest lack of such essentialism which is not about change or mutation.

Analytically buddha describe a person in terms of feelings,material,perception,consciousness and formation and pointed out there was no such thing as immutable essence found in any of it.

everything is about change,flux and therefore is not self( not atman) thereby refuting the brahmanical doctrine that self or atman (immutablity) is found in consciousness(vijnanatmana) or any of kkhandas.



Now when one uses the terms 'there is no self in buddhism' it would give the wrong idea that there is no such thing as continuity or idea of persona which is wrong as bhava or becoming or change and therefore persona is never denied in buddhism whats denied is "essentially unchanging principle" known as atman



Buddhism is about epistemological part or the process part , things are in flux, changing, so the idea of atman in such phenomena cant be found which was what brahmanical doctrine asserted by the idea of prana/atman/citta

Ontologically buddha never asserted about any principle since everything which originates is due to coming together of conditions/causes and not because of some essential ground of being.

Therefore liberation is understood not in terms of ground of being or going back to 'womb' or some universal self but its unspoken thing , lack of predicates,just like a manifested fire which goes out has no direction to tell .



Atman is about a presupposition ie making an ontological commitment something which buddha avoided and didnt talk ever in terms of predicate by using contextual statements ie in terms of Being or non being ( existence and non existence)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Indo-Muslim Culture in Hyderabad: Old City Neighborhoods in the 19th Century

Hyderabad city’s culture was Indo-Muslim or Mughlai, terms that need definition here. I use Indo-Muslim in preference to Islamic, Indo-Persian, Persianate, or Islamicate. I prefer Indo-Muslim to the other four commonly-used alternatives because, first, Muslim rather than Islamic emphasizes a civilizational and not a religious culture (Islamicate has the same meaning but probably not to the general reader). Certainly Hyderabad was not an Islamic state: the Nizams never tried to impose Islamic law or to convert people.Second, IndoMuslim puts the emphasis on the Indian location, although undeniably the Bahmani sultanate in the Deccan from the mid-fourteenth century, its five successor Deccani sultanates (Bijapuri, Golconda, Bidar, Berar, and Ahmednagar) from the early sixteenth century, and the Nizams, starting as Mughal governors after the conquests of Bijapuri and Golconda by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1686 and 1687, modeled their court culture on that of Persia. I use the term Mug...
Read more

Fate (Buddhism)

In Buddhism, the concept of destiny or fate is called  niyati. Niyati  refers to predetermined, inevitable, and unalterable events. In some religious traditions of India, such as the Vedanta school of Hinduism, an external or divine power or outside agency is seen to be able to influence one’s fate. However, in Buddhism, which is doctrinally an atheistic religion, there is no supreme being or force which is seen to control or influence the course of an individual’s life, and essentially, the concept of  niyati  plays only a minor role compared to the concept of karma (Sanskrit; Pali:  kāmma ). The Buddha did make a distinction between karma and  niyati , in the sense that some events are not karmically determined but are rather the result of  niyati.  For the most part, however, individuals are viewed to possess the capacity to manipulate future events through interventions to karma. The law of karma is seen to determine the conditions of rebirth ...
Read more

Skull Imagery and Skull Magic in the Yoginī Tantras

The Buddhist tantras constitute a unique class of Buddhist literature. While developing from earlier trends in Buddhist thought and practice, they also constituted a serious challenge to Buddhist identity, largely due to the fact that many of them contain passages that appear to transgress the tenets of Buddhist morality.1 Tantric literature also departed, gradually, from the rhetorical norms of Mahayana Buddhism. While early tantras maintained the rhetorical style of the Mahayana sutras, later tantras, and most notably the Yoginī tantras, radically departed from this style.2 This essay will explore one small facet of the vast array of unusual elements that can be found in this literature, namely, the image of the skull, as well as the use of skulls in tantric ritual. Like other elements, this deployment of skulls in the tantras was disquieting to some, evoking as it does the uncanny atmosphere of the charnel ground. Through this exploration, I will argue that skulls are multifaceted...
Read more