Immortal Atman?

[yabyum24]

A question / observation for any one who knows their stuff in Vedanta (or related systems) please.

 

Buddhists usually refute a 'Hindu' claim of an immortal Atman - you see it all the time in sutras etc. but lately, I've been feeling very uneasy about this premise.

 

From what I have studied in monist Spanda Shaivism, there is never a mention of anything immortal or eternal.

 

Paramashiva is beyond all designations which could apply to space or time (even eternal etc) and the spanda shakti is a dynamic and consonantly changing force (nothing permanent there).

 

So, in this light, the whole immortal Atman premise looks a bit like a straw man.

 

Okay, perhaps there are various Hindu sects that DO make such claims and perhaps that was the case during Buddha's time - but not all of them do it seems.

 

Am I right here, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Edited December 24, 2013 by yabyum24

[RongzomFan]

Buddhists don't negate a Hindu atman.

 

They just negate atman period.

 

Yes I know the Dalai Lama says differently, but that's not correct.

[gatito]

A question / observation for any one who knows their stuff in Vedanta (or related systems) please.

 

Buddhists usually refute a 'Hindu' claim of an immortal Atman - you see it all the time in sutras etc. but lately, I've been feeling very uneasy about this premise.

 

From what I have studied in monist Spanda Shaivism, there is never a mention of anything immortal or eternal.

 

Paramashiva is beyond all designations which could apply to space or time (even eternal etc) and the spanda shakti is a dynamic and consonantly changing force (nothing permanent there).

 

So, in this light, the whole immortal Atman premise looks a bit like a straw man.

 

Okay, perhaps there are various Hindu sects that DO make such claims and perhaps that was the case during Buddha's time - but not all of them do it seems.

 

Am I right here, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

You might find it useful to follow this line of investigation: -

 

You exist and you know that you exist

 

That is Knowing and Being - the Self = Consciousness = Atman = Brahman

 

On close and careful investigation, you would find no evidence that you have ever not existed and no evidence that you wil ever cease to exist

[yabyum24]

They just negate atman period.

Yes, that's fine but it's how they define it - immortal, unchanging, eternal etc. if you see what I mean. But is that really what is being claimed by all?

[3bob]

Vedanta is distilled so to speak in the Upanishads, I suggest the study of the major ones to help answer your questions about doctrine and meanings that you have as a basis, after which the doctrines of various and wide ranging Hindu sects and sub-sects may be considered... also if reading just one Upanishad to begin with the 'Chandogya' goes over a very great deal of ground!!

 

Om

[gatito]

....and if starting from scratch in embarking on a study of traditional Vedanta, I think that people could do far worse than Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

http://www.dayananda.org/

(www.dayananda.org/)

[adept]

....and if starting from scratch in embarking on a study of traditional Vedanta, I think that people could do far worse than Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

http://www.dayananda.org/

(www.dayananda.org/)

I was just reading about him earlier.

Talk about synchronicity.

[amoyaan]

The difficulty comes from trying to understand the absolute/totality/ultimate reality from within maya. Not for the faint of heart haha.

 

It seems only logical to me that phenomena require what Kant called a noumenon, and that as the upanishads state, this noumemon is the changeless amid the changing and is beyond time and space. If it's beyond time and space then it must surely be immortal because if it had a beginning and an end it would be within time and constrained by it. And also, if this noumenon/atman/unmanifest/whatever suddenly started one day, then it had to have arisen from something else, as something cannot come from nothing.

 

Considering 'immortality' is almost more than the human mind can do, because everyone we experience here is time-bound... but I don't see how the atman can be anything other than immortal.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Dreamlight Fugitive

[RongzomFan]

Atman is just sanskrit for identity

[RongzomFan]

even cavemen had atman

[gatito]

The difficulty comes from trying to understand the absolute/totality/ultimate reality from within maya. Not for the faint of heart haha.

 

It seems only logical to me that phenomena require what Kant called a noumenon, and that as the upanishads state, this noumemon is the changeless amid the changing and is beyond time and space. If it's beyond time and space then it must surely be immortal because if it had a beginning and an end it would be within time and constrained by it. And also, if this noumenon/atman/unmanifest/whatever suddenly started one day, then it had to have arisen from something else, as something cannot come from nothing.

 

Considering 'immortality' is almost more than the human mind can do, because everyone we experience here is time-bound... but I don't see how the atman can be anything other than immortal.

 

Absolutely

 

Just one comment if I may?

 

The Truth can never be understood. - because thoughts are objects (Maya, if you like), as opposed to subject (Consciousness)

 

However, it can be known and when it is - it's seen that the objects are indivisible from the subject and Maya dissolves.

[yabyum24]

If it's beyond time and space then it must surely be immortal

I'd say that the term does not apply to anything beyond space/time as it is a relative term mortality/immortality etc. A moment is the same as eternity - both irrelevant. No time, no space. Think about it. No need for any definition, as they are all drawn from our space/time lexis.

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[3bob]

I find the teachings related Lord Siva as Lord Nataraja as an excellent and profound way to get a handle (so to speak) on many of the aspects related to many of the important meanings along these lines...

Edited November 29, 2014 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

I find the teachings related Lord Siva as Lord Nataraja as an excellent and profound way to get a handle (so to speak) on many of the aspects related to many of the important meanings along these lines...

 

Lord Shiva Dance (3)1.jpg

 

This Oxford scholar is the world's foremost Saiva academic:

 

http://www.alexissanderson.com/publications.html

[3bob]

Thanks R.F., but I'd suggest one finding a Sat Guru among the schools of Shaivism., I also wonder why you are posting in a Vedanta sub-forum considering you have mostly shown the need of having your own sub-forum as a place for your irrefutable material? Until I know otherwise I can only assume the OP posted here to hear the Vedanta take on Atman, it's not that big of a biggy to me that you posted some material on the Buddhist take but I would suggest that the OP and any Buddhists or Buddhist takes he wants to further pursue or may be interested in be made in a Buddhist sub-forum or perhaps on the "general" forum.

 

Om

[RongzomFan]

3bob

 

What are you talking about?

 

The original post is about buddhism.

[RongzomFan]

Atman just means identity.

 

It has nothing to do with hinduism or buddhism.

[3bob]

R.F.,

That sounds pretty much like "par for course" from you. Anyway If the OP is asking questions in the Vedanta forum about "Immortal Atman" in relation to or in a context that includes Paramasiva then to me that does not imply a post about Buddhism or just generic identity. Of course if the OP wants to set me straight then I'm open to same, are you?

[RongzomFan]

3bob

 

 

Do you not see Buddhists or Buddhas time in the original post?

Edited December 26, 2013 by RongzomFan

[idiot_stimpy]

So close you can't see it

 

So deep you can't fathom it

 

So simple you can't believe it

 

So good you can't accept it

[yabyum24]

Atman is just sanskrit for identity

Interesting point and not one acknowledged by many Buddhists. Everyone has this but as far as I understand it, it's also something problematic in Vedanta, so there's not really any conflict between both systems on that.

 

The problem I flagged up earlier was the formulaic descriptions of the "Hindu Atman" one finds in Buddhism (for the purpose of refutation) - Immortal, unchanging, existing inherently etc. It seems a bit wooden and simplistic. Like saying that there is a defined ontological position (which some may have - I don't disagree) but I don't think all get stuck on this point.

 

So refuting an ontological position (whilst of some intellectual value - and possibly meditative) doesn't address the core question.

 

What we have here with sanskrit word for "identity" is something we can all work with - it's visceral, transient, recognizable and most importantly, not an ontological statement concerning existence.

If we equate it with ego/self-grasping mind etc. then it is something which practice will release us from, both Buddhist and Vedantist.

 

I really think that the crux of the problem is the following; To what extent is there knowledge of Nirvana/Moksha after death? I'm not getting into clever wordplay here with "who should experience what?" style stuff (please don't). Ksemaraja explains that the experience and experient are one and the same.

 

Some materialists don't like the idea of any experience at all, as they feel it's a betrayal of the doctrine of cessation. But what if the consciousness/nirguna Brahman is experienced in the same way as the clear light of the dharmakaya or Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around (Viññanam anidassanam)?

 

If there's no ontology or clinging, then where's the problem?

Edited December 26, 2013 by yabyum24

[RongzomFan]

The problem seems to be the formulaic descriptions of the "Hindu Atman" one finds in Buddhism (for the purpose of refutation) - Immortal, unchanging, existing inherently etc.

 

 

???

 

I have never seen a Madhyamaka text address Advaita Vedanta.

 

Advaita Vedanta is a much later system.

[gatito]

As it's now clear that this is a discussion about Buddhism rather than about Vedanta, could it be moved to the Buddhism Forum please?

 

Thanks in anticipation.

[gatito]

3bob

 

What are you talking about?

 

The original post is about buddhism.

 

This thread belongs in the Buddhist Forum