Immortal Atman?

[yabyum24]

Come now.. Yes or no?

Look in the mirror.

Edited December 30, 2013 by yabyum24

[yabyum24]

Sorry, I'm unable to take these points seriously, because they are a straw man argument.

I agree, but it's surprising how many people consider them to be doctrinally essential. They are significant though, if only from the consideration that they mislead people.

[dwai]

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?

There are three distinct traditions of Vedanta. Which one are you referring to?

 

The Non-Dual tradition of Vedanta - aka Advaita Vedanta says that there is no distinction between the true self "Atman" and the Brahman (which is not part of the conditioned reality that we live in).

 

Dualist school of Vedanta and Qualified Non-dual school of Vedanta (Dvaita and Vishisthadvaita respectively) say that it is impossible for the human mind to ever be able to realize Brahman unqualified (Nirguna Brahman), therefore, they consider the self the Jiva (the living entity) and the goal is devotion to the higher being (Ishwara).

 

If it is Advaita vedanta that you are inquiring about,then let me suggest this:

 

1. Advaita Vedanta doesn't really prescribe much beside inquiring into what the "Self" is. This process of inquiry will, by the process of elimination (i.e. this is not the self, that is not self and so on), bring the practitioner to realize what the Self is.
2. Using a series of intellectual (since Advaita Vedanta is primarily Jnana Yoga - or the Wisdom Path) positions, it shows that there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute reality within the constraints of our conditioned world. In other words, the conditioned reality we experience and live in is a product of our categorical framework (Nama-Rupa). That which is Brahman is something that can only be experientially realized and is outside the realm of categorical frameworks (thereby outside the scope of our conditioned realities). It is apparent only when all frameworks are discarded.
3. When one experientially realizes Brahman, they also come to the realization that the True Nature of the individual being is that Brahman (and all other identities are predicated upon a conditioned reality - i.e. a categorical framework, with a label and a form, or just a label or just a form). Also that the Brahman is unchanging and eternal, it is outside the constraints of Time and Space yet exists in every space and every time.

Edited December 30, 2013 by dwai

[gatito]

Really excellent post dwai.

[yabyum24]

 

If it is Advaita vedanta (it is) that you are inquiring about,then let me suggest this:

 

1. Advaita Vedanta doesn't really prescribe much beside inquiring into what the "Self" is. This process of inquiry will, by the process of elimination (i.e. this is not the self, that is not self and so on), bring the practitioner to realize what the Self is.
2. Using a series of intellectual (since Advaita Vedanta is primarily Jnana Yoga - or the Wisdom Path) positions, it shows that there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute reality within the constraints of our conditioned world. In other words, the conditioned reality we experience and live in is a product of our categorical framework (Nama-Rupa). That which is Brahman is something that can only be experientially realized and is outside the realm of categorical frameworks (thereby outside the scope of our conditioned realities). It is apparent only when all frameworks are discarded.
3. When one experientially realizes Brahman, they also come to the realization that the True Nature of the individual being is that Brahman (and all other identities are predicated upon a conditioned reality - i.e. a categorical framework, with a label and a form, or just a label or just a form). Also that the Brahman is unchanging and eternal, it is outside the constraints of Time and Space yet exists in every space and every time.

Superb description dawai. When you say that it is an "intellectual" path, I assume that, at some point, discursive inquiry is abandoned in order to rest in the unconditioned experience?

 

Here Brahman sounds very much like the 'natural ground' in mahamudra.

[dwai]

Superb description dawai. When you say that it is an "intellectual" path, I assume that, at some point, discursive inquiry is abandoned in order to rest in the unconditioned experience?

 

Here Brahman sounds very much like the 'natural ground' in mahamudra.

Yes. Because the intellect too is a tool. And like all tools, it only makes sense to use it when it's needed

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[Simple_Jack]

I agree, but it's surprising how many people consider them to be doctrinally essential. They are significant though, if only from the consideration that they mislead people.

 

It's not misleading unless you ascribe to an atman and It's doctrinally essential to buddhadharma because Mahayana builds off of Hinayana, hence why emptiness is 2-fold i.e. pudgala-anatman and dharma-anatman.

 

Here Brahman sounds very much like the 'natural ground' in mahamudra.

 

Everything can sound like Brahman as long as you have confirmation bias.

[yabyum24]

Everything can sound like Brahman as long as you have confirmation bias.

Do I have it?

[yabyum24]

Interesting. You are still not answering the question.

It only matters what you have found for yourself Boy. Not what I have found.

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[Simple_Jack]

Do I have it?

 

It's possible, since you created a thread disparagingly titled "Internet Buddhist Nihilists" - http://thetaobums.com/topic/33024-internet-buddhist-nihilists/.

[yabyum24]

It's possible, since you created a thread disparagingly titled "Internet Buddhist Nihilists" - http://thetaobums.com/topic/33024-internet-buddhist-nihilists/.

Why is it disparaging? The views I outlined are views I have frequently encountered (and still do). They are nihilistic by buddhist standards. So unless you feel that I have offended your views in some manner, you should not find them "disparaging".

[yabyum24]

Let me be the judge of that, yabyum24. I am asking you a simple question. A simple answer is in order.

It's not.

 

I have no idea how you define ego (you flatly refuse to say), so anything I may or may not have found is irrelevant.

 

I meditate, find stuff and keep on meditating and studying. Regardless of where I am, it's not over till the fat lady sings and she hasn't sung yet.

[yabyum24]

I'd just like to thank all those who have contributed to this thread. As it appears to have got as far as it's going to get, I'll bow out now. If anyone genuinely feels that there are some unresolved issues, then feel free to pm me.

[dwai]

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.

 

 

going through some of the older posts on this topic. I would like to opine here please:

 

Atman does not mean Identity in Sanskrit. Identity is "Parichay". Atman is Self. You could say it's Self-identity (there is a difference between the two). And as to why Advaitins consider Atman and Brahman to be the same I've covered in a previous post.

Edited December 31, 2013 by dwai

[Simple_Jack]

Why is it disparaging? The views I outlined are views I have frequently encountered (and still do). They are nihilistic by buddhist standards. So unless you feel that I have offended your views in some manner, you should not find them "disparaging".

 

They could only be considered nihilistic if you're a realist (Buddhist definition), which you seem to be an adherent of considering that you conflated vinnanam anidassanam and the kun gzhi/alaya of Mahamudra with Brahman. Realists love to cite the provisional teaching to the confused wanderer Vacchagotta [sN 44] who adhered to identity-views and would've become increasingly more confused if Buddha hadn't kept silent when being asked if there was a "self" and if there was "no-self" i.e. that the self exists or that the self does not exist. Vacchagotta left after not receiving an answer to his questions.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[yabyum24]

Thanks for finally having the wherewithal to express your own views on the matter SJ. It makes for better reading than copy/paste. I can't discuss the matter with you, as your posts are inconsistent.

Edited December 31, 2013 by yabyum24

[Simple_Jack]

Thanks for finally having the wherewithal to express your own views on the matter SJ. It makes for better reading than copy/paste. I can't discuss the matter with you, as you are completely inconsistent and flip-flop in order to misrepresent what I say. Whether it's deliberate or not, I can't judge. Only you know.

 

My posts in this thread are not inconsistent with the teachings of anatta nor am I deliberately trying to misrepresent your statements. In SN 44, Buddha states to Ananda, that if he had sided with Vacchagotta's view of "There is a self", that would side with the view of eternalism; if Buddha sided with Vacchagotta's view that "There is no self", that would side with the view of annihilationism. Buddha kept silent for a reason: if Buddha had answered as he had in many other discourses to other ascetics, brahmins, monks, etc., Vacchagotta would've assumed the view of annihilationism; thereby misconstruing the Buddha's teaching on anatta.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html

 

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.

"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception.

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications.

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"Thus, both this assumption & the understanding, 'I am,' occur to him. And so it is with reference to the understanding 'I am' that there is the appearance of the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, & body (the senses of vision, hearing, smell, taste, & touch).

"Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

"The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."

Edited December 31, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

My posts in this thread are not inconsistent with the teachings of anatta nor am I deliberately trying to misrepresent your statements. In SN 44, Buddha states to Ananda, that if he had sided with Vacchagotta's view of "There is a self", that would side with the view of eternalism; if Buddha sided with Vacchagotta's view that "There is no self", that would side with the view of annihilationism. Buddha kept silent for a reason: if Buddha had answered as he had in many other discourses to other ascetics, brahmins, monks, etc., Vacchagotta would've assumed the view of annihilationism; thereby misconstruing the Buddha's teaching on anatta.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html

 

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.

"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception.

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications.

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"Thus, both this assumption & the understanding, 'I am,' occur to him. And so it is with reference to the understanding 'I am' that there is the appearance of the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, & body (the senses of vision, hearing, smell, taste, & touch).

"Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

"The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."

 

As we see from that discourse, all experiential and meditative views which condition the process of becoming, are predicated on views of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence or alternatively being, non-being, both and neither. According to the Buddha, extreme views are the determining condition of ignorance, which perpetuates the cycle of becoming.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

 

"...By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

 

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

 

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

 

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html

 

...As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Oneness?"

"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Manyness?"

"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle...

[Simple_Jack]

@ yabyum24

 

Going by what you said in this post here - http://thetaobums.com/topic/33091-immortal-atman/?p=509681:

 

"...This philosophy renders karma and rebirth obsolete. It's entirely body-focused..."

 

I would level a charge of substance dualism on your part. Even though in Buddha's discourses, nama-rupa i.e. mind-body are mutually conditioning factors in the 12 links of dependent arising: in much of sutrayana, they are treated as distinctly different in kind, especially in Hinayana. Of course, in Mahayana (as an umbrella term for all sects), the mind-matter dichotomy is resolved through the statement that since appearances are established as Mind i.e. an individual mind-stream's alayavijnana, there is no difference between mind and matter. As Loppon Malcolm stated, epistemologically speaking, it's only Dzogchen which explicitly overcomes the mind-matter dichotomy:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&start=240

 

Malcolm wrote: While there are of course Dzogchen texts that describe mind and body as separate, in general, the innermost secret cycle holds that the perception that there is a difference between the animate and inanimate is a mistaken one. In the state of ultimate liberation [i.e. samyaksambuddhahood], the distinction between animate and inanimate disappears because it is not true. Further, like other Vajrayāna traditions, Dzogchen provides a physical account for the process of rebirth for example in the Vajramala Tantra: it is proposed that the alayavijñāna, which is inseparable with the mahāprāṇavāyu, is responsible for transmigration; for the appropriation of a new series of aggregates. But Dzogchen goes a step further and explicitly identifies consciousness as the operation of a vāyu in the body. Vāyus of course are the function of the refined element of air inside the human body.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

going through some of the older posts on this topic. I would like to opine here please:

 

Atman does not mean Identity in Sanskrit. Identity is "Parichay". Atman is Self. You could say it's Self-identity (there is a difference between the two). And as to why Advaitins consider Atman and Brahman to be the same I've covered in a previous post.

 

Of course atman means identity.

 

Atman is not self, because even inanimate objects have atman.

 

Indeed according to Advaita, identity is Brahman. You are correct only there.

[dwai]

Of course atman means identity.

 

Atman is not self, because even inanimate objects have atman.

 

Indeed according to Advaita, identity is Brahman. You are correct only there.

Go learn sanskrit son

[RongzomFan]

Go learn sanskrit son

 

Go learn Sanskrit son.

[idiot_stimpy]

Alwayson is the Sanskritson