 | This article'slead sectionmay be too short to adequatelysummarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead toprovide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article.(December 2023) |
| Part ofa series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
| Part ofa series on |
| Eastern philosophy |
|---|
Confucianism Persons Topics
Hundred Schools of Thought Topics Military and Strategy Modern General topics |
Āstika (orthodox) Tamil Other General topics
Traditions Topics |
 Philosophy portal |
Ātman (/ˈɑːtmən/),attā orattan in Buddhism is the concept of self, and is found in Buddhist literature's discussion of the concept of non-self (Anatta).[1] Most Buddhist traditions and texts reject the premise of a permanent, unchangingatman (self, soul).[2][3]
Cognates (Sanskrit:आत्मन्)ātman,Pāliatta,Old Englishæthm, andGermanAtem derive from theIndo-European root *ēt-men (breath). The word means "essence, breath, soul."[4]
Ātman andatta refer to a person's "true self", a person's permanent self, absolute within, the "thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations" separate from and beyond the changing phenomenal world.[5][6] The termĀtman is synonymous withTuma,Atuma andAttan in early Buddhist literature, state Rhys David and William Stede, all in the sense of "self, soul".[7] TheAtman andAtta are related, in Buddhist canons, to terms such asNiratta (Nir+attan, soulless) andAttaniya (belonging to the soul, having a soul, of the nature of soul).[8]
"Atman" in earlyBuddhism appears as "alldhammas are not-Self (an-atta)", whereatta (atman) refers to a metaphysical Self, states Peter Harvey, that is a "permanent, substantial, autonomous self or I".[9] This concept refers to the pre-BuddhistUpanishads ofHinduism, where a distinction is made between the personal self,jivatman (impermanent body, personality) and the Real Self,Atman.[10][11][12] The early Buddhist literature explores the validity of the Upanishadic concepts of self and Self, then asserts that every living being has an impermanent self but there is no real Higher Self.[13] The Nikaya texts of Buddhism deny that there is anything called Ātman that is the substantial absolute or essence of a living being, an idea that distinguishes Buddhism from the Brahmanical (proto-Hindu) traditions.[14]
The Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "Self" can be found.[15][16] In Buddha's view, states Wayman, "eso me atta, or this is my Self, is to be in the grip of wrong view".[17] All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, and therefore can't be taken to be an unchanging "Self".[16] Instead, the Buddha explains the perceived continuity of the human personality by describing it as composed offive skandhas, without a permanent entity (Self, soul).[18][19]
Of the early Indian Buddhist schools, only thePudgalavada-school diverged from this basic teaching. The Pudgalavādins asserted that, while there is noātman, there is a pudgala or "person", which is neither the same as nor different from theskandhas.[19]
Buddha-nature is a central notion of east-Asian (Chinese)Mahayana thought.[20] It refers to several related terms,[note 1] most notablyTathāgatagarbha andBuddha-dhātu.[note 2]Tathāgatagarbha means "the womb of the thus-gone" (cf. enlightened one), whileBuddha-dhātu literally means "Buddha-realm" or "Buddha-substrate".[note 3] Several key texts refer to thetathāgatagarbha orBuddha-dhātu as "atman", Self or essence, though those texts also contain warnings against a literal interpretation. Several scholars have noted similarities betweentathāgatagarbha texts and the substantial monism found in the atman/Brahman tradition.[22]
TheTathagatagarbha doctrine, at its earliest, probably appeared about the later part of the 3rd century CE, and is verifiable in Chinese translations of 1st millennium CE.[23]
In contrast to the madhyamika-tradition, theMahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra uses "positive language" to denote"absolute reality". According to Paul Williams, theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra teaches an underlying essence, "Self", or "atman".[24] This "true Self" is the Buddha-nature (Tathagatagarbha), which is present in all sentient beings, and realized by the awakened ones. Most scholars consider theTathagatagarbha doctrine inMahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an 'essential nature' in every living being is equivalent to 'Self',[note 4] and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that theTathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.[26][27]
According to Sallie B. King, theMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra does not represent a major innovation.[28] Its most important innovation is the linking of the termbuddhadhatu withtathagatagarbha.[28] According to King, the sutra is rather unsystematic,[28] which made it "a fruitful one for later students and commentators, who were obliged to create their own order and bring it to the text".[28] The sutra speaks about Buddha-nature in so many different ways, that Chinese scholars created a list of types of Buddha-nature that could be found in the text.[28] One of those statements is:
Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self ? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ’the Self ’ [atman].[29]
In theMahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra the Buddha also speaks of the "affirmative attributes" of nirvana, "the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure."[30] TheMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explains:
The Self ’ signifies the Buddha; ’the Eternal’ signifies the Dharmakaya; ’Bliss’ signifies Nirvana, and ’the Pure’ signifies Dharma.[31]
Edward Conze connotatively links the termtathagata itself (the designation which the Buddha applied to himself) with the notion of a real, true self:
Just astathata designates true reality in general, so the word which developed intoTathagata designated the true self, the true reality within man.[32]
It is possible, states Johannes Bronkhorst, that "original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul [Ātman, Attan]", even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied it existence.[33] While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, adds Bronkhorst, it is clear from these texts that seeking self-knowledge is not the Buddhist path for liberation, and turning away from self-knowledge is.[34] This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as "the principal means to achieving liberation".[34]
According to Paul Wiliams, theMahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:[35]
The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.[36]
In the laterLankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that thetathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.[37]
TheRatnagotravibhāga (also known asUttaratantra), another text composed in the first half of 1st millennium CE and translated into Chinese in 511 CE, points out that the teaching of theTathagatagarbha doctrine is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "self-love" (atma-sneha) – considered to be a moral defect in Buddhism.[38][39] The 6th-century ChineseTathagatagarbha translation states that "Buddha hasshiwo (True Self) which is beyond being and nonbeing".[40] However, theRatnagotravibhāga asserts that the "Self" implied inTathagatagarbha doctrine is actually "not-Self".[41][42]
The dispute about "self" and "not-self" doctrines has continued throughout the history of Buddhism.[43] According toJohannes Bronkhorst, it is possible that "original Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul", even though a firm Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking about the soul or even denied its existence.[44] French religion writerAndré Migot also states that original Buddhism may not have taught a complete absence of self, pointing to evidence presented by Buddhist and Pali scholarsJean Przyluski andCaroline Rhys Davids that early Buddhism generally believed in a self, making Buddhist schools that admit an existence of a "self" not heretical, but conservative, adhering to ancient beliefs.[45] In his book,The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism, scholar Kamaleswar Bhattacharya wrote that, while Shakyamuni Buddha did indeed teach against a permanent self within the ever-changing aggregates, both he and early Buddhists believed in animpersonal, universal atman.[46] While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, Bronkhorst suggests that these texts clearly indicate that the Buddhist path of liberation consists not in seeking self-knowledge, but in turning away from what might erroneously be regarded as the self.[47] This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as "the principal means to achieving liberation."[47]
In Thai Theravada Buddhism, for example, statesPaul Williams, some modern era Buddhist scholars have said that "nirvana is indeed the true Self",[This quote needs a citation] while other Thai Buddhists disagree.[48] For instance, theDhammakaya Movement in Thailand teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric ofanatta (non-self); instead, nirvana is taught to be the "true self" ordhammakaya.[49] The Dhammakaya Movement teaching that nirvana isatta, or true self, was criticized as heretical in Buddhism in 1994 byVen. Payutto, a well-known scholar monk, who stated that 'Buddha taught nibbana as being non-self".[50][51] The abbot of one major temple in the Dhammakaya Movement, Luang Por Sermchai ofWat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram, argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners. He points to the experiences of prominent forest hermit monks such asLuang Pu Sodh andAjahn Mun to support the notion of a "true self".[51][52] Similar interpretations on the "true self" were put forth earlier by the 12thSupreme Patriarch of Thailand in 1939. According to Williams, the Supreme Patriarch's interpretation echoes thetathāgatagarbha sutras.[53]
Several notable teachers of theThai Forest Tradition have also described ideas in contrast to absolute non-self.Ajahn Maha Bua, a well known meditation master, described thecitta (mind) as being an indestructible reality that does not fall underanattā.[54] He has stated that not-self is merely a perception that is used to pry one away from infatuation with the concept of a self, and that once this infatuation is gone the idea of not-self must be dropped as well.[55] American monkThanissaro Bhikkhu of the Thai Forest Tradition describes the Buddha's statements on non-self as a path to awakening rather than a universal truth.[56] Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Buddha intentionally set aside the question of whether or not there is a self as a useless question, and that clinging to the idea that there is no self at all would actuallyprevent enlightenment.[57]Bhikkhu Bodhi authored a rejoinder to Thanissaro, writing that "The reason the teaching of anatta can serve as a strategy of liberation is precisely because it serves to rectify a misconception about the nature of being, hence an ontological error."[58]
Buddhist scholarsRichard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne argue that the Buddha's descriptions of non-self in early Buddhist texts do not deny that there is a self. Gethin writes that anatta is often mistranslated as meaning "not having a self", but in reality meant "not the self".[59] Wynne say that early Buddhist texts such as theAnattalakkhana Sutta do not deny that there is a self, stating that thefive aggregates that are described as not self are not descriptions of a human being but descriptions of the human experience.[60] Wynne and Gombrich both argue that the Buddha's statements on anattā were originally a "not-self" teaching that developed into a "no-self" teaching in later Buddhist thought.[60][59] Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to the Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10), where the Buddhastays silent when asked whether there is a 'self' or not,[61] as a major cause of the dispute.[62]
 | This articlehas an unclearcitation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style ofcitation andfootnoting.(December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
.svg)
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) | This articleneeds more completecitations forverification. Please helpadd missing citation information so that sources are clearly identifiable.(December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
