- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Spiritual traditions often make the distinction between the outer self and inner self. For example, the Advaita Vedanta states:
jivatman, the individual experiencing self, is ultimately pure awareness mistakingly identified with body and the senses, and non-different (“na aparah”) from Ātman–Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.
The “outer self” makes up the body and mind and is illusory in a sense that it is dynamic, impermanent and leads to suffering but is mistakenly identified as one’s own. But the true self is hidden inside and is unchanging, blissful and pure. The goal is to realize this inner self which is no different from the Brahman, the ultimate reality. Thus,
it proposes that Atman-Brahman (awareness, purusha) alone is ultimately real, and, though unchanging, the cause and origin of the transient phenomenal world (prakriti). In this view, the jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies. It regards the material world as an ilusory appearance (maya) or “an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman,” the latter as proposed by the 13th century scholar Prakasatman.
Mahayana School of Buddhism also describes a similar concept known as “Buddha-nature“:
Broadly speaking, it refers to the belief that the luminous mind, “the natural and true state of the mind“, which is pure (visuddhi) mind undefiled by afflictions, is inherently present in every sentient being, and is eternal and unchanging. It will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, that is, when the nature of mind is recognized for what it is.
From this perspective, the true self (witness consciousness or Buddha nature) is within all of us but due to fabrications of the material world, the regular sensory experiences are mistakenly identified as the actual self. The true self transcends the physical world when it is realized and is beyond words.
The Theravada school however seems to take a differing stance. According to this view, there is no hidden core or essence. So I am curious to know why the Buddha rejected the commonly held idea of inner self. In other words, how does one know that the true atman/buddha nature does not exist?
-
Lagrade asked: “How does one know that the true atman/buddha nature does not exist?”
- The concept of “atman” in the Vedas refers to a “soul-type” unchanging, permanent entity in Christianity/Islam. It seems the “Buddha nature” that you quote from Mahayana implies the same.
- The Buddha verified the absence of such an entity by experience. He was able to figure out that all existences are temporary. Not only that, he visited all those realms, too.
Of course, each of us needs to study those doctrines and choose the one that makes sense.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?”
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
“Then is there no self?”
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?”
“Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?”
“No, lord.”
“And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?'” – Ananda Sutta 44.10
The answer here is straightforward. Buddha did not bother with self- or non-self ideas because they do not directly cause suffering and are not solutions to that suffering. Notions of self and no self are notions of ignorance, to solve ignorance we need to understand real Dhamma that goes to the core of existential problems that are created by ignorance.
So to answer your question “How one does know that true atman/buddha nature does not exist?” – One gets rid of ignorance, knows the true nature of the world, and realizes it can not exist in the real notion of world-mind-perception, until there one will have wrong “idea” that self/buddha nature is nicca, atta and sukha. What “wrongly spiritual” people do in stages – they are disappointed in the material world (yet still clinging to a sense of pleasure) so they move to some kind of religion that correlated with their ignorance and “hopes”, “ideas” (based on ignorance) of future non-material existence, they find psychological solace in that false idea. If they are disappointed with their religion, they try spiritual practices and philosophies like yogas/advaitas/quasi-hindu-“buddhism” like mahayana with the same pattern but here there is a chance for achievement of jhana to which they wrongly cling in ignorance thinking they achieved some kind of freedom from this world but without seeing the full picture and real image of the world ie. real Dhamma they are still trapped in those wrong views.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
So I am curious to know why the Buddha rejected the commonly held idea of inner self. In other words, how does one know that the true atman/buddha nature does not exist?
I don’t think there is any way to directly prove that something does not exist. So we shall use reasoning and our experience. With that being said, I wrote a post about the approach that one could take to test the legitimacy of a theory/doctrine: Building Confidence in Dhamma
- I concluded that Buddha Dhamma passes that test. Do you disagree?
- Try applying it to the Vedic and Mahayana philosophies you referenced. Do they pass the test?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you all for your insights! I’ve been doing further research and this thread helped quite a bit.
“I concluded that Buddha Dhamma passes that test. Do you disagree?”
Not at all. You’ve provided compelling arguments that significantly bolster the credibility of Buddha Dhamma. These points are more than sufficient to encourage a seeker to engage with the teachings seriously, at the very least.
“Try applying it to the Vedic and Mahayana philosophies you referenced. Do they pass the test?”Excellent question! It appears that these doctrines might struggle to withstand such rigorous scrutiny. Many of them were derived from pre-existing philosophical systems and subsequently modified by various scholars to align with their own interpretations. This often results in inconsistencies and a lack of coherence. In short, these philosophies do not appear to engage with sensory experiences with the same precision and depth as the Buddha’s teachings, whose insights remain highly credible, as your post effectively demonstrates. Once again, thank you!
-
I would say also that many ignorant people (non-Ariyas) have cognitive problems when asking questions treating them as it’s “material objects” to be discovered while it’s their perception so it creates a certain loop-trap of ignorance and lack of self-reflection.
It’s like asking “How do I know that consciousness exists” or “perception “exists while denying it because can not be “seen” yet it is experienced all the time
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.