Talk:Ātman (Buddhism)

message: Atman is a Sanskrit word, in Pali Buddhist texts, the term is Attan, or atta, normally translated as 'soul' or 'Self', certainly not to be confuses with the aggregate or khandhic self (psycho-physical), which was anatta, or ‘na me so atta’ (not my Soul). 
In Buddhism, the concept of Atman is the “only refuge” [DN 2.100], "The Soul (Attan) is Charioteer"[Jataka-2-1341], “The Soul (Attan) is ones True-Nature (Svabhava)” [Mahavagga-Att. 3.270], "The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97], "The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441], "To be fixed in the Soul is to be flood crossed" [Mahavagga-Att. 2.692]. 
"Dwell with the Soul (Atman) as your Light, with the Soul as your refuge, with none other as refuge." [SN 5.154, DN 2.100, SN 3.42, DN 3.58, SN 5.163]-Gotama Buddha 
The common error both as mentioned in Buddhist sutra as well as by others, was the confusion of the empirical and corporeal self with The Self, the Atman, the Soul. “the light (joti) within one’s mind/will (citta) is the very Soul (attano)” [DN2-Att. 2.479]. Buddhism denies the conceptualization upon the Soul, the Atman, this being attanuditthi or (speculations/ theories of or upon the Soul) which was the “root of suffering, of delusions”. 
:I have some difficulties with this. First of all, the bibliographical marks are not so easy for me to identify: DN, AN, KN - can we be specific?; moreover, these concepts come from  -what- tradition?  Also, just because there are four or five sutras that assert the importance of the concept of self does not mean that this is a correct interpretation of Buddha's thought - especially as there are thousands of references that overtly teach anatman/annata. (20040302 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre RV edit.. 

message: This very interesting article currently reads more like an essay than a referenced encyclopedia article.  Any addition of specific page references to standard books on the subject would be helpful. Buddhipriya 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request that references be added 

message: Hi, I was just wondering whether the section titled "Ātman and the Tathagatagarbha" could be removed, since its points are also (basically) stated in the "Positive teachings on the Atman in Mahayana Buddhism" section.  Thanks!  --Lucifereri 11:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tony, thanks for the hard work :).  I also noticed, there was no article for the Mahayana version of the True Self, which I think might be useful to anyone interested in the various interpretations of self in Mahayana.  I say this since many people are likely to confuse the idea with the similar concept in Hinduism.  Thanks again.  --Lucifereri 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the section "Ātman and the Tathagatagarbha" really needed? 

message: "...in order to be able to deny something..."-- does the author (of this sentence) means "in order to be able to deny the existence of atman"?
Maxim Leyenson (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  On denial (of Atman?) 

message: An editor in the last 24 hours has taken it upon him/herself to 'merge' the whole of this article with 'Atman(Hinduism/Sanskrit)' - without a single word of discussion with the rest of us editors, some of whom have worked on this article for many years. Moreover, I was horrified to see that the 'merged' version simply redirects the reader to the 'Anatta' article - which is an entirely different article. Thus all the contents of 'Atman (Buddhism)' were lost! This is outrageous behaviour. I have restored the entire article, as it should be. Please do not make any such major changes without discussing them with fellow editors first. Thank you. Best wishes from Suddha (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is based on a misconception.  The word "atman" means the same thing in Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.  It is Sanskrit for "self" or "identity".  There is no difference in content between this article and the anatta article.  Merigar (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion, but you are required to get consensus of the existing editors that this is the proper thing to do before doing it. Please follow the processes that have been pointed out to you. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain to me what the difference is between this article and the anatta article?  The whole thing doesn't make any sense.  Its the same content repeated.  Merigar (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to explain to you. The issue is not the article content. The issue is that there are processes for discussing and making these decisions which involve the other editors of the articles, and you have skipped them. This article is watched by several different Wikiprojects. You don't simply get to move it without discussion, whether or not you are right about duplicated content. Yworo (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are another editor, correct?  Can I move the content of this article into a Atman (Sanskrit) article?Merigar (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the requested moves process, please. I am not the only other editor. I am not going to collude with you to evade getting the opinions of the other editors of the article. There is no hurry.  Yworo (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes the anatta article is more extensive.  Other than that, the content is more or less the same.  Merigar (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: What about this section in the anatta article?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#Anatta_in_the_Tathagatagarbha_Sutras   And the Tathagatagarbha Sutras have their own page as well.  This whole article is unnecessary and misleading.  Merigar (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored entire Atman (Buddhism) Article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ātman (Buddhism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614093904/http://www.webspawner.com:80/users/bodhisattva/index.html to http://www.webspawner.com/users/bodhisattva/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: please read the cited sources. If you allege that Nikaya don't state this, then you need to identify the Nikaya(s) and a reliable source that verifies what you allege / state. See content policies of wikipedia, particularly WP:V and WP:RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self, no-self 

message: This entire section is filled with bias, and should be removed until it can be rewritten in its entirety. No one can show a primary source (any scripture of early Buddhism) which states "there is no Self". Instead the language of the Nikayas states which things are not self. It is up to the interpretation of the individual schools to determine whether there is a Self outside of the things which the Buddha said are non-self.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.136.36.121 (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikipedia. Please see content policies and guidelines and discuss them at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Please stop removing sources and sourced content. If you find a reliable source that states something different, that will be welcome. Just WP:FORUM-y allegations that Nikaya say this or that, is not helpful. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Buddhism 

message: Hello Folks,
I have a bit of an issue with this article. It has quite a bias toward the no-self concept. Dont get me wrong, more weight on the no self POV is warranted since the majority of Buddhist scholars believe that and wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but except for one section the article is very skewed to that idea. However my biggest issue specifically is in the intro where it says, "Although the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman (/ˈɑːtmən/) or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self."
This is quite a biased statement and implies there is near consensus on the issue of no self, which there isn't. Thats like saying "Although the Bible teaches a literal transubstantiation some denominations interpret it as a figurative one". Not exactly a fair statement for the denominations who believe it to be figurative. Im also not quite sure how accurate the statement "The Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging 'self' can be found" is. I know he says the five aggregates are "non self" but it doesnt seem like he ever says there is no "self" to be found. Unless someone can produce a source for the Buddha actually stating that that shouldnt be in the intro. Anyways the point Im trying to get at is that the intro doesnt commit to a totally neutral point of view on an issue thats quite debatable. Apparently its even led to attacks and threats so the intro shouldn't underplay the debate. I dont think major rewording is needed but at least some rewording should be done to reflect the controversial nature of the subject. Thoughts? Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiman5676: The article cites many sources and seems a good NPOV summary to me. Is your concern just the lead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much. It doesn't reflect how debated the no self issue is in my opinion. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the article. Intro looks good now. Thanks. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Bias 

message: "This concept refers to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism, where a person is viewed as having a lower self (impermanent body, personality) and a Higher or Greater Self (real permanent Self, soul, atman, atta)."
This is not a valid statement in logical terms. The person cannot have a higher self since the person is associated with the lower self. It's like saying "the taste has a taste and a food". Or like "thinking has a thought and a mind". And I'm pretty sure this is not what the Upanishads say, quite the opposite. The person is part of the illusion. Only the atman is real. Atman is the subject. It can not be had. 
"In the unreal there is no duration and in the real there is no cessation; indeed the conclusion between both the two has been analyzed by knowers of truth." - Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 16  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.82.68 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharp; it's a misformulation indeed. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  a person cannot have atman