Talk:Atman/Archive 1

Archive 1

AFAIK its Ãtmã or Ãtman, not Ãtmãn. Google confirms this (227, 98 and 0 hits respectively.) -- Arvindn 17:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re. April 20 Edits! Thanks Kukku - excellent. (20040302 08:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Non-Belief

The references are enlightening to a certain extent, but it seems wholly irrelevant to go into a tangential exegesis of Buddhist philosophy and their rebuttal of Hindu metaphysics. This would be like devoting an overdone section on Jewish rebuttals of Christ in the Jesus article. Now, perhaps, I should supply the article with more meat and gristle regarding hard-core history of Atman in Indian philosophy, but later on I believe it requires some sort of culling. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:19, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

::chuckle:: "This would be like devoting an overdone section on Jewish rebuttals"--you, sir, are fishing for trouble. ;) BTW, Have you checked Jesus Christ? There are comparable-in-length (1-3 paragraphs each) segments for Jewish, Muslim, and "Non-Christian" (i.e., "other") interpretations of Jesus, with a total length in excess of the entire ātman article. Now, the whole page could use some cleanup and rounding out, but I don't see anything wrong with explaining (a) why Buddhists don't believe in the concept, (b) how they get around it (which is nontrivial for something as philosophically ubiquitous as the self), and (c) how they differ from groups of Hinduism who also offer critiques of self but do not reject the ātman concept. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's fair. More important, I guess, I will need to concentrate on adding to the primary Hindu understandings. The horrific imbalance of understandings and definitive views should be corrected soon enough. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:25, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I guess we need to sort out how this works. As it is, I don't think Atman is at all a Buddhist concept and that needs to be discussed, as it is on my talk page. Perhaps more input is necessary, but at the risk of being redundant, a Hindu concept against which the Buddhists argue doesn't seem to render it a "buddhist concept." In that case, "God" is a nihilist concept, dictatorship and monarchy are both democratic concepts, icon is a Protestant concept (in that their genesis lay in rejection of many Catholic practices, such as the heavy use of imagery), etc. etc. etc. I don't see how Atman as a "Buddhist concept" is at all tenable. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:21, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly think we do need to sort out how this works; this will be ugly, but effective, and elegance tends to elude us. Remember that we're not defining a systematic exclusive ownership tree; the point is to have categories bring together a complete set of subtopics. And no discussion of Buddhist philosophy would be complete without reference to ātman, just as no Protestant cat scheme would be complete without reference to the debate over transsubstantiation. The categories in WP work more like indices and less like TOCs than I think you realize. For the record, I still think having pages like ātman and saṁsāra labeled "Indian" would be better, but ::shrug:: I'd rather go for ugly and effective than elegant and a locus of pointless struggle. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 01:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your brand of aesthetics seems highly tender and liable to quick upset if two lines instead of one should grace the page. I too would be more content with "Indian philosophial concepts" if it did any sort of justice to the topic. No matter how utilitarian the nascent aim, it ends up partially defining and informing the encyclopaedia's view on the topic. Buddhist discussions needn't erroneously label an entirely Hindu concept "Buddhist" in order to heavily reference it in shunyata articles. Frankly, most of Indian philosophy, indeed, more realistically put Indian religion, is a wild bleeding over of concepts and ideas that are sometimes distinguished, sometimes not, based on the sect in question. This is true for things like karma, dharma, etc. But Atman I still disagree with the Buddhist concept section. It doesn't make sense. Just because Protestants speak of icons, or Nihilists the 'god'-concept, doesn't mean those concepts suddenly become a part of their system's theology or philosophical framework (by framework I mean that of Protestanism, or Nihilism, not the historical or situational backdrop in which they reacted or worked with prevailing ideas of the time to form their own). You didn't address the counter-examples. No one lists "shunyata" as Vedantic concept, no matter how much earlier Advaita (the first of the three systems) relied on proofs by contradiction involving "shunyata." Analogously, "Atman" though a concept examined by Buddhist is not itself a "Buddhist concept." It is a reference point, which is far different. If BUddhist pages need references of "Atman" they can use atman or cite the concept in the body of the work or in footnotes. THere are many ways to accomplish this, and in the interests of albeit amateur but nonetheless scholarly accuracy as opposed to nebulous compromises that obscure the topics at hand, we should most certainly 'work them out.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

"My brand" of aesthetics does indeed prefer not to use twice the verbiage to convey a message if unnecessary, but so it goes. I'm not clear on how "Indian philosophical concepts" fails to "do any justice", but if we both agree it's not to be, there's no need to argue that. The icon example is a poor comparison; better consider "transubstantiation", which would clearly fall into the province of Protestant philosophical concepts, even though Protstantism is largely founded on a critique of it. Again, the categories on Wikipedia are not about making and substantiating complex claims about intellectual ownership; they are about collecting broadly associated topics together for easy reference; they should err on the side of inclusion in boundary areas, not on the side of exclusion--though I don't think this is one of the trickery areas. I'm restoring the category tag, having provided you with a reply, though I think making article content hostage to our interesting but somewhat closed little discussions is probably a bad thing. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 15:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category

I have removed the Buddhist philosophical concept reference since none of my arguments have been adequately met. It is clear that the Buddhists do not believe in Atman and that it is not a Buddhist idea, but rather they react to it. I will leave the somewhat inappropriate "non-belief" section in though a much more fleshed out explication of Hinduism and its birthing of atman needs to be given. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:46, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I still vehemently disagree with your view of Category. I do not believe it is merely a reference section, nor do I see it to be, as you put it, anything to do with "intellectual ownership." Categories are structured to show the reader or casual peruser the interconnectedness of various concepts within a larger framework and their relevance as an element of that (in this case philosophy) idea. Atman is not a Buddhist concept.

I agree that categories are structured to show the reader or casual peruser the interconnectedness of various concepts. If you look at the way the category system has been designed and implemented, in particular its is basically a Wittgensteinian "family resemblance" model of assocation, wherein overall terms describe clusters of ideas that are linked together in practice. The only sense in which Atman is not a Buddhist concept is the authorial sense, in that Buddhists didn't invent it, and the category system simply is not a system of attribution. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

I recommend that others weigh in on this, but I do not feel like it is appropriate from Buddhist philosophical concept to be a category for Atman. Pages on Buddhist ideas, like shunyata, for instance, can easily, within the body of the article, reference atman a thousand times, if that's how central it is to proof by negations, and place it in "See Also" sections. But in the interests of accuracy it is untenable to place Atman as a 'Buddhist concept.'

Well, I think we're clearly at an impasse here, so we manifestly will need others to weigh in. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

I find it ludicrous to suggest for a moment that Atman is not included as a Buddhist philosophical concept. Shantideva(pretty much centre-stage late Indian Buddhist philosopher) clearly informs us that in order to be able to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying.

Without contacting the entity that is imputed

You will not apprehend the absence of that entity

Bodhicaryavatara

Regardless, it is not too hard to see that the denial of an object is just as philosophically involved as it's assertion.

For an idea about just how central to Buddhist philosophy Atman is, I invite you to count the number of times the word 'self' (here translated from Atman) is used in the Madhyamakavatara (http://gileht.com/Chandrakirti_Madhyamakavatara_19.htm). Most clearly, the term Atman is an involved term used by many Indian philosophers. It is not 'owned' by Buddhism or Hinduism in any sense - though we may say it is specifically enhanced and developed in the Indian subcontinent. It is quite possibly a loanword, as I hear it is of uncertain etymology in Sanskrit.

Regardless, my interests are not in how force any term/concept into a single schema or taxonomy. Such ideas (to me) seem distinctly 19th century. Any categorisations must be plural and inclusive, and must reflect the flexibility, multiplicity and complexity of the many overlapping conventions which adapt and adopt such a term. Moreover, categorisations must be as dynamic and as topical as the concepts that they are attempting to relate to.

As a corollary, I regard any ideas that there is only one valid interpretation of the meaning of a term as belonging to the dark ages of absolutism. I doubt that I stand alone. (20040302 08:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC))

"Transubstantiation" is not at all clearly Protestant! Indeed, it's a Catholic concept with which Protestant 'concepts' DEAL. It is erroneous logic to equate something about which someone or something discusses at great length as being a part of his/her/its philosophy.

You seem to be assuming that the category system on Wikipedia implies a certain ontology, and in particular that by assigning something to a given category, some specific claim about its essential nature. What is more, we have a simple disagreement about the assumptions underlying what it takes to be "a part of" a philosophy, and you can repeat your formula about "dealing with" as many times as you like, but it's going to have any force for me. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

By the way, the only reason the 'icon' example is a 'poor comparison' is because it doesn't seem to favor your stretched reading of inclusion in a framework of thought.

• Protestantism arose as a reaction to Catholicism
• Buddhism arose as a reaction to Brahminical Hinduism

• A major bone of contention was iconolatry
• A major bone of contention was belief in Atman
• No. A 'bone' of contention was that ideas of Atman are good for you.
• Major bones of contention were belief in Varnas, animal sacrifice, and the final authority of texts see below.

• Iconolatry was central to Catholic belief, and Protestants rejected it
• Atman was central to Hindu belief, and Buddhists rejected it
• No. Buddhists did not reject Atman, they identified it as being damaging.
• Buddhists did reject

Varnas, or caste as interpreted by Brahminical Hinduism

Animal sacrifice as promoted by Brahminical Hinduism

The final authority of texts (including the Vedas) (20040302)

• Thus, Protestantism was in part dependant on a critique of a concept that was not its own
• Thus, Buddhism was in part dependant on a critique of a concept that was not its own

In point of fact, transubstantiation (or, to put it more broadly, the question of the eucharist) is a much better example, because it was a fertile and lively topic of debate within early protestantism, where different sects applied different approaches in their attempts to re-interpret the eucharist, with various levels of rejection applied. And also because we're talking about assocation of philosophical concepts, not of disputes over worship practices, etc. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

The same goes for transubstantiation. As I've said, the utilitarianism of 'categorizing' is not its only purpose, and it does indeed serve to elucidate the nature of the subject in question. Someone learning about Buddhism who perhaps saw Atman in the listed 'Buddhist philosophical concepts' would be horribly confused as to why something to do with Self had been stated as Buddhist. It implies somehow that Buddhists 1) came up with the concept or 2) at least believed in it. Rebuttals of ideas should be mentioned in articles dealing with pages that are really about "buddhist philosophical concepts," like shunyata, or the "Buddhism" page where a mention about its growth is made. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:55, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

The question is in what way categorization serves to elucidate the nature of the sujbect. You seem to believe that categorization is about making statements about what a thing is or isn't, whereas I'm pretty sure that's what articles are for, while categorization is about showing the interrelationship between topics. It in no way implies that Buddhists came up with or believed in the topic; at worst, it implies that Buddhists took it seriously and that spent time philosophizing about it, which they manifestly did. And no one is going to be "horribly confused" as to why it's listed in association with Buddhist philosoophy. Please.

What is more, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that the Buddhist philosophical conception of atman is co-referential with the Hindu conception of atman, i.e. that Buddhism is purely responding to Hindu doctrines. Atman has a life of its own in Buddhist theorization, as the re-emergence of versions of the metaphysical self in later Buddhism alongside versions of critique of the Atman and affirmation of the doctrine of anatman make clear. To make a dogmatic claim that the Atman of Buddhism is always also the Atman of Hinduism would be ridiculous, but to claim that Atman is not present in Buddhist philosophy is also ridiculous. Thus, even under a strained formalistic rendering of categorization (which I in no way endorse) the Buddhist philosophical concepts tag would still be fitting. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussions of critiques of ideas, btw, are utterly appropriate material on for articles on those ideas; indeed, non-discussion of critiques is POV. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

The more I think about this, the less I have an opinion. If by "Buddhist philosophical concept" we mean a concept that arises from or is advocated by Buddhist philosophy, then Atman is clearly not a Buddhist philosophical concept. If by "Buddhist philosophical concept" we mean a concept that is addressed in Buddhist philosophy, then Atman clearly is one. In conversation, I would definitely favor the narrower definition for sake of clarity. For the category listing, I'm not sure I see the downside to the broader one. I guess one problem is that people who don't know much about the subject to begin with might come to the page, see the categories, and make assumptions about Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. - Nat Krause 07:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, my thoughts and arguments rest on the validity of your third sentence; Regarding your second sentence, I consider the idea "Atman arises from (a) philosophy" to be mistaken, as it was/is a common enough word in Sanskrit - it was not necessarily coined as a philosophical term. The other option of your second sentence, that a concept needs to be advocated by a philosophy to be a philosophical concept is possibly more debatable; personally, I think it would be hard to argue this idea - I would say that God is an important philosophical concept of atheists (without a concept of God, they could not be atheists) but atheists certainly do not advocate God!

Regardless, according to Nalanda Buddhists, the concept of Atman indeed does exist as a cognitive obscuration, and if it did not exist, then all beings would be free from Samsara. So we can say that the Buddhist philosophical concept of Atman is indeed distinctly Buddhist, and distinctly an asserting concept: It is distinctly Buddhist in that (only?) Buddhists define it as being a cognitive obscuration, and it is an assertion in that Buddhists define it as existing, (rather than non-existent). (20040302 11:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC))

The decision should be made on the basis of usage practices. I don't see it as likely that someone is going to either (a) see the B. phil. concepts tag on the Atman article and be misled (they'd have to not look at the article at all, but still scroll down and look at the category or (b) see the Atman article on the category page itself and go, "Oh, I see that Buddhists believe in the Atman, let me tell my friends" without looking at the article. On the other hand, I can certainly see someone going to the category page because they wanted to browse through Buddhist philosophical concepts and finding the Atman article important reading for that topic. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addressed to both kukkurovaca and 20...: Both of you seem to think that this is some sort of battle.

More like an attempt to help you free your mind. (20040302)

Unfortunately, these urges are not shared by me. First off, Kukku... pulling Wittgentstein or, for that matter, Platonic forms to justify this ludicrous connection is still not going to change my mind on the matter, just as my 'dealing with' arguments seem not to be able to alter your stance. As for 20, while I appreciate your invitation, I also ask you to leave aside meaningless bead-counting, which we can save for malas, and inquire as to the real nature of what a buddhist concept is. Neither of you seem to understand that regardless of exclusivity or inclusivity or the 'dubious' etymology of atman it is still not a Buddhist concept.

Atman is indeed a Buddhist concept. Let me cite from Candrakirti's Commentary on Aryadeva's 400 verses where he contextualises (defines) his use of Atman:

"Atman" is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature.

Candrakirti is not required to say that this definition of Atman is cognate with the various Hindu concepts of Atman; in fact he spends time carefully arguing against many various non-Buddhist and Buddhist concepts of Atman. It is because of the fact that Buddhists assert Atman (and define it in exclusively Buddhist ways), that Atman is indeed a Buddhist concept. What I agree with you about is that the concept is not exclusively Buddhist. But the various Buddhist ideas of Atman are NOT solely the negation of the various Hindu concepts of Atman, but also many Buddhist concepts of Atman. Something which a minute amount of study on your behalf would rapidly uncover. (20040302)

Anatmavada is on the other hand a Buddhist concept. transubstantation and iconolatry are both excellent examples because beyond the mechanics of ritual they intimate higher ideals of the practiced religion which, if you didn't realize, affect and have ramifications on both philosophical doctrine and practice.

In the same way, 20... you can repeat atman ten thousand times in a Buddhist prayer of a thousand words, but in the end their usage of Atman is as a negation.

No, it is not a negation. It is an assertion. Buddhists do not deny the existence of Atman; they merely claim it exists as a cognitive obscuration. So the fact that Buddhists have:

1. assertive definitions of Atman which
2. play a central role to Buddhist practice in a manner which
3. is distinguished from Hindu philosophy demonstrates that
4. Atman is a Buddhist philosophical concept.

A Buddhist may argue that if after all you are right and Atman is solely a Hindu concept, then only Hindus are stuck in Samsara! Nobody has suggested that. (20040302)

If I, say, create Suryism, a new philosophy, and for about half my initial treatise spend time denying the doctrine of Kukkurovacism, it doesn't suddenly render Kukkurovacism a Suryist philosophical concept.

This is a poor analogy. Atman is a word in Sanksrit that has/had common useage outside of the context of Hinduism. Claiming "The word Atman is a Hindu philosophical concept, not a Buddhist philosophical concept" is not the same as saying that "Hinduism is not a Buddhist philosophical concept". If I missed the point, please re-express it (20040302)

These arguments are ridiculous. I do not think that someone looking at a Category page will immediately run off to their friends and tell them that atman is Buddhist, however, by that same logic, I do not think that the absence of that 'atman' entry will sap all receptivity from their heads and render them incapable of understanding that atman is important to understand, as a negated concept, in Buddhism, when they proceed to read articles on yogachara or shunyata and start differentiating BUddhist metaphysics from Hindu metaphysics.--LordSuryaofShropshire 17:26, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, this is starting to get silly--or, rather, is continually getting sillier. And it seems clear that Surya and I, at least, aren't going to be moved any farther this way. Should we consider getting some mediation? And if so, how does one go about that? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 15:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surya, do you have an objection to Varnas being attributed with Category:Hindu philosophical concepts ?

The way the page reads it's like fixed caste was always the Hindu way when it was in fact not so. At one point it was as nomenclaturally mobile as our 'blue-collar' and 'white-collar' appellations are today. Varna meant color or shade, and the 'caste' name is Portugese, and thus the title is anachronistic. Vedanta, Yoga, Tantra and Bhakti schools from the Upanishads to the present day have been littered with Hindus denying caste. There is no mention of either the concretization (gradual) of the system or the historical denial of the way it had become by Hindu figures and texts. What of that? No mention? It sounds biased and inaccurate as it is now, and seems to equate social frameworks justified by religion as the religion itself, like attributing feudalism to Christianity since the church supported Divine Right. Dharmashastras even in their hey-day were not followed by the majority populace, while at the same time ridiculously prejudiced caste practice was followed by Brahmins even till today in the South and Rajasthaan. It bled over to Muslims and Christians. I think varna needs to be separated from caste, since they're not the same thing. If the article cites caste as it grew but seeks to define varna, then we're on different topics. If it is NPOV, of course the Varna article should be a Hindu Philosophical Concept. However, as of now, it is woefully off-base and lop-sided (compare religion and the practice of its adherents). --LordSuryaofShropshire 06:44, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well spoken, though maybe you would like to put some of this paragraph into the Varnas article, so that at least the uneducated do not continue to be blinded by mis-attributed history and the false views of others? (20040302)

mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is what you'd be looking for I suppose. For the record I think it's fine to link the buddhist philosophy catagory, and Surya must understand that since Buddhism comes from Hinduism, most (if not all) Hindu concepts are also concepts within Buddhism, even if they are interpreted differently. The argument is similar to a Jewish person saying Christians interpret the passover differently, and thus it is not a religious concept for them. Sam [Spade] 16:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade: I disagree thoroughly with your analysis of the situation. Buddhism comes from Hinduism, therefore the concepts are shared equally by both. This is simplistic to a glaring fault. Also, your passover analogue is horrifically off-base, for the reasons that unlike Hindus and Buddhists, Christians and Jews reverence the to a great extent the same book (Old Testament) and that Passover, as a result, is sacred to both of them and foundational to both of their faiths only through affirmation. The negative recoil against a concept does not mark anything but a reference point, as in the recoil against God in atheism and atman in Buddhism. Also, most Buddhist concepts might by Hindu, but certainly not all. I have no problem when something legitimately Buddhist (though shared by Hinduism) is plugged as such because it simply makes Academic sense. This has nothing to do with possessiveness of a concept, as such childishness doesn't really jive with the more sound arguments I believe I am making. The centrality of atman in Buddhism is in its importance to the development of what is a Buddhist concept, that of anatta. Indeed, the supposed 'non-belief' in Atman and Buddhist critique is much more germane to an article on that, or anatman, with references from Atman to this Buddhist understanding of a Hindu concept.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:34, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

As for 20... notwithstanding your gratuitious smart-aleck remarks, being that I'm not concerned with dregding up evidence for your arguments (makes little sense for the defense lawyer to work for prosecution, wouldn't you say?), it is interesting to finally see something that actually justifies the argument. Note that nothing of this nature was ever on the Atman page and did not speak to this understanding. I will therefore split the page.--LordSuryaofShropshire 19:38, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Page-splitting

Are other people happy/comfortable with the solution of splitting the pages? I haven't decided myself. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the only theoretical benefit of this page-split is in regards to ending the debate you all were having, which it only puts off. Unfortunately it does a diservice to the reader, and mistakenly insinuates that the definition of the term is different within the two philosophies. I'm not going to undo it now, due to the heat of the moment, but I will in time, and hope that cooler heads will prevail. Sam [Spade] 03:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the definition of the term is different in Hinduism and Buddhism - especially within philosophical contexts, and there are more than two philosophical positions regarding the term! There are at least four in Buddhism alone.

However, regarding the page split, I feel that it is indicative of a wish to "ring fence" Hinduism and Hindu topics in Wikipedia (rather than an "up-board") which I find completely unsuitable to the intents and purposes of the Wikipedia community at large. (Tantra is an example of an article which has become more or less exclusively Hinduism-owned (and guarded) on Wikipedia, though there is a vast and profound tradition of Buddhist Tantra which is not merely cognate with Vajrayana).

For an example of where similar articles have not been split, see Dharma, Karma and Samsara. Regarding the latter two, I am not happy that they have {{Hinduism}} tables in them. In fact the (new) Categories system should do away with such tables (Hinduism, Buddhism and others) on the grounds of redundancy. (20040302 08:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC))