<p>Anatta is a central concept elucidated by Buddha. Anatta means not-self. Anatta is the absolute Truth or Reality, which permanently eternally exists, even if no human is aware if it, even if Buddhas &amp; Buddhism are absent from the world.</p>
<p>Buddha says the following in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/suddhaso?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property
stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the
Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.</p>
<p>“The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that.
Directly awakening &amp; breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches
it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, &amp; makes
it plain: All phenomena are not-self.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>An alternate translation of <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/suddhaso?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All things are
impersonal. A Tathāgata awakens to that and realizes that. Having
awakened to it and realized it, he announces it, teaches it, describes
it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and clarifies it: ‘All
things are impersonal.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&amp;layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=none&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles:</p>
<p>Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā
dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.</p>
<p>all things are not-self.</p>
<p>Sabbe dhammā anattā.</p>
<p>A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,</p>
<p>Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.</p>
<p>then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes,
and reveals it:</p>
<p>Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti:</p>
<p>‘All things are not-self.’</p>
<p>‘sabbe dhammā anattā’ti.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T17:50:37.330Z
2024-12-24T17:55:38.103Z
2024-12-24T17:55:38.103Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>There's an interesting article, &quot;The Strange Demise of Advaita&quot;, at &quot;Chi Ting Blog&quot;. It's not just about anatta, but I'm pretty sure it talks about it.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-25T13:56:56.973Z
2024-12-25T13:56:56.973Z
Dan
<p>Anatta is a central concept elucidated by Buddha. Anatta means not Self. Anatta is a concept but not the absolute Truth, it must be understood under the context.</p>
<p>Buddha says the following in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&amp;layout=plain&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=asterisk&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.136</a> :</p>
<ol>
<li>Sabbe Sankhara Anicca meaning all conditioned phenomena are impermanent.</li>
<li>Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha meaning all conditioned phenomena are suffering.</li>
<li><strong>Sabbe Dhamma Anatta</strong> meaning all phenomena are not Self.</li>
</ol>
<p>Suppose you believe that there is Atman or Self which not born and is immortal then Buddha asks that have you seen such a self ? How do you know such a Self exists? It must exist in relation to a phenomena of body , feelings, perceptions, choices or consciousness. Once you recognise the phenomenon around which you are constructing the image of Atman then Buddha says that phenomena can not be called Self. Thus he refutes the absolute existence of Self.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T10:15:00.643Z
2024-12-24T10:15:00.643Z
SacrificialEquation
<p>'Atman' is a later Upanishad and Vedanta concept, not addressed in the reported teachings of the Buddha (because 'Atman' was not a core doctrine of the early Brahmin Vedas, which existed during the Buddha's life).</p>
<p>The Buddha was primarily concerned about the concept of 'self' or 'atta' created by ignorance in the mind of people, which is the root of suffering. The sole purpose of the Buddha's Teaching is to end suffering (rather than to engage in philosophical debates with or to embrace outsider doctrines).</p>
<p>The Buddha taught the concept of 'self' is merely a thought fabrication, generated by ignorance &amp; craving. The same would apply to 'Atman'. 'Atman' is merely a thought concept.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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 to be the
<strong>self</strong>. That <strong>assumption</strong> is a <strong>fabrication</strong>. Now what is the cause, what is
the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
arises. That <strong>fabrication</strong> is born of that. And that <strong>fabrication</strong> is
inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
dependently co-arisen.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.81</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In summary, when the radiant conscious mind is free from thought, the mind will clearly discern there is no real 'self'. That radiant consciousness is only radiant consciousness. It is not a 'self'; it is not reincarnated or reborn. It is only radiant consciousness. All notions of 'self', 'rebirth', 'reincarnation', 'god', etc, are mere thought imaginings, thought concepts, thought fabrications, superstitions created by thought.</p>
<hr />
<p>It is important to understand the mind's capacity to fabricate concepts or superstitions of 'self' or 'conceit' is underlying tendency each person is born with. These underlying tendencies are discussed in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an7.11/en/sujato?lang=en&amp;layout=plain&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=none&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 7.11</a> and <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 64</a>. In modern parlance, it can be said the underlying tendency to fabricate views of self is a 'survival instinct' created by nature. However, this instinct is not a real self because it is merely a thought that can fade &amp; disappear in the mind of  people.</p>
<p>Degrees of 'self-creation' or 'self-belief' are described in Buddhism with terms such as 'attachment/clinging' (upadana), 'becoming/existence' (bhava), 'birth' (jati) and 'death' (marana). The Buddha taught all of these degrees of self-belief can disappear in the mind of people:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Clinging is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to
destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.</p>
<p>Existence, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.</p>
<p>Birth, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.</p>
<p>Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi?lang=en&amp;reference=none&amp;highlight=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.20</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you want a polemic work by a well-known philosopher of Buddhism (despite is common error about the chronology of the Upanishads), you can read this lecture: <a href="https://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/070/original/880113_Anatta_and_rebirth_buddhadasa.pdf?1481939315" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anatta and Rebirth by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-25T14:24:54.913Z
+1 for pointing out Atman is a later and evolved concept.
Desmon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T18:02:05.830Z
2024-12-24T18:36:06.493Z
2024-12-24T18:36:06.493Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>I am looking for some buddhist works that specifically criticize or refute the Vedantic concept of Atman. Any help would be appreciated.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-24T14:12:08.573Z
The word Atman is not used in Buddhism as it is a Hindu concept. You might have better luck searching for *atta*, *self* or *soul* using the forum's search. It might also help to understand the definition differences in atta vs atman (universal/eternal soul). My suggestion is to put aside the Hindu knowledge of atman and simply try to understand what is Buddhist atta and anatta. Once, you have a basic foundation than you will see the conceptual difference can be quite huge; making an apple-to-apple comparison a futile exercise.
Desmon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-25T13:52:31.723Z
For clarification, "atta" is the Pali word, "atman" is Sanskrit. In Buddhism it's the same word with the same meaning. It's when you change the context to Vedanta that it has a different meaning. There, "atman" with a lowercase "a" is the individual self, and "Atman" with a capital "A" is sort of a universal consciousness that contains and transcends the individual.
Dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-25T17:34:15.443Z
@Dan Different context and definition, Buddhist vs Hindu. The OP latest question preposition Atman in the Vedanta context. The OP's Atman is identical to Brahman. The Buddhist atman =\= Brahman. As far as I know the Atman = Brahman concept did not appear in both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism. Not differentiating this really makes me uneasy.
Desmon
<philosophy><texts><hinduism><soul><atman>
Looking for Textual Buddhist criticisms on the concept of Atman
# Looking for Textual Buddhist criticisms on the concept of Atman

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-12-24)

I am looking for some buddhist works that specifically criticize or refute the Vedantic concept of Atman. Any help would be appreciated.

**Tags:** philosophy, texts, hinduism, soul, atman

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The word Atman is not used in Buddhism as it is a Hindu concept. You might have better luck searching for *atta*, *self* or *soul* using the forum's search. It might also help to understand the definition differences in atta vs atman (universal/eternal soul). My suggestion is to put aside the Hindu knowledge of atman and simply try to understand what is Buddhist atta and anatta. Once, you have a basic foundation than you will see the conceptual difference can be quite huge; making an apple-to-apple comparison a futile exercise.  
> **username_2**: For clarification, "atta" is the Pali word, "atman" is Sanskrit. In Buddhism it's the same word with the same meaning. It's when you change the context to Vedanta that it has a different meaning. There, "atman" with a lowercase "a" is the individual self, and "Atman" with a capital "A" is sort of a universal consciousness that contains and transcends the individual.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 Different context and definition, Buddhist vs Hindu. The OP latest question preposition Atman in the Vedanta context. The OP's Atman is identical to Brahman. The Buddhist atman =\= Brahman. As far as I know the Atman = Brahman concept did not appear in both Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism. Not differentiating this really makes me uneasy.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-12-24. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

'Atman' is a later Upanishad and Vedanta concept, not addressed in the reported teachings of the Buddha (because 'Atman' was not a core doctrine of the early Brahmin Vedas, which existed during the Buddha's life).

The Buddha was primarily concerned about the concept of 'self' or 'atta' created by ignorance in the mind of people, which is the root of suffering. The sole purpose of the Buddha's Teaching is to end suffering (rather than to engage in philosophical debates with or to embrace outsider doctrines).

The Buddha taught the concept of 'self' is merely a thought fabrication, generated by ignorance & craving. The same would apply to 'Atman'. 'Atman' is merely a thought concept.

> 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 to be the
> **self**. That **assumption** is a **fabrication**. Now what is the cause, what is
> the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
> of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
> touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
> arises. That **fabrication** is born of that. And that **fabrication** is
> inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
> feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
> dependently co-arisen.
>
> [SN 22.81](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html)

In summary, when the radiant conscious mind is free from thought, the mind will clearly discern there is no real 'self'. That radiant consciousness is only radiant consciousness. It is not a 'self'; it is not reincarnated or reborn. It is only radiant consciousness. All notions of 'self', 'rebirth', 'reincarnation', 'god', etc, are mere thought imaginings, thought concepts, thought fabrications, superstitions created by thought.

---

It is important to understand the mind's capacity to fabricate concepts or superstitions of 'self' or 'conceit' is underlying tendency each person is born with. These underlying tendencies are discussed in [AN 7.11](https://suttacentral.net/an7.11/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin) and [MN 64](https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false). In modern parlance, it can be said the underlying tendency to fabricate views of self is a 'survival instinct' created by nature. However, this instinct is not a real self because it is merely a thought that can fade & disappear in the mind of people.

Degrees of 'self-creation' or 'self-belief' are described in Buddhism with terms such as 'attachment/clinging' (upadana), 'becoming/existence' (bhava), 'birth' (jati) and 'death' (marana). The Buddha taught all of these degrees of self-belief can disappear in the mind of people:

> Clinging is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to
> destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.
>
> Existence, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.
>
> Birth, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.
>
> Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.
>
> [SN 12.20](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)

If you want a polemic work by a well-known philosopher of Buddhism (despite is common error about the chronology of the Upanishads), you can read this lecture: [Anatta and Rebirth by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu](https://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/070/original/880113_Anatta_and_rebirth_buddhadasa.pdf?1481939315).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: +1 for pointing out Atman is a later and evolved concept.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-12-24. Score: 1

Anatta is a central concept elucidated by Buddha. Anatta means not-self. Anatta is the absolute Truth or Reality, which permanently eternally exists, even if no human is aware if it, even if Buddhas & Buddhism are absent from the world.

Buddha says the following in [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/suddhaso?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false):

> “Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property
> stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the
> Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
>
> “The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that.
> Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches
> it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes
> it plain: All phenomena are not-self.”

An alternate translation of [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/suddhaso?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false):

> Monks, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, this aspect of the world
> remains the same – this stable truth, this fixed truth: All things are
> impersonal. A Tathāgata awakens to that and realizes that. Having
> awakened to it and realized it, he announces it, teaches it, describes
> it, expresses it, reveals it, explains it, and clarifies it: ‘All
> things are impersonal.

Again, [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin):

> Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
> regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
> principles:
>
> Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ ṭhitāva sā
> dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
>
> all things are not-self.
>
> Sabbe dhammā anattā.
>
> A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
>
> Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
>
> then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes,
> and reveals it:
>
> Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti
> vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti:
>
> ‘All things are not-self.’
>
> ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’ti.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-12-25. Score: 0

There's an interesting article, "The Strange Demise of Advaita", at "Chi Ting Blog". It's not just about anatta, but I'm pretty sure it talks about it.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-12-24. Score: -1

Anatta is a central concept elucidated by Buddha. Anatta means not Self. Anatta is a concept but not the absolute Truth, it must be understood under the context.

Buddha says the following in [AN 3.136](https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) :

1. Sabbe Sankhara Anicca meaning all conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
2. Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha meaning all conditioned phenomena are suffering.
3. **Sabbe Dhamma Anatta** meaning all phenomena are not Self.

Suppose you believe that there is Atman or Self which not born and is immortal then Buddha asks that have you seen such a self ? How do you know such a Self exists? It must exist in relation to a phenomena of body , feelings, perceptions, choices or consciousness. Once you recognise the phenomenon around which you are constructing the image of Atman then Buddha says that phenomena can not be called Self. Thus he refutes the absolute existence of Self.


---

