Expert: Bodhicitta - 1/15/2010

Question
Since the term anatta/anatman, in the earliest buddhist texts, in no way negates or denies the atman, how and by what means can you assert the negation of the Self/Atman (attan, skt. atman) as original to earliest buddhism?

Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta).

Could you comment on the following?

“The anatta taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value, it is not an absolute one. It does not say simply that the Soul (atta, Atman) has no reality at all, but that certain things (5 aggregates), with which the unlearned man identifies himself, are not the Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them, become detached from them and be liberated. Since this kind of anatta does not negate the Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate value and to be repudiated, instead of nullifying the atta’ (Soul/Atman) doctrine, it in fact compliments it.”- Perez-Remon
[Self and non-self in early Buddhism, ISBN 90-279-7987-1; publ. Mouton  Publishers, the Hague, 1980]  

Answer
Dear Kenneth
Thanks for your question.It is, of course an old chestnut in academic circles, there are whole papers
and books on the subject (e.g.: Selfless persons : imagery and thought in Theravāda Buddhism / Steven Collins. ). People exercise themselves endlessly with this question!

As my profile says, I usually restrict all my answers on here to Buddhist Practice related questions
and steer well clear of academic discussion and answers. for me personally Buddhism only has
value in that it is a living transmitted
meditative or contemplative tradition that can be experienced now.

I do wonder if it is it possible to re-contextualize your question around
your own personal meditation or life experience of Buddhism and how this question could be a personally relevant contemporary inquiry that has value for you?

If so this would get interesting...and please do send me something back.

My throw away answer to the question as posed would be to suggest meditating on the question or at
least contemplating how you could experience the world differently through that question.
Another answer might that it
would require a  deep understanding of Sanskrit/Pali grammar, ancient texts of the same date
to understand the answer - few people in the world have that understanding these days.There is also much confusion
regarding Buddhism in translation and how the Western terms Ego and non-ego, self and no self, selfless,  relate to Atman, Anatman and their
uses in all possible declensions .

I also believe that the  dualistic Western thinking system, always needs two camps, this is the classical debate or dichotomy given to us by the greeks. There is I think some mistaken idea that there was Buddhism and Anti-Buddhism in India perhaps  some monolithic thing called
Hinduism that believed in Atman and some thing called Buddhism which opposed it. It is more likely that India is much more open and eclectic than that.  Hinduism is a very modern term and for a long time there was only Dharma.Even today all Dharma is good in India. Remember too there is no word
for Buddhism!


Best dharma wishes in your search
Bodhicitta