DN 15 mentions the following eight kinds of emancipations: > “Ānanda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight? > > “Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation. > > “Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is > the second emancipation. > > “One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, > with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding > perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ one > enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This > is the fourth emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and remains > in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth > emancipation.** > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and > remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth > emancipation. > > “With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one > enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation. > > **“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception > nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of > perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.** > > “Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, > in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them > and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as > long as he wants, when through the ending of effluents he enters and > remains in the effluent-free release of awareness and release of > discernment, having directly known it and realized it for himself in > the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And > as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, > there is none.” The Chāndogya Upaniṣad describes Brahman-realization in the following terms: > यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ > यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ > यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न > महिम्नीति ॥ ७.२४.१ ॥ > > yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha > yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā > tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve > mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti || 7.24.1 || > > **Sanatkumāra said: ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees > nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing > else.** But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, > hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite > is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, > what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own > power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’. Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 similarly, > यदा पञ्चावतिष्ठन्ते ज्ञानानि मनसा सह । बुद्धिश्च न विचेष्टते तामाहुः > परमां गतिम् ॥ १०॥ > > yadā pañcāvatiṣṭhante jñānāni manasā saha . buddhiśca na viceṣṭate > tāmāhuḥ paramāṃ gatim > > When the five instruments of knowledge(senses of perception) stand still, together with the > mind and when the intellect does not move, that is called the parama gati (Supreme > State). Katha Upanishad 2.3.10 Would the realization of Brahman or the attainment of the highest state as described in these Upaniṣadic passages correspond to the eighth emancipation in the sutta, particularly as it pertains to the cessation of perception? If not, is there a more accurate mapping within the eightfold scheme : perhaps one of the immaterial attainments or an earlier emancipation?

While discussing the answer to a question in comments I was told that there is no concept of Atman in suttas. My understanding is that atta covers the concept of Atman. Atman is soul or self which is imperishable and we return to Atman after death. Atman never dies. If we see DN 1 it covers all kinds of self views including the Atman as follows : ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. This is the Upaniṣadic view of the eternal ātman that is the immanent soul of the world or cosmos, loka. Elsewhere in the suttas such theorists assert that the self and the cosmos are identical (SN 24.3:1.3: so attā so loko). ‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; So my question is : Is there no discussion in Suttas about Atman ?

The following are some arguments I came across from Advaita vedantists in some online forums against the buddhist view of the self. I am curious as to how Buddhists well versed into the philosophy would respond to them. **Buddhist Perspective on Self** > The Buddhist denial of Self is based on a misunderstanding of what > Advaita means by Atman. Atman is not a separate, individual entity but > the very essence of consciousness itself. The Buddha’s teaching of > No-Self (Anatta) was primarily aimed at refuting the notion of a > permanent, unchanging individual self, which Advaita also rejects. > > Advaita agrees that there is no permanent individual self, but asserts > that there is an underlying, unchanging consciousness (Brahman/Atman) > that is the substrate of all experience. This consciousness is not > separate from the world but is its very essence. > > The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika demonstrate that waking, > dream, and deep sleep states all require a conscious witness that > persists through all states. This witness-consciousness is what > Advaita refers to as Atman. **Arguments Against Atman** > The Buddhist argument that the Self is a mental abstraction fails to > recognize the self-evident nature of consciousness. As Shankara points > out in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the existence of the Self > is self-evident and cannot be denied, for it is the very basis of all > denial. > > The Buddha’s reluctance to explicitly state “There is no self” can be > seen as an acknowledgment of the problematic nature of such a > statement. If there truly is no self, who is it that realizes this > truth? Who attains Nirvana? > > Advaita agrees that the idea of an individual, separate self leads to > suffering. However, it posits that the solution is not to deny the > Self altogether, but to realize one’s true nature as the universal > Self (Brahman). > > The Buddhist critique of “me” and “mine” is valid for the ego-self, > but not for the universal Self of Advaita. Realizing one’s true nature > as Brahman leads not to selfishness, but to universal love and > compassion, as seen in the lives of great Advaita sages. **Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination** > Advaita acknowledges the validity of Dependent Origination at the > empirical level (vyavaharika satya). However, it points out that the > very recognition of this interdependence requires a consciousness that > is not itself part of the causal chain. > > The 12-factor formula of paticca-samuppada is a brilliant analysis of > the cycle of samsara. However, Advaita asks: Who is aware of this > cycle? The awareness of the cycle cannot itself be part of the cycle. > > The Buddha’s rejection of soul-theories is understood in Advaita as a > rejection of limited concepts of self, not of consciousness itself. > The “correct approach” described in Buddhism of seeing things > objectively without mental projections is precisely what leads to the > Advaitic realization of non-dual awareness. > > In conclusion, while Buddhism provides valuable insights into the > nature of reality, Advaita Vedanta offers a more comprehensive > framework that accounts for both the changing phenomena and the > unchanging awareness that is their substrate. It is this unchanging, > ever-present consciousness that we call Brahman or Atman, the > realization of which leads to true and lasting freedom.

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

I have been listening to audiobooks on Buddhism and Hinduism (Dhammapada, Bhagavad Gita, Heart Sutra, Upanishads, Rig Veda, etc.), and am stuck trying to imagine and/or understand how the infinite divine mind (the All, or whatever you want to call it, God, etc..), divides into individual life experiences which have "their own" perceptions and self-experience (atman), and are yet **impermanent**. And how this relates to the **permanent** [anatman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81) (non-self). The way my mind imagines it, there is a ball like a balloon filled with tiny points/particles like grains of sand. Each grain of sand is the self-experiencer, but are all part of the whole ball (and yet where this metaphor breaks down is the grains of sand are actually distinct from the ball, but in the All case, they are but tiny aspects of the all or something like that). In this sense, there is a finite number of grains of sand / selves, and no more and no less can be created. But in the All/anatman case, it seems to subdivide into an infinite number of experiences. So then it's like, afterlife/reincarnation. How does that work? When I die do I get subdivided into several lesser experiences (ranked according to evolution of spiritual development), or merged into a higher single experience composed of many other souls now integrated into one? Or how do more selves get created which have their own perceptions? Why can't we just magically create a self using some physics or biology experiments (which don't involve just having lifeforms reproduce)? Why can't we just "poof" and a new individual experiencer / soul is created out of a test tube of some sort of energy? All those questions boil down to the fact that I don't understand how the permanent anatman, the divine infinite all/perfection (or if I'm mixing up concepts, let me know), divides into individuals which can have their own conscious awareness (like humans), or at least have their own independent life. There is a "spark" there, where does it come from and how does it perceive itself as independent of the whole? How are more individual selves created? Is there a fixed number of them? This meme hits home the most, and yet I still don't get how individuals can have their "own" experience (at least from their own perspective), and how the infinite subdivides into these selves.

> According to the Brahmajala Sutta, Ajita propounded Ucchedavada (the > Doctrine of Annihilation after death) and Tam-Jivam-tam-sariram-vada > (the doctrine of identity of the soul and body), which denied the > separate existence of an eternal soul. Annihilationism is usually thought of as one extreme, which assumes an atman. But if atman is permanent, I don't easily see the error here. 1. Why is it a self view? 2. Can you support Ucchedavada as well as anatman? 3. If not why not? if it's because Ucchedavada explicitly posits a self, what happens when you remove that from the teaching, and is it still Ucchedavada?

I read that atman is pure bliss I read that anatta is pure bliss >-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day? > >-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why? > >-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

How do you understand the Ananda Sutta ? How do you place it in relation to the Atman or Anatta (An-atman) doctrine? SN 44.10 > 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?'"

In dependent origination at what stage self comes into picture ? Does self originate ?