The âtman is an affliction?

Is the âtman (P., attâ) to be viewed like an affliction? A few Buddhist sects believe it is.  But if we make an in-depth reading of the Pali suttapitaka, and its parallel the Agamas does the âtman still turn out to be an affliction? The firm and unyielding answer is, no.  

Ironically, the opposite turns out to be true.  Anâtaman (P., anattâ) certainly has the marks of being an affliction.  What is anâtman or "not the self" is at the root of misery—not the âtman.  In fact, the Buddha never once tells his monks to reject the âtman.  On the contrary, he says to his monks: "Bhikkhus, you should abandon desire for whatever does not belong to self (anattaniya)" (S. iii. 78).  In another place he tells his monks: “Bhikkhus, you should abandon desire for whatever is nonself (anattâ)" (S. iii. 178).

Oh, I forget to mention that the above was inspiried by Wikipedia Talk:Âtman (Buddhism). 

“The quote- So, when Buddhists claim that there is no Âtman, they are not really saying that it does not exist, but that it exists solely as an affliction - an innate response to the world around us; and this deeply enmeshed affliction lies at the root of all misery Is one that is contrary to anatta doctrine. They really are saying no self exists, the point the causes ignorance is the conception that it does. it doesn't exist, but the idea of it does. It is this which brings about suffering. The beginning of this passage of the article should be changed to be more in line with the suttas in it's reflection of anatta. Ref- MN 22, SN 22.1, SN 44.10, AN 7.46, AN 10.60” 

Does the Buddha ever tell his devoted followers the âtman is anything close to a affliction?  No he doesn’t.  Howver, we learn, among other things, that the psychophysical body has forty negative characteristics, one of them being anâtman.  This same body is also murderous and belongs to Mara the Buddhist devil. 

Now, shouldn’t we be scratching our heads and wondering why some Buddhists see âtman as the bad guy?  Are they crazy, bonkers, just plain evil, or just simpletons whose reading skills are not what they should be?

Comments

[Neti-Neti Yeti]

Methexis, yes I would agree. However, strictly speaking, I think the Buddhadharma would best be defined (in this context) as "you are neither that, nor not that".

In transcendence of the is-is not dyad, I would still argue the expression "tat avat asi" is equivalent in Hinduism to the Buddha principle.

I read somewhere, but I am having a hard time finding it due to limited time that in Nirvana there is both self and not self. My doubt is to whether Buddha said that or some other Buddha.

I promise to look and see if I can find it, unless someone responds first either to confirm or debunk this hypothesis.

[Methexis]

Neti-Neti-Yeti: The Buddha-Dharma also teaches that you are NOT that.

The Advaita Vedanta is a partial teaching based on non-duality.

But Buddhism is a Complete Teaching that includes both non-dual, and dualistic teachings.

[Methexis]

(Therefore, according to the Lotus Sutra, the Self is a perfection (Self-PARAMITA) and not an imperfection, let alone affliction.)

[Methexis]

"It is better to be attached to Existence, though the attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to Emptiness, though the attachment may be as small mustard seed." (Lankavatara Sutra)

"Shakyamuni Buddha is called Vairocana Who Pervades All Places, and his dwelling place is called Eternally Tranquil Light, the place which is composed of Permanency-paramita and stabilized by Self-paramita, the place where Purity-paramita extinguishes the aspect of existence, where Bliss-paramita does not abide in the aspect of one's body and mind, and where the aspects of all laws cannot be seen as either existing or nonexisting, the place of tranquil emancipation or prajna-paramita. Because these forms are based on permanent law, thus you must now meditate on the buddhas in all directions." (Threefold Lotus Sutra)

[Neti-Neti Yeti]

For more on the topic I find it very fruitful to review Dr. Ram Chandron’s critical discourse on the Chandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda.

It is notable that Buddha never denied the phrase Tat Avat Asi, although he was quite critical of other aspects of Vedic philosophy.