Talk:Anattā
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anattā article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Notice: Page moved
[edit]Hi all, please note that I moved this page from “Anatta” to “Anattā” just now. Anatta is now a redirect to this new page. I have also fixed all the double redirects. -Colathewikian (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]Does despite the failure to find an empirical correlate of the assumed Atman
belong in Wikipedia voice? I assume a Hindu might call consciousness the empirical coordinate. Srnec (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Use of Anattā vs. Anātman in Mahayana Section
[edit]Just a note that it feels incongruous to use "anattā" in the Mahayana section when the discourse in that tradition rarely uses Pali terms, and certainly not for this concept. Would anyone be opposed to changing it to "anātman" in that section, or do people feel that consistency is more important than congruity? DJLayton4 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Congruity seems to be the pattern used on other pages such as prajna, maitri and karma. So if that is the case than yeah i think making the page congruous with the respective traditions languages makes sense. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Is Etymology and Nomenclature really necessary?
[edit]This is already a pretty long article, and in my opinion, having Etymology and Nomenclature at the top is largely padding that doesn't serve to inform the reader about what the meat of the concept really is past the (probably necessarily) simplistic opening paragraph. Especially since this is likely one of the first articles people trying to learn about Buddhism might read, the paragraph about "non-Self" vs "not-Self" uses too obscure terminology. It's a good section, but it should be at the end of the article or on Wiktionary. Makhnoboi19 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article should not take philosophical sides.
[edit]Buddhism asserts the reality of anatta, what is disliked by Hinduism. When this article claims “ anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.” Is actually teibterpreting Buddhism taking the Hinduism side while citing authors favouring that view. To respect Buddhism point of view it would be best to remove that sentence. 94.109.67.52 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Buddhism articles
- High-importance Buddhism articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- B-Class Eastern philosophy articles
- Low-importance Eastern philosophy articles
- Eastern philosophy task force articles