Anatta: Forskelle mellem versioner
Content deleted Content added
Visuelle rettelser |
No edit summary Tags: Tilbagerullet Visuel redigering |
||
Linje 1:
{{wikify|dato=maj 2020}}
I [[buddhisme]]n henviser udtrykket '''''anattā''''' ([[Pali]]) eller '''''anātman''''' ([[sanskrit]]) til læren om "ikke-selv", at der ikke er noget uforanderligt, permanent selv, [[sjæl]] eller essens i fænomener.<ref name="britannicaanatta">[http://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta Anatta Buddhism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210185046/http://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta|date=2015-12-10}}, ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (2013)</ref><ref>[a] {{Kilde bog|efternavn=Christmas Humphreys|titel=Exploring Buddhism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V3rYtmCZEIEC|år=2012|udgiver=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-22877-3|sider=42–43}}</ref> Det er en af de syv gavnlige opfattelser i
Det buddhistiske begreb ''anatta'' eller ''anatman'' er en af de grundlæggende forskelle mellem buddhisme og [[hinduisme]], idet sidstnævnte hævder, at ''atman'' (selv, sjæl) eksisterer. <ref name="6sourcesatman">[a] [http://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta Anatta] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210185046/http://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta|date=2015-12-10}}, ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman ("the self")."; [b] Steven Collins (1994), "Religion and Practical Reason" (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0-7914-2217-5}}, page 64; "Central to Buddhist [[wiktionary:soteriology|soteriology]] is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."; [c] Edward Roer (Translator), {{Google books|3uwDAAAAMAAJ|Shankara's Introduction}} to ''Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad'', pages 2-4; [d] Katie Javanaud (2013), [https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206211126/https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana|date=2015-02-06}}, ''Philosophy Now''; [e] David Loy (1982), "Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?", ''International Philosophical Quarterly'', Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 65-74; [f] KN Jayatilleke (2010), ''Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge'', {{ISBN|978-8120806191}}, pages 246-249, from note 385 onwards;</ref> <ref name="johnplott3">John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120801585}}, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".</ref>
| |||