What are the main arguments in favor of the Ātman view over the Anātman view?

Question

The main difference (I know) between Hinduism and Buddhism is that the first defends Ātman theory whereas the second defends Anātman theory.
Shankara is known for having debated (and won) with Buddhists on this difference.

Question: What are the main arguments in favor of the Ātman view over the Anātman view?

---

I reside in India since almost two years, and I've discussed about Buddhism with some Hindu friends. Most of them think that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism, in the sense that one aspect of Hinduism can defend the Ātman view whereas another aspect can defend the Anātman view. The Hinduism does not state that the Ātman view is the truth and the Anātman view is wrong, but the Hinduism (in its purest aspect) questions every dogma in one sense or another. When Shankara fought against Buddhism, I didn't fight against the Anātman view, he fought against the Anātman dogma.

Answer 1

Buddhists say that the Hindu Atman theory is about the ego which in their view is non-existent. Hence they call their no-ego theory Anatman (not Atman). Hindus of course do not accept that Atman is the same as ego. So who is right? There is no way to intellectually decide who is right.

I am adding this material to essentially answer the question in the comment section. Sankara attacks Buddhists on other grounds not directly on the Atman-Anatman theories.I will quote Sankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya II.ii.31 where he attacks all three Buddhist Idealists (Vijnanabada), Buddhist Realists (Sarvastitvavadins) and Buddhist Nihilists (Sarvasunyavadins or Madhyamikas) to give a flavour of his argument:

As for the ego-consciousness that is assumed to be the abode of disposition (or tendency), that too has no stable form, since you postulate its momentariness like sense-perception. Hence it cannot be the abode of tendencies. For unless there be some principle running through everything and abiding through all the three periods of time or some unchanging witness of all, there can be no human dealing involving remembrance, recognition, etc, which are contingent on past impressions that are stored up in conformity with environment, time and causation. If the ego-consciousness be (assumed to be) unchanging by nature, your doctrine (of momentariness) will be set at naught. Moreover since the theory of momentariness is upheld equally in Vijnanavada, all the defects arising from momentariness that were levelled (by us) against the theory of these (Buddhists) who believe in the existence of (momentary) external things, viz those shown under the aphorisms starting from, "And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges" (II.ii.20) are to be remembered in this context as well. Thus are refuted both these Buddhist points of view - of both those who believe in external things and those who believe in (subjective) consciousness). As for the view of the absolute nihilist, no attempt is made for its refutation since it is opposed to all means of valid knowledge. For human behaviour, conforming as it does to all right means of valid knowledge, cannot be denied so long as a different order of reality is not realized; for unless there be an exception, the general rule prevails.

You notice how he brings in the Atman theory (bolded sentence) indirectly. What does Shankara mean? He is attacking Buddhists who think of the 'I' sense in the following manner: I .... I.... I (where the 'I' sense does not exist during the dotted time period). What Sankara is arguing is that how do these Buddhists know that the series is not I1...I2...I3 etc where I1, I2, I3 are three different ego-consciousnesses? How can there be a stable personality which remembers a unique past or recognises old friends if the ego is unstable? In fact it is these Buddhists who need an unchanging principle (the Atman) that witnesses everything for all time (i.e. even during the gaps in ego-consciousness). Only if this Atman exists can Buddhists avoid problems regarding stability of personality. Otherwise a person who is Rama at one moment will consider himself Lakshmana in the next moment after the ego comes back. If these Buddhists now say that the ego-consciousness is stable and not momentary in order to save themselves from this conundrum then they have refuted themselves. Sankara then goes on to say that he can give a similar argument refuting Buddhists who regard the external world to exist momentarily. Even in this case of a momentary external world you will need an Atman (an unchanging witness for all time) to give stability to our perception. So in either case you need the Atman principle to make sense of our experience.

Answer 2

Since your question is not limited only to arguments of Shankara, I am going to explain an argument in this answer. But I am not sure whether this has been used by anyone or not to argue against the anatman view.

Buddhist view accepts existence of Karma and rebirth. And it is a simple principle of the system of Karma that the doer of the action and the experiencer of the results, both are the same person. And when a person dies, he takes birth again to experience the results of his unexpereinced actions. Now the question is, what is common between the deceased person and the reborn one that you say this new born one is the reincarnation of the deceased one?

Certainly, the body is not common, nor also the mind. If the mind were common, then the new born one would have the exact same tendencies and memories. So when the body and mind are not common, then certainly there must be something else common between the two that their reincarnation is accepted. And Hinduism says, it is the atman that is common in both the bodies. But as per Buddhism there is this missing gap.

So if we accept anatman view then the question of identity would arise. Buddhists just say the new body is an effect of actions done by the past body. But effect being something different than the cause, there identity should not be accepted. But nevertheless they do so. For example, His Holiness Dalai Lama is believed to reincarnate once He leaves His old body. Hence, after the death of His Holiness, they start the search for His Holiness's reincarnation.

I don't know any textual reference but I believe Buddha just didn't acknowledge the existence of Atman. He didn't completely deny it's existence. The existence of an eternal self can cause attachment in people's mind. And because attachment of any form leads to suffering, Buddha didn't acknowledge its existence. Because the concept of whole of Buddhism is to reduce suffering. During His time in Hinduism yajna, animal sacrifices, etc. were high in practice for the purpose of acquiring a good position for the atman in the afterlife . It is probably because of that He preached an anatman view.

Answer 3

It totally depends on which theory you believe in, its not about which theory is better. Buddhism also takes you to the path to liberation,after meditation from which one comes to know about himself/herself(gets knowledge/gyan) from one of the Buddhist theories whereas same thing has been told in Bhagwat Geeta by Lord krishna that you can get liberation and meet the supreme lord by Gyan Yog

Hence both are better as both lead you to the path of liberation and peace, it mainly depends on which theory you believe in.

To understand it in a better way consider the following example

Person A is author and earns(say 50,000 amount) by writing books and there is a person B who is a cricketer and earns(say 50,000 amount) by playing cricket. Now here comes the question, What to opt for? Become an author and earn money or do the same by playing cricket. The answer is simple choose in which you believe and excel in as in both you are earning. I hope you got my point.

Answer 4

Buddhist Madhyamika would agree that there can be no arising of a thing from nothing.if the I consciousness perishes like in the momentariness doctrine,from where does it come back again?Once one Citta perishes how can another Citta take its place?From where and what does this citta arise?And how would it have recognition and memory?how can Karma be stored? nothing can be assumed to spring up unless from something else; otherwise we should have to suppose that effects spring up without causes.

Even if the cause subsisted until the effect arose(wich it doesn't in the case of momentariness or kshanabhangavada),we must reject this too. A Citta cannot create a new Citta according to Madhyamika,as this is still something coming from nothing,in a way.In both Madhyamika and Hinduism,the cause and effect are the same just in different conditions like water in its 3 forms.Something cannot give rise to something completely new in reality.So even if the Citta caused another Citta wich makes no sence as you would have two different consciousnesses,this is impossible.But the Buddhists believe in kshanabhanga or that the cause perishes before the effect arises.

So this doctrine is just impossible,from every angle.The Madhyamikas teach that it is an Upaya or skillful teaching but that there ultimately is no arising or cessation.

Answer 5

The alaya must be a permanent abode to store karma and vasanas.and also if you apply Mipham’s four great logical arguments to citta you must believe in a permanent atman.furthermore kshanabhangavada is impossible logically speaking and Shankara has refuted it in his Brahma sutra commentary