Guy Claims Original Buddhism had no Concept of Anatman

[Óttar]

This guy has done a series of videos claiming that the earliest Buddhist texts did not adhere to a doctrine of Anatman, and that the references to anatman were all adjectives in the Nikayas. The phrase was only used as a rhetorical device.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEnb2cFWKBs

Let's see what our small contingent of Buddhists here have to say on this matter. I, as an Advaita Vedantin, one who accepts a belief in the Atman (spiritual, non-corporeal Self), am quite interested in this matter.

And, speaking of Buddhism and Vedanta, why are there no Hinduism and Buddhism sections? Or at least, a Dharmic Religion section?

[arcticwolf]

He can claim whatever he wants to claim, but without the impersonality of all phenomena, material, or mental, the rest of Buddhism would not make any sense. No permanent self is the core teaching of Buddhism, there is no Buddhism without it, so.

[Rico33]

He can claim whatever he wants to claim, but without the impersonality of all phenomena, material, or mental, the rest of Buddhism would not make any sense. No permanent self is the core teaching of Buddhism, there is no Buddhism without it, so.

The guy is right. You should listen what he says, also in newer videos on his channel he talks about this issue.