Talk:Anattā
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anattā Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis Template:Archives
Notice: Page moved
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
Does Template:Gi 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
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?
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.
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)