Theravadan- existance of Atman

[jacobs.598]

If anyone could help me understand the Theravadan argument against the
existance of Atman, I would greatly appreciate it. I am having a very
hard time with this question on the study questions. Thank you!!

[Charles Reichheld]

Theravada Buddhism stays close to the original teachings, and treats
nirvana like freedom from samsara, or the cycle of rebirth and habits
of clinging. It emphasizes that the skandhas are main processes that
are continued by many, many other processes which in turn all depend
on each other. In Theravada, all things are shunya, or empty of
independent existence, except for dharma.
Theravada argues that an independent unchanging thing like atman is
absurd, because knowledge, or awareness is the result of change,
because change is what produces effects. An unchanging thing would
produce no effects, hence it is absurd to state that reality is
unchanging, because that is saying reality is unknowable.
Theravada is concerned with three main meanings of
dharma; True moral duty, true teachings of Buddha, and things as
experienced without delusion or ignorance. These meanings are not
separate, and it is essential to understand them and their influence
without attributing them to a permanent independent sense of self.
They focus mostly on the dharma that explains experience without
delusion, or knowing the dependent nature of reality and understanding
shunya.

[hatha...@osu.edu]

I agree with Charles. To put things more simply: Theravadan Buddhism
says that there is no atman because Atman is "unchanging". Theravada
says that to know if something exist, it must change inorder to know
it is there. Thus, Atman is not real because it does not change.

[Nicholaos Jones]

hathaway: It is true that the Theravadans think that there is no
Atman. But the argument we covered in class doesn't have that as the
conclusion. The argument we covered shows that there is no way to
know about Atman if it exists. If something must change in order for
us to know that it exists, and if Atman (by definition) does not
change, then we can't know that Atman exists. This doesn't mean that
Atman does not exist. Consider a similar (but more fanciful) argument
that is similar: Suppose that something must have physical properties
of some sort in order for us to know that it exists. And suppose that
someone were to say that they knew about something that has no
physical properties (like a ghost -- and not a hollywood ghost, which
has physical properties that allow us to see them). Then we would be
justified in concluding that there is no way they could know about
such a thing. The Theravadans are making a similar point: there is no
way the Indian yogis could know about Atman, because Atman does not
change.

The Theravadans also think there is no Atman -- but that requires a
further argument. And that further argument is something like: if
there is no way to know about something, why bother supposing that it
exists? Why bother supposing that unknowable things exist, since we
can't know anything about them?