What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine???

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine???

Postby lyndon taylor » Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:32 pm

We've all witnessed and/or participated in these endless discussions about non self(anatta) and self(atta), But I had a bit of a revelation today, what if Atta and Anatta are a mistranslation of two pali words that actually or also means My or I(atta), and not Mine or not Me(anatta).

When we look at the Buddha clearly denying the 5 skandas, some of it seems a bit ridiculous, things I see, hear, taste or feel are not my self, why would they be, obviously that house and tree across the street are not your self, why would they be, and why would you even consider that they are your self, that train whistle is not your self, how could you possibly think it was, Now your body is not yourself, no obviously it is your body not your self, your thoughts are not yourself, no theyre just your thoughts etc etc

Some of this just doesn't make sense, the Buddha denies some things we might think of as our self, like our conciousness or maybe our body, but most of the time he's denying things that couldn't possibly be our self, like the senses input, things outside our "self" that couldn't possibly be our self unless we were quite grandious, like maybe the King of a country.

Now my research shows atta is also translated as I, My; Anatta then as not me, not mine, NOT MINE, NOT MINE, think about that, what if the Buddha is not denying the self, but simply DENYING THAT ANYTHING BELONGS TO ME OR IS MINE.

What is see is not mine, what I hear is not mine, what I touch feel, smell, taste is not mine, My body is obviously not mine because I cannot take it with me when I die, my thoughts are not mine, I don't own them, My mind is not mine, it is impermanent and constantly changing, my possessions are not truly mine, they are only temporary. In short nothing in the world is mine, I am not the owner.

Now if I have any kind of spirit or soul, or Buddha nature, or whatever goes on when I am reborn, that might be mine, but not even everyone agrees that is mine.

What a difference it makes not just to change one word, but a change to another known use of that same pali word, because I ME MY MINE are actually alternative definitions of the pali term atta, or at least that's what my limited research is pointing at, I welcome any serious pali scholars to correct me if this is completely wrong.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:48 pm

I'm also posting this over on http://www.freesangha.com and this is the very helpful response i got from one of the Moderators;

Quote from: incognito on Today at 01:24:36 pm
from "Me and Mine: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa":

The Pali terms for me and mine in the ethical or religious context are ahahkara and mamahkdra. In the everyday or psychological context, the terms are atta and attaniya.

thank you very much, Incognito, I am so close to being right, now if I could just add that niya on to atta, I'd be right on the money!!!!


So we have three possible meanings;
1; The 5 skandhas are not Self, (or My Self?)
2: The 5 skandhas are not Me (Who I Am?)
3; The 5 Skandhas are not Mine (Ownership?)

Is it one of the above, if so which one makes more sense, or is it all of the above?? Your opinions are appreciated.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

SamKR
Posts: 781
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Virginia

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby SamKR » Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:55 pm

Based on the suttas we can see that by Anatta the Buddha meant all three: not mine, not I, not my self.
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Pali:
Yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ, ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā, yaṃ dūre santike vā sabbaṃ viññāṇaṃ 'netaṃ mama, neso'hamasmi, na me so attā'ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:12 pm

So there we have it very clear it would seem, the answer to my question is it SELF, ME, OR MINE is all of the above, Thank you so very much from the bottom of my heart Sam, This really struck me, because when I started thinking over the multitude of anatta scriptures I have been reading, substituting NOT MINE, for NOT SELF was so meaningful, my body is not mine, none of my possesions are mine or really belong to me, my thoughts and conciousness are not mine, its actually harder if you think about it to put NOT MINE into practice with the 5 skandhas, than to put NOT SELF into practise, which I find much easier, although all this time my attention has been on realizing NOT SELF regards the skandhas, now I have to expand that to include NOT MINE with regard the Skandas, wow!!, I'm really learning something here, and its thanks to all of you out on these forums, good living, cheers!!!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

chownah
Posts: 3022
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby chownah » Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:09 am

Lyndon taylor,
I think another aspect of the question is that not only is that tree over there not your self but also that tree over there has no self itself so to speak. In other words the things you see and experience are empty of self as well as you being empty of self.
chownah

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:42 am

lyndon taylor wrote:We've all witnessed and/or participated in these endless discussions about non self(anatta) and self(atta), But I had a bit of a revelation today, what if Atta and Anatta are a mistranslation of two pali words that actually or also means My or I(atta), and not Mine or not Me(anatta). . . .
Why do you think the pronoun attan means my, mine, and me?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

pegembara
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby pegembara » Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:04 am

Not me is definitely more easy to accept than not mine. I am is even harder. Ditthi(view) may have been removed but asmi-mana (conceit) remains.

Conceit(I am)/mana is a measuring or comparing: I am (My ....... is) better than, worse than or as good as you (yours). I am .........(fill in the blank).

"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self (not me, not mine), and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Jul 29, 2013 5:50 am

Last edited by lyndon taylor on Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:09 am

lyndon taylor wrote: Atta is translated self or me, mine in pali is attaniya
Attan by itself does not mean "mine." I would be interested in your grammatical analysis of attaniya, which would be translated as “belonging to self.”. Also, attaniya does not seem to appear in the text you referenced, though my copy of the Pali is quite small making it difficult for me to read, so I could be wrong, though I rather seriously doubt it.


"If there were a self [attani], monks, would there be my self's property [attaniya]?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a self's property, would there by my self?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea."[fn: 30]

    fn: 30.
    The two supplementary statements in this section suggest the following implications: The concepts of "I" and "Mine" are inseparably linked; so also, in philosophical terms, are substance and attribute. If there is personality-belief or self-theory, there will be necessarily acquisitiveness or possessiveness in some form or other; at least these views themselves will be held with strong tenacity and be regarded as an "inalienable property" (see Note 22). There is no pure, abstract self or substance without its determination, property or attribute. On the other hand, acquisitiveness and possessiveness — even if of a quite unphilosophical character — cannot be without at least a tacit assumption of a proprietary self; this applies also to materialistic doctrines (annihilationism). Since in truth and fact neither an abiding property (or attribute) can be established nor an abiding self (or substance), either of these terms is left without its essential referent. Hence the conception of individual immortality as formulated in the sixth ground for views, is found to be devoid of any basis and is, therefore, rejected by the Buddha as a fool's doctrine, being outside of serious consideration.

    Comy: Here a "two-fold voidness" is shown, that of self (atta) and of property (or properties) belonging to a self (attaniya).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#fnt-30


Another text showing that atta dors not mean "mine":

With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self [attaniya]. -- SN iii 127


every time you translate atta as "self", it is instead replaced with"mine or my self",
"mine or my self” do not translate atta. It is not just a matter of dictionary work. One needs to also understand the grammar of the language. Because attaniya translates as “belong to self” does not mean that atta translates as “belonging to self” or “mine” or “me.” You might want to try to figure out the difference between atta and attaniya.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:18 am

You're entirely missing the point, Tilt and getting caught up in semantics, my apologies for not being a pali scholar, click on the link to the Bhikku Thannissaro translation that I mucked with above and read the text, by the Buddhas own words THE FIVE AGGREGATES ARE NOT THE SELF, then(I Paraphrase)THE FIVE AGGREGATES ARE NEITHER MINE, I, OR THE SELF, not just self all three Me, Mine, ot the Self, thats my whole point. As you probably well know almost no word in pali has entirely only one possible english translation, although many transaltors seem to think of it that way. ATTA; self also means me, ATTANIYA; self's property also means mine, here's your brief quote, except I'm going to replace self with me, and self's property with mine, and you tell me if it doesn't make just as much sense if not more;(or less)

"If there were a me [attani], monks, would there be a mine [attaniya]?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a mine, would there by a me?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, me and mine do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is ME. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea."[fn: 30]

I'm not at all saying my translation is the correct one and yours is wrong, just that both are possible from a strict defintion of the words meanings, so an enlightened translator tediously considers both possibilities and comes to the conclusion which one fits the spirit of what he feels the Buddha was saying best.

But this is not even an arguement about getting people to consider other possible meanings to pali words, its really about that Bhikku Thannisaro translation of the sutra, I and many others on my other forum have been cruising along assuming the buddha only meant the aggregates are not the self, thats simple stuff if you really think about it, but imagine realizing that nothing in the aggregates belongs to me, is my possesion, or is Mine, that what the Buddha is also saying, the really big thing, NONE OF YOUR POSSESSIONS BELONG TO YOU, as well as none of your perceptions, observations, body, thoughts conciousness, none of this belongs to you, which brings up a major meditative project, who does it all belong to, is it MARA the evil one who one poster claims on freesangha, who do your possesions belong to if they do not belong to you, who does you body belong to if it doesn't belong to you, who does your mind belong to if it doesn't belong to you, big questions, no easy answers!!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:50 am

lyndon taylor wrote:You're entirely missing the point,
I am not missing the point at all. You have, without justification, declared that attan carries meanings that it simply does not carry.

getting caught up in semantics,
There is a reason for paying attention to how a language works. If you do not do so, you'll not understand what it is saying.

my apologies for not being a pali scholar,
And it seriously shows.

click on the link to the Bhikku Thannissaro translation that I mucked with above and read the text, by the Buddhas own words THE FIVE AGGREGATES ARE NOT THE SELF, then(I Paraphrase)THE FIVE AGGREGATES ARE NEITHER MINE, I, OR THE SELF, not just self all three Me, Mine, ot the Self, thats my whole point. As you probably well know almost no word in pali has entirely only one possible english translation, although many transaltors seem to think of it that way. ATTA; self also means me, ATTANIYA; self's property also means mine, here's your brief quote, except I'm going to replace self with me, and self's property with mine, and you tell me if it doesn't make just as much sense if not more;(or less)
At best your over all point is confused.

But this is not even an arguement about getting people to consider other possible meanings to pali words, its really about that Bhikku Thannisaro translation of the sutra, I and many others on my other forum have been cruising along assuming the buddha only meant the aggregates are not the self,
Which only goes to show how very poorly you have understood what is being taught by the Buddha in the suttas and -- here is the key -- how poorly you understand what the khandhas actually entail.

thats simple stuff if you really think about it, but imagine realizing that nothing in the aggregates belongs to me, is my possesion, or is Mine, that what the Buddha is also saying, the really big thing, NONE OF YOUR POSSESSIONS BELONG TO YOU, as well as none of your perceptions, observations, body, thoughts conciousness, none of this belongs to you, which brings up a major meditative project, who does it all belong to, is it MARA the evil one who one poster claims on freesangha, who do your possesions belong to if they do not belong to you, who does you body belong to if it doesn't belong to you, who does your mind belong to if it doesn't belong to you, big questions, no easy answers!!!
You are making big problems where there aren't any, and your messing with the Pali which only adds to your confusion. Who does all this belong to? The answer is not found in shifting around, without justification, the meanings of Pali words. The texts are rather clear as they stand. It is simply a matter of paying attention and not getting caught up in a lot of mental proliferation.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby manas » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:05 am

I like Thanissaro Bhikkhu's notion of the 'anatta doctrine' as really being a strategy to help us towards total release from dukkha, and not a metaphysical concept to be taken as some kind of existing or non-existing entity (or non-entity). I too used to fall into what I now think is a common trap of trying to reify anatta as if it's a thing (or non-thing) that can be pinned down as such, but now I do think it is just a strategy, a useful concept, a means to an end. The Buddha seems to be trying to express this in a number of places, for example here:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


I think that people in general do tend to think in terms of either existence or non-existence. Either something is, or it isn't. For example, folks who, relatively new to Buddhism, hearing the teaching about the not-self-ness of the five khandhas can then interpret this as "what, then does that mean I have no self? Does that mean that I don't actually exist?" But that misses the point. The point is not to establish whether or not I have a self, the point is too see Dependent Origination, to see the process not only of how dukkha comes to be, but also of how it can come to an end. We could argue about whether there is some kind of 'ghost in the shell' kind of 'strata of being' that lies behind the fleeting six types of consciousness, or whether there isn't, but the Buddha seems to be directing us away from such speculations, and towards seeing things in terms of D.O.

That's my take on it, if I've made any errors please correct me

metta
:anjali:

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:09 am

manas wrote:I like Thanissaro Bhikkhu's notion of the 'anatta doctrine' as really being a strategy to help us towards total release from dukkha, and not a metaphysical concept to be taken as some kind of existing or non-existing entity (or non-entity). I too used to fall into what I now think is a common trap of trying to reify anatta as if it's a thing (or non-thing) that can be pinned down as such, but now I do think it is just a strategy, a useful concept, a means to an end. The Buddha seems to be trying to express this in a number of places, for example here
No need to pin anatta down, no need to make it anything. Simply pay attention.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:07 am

Tilt I don't know why you once in a while seem to have an attitude with me since I have joined, your previous posts comments(three posts up) seem to indicate that you've only quickly skimmed over what I have said possibly not even read everything, and focused on small key points that you jump on and disagree with, In other words your comments show the reading comprehnsion of what I am actually saying of only maybe 50%., You don't seem to be getting my point at all; Either you agree that the the 5 skandhas are not yours, that you cannot own any of them, your possesions, your body, your mind, your senses, or you don't agree. You have given no opinion at all on topic and that is the whole point of what I am saying, if you had me wrong and thought I was trying to teach you pali, when I know next to nothing about it, forgive me.

So forget everything I just said, I'm sorry and just could I please ask you to comment your opinion on this statement;

So we have three distinct meanings; from the sutra; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
1; The 5 skandhas are not Self
2: The 5 skandhas are not Me
3; The 5 Skandhas are not Mine
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:14 am

lyndon taylor wrote:Tilt I don't know why you once in a while seem to have an attitude with me since I have joined, your previous posts comments(two posts up) seem to indicate that you've only quickly skimmed over what I have said possibly not even read everything, and focused on small key points that you jump on and disagree with, In other words your comments show the reading comprehnsion of what I am actually saying of only maybe 50%., You don't seem to be getting my point at all; Either you agree that the the 5 skandhas are not yours, that you cannot own any of them, your possesions, your body, your mind, your senses, or you don't agree. You have given no opinion at all on topic and that is the whole point of what I am saying, if you had me wrong and thought I was trying to teach you pali, when I know next to nothing about it, forgive me.

So forget everything I just said, I'm sorry and just could I please ask you to comment your opinion on this statement;

So we have three distinct meanings; from the sutra; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
1; The 5 skandhas are not Self
2: The 5 skandhas are not Me
3; The 5 Skandhas are not Mine
As for the perceived attitude, my apologies, but it certainly was not intended.

As for not owning anything al all, this is simply basic Dhamma. Nothing new in that and the texts, as they are, are quite clear about it. The question I have for you: what do the khandhas entail?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:37 am

My apologies tilt, you actually attacked my awareness as a buddhist and that didn't seem fair, thank you for your apology, sincerely

Well I've almost got the skhandas memorized; let me start, and start with the things I totally accept as illusory and end with the ones i still have trouble with like Mind

Anything I can see is not me, me, mine, or my self, anything I hear is not me, mine or myself, anything I can touch, taste, feel, smell is not me, mine, or my self, my body its organs and my senses are not me, mine or my self, my everday thoughts are not me, mine or my self, and finally my conciousness is not me, mine , or my self (this is from memory, mind you, I may even have left out 1 of the skandhas)

I personally am of the school that believes there is still something left that is me, mine, the pure good within me, that goes on after death and existed before birth, but thats no what we are here to argue about

I am not sure what you mean by what do the skandhas entail, but the skandhas are by nature illusorary or deceptive, they want to trick us into thinking they are much more important than they really are, they are impermanent, they don't last forever,and you sure as hell can't take them with you when you die, we do have to live with them, but we can learn often to ignore them and definetly not let them run our lives. they are not Dhammas, they are not truth, OK ill stop now before I start to try making things up!!! cheers
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20082
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:48 am

lyndon taylor wrote:My apologies tilt, you actually attacked my awareness as a buddhist and that didn't seem fair, thank you for your apology, sincerely
I did not intentionally attack your awareness as a Buddhist, but you might want to consider how you have come across here with your rewriting the suttas, for example. But we can put that aside.

Well I've almost got the skhandas memorized; let me start, and start with the things I totally accept as illusory and end with the ones i still have trouble with like Mind

Anything I can see is not me, me, mine, or my self, anything I hear is not me, mine or myself, anything I can touch, taste, feel, smell is not me, mine, or my self, my body its organs and my senses are not me, mine or my self, my everday thoughts are not me, mine or my self, and finally my conciousness is not me, mine , or my self (this is from memory, mind you, I may even have left out 1 of the skandhas)

I personally am of the school that believes there is still something left that is me, mine, the pure good within me, that goes on after death and existed before birth, but thats no what we are here to argue about
Basically, the khandhas are a way of talking about the totality of the experience of what we are at any moment. They are tools of investigation, and it is at looking at the khandhas, as they play themselves out moment to moment in our lives, that the Dhamma unfolds.

"It is in this very fathom-long physical frame with its perceptions and mind, that, I declare, lies the world, and the arising of the world, and the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world." — SN 2.26
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:59 am

That teachings don't seem to make sense to you is not a good reason to change them around. It is the very delusion, the very wrong view, that is to be addressed, not the teachings. This goes for all of us really, so this isn't meant to be taken personal.

What I mean is, the teachings don't contain the truth, they are only pointing to it. So anyone can change the teachings all they want, but still have the wrong view. Nothing is effectively changed, only they may convince themselves of understanding more than they really do.

But when deeper understanding arises the teachings begin to be seen from another perspective, a 'lower' form of truth, using conventions and words, which will in essence never be fully right, no matter how we translate it, or even if we don't translate it.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:27 am

I wasn't trying to change around the teachings, Reflection, I was just doing an innocent experiment, not devious crime!!!, to see if there was any possibility that atta had been mistranslated as self, when it meant mind, the experiment worked in the sense that not only did all the scriptures make perfect sense when we replace self with mine, but through our members support we actually found a scripture that proved, to the Buddha at least, the teaching of the skandhas being not self also meant not mine, and not me. In other words it had a triple meaning, so obviously my aha monent of the word mine popping into my head was just my memory of reading; "this is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self", in reference to the skandhas many times before on forums, my temple never taught me the teaching of no self as I was just a novice. this is all pretty new stuff to me, I've only been studying no self for about 6 months and for more than half of that time I was convinced it was a load of hooey!!!! Well people change time goes on, its been a wonderful learning experience, my sincere apologies for any who mistook the pure intent of what I was trying to do, which is simply make sense of some very difficult to grasp scriptural concepts.

I am not under the illusion that the pali word atta means me, mine and self, all three, although one noted source I quoted said atta can sometimes in common usage be translated as me, and attaniya as mine
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John

User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: What if Anatta(non self) actually means Not Me, Not Mine

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:42 am

I understand you are trying to make sense of it and I'm happy you got some more understanding. I'm not saying it is totally wrong or a crime or anything. It was meant as a general warning to look in the right direction.

Because in my experience whenever teachings are hard to understand it is better to question our own understanding/experience instead of the teachings or even translations. I've found that whenever I did not understand the suttas, it was usually due to me, not due to the suttas or due to the translation. There are some iffy translations of certain passages, but those are not that central.

Also, the teachings only point to something. However we translate it, it will always miss the point. If something would be better off with another translation, that doesn't change the thing they are pointing to. And that what's being pointed to, that's the thing to investigate, turn around and experiment with. By merely retranslating and rethinking people fall into the trap of staying at a level of convention, missing the real point. Deep insights are not based on thoughts.


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests