Anatta, Self?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Anatta, Self, Ego?

Post by samseva » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:20 am

cobwith wrote:Thanks!

Interesting to see that sister Uppalavanna from metta.lk did translate Atthatta as "Soul".

Note:
Atthatta (nt.) [abstr. fr. attha] : cause.
Attha: from Vedic artha : to reach, attain or to proceed (to or from), thus originally result (or cause).
Sometimes, certain Pāḷi terms change meaning depending on context. Certain examples of this are words like sankhāra, diṭṭhi and so on. Usually, proficient translators will have access to Commentarial writings describing certain conundrums with specific terms.

I'm not saying your observation is wrong, but sometimes there are reasons why a certain translation was used rather than another ('self' in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, not 'soul' in Ayyā Uppalavanna's translation, which I think is incorrect).

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6445
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Anatta, Self, Ego?

Post by Mkoll » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:27 am

cobwith wrote:
samseva wrote: Here is the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn44.10 (Three bars in left corner, then 'Metadata')

Here is maybe the version you were looking for on metta.lk.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ggo-e.html (Number 10, at the end of the page)
Thanks!

Interesting to see that sister Uppalavanna from metta.lk did translate Atthatta as "Soul".

Note:
Atthatta (nt.) [abstr. fr. attha] : cause.
Attha: from Vedic artha : to reach, attain or to proceed (to or from), thus originally result (or cause).
Based on my own reading and the advice of well-learned folks on this forum, I'd suggest taking her translations with a grain of salt.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by Sylvester » Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:16 am

Re SN 44.10's reference to atthattā and natthattā, I would start by making the observation that the main text does not say atthatta (paying attention to the final vowel, where a long 'a' is used instead of the short 'a'.)

Does this mean that the words may have suffered a textual corruption with the insertion of a long 'a' instead of the short 'a' for cause?

A more prosaic explanation would be to treat atthattā as a compound of atthi+attā (there is attā). The normal vowel sandhi rule would then elide the 'i' and give you atthattā.

Looking at its Chinese parallel in SA 961, the sutra is titled 無我 (No-Self), and it addresses the dilemma as 有我 (there is Self) versus 無我 (there is no Self). Assuming that the Samyukta was translated from a Skt of BHS manuscript, there would have been no mistaking artha (cause) from asti (exists), which would suggest that whatever the SA translator was working with, the Indic had asti+atman, corresponding to the Pali's atthattā.

It becomes even more obvious from the other word natthattā. If this were to be translated as "there is no cause", you would have required a specialised negative existential verb, ie natthi attha(tta). A mere negation of atthatta with a 'na', cannot achieve an existential negation. It merely works out to "is not the cause", not "there is no cause".

:anjali:

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by samseva » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:08 pm

Sylvester wrote:Re SN 44.10's reference to atthattā and natthattā,
[...]
Thank you for this explanation, Sylvester.

whynotme
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by whynotme » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:16 pm

There is self,

Most of you gasps to 2000 year old uncertain teaching, which came through hundreds of year by oral traditions before being collected. You treat it like the truth while the truth is already in front of you. There is self.

I can easily show you there is self. But I favor atheist, so I don't want to support religions, especially extremist will use that self theory (eternal soul) to fool people into blind faith.
Please stop following me

User avatar
samseva
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by samseva » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:20 pm

whynotme wrote:There is self,

Most of you gasps to 2000 year old uncertain teaching, which came through hundreds of year by oral traditions before being collected. You treat it like the truth while the truth is already in front of you. There is self.

I can easily show you there is self.
Please do.

discussionbuddhist
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by discussionbuddhist » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:10 pm

daverupa wrote:
Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:19 pm
tamlinugent wrote:I'm trying to work out the reason why the buddha didn't take the stance there is no self
He didn't take an annihilationist stance, but as I just cited, "no self" was declared.

---
What is the difference between the annihilationist stance vs the alleged "no self" that was supposedly declared?

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by cappuccino » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:40 pm

discussionbuddhist wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:10 pm
What is the difference between the annihilationist stance vs the alleged "no self" that was supposedly declared?

"no self" leads to thinking of annihilation, whereas "not self" doesn't

the teaching is "not self" rather than "no self"

Ananda Sutta
“Life is anxiety”

form
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by form » Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:27 pm

I was thinking about this a few hours ago. Then i typed in the words, atman buddhism in google, and i found this page. See for yourself, not all theravada buddhism experts have the same view on this issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by cappuccino » Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:47 pm

Scholars Alexander Wynne and Rupert Gethin also take a similar position as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, arguing that the Buddha's description of non-self in the five aggregates does not necessarily mean there is no self, stating that the five aggregates are not descriptions of a human being but phenomena for one to observe. Wynne argues that the Buddha's statements on anattā are a "not-self" teaching rather than a "no-self" teaching.
a "not-self" teaching rather than a "no-self" teaching
“Life is anxiety”

form
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by form » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:32 pm

Some western teachers will teach as no permanent soul. That is one way to express it. But it is usually the listeners that interpret this in their own way.

If there is no continuity, there will be no past lives. The accounts in the nikaya obviously indicates there is past and future existence as long as one has not reached nibanna.

Then next question is who is the one? Why is there someone? :mrgreen:

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by cappuccino » Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:35 pm

This is the song that never ends
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll never stop singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends

Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll never stop singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends

Yes, it goes on and on my friend
“Life is anxiety”

James Tan
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by James Tan » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:13 pm

Sylvester wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:16 am
Re SN 44.10's reference to atthattā and natthattā, I would start by making the observation that the main text does not say atthatta (paying attention to the final vowel, where a long 'a' is used instead of the short 'a'.)

Does this mean that the words may have suffered a textual corruption with the insertion of a long 'a' instead of the short 'a' for cause?

A more prosaic explanation would be to treat atthattā as a compound of atthi+attā (there is attā). The normal vowel sandhi rule would then elide the 'i' and give you atthattā.

Looking at its Chinese parallel in SA 961, the sutra is titled 無我 (No-Self), and it addresses the dilemma as 有我 (there is Self) versus 無我 (there is no Self). Assuming that the Samyukta was translated from a Skt of BHS manuscript, there would have been no mistaking artha (cause) from asti (exists), which would suggest that whatever the SA translator was working with, the Indic had asti+atman, corresponding to the Pali's atthattā.

It becomes even more obvious from the other word natthattā. If this were to be translated as "there is no cause", you would have required a specialised negative existential verb, ie natthi attha(tta). A mere negation of atthatta with a 'na', cannot achieve an existential negation. It merely works out to "is not the cause", not "there is no cause".

:anjali:
Not all translation in 无我 , No self .
Some earlier translation was 非我 , Not self .
:reading:

User avatar
one_awakening
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by one_awakening » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:26 pm

tamlinugent wrote:
Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:58 pm
I would strongly disagree with the argument that its a strategy, as it comes under the three characteristics of existence, all it is clearly a mode of perception or a form of insight, I think he didn't take the view there is no self because there would be confusion with other views
Yes, I agree with this
“You only lose what you cling to”

discussionbuddhist
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Anatta, Self?

Post by discussionbuddhist » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:15 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:40 pm
discussionbuddhist wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:10 pm
What is the difference between the annihilationist stance vs the alleged "no self" that was supposedly declared?

"no self" leads to thinking of annihilation, whereas "not self" doesn't

the teaching is "not self" rather than "no self"

Ananda Sutta
I asked this question if 'No Self' is uccedavada to someone on Dharma Wheel who is an administrator https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=461050#p461050 after his post:
Grigoris wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:13 am
It is exactly because there is no permanent, unchanging, immutable, essential self nature that what we do is so important. If there was a permanent... then it wouldn't matter, because you could not effect it. But exactly because we are this constantly mutable yet continuous process, then what we do is of utmost importance, because what we do makes a difference.

The problem with your question though is that you ask: why would I bother what happens to the self if there is no self?

If you start from the premise that there is no self then why would you care what happens to the self? If you start from the premise that there is a self that is effected, then why enter into process of asking?

It seems that it is time for you to move beyond an intellectual understanding into a realisation of no-self, otherwise you will get stuck with these sort of questions. This requires instruction and practice.

In the meantime you could study the four assurances from the Kalama Sutta.
then he said:
Grigoris wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:12 pm
discussionbuddhist wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:40 pm
Move to a realization of no-self? Isn't that ucchedavada?
So according to you the teaching of anatman nihilistic?

You better go inform the Buddha then.

I guess we are down to Three Dharma Seals then?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnnymac, mikenz66, MrKoala, Volovsky and 124 guests