Pali Term: Atta(n)

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
Post Reply
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by Assaji » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:54 pm

Hello Pali friends,

A couple of excellent books to start with:

The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvāṇa in Early Buddhism

Brian Peter Harvey

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=rcN ... frontcover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Self and Non-self in Early Buddhism

Joaquín Pérez Remón

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=OQ6 ... frontcover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by Assaji » Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:41 pm

Here's a definitive passage:

‘‘Natthi loke raho nāma, pāpakammaṃ pakubbato;
Attā te purisa jānāti, saccaṃ vā yadi vā musā.

‘‘Kalyāṇaṃ vata bho sakkhi, attānaṃ atimaññasi;
Yo santaṃ attani pāpaṃ, attānaṃ parigūhasi.

There is
in the cosmos
no
secret
place
for one
who has done
an
evil
deed.

Your own self knows, my good man,
whether you are true
or false.
You underestimate the fine witness
that is yourself,
you with evil
in yourself
that then you hide.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Peter Harvey on page 22 of this book wrote that no underlying "Great Self" is implied here, and I agree with him.

IMHO, the Christian-minded interpretation of "attan (atman)" as "soul" has obscured the usage of this term.
Later Brahmanic metaphysical concept of Atman also hinders understanding of earlier texts.

The sutta above shows that "I" in Buddha's time was understood experientially (in one of the meanings) as a witness (sakkhi).

This understanding lingers, in metaphysical form, in later Indian texts:

"3. He who is the cogniser of the manifestation and disappearance of the knower, knowledge, and the knowable, but is himself devoid of such manifestation and disappearance, and is self-luminous, is called the Sakshi, Witness."

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/upani ... nishad.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Paramatman is only the Sakshi."

http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/kris ... idaya.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

11
The non-dual and resplendent Lord is hidden in all beings. All-pervading, the inmost Self of all creatures, the impeller to actions, abiding in all things, He is the Witness, the Animator and the Absolute, free from gunas.

http://www.ishwar.com/hinduism/holy_upa ... upanishad/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

13(b)-14(a). That man who sees (his) Atman which is all-witness and is beyond all caste and orders of life as of the nature of Brahman, becomes himself Brahman.

17(b)-18. Persons with spiritual eyes see Brahman, that is the witness of the
three states that has the characteristics of be-ness, wisdom and bliss, that is
the underlying meaning of the words 'Thou' (Tvam) and 'I' (Aham) and that is
untouched by all the stains.

28-30. By cognising clearly my form, one is not trammeled by Karma. He is an
undaunted person who by his own experience cognises as his own real nature all
(the universe and Brahman) that is without the body and the organs of sense -
that is the all-witness - that is the one noumenal Vijnana, that is the blissful
Atman (as contrasted with Jivatma or the lower self) and that is the
self-resplendent. He is one that should be known as 'I' (myself). O Ribhu, may
you become He.

http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/kris ... tml?page=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta, Dmytro

ToVincent
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by ToVincent » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:31 am

Again, the Tathāgata understands the "world" how it has come to be, with its numerous and diverse elements.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato anekadhātuṃ nānādhātuṃ lokaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.
AN 10.21
The concept of a "Self/self" at the time of Buddha, was about a continuous being/self/Self, that had substance (therefore essence), and continuity in the real "world", (that corresponds in Buddhism, to the saḷāyatana nidāna and below nidānas). See https://justpaste.it/1695d .
Indeed, the definition of the "world" is given in SN 35.82/SA 23 (the only sutta/sutra perfectly paralleled, as far as a definition of "the world" is concerned.)
The early (pristine) definition of the Buddhist "world" is:
- form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition.
- ear, ear-consciousness…
...
- mano, mano-consciousness...
All disintegrating, ([危脆 (breakable) 敗壞 (decaying)]).
People have a tendency to read SN 22.95 wrongly.
This is how SN 22.95 (the lump of foam) should be read (viz. all the way down!).

If one does not stop at the usually echoed part:
Form is like a lump of foam,
Feeling like a water bubble;
Perception is like a mirage,..."

One should go a bit further and reflect on the following:

Khandhas from the nāmarūpa nidana, that appear as dhammas & dhatus in the bāhirāni āyatanāni (external fields of sensory experience,) [viz. in the "world"], would appear to one (viz. in one's internal fields - ajjhattikani āyatanāni) to be devoid of Ka, empty of Ka, with no essence of Ka (see below what Ka is all about).
For what substance could there be in form (or any other khandha)?
rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyati. kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, rūpe (etc.) sāro?
The empty village’: this is a designation for the six internal sense bases (aka fields of sensory experiences). If, bhikkhus, a wise, competent, intelligent person examines them by way of the eye, they appear to be void, hollow, empty. If he examines them by way of the ear… by way of the mind, they appear to be void, hollow, empty.

“‘Village-attacking dacoits’: this is a designation for the six external sense bases . The eye, bhikkhus, is attacked by agreeable and disagreeable forms. The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is attacked by agreeable and disagreeable phenomena.
SN 35.238
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
1. NO SUBSTANCE & EMPTY OF SELF (Ka) :
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rittaka [ritta+ka]
Ritta [pp.of riñcati]:
- devoid of, empty of.
DEVOID OF KA.

Tucchaka [Tuccha+ka]
Tuccha:
- empty, hollow.
EMPTY OF KA.

Asāraka [A+sāra+ka]
Asāra:
- that which is not substance
असार asāra [a-sāra]
सार sāra [agt. √ sṛ]
- the core or pith of anything RV.
- the substance, or essence, or essential part of anything; quintessence AitBr.
WITH NO ESSENCE OF KA

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

EXPLANATION:
KA is the other name for the god Prajāpati.
Prajāpati is Brahma that becomes the Lord of creatures [praja (creatures) + pati (lord)].
In ŚBr. 4.5.9.2 Prajāpati is the Self.
A Self that wants to become more than one, and desires to reproduce (selves) - ŚBr. 6.1.1.8.

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (S/self-view) [sa+Ka+iya - lit. ("the view that what belongs to Ka is one's own"]; that is to say the identity-view with Atta (Self), as well as the identity-view with one of his attas (selves), is just about believing that one's satta is Ka (Atman>>Brahma>>Prajāpati) - in an extensive, spreading, constant & continual way. To the point that ka (the body*) becomes one and immortal with Brahma or Brahma/Ātman.
As believed in late Vedic times (and particularly in the Upaniṣads, quite contemporary with the Buddha).
*here "body" has a larger range in Indian philosophy, than the meaning we usually attach to it.

Brahma is the extensive-thinking (Bṛh-man). It is the santāno (spreading, extension, ~continuum) of At-man (the endless wandering-thinking). And in the development of that thinking (Dhṛ-man/Dharma), Brahma becomes the Lord of Creatures with many selves (Prajāpati/Ka).

√ अत् At
- to go constantly, walk RV.

√ बृह् Bṛh
- increase, expand.

√ धृ Dhṛ:
- to begin , resolve upon , undertake (AV. ŚBr. ChUp.)
- continue living , exist , remain (Br. MBh.)

√ मन् man
- to think, imagine, conjecture (RV.)


¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦


2. THE "ILLUSION" (OF CONTINUITY) :
--------------------------------------------------------
Also, the "illusion" is not the ("big" ) Self - but the continuity (santāno) of the body/self.
Buddha never said there was no (big) Self. Buddha just said that speculating on that was useless; as far as the total liberation was concerned.
Did He speak about the Ajo? (https://justpaste.it/19m0u) - Not in definite terms - But He did speak about the ending of "birth" (production - jati) from the body/pseudo "self".

---------
When vitality, heat, and consciousness
Depart from this physical body,
Then it lies there cast away:
Food for others, without volition.
“āyu usmā ca viññāṇaṃ,
yadā kāyaṃ jahantimaṃ.
apaviddho tadā seti,
parabhattaṃ acetanaṃ.

Such is this continuum,
This illusion, beguiler of fools.
It is taught to be a murderer;
Here no substance can be found.
etādisāyaṃ santāno,
māyāyaṃ bālalāpinī.
vadhako esa akkhāto,
sāro ettha na vijjati.
SN 22.95
Santāno = spreading, extension (continuum - as translated above).

In the following extract that comes from the Saḷāyatana Vaggasaṃyutta - Abyākata Vagga (SN 44.10):
Assuredly, my self that was (being), does not exist at present.
ahuvā me nūna (नूनम् nūnam [nū]) pubbe attā, so etarahi natthī’”ti.
Ahuvā is an imperfect with an imperfective aspect. It does not have the completed past tense aspect of the preterite.
Imperfect tense is also called the continuous tense.


So, what Buddha says is SN 44.10:
1. All dhammas (the "saṅkhārization" of the khandhas from the nāmarūpa nidana, that appear in bāhirāni āyatanāni (external fields of sensory experience,) are not self - and should not be viewed as such by the ajjhattikani āyatanāni).
2. There is no continuity (संतन् saṃtan) in the body/pseudo ("little" self - Ka).
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5937
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:49 am

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:31 am

The concept of a "Self/self" at the time of Buddha, was about a continuous being/self/Self, that had substance (therefore essence), and continuity in the real "world", (that corresponds in Buddhism, to the saḷāyatana nidāna and below nidānas).
This is very similar to the starting point taken by Gombrich in What the Buddha Thought. He doesn't however, provide any reference for it, and my assumption is that he was either summarising his knowledge of the Brahminical culture and background of the time, without making the sources explicit; or he was favouring a conception of atta which fitted in with his other ideas of the Buddha's thought.

Do you have any references about what the concept meant at the time of the Buddha? He might, of course, have changed the meaning of the word, but what sense of atta did he inherit, so to speak?

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 29, 2019 1:55 am

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:31 am
The concept of a "Self/self" at the time of Buddha, was about a continuous being/self/Self, that had substance (therefore essence), and continuity in the real "world"
While the above metaphysics would fall into what the Buddha taught, the above appears obviously not the Buddha's primary focus because negating the above ("eternal soul") would not end suffering. The suttas appear to show the Buddha's primary focus in relation to "atta" was any kind of "I-making" & "mine-making" aka "conceit".
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:31 am
People have a tendency to read SN 22.95 wrongly.
My guess is you might be one of these "people" with a tendency to read SN 22.95 wrongly.
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:31 am
1. NO SUBSTANCE & EMPTY OF SELF (Ka) :

Rittaka [ritta+ka]
Ritta [pp.of riñcati]:
- devoid of, empty of.
DEVOID OF KA.

Tucchaka [Tuccha+ka]
Tuccha:
- empty, hollow.
EMPTY OF KA.

Asāraka [A+sāra+ka]
Asāra:
- that which is not substance
असार asāra [a-sāra]
सार sāra [agt. √ sṛ]
- the core or pith of anything RV.
- the substance, or essence, or essential part of anything; quintessence AitBr.
WITH NO ESSENCE OF KA

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

EXPLANATION:
KA is the other name for the god Prajāpati.
Prajāpati is Brahma that becomes the Lord of creatures [praja (creatures) + pati (lord)].
In ŚBr. 4.5.9.2 Prajāpati is the Self.
A Self that wants to become more than one, and desires to reproduce (selves) - ŚBr. 6.1.1.8.
SN 22.95 merely appears to say the five aggregates are empty of any worth, meaning & substance (whatever).

For example, if you reflect upon/ponder the beginning of human life with Adam & Eve and the thousands or millions of generations of people after Adam & Eve, who have been reproducing, eating, drinking, having wars, dying, etc, and ask: "What is the value, meaning & worth of all of this?", you might realise there is no meaning or worth. This worthlessness & meaningless is unrelated to not-self (anatta; sunnata).

The aggregates appear to be similar. If the aggregates are seen clearly, they appear to be intrinsically meaningless & worthless elements (dhatu). The only value/worth of consciousness is consciousness can discern its own worthlessness.
Attachments
pali ka.png
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

ToVincent
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by ToVincent » Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:51 pm

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15393&p=536227&sid ... 93#p536227

Oh, that's interesting!
I suppose that you had some cacoethes about arguing for the sake of arguing again.
Ridic remarks as usual.

_______________
Doodoot wrote: While the above metaphysics would fall into what the Buddha taught, the above appears obviously not the Buddha's primary focus because negating the above ("eternal soul") would not end suffering. The suttas appear to show the Buddha's primary focus in relation to "atta" was any kind of "I-making" & "mine-making" aka "conceit".


First, I never talked about an "eternal soul" in this context - but about a non-continuous self and a self with no substance (therefore essence).

Second, you should read this sutta (SN 22.47) https://justpaste.it/vyhx [ that has been put on the net since 2016, and that I have quoted many many times on this forum].
As you can see, it has two quite perfect parallels.
So not only you should read it - but I strongly advise you to memorize it.
So you would understand that equating or whatever a (continuous and substantial ) self with the khandhas, is what leads to the "I-making" and "Mine-making" belief.

________________

Indeed, many people that read SN 22.95 still think that "self" is an illusion.
But what SN 22.95 says, is that the illusion is the CONTINUITY (of self) in the "world".

So your second remark is as ridic asthe first one.

_________________


Ritta, tuccha, sāra are already adjectives (or participle used as such) - particularly tuccha.
Why would there be the need to add "ka" to them?

So your third remark is as ridic as the others.

_________________

And this is what we have to put up with you all the time - Misinterpretation, boasted pretenses, plagiarism, bad faith, unknowledge of the Sanskrit litterature of the time (historical semantics + philosophy of the time), nonsensical references, refusal to work on suttas with parallels, etc., etc.

My favorite is your plagiarism - and the nerve you have to give lessons to the ones you've plagiarized from. That is absolutely wonderful.

Keep the (flimsy) work in progress.
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:02 am

ToVincent wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:51 pm
Ritta, tuccha, sāra are already adjectives (or participle used as such) - particularly tuccha. Why would there be the need to add "ka" to them?
Thanks. I do not ever claim to understand Pali, let alone English grammar; which is why I must watch videos for children. However, the attachment I provided says: "ka is used to form adjectives that become abstract nouns".
abstract noun
a noun denoting an idea, quality or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Examples of abstract nouns include liberty, anger, freedom, love, generosity, charity, and democracy. Notice that these nouns express ideas, concepts or qualities that cannot be seen or experienced. We cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell these concepts.

Examining the contextual use of an example provided in the attachment:
rāmaṇeyyaka

“idampi, mārisa moggallāna, passa vejayantassa pāsādassa rāmaṇeyyakaṃ;

“See, in the palace, my good Moggallāna, this lovely thing! (Sujato)

"See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness of the Vejayanta Palace! (Bodhi)
Yet, you appear to saying 'rāmaṇeyyaka' in MN 37 means "lovely self" or "lovely of self". :?

Therefore, returning to SN 22.95, the following is found:
Mendicants, suppose this Ganges river was carrying along a big lump of foam. And a person with good eyesight would see it and contemplate it, examining it carefully. And it would appear to them as completely void, hollow and insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam?

Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?

To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, ayaṃ gaṅgā nadī mahantaṃ pheṇapiṇḍaṃ āvaheyya. Tamenaṃ cakkhumā puriso passeyya nijjhāyeyya yoniso upaparikkheyya. Tassa taṃ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyeyya, tucchakaññeva khāyeyya, asārakaññeva khāyeyya. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, pheṇapiṇḍe sāro?

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/sujato
Thus, rittakaññeva tucchakaññeva & asārakaññeva might be abstract nouns. While my understanding of grammar is childish, it appears to me, if ritta & tuccha were mere ordinary adjectives, they would be similar to their use with concrete nouns, as follows:
Then the Buddha, turning the pot right side up, said to Rāhula,

Atha kho bhagavā taṃ udakādhānaṃ ukkujjitvā āyasmantaṃ rāhulaṃ āmantesi:

“Do you see how this pot is vacant and hollow?”

“passasi no tvaṃ, rāhula, imaṃ udakādhānaṃ rittaṃ tucchan”ti?

“Yes, sir.”

“Evaṃ, bhante”.

“That’s how vacant and hollow the ascetic’s nature is in those who are not ashamed to tell a deliberate lie.

“Evaṃ rittaṃ tucchaṃ kho, rāhula, tesaṃ sāmaññaṃ yesaṃ natthi sampajānamusāvāde lajjāti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/sujato
Therefore, it appears rittakaññeva tucchakaññeva & asārakaññeva refer to mental impressions where no attractive, pleasurable or utilitarian quality can be sensed in the aggregates. They appear to possibly fit the criteria of "abstract nouns".

Also, what does 'aññeva' mean in the context? :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

ToVincent
Posts: 737
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by ToVincent » Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:43 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:02 am
...
The problem is that "rāmaṇeyyakaṃ" that you take as a counter-example, is a gerund of rāmeti ram (PTS).
Gerund are considered as noun - So yes, in this case, "ka" has to be added to form an adjective, (as per your attachment).

Secondly, as per your attachment again , rāmaṇeyyakaṃ is neuter (adj. neuter) .
However, for instance, "sāra" is ALREADY an adjective, (and masculine).

------

By the way, I am not replacing all "ka" in the suttas, with ka the "body/self".

-------

Aññeva means "other, different", (Sk. anya).
it would appear to him to be other, devoid of ka - to be other, empty of ka- to be other, with no essence of ka.

.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Pali Term: Atta(n)

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:09 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:43 pm
Aññeva means "other, different", (Sk. anya). it would appear to him to be other
That is what i found in my research but the translators do not seem to express this in their translations. Thanks :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Assaji and 72 guests