- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
In Chachakka Sutta – Six Types of Vipāka Viññāna:
- After going through the steps in #2 above, the next part of the suttastarts with the verse, “‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjāti. Cakkhussa uppādopi vayopi paññāyati.Yassa kho pana uppādopi vayopi paññāyati, ‘attā me uppajjāti ca veti cā’ti iccassa evamāgataṃ hoti. Tasmā taṃ na upapajjāti: ‘cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya. Iti cakkhu anattā.”
Loosely translated: “If anyone says, ‘The cakkhu is self,’ (or “seeing” is mine or “it is I who sees”) that is not tenable. An arising and disappearing of cakkhu (not the physical eye) is evident. If cakkhu is ‘self,’ that would imply: ‘my self arises and disappears’ OR ‘I come into being momentarily and disappear.’ That is why it cannot be argued that ‘The eye is self.’ Thus cakkhu is ‘not-self or ‘anattā.” (“na attā” for “not attā” rhymes as “anattā,” just as “na āgāmi” rhymes as “Anāgāmi.”)
- That verse is then repeated for the other five entities related to cakkhu, i.e.,rūpa, cakkhu viññāna, cakkhu samphassa, cakkhu samphassa-jā-vēdanā, tanha (due to cakkhu samphassa-jā-vēdanā.) The last verse in that series is, “Iti cakkhu anattā, rūpā anattā, cakkhuviññāṇaṃ anattā, cakkhusamphasso anattā, vedanā anattā, taṇhā anattā.”
- Then that is repeated for the six entities associated with sōta, ghāna, jivhā, kāya, and manō(6 x 6). The last verse is, “Iti mano anattā, dhammā anattā, manoviññāṇaṃ anattā, manosamphasso anattā, vedanā anattā, taṇhā anattā.” At this point, we are about halfway through the text in the sutta.
- Therefore, no “self” can be found in any of those.
—
In this case, anattā has the meaning that the sense of self is an illusion, there is no ‘self’ found anywhere in processing vipaka. The definition idea is summarised in the same post:
- Therefore, “one’s self” is not in ANY of those 36 entities. All those come into existence momentarily and pass away. That happens from time to time only when a ārammanais registered.
- That is a critical conclusion that is related to “anattā.”It will also become clear that anattā differs from anatta (without the long “ā.”). Let us discuss anattā in detail now.
—
Qns: Is this a third meaning in anattā? Of the illusion of self? I don’t think this is discussed in Anatta – A Systematic Analysis, the meanings here are mainly about 1) no essence 2) no control/ helpless in the rebirth process.
Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, it is normally used in compound words (anattalakkhana). The ‘anattā’ discussed in that systematic anyalysis mainly reference the anattā with long ā. Eg “Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā.” In Anatta in Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta – Part 2.
-
I did not realize that I had not updated that section of the post, even though I had made some revisions to #2 even recently.
- I need to revise it. Sorry about the confusion.
- I know that some old posts need revision. I should maybe start going through old posts and updating them before writing new ones.
- Thanks for pointing it out.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
@pathfinder
“Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, …”This may have to do with Pali grammar, where “anatta” changes form depending on the words that appear with it, such as the case or number of the noun it goes with. For example, “Sabbe dhammā (plural) anattā“. This general rule applies to other words like anicca and dukkha as well, as in:
“Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā” ti, yadā paññāya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.”
“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā” ti, yadā paññāya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.”
“Sabbe dhammā anattā” ti, yadā paññāya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.”
In general, I notice that the “-a” words rarely appear in their original form; it must be a very rarely-used case. Take “dhamma” for example; a Pali textbook describes “dhamma” as the vocative case. Other cases, such as accusative or locative, must be more common, thus we see more of: dhammam, dhammo, dhammesu, etc.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
1. Pathfinder: “Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, …”
- See “Anattadhamma Sutta (SN 23.18)” and “Anatta Sutta (SN 22.14)“
- Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are characteristics (lakkhana) as explained in “Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59).”
- Of course, the English translations in those links are incorrect.
2. However, the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature (of anything associated with our mental or physical bodies) leads to the conclusion that there is no unchanging “soul-type entity” (no permanent “self” or soul) that goes through the rebirth process.
- The error in my old post was also due to referring to that aspect. But that is not quite right.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Oh yes cubibobi, Lal, I talked about the absence of stand alone anatta without long ā that to contrast the statement here:
- ‘That is a critical conclusion that is related to “anattā.” It will also become clear that anattā differs from anatta (without the long “ā.”). Let us discuss anattā in detail now.’
which mean that at the very least, anattā should not differ from anatta, it is just another word form.
—
Although anattā should not refer to the sense of self, is it still useful to reflect that there is ultimately no ‘I’ or ‘self’ when processing vipaka, and that it is ultimately a mechanical process? I think discourses from Jethavanarama buddhist monastery focuses a lot on that.
-
1. The following recent post could help get some ideas. I revised it a bit, too: “Etaṁ Mama, Esohamasmi, Eso Me Attā’ti – What Does It Mean?“
2. Also, “ā” can mean different things in different contexts.
- It indicates plural for “things” or “people”; manusso is one person, and manussā is many people.
- However, “anattā” is the same as “anatta.” It indicates the characteristic of anatta nature. It is mainly used as “anattā” because it rhymes better as in “vedanā anattā.”
- This is why I say we need to be careful with grammar.
- It may take some time to get used to these aspects.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
It means something like “One who gives/feeds those who are poor/helpless.”
- Here “anātha” means “helpless,” and “piṇḍaka” means “food.”
- Also see “Attā Hi Attanō Nāthō.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I am rewriting an old post to explain different meanings of atta, anatta, attā, and anattā. The following is an extraction from it. Please ask any remaining questions so I can answer them in that post.
Introduction
1. It is crucial to understand the usage of the Pali words atta, anatta, attā, and anattā in the context of a given sutta.
- The mundane (or conventional) usage is with attā, to indicate “a person.”
- In most other cases, all four words, atta, anatta, attā, and anattā, could be associated with the anatta lakkhana in Tilakkhana.
Attā as “a Person”
2. The word “attā” (pronounced with a “long a at the end”) is used as “a person” only in the conventional sense. To communicate with others, we may say things like, “One needs to defend oneself.” Here, “a person” exists only in the conventional sense. In Sinhala, it is written as “අත්තා.” That is how it appears in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, written in Sinhala.
- There is no single Pāli word to express the negation of that, i.e., “not attā.” If there were to be such a word, that would be “non-person.” It just cannot be used that way.
- The other words to denote “me” or “self” are “mama,” “asmi,” or “mē.”
- Even though attā has this meaning as a “person,” anatta is never used as the opposite of that “attā.”
- Note that “attā” is pronounced with a “long a” as in “father.”
Atta as “Beneficial” or “Meaningful”
3. The word “atta” (pronounced with a “short a at the end” as in “cut” or “but”) embeds several meanings, including “beneficial” or “with essence.” The negation is “anatta.”
- In Sinhala, they are written as “අත්ත” and “අනත්ත.” That is how they appear in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, written in Sinhala.
- Anatta is the negation of “atta“: “na” + atta” (which rhymes as “anatta“): there is no benefit/does not hold anything fruitful.
- Such a word combination applies to “Anāgāmi” too. It comes from “na” + āgāmi” where “āgāmi” means “to come back; thus, “Anāgāmi” means “not coming back (to the kama loka).
- There also “na” + āgāmi” rhymes as “Anāgāmi.“
4. One who is engaged in things that are of “anatta nature” will become “anātha” (helpless), the opposite of “nātha.” As was mentioned in the post “Attā Hi Attanō Nāthō,” “nātha” is another word for Nibbāna.- One trying to find refuge in this world will become truly helpless in the long run. On the other hand, the only refuge (“nātha“) is Nibbāna, i.e., overcoming the rebirth process.
5. Therefore, a critical mistake Is made by trying to translate anatta as the opposite of “attā” with the conventional meaning of “a person” or “self.”
- The word anatta was ALWAYS used with the deep meaning of “no benefit or no essence.” Anatta indicates there is no benefit in seeking lasting happiness in this world of 31 realms. Sometimes, it is also written as “anattā” with a “long a,” as in “vedanā anattā.”
- As discussed above, attā ( in the conventional sense) indicates “a person.” The words atta, anatta, and anattā are never used in the context of that meaning.
-
Are there other meanings for attā? If attā just means “a person” then this line wouldnt make sense:
“‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjāti. Cakkhussa uppādopi vayopi paññāyati.Yassa kho pana uppādopi vayopi paññāyati, ‘attā me uppajjāti ca veti cā’ti iccassa evamāgataṃ hoti. Tasmā taṃ na upapajjāti: ‘cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya. Iti cakkhu anattā.”
Loosely translated (using translation from the post earlier: “If anyone says, ‘The cakkhu is a person (attā),’ that is not tenable. An arising and disappearing of cakkhu (not the physical eye) is evident. If cakkhu is ‘self,’ that would imply: ‘my person (attā) arises and disappears’ That is why it cannot be argued that ‘The eye is person (attā).’ Thus cakkhu is ‘anattā’ (of no value)
And in this case, isnt the Buddha trying explain that things are not attā, but the opposite which is anattā? Which is why he uses these 2 words together to show contrast. That means that anattā should be linked to attā in some way.
-
It is good to remember the two rules mentioned in #1 of my previous comment quoted below:
- The mundane (or conventional) usage is with attā, to indicate “a person.”
- In most other cases, all four words, atta, anatta, attā, and anattā, could be associated with the anatta lakkhana in Tilakkhana.
The second rule applies in “‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjāti. .” It rhymes better to say “Cakkhu attā’ti” rather than “Cakkhu atta’ti” just like in “vedanā anattā” (mentioned in my previous comment.)
- “‘cakkhu is beneficial‘ does not hold..”
- In this case, “cakkhu” means “cakkhayatana,” not physical eyes or cakkhu indriya.
- “Cakkhayatana” is when one using cakkhu indriya as an “ayatana,” i.e., to enjoy sights. In the case of an Arahant, it is always used as cakkhu indriya and not cakkhayatana.
- The difference between cakkhu indriya and cakkhayatana is explained in “How Do Sense Faculties Become Internal Āyatana?“
P.S. It is possible (in most cases) to get an idea of “which of the two rules should apply” in a given situation by reading through the whole sutta (taking a quick scan).
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.