SuttaCentral
thank you Ajahn @Brahmali!
This contrast with attā , which has a quite specific meaning, namely “permanent essence”.
i have found the below a useful understanding of etaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā:
‘This is not mine; this i am not; this is no permanent essence of me’
my pali is very limited and this is cobbled together from previous translations, so your comment is very helpful.
the “permanent” is redundant surely?
“this is not mine, this i am not, this is not my essence”
sticking permanent into the word, first of all draws out two english words for one four letter Pali word, and also makes the classic Q&A in the EBT’s seem weirdly circular and question begging:
is X permanent or impermanent?
impermanent.
is what is impermanent stabe/pleasant or unstable/unpleasant?
unstable/unpleasant.
is what is unstable/unpleasant fit to be called one’s “essence”?
nope.
thanks @josephzizys - i see what you mean - the translation’s probably excessive.
but in terms of practice i find it useful to remind myself that whatever i’m facing isn’t any permanent part of me. whatever it takes to hit it into my hard head 
My attempt to translate your line would probably be:
netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā
“this is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my essence”
unattached, with energy aroused, being one who spoke about the ascetic practices, who was applying himself to the higher mind.
https://suttacentral.net/ud4.6/en/anandajoti?reference=none&highlight=false
That’s why from this I said Higher Mind. Mayanana called it Alaya Store consciousness. Early on its higher citta.
Thinking about that. That seems very nice. Because that’s more being nobody is your essence. Not like object. But your nature. Like how nature acts. A tree won’t brag I’m tree. Everything just is. We have to just be
The word in the Udana, translated as “higher mind” is adhicitta. This points not to the Alaya Store consciousness or anything like it, but simply to higher thought and higher concentrative and meditative states. Not to a “higher mind” as in the Mahayana’s Store Consciousness or to the Mahayana’s concept of an enduring absolute Mind.
Also, verses and poetry in Pali, as in the verse employing “adhicitta” tend to be less precise in their words and teachings; they’re meant more for inspiration and encouragement and can be less doctrinally accurate than the texts in the suttas.
patisambhidamagga also says that no-protection, no refuge, no shelter is part of the dukkha nupassana. I think this is great. It makes sense.
Is X permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent
Is what is impermanent fit to be regarded as shelter, a refuge, protection?
No. It is dukkha., it does not protect, it cannot function as refuge.
Is what is impermanent and no shelter fit to be regarder as atta, as essential, essence?
No. There is no use to make it so important and invest in it a lot.
This is also in line with Buddha’s thoughts on the ignoble and noble search (MN26)
The ignoble search is seeking safety, protection, refuge in what is conditioned, in what ends, ceases to exist. But the wise see that this is of no use. They see the drawbacks. What is subject to arising and ceasing can never ever function as a real refuge, shelter (dhamma-eye). So dukkha, no protection, is a characteristic of anything conditioned.
This seeking a refuge or protection is, i belief, a very deep longing of the heart and also of the seeking Buddha. Because he saw conflict and no protection everywhere. In the core we are not seeking for happiness or it must be the kind of happiness to have found something reliable, trustworthy, safe, protection amidst all the change, instability, unrealiability, unsafety.
I like it this way. Dukkha as no protection, no shelter, no refuge. Great!
That’s why higher mind is exactly how they translated it. It’s where the mind has like a source. That’s what I think Buddhism referred to as Brahma. That’s it’s what needs to be last let go of. It’s what probably the mind see as highest.
I have to witness this still. But because it’s where everything comes out from the mind. It’s higher Citta
The word “somewhere” can be misleading, even though such words are part of the way we express things.
In the EBTs there is fundamentally no “somewhere” and fundamentally no “something.” Just causational processes; when all clinging is eradicated, when the āsavas and avijjha have been permanently extinguished, then the deathless is realized.
Rather than thoughts and intentions “coming from somewhere” they are just causational phenomena, sankharas, which arise from other intentions and causes and which are “seen” by the citta. But the citta is not described in the EBTs as deathless (amata) or unconditional (asankhata); it, too, is conditional and not some ultimate source of impressions and phenomena.
The key is to not get stuck on particular words, especially abstract nouns like “source”.
The generally last thing the suttas indicate that is let go of is the vague sense of “I am.” This is different than letting go of particular thoughts of “I”, “me”, and “mine.” This deep sense of “I am” is as aspect of the āsavas, the deep underlying tendency to existence, bhavāvsava.
I kinda see your point. But Suttas just chose things you said lastly to replace the same others thought. So that Last I amness don’t you agree must be a very high level if you are developed to be there even if it’s just because it’s before Nirvana?
That’s what is called Mind made Self by Buddha.
Mind made for a reason mind makes it. So the Lord of Mind. Which as explained by other spiritual leader is Brahma. That’s why Ananda says in AN that Brahma is the Highest one can see. Remember seeing is done by the mind. He is talking about the mind. The highest thing we can see. So after that is Nirvana. Letting go of that I amness to become nobody. That’s why Buddha become nobody when he listened to his thought to serve humanity.
We agree that a practitioner is at a high level when the only remaining delusion is “I am.”
I’m not sure which particular sutta in AN is the one you’re quoting from, but what’s taught throughout the suttas is that Brahma and all deva realms are conditional. We can “see” them because they’re conditional arisings.
When the delusion of “I am” is gone, the natural expression of a Buddha or arahant are the Brahmaviharas and wisdom. It’s just the natural expression of the complete absence of defilements.
In the Dhamma there is no Lord of the Mind. Just the mind, the conditional mind, spinning out conditional formations. As in the first two verses of the Dhammapada. Note also that in these verses, the word used for mind is “manos.” This generally refers to the more intentional/analytic expression used for mind.
We’re all clinging to something, unless we’re arahants. Letting go of even “higher” concepts and views about anything and evreything moves us along the Path. Another way to express the essence of the Path is: Letting go. Of everything.
Not clinging. To anything.
Lord of mind is consciousness. Mentioned by Buddha exactly as Lord also somewhere else.
kamma is the field, consciousness the seed.(suttacentral)
That’s why.
With the cessation of consciousness comes cessation of name-and-form(suttacentral)
Nidessa Says
When you move forward and backward, you are rightly aware of the actor; when looking forward and backward, you are rightly aware of the actor
I think Attā should be translated as actor. That’s the Mind-made self
What they are saying be the observer. Be awareness.
“Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating.”
The Upanisadic story speaks of two birds perched on the branch of a pippala tree. One eats the fruit of tree while the [other] merely watches its companion without eating. The pippala tree stands for the body. The first bird represents a being that regards himself as the jivatman or individual self and the fruit it eats signifies sensual pleasure. In the same body (symbolized by the tree) the second bird is to be understood as the Paramatman [or Brahman]. He is the support of all beings but he does not know sensual pleasure. Since he does not eat the fruit he naturally does not have the same experience as the jivatman (the first). The Upanisad speaks with poetic beauty of the two birds. He who eats the fruit is the individual self, jiva, and he who does not eat is the Supreme Reality, the one who knows himself to be the Atman."
Here’s a quote from Joseph Campbell (in The Power of Myth):
“There is a plane of consciousness where you can identify yourself with that which transcends pairs of opposites.”
“Pairs of opposites,” like good vs evil, joy vs suffering, success vs failure.
What happens, we ask, if we turn our attention from the affairs of This World to those of That? What happens when we identify ourselves, not with the bird who eats, but with the bird who watches?
Henry David Thoreau, the transcendentalist, put it like this:
“I am conscious of the presence of a part of me, which, (as it were), is not part of me, but a spectator, sharing no experience, but taking note of it…”
The cultivation of this “spectator” leads to Equanimity.
That’s why Higher Mind start, 4th Jhana and up
“kamma is the field, consciousness the seed.(suttacentral)” – this exactly points to the conditioanality of consciousness, arising in dependence on karmic seeds and other factors, including nama-rupa. It does not point to an absolute “independent” consciousness.
Referring to the Upanishads is fine if that is what you wish to believe and to do, but they are not reflective of the Buddha’s teachings. This is not to judge the Upanishads, just to say that they are not the EBTs or later Buddhist teachings, in the same way the teachings in the Bible are not dhamma-vinaya either.
Mind-made self is, depending on what exactly is meant as “self” sounds generally correct. But that doesn’t mean there is an independent, spearate, and unconditional consciousness – as this is not attested to in the EBTs.
Sending you best wishes on your spiritual journey. May you be happy and safe!
BTW I never said there is a separate self. Like a soul. It’s obviously the Actor that Niddesa talks about. Like the thing that makes us think things are separated. Why I quoted because its a common meditative experience that awareness and consciousness is two different things. Consciousness the Actor. So Lord of Mind. The Actor who let’s us think we are the body etc. Not much difference in meditative experience. Just names. As Buddha said. All the best 
Found a sutta late.
2.74. Consciousness, wisdom and life principle
The king asked Nāgasena again, “Is the consciousness of a person, his wisdom, and his life principle all the same or different?”
Nāgasena said, “The consciousness of a person knows, his wisdom realizes the Path, and his life principle is empty without a permanent entity.”
“If there is no life principle, then who sees material forms with eyes; hears sounds with ears; smells odors with nose; tastes flavor with mouth; feels coarseness and smoothness with body and knows good and evil with the mind?”
Then Nāgasena asked, “If the life principle can see with eyes, then when pupils are plucked out, can it see farther and wider? When ears are torn open and enlarged, can they hear farther and wider? When the nose is dug out to make it bigger, can it smell odors farther and wider? When the mouth is wide open, can it know taste farther and wider? When the skin is cut and peeled off, can it feel coarseness and smoothness? When the mind is removed, can thoughts become numerous?”
https://suttacentral.net/t1670b2.74/en/guang?reference=none&highlight=false
This needs to be experienced to be understood. It’s talking about the same thing I quoted. It’s what makes one realize no self. It’s beyond. It’s like empty state just observing the senses doing the Actor role.
based on some of the footy fans I’ve known I’m not so sure of this
The following pages 57-60 regarding the various terms/expressions for the notion of “not-self” used in SA and SN by Choong Mun-keat may be useful for this discussion topic:
Pages 55-60 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (447.3 KB)
I am very grateful Brahma Sahampati had to ask the Buddha to teach his anatta dhamma to the world!
Hi,
I’ve been reading some of the correspondence between Ven. Ñaṇavīra and Ven. Ñaṇamoli, and found this to be interesting food for thought. Perhaps it is of relevance to the translation challenges of ‘anattā’.
excerpt of a letter from Ven. Ñaṇavīra to Ven. Ñaṇamoli, 24 March 1959
"…Actually, I was in doubt whether it would, in fact, be better to call attā, (which is identical, as I see it, with ‘I’ - ‘attā’, ‘self’, is sometimes more of a rationalization than ‘I’)
the ‘subject’ (and the ajjhattikāyatanāni ‘subjective’) and loka the ‘object’ (and the bāhirāyatanāni ‘objective’), rather than viññaṇa and nāmarūpa. I was going to ask your opinion on the matter. But if attā is the subject, then viññāṇa is not. But how, then to distinguish (in English) between consciousness and its ārammaṇa, name-and-matter/form? Internal and external perhaps? But even this is not satisfactory, since consciousness is the thing’s presence or existence, which can hardly be called internal (internal to what?). The confusion comes about from our normally translating ‘there is consciousness (of) my book’ into ‘I am conscious (of the book)’, and this tends to pull consciousness out of the picture towards ‘I’.
…
P.S. If attā (‘self’ or ‘I’) is as much absent from the positive (nāmarūpa) as from the negative (viññāṇa), is it not then proper to say that viññāṇa is as much bahiddhā as nāmarūpa (considered as loka)? Not quite; for the reason that just as nāmarūpa is the ārammaṇa of viññāṇa, so attā or ‘self’ is the ārammaṇa of self-consciousness [attā is a kind of ajjhattika nāmarūpa].
Thus the ārammaṇa 'nāmarūpa or loka’ is bahiddhā to the ārammaṇa 'attā or self’, whereas viññaṇa [i.e. the consciousness (of) nāmarūpa] is bahiddhā to self-consciousness. Viññaṇa is not therefore directly bahiddhā to attā.
Self-consciousness is, of course, no more to be found than self."
Please note this is a fairly early letter in the career of Ven. Ñaṇavīra and may very well not represent his final thinking on the matter. I present it here more as an interesting example of thinking through the dhamma.
