For some years I have used the Udanā as a seminal text for study with those new to Buddhism. In F.L Woodward’s translation of the Udanā and Itivuttaka he has two terms: pahitatta , ‘making the self strong’ and bhāvitatta , ‘having made the self to grow’ [Find in INDEXES under Self (attā)].
However, in John D. Ireland’s translations of the same texts it appears he has evaded (shirked?) from translating both these terms for reasons that may only be guessed.
Would someone please verify whether pahitatta and bhāvitatta appear in the Pali original, or whether they are possible corruptions.
If it can be shown that pahitatta and bhāvitatta are indeed authentic terms, and Woodward’s translation is acceptable, then their appearance in the earliest strata of the cannon is surely of far reaching significance when discussing the doctrine of anattā .
pahitattassa = dative (?) case = to put forth/express/give resoluteness
OK: the dictionary includes the meaning "“self-determined”, which seems to be from the “atta” suffix added to pa + dah + a; or pa + dhā
This was the first knowledge they achieved. Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute.
This is the first knowledge attained by him. Ignorance is dispelled, knowledge has arisen; darkness is dispelled, light has arisen, as happens in one who lives diligent, ardent, and resolute.
pahitatta is found in many suttas, at this link: SuttaCentral. If you click on the Sujato translations and choose the Pali-English function you can read the various contexts in which the word pahitatta is used; thus come to your own understanding of its meaning
welcome Buddhadasa! The link I posted above has 141 results for pahitatta. Therefore, it seems difficult to argue a case the term is not authentic. Probably it is best to deem the word was a common ordinary word & the use of “atta”, similar to in many Pali words, is merely “convention”.
this is true, although I would note that the term is NOT found in DN. (as everyone on here should know I think that DN preserves some of the oldest material in the canon)
The 20th century Bhikkhu Buddhadasa may be helpful here, who suggested:
All languages have some words for ‘self,’ for ego, ‘soul,’ whatever we want to call it. And many of our words imply a ‘self’ and so we can’t use language without strengthening this belief in a ‘self.’ So this is so heavily conditioned into all of us. Beginning with that just basic sense or feeling of ‘self,’ that is very difficult to let go of it, to abandon it, to give it up. So even we find in Buddhism, we even find talk of ‘self.’ This is partly just because of the limitation of language. Even Buddhism that teaches ‘not-self’ very clearly still has to use languages that talk about ‘self.’ They use words like ‘I’ and ‘mine.’ And so it’s often very difficult for ordinary people to understand this. And even in other cases, just we have to talk, in Buddhism we actually have to use the word ‘self’ (attā) directly, so sometimes there’s even talking about ‘ourselves’ or the ‘self’ needs to do this and that. This is just the limitation of language but you should know whenever you find the word ‘self’ in Buddhism that we should take it to be a ‘self’ that is not-self. Anywhere in Buddhism you come across the word ‘self’ it’s just using the word, but that ‘self’ is not-self.
So in Buddhism or with all Buddhists are forced to use the word ‘self.’ No way of getting around it but the meaning when Buddhists use this word ‘self’ the meaning is of ‘not-self’. Something that is not-self. For example, something is very well known quote the Buddha said, “Self is the refuge of self”; “Attā is the refuge of attā.”
For this to be understood correctly of ‘self’ that attā is not a ‘self,’ that attā is not-self – this has to be understood. So when we said, “Self is the refuge of self” what it means is that this ‘self’ which is not-self has to be its own refuge. It has to have this not-self ‘self.’ This ‘self’ which is not a ‘self’ has to have sufficient wisdom and understanding to realize that is not a ‘self.’ And when the ‘self’ can see that there isn’t a ‘self’ then all problems will cease. This is what is meant by “Self is refuge of self.” A ‘self’ is not-self. It’s not-self. It’s not ‘soul.’
There is much debate on this. Just an FYI. Some consider the sutta nipata, itivuttaka, and udana to be very early in the scheme of things. Obviously the pali canon is a very intricate and delicate topic but I would very much love to hear @sujato comment on this thread, or maybe @Khemarato.bhikkhu since he has compiled much of this information on the educational site he created.
There are multiple ways the suttas are referenced. An easy way to work it out is to go to Access To Insight and simply look at the list of suttas and, when applicable, their various reference numberings (such as Ud 1.8 = Ud 5) , here: Udana: Exclamations
Then the Venerable Nanda was humiliated, ashamed, and dismayed by his friends calling him “hireling” and “menial.” Living alone, secluded, diligent, ardent, and resolute, he soon realized even here and now through his own direct knowledge that unequalled goal of the holy life for the sake of which sons of good family rightly go forth from home to the homeless state, and entering into it he abode in it. And he knew: “Finished is birth, lived is the holy life, done is what had to be done, there is no more of this state.” And the Venerable Nanda became one of the arahats.
Also, the Itivuttaka has multiple reference numberings: Itivuttaka: This Was Said (by the Buddha) therefore is difficult. No luck with Access To Insight therefore will do word search on Sutta Central. It could be:
“Knowing that the body is fragile,
“Kāyañca bhiduraṁ ñatvā, Variant: bhiduraṁ
that consciousness fades away,
Viññāṇañca virāgunaṁ; Variant: virāgunaṁ
and seeing the danger in attachments,
Upadhīsu bhayaṁ disvā,
they go beyond birth and death.
Jātimaraṇamaccagā;
Having attained ultimate peace,
Sampatvā paramaṁ santiṁ, evolved, they bide their time.”
Kālaṁ kaṅkhati bhāvitatto”ti.
Iti 77
or
He once was considered astute,
Paṇḍitoti samaññāto,
regarded as evolved, bhāvitattoti sammato;
his glory stood forth like a flame,
Jalaṁva yasasā aṭṭhā,
the renowned Devadatta.
devadattoti vissuto.
Iti 89
“This is a reason for joy
“Pāmojjakaraṇaṁ ṭhānaṁ,
for those who understand:
etaṁ hoti vijānataṁ;
that is, those who are evolved,
Yadidaṁ bhāvitattānaṁ,
the noble ones living righteously.
ariyānaṁ dhammajīvinaṁ
Iti 104
or
“The Teacher is the first, the great hermit,
“Satthā hi loke paṭhamo mahesi,
following whom is the disciple of developedself,
Tassanvayo sāvako bhāvitatto;
and then a trainee, a practitioner,
Athāparo pāṭipadopi sekho,
learned, with precepts and observances intact.
Bahussuto sīlavatūpapanno.
In conclusion, if you are interested in studying Sutta, the foremost resource is Sutta Central. Once you learn how to use its research functions you will be learning Dhamma from the Buddha’s Own Lips (rather than relying solely on monks, translators, scholars & dictionaries).
I think the term atta used in these compounds is to be taken as the pronoun atta, and that its use is idiomatic rather than something to do with the doctrine of anatta.
oops! my bad, people are quite right, bhāvitattā occurs frequently, I was looking at bhāvitatta and pahitatto and pahitattā both occur, just not pahitatta
Just in case you and the OP are not aware, this tool helps you get to the sutta you are looking for most times:
You can put either format of Ud and Iti citation in and you will end up at the right place. The danger of using ATI as your source of citations is that several of the suttas in the AN have different citations from Sutta Central (they use roughly the Thai system)
Also, if you simply type Ud3.2 here in a message, it will automatically be linked to the sutta.
And for folks who aren’t aware, the DigitalPaliReader.online has an excellent search feature that breaks down the results into book, etc.
The link I posted above has 141 results for pahitatta. Therefore, it seems difficult to argue a case the term is not authentic. Probably it is best to deem the word was a common ordinary word & the use of “atta”, similar to in many Pali words, is merely “convention”.