Well since we’re making context dependent conjectures, one could argue that in the list of 11 words we are talking about, ‘alien’ (parato) is only 2 words away from anattato and a full 7 words away from aniccato, and should therefore be rather associated with the former than the latter:
“Reverend Koṭṭhita, an ethical mendicant should properly attend to the five grasping aggregates as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.
Venerable Anālayo does not want to translate 我 as “self”. He wants to render it as “me”, and 是我 as “I am this” rather than “this self”, it seems.
This makes sense, since that is the normal usage of 我. He is also likely making use of information from parallels to find readings that may not be entirely intuitive from looking at strictly the Chinese alone.
For instance, 生 is a bizarre choice for “clinging”, but thats obviously what it means here. How Ven Anālayo found this reading I wouldn’t know.
Wiktionary lists a certain definition:
(dialectal) to set up; to put in; to settle
I wonder if this contemporary dialectal meaning of 生 stems from an earlier more mainstream usage?
Well, here we are talking about satta. We are talking about clinging aggregates. We are talking about the “I am this”.
If you haven’t yet understood that, there is not much I can do.
Now I could go on saying things like: why does “falling apart” (palokato) comes between “alien” (parato) and “empty” (suññato) ?!?!
Sure, because what I say is to link ātmīyataḥ to the adjacent ātmata.
Now, not-one’s-own (not yours), is a very important concept in Buddhism.
As important as getting out of the kama loka.
Sorry man, I have misunderstood your argument, then. But I have even more trouble wrapping my head around how linking ātmīyataḥ to the adjacent ātmata helps you bolster the case that anicca = “not one’s own”.
Anyway, I think I have made more than due diligence to investigate this claim. Have a nice day
Pali: SN 12.66
regard that in the world with a pleasant and agreeable nature as permanent/one’s own, as happiness, as self, as healthy, as secure: (they are nurturing craving.)
Sanskrit: SF 158
वा यत् लोके प्रियरूपम् सातरूपम् तन्नित्यतः समन्वद्राक्षुः
vā yal loke priyarūpaṃ sātarūpaṃ tan nityataḥ samanvadrākṣuḥ |
ध्रुवतः क्षेमत आरोग्यत आत्मत आत्मीयतः समन्वद्राक्षुस् ते तृष्णाम् ध्रुवतः क्षेमत आरोग्यत आत्मत आत्मीयतः
dhruvataḥ kṣemata ārogyata ātmata ātmīyataḥ (samanvadrākṣus te tṛṣṇāṃ prāvardhayiṣuḥ)
Permanent (unchangeable), abiding at ease, free from disease, of (the nature of) the ātman (ātma + ॰ता -tā), as own’s own (आत्मीय ātmīya [ātma - ॰ईय -īya] ; viz of what belongs to ātma)
What is also interesting to notice is “samanvadrākṣus,” also seen (adrākṣuḥ [ aor. - ac. pl. of dṛś]), as the “thinking” creature (manū).
samanvadrākṣus = sa-manū-adrākṣuḥ = seen as this manu.
”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
Yaṃ panāniccaṃ, dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ 'etaṃ mama, eso’hamasmi, eso me attā’ti? No hetaṃ bhante. SN22.59
So it seems that impermanence is the cause for non-belonging, according to SN22.59. They seem to be distinct concepts, depicted as cause and effect, one arising first and then giving rise to the next.
It may be that belonging is a key feature of atta, in Vedic or Brahmanical thinking (or the opposite of it). I noticed that a video of Advaita philosophy also used ‘non-belonging’ to delineate what wasn’t (true) Self. But to think of the Buddhist flavour of the use of these concepts, non-belonging doesn’t feature prominently, though it is part of it and @suci1 might want to explore its implications further.
Upādā, (adv.) (shortened ger. of upādiyati for the usual upādāya in specialised meaning) lit. “taking up”, i.e. subsisting on something else, not original, secondary, derived (of rūpa form) Dhs. 877, 960, 1210; Vism. 275, 444 (24 fold); DhsA. 215, 299, 333, cp. Dhs. trsln. 127, 197.—Usually (and this is the earlier use of upādā) as neg. anupādā (for anupādāya) in meaning “not taking up any more (fuel, so as to keep the fire of rebirth alive)”, not clinging to love of the world, or the kilesas q. v. , having no more tendency to becoming; in phrases a. parinibbānaṃ “unsupported emancipation” M. I, 148; S. IV, 48; V, 29; DhA. I, 286 etc.; a. vimokkho mental release A. V, 64 (A A: catuhi upādānehi agahetvā cittassa vimokkho; arahattass’etaṃ nāmaṃ); Vin. V, 164; Ps. II, 45 sq.; a. vimutto D. I, 17 (= kinci dhammaṃ anupādiyitvā vimutto DA. I, 109); cp. M. III, 227 (paritassanā). (Page 149)
note the “of rūpa/form” at the beginning. Obviously that usage is not this usage, necessarily.
I found out the confusion. 生 is kind of like a spelling mistake of sorts. It is not utpāda here, it is upāda. Venerable Anālayo noticed it:
SĀ 261 at T II 66a8 has 生法 as its counterpart to upādāya in SN 22.83 at SN III 105, 10 . My translation follows the indication in Hirakawa 1997: 832 s.v. 生 that this character can, besides its more common meaning of utpāda , also render upāda . Perhaps a confusion between utpāda and upāda was already present in the Indic text used for translating SĀ 261. I have decided against a literal rendering of the Chinese text as it is now, because this would not really work for the context. States still ‘arise’ in the case of an arahant, even though an arahant no longer conceives of them in terms of ‘I am this’, etc., which is precisely because an arahant is without ‘clinging’ to any states. That is, conceiving in terms of ‘I am this’ is not caused just by the fact that states have ‘arisen’, but much rather happens because one ‘clings’ to these states."
Basically, Ven Anālayo is suggesting, I think, that 生 in 生法 should be read as 取法, or something like that, because there has been a confusion over utpāda --> upāda in the rendering of the text into Chinese.
You have been missing some important suttas about the" NOT YOURS". Viz. the “not ownership” of the khandhas (SN 22.33), and internal ayatanas (SN 35.138)
the khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus) cannot be controled (permanently changed).
khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus), have an inherent changing nature. AND
khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus), and atta’s internal ayatanani ( that actualize sensualy these dhammas and dhatus) are “not yours”.
Therefore the atta (as reflexive pronoun) cannot see himself as the spiritual atta, that is continuous, eternal and blissful. Nor can the atta (as reflexive pronoun), see himself as having anything to do with the khandhas (leading to dhammas and dhatus).
And the well-learned noble disciple regards these khandhas, contemplate and examine them as they are: not self and not belonging to self.
So yes @Mat, impermanence is the cause for non-belonging.
But what does not belong here is the spiritual atta. (see above how Olivelle defines atma/atta). Our atta, as personal pronoun however, is impermanent.
If you don’t get rid of that chavakra and Abidhammic frame of mind, you will always bring confusedness in your reasoning.
What imports, and what is shown in SN 22.89, is that you must treat the effect (“I am this” ), before the cause (“I am”) . See SN 22.47 for that matter - (one should rewind the process).
So @Mat, let’s be clear. I am not excluding one for the other. SN 22.59 mentions “changes” . However, SN 22.122 mentions “aliens”. I am aware of that.
The problem with SN 22.59, is that the “I am THIS” (one’s owness), is not paralled in the Chinese sutras. In the latter, it is about perceiving self in the impermanent dharma. Which has more the flavor of an “I am”, than an “I am THIS”.
By now, everyone must have understood that the point is to show the intricated connection of both meanings of anicca; that is to say the “not-one’s-owness (I am not THIS”), and the" impermanence" (of the “I am”).
Nicca is both the cause (the idea of permanence that leads to the “I am”), and the effect (the idea that this is" my own") - so to speak.
SN 22.89 is very clear about these two. (Important sutta).
Important, because it shows how the riddances have to be processed.
First, get rid of the “I am THIS”.
In anapanasati, the 13th step might not be about impermanence, but about the abscence of desire [vi+rāga] about what is “not ours”.
The dispassion coming from the knowledge of the “I am not THIS”. About the “alien” nature of this dhamma.
Note: I don’t know why Analayo has translated virāga as “fading away”?
I suppose he tried to twist the meaning, to fit the usual construct of arising and fading dhammas (in a moment ?!? - one after the other ?!?).
Then, through the dhammavicaya sambojjhango, and the other factors of enlightenment, one comes to understand the nature of the impermanence of the dhammas as a whole (internal and external - alien and impermanent).
As in SA 103.
