Meaning of Atta

Discussion
96

I think one may infer the meaning of Atta from first and second sermons.

From the first sermon, Dukkha was defined as 5 clinging aggregates in brief. I believe the ascetics were bewildered because they thought that the 5 clinging aggregates should somehow be the basis for Atta. How could they be dukkha?

The characteristics of Atta can be drawn from second sermon to be:

  1. eternal, constant
  2. happy state. One can seek refuge, safety and satisfaction in it.
  3. absolute control. One owns it and will be able to control it as one wishes

The Buddha refuted the idea that 5 clinging aggregates could form the basis of Atta with two arguments. The first categorically states that one cannot control them and second argues that they are impermanent, not satisfactory and, thus, not self.

97

Correct, for example “earth” and “creatures”. Now, who in their right mind would think “Truly, in my essence, in my soul, I am creatures”? or “Truly, in my essence I am earth”? Why would the Buddha refute declarations that are non-sensical to begin with?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the texts don’t say that atta would have to be sukha, only that it can’t be dukkha. Which would leave the option that atta could be neutral.

And who says “I have absolute control over my soul, I control it as I wish”? The concept of soul / essence is incongruent with control. If I am my soul maybe I can control my body, thoughts, etc. But who would think that the superficial ego controls the soul? And what does one “do” with the soul anyway, even if I could control it?

Again, you bring in the conclusion into your understanding. It’s: impermanent - not satisfactory - anatta (not the yet-to-be-established “not self”)

1 Like
98

Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dhamma

The Discourse on the Non-self charachteristic

1 Like
99

Thanks for sharing your understanding @faujidoc1 .
The above statement i do not understand. An arahant and Boeddha would be free of asmi mana (the conceit I am) but still experience a world ofcourse. Is the vipaka vinnana, the first moment of becoming aware of a smell, sound etc. a volitional construct based on the delusion I am? In other words, is all we perceive a volition construct?

100

MN85

Prince, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too thought: ‘Pleasure is not gained through pleasure; pleasure is gained through pain.’

It can be inferred that the bodhisattva had the idea of practicing painful mortification in order to attain the ultimate supreme pleasure from this sutta.

101

There are many different views of Self. Looking at DN9 Potthapada Sutta already give you a sample of some. If you ask various people now, they would probably postulate a Self differently each, even if they come from the same religion.

What matters more is to understand what Self meant to the five ascetics, how the Buddha refuted them so that we may utilise them in the same manner when we have the same views.

As a basis for existence, the five aggregates can be seen as belonging to Self or are Self.

If one view that they belongs to Self, Buddha refuted it categorically as they cannot be controlled.

First Argument

Mendicants, form is not-self. For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel form: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’

If they are existence itself, the Buddha asked the ascetics to consider the fact that they are impermanent. It follows naturally that they cannot be satisfactory. Just think of this body and mind that grows old, get sick and dies. Can you develop a sense of security and satisfaction in it? Is it a good candidate befitting for Self? If not, what would be the most skillful mean to go about considering it?

Second Argument

What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

In fact the Buddha presented a third way to view the relationship between existence and the five aggregates. When there is craving for the five clinging aggregates, it becomes the fuel for existence. With the cessation of craving, the fuel ceased to be and extinguishment follows as a result.

102

Ok, the words ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ appear here, but no connection to atta whatsoever. This is a comment on Jain practice.

If you made up your mind that atta means ‘self’ then there is little ground for a discussion, isn’t it?

103

In MN85, Buddha was explaining to the Prince about his past practices. And why does one practises? Isn’t it obvious that it is for the long term benefit of self? So that one can experience its benefits.

I’ve explained the understanding based on SN22.59 Anattalakkhaṇasutta. You may want to clarify your views as it is not clear what you are asserting.

104

You are right! My earlier understanding was too shallow. :grin: :blush:

Some more clues -

SN22.151 (and others)
Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what,
“Kismiṁ nu kho, bhikkhave, sati, kiṁ upādāya, kiṁ abhinivissa:
does someone regard things like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti samanupassatī”ti?

SN22.72
Surādha, one is freed by not grasping having truly seen any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
“Yaṁ kiñci, surādha, rūpaṁ atītā­nāga­ta­pa­c­cu­p­pa­n­naṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ rūpaṁ: ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya disvā anupādāvimutto hoti.

Yes, of course it doesn’t make any sense to term an external form as me or mine. And terming external form as non- atta makes sense only if Atta has a meaning beyond me and mine.

So, how about an updated proposal? :laughing:

Atta = Some thing or some state, whether internal or external, whether related to one’s aggregates or to the world, which can be found, realized, achieved or merged with in some way which has the characteristic of being without change and without suffering, which can control itself or whatever belongs to it in any way it wishes.

The stuff that Rohitassa, Sariputta, Moggallana and even the Bodhisattava left home in search of?

Your thoughts?

105

I think the implication of the texts is that we (i.e. the faculty of intention or will-power) can control the atta the way we wish. Which would make the intention the superior and the atta the subordinate quality.

1 Like
106

I was referring to ordinary unenlightened sentient beings!

An enlightened one has seen through the nature of experience. Hence though they still have contact, sensation and cognition, they do not create any volitional construct (sankhara) around it, and they do not think in terms of ‘I am’. (See Advice to Bahiya).

The enlightened one of course, can still move around in the world, perceive objects, use language such as ‘I’ etc. but this is without any delusion.

This is in contrast to the experience of ordinary sentient beings who automatically color all sense input with volitional constructs rooted in the sense of ‘I am’. So they are unable to let go of their experience - they just cannot accept it as it is- they feel the need to hold on or change it in some way viz Craving.

This difference of experience is illustrated in MN1 where the ordinary being ‘perceives’ Earth, while the enlightened being ‘knows’ Earth.

To clarify with an admittedly imperfect simile, imagine someone is wearing a Virtual Reality headset. Would they have any doubt that whatever is perceived within that virtual reality is simply based on the sense input received - its not real? Yet they would still be able to see VR generated body parts on looking down (red furry arms? :thinking:), they could move around in that world seeing departmental stores, parks etc, talk to others within the simulation etc…

(My understanding is EBT based, I find that Abhidhamma inspired hyper technical concepts to be often at odds with what is given in the suttas.)

107

When something very valuable to you is gone, such as when your house got destroyed, when your money got scammed away, when you loved ones leave you forever, does it hurts?

If they are just external form that has nothing to do with you, why do you suffer on the account of their changes?

My suggestion is to look at what is bothering you and find out the root cause rather than theorizing atta.

108

The meaning of atta is literally the topic of the discussion.

109

For understanding the meaning of atta in early Buddhism, I think one needs to first know (1) the reason why anicca ‘impermanence’ is dukkha ‘suffering’, and (2) the various terms for the notion of anatta ‘not-self’ in SN/SA:
Pages 55-60 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (447.3 KB)

1 Like
110

Understand from the angle of dukkha, don’t theorize it if one is truly devoted to the practice.

MN2 Sabbāsavasutta

“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’

“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

111

To give still more info: In AN, note 1823, translation Bodhi it is said (refering to commentary):

"The perception of non-self is stabilized (anattasanna santhati): the perception of non-self consists
in the contemplation of non-self, which occurs thus: ‘All phenomena are non-self’ because they are coreless; because we have no mastery over them; and because they are alien, void, hollow, and empty. This perception is stabilized, firmly established in the mind."

It is also said that the perception of non-self stabilizes when the perception of anicca stabilizes.

112

@faujidoc1, Thanks, that’s all clear to me.

1 Like
113

Consider also the notion of the ‘middle way’ in SN/SA suttas in connection with ‘not-self’ anatta (as ‘right view’), e.g.:
Pages 60-66 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (484.6 KB)

114

See also SN 12.15 = SA 301 for the notion of ‘middle way’:

Pages 192-5 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (274.5 KB)

1 Like
115

Thanks. Can you provide the link?