Meaning of Atta

Discussion
41

Hi Luis,

I do not really understand that its my personal interpretation of the teachings of the Buddha that we really are not rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

There ar many sutta’s with this kind of phrase:

"Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … . Any kind of feeling whatsoever . . . Any kind of perception whatsoever . . . Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever . . . Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near-all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ (SN24.71 and many others).

Because it always says: ‘as it really is’…that shows, for me, that this was not only a view for the Buddha, or some kind of skillful means, but something he must have seen directly.

Can we first discuss this?

42

Yes. All Buddhist schools will agree that all dhammas are anatta. That is very very clear in the suttas. Two possible interpretations from this are:

1 - self, or person, does not exist. It is just a concept superimposed onto the 5 aggregates. It is not real, because, as the suttas say, all dhammas are not the self. This is the interpretation found both in Sarvastivada and Theravada.
2 - self, or person, actually exists but is neither of the 5 aggregates. This is the interpretation of the Sammityas/Puggalavadins. And that seems to be your interpretation, from what you’ve said.

43

When one takes delight in a view, one takes possession of it.
Taking possession, one establishes Self in it. This is the same for the rest of the aggregates.
This Self is a liability for suffering.
This Self leads to affliction.
This Self is impermanent and not satisfactory.
This establishment of Self is to be abandoned for benefits of oneself.

44

My ‘understanding’ at this moment is like this:

The Buddha discovered there is a cessation to rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. The Buddha was able to taste this cessation in this life. At that moment it is not a view anymore that rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana “is not Me, not mine, not my self’” It is seen directly.

If it is impossible to see this directly, than it will be always some kind of belief or view that rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana is not Me, mine, my self.

But, I belief, one cannot taste this cessation from a personal perspective. Not as an observer who observes this cessation. That is impossible because the observer itself is part of the khandha’s.
So, as long as one observes the progressive stilling of formations, and tastes this, such as in jhana, one does not taste cessation. This personal perspective of an observer who observes has to fall away too to see and taste cessation.

From the perspective of delusion we very much feel we are the khandha’s. The awakened mind has seen this is also construction, based on active kilesa’s who construct this perspective. It is not some kind of absolute fact. In that sense, being a person, is true to the extent that this I and mine making of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana actually takes place.

But i think there is no real use to convince oneself of all this. We have to discover, unravel, see this for ourselves. There is no use in artificially pretending one is not a person, not a self, not identified with rupa etc.

Does this make sense?

47

Hi, @Green. That makes sense to me :slight_smile:

That’s interesting. What I’ve read is that cessation is the end of all taints, including personality view. But I think there is some sort of experience of cessation, which might be experienced by an arahant but not by an ordinary being. I don’t feel confident enough to comment on that, though :sweat_smile: Cessation is a tricky subject and quite far from my experience. This sutta below has a brief account of the absorption of cessation:

https://suttacentral.net/an9.43/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin

But i think there is no real use to convince oneself of all this. We have to discover, unravel, see this for ourselves. There is no use in artificially pretending one is not a person, not a self, not identified with rupa etc.

Does this make sense?

I think there is use in understanding what atta and anatta actually mean, which is what I’m striving for. Still, as you said, pretending one has no identification with rupa, with consciousness, etc. is not helpful.

48

Hi @Luis,

Interesting sutta Luis.

It says:

“Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end”.

What does this exactly mean? Does this mean that at the same moment of tasting cessation their defilement come to an end? I assume that this something which happens when one emerges from cessation, because it says…’having seen with wisdom’, and not ‘seeing with wisdom’…

The sutta continues:

“They meditate directly experiencing that dimension in every way. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the personal witness in a definitive sense.”

What does this mean? Does this mean one can be a personal witness of cessation or does it mean one can be personal witness of the total ending of lobha, dosa and moha, as an arahant is?

In regard to the meaning of atta. For me atta refers to the common perception there is some kind of mental or spiritual entity inside which feels, cognizes, lives, experiences all kind of things, is burdened etc. I think the Buddha referred to it as asmi mana, the mana of ‘I am’.

I have seen how asmi mana works when once I felt no body anymore. The moment that happened fear arose, because asmi mana . The mind has the following internal program i saw: “There are bodily sensation, so ‘I am’ and ‘I am’ because there are bodily sensations. ‘There are thoughts’ , so ‘I am’…There is longing, so ‘I am…’ and vice versa. Etc.
So, there is kind of internal mirroring happening in the mind , and the khandha’s confirm the notion or sense of ‘I am’ or ‘I exist’ and vice versa .

It is like when you see your face in a mirror. You would be shocked when you not see a face. Seeing your face in the mirror confirms ‘I am’. But what if you do not see your face? You would think…’huh, i do not exist anymore’? Mabye fear arises. Inside this mirroring is also happening.

The Buddha discovered that this notion ‘I am’ can also end. It is also an addition to mind and one of the most subtle defilements. But there is a strong impression on the heart that a mental entity exist inside and does the feeling, experiencing, living and dying. I think we in the West would call this the notion of an ego.

In the way we experience and understand ourselves and others we also tend to belief this ego is some kind of ruling entity inside. I think that idea of a ruling entity is also related to atta. One can start believing that any behavior starts as a choice or act of this ruling entity inside. For me that is what is atta. And the Buddha discovered there is not such a ruling atta, mental or spiritual entity, that evokes all thoughts, speech and actions. That’s why nothing can also be a possession of atta.

2 Likes
49

Nice contemplation. Thanks for sharing, @Green!

I found this nice sutta with some hints on the meaning of Nibbana:
https://suttacentral.net/an3.32/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin

‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

50

I think in Buddhism the concept of Atta/Self refers mostly to an eternal unique personal entity (such as an eternal soul). Something which is individual of nature, and at the same time eternal. I belief Buddha rejected this kind of existence. He seems to teach that there is nothing in the world which is at the same time unique, individual, undivided, eternal, existing without causes and conditions, and has a power of it’s own. I belief that is in the core idea of atta. This kind of existence is rejected.
There is nothing in of about living beings that has that characteristics.

Nibbana is also not self in the sense that it is also not like that.

But Buddhism accepts that there is something in which no arising can be seen, no ending and no change in the meantime, the unconditioned, which is stable and real refuge. If this refuge were not part of our being, and cannot be seen, discovered, then there is no refuge for us.

The unconditioned is called not-self, i belief, because it is also not personal and not individual of nature.
One has to transcent individuallity, i.e. any kind of I and my-making.

I see no problem to call this ones true self. But not in the sense that this true self is personal and individual of nature, but as in ‘ones true face’. That what makes the Buddha teach that we are actually not rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

I have read the Pali sutta’s and i really see no problem. If you do, please share.

51

This is quite close to what some Mahayana texts say. Even the expression “true self” is used in reference to buddha nature in tatagathagarbha sutras, if I’m not wrong. In tantras this expression is certainly used. And it has the sense that lack of self is our true nature (and thus our true self).

In EBTs I think Nibbana has mainly the meaning of the cessation of all suffering. So it is not like a thing, a substrate, or a true nature of what we are and which would be seen when I and my-making are abandoned. If I understood well what I read in the early suttas, cessation is experienced in the sense that no taints are present (including personality view) and thus the mind is completely free from suffering.

I think those two presentations are not contradictory, but it is useful to see the difference.

1 Like
52

Hi @Luis

I find this quit fascinating. I have not real answers yet, at most an approach.

At this moment i cannot belief a Budddha arises in the world with the purpose all living being go out like flames and cease to exist at the moment of death. But that is the only possible outcome if a living being is nothing more than a name or designation for rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

Well, that all ends at death, if liberated. So there is also nothing left! There is no one realising a parinibbana after death, because nothing goes further when rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana end at death. IF we would only be rupa etc.

There is also no one to merge with Nibbana, there is simpy a definite ending of a lifestream when a living being would be nothing more than rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

I do not belief this can be true. For me this is negative. In this case Buddha-Dhamma would only be a way to end a life-stream in a definite way. That would be the only result. Parinibbana would , in this case, only refer to the non-existence anymore of a former lifestream consisting of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

I feel this is really absurd. What is holy about this goal of going out like a flame?

For me, Budddha-Dhamma is about discovering the truth about ourselves. And we cannot really find this truth when there is Me and mine-making. MN2 is often refered to. But it does not teach that Buddhism is not about finding ones true face, but it teaches that it is not wise to approach this manner in an intellectual or psychological way and keep asking things like ‘what am I or who am I’.
Then one becomes trapped in self-views. The answer to the question must come from experience, direct knowledge.

We are now as a frog in a well. If the frog would ask "what is the world?’ it’s answers are limited to the well. So his answers are limited. The same way, if one start on the Path questioning: “who or what am I”, answers are also limited by our perception which is formed by active delusion, by are tendencies, by are impurities, by our self-views, etc. This is not the right way.

But MN2 does not say that Buddhism is not about identity because it clearly is. It is all about identity. How we perceive ourselves, who we think we are is of great concern. How can there be an end to suffering if we do not see there is inside not an entity suffering or carrying the burden of suffering.

This solution to suffering is closely related to understanding ourselves but we cannot really understand ourselves when we are still full of impurities. That’s why the Buddha teaches not to focus on identity but to focus on purirication and abandon craving. Then the identity issue becomes more and more clear. Thent our answers become less and less limited and maybe some day we also really realise the cessation of Me and mine-making and then our answers of what or who might become clear.

53

DN34 says:

What two things should be directly known?
Two elements: conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

If the unconditioned element would not be present how can it be known?

AN3.47 says:

Characteristics of the Unconditioned

Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three?
No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.

54

Isn’t the dhamma from a Buddhist perspective eternal, never-changing, the true nature of things? Why shouldn’t the dhamma be atta then?

55

The existence or non-existence of a tataghata after death is one of the issues the Buddha considered not useful for the path to liberation from suffering. MN63, SN44.8.

But that is the only possible outcome if a living being is nothing more than a name or designation for rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

How so? Even though the person is just a conventional designation for the 5 kandhas, we don’t know if there is a sort of continuation of such form of existence after the death of a buddha, because we didn’t experience that and the buddha didn’t answer this, which he found not useful for the path.

What is holy about this goal of going out like a flame?
What goes out like a flame is the suffering that binds the mind, like in this poem in the Therigatha. Otherwise, if what goes out is the person or the kandhas, then they would disappear after attaining Nibanna, which is not the case. The kandhas are very there, happy and peacefully sharing their wisdom with fellow practitioners.

Well… the absence of an elephant on your chair can be known, even though there is no elephant on your chair. I don’t know if that is the case about cessation, but it could be that the unconditioned is not like a normal object, but something akin to the absence of an elephant in the room. (also, those 3 characteristics apply to the absent elephant as well).

I think I understand what you are saying. I don’t know if in the EBTs the unconditioned is like an entity inside that is our true nature. But I’d be happy to learn about the unconditioned if you guys could point to useful suttas about it.

My hunch is that unconditioned = nibbana = cessation of suffering, which is attained after the abandonment of personality views, which is the root of afflictions. And thus suffering ceases.

56

Could you indicate any sutta that talks about dhamma being eternal?
A word or an idea is not eternal, so if there is a sutta talking about eternal dhamma, I guess it must be talking about it in the sense that the nature of dhammas never changes, they’ll always be dukkha, anicca, and anatta.
In that sense, that is the true nature of the kandhas, that is our true face. So I guess it is fine to call it true self or something like that if someone feels like it.

57

ooh, I have just found this thread after posting a similar one earlier, I think it very interesting, the idea that the point of the path was the extinction of a person is clearly wrong and repudiated in the suttas as “annihilationism” the idea that the point of the path was for a person to merge with nirvana is clearly wrong and repudiated in the suttas as “eternalism”. so the view that there is a “real” person and the view that there is no person are both views that make liberation from suffering impossible, on the one hand a real person that gets destroyed is tragic on the other hand an eternal person seperate from the phenomena of suffering cannot need to be saved in the first place, so there must be something wrong, conceptually, with defending either extreme, and therefore, the buddha says, stop worrying about the ontological or epistemological status of the person and start worrying about misery, its cause, happiness, and its cause. My 2 cents.

1 Like
58

Here are some:

“Whether Tathāgatas arise or not, there persists that law, that stableness of the Dhamma, that fixed course of the Dhamma” (SN 12.20, AN 3.136, DN 9).

There are also suttas that claim that Buddhas of the past and the future proclaim the
same teaching, or that practitioners of the past and future benefit in exactly the same way from the Dhamma (SN 6.2, SN 12.33, SN 12.66, SN 46.41, SN 47.12, SN 47.14, SN 51.5-6, SN 51.16-17, SN 56.5-6, SN 56.24, AN 3.137, AN 4.21, AN 10.19-20, MN 51, MN 121, DN 16, DN 18).

Beyond that, there is the clear implication that the dhamma is eternal, otherwise we would all doubt “maybe things have changed and what the Buddha said back then is not valid anymore, because his teachings were impermanent?”

59

Hi @Gabriel

This is my interpretation:

The Dhamma as teaching is not eternal. (SN20.7 and others).

But there are texts which can be interpretated in such a way that ‘true Dhamma’ sometimes refers to Nibbana (for example the series of texts (AN9.46-9.60), SN3.3, the combination of Dhammapada 114 and 115, SN8.8,. In that sense it will not disappear.

That something that does not arise, does not end and change in the meantime is not called atta, i think, is because atta does relate to something personal, individual, a kind of entity which has a power on it’s own.

60

Hi @Luis

Can we focus on the above? I belief that there is consensus that after the death of an arahant and Tathagatha the five khandha’s do not arise again after death. Well, if all an arahant or Tathgata is, is those five khandha’s, how can there be any continuation after death? That does not make sense? What would continue? If a car is nothing more then its parts and all the parts get destroyed why talk about any continuation of the car? There is no continuation. So, if an arahant or Tathagata is just a designation or name for 5 khandha’s , arahant and Tathatagat do surely not exist anymore after death.

By the way, i do not see the unconditioned as an entity inside us, but rather as a kind of stable ground which is ever present, in any phase, so also in the most deluded person .
But i am still not sure about this interpretation because i cannot see how one would establish, from direct knowledge, that there is the uncondioned.

61

Sure, the dhamma as spoken word depends on people uttering these words or writing them down. But I think it’s hard to argue that from a traditional Buddhist perspective the veracity of the dhamma remains no matter what.

Here the danger is to create a tautology. If we limit the meaning of atta to something that is personal and individual - and per definition whatever is personal and individual is subject to decay, then the conclusion that the khandhas etc. aren’t atta is trivial. This would be pointing out something so obvious that it wouldn’t require a Buddha, i.e. to say that grass is green.

62

image
image1536×2048 352 KB

Any thoughts on this? Since I read it I screenshot but I’m not sure the exact source but it’s that late Mahasangha Abidharma text