you had a typo and certainly mean SN 22.100 …
etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā ’ti
the quote is correct, but the sentence doesn’t define atta as self.
mama doesn’t mean self, asmi doesn’t mean self, why should atta mean self?
Thank you for your correction, I left out a zero. Never great at math!
I suppose it depends on what one takes ‘eso’ to be, no?
It refers back to the 5 aggregates subject to clinging, which are commonly thought to comprise a self.
Could we say, ‘the 5 aggregates thought to be I, me, mine’ (ahaṁ, me, mama)?
Is there a word you would prefer to render atta with?
Exactly this “commonly thought of” is why I challenge.
What I’m missing is a proper investigation, not just to find another word, but another understanding.
what leads you to think the ‘5 aggregates subject to clinging’ is not that atta referred to?
Pretty much everyone I know think of their 5 aggregates as their ‘self’. This is why I wrote ‘commonly thought’.
Do you know many people who do not regard the 5 aggregates as ‘me’, ‘mine’, and , ‘my-self’?
1 Like
the khandhas stand at the beginning of the argument, yes.
Do you refer to Pali Buddhists? If I ask a random person “What is your self?” I won’t get as an answer the five khandhas. And btw neither the contemporary Brahmins nor the Niganthas refered to the khandhas in any way, not as atman, self, or anything else. It’s a purely Buddhist concept.
Hence, I don’t take it as a self-evident given that the context defines atta as self.
Of course, a non Buddhist would not be familiar with the concept of khanda, which the Buddha used to describe the constituent parts of what one regards as a ‘self’, ‘I’.
But what the khandas are is well explained. So if one were to ask most people, ‘is this eye yours, are these thoughts yours, are these choices yours’ the answer almost certainly would yes.
For instance, one might say, “I my self did this”, or “For my self, I can live without eating meat.”
1 Like
Again, you still assumed that what you learned is evidently correct, namely that the Buddha meant ‘self’. And you don’t show evidence from the suttas.
When you come up with an alternate interpretation I am eager to hear it.
Since you are pushing back against the standard interpretation, the burden is upon you to prove otherwise, or at least give some reason that all the evidence I have provided from the suttas is misguided.
I will surely not make the mistake to argue for an understanding for which there is no real interest. My main goal is to show reasonable doubt in the traditional understanding/translation. The doubt is justified by a) that Brahmin atman obviously can’t mean ‘self’, or not as the sole meaning b) that I don’t see sutta evidence that enforces that interpretation.
If that’s not enough for readers to develop some own thoughts then surely any interpretation I would offer would not fall on fertile ground.
Give us a try!
I am also interested to hear any idea/theory of self that does NOT lead to suffering.
2 Likes
Unless you are creating a new language yourself, I don’t see how you could learn the actual meaning of a foreign word without someone’s explanation or translation or definition from dictionary.
If you inferred the meaning yourself, what makes you certain that it is the right one?
3 Likes
Here’s another that speaks about atta:
SN 24.3 - Soattāsutta
Kismiṁ nu kho, bhikkhave, sati, kiṁ upādāya, kiṁ abhinivissa evaṁ diṭṭhi uppajjati:
‘so attā, so loko, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo’”ti?
Monks, when what exists, by clinging to what, by being attached to what, does such a view arise?
The self and the cosmos/world are one and the same.
After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.
“Rūpe kho, bhikkhave, sati, rūpaṁ upādāya, rūpaṁ abhinivissa evaṁ diṭṭhi uppajjati:
‘so attā, so loko, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo’ti
“When form exists, because of grasping form and being attached to form, the view arises:
‘The self and the cosmos/world are one and the same.
After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’
(the same for the other 4 aggregates)
3 Likes
Kindly do more than just quote a sutta, and develop the meaning of atta from the context, if possible. If not possible then the sutta is unsuitable.
For me it lives this way that as long as there is perception of a personal self, as a kind of mental entity, a Me or I inside as the one who lives and experiences, feels, knows, how can one ever come to an end of suffering. How can one ever be unburdened if there is one who caries and takes on a burden?
The one-who-feels cannot bear painful feeling. It is impossibe that one can ever be without a burden as long there is the inner perception of a Me who experiences, feels etc.
(Thats why the Buddha in Udana says that the disappearence of this inner perception is the greatest relief).
Based on this (let’s call it) ego-perception there will be fear for pain and suffering in the future. Longing for nice feeling and happiness. Whole samsara centers around this ego-perception.
Ego has anxiety for being burdened. Anxiety to die, anxiety to live. Anxiety to fall short. Anxiety to fail. Anxiety. All kind of longings such a longing to exist, or not to exist, or a longing to become famous, mighty, win heaven, fear hell, etc.
One can see, i think, it is all based on this belief and perception of the existence of a kind of mental entity inside us, an ego who does feel, experience, live etc . I cannot see a way to abandon suffering or burden without the end of this perception.
Buddhist masters say we must not start there. Some traditions do.
2 Likes
Again, the sense of the word becomes clear through context, a typical way a word acquires meaning.
If you disagree with the translation choice of ‘self’, please provide a word you find more suitable.
For those who haven’t had enough discussion on atta, here is an article written by Ven. Ñāṇamoli for the BPS Wheel that lists 5 ways (maybe really 4) the word atta is used in the suttas.
https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh202_Nyanatiloka-etal_Three-Basic-Facts-of-Existence--III-Anatta.html
(scroll down a bit for Anattā According to the Theravāda)
The first three senses of atta are the most significant:
1.as “one-self” in the more or less colloquial sense
2. as “one’s own person” (including the physical and mental body)
3. self as a “subtle metaphysical entity” (always repudiated as unidentifiable and undiscoverable)
" The overlooked fundamental conceit “I am” (asmi-māna) (a mirage that, in the act of perceiving, is believed will fulfil its counterpart, the intuitive sense of lack, which is craving) in the basic ontological structure of ordinary perception provokes the average man with no knowledge of the Buddha’s teaching to indulge in uncritical speculation about what this may be that “I am,” and consequently to build up self-theories."
2 Likes
I just read about Attate in a Upanishad introduction. As the third part of atman. As unconditioned. Free from samsara. No death. I’m just mentioning it because for me in the sutta when Buddha says if body-mind is yours you would have been able to say to it to be whatever you want. So what yours is nirvana. Meaning your birthright. It’s not you. But yours. 
If Attate is almost similar to nirvana. I think Buddha was probably just teaching a path towards the unconditioned limitless state. You won’t get rebirth. Because it’s out of samsara. Not part of this world cycles. Duh
From my reading of the suttas, atta mostly refers to self-view, our sense of self. The suttas tell us not to regard the aggregates as “me” and “mine”, not to identify with them.
However, unlike Advaita Vedanta, no alternative is suggested. The suttas don’t tell us to stop identifying with the aggregates, and to start identifying with an Atman, “soul” or true self. So by implication, anatta also negates Atman.
Yes, no alternative is given for identification, or Me and mine-making, because that would mean a new attachement. Attachment would only move from the conditioned to the unconditioned.
But one can say i feel, true self is the purified heart or the mind without limits (AN10.81)
It is that what is not made, not created, but that which is the natural result of removing defilements.
1 Like
Yes, removing defilements. And while there are positive expressions of Nibbana in the suttas, it’s mainly described in terms of cessation, eg cessation of the taints. So it’s as if one is seeking an absence, rather than a presence.