Pali translation questions about "no self"

AdrianMagno · August 31, 2023, 12:15pm

Hi everyone ,

There seems to be a few posts in this thread which are a tad on the heated/argumentative side.

I don’t think it’s necessary to point out anyone in particular, I believe if there is a sense of sincerity in your practice, then you’ll know if it’s you.

I am reminded of a story when Ajahn Sumedho was still a junior monk.

As the story goes, Ajahn Sumedho found fault with one of his fellow monastics at the time.

He felt very strongly that his point/s were valid enough, so in the next sangha meeting Ajahn Sumedho brought it upon himself to discuss these faults in the presence of the sangha.

As I understand, Ajahn Chah was away during this meeting. Due to the complaints that were made, the monk in question was very ashamed and consequently disrobed.

When Ajahn Chah returned from his trip and heard what had happened, he spoke to the young Ajahn Sumedho and basically said that ‘you were right in vinaya, but wrong in dhamma’.

Very often we can get swept up in our own self-righteousness and get absolutely convinced to ‘tell that person how it really is/should be’.

When we get to this point, better to just walk away rather than type/say something which we might later regret, don’t believe Mara.

I think the first verse of the metta sutta sums it up nicely.

Kp 9 Metta sutta
Those who are skilled in the meaning of scripture
should practice like this so as to realize the state of peace.
Let them be able and upright, very upright,
easy to speak to, gentle and humble;

Thanks everyone, let us continue the discussion in a gentle manner

AdrianMagno · September 1, 2023, 12:20am

6 posts were split to a new topic: Metta sutta question/s

freedom · August 31, 2023, 7:06pm

I will try to respond to some of your questions…

When I affirm: “A lion is not a heo,” I already have an understanding or assumption of what “heo” is, even if I do not define or explain it. If I have no idea what “heo” is, and affirm that “a lion is not a heo” then I already assumed that “ a lion is not a heo.” Now if “heo” means “animal” then my statement or premise is incorrect.

Similarly, if you affirm that “this man is Mr. Anderson” then you already know or have some ideas who is Mr. Anderson. If you do not know who is Mr. Anderson then you cannot say so.

You know Mr. Anderson by his name, his history, or by some other means. At least, you have some idea who is Mr. Anderson, and can identify him at least in your current belief. If you cannot identify Mr. Anderson then you cannot say that “this man is Mr. Anderson.”

When you said “Mr. Anderson is NOT Mr. Smith,” then you already know or have some ideas about who is Mr. Smith, or at least can identify Mr. Smith. If you have no idea who is Mr. Smith then you cannot make that comparison. What if Mr. Smith is in fact Mr. Anderson’s second name? Or Mr. Smith is in fact Mr. Anderson in disguise?

People challenge the conclusion because they may have a different understanding. If you do not clarify your position, then they may assume what you mean using common understanding of the terms, or common sense, or their own assumptions.

When we are giving a talk, we should expect the listeners to be able to understand what we are talking about. If we give a talk, and nobody understands what we are talking about then it is a bad talk; therefore, we should use common terms that listeners can understand, or clarify what we mean by that, then the listeners can agree or disagree with that. If we expect the listeners to do so, then the listeners should be the speakers.

Because you take ātman as self in your current understanding; therefore, you have trouble with the conclusion “self is unconditioned”. That is your current understanding. However, if you take ātman as the ultimate happiness, the final goal of the holy life then it will make more sense. We cannot find ultimate happiness in this conditioned world, and the ultimate happiness or the final goal of the holy life should be the unconditioned or Nibanna.

Meggers · August 31, 2023, 8:01pm

If you’re after moksa, go for it. But it would be a mistake to think that is nibbana. Don’t trust me. Go read the experts.

Clarity · August 31, 2023, 9:02pm

Well, I did not do as you did. As I said many times, after I made premise 1, I made premise 2: “A lion is not ‘heo’”, at that time, I did NOT have an understanding or assumption of what “heo” is. Honestly speaking, until now, it stays that way, I still do not have an understanding or assumption of what “heo” is. When you bring up the word “heo”, to me, it only has meaning to you. It only has meaning to me until you define it.

Precisely, if “heo” means “animal” then premise 2 is incorrect (Of course, you will have to do some work to convince me that “heo” is “animal”). It happens when you define “heo” and after we have a “talk”.

I can declare incorrect statements and incorrect conclusion. The reason is: I do not have the power of the Buddha to understand all sentient being’s tendency. The Buddha’s power covers every sentient being’s definition of “self”. It is reflected right in DN1. That’s why his premise 2 can not be incorrect while I couldn’t do the same.

Precisely again, it happens when you come up with definition of “Mr. Smith”. My premise 2 can stand or can fall based on your definition. However, the situation is different with the Buddha’s statement due to his special power.

Precisely again. That’s why we have a lot of Dhamma talks when people with different ideas of “self” come to talk with the Buddha.

Precisely again, you have a different definition of “self”. If you were at the time of the Buddha, you maybe had come to talk with him. You will have something like:

Form is not ātman.
Feeling is not ātman.
Perception is not ātman.
Formation is not ātman.
Consciousness is not ātman.
ātman is the ultimate happiness.

I can’t tell how the Buddha will react to your definition precisely because I don’t have the Buddha’s power. Below is just my pathetic attempt:

Just my own imagination: Maybe, yes, only maybe, the Buddha will ask you something like “This ātman, how do you know it is ultimate happiness?”. Then you are most likely have to answer something like “Because it is permanent, so sir, no more suffering. That’s why it is ultimate happiness”.

Then maybe the Buddha will ask you “When you were still young, not knowing much with little wisdom, you did unwholesome actions, was this ātman not affected? Until your life ends, if you ever do unwholesome actions, will this ātman not be affected?”. Then you are most likely have to answer something like “No sir, because it is permanent”.

Then maybe the Buddha will ask you “If other people believes you, will they not be hesitated anymore to do unwholesome actions? If that’s the case, is it not true that they will bring harm (suffering) to themselves?”

Again, I emphasize that above story is just my imagination. Maybe it can convince you to drop your definition/theory of “self” or maybe it won’t. The Buddha definitely would have given you a much better Dhamma talk to drop your definition/theory of “self”. When your definition/theory of “self” is dropped, maybe you would have gotten enlightenment too.

freedom · August 31, 2023, 9:57pm

What do you mean “that”? I never say the mainstream understanding of ātman is the unconditioned or Nibbana. However, if I take ātman as the ultimate goal of a holy life for some religious seekers, then it should be the ultimate happiness. Of course, this is what they are looking for, and it is their ultimate goal, and they call it ātman regardless of how they understand it. They may define and understand it as this or that based on their understanding. Each school may define ātman differently depending on how they see it. However, most of them take ātman as their final goal.

When I take “ātman” as the ultimate happiness, the final goal. I never refer to “self” or reject it. It is irrelevant in this context. The ātman in this case is not the mainstream understanding of ātman.

When I search for the ultimate happiness, I can call it “ātman” or something else. As long as everybody understands that term means the goal, the ultimate happiness of the seekers then the term serves its purpose.

As I understand, it is similar to “Tathagatha” in Buddhism. To me, ātman or Tathagatha are just labels for reference to the final goal. If we do not like the word ātman as the final goal for Buddhism, we can change it to Tathagatha or something else that is more familiar to us.

My focus is the ultimate happiness, the final goal of a religious seeker, not about the definition of a term and if it is defined and understood correctly or not. Since the final goal as I understood is unconditioned, indescribable, unidentifiable, the label is just for communication purposes. As long as the audience understands what I refer to, then the label serves its purpose.

Moreover, I never say ātman or Tathagatha is Nibbana if you read my previous posts. I say that Nibbana is “the unconditioned”, and it is achieved when all conditions cease. When all conditions cease, we reach the unconditioned, or we can say that we attain Nibbana. At this time, we no longer be “Mr. A,” we are free from all conditions, and are unidentifiable. Let’s call it “Tathagatha” if we do not like the term “ātman.” However, this does not mean that we become Nibbana! In fact, Nibbana is the requirement to reach this.

I understand what I said is not popular, and it is unique. I never see anybody seeing this way, so if you trust the experts then you can follow them. However, take this as a grain of salt, but do not reject it. You may someday find something that is usable from it if you do not reject it. If not, it is also a good exercise to validate your current understanding.

Meggers · August 31, 2023, 10:09pm

I think most educated people in the West know the difference between moksa and nibbana and recognize they are not the same. This wasn’t always the case. Early Western interpretations were that Buddhism was just another Hindu sect, basically. Over time, we’ve come to realize that Buddhism is its own systematic philosophy with its own religious life. This took us a long time to learn. However, the darsana actually recognize this. Buddhism is considered one of the heterodox schools. It does not accept authority of the sruti. It’s more than that, but there you have it.

stephen · August 31, 2023, 10:28pm

It definitely helps to read the source texts in the original, to be able to see the internal logic and thought world the texts inhabit.

It’s inevitable that translators color their translations, it is to be expected. But earlier ones did have much less understanding of the whole Buddhist project than more recent ones.

One only needs to look at recent translations of, say, the Odyssey and Beowulf to see how differently the texts can be approached.
On a minuscule scale, look at the above discussion on the opening lines of the Metta Sutta. How differently they can be rendered! .

stephen · August 31, 2023, 11:03pm

It’s through only relying on translators that we see debates on things like the difference between ‘no self’ and ‘non self’, a distinction entirely absent in the source text.

Meggers · August 31, 2023, 11:08pm

Oh yeh. Compression. We dealt with it in Heian Court Poetry. Especially the poetry of Ono no Komachi, one of the six poetic geniuses of Japan. Which poem, you ask. This one. It’s been identified as containing the first trace of the medieval aesthetic, long before medieval times existed. Looks simple on the surface, especially because most of this is hiragana, but it is super-explosive. However, don’t look at me to demonstrate the pyrotechnics. It’s not worth me translating it. I had good teachers who knew their stuff.

stephen · August 31, 2023, 11:11pm

Pace those who think translating means looking up words with an online dictionary. Translation is an art form.

Meggers · August 31, 2023, 11:24pm

Yup. And even with someone like Deleuze who is only French to English we still do not replace some of his words with English ones, like espace quelconque. There is an accepted way to say this in English, but I cannot say it. I wander around, “anywhere space, this is an example of anywhere space in film.” That’s enough to upset people and then when they read the English term … whatever it is … they are like, Megan!! So I say, “OK, espace quelconque.” Terrible.

Clarity · September 4, 2023, 4:20pm

I was thinking “maybe @srkris is a bit more hard coded in Excel and maybe Excel language is better understandable to him”. Clearly, it’s just my own imagination and assumption, anyway, I was just playing with Excel today. I did these 3 simple things:

Put “lion” in cell C5
Put “unicorn” in cell D5
Put a formula in cell C6:

=AND(C5=“lion”,NOT(“lion”=D5),NOT(C5=D5))

After that, playing with any value of D5 (such as “whale”, “dinosaur”, “R2-D2”), the formula always gives us logical value “TRUE” as long as D5 is not the word “lion” or “LION” or “Lion” - we get the idea.

We can see in the above formula Excel I gave above, Excel never complains. This example is different from the one that srkris suggested to use an imaginary cell. When we input an imaginary cell, of course, Excel does not understand.

Now, the case is totally different when the Buddha declared “Form is not self”, because the listener already had an idea/theory/definition of “self”. However, it’s wrong to assume that the Buddha had “self” as an axiomatic when he declared “Form is not self”. Only the listener has this kind of taken for granted or taking “self” as an axiomatic.

Also, it was not absurd or “meaningless”, “useless”, “banality” as srkris suggested.

In fact, it is very profound. The Buddha was basically saying "Whatever your definition of “self” you are perceiving, still, I can declare this truth: "These five aggregates do not fit into definition of that “self”. Furthermore, I can also declare this truth: "These five aggregates do not fit into the definition of “belongs-to-that-self”. It is very profound because realization of these truths will help the listener in the cessation of suffering, we saw so many instances in the sutta.

Also, I don’t remember any case in the Pali canon where the Buddha comes to an arahant and says “Form is not self”. Maybe one of the reasons is because an arahant does not have any trace of theory/view/definition of “self”? Maybe I was wrong?

freedom · September 4, 2023, 8:29pm

Because of self view, many past religious seekers believed that “true self,” “universal self,” “ultimate self ” is the ultimate happiness. Therefore, they searched for that “ultimate happiness,” and they call it “Ātman.”

Clinging to that self view, we also believe that atta is “self”; therefore, anatta must be no-self or not-self, and we believe that the Buddha teaches us the doctrine of no-self or not-self.

Clinging to self view, we affirm that there is no self to experience, or we cannot experience self, or the self can be experienced without any means, or there is no self in the first place, self is the grasping, self is real, self is unreal, self is observable, self is not observable, self is permanent, self is impermanent, there is no self because there is no true essence, there is one’s own true essence, there isn’t anybody who is aware, there is an awareness that aware the impermanence… We develop countless theories to explain the existence or non-existence of the “self” by explicitly or implicitly referring to it.

However, the Buddha cautions us that we should not cling to any doctrine of self (true self, fake self, no self, not self, minimal self, multifaceted self, subjective self, objective self, intersubjective self, self beyond the All, unknowable self, indescribable self, ultimate self…). He calls that clinging as “self view,” a thicket of views, and that is the first fetter that needs to be abandoned.

If the Buddha told us that we should not cling to any doctrine of self, then why did he teach us the doctrine of no-self or not-self? If the Buddha has abandoned all doctrines of self, how can he do so?

If we drop the self view, then atta is no longer an “ultimate self” or "Self” or anything related to “self.” It simply is the ultimate happiness, the final goal that a religious seeker is looking for. Therefore, anatta is simply the doctrine of what is not the ultimate happiness, or anatta is the doctrine of the end of all sufferings. It has nothing to do with “self” . This doctrine is the tool to find that ultimate happiness, and this “atta” can be found, and the Buddha called it “Tathagatha.”

The “Tathagatha” has nothing to do with “self” does not mean that the Tathagatha is no-self/not-self. Moreover, we also cannot say that because it is not no-self/not-self then it must be a self . In fact, the Tathagatha is indescribable and unidentifiable. Any attempt to describe or identify it is incorrect. The Buddha told us that the Tathagatha is beyond logic and unfathomable.

In quantum physics, scientists talk about superposition. They understand that there is “superposition”, but they cannot describe or observe it. It is against normal logic.

We can only know about the Tathagatha by direct experience, not by logic, observation or speculation. This is what jhana is for. Jhana is the practice for direct experience. If we do not have direct experience, or at least a glimpse of it, then we do not know what jhana is.

Religious seekers in the past were looking for the ultimate self to find the ultimate happiness. They called that “atman”. They believe the ultimate self is the ultimate happiness. The Buddha told them that if they want to find that ultimate happiness, if they want to reach that goal, they should drop that “self view, ” then they can find that “atman.” To distinguish this new “atman” from the old “atman,” he called it “Tathagatha.” However, this is just for communication purposes since the Tathagatha is indescribable, and unidentifiable. Therefore, any attempt to identify it is incorrect.

Because of self view, we think that there is “self,” there is “I”, there is no self, there is no “I”, how can I experience self? How can I experience no-self? Only perception, feeling,… arises and ceases, but there is no self or person that feels or perceives. Or I can feel the pain; therefore, there is self…We have argued this for thousands of years, and will be more. If we do not drop this self view then we will never be able to realize the final goal or reach the end of all sufferings.

If we tell others that atman is a self or not a self, exist or not exist, then they will argue until the end of the world.

Clarity · September 5, 2023, 4:47pm

I kind of agree mostly of what you said, until I read the above paragraph. And then also this paragraph below:

Those claims can not be found in the Pali canon. Please let me know if I was wrong.

Therefore, it seems to me that you are building another theory of “self”, this time not about your self but about the Buddha’s self. It was problematic enough for any theory of “self” that we are building about our self, now, you are even attempting to do something more problematic, that is to define/theorize about the Buddha himself.

The quote below is directly from AN1.270:

“It is impossible, mendicants, it cannot happen for a person accomplished in view to take anything as self.
“Aṭṭhānametaṁ, bhikkhave, anavakāso yaṁ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo kañci dhammaṁ attato upagaccheyya. Netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.

But it is possible for an ordinary person to take something as self.”
Ṭhānañca kho etaṁ, bhikkhave, vijjati yaṁ puthujjano kañci dhammaṁ attato upagaccheyya. Ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī”ti.

freedom · September 5, 2023, 6:40pm

When I said new “atman.” I put atman in quotes. The new “atman” has nothing to do with self when we already dropped self view. It is the ultimate happiness, the final goal. Because of self view, we still think this “atman” is self; therefore, new “atman” means new self.

This new “atman” is equivalent with what we call “Tathagatha”; therefore, self is not applied here.

As I have tried to clarify many times in the post, these are labels just for communication purposes. We use it to point to something that is unidentifiable. Otherwise, it is impossible to talk about it.

Clarity · September 5, 2023, 8:16pm

What do you mean by that? You were clearly identifying it as “ultimate happiness”. If a goal is really unidentifiable, how do you know that you have reached exactly that goal but not other goal? The Buddha is not “unidentifiable”, the Buddha is unfathomable.

Case 1: Are you referring to yourself as “Tatha[…]”? When people address you, do they now need to call you “Tatha[…], just like the Buddha”? Also, when the Bodhisattva Siddhartha still has not attained enlightenment, where is this “Tatha[…]”? When you were still an infant, where is this “Tatha[…]”? For normal human being not enlightened yet, after they die, where is this “Tatha[…]”?

Case 2: If it’s not case 1, you are splitting the matter into 2 different things: “mini-Tatha[…]” aka “you”, who needs to realize the ultimate happiness aka “Tatha[…]” which is totally different from the “mini-Tatha[…]”. Which one you are trying to say about “dropping the self view”? Are you dropping the self view of “mini-Tatha[…]” or of “Tatha[…]”? Also, the Buddha talked about nibbana, where does nibbana fit into your “theory”?

Case 3: “Tatha[…]” (aka you) drops the definition of “Tatha[…]” to realize the “Tatha[…]” aka ultimate happiness. Sorry but now it stops making any sense.

Other case: Sorry but now you need to further explain your theory.

freedom · September 5, 2023, 10:30pm

It is hard to understand when we still cling strongly to self view. The goal is there, but it is not something that we can describe, it is beyond logic and we can only direct-experience it. Just like we cannot describe or observe quantum superposition.

Because of self view, we think “Tathagata” is the person that was talking and walking who we called “Buddha.” We think Tathagatha is a “something, someone” that we can pinpoint and identify.

When the Buddha refers to “Tathagata,” he refers to “that” which we cannot pinpoint or describe. He does not refer to his body/mind that is sitting there. This is why he often says that we cannot say that the Tathagatha exists, not exist, both, neither. We cannot pinpoint the Tathagatha even right now, right here while he is sitting there. If all of these cannot be applied, then what is “Tathagatha”?

It seems like the word “atman” is causing a lot of confusion when we still cannot drop the self view. Therefore, instead of saying "new atman”, let’s change it to “new goal.” This new goal is the so-called “Tathagatha.” The old goal is to find the “ultimate, true self” while the new goal is to find the Tathagatha which has nothing to do with self.

If you read my previous posts, you will know what I think nibbana is and how it relates to Tathagatha.

All of your questions arise because of self view. It is hard to understand Tathagatha while clinging strongly to self view. Because of self view, we think “I am a Tathagatha,” “the Buddha is the Tathagatha,” “he is a Tathagatha,” “Tathagatha is the Buddha”…

I understand what I said is totally new, never heard before. It is totally different from the current understanding. I expect a lot of criticism and skepticism. Do not believe me. Check what I said against the suttas. Moreover, I am not a Dhamma teacher, so take what I said as a grain of salt. However, if we keep an open mind, even if I am wrong, we may find something interesting and useful.

I am happy to correct my mistakes; therefore, I welcome criticism. However, I can only reply to meaningful criticism. I cannot reply to all questions.

Please note that I do not know Pali, so please do not ask me about Pali.

Clarity · September 6, 2023, 8:58am

I kind of agree what you said above. The following is what I am trying to say to make things clearer:

The Buddha used “Tathāgata” to refer to himself when he was speaking to us. Because he has already done away with any theory of self, therefore, he only used “Tathāgata” for us to understand based on our own definition of “Tathāgata”,

On the other hand, we - the listener - still have our own definition of “Tathāgata”, (similar to the case that each of us - the listener - is having our own definition of ourselves, we build up theory about our “self”, we also build up theory about “self” of other, we also build up theory about “Tathāgata”). Building up theory about our “self” is problematic, building up theory about other’s “self” is no less problematic.

Now to your next paragraph:

The Buddha didn’t say the goal of taking training under his guidance is “to find the Tathāgata”, instead the goal of taking training under his guidance is the completely cessation of suffering or nibbāna. As my understanding, the goal IS nibbāna. Of course, nibbāna fits the definition of “ultimate happiness”.

I don’t have trouble of understanding when you want to make a new name for nibbāna. However, “Tathāgata” is already used to address the Buddha. Even when I do not make up theory about definition of “Tathāgata”, that word “Tathāgata” is already used as means to address the Buddha, this kind of usage prevent it to be use to refer to nibbāna. The Buddha and nibbāna, these are 2 totally different concepts. Are you telling me otherwise?

Ah sorry, now I need to read your post (which you replied to other person) about nibbāna. Is it this one?

and how about this one?

You are switching back and forth between “we/me/us/I/you” and “goal”.

At one time, you are saying we are not the same as the goal as you said in this sentence “I never say ātman or Tathagatha is Nibbana”.

At other time, you are saying otherwise like “To me, ātman or Tathagatha are just labels for reference to the final goal” or “the ultimate happiness or the final goal of the holy life should be the unconditioned or Nibanna”.

So please explain what you meant more clearly. Especially these sentences: “At this time, we no longer be “Mr. A,” we are free from all conditions, and are unidentifiable. Let’s call it “Tathagatha” if we do not like the term “ātman.” However, this does not mean that we become Nibbana! In fact, Nibbana is the requirement to reach this.”

To me, it seems you are putting “nibbāna” as secondary goal (or intermediate goal) to reach the final goal of returning/becoming/transforming into “Tathāgata”. As my understanding, nibbāna is unconditioned, it can not be requirement (or condition) for anything else.

Green · September 6, 2023, 10:23am

Is doing away with any theory of self the same as doing away with the idea that there is something unconditioned something that cannot be seen arising, ceasing and changing in the maintime? Any claim on that, any knowledge of that, is wrong and a doctrine of self or eternalistic?