Unorthodox renderings of anatta

[SarathW1]

@Lal

one wants to disentangle from any “contaminations” that took place over the 2500 years since the Buddha.

Thanks, Lal.
What you wrote in your post is not new to many in this forum. But you haven’t put a strong case to support your new meaning for Anatta. Do you agree that a person becomes a Sotapanna when s/he realise Anatta (emptiness liberation or Sunnata)? What do you understand by Sunnata? Is this about Anatta?

[Aminah]

@Gabriel_L

could you provide alternative ids for the suttas quoted as well? It will be helpful to check them straight away.

May or may not help here:

@Aminah

here is a rough-&-ready tool I fashioned for myself for quick PTS reference conversion by the mighty power of crtl+f (it includes the 4 nikayas, the Snp, vinaya books 1-4 and possibly a few errors/ formatting funkinesses, and gives SC ready URL extensions for quick cut & paste).

PTS-finder.zip (34.3 KB)

[Rajitha]

Bhante Dhammanando,

@Dhammanando

At the conclusion of the Aggivacchagottasutta, Vacchagotta says to the Buddha:

> “Master Gotama, suppose there were a great sāla tree not far from a village or town, and aniccatā [the noun form of anicca] wore away its branches and foliage, its bark and sapwood, so that on a later occasion, being divested of branches and foliage, divested of bark and sapwood, it became pure, consisting entirely of heartwood; so too, this discourse of Master Gotama’s is divested of branches and foliage, divested of bark and sapwood, and is pure, consisting entirely of heartwood.”
> (MN. i. 488-9)

Aggivacchagottasutta is using a simile to describe how the blessed Buddha managed to clarify the Dhamma to him.

He says it’s similar to “clearing of the foliage” of a Sala tree to “expose the pure heartwood”.

So it confirms aniccatā is most certainly not “impermanence”. Rather, it suggests the situation he faced before - dissatisfaction (i.e. anicca) of not knowing the Dhamma.

[Rajitha]

@Dhammanando

> Then in the Vinaya’s seventh rule of the Acelakavagga we meet with the term nicca-pavāraṇā. A pavāraṇā is a householder’s invitation to a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī to make known his/her need of any of the four requisites…

Yes, so the pavāraṇā made to one’s satisfaction (nicca). It suggests a voluntary contribution.

[Rajitha]

@Dhammanando

> “There are, headman, eight causes and conditions for the destruction of families. Families come to destruction on account of the king, or on account of thieves, or on account of fire, or on account of water; or they do not find what they have put away; or mismanaged undertakings fail; or there arises within a family a wastrel who squanders, dissipates, and fritters away its wealth; and impermanence (aniccatā) is the eighth.”
> (SN. iv. 324-5)

The calamity causes an utter “dissatisfaction” (aniccatā) in the family.

[Rajitha]

The correct way to translate is as follows.

“And how, Ānanda, would you perceive dissatisfaction? Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: ‘Form is leads to dissatisfaction, feeling is not to one liking, perception is not to one liking, volitional activities are not to one liking, the wrong cognition is not to one liking.’ Thus he dwells contemplating dissatisfaction in these five aggregates subject to clinging. This is called the perception of dissatisfaction."

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of wishlessness regarding all conditioned phenomena? Here, a bhikkhu is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by all conditioned phenomena. This is called the perception of wishlessness regarding all conditioned phenomena.”
(AN. v. 109ff.)

The reason why impermanence idea does not really fit with things is because there are things that are indeed impermanent - although leads to satisfaction.

For example, the life of Osama Bin Ladin was impermanent and that caused an overall satisfactory outcome.

Anicca is the final meaning of things. It means - at the end of the day, absolutely nothing is to ones’ liking.

So even if Bin Ladin is not around - you still get old and die one day.

[Rajitha]

This is how it looks in finality.

Anicca - that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness.

Dukkha - we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures in the long run despite our struggles.

Anatha - therefore, we are truly helpless in this struggle to attain something that is just an illusion.

[SarathW1]

So this knowledge help five ascetics (first Sotapanna) to became Sotapanna?
Before Buddha no body realise that " we are truly helpless in this struggle to attain something that is just an illusion."?

[Brenna]

@Brenna

Hi friends,

This conversation is getting rather long, and since the topic has migrated into a linguistic exploration, I’d suggest moving or having this conversation in a new thread.

With metta.

Coughs

I can move posts to a new thread if that’s alright with everyone.

[Rajitha]

@SarathW1

So this knowledge help five ascetics (first Sotapanna) to became Sotapanna?
Before Buddha no body realise that " we are truly helpless in this struggle to attain something that is just an illusion."?

That is certainly the ultimate conclusion one arrives - everything leads to futility.

However, the fact there is no-soul or self is part of that package. So one realises the futility of clinging to the soul or self when in fact there isn’t one.

So if you previously thought Anatha was “no self” - that is ok because you really haven’t lost anything. Anatha idea encapsulate no-self and more.

[Sylvester]

@LXNDR

i would only like to address the renderings presented HERE

namely in points 5 - 7

there the words attHa / anattHa are treated as atta / anatta and on this basis another meaning is derived for the genuine anatta
i wonder whether the author really fails to distinguish between the phonetics of these words which is the reason for difference in their meaning and for the fact that they are not mutually replaceable

other renderings may be more sound linguistically

Besides the phonetic confusion that @Vstakan has pointed out, I wonder if the guru has noticed another problem.

It is perfectly acceptable for this proposition to use anatta as an adjective -

[quote=“LXNDR, post:1, topic:4986”] citing Rajitha’s post:

The present understanding.

Sabbe dhammā anattā
Things do not have a soul

Ven. Waharaka revision (new)

Sabbe dhammā anattā
Everything is futile
[/quote]

However, it is wrong to conclude to conclude from “Sabbe dhammā anattā” that the other anattā propositions are also adjectival. Let’s take a look at an example -

@Lal

 Another example from the Anatta Sutta (SuttaCentral): “…Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā,

OK, let’s for a moment suspend disbelief and tentatively take it that anattā here is the adjective “futile”.

But, it is when we come to this -

@Lal

 Another example from the Anatta Sutta (SuttaCentral): “…Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā, vedanā anattā, saññā anattā, saṅkhārā anattā, viññāṇaṃ anattā“

that it is clear that anattā here is not an adjective. If it were an adjective, it must agree with the saṅkhārā in being inflected into the nominative plural anattāno.

Even if the guru’s disciples insist that the orthography has confused atta and attha, there’s no running away from the fact that if the Buddha had intended to say that “formations are futile”, it would have very easily been recorded as “saṅkhārā anattāno”.

It is the simple but inexcusable failure to recognise the grammatical distinction between the 2 different types of anattā propositions (as adjectival, and also as a substantive) that has led to this dead-end. For goodness sake, they can’t even differentiate the stems used -

“Sabbe dhammā anattā” uses the stem atta (soul)

while

“Rūpaṃ anattā” uses the stem attan (also soul, but without loss of the nasal)

[Oshan]

I am new to this forum but have been a regular visitor to the site. Probably this thread is dead by now and I noticed numerous attempts by the moderators to move it to a private thread.

However I wanted to add one more perspective to this thread. One thing I am lucky to have developed listening to dosens of Ajahn Brahmavamso’s (if not 100s) talks is to be open to all views. Not go against it. Our duty as Buddhists is to observe nature and find truths. Not try to morph it to our liking.

Said that I have found reading the suttas with this new interpretation have helped me get rid of a lot of lobha & devesha. I can observe my mind calming down much more deeply than before. Becoming more silent; having less vachi sankara. But reading through the thread it seems to have had an opposite effect on other people.

So I would like to put the idea out there, how can any interpretation be wrong as long as you feel it’s helping you get rid of lobha & devesha?

Don’t we all agree the mind has reached nivana when all traces of lobha, devesha and moha are extinguished? If we do, then we all see one destination, so does it matter which path we take to get there?

Why not hold on to both interpretation, meditate on it and letting our minds decide which one is making us happier & stable? (Which I experienced is only achievable by mind grasping avijja and letting go of lobha & devesha).

E.g. Given my mind sees that I would not gain any meaningful outcome by understanding how languages evolved, I don’t produce thoughts ( turning into actions) that I have to research it.

(I don’t mean to offend anyone with this example and do not mistake it for passive aggression. Merely stating something my mind observed while reading the thread)

With Metta,
Oshan

[Aminah]

@Oshan

I am new to this forum but have been a regular visitor to the site.

A very warm welcome to you!

@Oshan

and I noticed numerous attempts by the moderators to move it to a private thread.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a private thread, but at this point it’s probably best to start a new one (public or private). If there’s a particular detail or details (preferably not the ones smothered in “Grrrr” ;-)) you want to pick out for further discussion, you can for example create a splintering thread, by selecting “+ New Topic” under the icon.

[SarathW1]

@Oshan

One thing I am lucky to have developed listening to dosens of Ajahn Brahmavamso’s (if not 100s) talks is to be open to all views. Not go against it. Our duty as Buddhists is to observe nature and find truths. Not try to morph it to our liking.

You have to understand this in light of safe bet (Apannaka Sutta).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

[Aminah]

Like really, guys, there’s only so many hints that can be dropped - start a new thread.

[Kaveenga]

Hi, can you give me a sentence in Sinhalese where “Lokuttara” and “Arahant” are used as have defined above?

[SarathW1]

"U maha ratakapu Lokottarayek"
ie: He is a currupted and deceptive person.
"Mata eva Arahant"
ie I don’t like it or not allowed.

Have you heard or used those words?
Which region are you from?

[Aminah]

Dear all,

This topic will auto-close in 24 hours. Please use other threads to explore ideas of interest.

Thanks.

[Kaveenga]

Thank you. This is my understanding

The word ‘Lokottarayek’ here requires the context to be negative to give it a negative connotation. It does not mean that the word ‘Lokottara’ is negative in Sinhala, like the word ‘Saint’ in ‘He’s the patron Saint of corruption’.

I have heard it as ‘Mata eva araham’, where the word araham means ‘to stand far apart’, like the Buddha was Araham, i.e. he stands far apart from loba, dosa, and moha.