Unorthodox renderings of anatta

[Vstakan]

@Coemgenu

Take, for instance, BZA (SA-2) 36, which Marcus Bingenheimer (in his Studies in Āgama Literature that everyone should read!), which actually preserves a very old transmission error that most likely dates back to an oral stage in the recension of the Buddhavacana, as bhakṣa (‘eater’) becomes pakṣa (‘friend’) (Bingenheimer 203, footnote 45).

Sure, it isn’t the definitive proof because there can’t be any definitive proof either for or against it. It is a probabilistic proof that refers to a word that has been used in hundreds if not thousands of suttas and is part of the core of the Buddhist tradition. And it is a strong probabilistic argument, because the Sinhalese were very consequent with the words like dhamma (dam , dahama), sangha (sanga), bhuddha (budu), bhikkhu (bik) and countless others. So far, as far as I know, most if not all transmission errors that are agreed upon are not systematic in the sense that they show up in no more than one, two, okay, maybe ten suttas (even though I don’t know of any such examples). In case of anatta, any contexts where ‘attha’ supposedly stood for it should have been systematically purged by the reciters and scribes in so many texts, that even without any additional arguments it seems pretty improbable. I mean, this is a strong claim and it requires strong evidence, so any plausible probablistic argument against it is pretty much like the last straw, and my argument is not the only one I presented: for the sake of brevity and because I didn’t have that much time I didn’t even present arguments from the Canon in other Prakrits like Gandhariand Sanskrit (see p. 44, pp. 204-211 in this paper by Bryan Levman ans pretty much the entire part about the possible earliest language of the Buddhist tradition).

Anatta is so central and so grammatically and phonologically lucid both synchronically and diachronically that assuming an error in its transmission is similar to saying that Jesus Christ was Cheesus Christ all along, all worship the cheese! (Note: it is a joke, of course)

[Coemgenu]

[quote=“Vstakan, post:21, topic:4986”]
Anatta is so central and so grammatically and phonologically lucid both synchronically and diachronically that assuming an error in its transmission is similar to saying that Jesus Christ was Cheesus Christ all along, all worship the cheese! (Note: it is a joke, of course)
[/quote]Indeed. I would not suggest it, but plenty of others entertain the notion that the Buddha’s “original” teaching was something substantially different than what has been recorded (which would be the case with claims such as in the OP), and one of the problems that brings up is the necessity of an “evil (or at least inept) sangha” (I’m imagining a rogue branch of the sangha with “evil Spock” moustaches as I type this) to play the part of the “early perpetrator/corruptor” in order to force the appearance of coherency on the notion that that is a real and provable claim to make.

I hope this isn’t too light or irreverent in tone, but when you google “evil sangha”, this picture pops up: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/e06zFd-yPmU/maxresdefault.jpg

They are here to alter your Buddhavacana at an early and conveniently untraceable stage.

[Mat]

@Coemgenu

They are here to alter your Buddhavacana at an early and conveniently untraceable stage.

I think the sense is more ‘I have discovered the mistake these foolish monks have made, therefore you and I now can both feel superior about it’

with metta

[sujato]

@Vstakan

So far, as far as I know, most if not all transmission errors that are agreed upon are not systematic in the sense that they show up in no more than one, two, okay, maybe ten suttas (even though I don’t know of any such examples)

While this is generally true, there are a couple of examples.

One case, which has been discussed previously here, in fact involves the kind of problem we have been dealing with. In the passage on the brtahmaviharas, there is a term sometimes spelled sabbattatāya (to each as to oneself) and sometimes sabbatthatāya (all around). The most common reading and translation is the former, but it seems likely this is a mistake, and the latter should be preferred.

Another case, with different tersm, is the stock phrase spelled either:

cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati santiṭṭhati adhimuccati
the mind is eager, confident, steady, and decided

or

cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati santiṭṭhati vimuccati
the mind is eager, confident, steady, and released

I’ve also discussed this one in an earlier essay, and concluded that, although the two formulations both appear commonly, the first reading should be preferred.

[Rajitha]

@Vstakan

Can you please give a link to a phnological description of Sinhala supporting the existence of aspirated consonant in Modern Sinhala? My data states the opposite: there are no aspirated consonants in that language (or, to e more precise, aspiration is not phonological in Sinhala):

Well, referring to what I said before.

ත - t̪a or tha (unaspirated soft tha) ← no aspiration
ථ - t̪ʰa or ttha (aspirated soft ttha) ← with aspiration

There is no aspiration in the pure Sinhala. That is quite true. The second letter is from an addendum to pure Sinhala to support phenomes that exist in other languages. It’s known as the miśra siṃhala alphabet.

@Vstakan

So, Sanskrit words always have aspirated miśra akṣaras that we know to be aspirated dental plosives, the Pali words have aspirated miśra akṣaras whenever predicted by the form of the Vedic or Sanskrit word in all scripts the Pali Tipitaka is preserved in …

Sanskrit words always have aspirated miśra akṣaras . That is correct. Although the Pali words do not have aspirated miśra akṣaras .

The Tripitaka was first written in the Sinhala script. The Sinhala script did not have the miśra alphabet. This is a recent addition. I think you are ‘predicting’ Pali terms going over and above the oldest existing record of Pali. I do not know how that can help with anything.

The issue you keep making about grammar is not valid either. The word would have been pronounced Anatho instead of Anatha simply because pronouncing that way aided rhyming during chanting. It was regular chanting that kept the oral tradition alive not correct grammar.

So everything you said is wrong. Read my original post how to pronounce and spell Pali, I know for certain puredhamma.net spell Pali correctly, There could be others.

I think the history is necessary to provide some context. When people try to translate they run to Sanskrit for parallels. This is a mistake many have made. This had hidden the path over time.

The Buddha Dhamma was orphaned in India after the demise of Emperor Ashoka. The Sinhala people took over and nurtured the Dhamma in the island.

A brief history is here → Sri Lanka's role in the spread of Buddhism in South East Asia

So Pali grew up alongside the Sinhala language - not Sanskrit. Sinhala is a better source for the meaning of Pali expressions than Sanskrit. Buddha himself warned against mixing the Dhamma with Sanskrit.

The word Anatha exists in Sinhala. It has a range of meaning from futility to no-essence. This is the correct meaning. The way to read it as follows.

Are the { self, aggregates, etc } stressful, temporary and fickle?? It indeed is Bhante… That is so Bikkku, things are, therefore { Anatha/Futile }

Anatha is the final meaning. It’s not the intermediate meaning ‘self’ as its presently used.

[Rajitha]

@Coemgenu

The Pali word is Ana[t̪a] or Ana[tha] when pronounced correctly - Ana[ttā] is incorrect spelling.

Do you know any manuscripts that have this feature consistently rendered like that? That would be very interesting indeed.

The manuscript is called the Tipitaka. The word exist as follows.

"සාධු සාධු, භික්ඛු! සාධු ඛො ත්වං, භික්ඛු, මයා සංඛිත්තෙන භාසිතස්ස විත්ථාරෙන අත්ථං ආජානාසි. රූපං ඛො, භික්ඛු, අනත්තා; තත්‍ර තෙ ඡන්දො පහාතබ්බො . වෙදනා... සඤ්ඤා... සඞ්ඛාරා... විඤ්ඤාණං **අනත්තා**; තත්‍ර තෙ ඡන්දො පහාතබ්බො. ඉමස්ස ඛො, භික්ඛු, මයා සංඛිත්තෙන භාසිතස්ස එවං විත්ථාරෙන අත්ථො දට්ඨබ්බො"

The language is Pali but written in Sinhala script. The correct way to pronounce is → Anatha.

[Rajitha]

Well, its all very well explained below already.

Background on the Current Revival of Buddhism (Buddha Dhamma) | Pure Dhamma

and then read the last three posts in the section in that order:

Historical Background of Buddhism

[LXNDR]

i would like to have clarification of this bit below

is the view you/your group holds that wherever the suttas have attHa / anattHa this is a mistake while the correct spelling is atta / anatta which nonetheless has the meaning of attHa / anattHa? this is the inference i made from the arguments of the points 5 - 7 on the referenced page of your website

@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

[Rajitha]

I am not affiliated with the website. Although I know the person who owns the site. I do not want to comment on what he wrote. The owner is responsive to emails.

If you go to the contact page and write he usually responds within a day.

[LXNDR]

ah ok, sorry

[Rajitha]

How do you understand the word Ānāpānasati ?

[Vstakan]

ථ - t̪ʰa or ttha (aspirated soft ttha) ← with aspiration
This is merely the spelling. In speech of the vast majority of Sinhala people this consonant is identical to ත - not my words, I rely on scholarly descriptions of Sinhala.

@Rajitha

The Tripitaka was first written in the Sinhala script. The Sinhala script did not have the miśra alphabet. This is a recent addition.

Could you cite a scientific source supporting the opinion that the earliest versions of the Pali canon written down in Sinhala didn’t use the miśra akṣaras? Who added them? When? Why? How do you explain that words like Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha all use miśra akṣaras?

@Rajitha

I think you are ‘predicting’ Pali terms going over and above the oldest existing record of Pali.

Could you please give me a link to a scientific source discussing the oldest existing record of Pali?

@Rajitha

The word would have been pronounced Anatho instead of Anatha simply because pronouncing that way aided rhyming during chanting.

Could you please provide any other example when the -o Nominative was changed to -a in Pali suttas for rhythimcal reasons? Why did it not happen in words like attattha, uttammattha, paramattha? Why was the vowel lengthened - for rhythmical reasons also?

@Rajitha

So Pali grew up alongside the Sinhala language - not Sanskrit. Sinhala is a better source for the meaning of Pali expressions than Sanskrit. Buddha himself warned against mixing the Dhamma with Sanskrit.

This is so wrong I don’t know where to begin. Pali shows definite signs of being influenced by Sanskrit (e.g., absolutives in -tva instead of -tta, the use of Brahma instead of the earlier Bamha, etc.). The ancient Sinhala shows some phonological pecliarities that distingish it from Pali (cf. aruta and attha, very dissimilar grammar, especially the case paradigms,etc. - if the languages would have developed parallelly, I would expect more phonetic and grammatic similarity). Then you take a Sanskrit loanword in Sinhala and say it is better to use it as a source of meaning for Pali than the Sanskrit word itself. Heck, even Dhivehi words would then be a better source of meaning for Pali than Sanskrit, which is, frankly, not really obvious. It is like saying that the French word digital is a better source of meaning for Italian dito than the Latin word digitum. Second, the Buddha could not have warned against mixing Pali with Sanskrit, because neither Pali nor Sanskrit existed back in his day. The overwhelming majority of specialists studying the Ancient Buddhist traditions agree that the Buddha himself did not speak Pali and neither was it the earliest language of the Suttas. But okay, let’s substitute Pali and Sanskrit with ‘language of the Buddhist tradition’ and ‘language of the Vedic tradition’. Could you please provide quotes from the Canon where the Buddha warns against mixing them? How would you account for Sanskritized features of Pali like -tva and Brahma and many others?

[Rajitha]

@Vstakan

Could you please provide quotes from the Canon where the Buddha warns against mixing them?

That is when the Buddha admonished them that Sanskrit was a language with musical overtones developed by the high-minded Brahmins and thus it was not possible to convey the true meanings of Maghadhi words in Sanskrit (described in the Chullavagga Pali, Vinaya Pitaka). - Source

@Vstakan

Could you cite a scientific source supporting the opinion that the earliest versions of the Pali canon written down in Sinhala didn’t use the miśra akṣaras? Who added them? When? Why? How do you explain that words like Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha all use miśra akṣaras?

The birth of the style of written language, known as mixed Sinhalese language today, has its origin in the 12th Century or in the language style of the Polonnaruwa Period. Mixed Sinhala Language of Mediaeval Period, Prof. Nimal Mallawa Arachchi. Source. Tipitaka arrived more than 1200 years before.

@Vstakan

Pali shows definite signs of being influenced by Sanskrit

Let me make clear I did not say Sinhala is the parent of Pali language. Pali was born in India but spent the rest of its life in Sri Lanka.

@Vstakan

The ancient Sinhala shows some phonological pecliarities that distingish it from Pali (cf. aruta and attha, very dissimilar grammar, especially the case paradigms,etc. - if the languages would have developed parallelly, I would expect more phonetic and grammatic similarity). Then you take a Sanskrit loanword in Sinhala and say it is better to use it as a source of meaning for Pali than the Sanskrit word itself.

Sri Lanka has produced a plethora of Pali literary works that include the [Mahavamsa] (http://mahavamsa.org/) and various commentaries such the Visudhimagga. No other country even the birthplace of Buddha has produced more ancient Pali works than Sri Lanka.

Pali was preserved in Sri Lanka by the monks. They ensured its purity. Although Sinhala adapted many Pali words. Pali words are preserved in Sinhala unlike any other language. The word Anatha is one example. Attempting to find parallels in Sanksrit will only send you up the wrong path.

@Vstakan

ථ - t̪ʰa or ttha (aspirated soft ttha) <- with aspiration
This is merely the spelling. In speech of the vast majority of Sinhala people this consonant is identical to ත - not my words, I rely on scholarly descriptions of Sinhala.

Well, I can only keep telling you are wrong. Its kind of getting stale. What do you expect? You only began learning Sinhala since yesterday.

[Vstakan]

@Rajitha

The birth of the style of written language, known as mixed Sinhalese language today, has its origin in the 12th Century or in the language style of the Polonnaruwa Period.

I didn’t see any explicit rejection that miśra akṣaras were not used for Pali prior to 12th century. Besides, I didn’t find any answer why miśra akṣaras came to be used for Pali words and who and when added them to Pali. But let us suppose it is because of my ignorance. So earlier versions of the Pali texts are supposed to hot have used aspirated consonants so earlier monks would have pronounced it correctly, without any aspiration. Ven. Buddhaghosa lived very long before even the Polonnaruwa period, and yet he writes in Visuddhimagga about the Four Great Element that they are

… Asārakaṭṭhena anattā … (Chapter XI) - anattā in the sense of not having substance/core/essence

Parato, rittato, tucchato, suññato, assāmikato, anissarato, avasavattitotiādīhi kāraṇehi anattato passati. (Chapter XXI) - [He sees all formations as anatta for the following reasons:] because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on

Chapter XXI of the Visuddhumagga has a lot to say about anatta, I definitely recommend reading it. This chapter supports the anatta reading of Pali word. It means that long before the Polonnaruwa period when the monks were supposed to be aware of the correct Pali pronunciation. If they were not aware of it, the question is how was it possible to adopt the wrong pronunciation in the pristine Pali environment, with no Sanskrit influence, no miśra akṣaras, and Elu, that you claim elucidates the meaing of Pali words better than any other language, spoken everywhere by everyone. How could it happen?

I will also repeat the following questions: Could you please provide any other example when the -o Nominative was changed to -a in Pali suttas for rhythimcal reasons? Why did it not happen in words like attattha, uttammattha, paramattha? Why was the vowel lengthened - for rhythmical reasons also? Could you please give me a link to a scientific source discussing the oldest existing record of Pali?

@Rajitha

Sri Lanka has produced a plethora of Pali literary works that include the Mahavamsa and various commentaries.

France produced a plethora of works in Latin, Romania didn’t. Does it mean that the French words show closer affinity to Latin than Romanian ones? As the example of travail shows, not necessarily. And I have to repeat myself: you use a Sanskrit loanword in Sinhala to explain a Pali term, but you don’t want us to use the Sanskrit word that was borrowed by Sinahlese, which is fairly absurd. Why don’t you use the Sinhala api that most probably comes from the Vedic atman for explaining atta? Why do you use artha that definitely comes from Sanskrit we are supposed not be using for interpreting Dhamma?

@Rajitha

That is when the Buddha admonished them that Sanskrit was a language with musical overtones developed by the high-minded Brahmins and thus it was not possible to convey the true meanings of Maghadhi words in Sanskrit (described in the Chullavagga Pali, Vinaya Pitaka).

Your source link leads to Puredhamma website. Could you please provide a precise Culavagga reference, maybe a quote? Because I highly doubt the Buddha could have admonished people against using Sanskrit since Sanskrit didn’t exist at the Buddha’s time. Moreimportantly, why are there Sanskrit features in Pali if the Buddha explicitly prohibited it?

@Rajitha

Well, I can only keep telling you are wrong. Its kind of getting stale. What do you expect? You only began learning Sinhala since yesterday.

Okay, so scholarly descriptions of the Sinhala phonological system are not good enough for you, and I emphasized it is not my opinion but a scientific fact described by reputed scholars. Well, fair enough. Let us ask @SarathW1 and @Mat who are to my knowledge native speakers of Sinhala. Dear Mat and Sarath, are ථ and ත pronounced differently or identical? Did all these Western scholars get it wrong?

[Rajitha]

Sansrkit adds many adornments to basic sounds in the form of prefixes, suffixes, infixes etc. This makes Sanskrit very pleasing to listen. There is an element of musicality involved.

The last of the Seven-Factors-of-Enlightenment is Equanimity. I consider this the most important. Now, imagine listening to musical tones and trying to develop the Equanimity. It just does not work.

This is probably why the blessed Buddha forbade fancy pronunciations that involve aspiration of sounds etc. It just removes the focus away from the main agenda that is ending of suffering.

@Vstakan

. Ven. Buddhaghosa lived very long before even the Polonnaruwa period, and yet he writes in Visuddhimagga about the Four Great Element that they are

You are showing me Pali in the Roman script that includes aspiration. When Pali is pronounced in Sinhala script there is no aspiration.

The Visudhimaggha has polluted the pristine Dhamma in unimaginable ways. It’s time for everyone to remove the piece of literature from their vocabulary.

It wasn’t authored by a Noble disciple of the Buddha. I suggest reading the Patisambhidamagga, Petakopadesa, and Nettippakarana If you want to read commentaries that correctly analyse Anatha. These have been written by Ariya disciples of the Buddha and its built-into the Tipitaka.

@Vstakan

I will also repeat the following questions: Could you please provide any other example when the -o Nominative was changed to -a in Pali suttas for rhythimcal reasons?

Well, again you should consider the actors involved, their language skills and motivations when interpreting grammar.

The actors involved in the works of Shakespeare are interested in grammar, language and culture etc.

The actors involved in the cannon have 2 motivations. The first is discerning the Dhamma and secondly propagation. The grammar is not on the critical path of their thinking or skill level.

@Vstakan

Why don’t you use the Sinhala api that most probably comes from the Vedic atman for explaining atta?

I am not sure on this one. That is something I have never really bothered to think about. Atman > Api ? It seems like a long stretch anyway.

[Vstakan]

@Rajitha

Sansrkit adds many adornments to basic sounds in the form of prefixes, suffixes, infixes etc. This makes Sanskrit very pleasing to listen. There is an element of musicality involved.

Oh. My. God. Sorry, Rajitha, but I think it would be better to stop the discussion. I really really wish you the very best in your life and practice, but your absolute lack of knowledge about the history of Indo-Aryan languages and, more importantly, reluctance to learn it or trust people who did it for you will prevent any further sensible communication. I could provide you with copious amounts of evidence that you would ignore or discard on flimsy grounds and provide explanations that don’t make any sense linguistically, so it’s just not worth it both for you and me.

I wrote the above passage because I really really hope that these somewhat rough words will help you assess your opinions objectively and clearly. I presume I am not the first person who tells you that the linguistic insights behind the alleged revised meaning are ridiculously absurd and absurdly ridiculous. I am sure I will not be the last one. Is it all a coincidence? Are you and your friends the only ones who know the Truth, while the rest of the world, including the entire Sangha, university-trained professors and learned monks writing long treatises in Pali, was a crowd of ignorant fools not seeing the obvious? Can people who have no medical education carry out complex brain surgeries? Can people who have no physical education engineer a particle accelerator? Can people who have no linguistic education give a qualified judgment on ancient (and even modern) languages? Do you not see that the group you are involved with looks a ot like a budding cult?

All of these questions are not meant in a mean way. I honestly hope you will give them some thought now or in the future. All the best

[Mat]

@Vstakan

re ථ and ත pronounced differently or identical

ථ is pronounced differently from ත in that the former is pronounced with emphasis (aspirated consonant?) while the latter is pronounced like ‘thick’. In common usage they are both pronounced the same.

However I don’t agree that Pali is used more in Sinhala compared to Sanskrit. These are common words used in Sinhala which all from Sanskrit:
Dharma
Karma
Pragna
Veerya
Smruti
Arta
Marga
Arya
Ashtangika
Satya
Catur
Satva
Punarbhava

I don’t think however that etymology is the answer to this. Looking at the texts and the different contexts in which atta is placed can sort this out.

Incidentally we all like to think we are the ‘chosen people’ favoured by a particular religion. There are myths about the Buddha visiting Sri Lanka many times. We believe we were meant to safeguard the word of the Buddha not realising that the Burmese believe the same thing. I understand some people in USA believe that Jesus visited them.

[Vstakan]

@Mat

while the latter is pronounced like ‘thick’

That’s a common mistake that people from the Indic cultural area make. Th in thick is an interdental consonant, i.e. the tip of the tongue is between the teeth, the Sinhala t is a dental consonant, i.e. the tip of the tongue is at the teeth. Analagously, the people from South Asia often mistake the English alveolar t for the retroflex ṭ - which is the source of their peculiar accent in English and Sinhala weird transliteration with th’s and t’s.

@Mat

In common usage they are both pronounced the same.

How often do people use aspirated consonant, and how many people do that? Very approximately, just give a rough figure please

[Mat]

@Vstakan

How often do people use aspirated consonant, and how many people do that? Very approximately, just give a rough figure please

This is used 1) when the difference of the two letters are explained in primary school, when the alphabet is taught.
2) In formal use- reading classical poetry, some monks might uncommonly insist on formal usage of the terms, etc. It is very rare as it takes more effort to ‘aspirate’.

So the usage is reserved for uncommon situations rather than any individual using it for actual communication.

with metta

[Mat]

Hi @Rajitha,

Please see below:

If we look at futile as an alternative translation to anatta:

Rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. 'Ahaṃ rūpaṃ mama rūpa’nti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī hoti. Tassa 'ahaṃ rūpaṃ, mama rūpa’nti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyino taṃ rūpaṃ vipariṇamati, aññathā hoti. Tassa rūpavipariṇāmaññathābhāvā uppajjanti sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

Vedanaṃ attato samanupassati, vedanāvantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā vedanaṃ, vedanāya vā attānaṃ. 'Ahaṃ vedanā, mama vedanā’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyi hoti. Tassa 'ahaṃ vedanā, mama vedanā’ti pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhavipariṇamati vedanā vipariṇamati, aññathā hoti. Tassa vedanāvipariṇāmaññathābhāvā uppajjanti sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.
SN22.1

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self/futile, or the self/futile as possessing form, or form as in the self , or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form’ or ‘Form is mine/futile.’ As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

In context of the dhamma in this sutta it is quite obvious that translating atta as futile is not in line with the Dhamma-Vinaya.

Form maybe futile, but it may also be other things too. However in this context is not-self.

It is a deep teaching, but all the more reason to preserve it rather than water it down with that which is easy to understand, and therefore inaccurate.

With metta

Matheesha