What is the meaning of Anicca and Anatta?

Most of the English translation I read, Anatta is translated as not-self and Anicca as impermanence.
However many Sri Lankan Buddhist monks do not agree with this translation.
They say it is a miss translation by Buddhagosha.
According to many Buddhist monks, it appears, Anicca means our inability to control the five aggregate. Anatta means the futile nature of the five aggregate.

Anattā is the denial of the metaphysical self, especially the atman of the Upanishads, but applicable to any essentialist or substantialist theory of an enduring, inalienable, and irreducible essence. “Not self”, “no self”, “no soul”, etc. are fine translations.

Anicca is the denial of a continual and stable existence, especially in the survival of the self after death, but again, applicable in a wider variety of contexts. It includes the inevitable changeability of nature, and can apply to an abstract sense of denying that anything stable exists, but it is usually used in the context of a human life and the stressful nature of change when we lose that which we are attached to. “Impermanence” is a fine translation.

11 Likes

Thank you Bhante.
Where in the Sutta gives the description of these two terms?

They are treated many, many ways, in many many contexts. There is no single place that defines the meaning. Rather, the meaning emerges from a careful study of the usage in many contexts over a long time, informed by an understanding of the culture at the time, and, of course, meditation.

4 Likes

I suspect you have this reversed. The lack of control is associated with anatta, as in SN 22.59

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

Anicca come in here:

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

2 Likes

The lack of control appears to be associated with anicca, as follows:

…lead to affliction/disease (ābādhāya)…it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let… form be thus; let… form not be thus.’

Disease (ābādhāya) does not occur due to not-self. It occurs due to anicca.

For example, MN 1 states Nibbana is not-self yet many suttas state Nibbana is freedom from disease.

The 2nd quote is about anatta & not about anicca. The quote states:

Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

The culmination of the quote is impermanent & unsatisfactory things are anatta thus the 2nd quote seems to be about anatta rather than about anicca. If the quote was about anicca, it would have stopped at anicca. But it did not stop at anicca. It stopped or concluded at anatta. This appears why the sutta is called the Anatta-Lakkhana-Sutta rather than the Anicca-Lakkhana-Sutta.

:poodle:

1 Like

I don’t see that when I read whole sentences:

But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

Of course, the two are intimately connected, as is illustrated by the passages I quoted.

1 Like

How does “Sakkya Ditthi” fitting to Anatta?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

Imo, this is not a worthy sutta to discuss. Vacchagotta in the sutta was confused. The Buddha did not teach him. Importantly, the word ‘anatta’ is not found in the discussion with Vacchagotta.

Vacchagotta did not ask about ‘anatta’. Vacchagotta was asking about ‘atthattā’ & ‘natthattā’.

And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered

Anicca means:

impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen, liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.009.nypo.html

The best argument for wrong translation of Anicca come from the following.

Jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ

How the death could be Anicca?
Then it says Birth is Anicca!

If death was constant (nicca) then it wouldn’t be possible to gain freedom from it (attain Nibbana). Since death itself is dependently originated, it’s inconstant (anicca), and ceases with the cessation of birth. There can be no more ‘arising’ of death if birth has ceased.

If birth was constant (nicca) then it wouldn’t be possible to gain freedom from it (attain Nibbana). Since birth itself is dependently originated, it’s inconstant (anicca), and ceases with the cessation of existence. There can be no more ‘arising’ of birth if existence has ceased.

1 Like

Nibbana is Atta?

This prominent Sri Lankan monk with a large following claims that Nibbana is Atta.
He has a good knowledge of Abhidhamma and Sutta Pitaka. He is a science graduate.
He says Sankhara as Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta but Nibbana is Nicca, Sukha and Atta.
He uses AN 4 Anicca sutta as his support.

I remember Joseph Goldstein use the same line of thinking in one of his discussions in his Satipathana series.

Could you give a more specific reference?

Sorry I was looking for that too.:slight_smile: but I could not find it.
He uses the following Sutta to support this as well. Which I can’t understand at all.

This is how some people twist the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html

“Now, that which is permanent, satisfactory, subject to not change, is it proper to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”

“Yes Indeed, O Lord.”

“What do you think of this, O monks? Is Nibbana permanent or impermanent?”

“permanent, O Lord.”

“Now, those that are permanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”

“satisfactory, O Lord.”

“Now, those that are permanent, satisfactory, subject to not change, is it proper to regard them as: ‘They are mine, this I am, this is my self’?”

“Indeed, O Lord.”

1 Like

Where can I find Anatta-lakkhana Sutta SN 22.59 in Sutta Central?
Thanks.

By clicking on SN 22.59 in your post… :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thank you, Mike.:slight_smile:

Hi, Mike I found this Sutta here.
https://suttacentral.net/pi/vb4

Now Ven. Abaya uses the following phrase to support his argument that Anicca does not mean impermanent. However, he uses the word iccha to support Anicca.

================
Tattha katamaṃ yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ? Jātidhammānaṃ sattānaṃ evaṃ icchā uppajjati—“aho vata, mayaṃ na jātidhammā assāma; na ca, vata, no jāti āgaccheyyā”ti. Na kho panetaṃ icchāya pattabbaṃ. Idampi “yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ”.

============
Therein what is, “not to get what one wishes, that also is suffering”? In beings subject to birth such a wish arises, “Well indeed if we were not subject to birth; may birth not come to us”; this indeed is not to be attained by wishing. This is, “not to get what one wishes, that also is suffering”.