"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ, ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā, yaṃ dūre santike vā sabbaṃ viññāṇaṃ 'netaṃ mama, neso'hamasmi, na me so attā'ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Why do you think the pronoun attan means my, mine, and me?lyndon taylor wrote:We've all witnessed and/or participated in these endless discussions about non self(anatta) and self(atta), But I had a bit of a revelation today, what if Atta and Anatta are a mistranslation of two pali words that actually or also means My or I(atta), and not Mine or not Me(anatta). . . .
"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self (not me, not mine), and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Attan by itself does not mean "mine." I would be interested in your grammatical analysis of attaniya, which would be translated as “belonging to self.”. Also, attaniya does not seem to appear in the text you referenced, though my copy of the Pali is quite small making it difficult for me to read, so I could be wrong, though I rather seriously doubt it.lyndon taylor wrote: Atta is translated self or me, mine in pali is attaniya
"If there were a self [attani], monks, would there be my self's property [attaniya]?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a self's property, would there by my self?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea."[fn: 30]
fn: 30.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#fnt-30
The two supplementary statements in this section suggest the following implications: The concepts of "I" and "Mine" are inseparably linked; so also, in philosophical terms, are substance and attribute. If there is personality-belief or self-theory, there will be necessarily acquisitiveness or possessiveness in some form or other; at least these views themselves will be held with strong tenacity and be regarded as an "inalienable property" (see Note 22). There is no pure, abstract self or substance without its determination, property or attribute. On the other hand, acquisitiveness and possessiveness — even if of a quite unphilosophical character — cannot be without at least a tacit assumption of a proprietary self; this applies also to materialistic doctrines (annihilationism). Since in truth and fact neither an abiding property (or attribute) can be established nor an abiding self (or substance), either of these terms is left without its essential referent. Hence the conception of individual immortality as formulated in the sixth ground for views, is found to be devoid of any basis and is, therefore, rejected by the Buddha as a fool's doctrine, being outside of serious consideration.
Comy: Here a "two-fold voidness" is shown, that of self (atta) and of property (or properties) belonging to a self (attaniya).
With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self [attaniya]. -- SN iii 127
"mine or my self” do not translate atta. It is not just a matter of dictionary work. One needs to also understand the grammar of the language. Because attaniya translates as “belong to self” does not mean that atta translates as “belonging to self” or “mine” or “me.” You might want to try to figure out the difference between atta and attaniya.every time you translate atta as "self", it is instead replaced with"mine or my self",
I am not missing the point at all. You have, without justification, declared that attan carries meanings that it simply does not carry.lyndon taylor wrote:You're entirely missing the point,
There is a reason for paying attention to how a language works. If you do not do so, you'll not understand what it is saying.getting caught up in semantics,
And it seriously shows.my apologies for not being a pali scholar,
At best your over all point is confused.click on the link to the Bhikku Thannissaro translation that I mucked with above and read the text, by the Buddhas own words THE FIVE AGGREGATES ARE NOT THE SELF, then(I Paraphrase)THE FIVE AGGREGATES ARE NEITHER MINE, I, OR THE SELF, not just self all three Me, Mine, ot the Self, thats my whole point. As you probably well know almost no word in pali has entirely only one possible english translation, although many transaltors seem to think of it that way. ATTA; self also means me, ATTANIYA; self's property also means mine, here's your brief quote, except I'm going to replace self with me, and self's property with mine, and you tell me if it doesn't make just as much sense if not more;(or less)
Which only goes to show how very poorly you have understood what is being taught by the Buddha in the suttas and -- here is the key -- how poorly you understand what the khandhas actually entail.But this is not even an arguement about getting people to consider other possible meanings to pali words, its really about that Bhikku Thannisaro translation of the sutra, I and many others on my other forum have been cruising along assuming the buddha only meant the aggregates are not the self,
You are making big problems where there aren't any, and your messing with the Pali which only adds to your confusion. Who does all this belong to? The answer is not found in shifting around, without justification, the meanings of Pali words. The texts are rather clear as they stand. It is simply a matter of paying attention and not getting caught up in a lot of mental proliferation.thats simple stuff if you really think about it, but imagine realizing that nothing in the aggregates belongs to me, is my possesion, or is Mine, that what the Buddha is also saying, the really big thing, NONE OF YOUR POSSESSIONS BELONG TO YOU, as well as none of your perceptions, observations, body, thoughts conciousness, none of this belongs to you, which brings up a major meditative project, who does it all belong to, is it MARA the evil one who one poster claims on freesangha, who do your possesions belong to if they do not belong to you, who does you body belong to if it doesn't belong to you, who does your mind belong to if it doesn't belong to you, big questions, no easy answers!!!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
No need to pin anatta down, no need to make it anything. Simply pay attention.manas wrote:I like Thanissaro Bhikkhu's notion of the 'anatta doctrine' as really being a strategy to help us towards total release from dukkha, and not a metaphysical concept to be taken as some kind of existing or non-existing entity (or non-entity). I too used to fall into what I now think is a common trap of trying to reify anatta as if it's a thing (or non-thing) that can be pinned down as such, but now I do think it is just a strategy, a useful concept, a means to an end. The Buddha seems to be trying to express this in a number of places, for example here
As for the perceived attitude, my apologies, but it certainly was not intended.lyndon taylor wrote:Tilt I don't know why you once in a while seem to have an attitude with me since I have joined, your previous posts comments(two posts up) seem to indicate that you've only quickly skimmed over what I have said possibly not even read everything, and focused on small key points that you jump on and disagree with, In other words your comments show the reading comprehnsion of what I am actually saying of only maybe 50%., You don't seem to be getting my point at all; Either you agree that the the 5 skandhas are not yours, that you cannot own any of them, your possesions, your body, your mind, your senses, or you don't agree. You have given no opinion at all on topic and that is the whole point of what I am saying, if you had me wrong and thought I was trying to teach you pali, when I know next to nothing about it, forgive me.
So forget everything I just said, I'm sorry and just could I please ask you to comment your opinion on this statement;
So we have three distinct meanings; from the sutra; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
1; The 5 skandhas are not Self
2: The 5 skandhas are not Me
3; The 5 Skandhas are not Mine
I did not intentionally attack your awareness as a Buddhist, but you might want to consider how you have come across here with your rewriting the suttas, for example. But we can put that aside.lyndon taylor wrote:My apologies tilt, you actually attacked my awareness as a buddhist and that didn't seem fair, thank you for your apology, sincerely
Basically, the khandhas are a way of talking about the totality of the experience of what we are at any moment. They are tools of investigation, and it is at looking at the khandhas, as they play themselves out moment to moment in our lives, that the Dhamma unfolds.Well I've almost got the skhandas memorized; let me start, and start with the things I totally accept as illusory and end with the ones i still have trouble with like Mind
Anything I can see is not me, me, mine, or my self, anything I hear is not me, mine or myself, anything I can touch, taste, feel, smell is not me, mine, or my self, my body its organs and my senses are not me, mine or my self, my everday thoughts are not me, mine or my self, and finally my conciousness is not me, mine , or my self (this is from memory, mind you, I may even have left out 1 of the skandhas)
I personally am of the school that believes there is still something left that is me, mine, the pure good within me, that goes on after death and existed before birth, but thats no what we are here to argue about
"It is in this very fathom-long physical frame with its perceptions and mind, that, I declare, lies the world, and the arising of the world, and the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world." — SN 2.26
Users browsing this forum: dhammapal, Google [Bot] and 6 guests