anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

[asahi]

Dear Pali teachers ,

Vaccagotta was asking whether there is a “self (atthattā”ti)” OR
there is “no-self (natthattā”ti)

Why not anattā”ti ?

Why then sakkāyadiṭṭhi not attaditthi ?

Anatta is the opposite of “atta,”
not of “attā” ?
It is said anatta is never used as the opposite of attā right ?

Please explain the differences .

[DooDoot]

Why not anattā”ti ?

Because Vaccagotta did not know the Buddhist teachings.

Vaccagotta asked about his own personal conception of "natthattā", which means "I am not a self".

Anatta = five aggregates are not-self rather than "I am not a self".

Thus, the Buddha said:

... the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’”

[Sam Vara]

Vaccagotta asked about his own personal conception of "natthattā", which means "I am not a self".

Is there an "I am" in that compound, or are you saying that the first person is attributed for some other contextual reason? Wouldn't "I am" be amhi or asmi?

[Assaji]

Dear Asahi,

Dear Pali teachers ,

Vaccagotta was asking whether there is a “self (atthattā”ti)” OR
there is “no-self (natthattā”ti)

Why not anattā”ti ?

atthattā”ti = atthi (is) + attā (self) + iti (end quote) = (There) is self (end quote)

natthattā”ti = na + atthi + attā + iti = (There) is no self (end quote)


"Anattā" also has a final long "ā".

[ssasny]

Assaji is, of course, exactly right.

The 'existential' verb to be, 'atthi', is used here. atth'attā

Sometimes the verb atthi and the noun attā can look confusingly similar, especially for those not so familiar with aspirated consonants.

[DooDoot]

Is there an "I am" in that compound, or are you saying that the first person is attributed for some other contextual reason? Wouldn't "I am" be amhi or asmi?

The Buddha said:

... the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’”

"Natthattā" obviously does not mean "no-self". "Natthattā" has the flavour of "vibhava". It probably means something like: "non-existent self". The point it, self-view remains.

[asahi]

Dear Asahi,

Dear Pali teachers ,

Vaccagotta was asking whether there is a “self (atthattā”ti)” OR
there is “no-self (natthattā”ti)

Why not anattā”ti ?

atthattā”ti = atthi (is) + attā (self) + iti (end quote) = (There) is self (end quote)

natthattā”ti = na + atthi + attā + iti = (There) is no self (end quote)


"Anattā" also has a final long "ā".

Hi Assaji

According to others “attā” (pronounced with a “long a at the end”) is used to denote a person: There is no word for the negation of that attā. And attā is concept of an “everlasting identity” or a “soul” but it is said there is no single Pāli word to express the negation of that, i.e., “not attā“; If there were to be such a word, that would be “non-person.” It just cannot be used that way.

[Sam Vara]

Is there an "I am" in that compound, or are you saying that the first person is attributed for some other contextual reason? Wouldn't "I am" be amhi or asmi?

The Buddha said:

... the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’”

"Natthattā" obviously does not mean "no-self". "Natthattā" has the flavour of "vibhava". It probably means something like: "non-existent self". The point it, self-view remains.

Ah, it's some other contextual reason, then. Natthattā means "There is not a self". The "I am" comes from elsewhere.

[Assaji]

Hi Asahi,

According to others “attā” (pronounced with a “long a at the end”) is used to denote a person: There is no word for the negation of that attā. And attā is concept of an “everlasting identity” or a “soul” but it is said there is no single Pāli word to express the negation of that, i.e., “not attā“; If there were to be such a word, that would be “non-person.” It just cannot be used that way.

Even in English, you can say "this is not me". "Attā", as a reflexive pronoun, directly corresponds to English "me", although there are significant differences in usage.

[asahi]

....

Hi Assaji


DD said :
Natthattā means "There is not a self".

You said : (There) is no self .

Was there any difference ?

[Assaji]

Hi Asahi,

DD said :
Natthattā means "There is not a self".

You said : (There) is no self .

Was there any difference ?

I guess so.

[asahi]

Hi Asahi,

DD said :
Natthattā means "There is not a self".

You said : (There) is no self .

Was there any difference ?

I guess so.

I dont get it . Could you expand a bit ?


Thanks

[Assaji]

Hi Asahi,

DD said :
Natthattā means "There is not a self".

You said : (There) is no self .

Was there any difference ?

I guess so.

I dont get it . Could you expand a bit ?

[DooDoot]

Natthattā means "There is not a self".

I am suggesting it means "the self does not exist", where the self is still taken to be real.

For example, in the annihilationist view, if it is believed: "my mother is dead, my mother does not exist", the maintaining of the self-view of "my mother" causes suffering because, even though it is believed "my mother does not/no longer exists", the mother is still conceived to be real. This is the same as when the Buddha said about Vacchagotta said: "The self i formerly was no longer exists".

As i suggested, the term "natthatta" is probably a form of "vibhava" or "annihilationism" ("ucchedavāda)". Please try to transcend the dictionaries. What is this point of this subforum if it is just a "copy & paste the dictionary" subforum?

[Sam Vara]

Natthattā means "There is not a self".

I am suggesting it means "the self does not exist", where the self is still taken to be real.

Your suggestion is self-contradictory as expressed there (nothing that is taken to be real can be meaningfully said to not exist) but thanks anyway.