anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by DooDoot »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:20 pm 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.
It appears the term "natthatta" is found in one place in the suttas, spoken or invented by Vacchagotta.

You appear to be treating Vacchagotta terminology as though it was spoken by the Buddha.

My suggestion is not self-contradictory. What is self-contradictory is the idea Vacchagotta was coherent in his use of words.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by pegembara »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:40 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:51 pm 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".
Formerly there wasn't a self in the first place.

Atta=Self
Anatta=Without an atta=without a self
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by Sam Vara »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:17 am
Sam Vara wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:20 pm 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.
It appears the term "natthatta" is found in one place in the suttas, spoken or invented by Vacchagotta.

You appear to be treating Vacchagotta terminology as though it was spoken by the Buddha.
In fact, it was spoken by the Buddha. SN 44.10 has the terms atthattā and natthattā spoken by both Vacchagotta and the Buddha.
My suggestion is not self-contradictory.
Your expression of it certainly is, for reasons given above.
What is self-contradictory is the idea Vacchagotta was coherent in his use of words.
There's no inherent contradiction in saying that Vacchagotta was coherent in his use of words; it's a simple statement of fact which might be true or false, but which does not violate the Law of Non-contradiction. But, as before, you might be importing some other premise here.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by DooDoot »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:48 am you might be importing some other premise here.
I made my case consistent with the Buddha, who also said: "And if... I had answered... this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists". To understand the meaning of "natthatta", it appears "annihilationism" must be understood. Unless it is linguistically impossible, I suggest Vacchagatto asked the Buddha: "Does the self not exist?" Kind regards. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by Sam Vara »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:58 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:48 am you might be importing some other premise here.
I made my case consistent with the Buddha, who also said: "And if... I had answered... this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists". To understand the meaning of "natthatta", it appears "annihilationism" must be understood. Unless it is linguistically impossible, I suggest Vacchagatto asked the Buddha: "Does the self not exist?" Kind regards. :smile:
Yes, that's correct. It's different from your earlier claim:
Vaccagotta asked about his own personal conception of "natthattā", which means "I am :roll: not a self".
There doesn't appear to be an "I am" in there at all.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by Dhammanando »

asahi wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:38 pm
Assaji wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:29 pm ....
Hi Assaji


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

You said : (There) is no self .

Was there any difference ?
The constructions "There is no + substantive" and "There isn't a + substantive" differ only in phrasing, not in meaning.

There is no elephant in the room = There isn't an elephant in the room.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by DooDoot »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:09 pm It's different from your earlier claim: There doesn't appear to be an "I am" in there at all.
the earlier post was resolved many posts ago. there was no need to keep highlighting it
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:09 pm Yes, that's correct.
Maybe, but my suggested translation is far different from the translation: "Is there no self".

My translation includes an implicit belief in 'self' by Vacchagotta; thus it is like asking: "Does the Eiffel Tower not exist?"

Thus Vacchagotta asked: "Does the self [that exists] not exist?"

:smile:
Last edited by DooDoot on Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by Sam Vara »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:54 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:09 pm It's different from your earlier claim: There doesn't appear to be an "I am" in there at all.
the earlier post was resolved many posts ago. there was no need to keep highlighting it
When a person's position changes, I find it useful to note that fact. The "resolution" is that there is no "I am" in the text, but one that is imported by means of another premise. Beyond noting that your expression of the premise in question is self-contradictory, I don't have an issue with your interpretation; everyone must make up their own minds as to how they read a text, and this is the Pali sub-forum.
User avatar
Gwi II
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2023 10:49 am
Location: Indonesia 🇮🇩
Contact:

Re: anattā”ti and natthattā”ti

Post by Gwi II »

asahi wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:05 pm 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 .

:thanks:
natthattā = soulless, self is not-existing = self is gone
--> that means when ded,
THE BEING WILL GONE!
(annihilation)


Indonesian--English
・Ada (exist, there is)
・Tiada (not existing, ...less)
・Tidak ada (no ..., there isnt, nothing)

Tiada harapan (hopeless), tiada taranya (peerless).

I have no money
✅ Saya tidak-ada uang
❌ Saya tiada uang ----> natthi (not existing, ...less)
Attachments
Screenshot_20231203-171216_Kamusku.jpg
Gwi: "There are only-two Sakaṽādins:
Theraṽādå&Ṽibhajjaṽādå, the rest are
nonsakaṽādins!"
Post Reply