|
Understanding
atta and anatta
Is it not astonishing that during his 40+ career
as an itinerant teacher the Tathagata did not once provide a clear and
unambiguous definition of the key term translated centuries later into Pali
as atta (Sanskrit: atma). No one knows
what he actually meant when he used that term (i.e. in his own language, and
which remains unknown). No one knows if he used atta as an adjective,
reflexive pronoun or noun (the latter being unlikely). The closest
one gets to understanding the original meaning can of atta can be derived
from the 3 Characteristics Sutta, found in the Pali Vinaya, Mahàvagga, 1st Khandhaka, and which, sadly, is
hearsay. Part 1 (This sutta part was probably added later to insert the atta term into the Tathagata’s dhamma and bring it up to date. Part 1 is redundant since the Cause of Distress (Noble Truth 2) is adequately explained in Part 2 without taking recourse to metaphysics. Thus I have heard: The Bhagavat said: “Bhikkhus,
consiousness not atta. Were consciousness atta, then consciousness would not lead to being bound
(i.e. by ever changing conditions; or diseased) and one could have it
of consciousness: ‘My consciousness is this, my consciousness
is not this’. But since consciousness is not atta, so it leads to being bound
(or diseased), and none can have it of consciousness:
‘My consciousness is this, my consciousness is not this’.” (idem feeling, perception, formation and body). Here atta appears to be a metaphor both for absolute permanence. If current consciousness were atta, then (a given consciousness state) consciousness would also be absolutely permanent (i.e. a permanent, hence universally true this (consciousness) or universally true not this (consciousness)). But since consciousness is transient, changing from moment to moment, it cannot be atta. The meaning of atta
is
clarified further, albeit indirectly, i.e. negatively, when the Tathagata
asks: Part 2 “Bhikkhus, how do you
conceive it:” “Is consciousness (idem feeling, perception, formation and body) abiding or transient? ” “Transient, Sir.” “Now is what is transient distressing (dukkha) or not distressing (sukkha = pleasant)?” “Distressing, Sir.” “And that which is
transient, distressing, changing according to the law, is it clever to see it
as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my atta.’” “No, Sir.” “So, bhikkhus whatever
consciousness (idem
feeling,
perception, formation and body),
whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in
oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must
with right understanding be regarded as it is: ‘This is not mine, this is not
(what) I am, this is not my
atta’. ” Here not atta (i.e. anatta) is clearly qualified as ‘transience’, ‘causing distress,’ ‘not my
own’, ‘not (what) ‘I’ (truly = permanently) am.’ Reversing
the above 2 descriptions, a tentative qualities frame can be given to atta, namely: atta = not bound (or diseased, i.e. deteriorating), not transient, (consequently) not causing distress,
personally owned and ‘I’. The
Tathagata stated that all emerged phenomena as such, (i.e. khandas, elsewhere
also all sankharas and dhammas) are not atta. On atta he chose to remain silent. Interpreting atta to mean the atman (of the Upanishads) or translating atta to mean ‘soul’ (e.g. by Rhys Davids and J.Jennings) is (Christian) cheating. The upshot
of the above reasoning could not have failed to impress even the most
backward villager who daily experienced transience, non-ownership and
distress, to wit: “If you don’t want to get hurt,
don’t attach (or desire) something you don’t own and that’s transient!” (i.e. like a borrowed car
decaying towards the scrap-heap). No
metaphysics required! That was the
good news! The bad news
is that the above reasoning is actually superficial, naïve and flawed! For
the relative unimportance of the atta notion
see: The 8 charateristics sutta
|