|
Understanding
atta and anatta
Is it not astonishing that during his 40+ career as
an itinerant (hence transient) teacher the Buddha did not once provide a
clear and unambiguous definition of the key term ≈ metaphor 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 for sure if he used atta as an adjective, reflexive pronoun (i.e. as found in the
Mahaparinirvana sutta) or noun (the latter being unlikely). The closest
one gets to understanding the original meaning of atta can be derived from
the 3 Characteristics Sutta, found in the Pali Vinaya, Mahàvagga, 1st Khandhaka, and which, sadly, is
hearsay and a compilation of two approaches to the resolution of the problem
of the origin of unpleasantness. Part 1 This
sutta (sutta meaning: thread ≈ yarn) part was probably added later to
the Tathagata’s dhamma to bring it up to date, that is to say, in line with
the more popular (and positive goal providing) insight developed by the
competition, to wit, the Vedantins. Part 1 is redundant since the Cause of
Unpleasantness (Noble Truth 2) is adequately explained in Part 2 without
taking recourse to atman 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 (elsewhere translated, ‘Let my
consciousness be ..’) 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 permanence and control (i.e. independent ownership). If current
consciousness were atta, then consciousness (i.e.
a given consciousness state) would be both permanent and subject to personal
control. But since consciousness is transient and bound (by dependence) it
cannot be atta. Likewise the other
aggregates.
The meaning (or property) of atta is clarified further, albeit indirectly, in Part 2. Part 2 actually
renders Part 1 redundant. Part 2 is probably much older – because more folksy
– than Part 1. Part 2 “Bhikkhus, how do you
conceive it:” “Is consciousness (idem feeling, perception, formation and body) transient or not
transient? ” “Transient, Sir.” “Now is what is transient unpleasant (dukkha) or pleasant (sukkha =
pleasant)?” “Unpleasant, Sir.” “And that which is
transient, unpleasant, changing according to the law, is it clever to see it
as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my (sic.) 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
‘transient’, ‘causing unpleasantness’, ‘not my own’, ‘not (what) ‘I’
(truly = permanently) am.’ Reversing
the above 2 descriptions, a tentative, though incomplete qualities frame can
be given to atta, namely: atta = not bound (or diseased, i.e.
deteriorating), not transient, (consequently) not causing pleasantness,
personally owned (i.e. to do with as I please) and (my true) ‘I’. The Buddha
stated that all emerged phenomena as such, (i.e. khandas, elsewhere also all
sankharas and dhammas) are not atta. A clear an unambiguous
definition of atta was not given by the Buddha. 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 (i.e.
dependence, indeed slavery) and the distress resulting from both. Consequently,
the Buddha’s solution was: “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 better
news is that the above reasoning is actually superficial, naïve and
fundamentally flawed! For
the relative unimportance of the atta notion
see: The 8 charateristics sutta
|