|
<< Click to Display Table of Contents >> Navigation: Is There a ‘Self’? > Does “Anatta” Refer to a “Self”? > “Attā” as “Self” – Wrong Translation in Many Suttās |
October 13, 2023
Attā can mean either a “person”/“oneself” (mundane meaning) or “of benefit/value” (deeper meaning as the opposite of “anatta” in Tilakkhaṇa), depending on the context. In many English translations, it is always used with the mundane meaning. That leads to much confusion.
Ātman/Anātman Are Not the Same as Attā/Anattā
1. Ātman and anātman are Sanskrit words meaning “self” and “no-self” in Hinduism. Here, a “self” means the same as a “soul” in Christianity, a permanent entity. See “WebLink: encyclopedia.com: Anatman/Atman (No-Self/Self).”
▪That article starts with the following: “The Vedic Sanskrit term ātman (Pāli, attā), literally meaning breath or spirit, is often translated into English as self, soul, or ego. Etymologically, anātman (Pāli, anattā) consists of the negative prefix an, plus, ātman (i.e., without ātman) and is translated as no-self, no-soul, or no-ego.” That is completely wrong!
▪That sentence explains the problem. The Vedic “anātman” was adopted to explain the meaning of the Buddhist “anattā” (in Pāli) in Mahāyāna Buddhism that took root in India a mere 500 years after the passing away of the Buddha. It then got incorporated into Theravāda Buddhism during the time Mahāyāna Buddhism flourished in India. By the time the British Empire took over most of Asia, that interpretation had spread to other Asian countries as well. See “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.”
▪Unfortunately, now that incorrect interpretation is everywhere: “WebLink: en.wikipedia.org: Ātman (Buddhism).”
▪This has done immense damage to Theravāda Buddhism and has blocked the path for many over the past thousands of years.
▪In the following, I will point out how that incorrect interpretation leads to inconsistencies in Sutta translations.
2. In the previous post, “Etaṁ Mama, Esohamasmi, Eso Me Attā’ti – What Does It Mean?” I discussed that “attā” has two meanings, and the correct meaning must be used depending on the context. Furthermore, I pointed out that the absence of an “everlasting soul” or “an unchanging self” is built into the foundation of Buddha Dhamma.
▪Even though an “unchanging/everlasting self” does not exist, the Buddha talked about a “person” in a conventional way. The Pāli word for indicating “a person,” “myself,” etc., in a conventional way, is “attā” (with a long “a.”)
▪The deeper meaning of “attā” (and also “atta” without the long “a”) is “beneficial,” “fruitful,” “meaningful,” etc. The opposite of that is “anatta/anattā”or “unfruitful.”
▪The deeper meaning comes into play in Tilakkhaṇa (anicca, dukkha, anatta), where anatta is related to anicca and dukkha. All three indicate undesirable characteristics of the world of 31 realms.
▪Both usages are discussed in “Atta Hi Attano Natho.” A longer discussion in “Anatta – the Opposite of Which Atta?”
▪The deeper meaning must be used in the context of the suttās SN 22.33 AND SN 35.101 discussed below.
Natumhāka Sutta
3. I will focus on one sutta to point out the absurdity of translating atta/anatta (or attā/anattā) as “self/no-self” without paying attention to the context. Here is the Pāli version: “WebLink: suttacentral: Natumhāka Sutta (SN 22.33)”
The following is my translation with a few clarifications. You should try to follow it since it is not a long or complex sutta. I used the following meanings: tumha = you, tumhākaṁ = yours, pajahatha = to give up (in mind, pajahatha does not mean donate.)
At Sāvatthī.
“Bhikkhus, give up what’s not yours.”
▪“Giving up (the attachment to) such things will be for your welfare and happiness.”
“And what is not yours?
▪Rūpās (whether internal or external) are not yours: give them up (meaning don’t generate taṇhā/upādāna for them.)
▪Giving up attachment to them will be for your welfare and happiness (here, pahīna means to “lose attachment).”
“In the same way, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa are not yours: give them up (meaning don’t generate taṇhā/upādāna for them.)
▪Giving up attachment to them will be for your welfare and happiness.”
“Suppose a person comes to this temple (jetavane) and carries off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves on the temple grounds, burns them or does whatever they want with those grass, sticks, branches, and leaves.
Would you think: This person is carrying off something of value to us, burning something of value to us (amhe)?”
▪“There is no reason to say so, Bhante.”
“Why is that?”
▪@ marker 2.6: “Because those things (grass, sticks, branches, and leaves on the temple grounds) are not useful/beneficial (attā) or can provide to anything of value (attaniyaṁ).”
“In the same way Bhikkhus, rūpās (whether internal or external) are not yours: give them up (meaning don’t generate taṇhā/upādāna for them.)
▪Giving up attachment to them will be for your welfare and happiness.”
“In the same way, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa are not yours: give them up (meaning don’t generate taṇhā/upādāna for them.)
▪Giving up attachment to them will be for your welfare and happiness.”
That is the complete sutta.
Absurd Translation of Natumhāka Sutta
4. Here is the Sutta Central link with both Pāli and their English translations: “WebLink: suttacentral: Natumhāka Sutta (SN 22.33)“
▪You can read the English translation at Sutta Central in the above link.
5. The critical verse is @marker 2.6: “Na hi no etaṁ, bhante, attā vā attaniyaṁ vā”ti.
The Sutta Central English translation is: “Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self,” meaning “Because to us that (grass, sticks, branches, and leaves on the temple grounds) is neither self nor belonging to self.”
▪Does it make sense to say, “Grass is neither self nor belonging to self”?
▪Here, “Na hi no etaṁ” means “those things (grass, sticks, branches, and leaves on the temple grounds) are not.”
▪The translation of “attā vā attaniyaṁ vā” at Sutta Central is “neither self nor belonging to self.”
▪This is an excellent example of the tragic outcome of translating “attā” as “self.” What does it mean to say, “Grass is neither self nor belonging to self”?
6. Thus, the point is that “attā” in the context of the sutta refers to whether the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves on the temple grounds are of any value/substance/benefit.
▪A second translation at Sutta Central has the same problem: “WebLink: suttacentral: 22.33. Not Yours (1).”
▪There is a longer version in the “WebLink: suttacentral: Paṭhamanatumhāka Sutta (SN 35.101)” at Sutta Central with exactly the same verse translated the same wrong way.
▪Here is the translation of that latter sutta at another website: “WebLink: accesstoinsight.org: Na Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours.” Translation of the critical verses there are as follows:
“Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches, & leaves here in Jeta’s Grove. Would the thought occur to you, ‘It’s us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes’?”
“No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they pertain to our self.”
▪It appears that they mechanically translate words without even trying to see whether what comes out makes any sense!
Why Shouldn’t One Take Things Not “Belonging to Oneself”?
7. The deeper explanation is that nothing in this world (including one’s own physical body) truly belongs to “oneself,” and thus, one will not have control over such things. Even one’s own physical body (and, in general, the five aggregates) arises due to causes and conditions (Paṭicca Samuppāda.) Can we stop our bodies from aging, for example? No. A puthujjana (average human) tends to think of the physical body as “their own,” but that is only an illusion.
▪That aspect is described in another version of Natumhāka Sutta: “WebLink: suttacentral: Natumhāka Sutta (SN 12.37).”
▪The English translation there is not as bad as in the previous case. However, it does not explain the concepts involved.
8. Further explanations are in other versions of Natumhāka Sutta: “WebLink: suttacentral: Paṭhamanatumhāka Sutta (SN 35.101)” and “WebLink: suttacentral: Dutiyanatumhāka Sutta (SN 35. 102).”
Those two suttās go into even more detail and point out that it is not wise to take anything internal (normally taken as one’s own, like one’s eyes, ears, different types of viññāṇa, etc.) as “one’s own.”
▪I have started discussing those issues in the current series of posts (see the recent update): “Does “Anatta” Refer to a “Self”?“
Absurdities When Translating “Attā” as “Self” Under All Situations
7. In “WebLink: suttacentral: Attavagga,” “Attā hi attano nātho” is translated as “Self is indeed the lord of self”! What does that mean?
▪The title “Attavagga” is translated there as “The Self.” This does not make sense since there is no “everlasting self” in Buddha Dhamma; see #2 above. The English title should indicate something like “What is Beneficial.” What is beneficial is Nibbāna, not anything in this world.
▪That section of the Dhammapada is about what is “beneficial” (of the “atta” nature; the deeper meaning) for oneself (“attā” with the mundane meaning.)
▪Therefore, throughout those verses, both meanings must be used correctly. I have explained the meaning of verse 160 in the post “Atta Hi Attano Natho.”
8. There are four translations in that Sutta Central post; the other three translations are better but still do not provide the full meaning. See, for example, WebLink: suttacentral: Dhp 157–166: Attavagga—Bhante Suddhāso (suttacentral.net)
▪The main issue is that it is not possible to translate certain verses in the Tipiṭaka word-by-word. There are two main reasons for that: (i) Some Pāli words cannot be translated as a single word to any language. One must understand the meaning of such a word and use the Pāli word. (ii) When a certain word has a “double meaning,” the translator must know the usage of both meanings.
▪I have discussed that in a separate section since this problem is a common occurrence, especially in current English translations: “Elephant in the Room 1 – Direct Translation of the Tipiṭaka.”
9. While “attā” has the mundane meaning of a “person” or “self,” that meaning is never associated with “atta” (with a short “a.”)
▪Furthermore, the negation of “attā” as “no-self” is never used in the suttās as “anattā” (“na” + “attā”)
▪That negation usage is there only as “anatta” or “anattā” in relation to anicca and dukkha in Tilakkhaṇa. There, anicca, dukkha, and anatta describe the unsatisfactory/dangerous nature of worldly existences. Let us discuss that now.
Atta/Anatta and Attā/Anattā are About Tilakkhaṇa
10. There is a series of suttās “WebLink: suttacentral: Anicca Sutta (SN 22.12),” “WebLink: suttacentral: Dukkha Sutta (SN 22.13),” “WebLink: suttacentral: Anatta Sutta (SN 22.14),” and “WebLink: suttacentral: Yadanicca Sutta (SN 22.15),” that clearly show the deeper meaning of anatta in relation to the anicca and dukkha nature of the world. There are more suttās in that series that go into further detail.
▪The first sutta (SN 22.12) says, “rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ, vedanā aniccā, saññā aniccā, saṅkhārā aniccā, viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ” meaning “Bhikkhus, rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa are all of anicca nature. Attachment to them will not lead to permanent happiness (i.e., absence of suffering).” The next verse says, “Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati, viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati” or “Seeing this, a learned noble disciple will start losing cravings for them.”
▪The second sutta (SN 22.13) repeats the same verses, saying, rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa are all of dukkha nature (i.e., they lead to suffering), and thus, a learned noble disciple will start losing cravings for them.
▪The third sutta (SN 22.14) repeats the same verses, saying, rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa are all of anatta (worthless/unfruitful) nature, and thus, a learned noble disciple will start losing cravings for them. Both “atta” and “attā” are used in the context of Tilakkhaṇa to discuss whether this world of 31 realms can be of benefit or for the permanent removal of suffering. In those cases, “anatta” (“na” + “atta”) and “anattā” (“na” + “attā”) indicate the negation of the two terms respectively.
11. Then, the fourth sutta (SN 22.15) points to the relationship among them: “Rūpa is of anicca nature. Attachment to them leads to suffering. Therefore, they are of anatta (worthless/unfruitful) nature.” Then, it is repeated for the other four aggregates:
“Vedanā is of anicca nature. Attachment to them leads to suffering. Therefore, they are of anatta (worthless/unfruitful) nature.”
“Saññā is of anicca nature. Attachment to them leads to suffering. Therefore, they are of anatta (worthless/unfruitful) nature.”
“Saṅkhārā is of anicca nature. Attachment to them leads to suffering. Therefore, they are of anatta (worthless/unfruitful) nature.”
“Viññāṇa is of anicca nature. Attachment to them leads to suffering. Therefore, they are of anatta (worthless/unfruitful) nature.”
Absurdity of the Wrong Translations of Anicca and Anatta
12. The English translation in the “WebLink: suttacentral: Yadanicca Sutta (SN 22.15)” states (describing the relationship among anicca, dukkha, and anatta): “Form is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self.” Then, it is repeated for the other four aggregates:
“Feeling is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self.”
“Perception is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self.”
“Choices are impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self.”
“Consciousness is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self.”
▪Of course, all those five entities are impermanent; anyone can see that, but only a Buddha can discover the anicca nature.
▪The next part, “What’s impermanent is suffering,” is not even true in the mundane sense (e.g., a headache leads to more suffering if it becomes permanent!)
▪Finally, does it make any sense to say, “What’s suffering is not-self”?
Further details at “Anatta – A Systematic Analysis”