6bc37b8d   
   On Monday, September 28, 2009 at 12:14:14 AM UTC+5:30, attasarana wrote:   
   > ANATTA / ANATMAN IN DETAIL   
   >    
   > The definition of one word where modern Pseudo-Buddhism took a turn   
   > into the dark corner of ignorance   
   > Copyright 2007 webmaster attan.com, REVISED 2-2008   
   >    
   >      The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an   
   > adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being   
   > devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded   
   > subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only   
   > refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the   
   > Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms,   
   > feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-   
   > consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose,   
   > tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being   
   > Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or =   
   > consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as   
   > Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’)   
   > written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine   
   > of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is   
   > used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the   
   > Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).   
   >      Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal   
   > and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite,   
   > consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to   
   > microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at   
   > large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the   
   > nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and   
   > interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca   
   > (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a   
   > blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All   
   > these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further   
   > noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent   
   > (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman],   
   > such as passage (SN 1.169).   
   >      Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the   
   > permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-   
   > rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman   
   > in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective,   
   > (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane,   
   > consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul,   
   > therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational   
   > absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means   
   > of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism.   
   >      The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta   
   > (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta,   
   > and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if   
   > there “was no-soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position   
   > to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist   
   > sutra (and Vedanta as well) is the denial of psycho-physical   
   > attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with   
   > same. The Buddhist paradigm (and the most common repeating passage in   
   > sutta) as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my   
   > soul), this most common utterance of Gotama the Buddha in the Nikayas,   
   > where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutta, to hold the view   
   > that there was “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = natthika (nihilist).   
   > Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali   
   > natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but   
   > immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to   
   > observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither   
   > affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That   
   > [Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as   
   > distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa/ or khandhas, mere self as =   
   > anatta) i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-   
   > rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with   
   > its consciousness”. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of   
   > either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam   
   > puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite’ [SN 2.77] both of this   
   > positions are existential antinomies, and heresies of   
   > annihilationism])’”. In contrast it has been incorrectly asserted that   
   > affirmation of the atman is = sassatavada (conventionally deemed   
   > ‘eternalism’). However the Pali term sasastavada is never associated   
   > with the atman, but that the atman was an agent (karmin) in and of   
   > samsara which is subject to the whims of becoming (bhava), or which is   
   > meant kammavada (karma-ism, or merit agencyship); such as sassatavada   
   > in sutta = “atta ca so loka ca” (the atman and the world [are one]),   
   > or: ‘Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi ‘the all is   
   > entirety’, and sabbamekattan ‘the all is one’s Soul’ [SN 2.77] both   
   > are heresies of perpetualism]). Sasastavada is the wrong conception   
   > that one is perpetually (sassata) bound within samsara and that merit   
   > is the highest attainment for either this life or for the next. The   
   > heretical antinomy to nihilism (vibhava, or = ucchedavada) is not, nor   
   > in sutta, the atman, but bhava (becoming, agencyship). Forever, or   
   > eternal becoming is nowhere in sutta identified with the atman, which   
   > is “never an agent (karmin)”, and “has never become   
   > anything” (=bhava). These antinomies of bhava (sassatavada) and   
   > vibhava (ucchedavada) both entail illogical positions untenable to the   
   > Vedantic or Buddhist atman; however the concept of “eternalism” as =   
   > atman has been the fallacious secondary crutch for supporting the no-   
   > atman commentarialists position on anatta implying = there is no   
   > atman.   
   >      Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama,   
   > the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)