Talk:Anattā/Archive 1

message: Some random stuff:
The prefix "a" indicates negation.  a.natta ("no self")
The wording of:
Buddhist principle of selflessness (anatta).
Should probably be:
Buddhist principle of egolessness (anatta).
and linked to:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egolessness
since anatta and egolessness are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.141.185 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: First message

message: There is obviously a breakdown in the normal process of article-creation.  This section is for meta-discussion on how we can resolve the problem.  I suggest everybody first read the following:
Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
Please be constructive.  No name-calling.  Respect!RandomCritic 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you then start the ball rolling and start being respectful youself ?  Others might reciprocate.--Stephen Hodge 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Talk - Whole article

message: Hallo to whomever wrote the new introductory version on "anatta". I personally love most of what you have added -  you will find no greater supporter of the viewpoint you express than myself. I have spent the past 25 years arguing for it! But as editors of an encyclopaedia such as this we have to strive to be balanced and impartial. So I do think that, for example, it is simply not factually correct to state that the "majority" of Buddhists take the view that the non-Self doctrine relates only to the ephemeral elements of the being and that there is some higher, eternal Self beyond that, untouched by the "non-Self" teachings. As much as I myself deplore this fact and believe that the general understanding of "non-Self" is seriously wrongheaded and distortionist, the truth is that most Buddhist schools do not express the stance that you (and I) uphold. So I think we do need to stick to the word "minority" here. Also, the piece needs to be tidied up grammatically here and there. All together, though, I personally think the additions are excellent. But I am sure that nearly everybody else will wildly disagree with me (and with you!). Warm wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Massive Alterations and Additions 

message: Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes. Both are wrong and their error is most grievous.
For if they say the self is perishable, the fruit they strive for will perish too, and at some time there will be no hereafter. Good and evil would be indifferent. This salvation from selfishness is without merit.<BR>
:Buddha: The Sermon At Rajagaha
I don't think this quote merits being the first paragraph, as it appears to me more relevant for the reincarnation article, rather than anatta. (20040302 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: Please understand that advocacy of your POV by citing scriptures is still regarded as a violation of soapbox ban. Moreover, please understand the meaning of "original reseach" as specified in this site.  If you think your interpretation is supported by reputable scholars, forget your interpretation and cite these reputable scholars instead. Vapour
::Since this article is proving so contentious, I am attempting to re-write it so that it retains the information that user Attasarana wishes to convey in a neutral form, cutting out the polemics and verbosity that mar this otherwise useful article. It will need more citations from the Nikayas and from bona fide modern scholars. I shall try and supply the latter, but others might like to help with the former.  In this way, I believe the substance of the article can be saved and satisfy reasonable and fair-minded people.  If my re-write, with any modifications others can usefully make, fails to satisfy, I suggest appealing to some form of neutral adjudication.--Stephen Hodge 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For [[User:Attasarana]] 

message: How Dhammapada commentary explains Dhammmapada #279 
Tattha  sabbe  dhamma’ti pañcakkhandha’ eva adhippeta’ 
Dhammapada Att. 3.407  “’Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in
meaning” 
Theravada has used as its last defense for 1500 years now, the “sabbe dhamma anatta” 
defense to ‘prove’ that all is ‘void’ of a Soul in Buddhist doctrine, or that there cannot be a Soul whatsoever, for as they say “all Dharmas” encompasses everything in entirety. The Theravada say this phrase found in the Dhammapada (and other locations) means in translation  “All Dharmas are Soulless”. However, in fact, under close examination the Theravada view falls apart very quickly and their self-created  dogma disappears under close scrutiny. Here ends the “sabbe dhamma anatta” debate. 
Dhammmapada #279 Phrase dissected 
Dhammapada #279 “Sabbe dhamma’ anatta'” 
sabbe (noun [see SN 4.15 below], direct object, in accusative. Sabba is nominative, ‘the ‘all’) The ‘all’partakes of the Soul; however the Soul does not partake of,
is not in, the ‘‘all’. Sabbe Dharmas are not the Soul (anatta). Sabba is described as the “five aggregates” in the Pali commentary to this passage. 
dhamma’ (proper noun, plural, subject, undeclined in nominative, dharmas) 
anatta' (adjective, modifying sabba. An [is not] atta' [attan: Soul]; Buddhadatta Mahathera's Pali-English Dictionary; page 8: Atta' [attan]: soul.). ‘all’ 275
occurrences of anatta' in sutta are adjectival, never as a noun in standalone but rather modifying a noun in negation to its correlation to being identifiable with the
Attan. 
Sabba in standalone 
This single passage below at Samyutta 4.28 shows that Dhamma is not the crux of the infamous "sabbe dhamma’ anatta", but rather sabba. 
SN 4.28  “sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta" The ‘‘all’, bhikkhus, are not the Soul. 
SN 4.21 “sabbam.,  bhikkhave,  addhabhu'tam"   Bhikkhus, the ‘all’are afflictions. 
SN 4.19 “sabbam.,  bhikkhave, a'dittam."  Bhikkhus, the ‘all’are ablaze. 
  
Elaboration with proofs 
SN 4.15-29 is the full explanation of the meaning of sabba. It is abundantly clear without debate that sabba is indeed the psychophysical phenomena or the ‘the
‘all’. The absurd notion that sabba is an adjective modifying Dhamma is impossible. 
Firstly Dhamma is in the nominative plural; secondly sabba is the standalone accusative direct object in the cases directly above, namely SN 4.28, which proves that Dhamma is not the direct object of anatta'. 
Anatta is the adjective in this sentence as it must be in ‘all’ 662 of its occurrences in the Nikayas. It is incorrect to say that "‘all’ Dhammas are noself" or some
other such sectarian concoction. Dhamma is in the nominative plural in agreement with sabba, not in the accusative, which would be "dhammam." or plural accusative "dhamme" sabba (nominative) is the direct object of anatta' which is why it occurs as sabbe (accusative plural). 
::As you correctly point out, anattā is used here as an adjective.  It is not a verb or a verbal derivative.  It cannot, therefore, take a direct object.  Sabbe dhammā anattā is a series of three masculine nominative plural nouns, forming a copular sentence without an overt "be" verb.  There is no other possible reading. That sabbe takes the pronominal endings, including masculine nominative plural in -e, is a fact known by any student of Pali.  But not by you.  And you advertise yourself as a Pali scholar? RandomCritic 05:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting the "All Dharmas are anatta" secularist fallacy