Anatta and terms like "I" and "they"

Sometimes Buddhists are confused about the use of words like self and I in the texts.
A deva had this question for the Buddha:

I speak?

Saṁyutta Nikāya)
Connected Discourses with Devatas

1.25. The Arahant
“If a bhikkhu is an arahant,
Consummate, with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say, ‘I speak’?
And would he say, ‘They speak to me’?”

“If a bhikkhu is an arahant,
Consummate, with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
He might still say, ‘I speak,’
And he might say, ‘They speak to me.’
Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions.”

Thus it is perfectly normal, natural and necessary to use words like they and I and self even for the arahats.
There is the continuity of the khandhas, they arise and cease but new ones, conditioned by the ones that have just fallen away ( and other conditions) means there is a series that carries on. And each series of arising and ceasing streams of khandhas is certainly different.

Life with the one who knows Dhamma is just like it always was - there is meeting and talking with people and doing many tasks. There not some bizarre world where the person who knows Dhamma can no longer tell who is his mother or what car he drives.

The mind in many ways is a concept producing machine. Thus concepts about the people we meet, the things we see, are happening all the time - with no hidden manager needed to do that.
Yet without knowing the teachings of the SammaSamBuddha this process is repeated endlessly and without any understanding of what is truly real.

However, by understanding the Dhamma there is the start of seeing deeper. So, from time to time, we can also be aware that in fact there is only seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, thinking processes and all the other elements we learn about from the texts. i.e. khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus.

5 Likes

Some more on conventional and ultimate:
The Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - PTS)and Commentary (the Debates Commentary) (On
the Person, p 41)

Even in such expressions as `there is the person who works for his
own
good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, there is no
such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific
and
general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to
say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of
speech,
convention, expression, is meant: “there is the person.” This is the
sense
here. “”“”



The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the
philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma
and
so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to
impermanence,ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the
senses, the
application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth,
are
discourses on highest meaning.

But popular discourse they teach
consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method
selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e known). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of butter-jar,’ and so
forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence,
on
the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command
adherence.
The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without
transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not , in explaining the highest meaning overrun a concept.

1 Like

Very interesting! I’ve always been annoyed by people who try to pull the there is no “I” bit on me when i used that in a sentence.

2 Likes

I saw someone refer to this famous statement and wondered about it:
Maha-parinibbana Sutta

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?
When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.

And satipatthana - the four contemplations mentioned- are closely concerned with insight into anatta.

Moreover sometimes the sutta continues:

refuge

2.43. With Yourselves as an Island

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, dwell with yourselves as an island, with yourselves as a refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge. When you dwell with yourselves as an island, with yourselves as a refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge, the basis itself should be investigated thus: ‘From what are sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair born? How are they produced?’

“And, bhikkhus, from what are sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair born? How are they produced? Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. That form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.

“He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That consciousness of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of consciousness, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.

“When one has understood the impermanence of feeling … of perception … of volitional formations … of consciousness, its change, fading away, and cessation, and when one sees as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘In the past and also now all consciousness is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change,’ then sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are abandoned. With their abandonment, one does not become agitated. Being unagitated, one dwells happily. A bhikkhu who dwells happily is said to be quenched in that respect.”

1 Like

I just wanted to share here that Abhidhamma proper also makes use of pannatti

For example from the patthana

cetopariyañāṇena bahiddhā cittasamaṅgissa cittaṃ jānāti

cittasamaṅgi- one endowed with mind, a person(puggala) or living being(satta)

PS: And a person(s) not endowed with mind can also be designated, asaññasatta.

2 Likes

So It Was Said 63
Itivuttaka 63

The Book of the Threes
Tikanipāta
Chapter Two
Dutiyavagga
Periods
Addhāsutta
This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.
Vuttañhetaṁ bhagavatā vuttamarahatāti me sutaṁ:

“Mendicants, there are these three periods.
“Tayome, bhikkhave, addhā.
What three?
Katame tayo?
Past, future, and present.
Atīto addhā, anāgato addhā, paccuppanno addhā—
These are the three periods.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, tayo addhā”ti.

The Buddha spoke this matter.
Etamatthaṁ bhagavā avoca.
On this it is said:
Tatthetaṁ iti vuccati:

“Sentient beings who perceive the communicable,
“Akkheyyasaññino sattā,
become established in the communicable.
akkheyyasmiṁ patiṭṭhitā;
Not understanding the communicable,
Akkheyyaṁ apariññāya,
they fall under the yoke of Death.
yogamāyanti maccuno.

But having fully understood the communicable,
Akkheyyañca pariññāya,
they don’t conceive a communicator,
akkhātāraṁ na maññati;
as they’ve touched liberation with their mind,
Phuṭṭho vimokkho manasā,
the supreme state of peace.
santipadamanuttaraṁ.

Accomplished in the communicable,
Sa ve

the Commentary:
4. addhāsuttavaṇṇanā
63. catutthe addhāti kālā. atīto addhātiādīsu dve pariyāyā – suttantapariyāyo, abhidhammapariyāyo ca. tattha suttantapariyāyena paṭisandhito pubbe atīto addhā nāma, cutito pacchā anāgato addhā nāma, saha cutipaṭisandhīhi tadanantaraṃ paccuppanno addhā nāma. abhidhammapariyāyena uppādo, ṭhiti, bhaṅgoti ime tayo khaṇe patvā niruddhadhammā atīto addhā nāma, tayopi khaṇe asampattā anāgato addhā nāma, khaṇattayasamaṅgino paccuppanno addhā nāma.
aparo nayo – ayañhi atītādivibhāgo addhāsantatisamayakhaṇavasena catudhā veditabbo. tesu addhāvibhāgo vutto. santativasena sabhāgā ekautusamuṭṭhānā, ekāhārasamuṭṭhānā ca pubbāpariyavasena vattamānāpi paccuppannā. tato pubbe visabhāgautuāhārasamuṭṭhānā atītā pacchā anāgatā. cittajā ekavīthiekajavanaekasamāpattisamuṭṭhānā paccuppannā nāma, tato pubbe atītā, pacchā anāgatā. kammasamuṭṭhānānaṃ pāṭiyekkaṃ santativasena atītādibhedo natthi, tesaṃyeva pana utuāhāracittasamuṭṭhānānaṃ upatthambhakavasena tassa atītādibhāvo veditabbo. samayavasena ekamuhuttapubbaṇhasāyanharattidivādīsu samayesu santānavasena pavattamānā taṃtaṃsamaye paccuppannā nāma, tato pubbe atītā, pacchā anāgatā. ayaṃ tāva rūpadhammesu nayo. arūpadhammesu pana khaṇavasena uppādādikkhaṇattayapariyāpannā paccuppannā, tato pubbe atītā, pacchā anāgatā. apica atikkantahetupaccayakiccā atītā, niṭṭhitahetukiccā aniṭṭhitapaccayakiccā paccuppannā, ubhayakiccaṃ asampattā anāgatā. attano vā kiccakkhaṇe paccuppannā, tato pubbe atītā, pacchā anāgatā. ettha ca khaṇādikathāva nippariyāyā, sesā pariyāyā. ayañhi atītādibhedo nāma dhammānaṃ hoti, na kālassa. atītādibhede pana dhamme upādāya paramatthato avijjamānopi kālo idha teneva vohārena atītotiādinā vuttoti veditabbo.
201gāthāsu akkheyyasaññinoti ettha akkhāyati, kathīyati, paññāpīyatīti akkheyyaṃ, kathāvatthu, atthato rūpādayo pañcakkhandhā. vuttañhetaṃ –
"atītaṃ vā addhānaṃ ārabbha kathaṃ katheyya, anāgataṃ vā…pe… paccuppannaṃ vā addhānaṃ ārabbha kathaṃ katheyyā"ti (dī. ni. 3.305).
tathā –
"yaṃ, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ atītaṃ niruddhaṃ vipariṇataṃ, ‘ahosī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘ahosī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘ahosī’ti tassa paññatti, na tassa saṅkhā atthīti, na tassa saṅkhā bhavissatī"ti (saṃ. ni. 3.62) –
evaṃ vuttena niruttipathasuttenapi ettha attho dīpetabbo. evaṃ kathāvatthubhāvena akkheyyasaṅkhāte khandhapañcake ahanti ca mamanti ca devoti ca manussoti ca itthīti ca purisoti ca ādinā pavattasaññāvasena akkheyyasaññino, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu sattapuggalādisaññinoti attho. akkheyyasmiṃ taṇhādiṭṭhiggāhavasena patiṭṭhitā, rāgādivasena vā aṭṭhahākārehi patiṭṭhitā. ratto hi rāgavasena patiṭṭhito hoti, duṭṭho dosavasena, mūḷho mohavasena, parāmaṭṭho diṭṭhivasena, thāmagato anusayavasena, vinibaddho mānavasena, aniṭṭhaṅgato vicikicchāvasena, vikkhepagato uddhaccavasena patiṭṭhito hotīti.
akkheyyaṃ apariññāyāti taṃ akkheyyaṃ tebhūmakadhamme tīhi pariññāhi aparijānitvā tassa aparijānanahetu. yogamāyanti maccunoti maraṇassa yogaṃ tena saṃyogaṃ upagacchanti, na visaṃyoganti attho.
atha vā yoganti upāyaṃ, tena yojitaṃ pasāritaṃ mārasenaṭṭhāniyaṃ anatthajālaṃ kilesajālañca upagacchantīti vuttaṃ hoti. tathā hi vuttaṃ –atha vā yoganti upāyaṃ, tena yojitaṃ pasāritaṃ mārasenaṭṭhāniyaṃ anatthajālaṃ kilesajālañca upagacchantīti vuttaṃ hoti. tathā hi vuttaṃ –
"na hi no saṅgaraṃ tena, mahāsenena maccunā"ti. (ma. ni. 3.272, jā. 2.22.121, netti. 103),
ettāvatā vaṭṭaṃ dassetvā idāni vivaṭṭaṃ dassetuṃ "akkheyyañca pariññāyā"tiādi vuttaṃ. tattha ca-saddo byatireke, tena akkheyyaparijānanena laddhabbaṃ vakkhamānameva visesaṃ joteti. pariññāyāti[/quote]
Translation Chatgpt:

In the fourth sutta, “addhā” means time (kāla). Regarding the terms “past addhā,” etc., there are two approaches: the Sutta method and the Abhidhamma method.

In the Sutta method, the time before rebirth-linking (paṭisandhi) is called past addhā. The time after death (cuti) is called future addhā. The time including both death and rebirth-linking immediately following is called present addhā.

In the Abhidhamma method: the dhammas that, having gone through the three moments—arising (uppāda), presence (ṭhiti), and dissolution (bhaṅga)—have ceased, are called past addhā. Those dhammas that have not yet reached the three moments are future addhā. Those dhammas that are undergoing the three moments are present addhā.

Another method: this classification into past, etc., should be understood in four ways—by time periods (addhā), continuities (santati), occasions (samaya), and moments (khaṇa). Of these, the classification by time period has been explained.

According to continuity: phenomena with the same nature, arising from the same seasonal condition (utu) or nutritional support (āhāra), though progressing over time, are considered present. Those arising before, with different conditions, are past; those arising after, are future.

Mental phenomena (cittajā) that arise from a single cognitive process, a single impulsion (javana), or a single absorption (samāpatti) are called present. Those before that are past, and those after that are future.

For phenomena produced by kamma, there is no distinct classification into past, etc., by continuity. But based on their support by conditions like season (utu), nutrition (āhāra), or mind (citta), their past/future/present character is understood.

In terms of occasions: dhammas arising as continuities during specific times such as a moment, forenoon, evening, night or day, are called present. Those before that are past; those after are future.

So far is the method for material phenomena. For immaterial phenomena, those included in the three moments (arising, duration, cessation) are present. Before that—past; after that—future.

Moreover, those dhammas whose cause-and-condition function has passed are past. Those whose causal function is completed, but conditional function is ongoing, are present. Those that have not yet fulfilled either function are future. Or: at the moment of fulfilling their own function, they are present; before that, past; after that, future.

Here, only the talk about moments (khaṇa) is non-figurative (literal); the rest are figurative usages. This classification into past, etc., belongs to phenomena, not to time itself. Though time does not exist in ultimate terms, it is spoken of here as “past,” etc., based on conventional usage, referring to dhammas distinguished by pastness and so on.

In the verse, “those who have concepts of the speakable” (akkheyyasaññino): akkheyya means “that which is spoken,” “talked about,” or “made known.” As to meaning, it refers to the five aggregates (pañcakkhandhā), beginning with material form.

As it is said: “One might speak in reference to a past time, or a future time, or a present time” (Dīgha Nikāya III, 305).

Likewise it is said: “Bhikkhus, any past form that has ceased and changed: the designation for it is ‘it was,’ the name for it is ‘it was,’ the conceptual term for it is ‘it was’; there is no designation for it as existing or as future” (Saṃyutta Nikāya III, 62).

Thus, by what has been said in these suttas on designations, the meaning here should be made clear.

In this way, based on being subjects of discourse (kathāvatthu), the five aggregates (called akkheyya here) become the object of concepts such as: “I”, “mine”, “god”, “human”, “woman”, “man”, etc. Thus, people who hold to these notions are called akkheyyasaññino — “those who conceptualize what is spoken of.”

That is, they hold to the perception (saññā) of a being (satta), or person (puggala), in the five clinging aggregates.

They are established in the speakable through grasping by craving (taṇhā) and views (diṭṭhi), or they are established by eight forms of defilement such as lust (rāga), and so on.

The one who is infatuated is established through lust, the one who is angry through hatred, the one who is deluded through delusion, the one who is obsessed through wrong views, the one who is entrenched through latent tendencies, the one who is bound through conceit, the one who is entangled through doubt, and the one who is scattered is established through restlessness.

Not having fully understood the akkheyya — i.e., the speakable, the five aggregates subject to clinging — becomes the cause of that lack of comprehension.

“They enter into yoga (bondage) to maccu (death)”: they enter into union with death; that is, they are bound to mortality, not freed from it.

Alternatively, yoga means means or device. By that means, they become entangled in the net of Māra and web of defilements — which are dangerous and harmful devices.

As it is said: “There is no protection for us from that great general — Death.” (MN III.272, Jātaka II.22.121, Nettipakaraṇa p.103)

Up to this point, the cycle of existence (vaṭṭa) has been shown. Now, in order to show liberation (vivaṭṭa), the following phrase is said: “Having fully understood the speakable…” — and so on.

Therein, the particle “ca” (and) indicates a contrast. By means of that full understanding of the speakable, it points toward the special attainment that will be explained shortly. “Having fully understood” refers to complete comprehension (pariññā) in the threefold sense: knowledge, analysis, and abandonment.

]Anaṅgaṇasutta
Reverend,” they replied.
“Āvuso”ti kho te bhikkhū āyasmato sāriputtassa paccassosuṁ.
Sāriputta said this:
Āyasmā sāriputto etadavoca:

“Reverends, these four people are found in the world. This sutta emphasizes how even small, apparently trivial defects betray a deeper corruption. Rather than hiding them away in shame, they will only be healed when brought to light.
“Cattārome, āvuso, puggalā santo saṁvijjamānā lokasmiṁ.
What four?
Katame cattāro?

Bodhi Note 69

Personally, I would render it along the lines of

Having fully understood what can be shown, spoken of (saccikatthena paramatthena)

They don’t conceive ‘someone’ that can be spoken of

A profound teaching on emptiness.

1 Like

Nyanatiloka’s 'Buddhist Dictionary’

Paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desanā)
‘truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or
ultimate) sense’, as contrasted with the ‘conventional truth’
(vohāra-sacca), which is also called ‘commonly accepted truth’
(sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya).

The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional
language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is
in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate
sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena
within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding
substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man,
woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken
as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode
of speech (vohāra-vacana).

It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha
couched in conventional language, are called ‘truth’ (vohāra-sacca),
being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact
that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal
processes. …

from page 54:
"> On close analysis, it becomes clear that in this dependent

origination, paṭicca-samuppāda, in this repeated process of
rebirth, in this cycle of existence, there is nothing
permanent, no enduring soul-entity that passes from one
birth to the next. All dhammas are causally dependent, they
are conditioned (sabbe dhammā paṭiccasamuppannā), and this
process of events is utterly free from the notion of a
permanent soul or self.
The Buddha declares: “To believe the doer of the deed will
be the same as the one who experiences its results (in the
next life), this is the one extreme. To believe that the doer of
the deed and the one who experiences its results are two
different persons, this is the other extreme. Both these
extremes the Tathāgata, the Perfect One, has avoided and
taught the truth that lies in the middle of both, namely:
“Through ignorance conditioned are the kamma formations
and so on (see formula). Thus arises this whole mass of
suffering.”
Hence the ancients said:

“There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.
For here there is no Brahma God,
Creator of the round of births"
Phenomena alone flow on—
Cause and component their condition.”