'Attalābha' meaning in context

Pali studies
1

Dear All
@jansen
the visuddhimagga tika:
see chapter VIII path of purification page 283-284

note 66. “What is called ‘permanent’ is what is lasting, eternal, like Nibbána. What is

called ‘impermanent’ is what is not permanent, and is possessed of rise and fall. He

said ‘The five aggregates are “the impermanent,’” signifying that they are formed

dhammas as to meaning. Why? ‘Because their essence is rise and fall and change’: the

meaning is that their individual essences have rise and fall and change. Herein, formed

dhammas’ arising owing to cause and condition, their coming to be after non-existence,

their acquisition of an individual self (attalábha), is ‘rise.’ Their momentary cessation

when arisen is ‘fall.’

A member of another forum cited this as evidence that some Theravada sub-commentaries believes each momentary element has a self…

I feel it is posssibly similar to the term sabhava (sometimes translated as own essence).
In any event what is clear is that the sub-commentary is crystal clear that each moment pases away absolutely and a new one arises just for a brief moment. So no self there at all(but these momentary elements are real.)
67

2

Sarah on dsg writes:
S: The note for 67 ( Ñāṇamoli translation) reads:

’ “Destruction” is the vanishing of formations; it is the act of those formations’ fading away, their disintegration, that is “fading away”. Destruction itself as fading away is “fading away as destruction”; this is momentary cessation. Formations fade away absolutely here when this has been reached, thus it is “absolute fading away”, this is nibbana’ (Pm.280).'
This is in conformity with what the main text says.

For the Tīka note you give:

note 66. “What is called ‘permanent’ is what is lasting, eternal, like Nibbána. What is

called ‘impermanent’ is what is not permanent, and is possessed of rise and fall. He

said ‘The five aggregates are “the impermanent,’” signifying that they are formed

dhammas as to meaning. Why? ‘Because their essence is rise and fall and change’: the

meaning is that their individual essences have rise and fall and change. Herein, formed

dhammas’ arising owing to cause and condition, their coming to be after non-existence,

their acquisition of an individual self (attalábha), is ‘rise.’ Their momentary cessation

when arisen is ‘fall.’

Here is the Pāli:

Tattha niccaṃ nāma dhuvaṃ sassataṃ yathā taṃ nibbānaṃ, na niccanti aniccaṃ, udayabbayavantaṃ, atthato saṅkhatā dhammāti āha ‘‘aniccanti pañcakkhandhā. Kasmā? Uppādavayaññathattabhāvā’’ti, uppādavayaññathattasabbhāvāti attho. Tattha saṅkhatadhammānaṃ hetupaccayehi uppajjanaṃ ahutvā sambhavo attalābho uppādo. Uppannānaṃ tesaṃ khaṇanirodho vināso vayo.

As others have suggested, the translation is misleading.
Sambhavo refers to comes into existence/arises. Attalābho, might mean literally gaining (lābho) existence (atta), like attabhava. (Atta can also mean “taken up”, past participle of ādiyati.)

In any case, what is clear is that after non-existence, each conditioned dhamma or element arises and then falls away completely.

Sarah

3

I dont think being too caught up on the no self thing is useful. The Buddha uses atta in many contexts, just like how dhamma doesnt always mean Dhamma. For instance, take your “self” as your refuge, “attasaraṇā”.

It doesnt seem like he is talking about the same self in this context as the Buddha does in the annattalakkhanasutta where he says stuff like

For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form:
‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’

As it doesnt seem like the dhammas that are arising from non-existence discussed in the passage you mention have such qualities of having complete control over them.

4

Yes, looking at the context of the passages obviously there is no suggestion of a lasting self that has mastery over elements.

5

“Attalābha” means “acquisition of itself”. It is just like a mushroom “gains itself”.

It is explaining a “atta-less dhamma” from the point of view of itself.

But the “translation in question” is little bit misleading.

And even with the mistranslation, the meaning is clear, according to the Pali Grammar.

Tattha saṅkhatadhammānaṃ hetupaccayehi uppajjanaṃ ahutvā sambhavo attalābho uppādo.
Herein, formed dhammas’ arising owing to cause and condition, their coming to be after non-existence, their acquisition of an individual self, is ‘rise.’

In Pali, the possosive “saṅkhatadhammānaṃ (formed dhammas’)”, is applied with rest words related to it.

Tattha,
saṅkhatadhammānaṃ hetupaccayehi uppajjanaṃ,
= saṅkhatadhammānaṃ ahutvā sambhavo,
= saṅkhatadhammānaṃ attalābho,
= uppādo.

Herein,
formed dhammas’ arising owing to cause and condition,
= formed dhammas’ coming to be after non-existence,
= formed dhammas’ acquisition of an individual self (attalábha),
is
= rise.

The translator has used the phrase “their” instead of “formed dhammas’”, after the first mention of it. (It is norrmal way of translating.)

No need to say “formed dhammas” are categerized as “not self” by the Buddha in many suttas.

Therefore “attalabha” never means “a self” in the ultimate sense.

And the other sentences before and after the “sentence in question”, also affirms the “mentioned atta’s” momentary rising and falling. According to many suttas, a dhamma which is subjected to rising and falling, is technically “not self”. It is a fundamental.

udayabbayavantaṃ, atthato saṅkhatā dhammāti āha ‘‘aniccanti pañcakkhandhā. Kasmā? Uppādavayaññathattabhāvā’’ti, uppādavayaññathattasabbhāvāti attho.

Uppannānaṃ tesaṃ khaṇanirodho vināso vayo.

1 Like