Thanks for the response. Basically, I am debating on BeliefNet with a
strident aatmanvaadin, one of the group that briefly infected this list way
back when. I have seen these people move through the Net from one list or
forum to another. Until now I have avoided engaging them, but given that
there are rules of conduct on BeliefNet that are fairly well enforced, so
something resembling a dialogue can happen.
On of the texts that I rather like is S iii 144:
<b>Bhikkhu, there is no form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not
subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself,
There is no feeling .. no perception no volitional formations no
consciousness not subject to change, and that will remain the same just
like eternity itself.
Then the Blessed one took up a little lump of cowdung in his hand and said
to the that bhikkhu: Bhikkhu, there is not even this much individual
existence</b> [attabhaava]<b> that is permanent, stable, eternal, not
subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself.
If there was this much individual existence that is permanent, stable,
eternal, not subject to change, this living the holy life for the complete
destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not
even this much individual existence that is permanent, stable, eternal, not
subject to change, this living the holy life for the complete destruction
of suffering is discerned.</b>
This is Bhikkhu Bodhis translation. Our aatmanvaadin thinks that
attabhaava should be translated as matter or body. That, in this context,
is an eye-roller, but I do like to get my water fowl queued as best I can.
In Sue Hamiltons IDENTITY AND EXPERIENCE, page152, I came across this from
the CPD:
Attabhaava: 1. (abstract) existence of a soul 2 The existence as an
individual, proper nature; but most frequently concrete: a living being, or
its bodily form, person, personality, i.e. the various appearance of attaa,
opp. The continual existence of attaa
What I was wondering is if this is a complete entry from the CPD.
Attabhaava is a curious word. It is obviously not a set technical term, but
carries various meaning depending upon context.
The PTS defines attabhaava: : one's own nature (1) person, personality,
individuality, living creature; form, appearance.
Monier-Williams, aatmanbhaava: existence of the soul, S`vetUp. ; the self ,
proper or peculiar nature, Buddh. ; the body, ib[idem]. Page 135
In looking at Lambert Schmithausens study of the Yogacarin doctrine of the
alayavijnana, aptly titled: ALAYAVIJNANA, there are at least ten variations
on the world is used, from basis of personal existence, body, to the
objective basis of the notion of Self (atman) used in Yogacara Sanskrit
literature. And there are a number of compound words with aatmabhaava.
Edgertons BHSD, p. 92:
"m. (rarely nt.) (= Pali attabhaava, list by Pali Lex. among words denoting
body, CPD), body, synonym of shariira: .......[omitted are numerous
Sanskrit textual citations, all with the sense of 'body']... could be
indefinitely extended (very common in most texts). The fact has not been
recognized sufficiently clearly that this is a quite plain and simple
synonym of shariira, body,. <b>The same is in general true of Pali, tho I
am not prepared to say that it always has that mg. there.</b> The Pali
dictionaries (even CPD) do not bring this out clearly."
Edgerton is, interestingly enough, not very good considering how the word
is used in various Mahayana Sanskrit texts, though maybe what he has to say
to good only for those texts that are Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit.
And Buddhaghosa states: Through either the bodys or the five categories
being taken in this sense this is my self [my atta], they are called
attabhaava. VM 9 256
From what I have been able to track down in the Pali sutta material the S
iii 144 use of attabhaava is somewhat unique in what it seems at least to
me to be suggesting. Ven Bodhi gives individual existence, but I think
it might be justified to push it a little harder and say self existence,
or, following Steven Collins, selfness
Clearly, attabhaava is not a strict technical term. Its meanings seem to be
all over the place, and in discussing this with a friend of mine who is a
Yogacharin specialist he cautioned not give this word too much weight. He
is probably correct in that, but it is an interesting choice of words in
that context. The passage in question is reworked in the immediately
following sutta, but there the Buddha picks up a bit of soil on his
fingernail and states:
Bhikkhu, there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable,
eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like
eternity itself.
And he repeats this for the other four khandhas.
Any way, thanks for you help. I would be interested in hearing any other
thoughts on attabhaava in this context.