I think it important to remember that atta is used in different ways as Yong Peng has nicely stated. As far as the atta that the teaching of anatta (not-Self) is aimed at, Peter Harvey in his book 'The Selfless Mind' comes up with a nice summary from the Pali cannon on what the characteristics of atta, as a metaphysical Self / Soul, are that we should be looking for in all aspects of existence. Below is my summary of Harvey's, argument as stated in a paper I am writing on this subject:
Harvey
(1995; 2.6-12) finds from analyzing the early texts and commentaries that a
metaphysical Self, the Self that not-Self teaching is aimed at, has the
following qualities: It has self-awareness and self-control; it is permanent,
not arising or passing away; it is unconstructed, unconditioned with its own
inherent and independent existence and essence; and most importantly it is not
subject to dukkha, therefore is completely
and permanently happy.

with metta,
Brett








________________________________
From: Gabriel Jaeger <lotsawanet@...>
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 12:42:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Translating anatta


Thanks everyone!

It seems to me that what Yong Peng cited: permanent independent
individualistic identity, would be a kind of definition of "atta".
Would exist the pali for this phrase "permanent independent individualistic
identity". If yes, is it used to define atta?

Thanks again,
tenphel

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Ong Yong Peng <palismith@... com> wrote:

>
>
> Dear Ven. Dhammadarsa,
>
> I think "egoistic" is about "self-centredness" , "self-pride" ,
> "selfishness" , "big ego". I do not dispute that ego may be addressed by the
> Buddha in the suttas, but the term "atta" is not just "ego".
>
> "atta" may be used as a reflexive pronoun, such as "oneself", "myself",
> "ownself", etc.
>
> "atta" may also be used by the Buddha to refer to contemporary beliefs of a
> permanent independent individualistic identity, such as a soul.
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
> --- In Pali@... com <Pali%40yahoogroups .com>, Dhammadarsa wrote:
>
> In modern terminology and reflecting on my practice, greed, hatred and
> delusion, the ending of which is called Nibbaana, is the same as "ego" [as
> in egotistic] rather than "self". At times I experience an impermanent self
> that has no greed, hatred and delusion - no ego. At those times I am working
> towards the benefit of myself and others, not just myself. In the
> consideration of "myself and others", there is a self and others and the
> Buddha taught that the wholesome that we should develop [kusalassupasampada a
> Dhammapada v 183] is defined as not harming oneself and, or others.
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]