While discussing the answer to a question in comments I was told that there is no concept of Atman in suttas. My understanding is that atta covers the concept of Atman. Atman is soul or self which is imperishable and we return to Atman after death. Atman never dies. If we see DN 1 it covers all kinds of self views including the Atman as follows : ‘The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. This is the Upaniṣadic view of the eternal ātman that is the immanent soul of the world or cosmos, loka. Elsewhere in the suttas such theorists assert that the self and the cosmos are identical (SN 24.3:1.3: so attā so loko). ‘sassato attā ca loko ca vañjho kūṭaṭṭho esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhito; So my question is : Is there no discussion in Suttas about Atman ?

In Buddhist philosophy, the Pali term 'atta' is frequently translated into English as 'self.' However, this translation can be misleading since in common English usage, 'self' often implies an inherent identity or individuality that the Buddhist concept of 'anatta' (not-self) seems to refute. Some might argue that 'essence' could be a more fitting translation, as it suggests the fundamental qualities of a person or thing. Given this, why do translators choose to use 'self' rather than 'essence' when translating 'atta' from Buddhist texts, especially when the term 'essence' might avoid the misconception of an enduring, independent self that Buddhism actually seeks to dispel?

1. What is atthakalap? 2. So famously known as soul-> atta in Buddha's teachings .. how can one derive soul from atthakalap? 3. And what's after liberated state from atthakalap is achieved? 4. Is liberated mind impermanent too, if so then how or why not if not? I was wondering how this atthakalap works. Thanks to the anger-looking collection of few points [in this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/48515/do-so-called-buddhists-understand-the-term-nous-citta-mind-in-doctrine) , now I can imagine (via analysis) soul and atthakalap, and this is how I understand (or "this knowledge came like this"): Like the mind is cheated by itself via everything in form of grasping -- from point 5 from above link... > For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto consciousness. ...and atthakalap is said to have 4 members with 4 properties and all are like beads tied to a "rope in form of mind". This mind is not the actual rope rather it tries to be the one due to ignorance(here comes the ignorance part where it can be judged clearly) and when mind stops being a rope here, these beads do not break and shatter rather the impermanent beads remain as it is but mind is freed from that. In that way, everything is impermanent... is observed. In that way, mind is liberated and is said to achieve permanence(in terms of non grasping forever, non clinging forever..). 3. But there is one more concern here, when mind is freed what happens to mind then, after? 4. What's the way to check mind's impermanence, is it's impermanence a way to express change within itself, if so wt's that change?.. :::::: or is there no such thing as mind, it's just the process within body, process of karma(action) which has started to cease after achieving that state!! 5. What's the difference b/w that state and Brahma, if any? (Note:- if reader is not feeling good then kind request to either edit it or break it into multiple sub topics with linked questions, mentioning links in them with seq. Number).

From craving, there arises clinging, then from clinging, there arises existence or becoming, and then from becoming, we get the birth of the self-identity or self-habit. But how does craving really cause self-identity or self-habit? How are they connected? Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes? How is that so?

In a nutshell, the Buddha's teaching is: - self-views ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self") must be avoided - craving is a precondition for suffering, thus we must train ourselves to gain control over craving and, finally, to eradicate it - nihilism ("non existence") and/or existentialism ("existence") must be avoided - being spiritual or having spiritual views is better than being materialistic or having materialistic views - extremes must be avoided (middle way) I'm wondering WHY a strong belief in rebirth does not conform with the above Buddha's teachings? I really want to understand the WHY behind it. WHY a belief in rebirth does not lead to the cessation of suffering? WHY somebody who **strongly accepts rebirth** (read the below case to see what I mean by "strongly accepting rebirth") can't attain Nibanna? Please respond to the below questions that I provided and then if you wish give your explanations/answers. ********* CASE a) Suppose person X **STRONGLY ACCEPTS REBIRTH** by claiming: ***"There's NO WAY that after death there is no life. Life after death doesn't stop. Life after death is real. Life after death can't stop."*** When asked *"Can life after death come to an end for an arahat?"* person X would answer: *"No. There's NO WAY life after death can come to an end. Life after death does not come to an end for all beings, even if a being is an arahat or attained enlightenment (Nirvana).*". When asked "*Is there at least any tinyyyy possibility life after death can come to an end for an arahat?*" person X would answer: *"No. There's NO WAY! I know there's no way! NO WAY."*. Suppose person X is very sturdy and close minded and there's no way person X will change his/her views about life after death, not even if somebody would threaten his/her life and would actually kill him/her. Questions: **1a.** Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of craving? Why? **2a.** Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of nihilistic ("non existence") and/or eternalists ("existence") views? Why? **3a.** Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of a view regarding self ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self")? Why? **4a.** Can an arahat strongly accept rebirth, just like person X in the example above? Why?

We have seen many researches and references (like "Reviewed Work: Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism" and many more supporting documents from PTS, Pali text society) that the idea Atta to some extent it exists and can be deduced that Buddha's teachings also consists of "the idea of Atta". The popular references by I.B Horner (need citation here) and some scholars is > atta hi attano natho In Buddha's teachings and Tipitaka, I do not see a slight extent of existence of Atta or some ambiguities about Atta by Buddha or monks at the Buddha's ages. All Buddha teachings are ubiquitously about Anatta. And Gautama Buddha repealed the very concept ’Atta’ in many Suttas. Since his second discourse “Anatta Latkhana Sutta ", Buddha’s teachings are all about Anatta. Anatta is key concept in Buddha's teachings and Gautama Buddha was first and very first person opposite and challenged to popular Atta idealists at the age of his time. My question here is why some scholars and some publications from Pali text society are trying to coerce Atta concept in Buddhism or society of Buddhists? What are the supporting facts that Gautama Buddha and his teachings are self denial to its own Anatta concept? What are the proofs that Buddhism accept/adopt Brahmanism's Atta idea since both are clearly opposed to each other? Please keep in mind that the words self and not-self are loosely translated, have ambiguous meanings about referring internal and external based on perspective of particular individual being and not applicable/intended words here. Atta and Anatta is what I am referring here. **The definition of Atta** Atta is the word from Brahmanism, it is essence, from Brahma (or whatever creator make it exists), eternal or indefinite period of existence, it has capability of suffering pleasure and pain. It is in each and everyone bodies and pass from life to life. Some outside Buddha’s teachings define Atta as ’soul’ and/or self but precise definition of Atta is highly controversial.

There are many discussions about Anatta or Not-Self in Buddhist communities, but the definition of Atta or self is uncommon and not clear. People often misunderstand or superficially translate it, using the definition of the English word "self", which means "internal of individual being", or "colloquial personal point of view of individual being", just differentiation of other individual being. My question here is, other than just this colloquial definition of Self or Atta, is there any more insightful definition of Atta in human being, for example does it imply some "essence" (closer to Hindu or Brahmanist definition of 'Attaman'). If 'Atta' is physical body? 1. What happen if a person died and leave physical body behind (in cemetery) If 'Atta' is mind (Citta)? 2. Buddhism definition of mind (Citta) bodies are transitional and conditional factors (depending on or composed with contact, feeling, memorizing, judging etc). So it seems in a sense to process by just following Citta Laws (Niyamas ) than being essence, core or Atta. (Process than essence). If rebirth is a footprint of 'Atta'? 3. Rebirth seems continuity and information/karma/effects carried over but statistically we do not have enough proof (there should be many Einsteins if we have studied mathematics or physics many lives but instead we have only a handful of geniuses on particular study, information/karma/effects carried over is somehow lost or continuity is weak and/or broken). If wholesome acts is 'Atta'? 4. Vipasana wholesome acts are as well not 'Atta' because I heard that during meditation or Vipasana "Only Sankhara dhammas are observing Sankhara dhammas (Sati, Samadhi, Panna are also encouraged by Cetana , initiated by Sanna and many more supporting factors). The observings are effects of efforts to happen at the same time the observants are not 'Atta'. So in conclusion, when we are saying self or 'Atta', which particular entity is defined to be called self or 'Atta'. If not a single entity, which collective entities are defined to be called self or 'Atta' and why can it be called self or 'Atta'?

In Buddha's teachings, all mind-related entities are "not-self" i.e.: - uncontrollable (opposite of controllable = when I want it I can make it happen, I can turn it on and off as I desire) - unmanageable (opposite of manageable = I can make it details how it happen and how it behave) - not possess-able (opposite of possess-able = I own it, it is with me all the time, I can keep it, I can store it in somewhere I want it to be at) - temporary (opposite of permanent/eternal/long-lasting/with one's whole life). This not-self attribute also applied to _will_ or/and _volition_. I found sexual desire has it own physical limitation. It is difficult for me to keep sexual desire and sexual pleasure(effect of sexual desire) to last a single day, two days, three days, four days,... up to seven days (even if I use medical supplementary to keep my will/volition/desire). And another thing I found is sexual desire is not primitive will of man, it usually comes around/after puberty, sexual education, physical development in teenage ages. So if I had never learnt what sexual intercourse is (or I am autism child who does not have any chance to learn/understand sexual education in my whole life) I doubt there will be sexual desire/will happen in my mind. So I was looking for more self-ness will/volition or desire and I found another will/desire, Gastronomic. This may seem primitive to me since I had breastfeed to bottle-feed since I was born. But even without any physical limitation imposted (I haven't had any food so many hours), sometimes I lost my appetite. I found gastronomic will is also uncontrollable and unmanageable too here. It seems like chemical, environmental and other factors governed gastronomic will/desire. It may seem primitive but I have doubt that I can find self-ness in here. And I searched for more will/desire which can be self and found a weak will of survival. Everyone want to survive so as mine will and it seem primitive, closer to self to me. (You can tell there are some people who end their life by taking poison to death, yes but I am not looking for universal self, I am just looking for self to me, self to my life, self to individual being.) But on careful consideration, sometimes I crossed the street and nearly to die hitting by a car. If the idea of will to survive is controllable, manageable I can avoid those events by power of will. There should not be other things or will or desire to overcome one will or desire. So here is my question, is there any will/volition/desire that is controllable, manageable, self (at least for a person whole life if we cannot find eternal, indefinite period of time). If you have personal experience about it, I am glad to hear if it exists. If it is written in somewhere I like to get a reference.