➥ mama:

• for mama:
  • my
  • mine
  • belonging to me
  • “[in reality] mine”

Mama

Mama is the genitive of ahaṁ, i.e. ‘of me.’ The genitive case indicates close connection, not just possession. Therefore it covers a range of concepts such as ‘belonging to me’ or ‘associated with me’ or ‘connected with me.’ It can be rendered as either ‘my’ or ‘mine.’

• My life (life belonging to me) is short

parittaṁ mama jīvitaṁ. (DN ii 120)

• Beckon Ānanda in my name (name connected with me)

mama vacanena ānandaṁ āmantehi. (DN ii 144)

• Listen, lords, to my proposal (proposal connected with me)

mama ekavākyaṁ. (DN ii 166)

• Those eighty-four thousand cities of which Kusāvatī was chief were mine (cities belonging to me)

mama tāni caturāsītinagarasahassāni kusāvatīnagarapamukhāni. (DN ii 196)

• He is sitting on my couch (couch belonging to me)

mama pallaṅke. (DN ii 212)

• They became my disciples (disciples associated with me)

mama yeva sāvakā sampajjanti. (DN ii 284)

me

Me is synonymous with mama. For example:

• my enemies disā hi me. (MN ii 104)
• my [absolute] Selfhood me attā. (MN i 230)
• my life me jīvitaṁ. (Uda 46)
• my disciples me sāvakā. (MN i 12)
• this is not mine n’etaṁ me. (SN i 112)

Rendering doctrinal contexts

But things that are conventionally mine are not [in reality] mine. We word doctrinal contexts accordingly, for example by rendering n’etaṁ mama as ‘This is “not [in reality] mine.”’

The parenthesis ‘[in reality]’ is justified because of mama‘s link to yathābhūtaṁ:

• What is void of personal qualities should be seen according to reality with perfect penetrative discernment as “not [in reality] mine,” “not [in reality] what I am,” “not my [absolute] Selfhood”

yadanattā taṁ n’etaṁ mama n’eso’hamasmi na me so attā ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ. (SN iv 1)

Inverted commas

Inverted commas are used in the way we have done because the Buddha would tell bhikkhus to see things as ‘not mine.’ He obviously did not mean that their five aggregates were not his, the Buddha’s (n’etaṁ mama).

If an object either one’s own or another’s is “not [in reality] mine,” then it is not something that anyone, myself or another, could say is “[in reality] mine.” The reflection on n’etaṁ mama thus embraces not just one’s own perspective on the world, but also one’s insight into the perspective of others.

Illustration: mama, of mine

A disciple of mine (mama sāvako) sees each of the five aggregates according to reality with perfect penetrative discernment (yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passati): MN i 234).

Illustration: mama, belonging to me

I am not in any way anything “belonging to anyone”

nāhaṁ kvacani kassaci kiñcanatasmiṁ

And not in any way is there anywhere anything “belonging to me.”

na ca mama kvacani katthaci kiñcanatātthī ti. (MN ii 263-4, AN i 206, AN ii 176-7)

Comment:

The Uposatha Sutta says the particular application of this contemplation is in personal relationships, where usually a man’s parents know him as their son, and he knows them as his parents

ayaṁ amhākaṁ putto ti so pi jānāti ime mayhaṁ mātāpitaro ti.

Similarly, his slaves and servants know him as their master, and he knows them as his slaves and servants

ayaṁ amhākaṁ ayyo ti. So pi jānāti ime mayhaṁ dāsakammakaraporisā ti.

The reflection therefore overcomes the idea that beings possess each other (AN i 206).

Illustration: mama, “[in reality] mine”

I regard these things as “not [in reality] mine,” “not [in reality] what I am,” “not my [absolute] Selfhood.”’

n’etaṁ mama n’eso’hamasmi na me so attā ti samanupassāmi. (MN iii 265)

Illustration: mama, “[in reality] mine”

Whatever bodily form… fields of sensation, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or sublime, far or near, one perceives all fields of sensation according to reality with perfect penetrative discernment as “not [in reality] mine,” “not [in reality] what I am,” “not my [absolute] Selfhood.”

Yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā sabbaṁ viññāṇaṁ n’etaṁ. mama n’eso’hamasmi na me so attā ti (MN iii 18-9)