Anatta (An Essay by an individual Buddhist philosopher)

[Buddha Dharma]

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, Anatta I hear being said, Venerable. What, pray tell, does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, Radha, form is not the self (Anatta), sensations are not the self (Anatta), perceptions are not the self (Anatta), assemblages are not the self (Anatta), consciousness is not the self (Anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." - Samyutta Nikaya

Among Buddhists I find my approach to Anatta somewhat controversial. I do not affirm that Anatta means not having an Atman. I affirm that Anatta means 'not-Atman'. Put another way: the Buddha only indicated what essential being is not

I find that the Samyutta Nikaya makes little sense taken otherwise. If the Buddha were really teaching that nothing has fundamental essence or being- he could have easily said so. It would be easy to have said to Radha: there is no Atman.

That is not how the Buddha answered. He answered with minimal negation. He stated what he knows (knows through the awakened eye of enlightenment) Atman/self is not.

There is more evidence for this though than the Samyutta Nikaya by itself. There is Buddhism as we see it approached and practiced through history.

Buddhism does not practice as though nothing exists, or nothing is being born from birth to birth. Buddhism historically has practices trying to liberate the deceased from the cycle of Samsara, or ease along the process.

It should be apparent that Buddhism is not teaching voidness. What exactly is it teaching then?

First I'll return to the Samyutta Nikaya. You will note that the Buddha says that seeing thus- that forms, etc are not-self> one has reached the end of birth.

This is similar to the Buddha's statement in the Dhammapada:

Through many births
I have wandered on and on,
Searching for, but never finding,
The builder of this house.
To be born again and again is suffering.

House-builder, you are seen!
You will not build a house again!
All the rafters are broken,
The ridgepole destroyed;
The mind, gone to the Unconstructed,
Has reached the end of craving!
-Dhammapada 11

In Buddhism this mind that goes to the Unconstructed is Citta.

Citta is better understood as the heart mind. It is the mind at the center of perception that says to itself: I am this. This I am.

This is in contrast with manas and vinnana, which are not the heart of consciousness, but refer to other aspects of the mind like the generating of the Skandhas.

Citta means exclusively that part of perception that sees itself. The heart of being.

This is no different for the Buddha as it happens. The center of the Buddha's being is called Bodhicitta. The heart of the Buddha.

The Buddha is saying that the fundamental mind moves to the Unconstructed when Nirvana has been realized. The heart mind that says: I am because I perceive that I am

This is not an illusory feeling in Mahayana Buddhism. In the Yogachara (also Cittamatra: mind-only) school, this mind is the only thing not generated by the Skandhas. Because the basic feeling of existing is not necessarily bound up in anything.

To be bound in the Skandhas (aggregates or collections) means only that one takes them to be indicative of the real self.

The Skandhas are those collective states produced by two or more sensations. Such as having a preference for chocolate cake, and the enjoyment sensation that accompanies sating the craving.

To be bound by the Skandhas means one takes these mind collectives generated by the world of forms as the real self. This is where fundamental ignorance about the mind first begins. When one looks at this mesmerizing shadow world and says: this I am

By contrast, to go to the Unconstructed is to perfectly attain understanding of Sunyata (emptiness). How is it that Citta ties in with this understanding though? Since as stated: Citta is not false or illusory.

I think this can only mean that Citta is not fundamentally separate from Sunyata. That is to say: the real mind is not different than emptiness.

One might very well ask: then why not simply say there is no mind and everything is void?

That is exactly the point! Buddhism is not saying that everything is void. Buddhism is saying that illusion is void. There is nothing real about illusion, or the false understandings we have about Ultimate Reality.

Sunyata is another form of minimalism to get the practitioner unstuck from speculation, just as Anatta is. I can easily prove this, given what the Heart Sutra says about emptiness and Dharma.

Real emptiness- the emptiness that Dharma has root in, is not voidness. That emptiness is a nature unknown to we humans. We have no reference to it in our concepts or sensations. That may even be why we use emptiness to refer to it. We have no other word that approaches this unconstructed.

Let's look at the Heart Sutra briefly, the first few lines, to help make this point:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when coursing the deep Prajnaparamita clearly saw emptiness of all the Skandhas. After this he overcame all suffering.

Sariputra listen: Form is no other than void. Void is no other than form. Form is exactly void. Void is exactly form. Sensation, perception, discrimination, and awareness are likewise like this.

Sariputra, all Dharmas are marked with emptiness in that they are not born, and not destroyed. Not stained, and not pure. Without loss, and without gain.

There is a something to emptiness that transcends the illusion. This something has never been born, and never dies. It is not holy, or unclean. It gains or loses nothing, as the Heart Sutra describes it.

The heart mind is not separate from it in truth, so seeing that the mind is unconstructed is to awaken to this real reality within our being. That is when the Buddha's mind moved to the Unconstructed. He perceived no difference between his real being and this emptiness.

I can only suppose from this that there is a something encompassing this Cosmos. It is real and exists, but cannot be known through any concept. Because it doesn't need concepts. It is complete. It is whole.

To know it, is to know the true nature of existence. Because they are one and the same. Since this real nature is bound up in the illusions of the constructed- the constructed can perceive that it has a real nature, but Buddhists are warned about stopping here.

After all, we'd be clinging to shadows if we accepted what illusory grip can tell about it.

I conclude from everything said, and have concluded for some time: that Anatta does not mean everything is void, or that Atman is a false concept.

Anatta seems like the Buddha's way of denying a specific Atman concept. The Samyutta Nikaya gives us the negation of the Atman the Buddha did deny, so we can infer what the concept might have been.

The Buddha says forms, perceptions, and so on are not-self (not-Atman).

This means the Buddha is refuting dualism. He's refuting seeing an otherness in the base ego sense. The ego substantiates it's real separateness by clinging to it's abilities to perceive, think, grasp, and the like.

The Buddha is saying this base self sense, and any Atman view that might enshrine the ego as eternal is no Atman.

The thing that Buddhists chant mantras and perform funerary rites for, so that a deceased person might escape Samsara is not the person. It is the real Unconstructed bound up in this phantom world because of ignorance and misunderstanding.

This is what is being touched by the merits of chants and rites. This Unconstructed. This real.

Buddhism holds we are the Unconstructed bound in an illusion. This is why the Buddha says if there was not an Unconstructed- there would be no escape from the constructed and so on (Samsara).

The Unconstructed that goes to the Unconstructed, is not separate from it in reality. It is a seeming separation only.

This is why there are scriptures like the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti that say though we die- in truth nothing has died. Nothing has ever been born that it might die.

This nothing that is not born and does not die is the elusive realness of Sunyata. Unlike Hinduism, the Buddha does not call it Brahman. He doesn't want us to get caught up in a trap, or the potential of falling into one with any concept.

However, Brahman is clearly what Buddhism seems to be getting at. We mean the Ultimate Reality that Hindus mean when they say Brahman. That is probably the most controversial thing I will say in this essay, and certainly my opinion.

Seems like a good place to end this work. Hope it clarifies my view of Anatta that I've eluded to in other threads. That was the purpose- to clarify my view of Anatta.

On an additional and final note: I very much affirm Anatta. It is a useful concept that keeps us from the speculation that goes with a defined Atman.

The Buddha has taught Anatta through his skillful means. For a Buddhist, that is enough.

Thanks for reading.

 

[sayak83]

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, Anatta I hear being said, Venerable. What, pray tell, does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, Radha, form is not the self (Anatta), sensations are not the self (Anatta), perceptions are not the self (Anatta), assemblages are not the self (Anatta), consciousness is not the self (Anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." - Samyutta Nikaya

Among Buddhists I find my approach to Anatta somewhat controversial. I do not affirm that Anatta means not having an Atman. I affirm that Anatta means 'not-Atman'. Put another way: the Buddha only indicated what essential being is not

I find that the Samyutta Nikaya makes little sense taken otherwise. If the Buddha were really teaching that nothing has fundamental essence or being- he could have easily said so. It would be easy to have said to Radha: there is no Atman.

That is not how the Buddha answered. He answered with minimal negation. He stated what he knows (knows through the awakened eye of enlightenment) Atman/self is not.

There is more evidence for this though than the Samyutta Nikaya by itself. There is Buddhism as we see it approached and practiced through history.

Buddhism does not practice as though nothing exists, or nothing is being born from birth to birth. Buddhism historically has practices trying to liberate the deceased from the cycle of Samsara, or ease along the process.

It should be apparent that Buddhism is not teaching voidness. What exactly is it teaching then?

First I'll return to the Samyutta Nikaya. You will note that the Buddha says that seeing thus- that forms, etc are not-self> one has reached the end of birth.

This is similar to the Buddha's statement in the Dhammapada:

Through many births
I have wandered on and on,
Searching for, but never finding,
The builder of this house.
To be born again and again is suffering.

House-builder, you are seen!
You will not build a house again!
All the rafters are broken,
The ridgepole destroyed;
The mind, gone to the Unconstructed,
Has reached the end of craving!
-Dhammapada 11

In Buddhism this mind that goes to the Unconstructed is Citta.

Citta is better understood as the heart mind. It is the mind at the center of perception that says to itself: I am this. This I am.

This is in contrast with manas and vinnana, which are not the heart of consciousness, but refer to other aspects of the mind like the generating of the Skandhas.

Citta means exclusively that part of perception that sees itself. The heart of being.

This is no different for the Buddha as it happens. The center of the Buddha's being is called Bodhicitta. The heart of the Buddha.

The Buddha is saying that the fundamental mind moves to the Unconstructed when Nirvana has been realized. The heart mind that says: I am because I perceive that I am

This is not an illusory feeling in Mahayana Buddhism. In the Yogachara (also Cittamatra: mind-only) school, this mind is the only thing not generated by the Skandhas. Because the basic feeling of existing is not necessarily bound up in anything.

To be bound in the Skandhas (aggregates or collections) means only that one takes them to be indicative of the real self.

The Skandhas are those collective states produced by two or more sensations. Such as having a preference for chocolate cake, and the enjoyment sensation that accompanies sating the craving.

To be bound by the Skandhas means one takes these mind collectives generated by the world of forms as the real self. This is where fundamental ignorance about the mind first begins. When one looks at this mesmerizing shadow world and says: this I am

By contrast, to go to the Unconstructed is to perfectly attain understanding of Sunyata (emptiness). How is it that Citta ties in with this understanding though? Since as stated: Citta is not false or illusory.

I think this can only mean that Citta is not fundamentally separate from Sunyata. That is to say: the real mind is not different than emptiness.

One might very well ask: then why not simply say there is no mind and everything is void?

That is exactly the point! Buddhism is not saying that everything is void. Buddhism is saying that illusion is void. There is nothing real about illusion, or the false understandings we have about Ultimate Reality.

Sunyata is another form of minimalism to get the practitioner unstuck from speculation, just as Anatta is. I can easily prove this, given what the Heart Sutra says about emptiness and Dharma.

Real emptiness- the emptiness that Dharma has root in, is not voidness. That emptiness is a nature unknown to we humans. We have no reference to it in our concepts or sensations. That may even be why we use emptiness to refer to it. We have no other word that approaches this unconstructed.

Let's look at the Heart Sutra briefly, the first few lines, to help make this point:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when coursing the deep Prajnaparamita clearly saw emptiness of all the Skandhas. After this he overcame all suffering.

Sariputra listen: Form is no other than void. Void is no other than form. Form is exactly void. Void is exactly form. Sensation, perception, discrimination, and awareness are likewise like this.

Sariputra, all Dharmas are marked with emptiness in that they are not born, and not destroyed. Not stained, and not pure. Without loss, and without gain.

There is a something to emptiness that transcends the illusion. This something has never been born, and never dies. It is not holy, or unclean. It gains or loses nothing, as the Heart Sutra describes it.

The heart mind is not separate from it in truth, so seeing that the mind is unconstructed is to awaken to this real reality within our being. That is when the Buddha's mind moved to the Unconstructed. He perceived no difference between his real being and this emptiness.

I can only suppose from this that there is a something encompassing this Cosmos. It is real and exists, but cannot be known through any concept. Because it doesn't need concepts. It is complete. It is whole.

To know it, is to know the true nature of existence. Because they are one and the same. Since this real nature is bound up in the illusions of the constructed- the constructed can perceive that it has a real nature, but Buddhists are warned about stopping here.

After all, we'd be clinging to shadows if we accepted what illusory grip can tell about it.

I conclude from everything said, and have concluded for some time: that Anatta does not mean everything is void, or that Atman is a false concept.

Anatta seems like the Buddha's way of denying a specific Atman concept. The Samyutta Nikaya gives us the negation of the Atman the Buddha did deny, so we can infer what the concept might have been.

The Buddha says forms, perceptions, and so on are not-self (not-Atman).

This means the Buddha is refuting dualism. He's refuting seeing an otherness in the base ego sense. The ego substantiates it's real separateness by clinging to it's abilities to perceive, think, grasp, and the like.

The Buddha is saying this base self sense, and any Atman view that might enshrine the ego as eternal is no Atman.

The thing that Buddhists chant mantras and perform funerary rites for, so that a deceased person might escape Samsara is not the person. It is the real Unconstructed bound up in this phantom world because of ignorance and misunderstanding.

This is what is being touched by the merits of chants and rites. This Unconstructed. This real.

Buddhism holds we are the Unconstructed bound in an illusion. This is why the Buddha says if there was not an Unconstructed- there would be no escape from the constructed and so on (Samsara).

The Unconstructed that goes to the Unconstructed, is not separate from it in reality. It is a seeming separation only.

This is why there are scriptures like the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti that say though we die- in truth nothing has died. Nothing has ever been born that it might die.

This nothing that is not born and does not die is the elusive realness of Sunyata. Unlike Hinduism, the Buddha does not call it Brahman. He doesn't want us to get caught up in a trap, or the potential of falling into one with any concept.

However, Brahman is clearly what Buddhism seems to be getting at. We mean the Ultimate Reality that Hindus mean when they say Brahman. That is probably the most controversial thing I will say in this essay, and certainly my opinion.

Seems like a good place to end this work. Hope it clarifies my view of Anatta that I've eluded to in other threads. That was the purpose- to clarify my view of Anatta.

On an additional and final note: I very much affirm Anatta. It is a useful concept that keeps us from the speculation that goes with a defined Atman.

The Buddha has taught Anatta through his skillful means. For a Buddhist, that is enough.

Thanks for reading.

Excellent post, recommend moving it to philosophy section? I can do that if you are willing. I would respond with something soon. Best.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Sure, that's fine. I put it in literature because it's an essay.

 

[JoshuaTree]

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, Anatta I hear being said, Venerable. What, pray tell, does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, Radha, form is not the self (Anatta), sensations are not the self (Anatta), perceptions are not the self (Anatta), assemblages are not the self (Anatta), consciousness is not the self (Anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." - Samyutta Nikaya

Among Buddhists I find my approach to Anatta somewhat controversial. I do not affirm that Anatta means not having an Atman. I affirm that Anatta means 'not-Atman'. Put another way: the Buddha only indicated what essential being is not

I find that the Samyutta Nikaya makes little sense taken otherwise. If the Buddha were really teaching that nothing has fundamental essence or being- he could have easily said so. It would be easy to have said to Radha: there is no Atman.

That is not how the Buddha answered. He answered with minimal negation. He stated what he knows (knows through the awakened eye of enlightenment) Atman/self is not.

There is more evidence for this though than the Samyutta Nikaya by itself. There is Buddhism as we see it approached and practiced through history.

Buddhism does not practice as though nothing exists, or nothing is being born from birth to birth. Buddhism historically has practices trying to liberate the deceased from the cycle of Samsara, or ease along the process.

It should be apparent that Buddhism is not teaching voidness. What exactly is it teaching then?

First I'll return to the Samyutta Nikaya. You will note that the Buddha says that seeing thus- that forms, etc are not-self> one has reached the end of birth.

This is similar to the Buddha's statement in the Dhammapada:

Through many births
I have wandered on and on,
Searching for, but never finding,
The builder of this house.
To be born again and again is suffering.

House-builder, you are seen!
You will not build a house again!
All the rafters are broken,
The ridgepole destroyed;
The mind, gone to the Unconstructed,
Has reached the end of craving!
-Dhammapada 11

In Buddhism this mind that goes to the Unconstructed is Citta.

Citta is better understood as the heart mind. It is the mind at the center of perception that says to itself: I am this. This I am.

This is in contrast with manas and vinnana, which are not the heart of consciousness, but refer to other aspects of the mind like the generating of the Skandhas.

Citta means exclusively that part of perception that sees itself. The heart of being.

This is no different for the Buddha as it happens. The center of the Buddha's being is called Bodhicitta. The heart of the Buddha.

The Buddha is saying that the fundamental mind moves to the Unconstructed when Nirvana has been realized. The heart mind that says: I am because I perceive that I am

This is not an illusory feeling in Mahayana Buddhism. In the Yogachara (also Cittamatra: mind-only) school, this mind is the only thing not generated by the Skandhas. Because the basic feeling of existing is not necessarily bound up in anything.

To be bound in the Skandhas (aggregates or collections) means only that one takes them to be indicative of the real self.

The Skandhas are those collective states produced by two or more sensations. Such as having a preference for chocolate cake, and the enjoyment sensation that accompanies sating the craving.

To be bound by the Skandhas means one takes these mind collectives generated by the world of forms as the real self. This is where fundamental ignorance about the mind first begins. When one looks at this mesmerizing shadow world and says: this I am

By contrast, to go to the Unconstructed is to perfectly attain understanding of Sunyata (emptiness). How is it that Citta ties in with this understanding though? Since as stated: Citta is not false or illusory.

I think this can only mean that Citta is not fundamentally separate from Sunyata. That is to say: the real mind is not different than emptiness.

One might very well ask: then why not simply say there is no mind and everything is void?

That is exactly the point! Buddhism is not saying that everything is void. Buddhism is saying that illusion is void. There is nothing real about illusion, or the false understandings we have about Ultimate Reality.

Sunyata is another form of minimalism to get the practitioner unstuck from speculation, just as Anatta is. I can easily prove this, given what the Heart Sutra says about emptiness and Dharma.

Real emptiness- the emptiness that Dharma has root in, is not voidness. That emptiness is a nature unknown to we humans. We have no reference to it in our concepts or sensations. That may even be why we use emptiness to refer to it. We have no other word that approaches this unconstructed.

Let's look at the Heart Sutra briefly, the first few lines, to help make this point:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when coursing the deep Prajnaparamita clearly saw emptiness of all the Skandhas. After this he overcame all suffering.

Sariputra listen: Form is no other than void. Void is no other than form. Form is exactly void. Void is exactly form. Sensation, perception, discrimination, and awareness are likewise like this.

Sariputra, all Dharmas are marked with emptiness in that they are not born, and not destroyed. Not stained, and not pure. Without loss, and without gain.

There is a something to emptiness that transcends the illusion. This something has never been born, and never dies. It is not holy, or unclean. It gains or loses nothing, as the Heart Sutra describes it.

The heart mind is not separate from it in truth, so seeing that the mind is unconstructed is to awaken to this real reality within our being. That is when the Buddha's mind moved to the Unconstructed. He perceived no difference between his real being and this emptiness.

I can only suppose from this that there is a something encompassing this Cosmos. It is real and exists, but cannot be known through any concept. Because it doesn't need concepts. It is complete. It is whole.

To know it, is to know the true nature of existence. Because they are one and the same. Since this real nature is bound up in the illusions of the constructed- the constructed can perceive that it has a real nature, but Buddhists are warned about stopping here.

After all, we'd be clinging to shadows if we accepted what illusory grip can tell about it.

I conclude from everything said, and have concluded for some time: that Anatta does not mean everything is void, or that Atman is a false concept.

Anatta seems like the Buddha's way of denying a specific Atman concept. The Samyutta Nikaya gives us the negation of the Atman the Buddha did deny, so we can infer what the concept might have been.

The Buddha says forms, perceptions, and so on are not-self (not-Atman).

This means the Buddha is refuting dualism. He's refuting seeing an otherness in the base ego sense. The ego substantiates it's real separateness by clinging to it's abilities to perceive, think, grasp, and the like.

The Buddha is saying this base self sense, and any Atman view that might enshrine the ego as eternal is no Atman.

The thing that Buddhists chant mantras and perform funerary rites for, so that a deceased person might escape Samsara is not the person. It is the real Unconstructed bound up in this phantom world because of ignorance and misunderstanding.

This is what is being touched by the merits of chants and rites. This Unconstructed. This real.

Buddhism holds we are the Unconstructed bound in an illusion. This is why the Buddha says if there was not an Unconstructed- there would be no escape from the constructed and so on (Samsara).

The Unconstructed that goes to the Unconstructed, is not separate from it in reality. It is a seeming separation only.

This is why there are scriptures like the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti that say though we die- in truth nothing has died. Nothing has ever been born that it might die.

This nothing that is not born and does not die is the elusive realness of Sunyata. Unlike Hinduism, the Buddha does not call it Brahman. He doesn't want us to get caught up in a trap, or the potential of falling into one with any concept.

However, Brahman is clearly what Buddhism seems to be getting at. We mean the Ultimate Reality that Hindus mean when they say Brahman. That is probably the most controversial thing I will say in this essay, and certainly my opinion.

Seems like a good place to end this work. Hope it clarifies my view of Anatta that I've eluded to in other threads. That was the purpose- to clarify my view of Anatta.

On an additional and final note: I very much affirm Anatta. It is a useful concept that keeps us from the speculation that goes with a defined Atman.

The Buddha has taught Anatta through his skillful means. For a Buddhist, that is enough.

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for posting. I read it twice trying to get my head around it. It's late, I'll continue to ponder before commenting.

Thanks!

 

[Aupmanyav]

".. and consciousness is not self (anatta)"
Beautiful, Buddha Dharma.

 

[sayak83]

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, Anatta I hear being said, Venerable. What, pray tell, does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, Radha, form is not the self (Anatta), sensations are not the self (Anatta), perceptions are not the self (Anatta), assemblages are not the self (Anatta), consciousness is not the self (Anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." - Samyutta Nikaya

Among Buddhists I find my approach to Anatta somewhat controversial. I do not affirm that Anatta means not having an Atman. I affirm that Anatta means 'not-Atman'. Put another way: the Buddha only indicated what essential being is not

I find that the Samyutta Nikaya makes little sense taken otherwise. If the Buddha were really teaching that nothing has fundamental essence or being- he could have easily said so. It would be easy to have said to Radha: there is no Atman.

That is not how the Buddha answered. He answered with minimal negation. He stated what he knows (knows through the awakened eye of enlightenment) Atman/self is not.

There is more evidence for this though than the Samyutta Nikaya by itself. There is Buddhism as we see it approached and practiced through history.

Buddhism does not practice as though nothing exists, or nothing is being born from birth to birth. Buddhism historically has practices trying to liberate the deceased from the cycle of Samsara, or ease along the process.

It should be apparent that Buddhism is not teaching voidness. What exactly is it teaching then?

First I'll return to the Samyutta Nikaya. You will note that the Buddha says that seeing thus- that forms, etc are not-self> one has reached the end of birth.

This is similar to the Buddha's statement in the Dhammapada:

Through many births
I have wandered on and on,
Searching for, but never finding,
The builder of this house.
To be born again and again is suffering.

House-builder, you are seen!
You will not build a house again!
All the rafters are broken,
The ridgepole destroyed;
The mind, gone to the Unconstructed,
Has reached the end of craving!
-Dhammapada 11

In Buddhism this mind that goes to the Unconstructed is Citta.

Citta is better understood as the heart mind. It is the mind at the center of perception that says to itself: I am this. This I am.

This is in contrast with manas and vinnana, which are not the heart of consciousness, but refer to other aspects of the mind like the generating of the Skandhas.

Citta means exclusively that part of perception that sees itself. The heart of being.

This is no different for the Buddha as it happens. The center of the Buddha's being is called Bodhicitta. The heart of the Buddha.

The Buddha is saying that the fundamental mind moves to the Unconstructed when Nirvana has been realized. The heart mind that says: I am because I perceive that I am

This is not an illusory feeling in Mahayana Buddhism. In the Yogachara (also Cittamatra: mind-only) school, this mind is the only thing not generated by the Skandhas. Because the basic feeling of existing is not necessarily bound up in anything.

To be bound in the Skandhas (aggregates or collections) means only that one takes them to be indicative of the real self.

The Skandhas are those collective states produced by two or more sensations. Such as having a preference for chocolate cake, and the enjoyment sensation that accompanies sating the craving.

To be bound by the Skandhas means one takes these mind collectives generated by the world of forms as the real self. This is where fundamental ignorance about the mind first begins. When one looks at this mesmerizing shadow world and says: this I am

By contrast, to go to the Unconstructed is to perfectly attain understanding of Sunyata (emptiness). How is it that Citta ties in with this understanding though? Since as stated: Citta is not false or illusory.

I think this can only mean that Citta is not fundamentally separate from Sunyata. That is to say: the real mind is not different than emptiness.

One might very well ask: then why not simply say there is no mind and everything is void?

That is exactly the point! Buddhism is not saying that everything is void. Buddhism is saying that illusion is void. There is nothing real about illusion, or the false understandings we have about Ultimate Reality.

Sunyata is another form of minimalism to get the practitioner unstuck from speculation, just as Anatta is. I can easily prove this, given what the Heart Sutra says about emptiness and Dharma.

Real emptiness- the emptiness that Dharma has root in, is not voidness. That emptiness is a nature unknown to we humans. We have no reference to it in our concepts or sensations. That may even be why we use emptiness to refer to it. We have no other word that approaches this unconstructed.

Let's look at the Heart Sutra briefly, the first few lines, to help make this point:

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when coursing the deep Prajnaparamita clearly saw emptiness of all the Skandhas. After this he overcame all suffering.

Sariputra listen: Form is no other than void. Void is no other than form. Form is exactly void. Void is exactly form. Sensation, perception, discrimination, and awareness are likewise like this.

Sariputra, all Dharmas are marked with emptiness in that they are not born, and not destroyed. Not stained, and not pure. Without loss, and without gain.

There is a something to emptiness that transcends the illusion. This something has never been born, and never dies. It is not holy, or unclean. It gains or loses nothing, as the Heart Sutra describes it.

The heart mind is not separate from it in truth, so seeing that the mind is unconstructed is to awaken to this real reality within our being. That is when the Buddha's mind moved to the Unconstructed. He perceived no difference between his real being and this emptiness.

I can only suppose from this that there is a something encompassing this Cosmos. It is real and exists, but cannot be known through any concept. Because it doesn't need concepts. It is complete. It is whole.

To know it, is to know the true nature of existence. Because they are one and the same. Since this real nature is bound up in the illusions of the constructed- the constructed can perceive that it has a real nature, but Buddhists are warned about stopping here.

After all, we'd be clinging to shadows if we accepted what illusory grip can tell about it.

I conclude from everything said, and have concluded for some time: that Anatta does not mean everything is void, or that Atman is a false concept.

Anatta seems like the Buddha's way of denying a specific Atman concept. The Samyutta Nikaya gives us the negation of the Atman the Buddha did deny, so we can infer what the concept might have been.

The Buddha says forms, perceptions, and so on are not-self (not-Atman).

This means the Buddha is refuting dualism. He's refuting seeing an otherness in the base ego sense. The ego substantiates it's real separateness by clinging to it's abilities to perceive, think, grasp, and the like.

The Buddha is saying this base self sense, and any Atman view that might enshrine the ego as eternal is no Atman.

The thing that Buddhists chant mantras and perform funerary rites for, so that a deceased person might escape Samsara is not the person. It is the real Unconstructed bound up in this phantom world because of ignorance and misunderstanding.

This is what is being touched by the merits of chants and rites. This Unconstructed. This real.

Buddhism holds we are the Unconstructed bound in an illusion. This is why the Buddha says if there was not an Unconstructed- there would be no escape from the constructed and so on (Samsara).

The Unconstructed that goes to the Unconstructed, is not separate from it in reality. It is a seeming separation only.

This is why there are scriptures like the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti that say though we die- in truth nothing has died. Nothing has ever been born that it might die.

This nothing that is not born and does not die is the elusive realness of Sunyata. Unlike Hinduism, the Buddha does not call it Brahman. He doesn't want us to get caught up in a trap, or the potential of falling into one with any concept.

However, Brahman is clearly what Buddhism seems to be getting at. We mean the Ultimate Reality that Hindus mean when they say Brahman. That is probably the most controversial thing I will say in this essay, and certainly my opinion.

Seems like a good place to end this work. Hope it clarifies my view of Anatta that I've eluded to in other threads. That was the purpose- to clarify my view of Anatta.

On an additional and final note: I very much affirm Anatta. It is a useful concept that keeps us from the speculation that goes with a defined Atman.

The Buddha has taught Anatta through his skillful means. For a Buddhist, that is enough.

Thanks for reading.

More to follow. But at a fundamental level Vedanta seems to say that everything is self while Buddhism seems to say everything is non-self. Both require a fundamental transformation of moving from the duality of ego-self within beings embedded in a non-self world. The transformation of understanding that follows regarding what truly is the state of affairs when everything is non-Self or everything is Self is what leads to nibbana or moksha respectively. Is it possible that this transformation leads to the same picture of the ultimate? Is it possible that one journey is going from New York to Delhi via the Atlantic and the other too is going to Delhi from NY, but across the Pacific? It is possible, but for that one needs to travel along both and see. Who here has ever done it, being both liberated and extinguished? So here we can only make some fallible inference from the teachings that exist. So with a prayer of respect to Bodhi-citta and Brahman let me make a tentative stab at it.

Buddha says there are 4 Noble Truths
1. All This ( the five aggregates)is suffering.
2. This (craving and clinging to aggregates) is the cause of suffering.
3. This is the cessation of suffering.
4. This is the way(eightfold way) to the cessation of suffering.

Vedanta never says things like this. But if I can paraphrase here would be the four Vedantic truths.
1) All This is non-suffering.(being Brahman)
2) Ignorance leads us to mistake This as suffering.(Maya)
3) Elimination of ignorance leads to cessation of suffering.(realization of Brahman)
4) This (eight limbed Yoga) is the path to the attainment of non-suffering.


More later. What do you think.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@sayak83 as I've come to understand it, and I think being on this forum has confirmed it to me- Buddhism and all the Indian philosophical schools are getting at MUCH the same thing. I'd honestly be surprised if they weren't when I think about it- given they're all rooted in shared philosophical underpinnings that predate the designation of orthodox/heterodox. Buddhism and Jainism share the presuppositions of Indian philosophy in general (a few odd schools like Lokayata excluded) that there is suffering because of karma, which is carried forward by fundamental ignorance of truth.

I think Vedanta and Buddhism deal in most of the same problems and questions, so again- I'd be surprised if there weren't many similarities. I think Buddhism is probably closer to Bhedabheda Vedanta though in some ways than it is Advaita- at least as I understand both Vedantic approaches. I'm currently learning about Bhedabheda by reading works of Caitanya, and will be reading others.

I learned about Advaita a bit ago and have a few books on it.

The weak form of Bhedabheda (that everything is Brahman, but appears really different only at a surface level) seems not very different from what I've encountered in Mahayana. Tendai my own school, says the self-sense is not entirely true or false, so one shouldn't necessarily try to kill it with philosophical reasoning. The self-sense that is. One shouldn't get too hung on Sunyata either, or that's just another attachment.

Many Buddhist teachers warn about the extremes one can fall into with Sunyata, such as nihilism- and say it's better to hold a substantive view like some of the Hinayana schools did than be nihilist.

There's a lot I could say, so I'll give you this for now to consider. Hope it is a good answer.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

To add while I'm thinking about it: Buddhism has differences to Vedanta in it's minimalism, and as I've read it explained by scholars comparing them- Buddhism has a slightly different take on karma. Karma is not as absolute in Buddhism, and merits are very emphasized. I know that the way many secular Buddhists present the religion might not make it seem like that.

I think Adi Shankara thought that karma and result are absolutely bound up, right? If I'm understanding Shankara's result is always contained in an action teaching correctly. At any rate, I think Advaita appears somewhat less minimalist than Buddhism in other specific areas.

If there's one really notable difference between Vedanta and Buddhism, well besides one rejecting the Vedas- it's Buddhism has a somewhat more minimalist approach.

Other differences one can point to are either major or minor, depending who you ask. Buddhism has a different view of the devas than Hindu schools tend to. Some might say this difference is minor, and some might say major.

In a certain sense, I personally don't think this difference is too large. Yet in another way, more from the Buddhist side- it is.

Because in Buddhism, the Buddhas reflect Ultimate Reality in much the way the devas do in Hindu schools. The Buddha mantras are chanted for the reasons Hindus chant deva mantras more or less.

The Buddhist view of deities though is definitely one of the more striking differences. Anyhow, I'm content to call Hindus my Dharma brethren. One might leave it at that.

As stated elsewhere: I put 'Dharmic' as my religion not long ago to acknowledge what Buddhists share with Hindus and Jains.

 

[sayak83]

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, Anatta I hear being said, Venerable. What, pray tell, does Anatta mean?”

“Just this, Radha, form is not the self (Anatta), sensations are not the self (Anatta), perceptions are not the self (Anatta), assemblages are not the self (Anatta), consciousness is not the self (Anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done." - Samyutta Nikaya

.........

The Buddha is saying this base self sense, and any Atman view that might enshrine the ego as eternal is no Atman.

The thing that Buddhists chant mantras and perform funerary rites for, so that a deceased person might escape Samsara is not the person. It is the real Unconstructed bound up in this phantom world because of ignorance and misunderstanding.

This is what is being touched by the merits of chants and rites. This Unconstructed. This real.

Buddhism holds we are the Unconstructed bound in an illusion. This is why the Buddha says if there was not an Unconstructed- there would be no escape from the constructed and so on (Samsara).

The Unconstructed that goes to the Unconstructed, is not separate from it in reality. It is a seeming separation only.

This is why there are scriptures like the Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti that say though we die- in truth nothing has died. Nothing has ever been born that it might die.

This nothing that is not born and does not die is the elusive realness of Sunyata. Unlike Hinduism, the Buddha does not call it Brahman. He doesn't want us to get caught up in a trap, or the potential of falling into one with any concept.

However, Brahman is clearly what Buddhism seems to be getting at. We mean the Ultimate Reality that Hindus mean when they say Brahman. That is probably the most controversial thing I will say in this essay, and certainly my opinion.

Seems like a good place to end this work. Hope it clarifies my view of Anatta that I've eluded to in other threads. That was the purpose- to clarify my view of Anatta.

On an additional and final note: I very much affirm Anatta. It is a useful concept that keeps us from the speculation that goes with a defined Atman.

The Buddha has taught Anatta through his skillful means. For a Buddhist, that is enough.

Thanks for reading.

In the snake Simile Buddha is saying that there exists no view from the standpoint of which one can assert a self having the sense "I am" which does not generate clinging and hence suffering. Hence Buddha seems to be suggesting that regardless of the metaphysical status of a self, one should abandon all ways of thinking about the "I" in order to get out of the suffering trap, because they invariably trap people into clingings.

English translation of MN 22, “The Simile of the Snake”

Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards feeling thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards perception thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards formations thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“Since he regards them thus, he is not agitated about what is non-existent.”


Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.

Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is material form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is feeling… Is perception… Are formations… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of material form whatever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all material form should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Any kind of feeling whatever… Any kind of perception whatever… Any kind of formations whatever … Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with material form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with formations, disenchanted with consciousness.

“Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mindis liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’


So saying, bhikkhus, so proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’

“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

Therefore, bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it; when you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. What is it that is not yours? Material form is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Feeling is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Perception is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Formations are not yours. Abandon them. When you have abandoned them, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time. Consciousness is not yours. Abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness for a long time.


I think that it's clear that Buddha is saying that any view whatsoever regarding "this I am" is going to cause suffering. So regardless of the truth and falsity of such statement, all such propositions and views need to be abandoned.

 

[sayak83]

To add while I'm thinking about it: Buddhism has differences to Vedanta in it's minimalism, and as I've read it explained by scholars comparing them- Buddhism has a slightly different take on karma. Karma is not as absolute in Buddhism, and merits are very emphasized. I know that the way many secular Buddhists present the religion might not make it seem like that.

I think Adi Shankara thought that karma and result are absolutely bound up, right? If I'm understanding Shankara's result is always contained in an action teaching correctly. At any rate, I think Advaita appears somewhat less minimalist than Buddhism in other specific areas.

If there's one really notable difference between Vedanta and Buddhism, well besides one rejecting the Vedas- it's Buddhism has a somewhat more minimalist approach.

Other differences one can point to are either major or minor, depending who you ask. Buddhism has a different view of the devas than Hindu schools tend to. Some might say this difference is minor, and some might say major.

In a certain sense, I personally don't think this difference is too large. Yet in another way, more from the Buddhist side- it is.

Because in Buddhism, the Buddhas reflect Ultimate Reality in much the way the devas do in Hindu schools. The Buddha mantras are chanted for the reasons Hindus chant deva mantras more or less.

The Buddhist view of deities though is definitely one of the more striking differences. Anyhow, I'm content to call Hindus my Dharma brethren. One might leave it at that.

As stated elsewhere: I put 'Dharmic' as my religion not long ago to acknowledge what Buddhists share with Hindus and Jains.

Here is another interesting sutra from SN. Again he is focusing on what is most beneficial for practice rather than metaphysics of Self.
SuttaCentral

Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall consist of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be nonpercipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of conceiving.’

“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a perturbation; ‘I am this’ is a perturbation; ‘I shall be’ is a perturbation … ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a perturbation. Perturbation is a disease, perturbation is a tumour, perturbation is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with an imperturbable mind.’

“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a palpitation; ‘I am this’ is a palpitation; ‘I shall be’ is a palpitation … ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a palpitation. Palpitation is a disease, palpitation is a tumour, palpitation is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of palpitation. ’

“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a proliferation; ‘I am this’ is a proliferation; ‘I shall be’ is a proliferation … ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a proliferation. Proliferation is a disease, proliferation is a tumour, proliferation is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of proliferation.’

“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I am this’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I shall be’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I shall not be’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I shall consist of form’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I shall be formless’ is an involvement with conceit ; ‘I shall be percipient’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I shall be nonpercipient’ is an involvement with conceit; ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is an involvement with conceit. Involvement with conceit is a disease, involvement with conceit is a tumour, involvement with conceit is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind in which conceit has been struck down.’ Thus should you train yourselves.”

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Yes the Buddha said many things in words not always easy to grasp. I agree that for the sake of practice, it is better not to speculate about self and not self. I've always thought that. I merely recognize that no self can be another trap. Some teachers have talked about a dangerous misunderstanding of it. I think they meant it may seem to support voidness nihilism.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I do not affirm I have an Atman. That is why there is no separateness in anything. As I said in another thread, if I start talking about having an Atman it can be lost and things are divided, but as is- nothing is lost, or can be cast forth from Ultimate Reality.

However, when it comes to Advaita, I recognize that it is likely saying the same thing as Buddhism in another way. Buddhism and Advaita are both total non dualism.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@sayak83 does that resonate with you in any way?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I talk about the Pugdala and Citta because Mahayana Buddhism anyway does not deny there is being. It denies there is I and you being. Produced by the two great deceivers, the body and mind formations together.

 

[sayak83]

@sayak83 does that resonate with you in any way?

It does. I am (and have been) trying to do a comparative thread between Buddhism and Vedanta for some time now. But the more I read, the more I feel I need to read. So it never gets started.

 

[sayak83]

I talk about the Pugdala and Citta because Mahayana Buddhism anyway does not deny there is being. It denies there is I and you being. Produced by the two great deceivers, the body and mind formations together.

It depends. Madhyamika is also Mahayana, and I don't think it affirms being.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It depends. Madhyamika is also Mahayana, and I don't think it affirms being.

That is a subject of intense debate about Madhyamika. Because Nagarjuna was refuting approaches to knowledge by some Hinayana schools and Theravada, but everything he said agrees with Prajnaparamita literature. That literature doesn't affirm voidness.

Nagarjuna seems to have been skeptical of the material somehow supporting itself, which those that think he wasn't arguing voidness- point out that all the schools he wrote against thought the material somehow validates itself, or lends itself to truth.

Theravada has a form of doing so with Abhidhamma, which Nagarjuna criticized too.

I've looked at these arguments some about rather Nagarjuna rejected being or not.

 

[sayak83]

That is a subject of intense debate about Madhyamika. Because Nagarjuna was refuting approaches to knowledge by some Hinayana schools and Theravada, but everything he said agrees with Prajnaparamita literature. That literature doesn't affirm voidness.

Nagarjuna seems to have been skeptical of the material somehow supporting itself, which those that think he wasn't arguing voidness- point out that all the schools he wrote against thought the material somehow validates itself, or lends itself to truth.

Theravada has a form of doing so with Abhidhamma, which Nagarjuna criticized too.

I've looked at these arguments some about rather Nagarjuna rejected being or not.

Which is why I need to read up a lot.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Which is why I need to read up a lot.

Oh gosh. You know a lot of things I don't.

 

[sayak83]

Oh gosh. You know a lot of things I don't.

And you know a lot that I don't, especially in the Mahayana tradition.