Anatta

[dyanaprajna2011]

Here I'm going to start a thread that has a two-fold purpose: 1. to place the basic teachings and understandings of the Buddhist idea of anatta, and 2. for people to ask questions about anatta for parts they don't understand.

Anatta is one of the cornerstone teachings in Buddhism, and what sets it apart from other religions. It's also one of the most highly misunderstood ideas in Buddhism, not only by non-Buddhists, but by Buddhists as well. So here we'll dissect, analyze, tear apart, chew on, and even spit out this teaching, until we get to the bottom of it, and make sure it's as understood as possible (without direct experience through meditation, of course ).

So, here's some links to get started:

No-self or Not-self?

Buddhism in a Nutshell - Anatta

Ajahn Brahmavamso - ANATTA (Non-Self)

Anatta - The Dhamma Encyclopedia

 

[Twilight Hue]

Excellent thread.

Venerable Vajjira - Samyutta Nikaya 5.554. and the words of Ven. Dhammika in wiki are good first references followed by the link to Ajahn Brahmavamso.

This ought to be a sticky in the Buddhism forum.

 

[punkdbass]

I read the first 2 links, great reads. Thanks for sharing.

I think part of the reason Anatta is so hard for non-Buddists or beginner Buddhists to understand is because the constant change and flux of life brings a lot of anxiety and stress to people, and so naturally many of us desperately desire to find something constant to cling onto; a "railing" to hold onto that will keep us safe throughout the ever-changing ebb and flow of life. I don't think it should be overlooked how strong this desire is for many people, because if you really think about it, the concept of anatta and dependent coarising is pretty simple - everything is interconnected, dependent, and impermanent, no exceptions.. but from our desire to find something constant to hold onto, we try to ignore the teaching of anatta.

But secondly, and this is perhaps the biggest reason why I think anatta is misunderstood.. is because in order to have rational, conventional discussion or to share meaning with anyone, you sort of have to presuppose the existence of some sort of "I" or "Self" in everyday practical life. Like the philosopher Kant described, the concept of "Self" is something that is sort of "automatically/innately" assumed by the mechanisms of our brains before we can interpret any human experience as actually being an experience. The difficulty then becomes, IMO, once you realize the truth of Anatta, how do you go about functioning as a normal member of conventional society in a satisfactory manner... when deep down you know it's all a bunch of lies?

 

[von bek]

The difficulty then becomes, IMO, once you realize the truth of Anatta, how do you go about functioning as a normal member of conventional society in a satisfactory manner... when deep down you know it's all a bunch of lies?

It's not lies. Conventional, relative truth is still truth. The conventional just does not exist as we think it does. What we perceive as distinct enduring entities are merely projections of mind lacking any selfhood that are being given labels and identities. For instance, a grizzly bear does not exist in an inherent manner. There is no essence of the bear, no matter how we divide it and break it down, no actual thing corresponding to "bear" can be found to exist. However, walk up to that same grizzly and slap it violently in the face. That bear will then teach you about relative truth. The bear does not exist at the ultimate level of emptiness; but, at the relative level there is something we call a bear, even though we know it is really no-bear.

 

[punkdbass]

It's not lies. Conventional, relative truth is still truth. The conventional just does not exist as we think it does. What we perceive as distinct enduring entities are merely projections of mind lacking any selfhood that are being given labels and identities. For instance, a grizzly bear does not exist in an inherent manner. There is no essence of the bear, no matter how we divide it and break it down, no actual thing corresponding to "bear" can be found to exist. However, walk up to that same grizzly and slap it violently in the face. That bear will then teach you about relative truth. The bear does not exist at the ultimate level of emptiness; but, at the relative level there is something we call a bear, even though we know it is really no-bear.

Interesting, I like this example!

However, what I was moreso referring to by "lies" is how society seems to condition and reward people for grasping, clinging, striving, etc - especially our education system IMO. Western Capitalist Consumerist Society wants us to constantly be consuming and producing, constantly clinging. It enforces such clinging, because consumerism doesn't flourish when people stop clinging and become content and at peace. Yet, Buddhism tells us that all of this clinging, that my society especially reinforces, is ultimately the very cause of all of our suffering and unhappiness! So, the difficulty, at least that I'm going through right now, is figuring out how to be a normal functioning member of conventional society.. when I believe that what society wants me to do - constantly consume, produce, and cling, is going to just bring me suffering. What's the point in playing the "game" society wants me to play, to be the typical "puppet" it wants me to be? From birth we're conditioned to believe the most meaningful way to spend one's life is to go to school, graduate high school, get some sort of post education, get a job working for a business, have a few kids, raise a family, retire at 65... etc... but I often question these basic assumptions, and wonder if perhaps there is a better way to spend my life.

Hopefully that better explains the internal conflict I'm trying to describe.

 

[von bek]

Interesting, I like this example!

However, what I was moreso referring to by "lies" is how society seems to condition and reward people for grasping, clinging, striving, etc - especially our education system IMO. Western Capitalist Consumerist Society wants us to constantly be consuming and producing, constantly clinging. It enforces such clinging, because consumerism doesn't flourish when people stop clinging and become content and at peace. Yet, Buddhism tells us that all of this clinging, that my society especially reinforces, is ultimately the very cause of all of our suffering and unhappiness! So, the difficulty, at least that I'm going through right now, is figuring out how to be a normal functioning member of conventional society.. when I believe that what society wants me to do - constantly consume, produce, and cling, is going to just bring me suffering. What's the point in playing the "game" society wants me to play, to be the typical "puppet" it wants me to be? From birth we're conditioned to believe the most meaningful way to spend one's life is to go to school, graduate high school, get some sort of post education, get a job working for a business, have a few kids, raise a family, retire at 65... etc... but I question often question these basic assumptions.

Hopefully that better explains the internal conflict I'm trying to describe.

I see what you are saying now. I agree with you. Realizing the truth of anatta does transform your interaction with conventional reality. It should be no surprise that what the Buddha teaches comes into conflict with modern society. In fact, there will always be that tension between the dharma and any society. The whole world of beings is whipped around by wrong views of self and permanence. Not understanding the origins of their suffering, there is only a headlong plunge into its continuation. Interaction is still possible with the world when you realize its true nature, look no further than the Buddha himself for an example. Everything proceeds from mind. Transform your mind, transform your world.

 

[von bek]

As a Buddhist, if you want children, that is fine. However, if you believe that through this child, lasting happiness will be attained, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. The child will suffer and be a source of suffering as long as you are attached to a self in either of you or in anything else. You need a job? It is acceptable to get one; but, that will not remove suffering from your life.

 

[punkdbass]

I see what you are saying now. I agree with you. Realizing the truth of anatta does transform your interaction with conventional reality. It should be no surprise that what the Buddha teaches comes into conflict with modern society. In fact, there will always be that tension between the dharma and any society. The whole world of beings is whipped around by wrong views of self and permanence. Not understanding the origins of their suffering, there is only a headlong plunge into its continuation. Interaction is still possible with the world when you realize its true nature, look no further than the Buddha himself for an example. Everything proceeds from mind. Transform your mind, transform your world.

Interesting, makes sense. I suppose it's probably best to still interact with society, because of our potential to positively transform it; rather than run away from it.

 

[DreadFish]

I think this is a great idea for a thread.

Depending on the quality of the posts , I think this should be a sticky in the Buddhism DIR. This is like the biggest problem for most people getting to learn about Buddhism and I think that there are probably 4 threads here from the past couple of years just about this topic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I read the first 2 links, great reads. Thanks for sharing.

I think part of the reason Anatta is so hard for non-Buddists or beginner Buddhists to understand is because the constant change and flux of life brings a lot of anxiety and stress to people, and so naturally many of us desperately desire to find something constant to cling onto; a "railing" to hold onto that will keep us safe throughout the ever-changing ebb and flow of life. I don't think it should be overlooked how strong this desire is for many people, because if you really think about it, the concept of anatta and dependent coarising is pretty simple - everything is interconnected, dependent, and impermanent, no exceptions.. but from our desire to find something constant to hold onto, we try to ignore the teaching of anatta.

But secondly, and this is perhaps the biggest reason why I think anatta is misunderstood.. is because in order to have rational, conventional discussion or to share meaning with anyone, you sort of have to presuppose the existence of some sort of "I" or "Self" in everyday practical life. Like the philosopher Kant described, the concept of "Self" is something that is sort of "automatically/innately" assumed by the mechanisms of our brains before we can interpret any human experience as actually being an experience. The difficulty then becomes, IMO, once you realize the truth of Anatta, how do you go about functioning as a normal member of conventional society in a satisfactory manner... when deep down you know it's all a bunch of lies?

I don't perceive anything as "lies" as the truth of the matter comes through albiet I can see that perspective. I find such insight quite wonderful and amazing in regards of which that nature turns "itself".

Things proceed in spite of our conceptions and expectations and no worse or better in any real sense as human beings. Likely helps with realigning with the ever present moment including a peculiar sense of appreciation in regard to the ever present now in all aspects of which remains formless and void of description.

Welcome to Hotel California. ;0)

 

[crossfire]

Thread enthusiastically stickied.

I'm gonna see if I can put an exclamation flag on the thread. I can! Done.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Some points to remember on anatta:

1. Anatta is "not-self", not "no-self".
2. Anatta is not eternalism or annihiliationism.
3. Anatta is tied in with the ideas of anicca and dukkha.
4. Anatta is tied in with the idea of the five aggregates.
5. Buddha-nature is not atman; it is positive language of anatta/sunyata.

 

[crossfire]

I see one aspect of anatta as "thusness" experiences--tathata.

Appreciation of the ever-changing state of interconnectedness.

 

[Ekanta]

5. Buddha-nature is not atman; it is positive language of anatta/sunyata.

Well, in the nirvana sutra, atman is Buddha-nature... so I guess its not that easy...

If the "negative language" of sunyata is "all phenomena are impermanent", the "positive language" is "Buddha-nature is permanent".

"The essence of the Self [atman] is the subtle Tathagata-garbha ..."
"The Buddha-dhatu of beings inheres / abides within the five skandhas."
"The Buddha-dhatu is the True Self and, like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed".
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

"Monks, where there is a self, would there be (the thought), 'belonging to my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be (the thought), 'my self'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

MN 22

Ananda Sutta: To Ananda

 

[Ekanta]

Yes, we can pile word upon word or we can try to understand that self can indicate several things.... (body, mind, individual self or buddha-nature)

Nirvana sutra explains it:

"When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech [vyavahara-vat] and they are free from doubts."
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You can't quote the Nirvana sutra as the be-all-end-all of Buddhism, and then complain about what other scriptures teach. You also can't take just one scripture without understanding how it fits in with the rest of Buddhist philosophy. If it's what you believe, great; just know that it's not buddhadharma.

 

[von bek]

It is downright disrespectful for people to come onto a Buddhism DIR and claim the Buddha did not teach anatta.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

If it was a debate between Buddhists over anatta, we could take it to the same faiths debate forum. But it's someone who's not even a Buddhist debating in the DIR.

 

[Ekanta]

So I am "disrespectful" and "not even a Buddhist"... because I quote buddhist sutras in a buddhist forum?
If Im debating so are you guys. I just "place the basic teachings and understandings of the Buddhist idea of anatta"