Why exactly does realization of Anatta/Impermanence lead to the cessation of suffering?

[zenzero]

Friend punkdbass,

Why exactly does realization of Anatta/Impermanence lead to the cessation of suffering?

Starting from the end:
SUFFERING-
Now, who feels it [suffering]?
Its the MIND.
The MIND is also that "I' or the EGO.

If the MIND itself which is impermanent is transcended then the EGO or that "I' is no more and one is just a part of the UNIVERSE.
When this REALISATION happens then there are no more sufferings.
In other words start with the search question: Who am 'I'??

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Relax.

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā = all conditioned things are impermanent
Sabbe dhamma anattā = all things (both conditioned and unconditioned) are not self

:namaste

Namaste

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā = all conditioned things are impermanent
Sabbe dhamma anattā = all things (both conditioned and unconditioned) are not self

Agreed. dhamma is nature, which is not the self. Things are all compounded --never otherwise. So, things are not self. Now, does the realiser/realisation of this paramount truth goes unconscious unto thin air? After all, the realiser of this paramount truth has taught us this paramount truth. I possibly am a brick-head and thus do not get the meaning of anatta ever.....

VII. 1. 9.] ARAHANTA-VAGGA 1. 169

....
Ma l brahmana daru samadahano ||
suddhim 2 amanni bahiddha hi etam ||
na hi tena suddhim kusala vadanti ||
yo bahirena parisuddhim 3 icche || ||
Hitva aham brahmana darudaham ||
ajjhattam eva jalayami 4 jotim ||
niccaggini niccasamahitatto 5 ||
araham 6 aham brahmacariyam carami || ||
Mario hi te brahmana 7 kharibharo II
kodho dhumo bhasmani mosavajjam 8 ||
jihva suja hadayam jotitthanani ||
atta sudanto purisassa joti || ||

SN 1.169: "When kindling wood, brahmin, do not imagine; This external deed brings purity; For experts say no purity is gained; By one who seeks it outwardly."

SN 1.169: "Having given up the fire (agni) made from wood (externality), I kindle, O brahmin, the inner light alone. Always (nitya) ablaze, my mind always unified with Self (atta), I am an arahant living the holy life."

SN 1.169: "Conceit, O brahmin, is your shoulder-load [of carrying wood], Anger the smoke, false speech the ashes; The tongue is the ladle, the pith the altar, a well-tamed Self (atta) is the Light of a man."

Or is the well trained atta of Buddha just an illusion again? That atta of Buddha, which he says is jyoti (light) an anatta?

Consider this as a question only.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now remember, this is not a denial of anatta as explained above since Buddha-nature can be viewed as beyond the 5 skandhas. Even the tripitaka gives room for such an interpretation, there is the classic example:

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3) [Ud 8.3]
"There is, monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned."
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)

Yes, this does seem to point to something "beyond" the aggregates. The aggregates are conditioned, but this passage is pointing to the unconditioned.

 

[ametist]

You dont right away find you there at 'anatta'. On the way you experience many things and before that end you understand certain 'personalities' have access to you and in a way you are in a 'net' and nonphysically you are not alone or they are you. So when you die a part of you lives.. literally..and a million other things. Shatters reality nonetheless.

 

[Darkstorn]

since nothing inherently exists, there is no need to cling or get attached to things since everything is impermanent. Once you realize this, whatever you fear or are afraid of, whatever makes you sad, you no longer have to suffer from these things because now you realize that what you fear does not inherently exist. What makes you sad, does not inherently exist. It is just a wave, an ebb and flow. You can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," so there is no need to cling. Let me illustrate with a rather basic example:

I must clear something up because i saw no one else do it:

Your whole premise is wrong, therefore your entire logical process is slightly flawed:

Nothing inherently exists independently. Absolutely nothing is borne out of itself with no previous constitutents. Your whole being is based on previous phenomena.

Suppose on my walk to class, it is down-pouring cold rain. Now, if I am not mindful, I may become attached to this feeling and react negatively, expressing my discomfort with the cold rain. However, if I have realized the truth of anatta/impermanence, I can react mindfully and know with confidence that this "discomfort from the cold rain" is impermanent, it does not inherently exist. I can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," and thus there is no need for me to cling to the negative feelings towards the cold rain, rather I can experience the feeling of the cold rain for what it is, in the moment.

The discomfort is indeed impermanent: ALL things are. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist: It does if you experience it. Denying the existence of things is not Buddhism but Nihilism.

Since everything is "fabricated" from other causes, actions and things... Fabrications of your mind are no different from an actual physical thing; Even if wrong or falsely imagined. They exist in your mind even if there is no physical counterpart.

That being said: It's not about knowing that the discomfort will pass(it might, or it might not) but rather knowing that the discomfort itself is fabricated by your mind. It's quite simply put an opinion. It's your opinion that cold rain is discomforting. Subjective. And very subject to impermanence.

Clinging to things is indeed bad; But you wouldn't normally attach yourself to a thing that causes obvious suffering... I would not cling to the feeling of cold rain because it is not pleasant.

You should avoid clinging to the things you want. That is the main cause of suffering.

/E: You cannot with any confidence say that something will pass if you are not involved in its cessation in any way. Rain is not up to you. It might not pass. Discomfort from the rain might not pass either if you don't actively try to end it.

 

[Ablaze]

Namaste

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā = all conditioned things are impermanent
Sabbe dhamma anattā = all things (both conditioned and unconditioned) are not self

Agreed. dhamma is nature, which is not the self. Things are all compounded --never otherwise. So, things are not self. Now, does the realiser/realisation of this paramount truth goes unconscious unto thin air? After all, the realiser of this paramount truth has taught us this paramount truth. I possibly am a brick-head and thus do not get the meaning of anatta ever.....



Or is the well trained atta of Buddha just an illusion again? That atta of Buddha, which he says is jyoti (light) an anatta?

Consider this as a question only.

Tread carefully here. There is no "thing" that "goes unconscious unto thin air." That very assumption (of a metaphysical self) is the basis for suffering.

Further, please be wary of misleading translations such as the ones you've chosen. The Buddha taught that one must exercise discernment, which includes cutting off false views and removing confirmation biases.

Imposing a theist/atta-ist agenda on the Buddha's teachings is highly problematic.

 

[Ablaze]

Yes, this does seem to point to something "beyond" the aggregates. The aggregates are conditioned, but this passage is pointing to the unconditioned.

Indeed, but the Buddha never equates the unconditioned with a self, in any form.

 

[Ablaze]

I must clear something up because i saw no one else do it:

Your whole premise is wrong, therefore your entire logical process is slightly flawed:

Nothing inherently exists independently. Absolutely nothing is borne out of itself with no previous constitutents. Your whole being is based on previous phenomena.



The discomfort is indeed impermanent: ALL things are. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist: It does if you experience it. Denying the existence of things is not Buddhism but Nihilism.

Since everything is "fabricated" from other causes, actions and things... Fabrications of your mind are no different from an actual physical thing; Even if wrong or falsely imagined. They exist in your mind even if there is no physical counterpart.

That being said: It's not about knowing that the discomfort will pass(it might, or it might not) but rather knowing that the discomfort itself is fabricated by your mind. It's quite simply put an opinion. It's your opinion that cold rain is discomforting. Subjective. And very subject to impermanence.

Clinging to things is indeed bad; But you wouldn't normally attach yourself to a thing that causes obvious suffering... I would not cling to the feeling of cold rain because it is not pleasant.

You should avoid clinging to the things you want. That is the main cause of suffering.

/E: You cannot with any confidence say that something will pass if you are not involved in its cessation in any way. Rain is not up to you. It might not pass. Discomfort from the rain might not pass either if you don't actively try to end it.

Sadhu! Well-spoken.

 

[atanu]

I will not get into a debate but let this post just be.

Tread carefully here. There is no "thing" that "goes unconscious unto thin air." That very assumption (of a metaphysical self) is the basis for suffering.

Show me where I said 'thing'. You are forcing words onto me. I said "Now, does the realiser/realisation of this paramount truth goes unconscious unto thin air? After all, the realiser of this paramount truth has taught us this paramount truth."

...Further, please be wary of misleading translations such as the ones you've chosen. The Buddha taught that one must exercise discernment, which includes cutting off false views and removing confirmation biases.

Imposing a theist/atta-ist agenda on the Buddha's teachings is highly problematic.

And I don't even need to translate the following. niccaggini niccasamahitatto and atta sudanto purisassa joti are clear. That the Arahant abides (samahito) in his own joti, which is nicca.

I can see is that we are stuck on a meaning of atta. atta does not mean the personal notion "I am this body-mind". That is anatta. atman in sanskrit means that wherefrom the awareness of "I" arises.

That unborn unconditioned realm is the nirvana realm, that is our own unborn nature. Had it been outside us it would still be anatta and anicca. And if there was only the anatta and anicca then there would be no escape from that.


VVII. 1. 9.] ARAHANTA-VAGGA 1. 169

Ma l brahmana daru samadahano ||
suddhim 2 amanni bahiddha hi etam ||
na hi tena suddhim kusala vadanti ||
yo bahirena parisuddhim 3 icche || ||
Hitva aham brahmana darudaham ||
ajjhattam eva jalayami 4 jotim ||
niccaggini niccasamahitatto 5 ||
araham 6 aham brahmacariyam carami || ||
Mario hi te brahmana 7 kharibharo II
kodho dhumo bhasmani mosavajjam 8 ||
jihva suja hadayam jotitthanani ||
atta sudanto purisassa joti || ||
............................

 

[von bek]

The Brahmajala Sutta from the Digha Nikaya:

Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views

From the above link:

49. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?

"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'

"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case.

50. "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are partial-eternalists proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. Whatever recluses and brahmins there may be who proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

51. "This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.

52. "These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Indeed, but the Buddha never equates the unconditioned with a self, in any form.

The suttas actually say that the aggregates are impermanent and unsatisfactory and therefore not fit to be regarded as self.
The only reference I know of which supports your assertion here is "sabbe dhamma anatta" which I think occurs in the Dhammapada - "dhamma" here is apparently intended to include the unconditioned, though it seems a matter of interpretation.

 

[Ablaze]

Show me where I said 'thing'. You are forcing words onto me. I said "Now, does the realiser/realisation of this paramount truth goes unconscious unto thin air? After all, the realiser of this paramount truth has taught us this paramount truth."

By positing the existence of a substantial self (a "realiser"), there is the assumption of a "thing" (substance), regardless of what you call it. No one is forcing words on you. It is improper, however, for you to force an atta-doctrine, which the Buddha clearly rejected, onto the Buddha's teachings, and in the Buddhism DIR of all places. Kindly refrain from imposing such.

And I don't even need to translate the following. niccaggini niccasamahitatto and atta sudanto purisassa joti are clear. That the Arahant abides (samahito) in his own joti, which is nicca.

Simply because the cessation of suffering is permanent (nicca) does not mean there is a substantial self that is also so. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of knowledge of the Buddha's core teachings. Translating atta as metaphysical-substance-self (rather than as a reflexive pronoun) is mistaken. The Buddha called such thinking micca-ditthi, or wrong view.

 

[Ablaze]

The suttas actually say that the aggregates are impermanent and unsatisfactory and therefore not fit to be regarded as self.
The only reference I know of which supports your assertion here is "sabbe dhamma anatta" which I think occurs in the Dhammapada - "dhamma" here is apparently intended to include the unconditioned, though it seems a matter of interpretation.

Actually, the suttas make reference to "sabbe dhammā anattā" on more than one occasion; for instance, the Cula-saccakata Sutta (MN 35), Channa Sutta (SN 22.90), Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10), Uppada Sutta (AN 3.137), plus 38 additional references in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Traditionally, even nibbana is understood to be empty of self.

 

[Ablaze]

The Brahmajala Sutta from the Digha Nikaya:

Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views

From the above link:

:namaste

 

[atanu]

...
Simply because the cessation of suffering is permanent (nicca) does not mean there is a substantial self that is also so. ....

I did not say anything about substantial. When all skandhas and all dharmas are gone and the Monk discerns, then what is substantial?)(

 

[Ablaze]

I did not say anything about substantial. When all skandhas and all dharmas are gone and the Monk discerns, then what is substantial?)(

You said something about an eternal self or ātman, a metaphysical-substance-self, which the Buddha vehemently rejected. Belief in such leads to suffering.

 

[atanu]

You said something about an eternal self or ātman, a metaphysical-substance-self, which the Buddha vehemently rejected. Belief in such leads to suffering.

Substance? Where?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Actually, the suttas make reference to "sabbe dhammā anattā" on more than one occasion; for instance, the Cula-saccakata Sutta (MN 35), Channa Sutta (SN 22.90), Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10), Uppada Sutta (AN 3.137), plus 38 additional references in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Traditionally, even nibbana is understood to be empty of self.

Yes, you're right - I happened to be reading the Samyutta Nikaya after that post and came across a couple of references there!

I still think there is some ambiguity here though, given that "dhamma" and "sankhara" have various meanings in the suttas.

 

[Denny Crane!]

Towards a Buddhist Psychotherapy

 

[Denny Crane!]

OK can't post links yet - Towards a buddhist psycotherapy provides a useful analytical summarisation of why buddhism works in both existential and psychological terms.