Anatta analysis
 

I have been looking (very lightly) at the Anatta concept.While I see it as an ultra obscure philosophical notion; this again, within my very limited knowledge in this area, I would like to ask two questions.
(1) Is impermanency seen to persist relevant to our finite (illusionary grasp) in terms of what we percieve...e.g animals, trees, humans etc. Does this cognative stuff become eventually extinct, or is their a perpetual backwards/ forwards flux.
Permanent change would seem to indicate ever changing phenomena and extinction of some former things.
(2) Is Anatta a contentious issue within Buddhist circles. Thank you.

What is what really belongs to you, Murchovski?

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

You ask some very interesting questions. I hope I can help a little. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Some people do present it as something exotic and obscure, but people tend to do that because they want to romanticise and elevate the Buddha. There's nothing really obscure or difficult about the original formulation of the idea. The Buddha looked within and couldn't find a soul/atman, so he said as much. Then he looked further for anything whatsoever that persists unchanged/identical throughout one's lifetime and still couldn't find anything. The Hindu atman that people believe(d) in? Imaginary, he said.


(1) Is impermanency seen to persist relevant to our finite (illusionary grasp) in terms of what we percieve...e.g animals, trees, humans etc. Does this cognative stuff become eventually extinct, or is their a perpetual backwards/ forwards flux.
Permanent change would seem to indicate ever changing phenomena and extinction of some former things. Your terminology points out the difficulty with relying too much on language. "Permanent change" seems to make sense until you realize that it's an oxymoron. It only seems to make sense because the syntax works. However, "change" is not an entity that can persist unchanged over time, so the notion the question is based upon falls apart under scrutiny.

(2) Is Anatta a contentious issue within Buddhist circles. Thank you. The word for the concept itself is universally agreed upon, but some try to sneak in something that transmigrates, despite this being antithetical to what is contained in the Pali suttas. You might say there are 'hardliners' who don't see anything that transmigrates and refuse to budge without evidence, then there are some who posit abstract formulas for something that transmigrates. I doubt 100% consensus is possible or even desirable. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

You recently compared the idea of atheism being a religion to "off" being a TV channel. Seems like the same principle would apply to calling a refusal to drink the transmigration Kool-Aid "hardliner". ;-)

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif Nothing inherently derogatory about the word 'hardliner'. I wouldn't drink the Kool-aid without some evidence that it was the real thing.

The Buddha was that sort of "hardliner":

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Yep. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Permanent change : is close to Anicca, not close to Anatta.

Anatta is the opposite to "Atta".
Atta is the feeling that, There is someone living inside and that feeling create "I".
Atta like paper mache, Nothing inside but we create paper mache.
Anatta is "No I".

If we merge "Atta" with "Opinion". Then "I'm right" will be arised.
If we don't merge, it is just an opinion. Right or Wrong ... does not matter.
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

Yes 'permanent change 'can perhaps be viewed as an oxymoron in accordance with secular logic. I probably should have used the term "ongoing change"; this has ramifications relevant to moral actions in 'the now' as opposed to infinite speculations. I realize this statement probably can be refuted by other esoteric considerations. In short, I see a problem in seeking finite (illusionary) ethics in relationship to real (non illusionary) ethics.http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/peace.gif

Anatta is not a philosophical notion. Anatta is reality, which, according to books, can be directly experienced in deep meditation, thereby putting an end to all doubt. A "philosophical notion" is not a directly verifiable fact. If it is then it won't be a mere "philosophical notion".

No, I don't think impermanence is a "perceived reality". It is reality no matter how you perceive it through your sensory organs. There is a tree in your garden. You leave for work and the tree is no more there in your sensory scope. You don't see it or think of it. Yet when you come back home, the tree still there. What does that tell you?

Hello Deshy... welcome back!

:hug:

For Nepalese Buddhists the tree is a symbol of dharma progress. Humans should be like trees. Trees will age and vanish and during their lifespan it is the fruits that matter...the seeds. According to our Geshe fruits and seeds of the dharma are the ultimate reality of transmigration. It is the dharma that matters...not the tree itself. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/neutral.gif

thx Kaarin. Nice to be back :)

I was trying to tell you that Dhamma exists independent of our your perceptions in answering your original question if impermanence persists relevant to our illusionary grasp or not

Philosophical notions and scientific notions both share the problems of finite credibility, in the long term. ( Refer Hume, Popper et al)
'Anatta is reality' but what is reality; we are left with circular reasoning.
As for trees in the garden only being verifiable if personally observed, this seems to accord with Bishop Berkley's teachings.
Yes in the strong sense, very questionable in the weaker sense. What would the tree repesent to natures little creatures?

"Anatta is reality" is a bit over-reaching, I think. Anatta is an aspect of reality, along with dukkha and anicca.

Reifying anatta or anything else is the beginning of illusion and ignorance, as far as I can tell.

Also, are we not nature's little creatures, too, Murchovski? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

lol, so what is reality? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif

Well said. Point is anatta cannot be rationalized by thinking about it. It should be "experienced" and realized.

What isn't?


Well said. Point is anatta cannot be rationalized by thinking about it. It should be "experienced" and realized. Or it might be possible to do both. I don't see any inherent contradiction between the two, but in the end, yes, realization is more effective than conceptualization. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/up2.gif

I can't debate cause of limitation of my English.

Anatta is real or not, I don't mind.

But the fact. I feel there is "I" in this world (Atta). The mindfulness (Sati) make me feel something that the feeling of "I" not arise all the time (Anatta). This is the point that I hope that one day my mind will be much more of the right understanding (Samma thiti).

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

You think it is possible to realize anatta by reasoning?