[AndyColemants]

I didn't know where to post this. I have been troubled by a two specific questions regarding Buddhism. I hope the questions make sense.

1. What is it that experiences anatta if there is no (intrinsic) self?

2. Assuming all phenomenon are the result of causes, does the idea that this is the case also have a cause. In some sense I'm asking where the chain of causes began.

[Ervntewc]

1. What is it that experiences anatta if there is no (intrinsic) self?

This is my understanding of this.

If you inspect closely, you find that the observer and the observed are the same thing. When you ask yourself the question, Who am I?, the observer and the observed are one. It is a misconception that the observer is a self or soul. It is merely thought that gives rise to a self or soul, my this, or my that, and to your question which really is "if not me, then who experiences anatta, there has to be a me, somewhere".

I think the Buddha has said something along the lines of there is no anatta nor atman, maybe to show the fragility of what real anatta is. Freaky, isn't it?

I could be totally off.

2. Assuming all phenomenon are the result of causes, does the idea that this is the case also have a cause. In some sense I'm asking where the chain of causes began.

I'd like to know the answer to this too.

[draigenia]

1. What is it that experiences anatta if there is no (intrinsic) self?

The fact is no self. Anatta were allways shown but we look over it. Vipassana will help us experiences anatta.

We could observe that the feeling of "I" was not shown all the time.
Someone may be found that the feeling of "I" be shown when we taught.
During we received information, not yet think, the comment was not yet arise. Anatta were showing.

IMO If the DO process was interupted and could not went thru the step of becoming. There was no self feeling.

2. Assuming all phenomenon are the result of causes, does the idea that this is the case also have a cause. In some sense I'm asking where the chain of causes began.

Ignorance was the begining of the chain of causes. We response something with the feeling that I do and need the result on the way that I respect or need to be.

If we create "I" then the kamma can effect to "I".
If no "I", kamma don't have the object to effect to.

[boXGWf04]

Ignorance was the begining of the chain of causes

What was it that experienced this ignorance?

[joe-salton]

you find that the observer and the observed are the same thing

I am looking at a tree. This tree generates an image on my retina which is then sent to my occipital lobe which then interprets the image by relating it to an abstract "concept"/image of "tree". In this case how would you describe "observer" and "observed"? Does the tree exist if I don't see it - that is do I create the image, in which case the observer being the same as the oberved makes some sense to me.

I'm not sure this example is relevant.

I have no problem dispensing with the idea of a "soul" but I'm not able to get my brain around the idea that there is no "self"-that which experiences things, including ignorance.

[Proodustommor]

The Buddha did not declare "there is no self". The Buddha pointed out that one cannot point to anything and say, "This is my self, This is what I am."

This is not a declaration about what a person is. The Buddha is trying to move away from such speculations and instead point to the question of how we attach to sense experience and try to make it our own. The Buddha out it this way: 'The eye (and its associated neurosensory systems) sees a visual form (in your example of the tree) and 'eye-consciousness' arises (we become aware of this form of a tree). The meeting of the three (eye, form, eye-consciousness) is called 'eye-contact'. A sensation arises that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. (In the presence of ignorance) craving arises in response to that sensation, and from that, clinging to that sensation arises. A self-concept arises (the notion of the tree in relation to ourselves, for example, its usefulness to us as a source of food, of beauty, of heat, etc.). The Buddha's teaching of Anatta (*not*-self) is a deconstruction of that self-view that arises in this process, not a nihilistic declaration like "there is no 'you'."

[excholza]

I like stuka's answer, it's simple and can be related to.

Although (and here it comes stuka ) I'm not sure if that's all there is to it. Quantum physics says that the observer at the very least interferes with the observed.

That said, stuka's answer is an important teaching for everyday life and the only verifiable one. Hmmm...

[bapimporb]

The Buddha did not declare "there is no self". The Buddha pointed out that one cannot point to anything and say, "This is my self, This is what I am."

This makes sense to me. Can one say that Buddhist teachings are about how the "I" behaves rather than what it is or is not?

[bxxasxxa]

1. What is it that experiences anatta if there is no (intrinsic) self?

2. Assuming all phenomenon are the result of causes, does the idea that this is the case also have a cause. In some sense I'm asking where the chain of causes began.

1. Mind.

2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

Similarly, the law of causality does not have a cause. It is inherent.

[gorbasevhuynani]

Although (and here it comes stuka ) I'm not sure if that's all there is to it. Quantum physics says that the observer at the very least interferes with the observed.

...and how would this be relevant to the matter of misery/suffering and it extinguishment...?

[Smabeabumjess]

Can one say that Buddhist teachings are about how the "I" behaves rather than what it is or is not?

Its more like how misery arises through ignorance, and how to head it off. And live well and wisely. The notion of "I" can be left entirely out of the equation.

[tuszit]

This makes sense to me.

More on this:

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise5.htm

[zilsolley3]

More on this:

"Udayi, whosoever can recall the khandhas he has previously occupied in great number, of such a person would it be fitting to question me about past lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, or I him. Whosoever sees the passing away of beings and their subsequent arisings, of such a person would it be fitting to ask me about future lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, and I him.

"Enough, Udayi, of former times and future times. I will teach you the essence of the Dhamma: When there is this, there is that. With the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that cannot be; when this ceases, so does that." [M.II.31]"

Stuka: This is from the reference you posted. It seems to say - to me - that we should stop wasting our time asking these questions and go on to "here and now".

[neotheMit]

2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

If ignorance doesn't have a cause, how are we to eliminate it?

[brurdefdoro]

What was it that experienced this ignorance?

It is very hard or very difficult to experienced ignorance. Following vipassana step could do. For me, not yet.

For my practice, as deep as I could feel was only moha (delusion). I feel like something cover my mind all the time. But someone told me that is anusaya (latent dispositions). Then who can tell ?

Anyway, it just the name. The wholesome point is I found something.

My opinion almost from my practice. This may different from the other and may more detail than tipitaka.
Some feeling I couldn't exactly compare to tipitaka. Just estimate that is ???.
Right or wrong, I didn't know but just share my experience for your more views.

The feeling inside could not show directly to the other. Could not compare directly to the other. Some feeling could not explain, especially explain to the person that never feel the same feeling. Some feeling didn't have a word to be explained.

To understand dhamma with thinking is good but with feeling is better. We still understand dhamma even some of our brain was destroyed.

[TessUnsonia]

The notion of "I" can be left entirely out of the equation.

Does the Buddha not use "I" - that is, how can it be left out of the equation? It is not at all clear to me what "I" means in Buddhist thinking. That "I" is impermanent seems clear to me, even in a moment to moment sense but this doesn't give me any insight as to how the word is used.

Is the "I"='the sum of " the five skandahs, at least for the purpose of communicating ideas? Does it even make sense to ask what the "I" is - perhaps it needs to remain a concept not definable(and not needing a definition) within the context of Buddhism?

If one takes dependent origination as an "axiom", then nothing has any intrinsic existence, including "self".

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here and I need to put this aside and go on - I'm very much of a beginner.


Hope my ramblings aren't too boring and thanks for your patience.

[soryalomop]

If one takes dependent origination as an "axiom", then nothing has any intrinsic existence, including "self".

Yes, to axiom - wouldn't say yes to conclusion. Dependent origination is what is observed, not an esoteric theory. It doesn't function to comment on the existence (or otherwise) of anything including 'self'.

Dependent origination is a process, no more. It makes no sense to ask what the 'I' is, as there are millions of opinions about it but it does make sense to investigate, in meditation, what the 'I' is.

Really look for it, not in a kind of formulaic (I won't find it anyway) manner but in a genuine way. There is something there, that's for sure but you will have to see it for yourself.

[Fetowip]

If ignorance doesn't have a cause, how are we to eliminate it?

Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā
Tesam hetum Tathāgato āha
Tesañ ca yo nirodho
Evamvādī mahāsamano.

Of things originating with conditions,
The Tathāgata has told the condition,
And what their cessation is.
The Great Recluse speaks thus.

Nanavira Thera[/url]: ]
§23 ...To see the Dhamma is to see paticcasamuppāda (as noted in §7), and avijjā is therefore non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda. Avijjāpaccayā sankhārā will thus mean 'paticcasamuppāda depends upon non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda'. Conversely, seeing of paticcasamuppāda is cessation of avijjā, and when paticcasamuppāda is seen it loses its condition ('non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda') and ceases. And this is cessation of all hetuppabhavā dhammā. Thus tesam yo nirodho is cessation of avijjā.

[HwoRas1]

If ignorance doesn't have a cause, how are we to eliminate it?

By insight, by practising introspection, or simply by experience.

There are kinds of ignorance we have ended via experience.

When we were a baby, we did not know fire burns or hurts. By touching fire, we soon learned it burnt.

The Buddha taught ignorance does not have a cause (hetu) but taught it has food (ahara), namely, the five hindrances.

When the five hindrances remain in the mind, ignorance receives support.

But when the five hindrances are overcome, clarity of mind can manifest to end ignorance.

Kind regards

[avaiptutt]

Does it even make sense to ask what the "I" is...

The Buddha spoke of the 'I' in many ways; that it is something the mind manufactures or fabricates. For example, the suttas use the terms 'I making' and 'my making'.

Below is one text where the Buddha called it an 'assumption':

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form...feeling...perception...mental formations...consciousness to be the self.

That assumption is a fabrication.

Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.

That fabrication is born of that.

And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

Parileyyaka Sutta