[nabsgood]

Dear friends,

I'd be really interested to hear about your current understanding of "anatta"(not-self).

Are you able to apply it to your everyday life ? If so, please share some examples.



with kind wishes,

Aloka

[forebirdo]

As someone who is fairly inexperienced in the field (warning!), I've always interpretted it primarily regarding impermanence. While people exist and are what they are, the thing they are is changing rapidly with every passing moment. "You" isn't a permanent thing. For example, I am not the same person that I was in sixth grade, and in thirty years I'll probably be a different person than I am now.

Correct me if I'm missing the point. This is a subject I've wanted to learn more about.

[tweriaroats]

I understand it in a few different ways. Impermanence is the obvious one that everyone talks about which is basically as Johnny Panic just explained. But on top of that you no longer have any of the same matter you had in your body even just seven years ago.

I also think that many people think what is them is whatever it is in them that thinks. They think they are the thinker but really thoughts just come and go there isn't exactly a thinker.

I also look at it as though you are simply the sum of your parts your body, your consciousness, etc. So you are not exactly a singular being your 75 trillion cells. And all these parts are not personal they aren't yours. Everything you are was here before you were. All the matter in your body comes from food you have eaten. And all your thoughts are created by your outside environment as well along with your brain chemistry formed by genetics. But your genetics come from your parents. So your existence is completely dependent upon the existence of everything else.

As far as applying it to everyday life I guess I do when I feel frustrated and start thinking "I shouldn't have to do this" or other self centered thoughts. I remind my self that there isn't exactly a "me" to feeling or think that way and it helps me keep my cool.

[alex_loudermilk]

My understanding of not-self is still evolving, but it is based primarily on the Buddha's words in the Nikayas. One discourse in particular illustrates anatta quite succinctly and straightforwardly:

Anattalakkhaṇasutta (SN 22.59)

“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ— ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? “No hetaṃ, bhante”.

“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ— ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Yā kāci vedanā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattā vā bahiddhā vā…pe… yā dūre santike vā, sabbā vedanā— ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Yā kāci saññā…pe… ye keci saṅkhārā atītānāgatapaccuppannā ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā…pe… ye dūre santike vā, sabbe saṅkhārā— ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ viññāṇaṃ— ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

http://studies.worldtipitaka.org/tip.../1.2.1/1.2.1.7 Pañcavaggi Sutta: Five Brethren
(aka: Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic)

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....059.than.html The notion of anatta, as I understand it, is meant to illustrate the transitivity of identity. It is not an absolutist negation of selfhood; instead it shakes the foundations of personality we not only have been conditioned to believe in, but desire to believe in for psychological continuity.

In its historical context, which I always find useful to note, anatta is a refutation of the Brahmanic/Vedic notion of a permanent, enduring, transcendental, eternal, persistent Self, termed Atman. The Buddha frequently remarks that there is no self that is ultimate and immortal. Rather than uphold this Soul-theory, the Buddha describes self as impermanent, non-enduring, conventional, mortal, and not greater than the sum of its parts. There is an empirical self, but no trans-empirical equivalent like a Soul. There is no characteristic or set of characteristics that remains constant throughout life, or in supposed future lives. Nothing that is impermanent and dissatisfactory is fit to be called one's Self.

In my everyday life, I often have to remind myself that personal identity is a deceptive, instantaneous, elusive phenomenon. The sense of self we have is not an entity, but a process. Self is just a conventional designation for an assemblage of parts, a heap of phenomena:

Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10)

What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.

For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "Vajira the nun knows me" — vanished right there.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....010.than.html
Abhaya

[duawLauff]

The understanding of annata came from the teachings of Gautama Buddha. In many of his discourses he explains about the impermanent nature of body, feelings, perceptions, mental fabrications and consiousness. Clinging to them is useless as craving.

Mindfulness and meditation is where this understanding becomes tangible and observable far from metaphysical entanglements...

As an example, the careful contemplation of this discourses -between others- has been of good help:

Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

[...]

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
"Monks, I will teach you craving: the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations. Listen well, and I will speak."

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said: "And which craving is the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations? These 18 craving-verbalizations[1] dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.

"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.

"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external?

[...]

Tanha Sutta: Craving
Rahula, whatever form... feeling... perception... formation... consciousness - whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousnesses should be seen as it is with right wisdom thus:

"This is not mine, this is I am not, this is not my self"

SN 18.21

[markshome23]

This is how i see it.

The body starts by a sperm cell meets and penetrates an egg (both the egg and the sperm are the outside). The fetus feeds from the umilical cord (which is also the outside), then a new human body comes to the outside. She breathes the air (the outside), she drinks water (the outside). She eats food (the outside). The eyes sees the outside, the ears hear the outside, the nose smells the outside and the body senses the outside. And when we die, it goes back to where it belong (the outside) Consequently, the body itself is the outside!

Same thing in relation to the mind. When the child is born, she is not aware of herself yet! When the baby girl open her eyes she sees the mother and when the mother smiles then she becomes aware of herself. This awarness is a reflected awarness. She is not aware of who she is, but of what her mother thinks about her. When the mother smile the baby feels good, but if the mother shout at her then the baby cry. When the baby grow up and go to school, if she is the top of the class then her mother and father give her a gift (then the ego/mind becomes happy) but if she fails in her exam she will be punished (the ego mind becomes unhappy) and this is what the ego/mind is: a mere reflection/mirror of the outside. The more experience and feed back is added to it, the more complex it becomes. It cant be self.

Regards,
Bundokji

[sportsbettinge]

It is a good approach, Bundokji

Remembers me the concept of Social Self -as just a social construction- raised by Mead and Buber early in the 20th century.

[xquFzpNw]

This is how i see it.

Could you say how you actually apply this to your own everyday life please Bundokji, because I'm not too clear about that from your post.

[gariharrr]

Very eloquent way of describing it Bundokji. Thank you.

[Galsteinbok]

Hello Trilaksana,

I remind my self that there isn't exactly a "me" to feeling or think that way and it helps me keep my cool. The above could be another subtle (I). If you try to drop it then who is the dropper?

Maybe seeing the mind for what it is without judeging it can be a good approach? i dont know

Regards,
Bundokji

[Vegeinvalge]

Hello Aloka,

Could you say how you apply this to your own everyday life and practice and how you connect it to the Buddha's teachings on anatta, please ? I am practicing Satipattana Vipassana and trying to be aware of my body and mind from the moment i wake up till i sleep. I find seeing the rising and falling of things quite depressing and i am still not strong enough to keep the intensity of my practice. My practice is "dry insight" and i hope with time my concentration will improve and will be less distracted by thoughts so i can practice some samatha.

Sometimes i am not very sure when should i follow my mind! The more i follow what it wants, the more i believe that its me! Taking simple decisions like checking my facebook, eating something i like (if it not already available), buying a coffee from starbucks...etc becoming increasingly difficult.

Regards,
Bundokji

[njfeedd3w]

Hi Bundokji,

The second paragraph of your post #6 looks as though its been derived from "Ego - the False Centre" by Osho ( who's not a Buddhist teacher)

This awareness is a reflected awareness. He is not aware of who he is.

He is simply aware of the mother and what she thinks about him.

If she smiles, if she appreciates the child, if she says, "You are beautiful," if she hugs and kisses him, the child feels good about himself. Now an ego is born.


http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm

I was asking for peoples own understanding, not for them to paraphrase the writings of someone else such as Osho.

.

[bubbachew14]

Hello Aloka,

I was asking for peoples own understanding, not for them to paraphrase the writings of someone else such as Osho Do people own their understanding Aloka???!!!

Of course, all our opinions and posts on this forum has come from somewhere!!!! Cant you see how the so called "own understanding" contradicts with Annata which we are dicussing here

To own something, there must be an owner! Just think about it

By the way, i posted the above link more than once on this forum, its a nice article and i encourage everyone to read it.

Regards,
Bundokji

[Clarissa]

Do people own their understanding Aloka???!!!

Of course, all our opinions and posts on this forum has come from somewhere!!!! Cant you see how the so called "own understanding" contradicts with Annata which we are dicussing here

To own something, there must be an owner! Just think about it

By the way, i posted the above link more than once on this forum, its a nice article and i encourage everyone to read it.

Regards,
Bundokji

This is just trying to find a way of wriggling out of it !


.

[Konidurase]

Hello Trilaksana,



The above could be another subtle (I). If you try to drop it then who is the dropper?

Maybe seeing the mind for what it is without judeging it can be a good approach? i dont know

Regards,
Bundokji

Well that's a good point but and it really isn't an active effort of dropping it's ultimately a letting go of all concepts.

[JasminBerkova]

Hello Aloka,

This is just trying to find a way of wriggling out of it! No my good friend. Your above statement has also come from somewhere, you dont own it. And this very reply has also come from somewhere and i also dont own it. Its the law of cause and effect.

Regards,
Bundokji

[QzVyZbTg]

Hello Aloka,



No my good friend. Your above statement has also come from somewhere, you dont own it. And this very reply has also come from somewhere and i also dont own it. Its the law of cause and effect.

Regards,
Bundokji

Yes but there is a uniqueness to each individual's understanding or at least to the way each individual would describe the idea of anatta because each bring their understanding from different places and have a different brain processing it.

[orbidewa]

Hello Aloka,

No my good friend. Your above statement has also come from somewhere, you dont own it. And this very reply has also come from somewhere and i also dont own it. Its the law of cause and effect.

Regards,
Bundokji

Hello Bundokji,

Ok - well after confrontations both public and private over a period of time, the law of cause and effect means that a formal warning from me has been issued now .


Kind regards

Aloka

[AdvertisingPo]

I am beginning to tire of Bundokji's repeated self-justification. The first page of this thread was becoming increasingly interesting, now it has deteriorated into a series of "trying to be clever" snipings from The Bun.

Most members accept moderation when it is given. We have a custom of gentle reprimand here in this forum. It is based on respect for honest debate and respect for each one of us.

A few Forum Members repeatedly cannot take a hint from a moderator. These members generally end up either leaving the forum or being asked to leave.

Let us hope this topic can return to a discussion of anatta.

Woodscooter.

[samanthalueus]

Your above statement has also come from somewhere, you dont own it. And this very reply has also come from somewhere and i also dont own it. Its the law of cause and effect.

Anatta doesn't deny responsibility - owning up to one's actions of body, mind, and speech.