I started this topic with a question about Anicca and Anatta and found there had been previous discussion and I found there are divergent understandings according to some and at the end of that discussion I was no further ahead in comprehending them.
So now, quite to my distress, I find the concept of Anatta, which is honestly the hardest to grasp for me, is itself a subject of debate as to it’s true literal meaning, never mind the esoteric “ no self” idea.
I am endeavouring to learn Pali in an effort to “hear” the Lord Buddha’ words in order to form right view. Should I just accept the common understanding of the word and soldier on trying to understand “no self” is this right view? This has created doubt in my mind, not doubt in Buddha of course! But doubt never the less and doubt is a hindrance. Therefore my real distress.
MN 9 is (probably?) the longest treatment of Right View in the Canon, and it doesn’t even mention anatta! It only mentions that “grasping theories of self” attavādupādānaṁ is a kind of grasping.
The way the buddha explains it in many suttas is that every thing experienced, i.e. the aggregates, is always changing. If everything is always changing, then can you refer to something as yourself? That is to say, if your entire you, yourself, is always changing, can you really refer to something as me, I, or mine? This is a philosophical endevour where one tries to find whether there is a certain inherent essence in things. By realising that everything is always changing and that every thing is dependent upon other things, one can come to realise that there is really no essence in things.
From MN 109:
“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”
It is difficult if not impossible to help other people to gain this understanding because it is a personal endevour.
Right View in the noble eightfold path is knowledge (ñāṇa) of suffering (dukkha), knowledge of the arising of suffering, knowledge of the ceasing of suffering, and knowledge of way leading to the ceasing of suffering.
It also in the Saṃyutta-nikāya (SN)/Saṃyukta-āgama (SA) refers to fully knowing (jānāti) and seeing (passati) phenomena (the five aggregates/sense objects) as:
(1) impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), not-self (anatta) (or anicca, dukkha, suñña (empty), anatta)
and
(2) the middle way (P. majjhima-paṭipadā, Skt. madhyama-pratipad).
The middle way is empty of two extremes: existence (eternalism) and non-existence (nihilism), or the happiness of sense-pleasures and the suffering of self-mortification.
E.g. in the following book see pp. 53, 60-2, 91, 192-5, 207-8, 210-1 on Right View (Sammādiṭṭhi); also pp. 120-1 on sammaddasa ‘rightly seeing’:
Choong Mun-keat, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sūtrāṅga portion of the Pāli Saṃyutta-Nikāya and the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama
This is a great question – thank for your courage.
I have found that spending time studying Pali with various suttas – not cherry-picking so much – helps me understand the neutral, grammatical use of the “a” in front of nouns. When I see its use in sentences that are not so fraught with existential meaning, I begin to relax with its usage grammatically. Then when I come back to terms like “anatta” I am better prepared.
First off, only the fully awakened arahants have truly clear wisdom/understanding of anattā. So no worries as long as we “soldier on”, as you wrote, and stay with our practice.
As with all the teachings, they generally tend to go into “the head” when we first read/hear them; then we think about and contemplate them. Then, as time goes on, the practice sets the conditions for deeper and clearer pañña, knowledge of how things are, including anattā. That knowledge and wisdom is not tied to analysis and thinking, but to direct understanding. Give it time.
Main point, imo: it’s fine to reflect on what the teaching of what anattā is pointing to, in order to get a sense of its place in the Dhamma; but if we commit to the practice itself, conditions will develop that lead to real clarity.
Peter, thank you for your reply. I think that anatta is simply above my pay grade at the moment. It was probably just a moment of panic, “ I’m never going to get this”! I will continue with my daily sutta readings. Metta
Thank you so much for your reply. This one truly resonated with me. I try to stay grounded in my practice and realise that certain concepts are simply beyond me, at this stage. I guess I was more worried about doubt forming as that seems to be a backward step. However I will continue to move forward with the help of my online Sangha. Metta
BethL thank you so much for your reply. I realise some of the more esoteric concepts are simply beyond me at this moment in my development. Since joining this community I have started reading daily suttas and today was MN17 Jungle Thickets. Basically about “horses for courses”. As usual it was timely and meant to me that I will find my way of traveling the path, mindfully. There are so many great online resources for learning Pali, we are truly blessed. Metta
That could be a dangerous line of thought. If it means: “presently I don’t understand doctrine of anatta”, that’s fine. It is just seeing things as they are. Much better than think that one understand, what one really does not understand.
But if it means “I am presently unable to grasp the meaning of anatta, so I give up and don’t try to understand it” it is as if one gave up hopes to see the Four Noble Truths for oneself. Because understanding of anatta is the precisely thing which makes one ariya.
Regarding your inquiry, perhaps some common sense could be helpful. People are selfish, and psychology recognises such phenomena like self-bias and self-deception. Since it is so one who teaches “there is no self” seems quite divorced from reality, which most obviously wasn’t the case with Buddha.
No need to make a new post for replying to every single person. Check out this Documentation > Forum Usage article that explains the best way to do it…
I think one could simplify the arguments of not-self in two broad brushsteokes:
Permanent Self Many religions, including Abrahamism / Hindu-Brahmanism, talk about a true, eternal, unchanging self. Is there such a thing?
Things we usually associate as our self are just certain feelings, ideas, impressions our bodies chained together, like a tower made of Lego bricks. Take them apart, and suddenly there’s no magical unchanging thing.
In fact, even biology confirms this. Roughly every seven years, our bodies almost completely replace all the atoms with different ones.
Autonomous Self “Self” implies a level of detachment and perfect mastery over our being - this is my hand, I raise it, so that’s mine! But is that truly so?
My hunger is conditioned. My pain is conditioned. It’s not that there’s no room for ‘wiggling’ (There’s a sutta that denies Determinism pretty explicitly), but it isn’t completely autonomous either. We’re not so completely in control of things we’d like to associate as our “Selves”.
I believe these concepts work best when used as strategies to help overcome clinging, rather than as doctrines to swallow and accept.
The second point is easier to understand and apply to one’s life. The first point, lack of a permanent essence, might need a bit more contemplation.
In both cases, the point made in the suttas are to stop clinging to our bodies, our feelings, etc, as something truly belonging to us, or truly permanent.
Does this make sense to you, to perhaps alleviate stress?
But one thing has to be taken into account. This autonomous self - even autonomous self of an atheist and materialist, is inseparable with perception of permanence, in the same way as mentioned “eternal self” of various religions, or in Dhamma terms sasattavada. The main difference lies that this monolithic extra-temporal self in the caes of an atheist is assumed to be annihilated at the death time. So this is ucchedavada.
Self (‘atta’) exists, this is one extreme. Self does not exist, this is the other extreme.
One does not insist on that existence (eternalism) or non-existence (nihilism) of Self is my Self . Then, when Self arises, it arises by causal conditions (nidāna ); when Self ceases, it ceases by causal conditions. It is a result of action (‘karma-vipāka’) by causal conditions, but there is no doer (‘akartrka’ = not-self 'anatta ').
So, Self is empty of both existence (eternalism) of self-view and non-existence (annihilation) of self-view.
Cf.:
SN 12.15 = SA 301; SA 335 (no SN counterpart) (pp. 95-6, 192-5 in Choong Mun-keat’s The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism ).
The key points: "One does not insist on that existence (eternalism) or non-existence (nihilism) of Self is my Self . " “It is a result of action (‘karma-vipāka’) by causal conditions , but there is no doer (‘akartrka’ = not-self 'anatta ').”
Hmm! So kamma is reborn? Not self or some one. But surely that kamma is mine, not someone else’s. Sometimes I think “I” get it, then “I” don’t. Maybe the “i” is like the raft that will be discarded in time? Metta
