How do you directly observe anatta?

[Martin]

@anon85245511

The Buddha’s teaching is about watching the process of arising and passing away of the sense media interaction with the sense objects as a whole .

Is that not observing anicca?

[Martin]

@Gabriel

There is a logical trap there. When one claims to observe or to have observed anatta directly one automatically creates an observer of a higher order. So logically I can observe the impermanence of objects but not the impermanence (or anatta) of the observing faculty.

Yes, that’s a tricky one. Being able to observe ( notice? ) without indulging the sense of being an observer. Do you have a practical solution to this?

[Viveka]

Regarding the body as self; I like the simile of the cart - removing pieces of the cart one at a time. By the end of the process lets say that just a wheel is left - is that now the cart? No. The cart is just an aggregate of different elements. by diss-assembling it one piece at a time it becomes clear.

So as to ME, remove my arm, or my blood, or my limbs, my eyes, or hair, or bones… what is me? ME doesn’t exist except for an aggregate for a finite time.

As to my mind, we can divide this into 2 concepts if you like; 1) the brain as processor of information and 2) as the abstract concept of some form of ‘directing energy’ or other meta-physical entity.

Regarding 1) the brain; basically the same simile of the cart applies, just start cutting away and removing bits etc…
Regarding 2) The meta-physical entity. One can directly observe changes in thoughts, knowledge, opinions, personality, knowledge etc etc. My ‘mind’ is completely different than it was 40 years ago. Which was ME? this meta-physical mind is changing and evolving all the time - no permanent self. If you have ever had someone close to you get severe dementia, you can watch the memories disappear, knowledge disappear… were they the self? what is left now?

Have fun exploring!

[anon85245511]

@Martin

Is that not observing anicca?

Do you see the difference between
the Focus on observing impermanent
itself and observing arising passing
of the aggregates ?

[Viveka]

Just to add
Observing anatta in others is far easier than to observe it in yourself. It is not a big stretch to realise that what applies to humans in general also applies to each of us individually. This is still direct observation.

[Martin]

@anon85245511

Do you see the difference between
the Focus on observing impermanent
itself and observing arising passing
of the aggregates ?

Not really. The aggregates are anicca because they arise and pass.

[Martin]

@mpac

If you have ever had someone close to you get severe dementia, you can watch the memories disappear, knowledge disappear… were they the self?

Interesting point. I had a close relative with dementia, the sense of the person disappearing along with their memories.

[Gabriel]

@Martin

Being able to observe ( notice? ) without indulging the sense of being an observer. Do you have a practical solution to this?

If I had a practical solution there would be nibbana
But theoretically it’s simply not possible to observe without creating a dialectical observer. Where I think a solution is: One does not observe - dhamma observes. As one does not act, dhamma acts. Meaning, if the location of oneself is given up in favor of one’s faculties being a tool of dhamma then I see a possibility of non-personal observation. Any thoughts?

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Gabriel

But theoretically it’s simply not possible to observe without creating a dialectical observer. Where I think a solution is: One does not observe - dhamma observes. As one does not act, dhamma acts. Meaning, if the location of oneself is given up in favor of one’s faculties being a tool of dhamma then I see a possibility of non-personal observation. Any thoughts?

One could think of it like this:

1. Observation is a selfless natural process.
2. The act of attributing observation to an observer is an error.

Like how lightning is a selfless natural process, but attributing it to Thor (the god of thunder) is an error.

This way it is theoretically possible for there to be observation without an observer.

[Jhana4]

@Martin

I’ve experienced it a few times for maybe 1-2 seconds each. At least I think I’ve experienced something like it .

Every time I experienced it, I wasn’t trying or even interested in experiencing it.

I would focus on doing sitting samatha, sitting vipassana, and where possible being mindful of your mind during your daily life. I think eventually you will just find that the train of your mind stops at that station unannounced.

[Martin]

@Gabriel

I see a possibility of non-personal observation. Any thoughts?

I find that with strong mindfulness there can be a sense of the non-personal observing the personal.

[Martin]

@Erika_ODonnell

2. The act of attributing observation to an observer is an error.

But doesn’t observation necessarily involve a duality, an observer and that which is observed?

[kstan1122]

The wrong views on anicca and anatta translation is wheeling wider unless you take anicca as disintegrating, fickle, perishable, impermanent, subject to change, without existence, conditioned, worthless and subject to death and anatta as unfruitfulness, without refuge, helplessness or not in control.

In this world of 31 realms, there is nothing that can be maintained to our satisfaction in the long run (anicca) which will causes dukkha and there are 24 others of such suffering which leads us to helplessness or without refuge, not in control and unfruitfulness (anatta). Just contemplate on it and slowly it will make sense.

With metta.

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Martin

But doesn’t observation necessarily involve a duality, an observer and that which is observed?

Not under the assumptions of my previous post

[Mat]

@kstan1122

unfruitfulness (anatta)

Is this Ven Waharaka Abayarathanalankara’s outlier translation?

with metta

[khaaan]

@Martin

I find that with satipatthana practice I can directly observe transience and conditionality, but I am still not clear how to go about directly observing anatta.

How about observing that things are happening by themselves, autonomously, without you willing them to happen? Especially things that are happening too quickly for you to consciously control.

[suci1]

That is exactly what it is.

Aren’t the gods (devas) at the top of the Sensuous World (kama-loka), the paranimmita-vasavatti devas, enjoying sense pleasures created by others for them. (Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives here).

The error would be to let that in.

---

Now this is indeed the anatta part, whose dhammas does not belong to us, (and are also made of impermanent khandhas) .
This is the “I am not this” part (nayamahamasmī’ti).
But to make that anatta perfect, there is also the need to get rid of the “I am” (asmīti) - as in SN 22.89.

Note: have I already say that this has the strong scent of the later Aristotle’s “categories”. Viz. made in that, present in this ? _
Yeah, I did.

[kstan1122]

@Mat

Is this Ven Waharaka Abayarathanalankara’s outlier translation?

Yes, partly. The complete understanding is based on the contemplation (anupassanā meaning removing defilements) of the Tilakkhana from the sutta which has 40 types of contemplation (10 aniccānupassanā, 25 dukkhānupassanā and 5 anattānupassanā).

[Mat]

@kstan1122

The complete understanding is based on the contemplation (anupassanā meaning removing defilements) of the Tilakkhana from the sutta which has 40 types of contemplation (10 aniccānupassanā, 25 dukkhānupassanā and 5 anattānupassanā)

Do you have the name of the sutta or a link?

With metta

[kstan1122]

@Mat

Do you have the name of the sutta or a link?

Please see Paṭisambhidāmagga sutta - 3.9. Vipassanākathā at SC 20 to SC 23.

Please note that anatta may not be what you interpret as, as the other 4 anattānupassanā mostly point to empty, void or devoid.

Please see the commentary “Paṭisambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā – Sariputta” in Pali which confirmed that asāraka is aniccānupassanā.

With metta.