The experience of "Anatta"

The Watercooler
140

I interpretate this otherwise. Many sutta’s describe something like this:

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who is diligent develop and cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view … right concentration, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who is diligent
develops and cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path.” (see Maggasamyutta, SN45).

The Noble Path is based upon seclusion, dispassion and cessation, meaning, here and now.
Dispassion is not something that is absent or something that lies in the future to be gained. Like many teachers say, the goal is present. This is because passion and formations are something that always arises and ceases and is of an adventitous nature. One must understand this to develop correctly (AN1.51). If one takes ones situation like this that one is always passionate then, i feel, one takes a wrong start. I feel those sutta’s of AN1.51 say this.

Also about the holy life it is said:

“For, brahmin the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, Nibbana s its destination, Nibbana as its final goal”(SN48.42, Bodhi)

Another way the sutta’s talk about this is that the enlightment factors, the powers, the qualities have the Deathless as its ground (see SN48, for example).

I interprete this as: they do not have a personal disposition as there ground. They are not grounded in habits. They are not grounded in reactivity, in patterns, in inclinations. They ground in the uninclined.

For example, one might have been grown up in a culture in which the belief in rebirth is very accepted, common, habit-like, or not, but that has nothing to do with the right view of the Noble Path based upon seclusion, cessation, dispassion etc. This Noble Path does not depend on cultural ideas or how one is educated or how one is raised. There is a ground that is not influenced by that.

I feel, interpretation deviate because some feel that the goal is not present yet. Everything must be gained. They do not see or feel that the uninclined, signless, dispassion is not absent and is not something to gain but to uncover. I think that the Dhamma-eye means one sees and knows that it is not absent and not something to be gained in the future.

For me, MN117 is not some strange sutta. I feel it is in line with the rest of the sutta’s. What must be distinguised, i feel, is a path of merit which the Buddha teaches: such as developing good intentions, abandoning wrong views (materialism), etc, because those are not helpful to discover and see the Noble Path based upon dispassion and enter the stream.

It is not like the path of accumulating merit is the same as entering the stream. The stream refers to the Path that is here and now based upon dispassion, seclusion, stilled formations.

141

The sutta’s talk about different kinds of right views. If i sum this up:

There are a kind of worldview like materialism or scepticisms or nihilism or others. MN76 threats some.
Buddha describes them as: four ways that negate the spiritual life, and four kinds of unreliable spiritual life. Those are wrong worldviews. Those views in a way negate the spiritual life.

Buddha taught a worldview of rebirth, there is meaning in giving, there are people who know this and another world, there is kamma and fruit of kamma etc. These are views which support the holy life.

But…this does not mean that anyone who accepts those views, or is grown up with those views, has full trust in them, is convinced that this is how life is, has the right view of the Noble Path. Such people have not entered the stream.

142

Because i feel this is important another post on this, and then, i promisse, i stop participating because i notice my participation/posts is/are not liked. Oke.

I think SN12.51 describes it well:

"If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. If they make a bad choice, their consciousness enters a bad realm. If they make an imperturbable choice, their consciousness enters an imperturbable realm. When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice. Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.’

This is in line with MN117. Good choices do not mean that they are undefiled, not based upon ignorance. Good choices are the mundane noble path of MN117. The Noble Path is not about choosing and intending because it is based upon dispassion. Good choices are based upon passion.

For example, someone making the choice for higher rebirth does not really have right noble view nor right noble intention. His intent is of the nature of passion. His view is egocentric.
Ofcourse a dislike for suffering is also not grounded in dispassion and not based upon noble right view.

I feel, in many sutta’s the Noble Path is showed, for example in those describing that while one sees and understands that any conditioned and volitionallly produced state is impermanent and liable to cease, one also sees and understands that this kind of effort, investment, orientation, wish for, desire, volition for what is only temporary (also jhana) is not the Noble Path. It will never end suffering. This is an imporant insight i believe. It is the Path everybody walks. It is just a mundane path. The Noble Path is not based upon such passions but grounded in dispassion.

That there is a supramundane Path one can also see in the teachings of four kinds of kamma, i feel. The mundane paths are those about bright , dark kamma and mixed kamma with corresponding results. But the supramundane path is about kamma that is nor bright nor dark, not ripening in dark and bright ways, leading to the end of kamma.

Now i stop about this and stop participating. Thank you.

1 Like
143

140 posts! Oh well, what’s one more among friends.

Is there an “I”? or - Is there knowing/awareness? They are not the same thing. But I think your observation is correct. However the misconception is not ‘I’ but instead something like ‘I am the thinker’ – this is the underlying condition of ignorance that then colors and distorts everything we experience. I is not an umbrella word for the sum of skandhas but rather a deeply felt truth regarding who and what I think I am. But of course, as phenomena are more like flows than things, nothing that we identify with is permanent – reliable – thus the nature of the problem.

The fact that we can start watching these things and see that they are temporary is why the Buddhas teaching is even possible. If we were not capable of stepping back and reflecting on what we are doing – as you describe here - then sila (ethics) is impossible and that is just the start of the path.

There will always be some kind of knowing present in anything you can be aware of (kind of obvious). The ability to tune in to subtler and subtler aspects of our experience leads to the development of the mind. Leads to wisdom.

Mind is fundamental in Buddhism because we all have one – Arahats and worldly people alike. The former is undefiled while the latter is defiled (with ‘I am the thinker’). The Arahat knows they are done and also knows which bowl and robe is theirs (assuming they don’t have Alzheimers).

The sense that ‘I am’ or ‘I am this or that’ is said to be the last thing you give up in this world.

The Anatta teaching is pointing to the fact that we should not regard anything that is subject to change outside of our control as being what we are because when we grasp anything in this way there will be suffering. If it were not possible to do this then the Buddha would not bother teaching it as part of the practice.

Anytime anything is observed there is knowing/awareness involved. If there is the sense of an observer, that is ignorance creeping into the picture. Awareness/knowing is a fundamental aspect of mind. But this does not mean there is an observer or witness so much as there is ‘knowing’. You have to keep pulling on this thread – that is the practice.
The Buddha doesn’t get into whether there is some sort of true or ultimate self. He does point out that if something is part of your Self (true self, higher self) than you could completely control it to be as you like. So by his definition, a Self (if it exists) is not a source of suffering (and therefore outside the domain of his teaching).

An interesting side of this is that Buddha does say he controls his thoughts – thinks what he wants to think and doesn’t think what he doesn’t want to think.

I agree. Awareness in and of itself does not imply a permanent self. And usage of such terms can simply mean something like ‘this is what there is when the mind is no longer defiled’. I think it is natural for people to assume that there cannot be awareness without a sense of self - it’s a kind of projection based on our own experience.

They are quite literally packed with such references. Is the undefiled mind not aware? Is it imperturbable? A consciousness that does not land anywhere? Every Arahat has by definition an undefiled mind – an unconditioned mind – unconditioned by ignorance. The mind defiled is a conditioned mind. Every aspect (khanda) of that mind is conditioned by ignorance. A conditioned mind is incapable of realizing the unconditioned. Every sutta where the Buddha talks about realizing the unconditioned is only possible with an awareness (consciousness) that is unconditioned. The undefiled mind is not impacted by changing phenomena. Realizing this is the entire purpose of the path.

Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that people here are viewing the khandas as ‘things’ rather than categories of experience that arise in the mind. My understanding is: when the mind is defiled, consciousness binds-up or is compounded with other khandas creating the sense that ‘I am this or that’ and so on. When the mind is undelfiled (awakened), the khandas are described as ‘scattered and abandoned’ – but they don’t go away – they simply cease to build-up and create a world of things – because ignorance, that led to this state, has ceased. If knowing/awareness had ceased for the Buddha when he awakened then he would of instantly been seen as vegetable like. Buddhas know and see – this is obvious.

Almost always consciousness is described as the consciousness khanda + sense organ + object. But this is consciousness when conditioned by ignorance – it is compounded or built up with other khandas. Why does Buddha almost always define consciousness in its built-up form? Because he is concerned with suffering and the end of suffering and right up until the end, that is the kind of consciousness we are all dealing with. But let’s not throw the baby (awareness) out with the water (consciousness).

144

How it lives for me in a practical sense is that i can feel, understand, or recognise that there is a proces in the mind, a movement, a drift, that leads to self-alienation, to becoming insensitive. A proces of hardening, coarsening.

It can be called a proces of degrading. It is not easy to escape this process. Because, when things do not go as one wishes, one is probably in the middle of it. Or when things go like one wishes, or when one does not care at all, one is in the middle of it. This happens al lot, right?

For myself i have recognised that the nature of mind is not like this, meaning, we are not really like this. No being. But it are adventitious defilements and grasping at them that instigate this process of degrading.

So in this approach there is a kind of recognition of self in the sense that one recognises that becoming insensitive, hardened, merciless, alienated, is like a degrading of oneself. It is not really you. You are becoming not-you.

I feel in essence we are not insensitive, but we can quit easily become insensitive due to tanha, asava, anusaya, kilesa. It is not that we are deluded but we quit easliy can become deluded.

145

Who said otherwise? This is a straw man argument. In a number of prior posts I, and others, have explicitly said that the Buddha and arahants still remained conscious, experiencing the senses and contact – but without any clinging, delusion, or identification with the khandhas.

But that’s different from claiming – as you appear to be doing – that there is a kind of permanent awareness, outside of time and space, beyond conditional consciousness.
You cited " a consciousness that does not land anywhere" – this points to the non-clinging consciousness of an arahant, that no longer clings to the khandhas and will not land into another rebirth.
Best to read the suttas and the contexts in which this example is used and:

Citations, please.

Rather, in MN43:
"“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”

Or in MN38 “…Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause?”

The undefiled mind of an arahant is conscious through the consciousness aggregate that is still present while the arahant is alive.
If you can show with citations where the Buddha clearly differentiated consciousness from awareness outside time and space, etc. please share them.

146

How can you otherwise talk about this:

“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Ud8.1)

Do you believe Buddha talks here about something he does not really know but conceives to be? Postulates to exist?
Suppose Buddha talks here about something he directly knows, can this be known by vinnana?

How can one know the end of the world in this body ? Can Vinnnana know this?
It seems Impossible to me. For me it is very unlikely the Buddha refers here to some future vision of the end of the world, or no rebirth.

It is more or less obvious, also in science, that knowing does not have to refer to an awareness of something (vinnana). Moreover, it is said that most knowing stays below the level of vinnana but still influences choices, behaviour, metabolism, emotions etc. This can even be used in a manipulative way. Knowing can be subtle and vinnana is only the coarse kind of knowing. It is very unlikely that we really know how body and mind are influenced all the time and are only aware of the coarse things.

147

Thanks for your reply and thanks for citing from a sutta.

With respect to Ud8.1, it can refer to final nibbāna – nibbāna without residue as in Iti44.
If everything has ceased and nirodha-ized, how can there be any sun, moon, stars…etc?

Notice also, that no mention is made of some kind of eternal, ineffable, consciousness or beingness in the very quote you posted.
It can just refer to the cessation of all conditional things/appearances.

Again, nothing posted in this proves or even indicates any teachings from the Buddha about a consciousness that’s permanent.
In fact, in your example, with consciousness being dependent on the other khandhas (body and mind), it has to be conditional – even if it’s subconscious.

When the mind is liberated and utterly free of all defilements then it’s free here and now while an arahant is alive in the sense of being free of all dukkha, except for the khandhas which still remain. Nibbāna with residue.

Also, the final nibbāna of extinguishment is, as the Buddha says, the highest “bliss”, (AN9.34, MN43, MN44, SN36.11, and MN59 - "…and even while alive: when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is a pleasure that is finer than that.
*Idhānanda, bhikkhu sabbaso nevasañ­ñā­nāsa­ñ­ñāya­tanaṁ samatikkamma saññā­ve­dayi­tani­r­odhaṁupasampajja viharati. Idaṁ kho, ānanda, etamhā sukhā aññaṁ sukhaṁ abhikkantatarañca paṇītatarañca.
By definition, saññā­ve­dayi­tani­r­odha, is without consciousness.

At the same time, there’s the knowing that with death and the final ending of the khandhas, there will be no rebirth and no re-arising of sun, moon, stars,…etc. → The final ending of all conditions and all dukkha. Nibbāna without residue.

You may also be interested in this thread:

Thanks and: Santi

1 Like
148

I know, but my heart cannot accept this interpretation @Jasudho .

I can talk endlessly about this or that interpretation. And let you see why i believe this or that is most likely for me and most acceptable for me. But i feel that our guide must be our heart. This whole idea of a mere cessation is alien to me. It is not a heartfelt wish for me. It has never ever touched my heart in a positive way. I have never ever seen this as the escape of suffering, goal of my life, goal of Dhamma. I have never felt any delight, hope, in this idea of mere cessation. I have never ever felt this is a Noble path too.

149

My teacher said the truth cannot be expressed. One cries when one experiences it. It can be only cried about. Cannot be put into words. Happiness of nibbana cannot be expressed.

Also for me …the very fact that it is ‘unconditioned’, just means that it has everything that is necessary. It can’t be ‘complete cessation’ if we go by words although it is the closest explanation we can reach to. It is so great that Siddharth Gautama sacrificed everything dear to him…just to give that experience of nibbana to us. Makes me realise that we cannot even imagine the happiness of nibbana.

2 Likes
150

Hi,

We’re all free to practice as we wish and I believe I understand your position.

As others, including a number of Venerables, have written on this forum, when the khandhas, all experiences, are understood as fundamentally being dukkha, the cessation of all that dukkha is not something that is feared and there is no need to replace it with something else.

I agree with you that, at some point, further discussion doesn’t lead to further clarity or a change in one’s views.
So, on we go with our practices…

Wishing you all the best in your practice and wishing you peace and happiness. :slightly_smiling_face: :pray:

151

This is not about the topic “Anatta”. However, I try to explain my understanding about what we called “viññāṇa” since I see many arguments about it in this topic.

All we know about viññāṇa or the so-called consciousness is about objective consciousness. This kind of consciousness needs its object to function. Therefore, it is conditioned by its objects.

Look at DO, we can see that viññāṇa or the so-called consciousness is conditioned by saṅkhāras and also name-and-form. There will be six classes of consciousnesses that will rely on six doors to their objects. This objective consciousness depends on the body (rupa) and its object to function (since it is conditioned by name-and-form).

Whenever we talk about consciousness, we are talking about this conditional consciousness. If we pay attention to the “consciousness” that the Buddha rejected, it is this viññāṇa. However, the Buddha does not reject direct knowing (abhijānāti). He did not call this direct knowing as “viññāṇa”.

Since we do not know anything about this “direct knowing”, we will think that with the cessation of viññāṇa, we will be “unconscious”, or will no longer be able to know anything, and it is annihilation. Or there will be some undefiled objective consciousness left. Only the defilements ceased, not the viññāṇa.

If we actually achieved Jhanas, we will know about this kind of “direct knowing”. However, it is impossible to prove it to a skeptical person.

This direct knowing (abhijānāti) is a kind of “consciousness” because its function is also “knowing” or “recognizing”. However, it is not that objective consciousness (viññāṇa), so we can see the term “viññāṇa anidassana” in the Suttas. When earth, water, fire, and air find no footing and name-and-form fully come to cease, the objective consciousness (viññāṇa) will cease. That means when the senses of the body (earth, water, fire, and air) have no object (find no footing), viññāṇa is cut off from its objects; therefore, it ceases. What left is that “viññāṇa anidassana”. This is the hidden, invisible knowing that we do not know about, and it is what we called “direct knowing.” This “direct knowing” has no object since the object and subject is one. That is why it is called “direct knowing”. This “direct knowing” is not the viññāṇa that we know about since it does not depend on its objects.

That’s how I understand.

152

Thanks for pointing out that you had made earlier comments on this topic – it is hard to try and digest 140 posts while keeping track of who says what where.

No, I did not say that but having now read through your earlier comments I can see how you might interpret it that way.

With regard to your understanding that I am promoting an awareness beyond conditional consciousness– beyond is incorrect – maybe the following example will make it clearer (so to speak):

Take two glasses of water: one is pure and the other is polluted. There are several characteristics that I can identify like: taste, color, smell, etc. I observe that the polluted one smells bad, tastes like crap, makes me sick, and looks brownish in color. With the pure water it tastes clean, smells fresh, quenches my thirst, and looks sparkling. If I take the polluted water and purify it, it will be indistinguishable from the glass of pure water.

Water here stands for mind, pollutants obviously defilements, while the characteristics and the awareness of them are the khandas.

Both samples have the same set of characteristics but how those characteristics are experienced is very different. And these characteristics cannot be separated out from one another as they are characteristics of the water itself.

Agreed. Not sure what your issue is with what I am saying. Maybe rephrasing might help:

My point is that mind is conscious – it comes in the package. If the mind is defiled then what one experiences is consciousness that is bound-up with the other aggregates due to ignorance. If the mind is undefiled then the conscious aspect of the mind is no longer subject to ignorance. It still sees the arising and passing of phenomena because that is what consciousness aspect of our mind does. But no longer subject to ignorance, it no longer plays a role in objectification of phenomena – (in other words it no longer creates a world of things that are subject to grasping).

If you need citations we are so far apart it would make no difference at all. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the consciousness of an Arahat is conditioned? This makes no sense to me.

With regard to citations: I have spent hours and hours citing suttas to support what I write. I have been reading them for a good 25 years. I have learned that citations make no difference at all. The older I get the less inclined I am to waste my time. I try to put together answers that summarize my understanding in a broader perspective. If you don’t relate, so it goes – maybe someone else will.

I don’t understand why you are saying this. Maybe confusing me with someone else?

1 Like
153

Many people really appreciate those who have figured out everything by reasoning or study and can lay down a seemingly coherent dhamma-puzzle. I believe, it probably is more like a trap. It is more like bate. Bate for the mind who craves for order.

The mind who experiences this order as clarity and happiness. It is always busy seeking and making order. But this is, i feel, the expression of what attachment and confusion really is about. It is very close to me, this desire for order. But i see this as a great obstacle now. So, i am aware of the danger, the allure, of those who are seemingly very knowledgable. This is not to offend them but i feel it is very relative, and not really trustworthy too. Real Dhamma knowledge is more seen in how one behaves.

154

Is there an “x” state where the"i" experienced as a momentary continuum ? What is that “x” state ? And how does one knows it is the “i” that is experiencing it ? Say the “x” state you meant is a process of seeing something for example ? Is the “seeing” is being experiencing by the “i” ? And which or what “i” is that you are referring to ? Does the “i” is the witness ? and how does one knows that process is in a linear momentary continuum line ? Similarly it can be applied in such a way to the experience of anatta you are saying .

155

Thanks for sharing.
Apologies if I misunderstood some of your points.

Actually, we agree on this.

IMHO, it’s not about only becoming a human reference book and, of course, discussion alone is insufficient for deep insight. But on forums like this with open discussions, citations help to differentiate what we have as teachings from the Buddha from personal opinions and wishes.

Of course, there are a number of interpretations about the Teachings – but hopefully they’re based on different understandings of the suttas rather than just personal wants.
Just sharing how citing the suttas in support of one’s understanding is both useful and generally more convincing – but I suppose that’s my opinion! :slightly_smiling_face:

You’re correct – we’re not in agreement on this. The arahant “is” knowledge and understanding of unconditional liberation from dukkha and rebirth, so to speak.
Consciousness while the Arahant is alive is exactly the consciousness aggregate.
Your assertion here aligns with why I understand you to believe in an unconditional consciousness.

In the suttas, the realization of liberation is not described as an unconditional “Arahant” consciousness, but as the knowledge and understanding of the extinguishment of all defilements, hence no further production of dukkha and no rebirth.
The liberation from dukkha is unconditional, not consciousness.

But, again, maybe we’re misunderstanding each other…

:pray:

156

Yes, I agree with you here. However we can never underestimate the power of the human mind to transform something that is clearly a ‘v’ and rationalize that it actually must have been a ‘W’ and so every time we/they see a reference to ‘v’ we/they just see ‘w’. And of course this factor plays a role in say my understanding of something (I may unknowingly add in my own opinion) when posting and it is also happening on the side of the reader - a sutta telephone game - if you like. Anyway, this is why I like to summarize my understanding in plain English rather than using often cryptic translations of suttas that are so subject to being interpreted via a personal bias - added by either the reader or the translator.

That being said, I realized that I could just go through older posts on similar topics (not that we ever repeat things here) and simply pull out citations from there. So this will take a bit to put together but I want to follow up on:

  • with citations when possible.

I think we have narrowed down the scope pretty well of where we differ such that the topic is both manageable and perhaps entertaining at least.

157

Mind is not the same as vinnana. Because when there is no vinnana, there is still mind, such as in deep dreamless sleep and under narcosis. I feel this must be acknowledged otherwise we cannot rationally talk about this. Vinnana is a very particular kind of knowing or expression of mind. I believe that is a nice way to talk about vinnana.

Vinnana is a small aspect of mind. It is like the top of the iceberg. It is also not that we only via vinnana are informed about ourselves, others and the world. Not at all. Or that only via vinnana we are influenced. The mind door is more subtle.

It is said that it is possible to be detached from vinnana, but what is detached at that moment? Vinnana?

Also when all perceptions and feelings cease there cannot be nothing. How would one otherwise reappear from this state if there is nothing to support that re-appearance? What is there if there is no vinnana and no bhavanga?

I feel some teachers are right when they teach we must not see mind as a certain phenomena with certain characteristics or at a certain location in time and space. That is vinnana not mind.
We better think of mind as an emptiness which is unborn and is no phenomena and has not location.
But not only as emptiness but this emptiness has also an aspect of clarity and functions also as a ground for things to arise.

1 Like
158

Hi , what do you mean by mind ?

Thanks

159

I have shared a bit of what makes most sense to me. Some schools distinguish the nature of mind from the expressions of the mind. I find that an nice way of talking about things.

The mind is like the sea and the expressions or manifestations are like the waves. The mind has, as a were, a deep aspect and a surface aspect.
The deep aspect is about stilling, cessation of all formations, end of movements, no inclinations. The mind rests at it were in her own nature.
The surface aspect is noisy, much movement, a lot of activity, vinnana’s coming and going.
I like this metaphore.

This metaphore also implies there is a real base for stability, for peace, stilling of all formation and that is the deep nature of mind, which is, i believe, no different from the deep nature of the Tathagata.

Vinnana cannot be called deep. I also feel Dhamma is given us a sense of the deeper aspect of mind. Its abiding nature, not its movements, not its expressions, but its nature.

This deep aspect of mind is like grounding. The Noble Path is grounds. It is like one is in touch with a deeper and also more sensitive aspect of the mind. Something like this.