The experience of "Anatta"

The Watercooler
23

Thanks everyone!
I would not like to sound as a sophist trying to artificially complicate the issue but it still remains. It has been almost a year now that I study Dhamma through different sources and the “Anatta” principle never caused any serious questions and doubts. On the contrary it was for me quite a fundamentally critical and important understanding of human nature, as we naturally assume something constant as a “soul”.
I would like to return to the main question and issue that I have risen here to point out that it is quite simple schema, where presumably problem lies. It is not a linguistic complication, sophism, etc. I can not just follow the “path” as suggested without clearing up this issue.

So, again, I say:

If “Anatta” principle negates any inner constancy and declares even the “Self” impermanent
If that is true, then
On every occasion when this impermanence is observed there is an OBSERVER that sees and points out to that impermanence (meaning turns what is observed into subjective experience)
Even when I say that “THERE IS no self or THERE IS impermanence” I already point out to something other than ME; I observe that there is no “I”
Nothing can be observed if there is no OBSERVER, a WITNESS to a process
You only see a movement/process relative to non-movement (rest). So, there should be something FIXED to point out to something MOVING/CHANGING

Again, all of the above mentioned is not just logical speculations. It can be observed during the “Anapanasati” as well. It happened all the time, when “I” observed thoughts rising and dissolving. There was an impermanent process of thought-making but there also was the one seeing that process.

I would much appreciate experienced people to help me with this issue. If I misinterpret “Anatta”, then, please, provide me with some sources that would clear the issue. Thanks!

@moderators

24

Hi Farid,

You were already given your answer.

25

You are right, there is something continuing. All your accumulated experiences contribute to what you become and based on what you are, will be your consciousness, that is, the faculty which perceives reality. Consciousness is not just some momentary thing, but through memory and ego formation becomes a more and more enduring entity (not in a linear sense though). And based on what, or who you are, will be whether you perceive something you are experiencing, as self or non-self. When you began meditating, you kind of have started on a new path, which means that most of the things (thoughts, perceptions, feelings) that came up during your meditation, you happily perceived as non-self, because they related to your “old self”, which you tried to leave behind, or transcend. But as you studied more and more the theories that surround meditation, and acquired more and more learning, a new “self” began to form (perhaps the “aspiring Buddhist self”, or the “meditator self”). This you do not want to contemplate as non-self as yet, but rather, based on this you should train in perspective, thought, action, speech, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and meditations, which are right for your new self. In relation to the issue of non-self it is just important to understand there then also, that that “self” is not some permanent entity either. The point is to find a balance between introspection, and living out your “better self”. If you have much time and inclination for only (or mostly) practicing meditation, then perhaps now it is better to not contemplate non-self anymore too much, but more things like the factors of Jhāna, of which the second one is “sustainment of mind”, which is the capacity to maintain your mind for a prolonged period of time, free from the 5 hindrances (one of which is doubt, another one of which is wavering)…

1 Like
26

How is this solving the issue? :slightly_smiling_face:

27

I am pointing to a certain fact that is present at any moment. An empirical fact of an observer. The thing you say that “there is no atman to experience” is the same as “anatman”, which is a sort of tautology.

28

Thank you, bhikkhu. I think it is not related to old /new self. It is rather an epistemological issue for me. I think I should practice more and just continue exploring :slightly_smiling_face:

29

“Having atta” is one extreme, “no atta” is another. Neither was declared by the Buddha. “Rupaṃ… viññāṇaṃ anatta” (form … perception is not atta) is a wise way of speaking, avoiding both extremes.

The “observer” you talk about seems to be sati. It also changes, arises and disappears.

“Non-motion, unchanging”, the reference object of “motion, change”, in my understanding, is nibbāna.

I’m not an English speaker, so I’m sorry if something isn’t clear

2 Likes
30

Thanks! Regarding the “form … perception is not atta” - yes, I would agree with that. If that is the thing Buddha was pointing to, then I see almost no problem with that. It simply says that none of those constituents is “self”. That is to say, nothing is substantial.

1 Like
31

I think the witness of I, i.e. my-self for the witness (khandhas or the sense spheres ‘ayatana’), being not real, arises by causal condition (‘nidana’); having arisen it ceases completely by causal condition (because of ‘anicca’ impermanence). It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (not-self ‘anatta’).

Cf. SA 335:
Pages 95-6 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (155.3 KB)

1 Like
32

I do believe someone let you know that the “observer” arises in contact. I do believe most people say that occurs through attention.

33

Yes, the Buddha did not ask us to explore the atta, to learn about the atta. On the contrary, after showing us what is not an atta, it seems that what he means is this: Atta is just an object of perception, like any “tree”, “person”, “house”. Whether you say “there is an atta” or “there is no atta” or “atta is this” or “atta is that”… it is also just an idea, a way of seeing, a knowledge, a perception.

Perception is impermanent (viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ), which is a conditioned phenomenon, arising from the contact of the senses with their object. Clinging to it is at the root of dukkha. Giving up on it and whatever it carries will lead to silence of mind, lead to serenity of mind, lead to liberation.

That’s how I see and understand this

1 Like
34

"If anyone says, ‘feeling is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of feeling are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The feeling is self.’ Thus the feeling eye is not self” (MN148)

I feel, the direct knowledge that we do no cease when formations like anger, hate, greed, lust, desire, conceit, conceiving, thoughts, intentions etc cease, is an experiential evidence that one cannot be those conditioned formations that cease. (see MN148)

But i feel this wisdom that we are not those formations must grow gradually because there is a longstanding habit to see those formations as Me, mine and myself. So, we feel like our existence depends on their presence. Many people feel like they are not themselves without emotions, desires, views, opinions etc. They all the time are manifesting this way too. Tiresome for oneself and others.
They very much fear to become stilled.

That’s normal. If unconsciously there is the scheme: ‘i am thoughts, thought are me’, (the same for others things like emotions, desires etc) in practise fear arises and one becomes anxious, maybe even in panic, when in a conscious and minful experienced way thoughts end.

Meditations masters very much skilled in stilling, ceasing, fearless, describe a moment when the mind breaks away from its usual personal perspective on things. This personal perspective is usuallly felt/sensed as a witnessing. Wherever there is a personal perspective there is also a sense of witnessing. For example, witnessing ‘there is nothing’ in the jhana of nothingness, or witnessing the absence of thoughts. Where there is a personal perspective there is also a witnessing of this or that.

When the personal perspective falls away, meditation masters describe there is no witnessing anymore like that. There is no witnessing of an emptiness, not witnessing of an absence of thoughts, one becomes it. This is seen as the direct knowledge of the deathless, the unborn. The ultimate emptiness and happiness.

So, the issue of a witness seems to be related to the existence of a personal perspective on things. A local, timebound way of experiencing, which is produced by, and the result of the combined workings of body and mind.

I belief a Buddha also has this. I belief there are scriptual clues he has. But a Buddha also has the knowledge of cessation of the personal perspective. So, he knows that the personal perspective is something that is arising and is conditioned, dependently arising. He knows also the deathless, that what is beyond this.

35

It rather means the opposite - i.e. ‘Nothing substantive can be the ātman’, not that ‘nothing is substantive’. The ātman cannot be experienced (i.e. it cannot give rise to duḥkha), everything that can be experienced (and therefore give rise to duḥkha) is therefore anātman. It requires taking ātman for granted i.e. as axiomatic - but not as a substance (or as matter).

36

This is an assumption. There could be observation without an observer. If a movie is playing in an empty theater, the images still flicker on the screen.

Who contacts, who feels? Not a fitting question (SN 12.12).
‘I am’ is a proliferation (SN 35.248).
In the seen will be merely the seen. In the known will be merely the known. When this is the case, “you” will not be connected to that (Ud 1.10).
‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I?’ are all unwise/inappropriate attention (MN 2).
The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping (SN 22.83).
The idea “I am the thinker” is the root of all judgements that emerge from proliferation (Snp 4.14).
Not EBT, but: there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; phenomena alone flow on (Visuddhimagga).

Inspired by the simile of the poisonous arrow (MN 63), you could follow the path even without clearing up this issue.

2 Likes
37

That would be consciousness, which arises and ceases. For the Buddha there is never a consciousness without an object. In this case, consciousness is cognising something as not self. Since consciousness always arises depending on an object it’s not some unconditioned witness thingy (Sākṣī). Vedanta etc of course disagrees. For them there is an unconditioned witness consciousness of the whole thing. I wonder though, does the witness consciousness also require a witness? :wink:

3 Likes
38

How does anyone know about it, if it can never be experienced? If it’s beyond sense experience and has independence, and so isn’t conditioned, then it’s a substance. You are, essentially, making a Rationalist argument. That’s fine, but the Buddha wasn’t a Rationalist.

1 Like
39

The point is therefore to not confuse it with anything that can be known or experienced. Anything that can be known or experienced positively is anattā (i.e. is not the attā). All phenomenal reality is anattā.

That is your conclusion - to offer a conclusion as a reason for reaching the same conclusion would be a circular argument i.e. begging the question.

40

And the Buddha didn’t recognise anything beyond or behind sense experience. People can claim there is something beyond, that it’s axiomatic and offer arguments as to why this is the case but in reply the Buddha would say that’s all a fabrication. In other words, dreamt up in the mind and conditioned.

That is your conclusion - to offer a conclusion as a reason for reaching the same conclusion would be a circular argument i.e. begging the question .

That is my conclusion. So far, I’ve not made a circular argument.

1 Like
41

Yes I agree, he would say that. He would say that because by claiming they’ve grasped it mentally and verbally (i.e. by describing it positively), they would be only grasping what is conditioned i.e. anātman - even if they called it the ātman.

42

That would undermine your arguments then, since the claim the Atman is and it’s axiomatic is just another fabrication.

1 Like