Even more strange is the Sarvastivada version. The dhammas are substantially existent (Dravyasat) but our experience of them is momentary, but one isn’t a quality of the other.
1 Like
this is all wrong.
Dhamma is not wrong.
“the body” identifies
The body aggregate is physical/material. It cannot “identify”.
identifies that which picks up the fork
Sanna aggregate perceives a fork. Sankhara aggregate understands the usefulness of a fork. This perception & understanding is not “sakkaya”, generally translated as “identity”. “Self-identity” (“sakkaya”) is not the distinguishing/differentiating performed by sanna (perception). Please stick to the Pali language rather than convolute with English words.
again, you can’t have a designation without a designator
Sounds like more Hinduism. Both designation (fork) and designator (mind) are impersonal & not a self.
that are identifiable as belonging to gotama or me or sariputta
Gotama or sariputta are conventions (SN 1.25; MN 98); a verbal designation placed upon the respective manifestation of respective aggregates (khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo; SN 12.2). For puthujjana, these verbal designations are “selves” or “beings” or “jati”. For the enlightened, these verbal designations are mere conventions; non-jati; non-marana.
from the same sutta, asserts the existence of sentient beings, who consume the fuels.
The suttas say the four nutriments sustain, maintain or cause “the beings” (SN 23.2) that have “come to be” (“bhūtānaṁ”). It is not the opposite that you are suggesting, that there are preexisting “beings” that at a later time consume the nutriments. SN 5.10 says there is no “being” to be found, expect in the deluded mind of Mara. 
philosophical conundrum
Befuddlement, similar to Vacchagotta in SN 44.10
Nope. again see my thread about the undeclared points.
Nothing to read there of relevance.
These problems have a rich literary history
Buddhism has a rich history of being misunderstood. 
About the four nutriments, the full story is:
“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the support of those about to come to be. What four? They are: physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle; contact as the second; mental volition as the third; and consciousness as the fourth.
“Now, bhikkhus, these four kinds of nutriment have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of nutriment have craving as their source, craving as their origin; they are born and produced from craving. And this craving has what as its source…? Craving has feeling as its source…And this feeling has what as its source…? Feeling has contact as its source…And this contact has what as its source…? Contact has the sixfold base as its source…And this sixfold base has what as its source…? The sixfold base has mentality-materiality as its source…And this mentality-materiality has what as its source…? Mentality-materiality has consciousness as its source…And this consciousness has what as its source…? Consciousness has formations as its source…And these formations have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? Formations have ignorance as their source, ignorance as their origin; they are born and produced from ignorance.
MN 38
The nutriments are born from craving & craving is born from ignorance. Where there is ignorance & craving then, if ignorance continues, the mental conception or “view” (ditthi") of “a being” (“satta”) is born; as described in SN 5.10 & SN 23.2
“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
“Kiṁ nu sattoti paccesi,
Māra, is this your theory [view]?
māra diṭṭhigataṁ nu te;
This is just a pile of conditions,
Suddhasaṅkhārapuñjoyaṁ,
you won’t find a sentient being here.
nayidha sattupalabbhati.When the parts are assembled
Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,
we use the word ‘chariot’.
hoti saddo ratho iti;
So too, when the aggregates are present
Evaṁ khandhesu santesu,
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
hoti sattoti sammuti.But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
Dukkhameva hi sambhoti,
lasts a while, then disappears.
dukkhaṁ tiṭṭhati veti ca;
Naught but suffering comes to be,
Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti,
naught but suffering ceases.”
nāññaṁ dukkhā nirujjhatī”ti.SN 5.10
“Sir, they speak of this thing called a ‘sentient being’.
“‘satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati.
How is a sentient being defined?”
Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sattoti vuccatī”ti?“Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of.
“Rūpe kho, rādha, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.
When you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for feeling …
Vedanāya …
perception …
saññāya …
choices …
saṅkhāresu …
consciousness, then a being is spoken of.
viññāṇe yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.Suppose some boys or girls were playing with sandcastles.
Seyyathāpi, rādha, kumārakā vā kumārikāyo vā paṁsvāgārakehi kīḷanti.
As long as they’re not rid of greed, desire, fondness, thirst, passion, and craving for those sandcastles, they cherish them, fancy them, treasure them, and treat them as their own.
Yāvakīvañca tesu paṁsvāgārakesu avigatarāgā honti avigatacchandā avigatapemā avigatapipāsā avigatapariḷāhā avigatataṇhā, tāva tāni paṁsvāgārakāni allīyanti keḷāyanti dhanāyantiSN 23.2
But that doesnt follow, and if there are things that are “Momentary” in the semse that they have no extenstion in time (duration) then no amount of them can add up to something with duration.
Likewise if things do have “duration” then we can appeal to the identity of the things “earlier” existance as a guarantee of its “current” existance.
So things cannot be
Momentary
Durational
Made up of both momentarienss and duration
Characteristised by appeal to something without momenta or durations
This is the abayakata and it excludes “momenteriness” just like it excludes a metaphysical “anatta” (or atta, or both or niether).
Just to be clear: I think you are wrong about just about everything you say about Buddhism and or philosophy.
I have not bothered to read your entire post.
good luck.
1 Like
Hi! 
This is in essence Descartes’ cogito put differently, isn’t it? He said “I think, therefore I am”, you essentially say (or so it seems to me) “I am aware, therefore I am” (or therefore there is a self, an observer). The problem is assuming there is an ‘I’ In the first place, that this word refers to something substantial. Descartes should have said “there is thinking, therefore thinking exists”. Thinking happens without a true “anybody” who thinks. Same with awareness.
The way to see through it is by having the whole caboodle cease altogether for a while, not just the illusion of an ‘I’ but the whole of awareness as well. Then there isn’t anybody or anything who is aware of impermanence either.
THat is how I see it. People have debated over this since the start of Buddhism, probably. But in the end the Buddha would have said it has to be experienced through practice, as he was an empiricist. So these debates can be helpful but at some point we need to realize their limits as well.
1 Like
Think about it more in terms of your direct experience. There was experience various qualities quite rapidly throughout the day. Anyway, this is getting off topic.
1 Like
Honestly it’s disquietung the way some conversations are thottled here, we are all grown-ups with mute buttons, why not just let some thungs work themselves out with “click to see the contentious post” available so those who still think there are substantial points to be made, as I feel there is for me and @Ceisiwr at least blah
Anyway, I will try to get off my phone and have a conversation on a proper computer like a human being in a bit and ground my meta musings better later.
For now, it seems difficult on the “anatta view” that there can be a thing like “the thread on the experience of anatta” as that thread is without an identifying property (or relation, or proposition, depending on your metaphysical bent).
Similarly if you grant an “atta view” then you have an exploding Platonistic ontology.
Niether can you grant some combination of the preceding 2 (say “reals and unreals” or" truths and fictions (or falsities)") as you have just the worst of both worlds ie exploding particulars and exploding universals
Nor could it make sense to express anything meaningfully without recourse to the preceding 3 alternatives.
As i undersatnd it this is the state of affairs prior to the skeptical school that historically preceded buddhism.
The skeptical response, that we cannot have useful knowlege about these alternatives is what the buddha rejects giving what for shorthand i will call a “conditional logic” answer to both our possible relationship to the questions and what we can know about them.
So the question in shorthand is:
“If we cant know if anything is real, unreal, both or niether, how can we know anything at all?”
The skeptics say:
“I dont know!”
The buddha says:
(paraphrase, obv)
“While it is not possible to know if anything is real, unreal, both, niether, it remains the case that for anything it always depends on other things”
The other things are similarly niether real unreal both niether but are required as soon as we grant any entity at all.
And it really makes no difference, from a philosophical point of view if the problem arises from an identity type property or a relation type property or object subject relatiins or ordered pairs.
I see grasping is an instinct. It is a habitual way of inclining towards sense objects which causes a certain mentallity towards what is being sensed.
Often there is inclination toward sense objects with an understanding of me, mine, myself. For example pain. When pain arises it immediately triggers dosa and avijja anusaya and then one feels irriation toward the pain and it feel like mine, my pain. Then there is a strong mentallity towards that pain. It is like one cannot relax in the pain and it can be difficult to let go of the mentallity towards the pain. Mentallity is causing a kind of distance. At least it tries but it does not happen.
It is not that an inner entity decides to this way of experience but it is by the force of habit, conditionally arising.
Sense-contact fully automatic triggers anusaya in the human mind. They dictate how we experience things. Those anusaya rule. Also the ego conceit is because of an activated anusaya. The fact that we relate to the body, feeling etc as me, mine, myself is also because of triggered anusaya. That fact we can hardly tolerate pain is because of anusaya.
So how we experience things is normally dictated by how triggered anusya give instinctively (habitually) meaning to what is sensed. We cannot control this. It is not an inner entity who rules and instigates all this. Do you agree?
This is why you need to learn to observe the observing.
Let’s deconstruct this statement of yours:
You are trying to state the lack of a ‘something’. When you use the present tense verb ‘are’, you are trying to situate (conditionalize) your assertion to hold good in the present time (now).
What does that ‘something’ refer to? It refers to ‘even primes greater than two’.
But the listener already knows that even primes cannot be greater than two because you are assuming (by using the word ‘prime’) that the listener knows what a ‘prime’ is.
So they would’ve learnt nothing new from your statement. Not only would such a statement be useless/pointless from both utilitarian and semantic points of view (as it would be a waste of time for a hearer to listen to something that doesnt tell them anything valuable or meaningful), it would also be a statement that makes use of an obvious absurdity (‘even primes greater than two’ - which is a contradiction in terms) to make a seemingly truist assertion. It would serve no apparent purpose to anybody to make statements like this.
So the ātman cannot be an unreal referent if the use of the adjective anātman is taken to convey a meaningful proposition.
Some remarks
I do not think that anatta means that there can also be not ones own true essence. There are many buddhist teachers, even theravada teachers like Maha Boowa, who teach that there IS a ‘ones own true essence’ (arhattamagga/phala page 57-59)
Like water. If water is polluted by adventitious defilement we do not see the true essence of water, its real pure nature, as it is of itself without pollution. Maybe it’s muddy and we do not see the clarity. Or maybe it is polluted with metals and it is poiseness or coloured. Maybe it is polluted with oil and it looks viscous, etc.
Defilements give a wrong impression of what is the true essence or nature of water.
The same for the mind. The true nature of mind or ones own essence cannot really be tasted when defilements are present. But it is very normal to know there must be a true essence, like in the case of water. This does not mean one must have a doctrine of atta .
I feel, it is not true that a belief in atta is the same as assuming an essence or a true nature, or vice versa. If Zen teaches a true self that is in no way a belief in atta, but is a way to give a name to the essence of citta, freed from all adventitious defilements. This essence is in no way in control, personal, happiness, limited, and i feel that is how Buddha used atta. Atta is like a kind of inner ruler, a kind of mini God, always happy, never suffering. But essence is something different.
1 Like
The following section on “Emptiness from the viewpoints of Conditioned Genesis as the Middle Way” in the book, The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism, pp. 32-42 by Choong Mun-keat may be useful for the issue regarding my-self for the witness on anatta/anicca:
Pages 32-42 from Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 1999.pdf (1.4 MB)
Every day there is a sleeping phase in which there is no sense of me, mine, my self, no conscious experience. But this is not seen as liberation.
And what do we learn from this absence of any conscious experience every day again?
Is it not strange that we like sleep? How is it possible that one can like something that one does not know? Or is their still a subtle knowing of the absence of sense-perceptions, feelings etc?
I feel it also illustrates how our live, or who or what we are, is much more then conscious experience, because although there is no sense of Me or I while sleeping , we cannot be considered to be death, liberated or non-existent at that moment.
In a sense than you see we cannot considered to be consciousness too. At least not the 6 sense vinnana’s. It is said at that moment there is bhavanga. We are not really mindless at that moment, there is still some mental processing going on? Not all is gone when 6 vinnana’s are ceased? Or not?
I like the idea of our existence as an iceberg. Our conscious lives are like the top above water and the unconscious processes which support the top are the large base below water. This part is much bigger.
1 Like
Quite loaded and a lot is happening here …. so……
“I” here should be understood as the illusion of “l-am” …… this is required to resolve the ignorance. …… hence you will require a witness so to know and see. …… the truths. (4NT) are confirmation.
The teachings are by the middle-way, via not-self…… so to avoid the extremes (self and no-self)…… hence transcendent……so by seeing the truth, one naturally by passes the grasping by letting go of the self.
To still ask or questions about witness / self hereafter are based on intellectual minds due to grasping.
The proper term here is the unborn. …… free from suffering! …… permanent!
One needs to understand the difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned.
Words are not going to do it …… only by directly experiencing it for oneself! …… hence the saying:
The truth cannot be told, one must see it for oneself.
1 Like
This statement is not from Buddha. In fact Buddha said:
Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo
The teaching of Buddha can be clearly and concisely described (by him)
Problem/question is
Can you follow the EXACT path of N8FP or not? and This path will lead ending of all dukkhas & conclude with Anatta?
Regarding Op question:
How to experience an Anatta? This is the answer from Buddha:
See MN 2.
…
Herein, monks, an uninstructed ordinary person, have not seen the noble ones, unskilled in the Dhamma of the noble ones, untrained in the Dhamma of the noble ones; taking no count of the true men, unskilled in the Dhamma of the true men, untrained in the Dhamma of the true men, does not comprehend the things which should be wisely attended to, does not comprehend the things which should not be wisely attended to.
…
To one who does not pay focus attention in these ways, one of six (wrong) views arises: (1) ‘There is for me a self’—the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real. (2) Or, ‘There is not for me a self.’—the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real. (3) Or, ‘Simply by self am I aware of self.’—the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real. (4) Or, ‘Simply by self am I aware of not-self.’—the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real. (5) Or, ‘Simply by not-self am I aware of self’—the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real. (6) Or a wrong view occurs to him thus: ‘Whatever is this self for me that speaks, that experiences and knows, that experiences now here, now there, the fruition of deeds that are lovely and that are depraved, it is this self for me that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, that will stand firm like unto the eternal.’ This, monks, is called going to wrong views, holding wrong views, the wilds of wrong views, the wriggling of wrong views, the scuffling of wrong views, the fetter of wrong views.
…
But the instructed disciple of the noble ones who takes count of the noble ones, who is skilled in the Dhamma of the noble ones, well trained in the Dhamma of the noble ones, who takes count of the true men, who is skilled in the Dhamma of the true men, well trained in the Dhamma of the true men, he comprehends the things that should be wisely attended to, he comprehends the things that should not be wisely attended to; he, comprehending the things that should be wisely attended to, comprehending the things that should not be wisely attended to, does not wisely attend to those things which should not be wisely attended to, he wisely attends to those things which should be wisely attended to.
…
And which, monks, are the things to which he focuses their attention to because they should be focuses their attention to?
- Those things, monks, by focus their attention to which there does not arise the influence (asava) of sense-pleasure which had not arisen before or the influence of sense-pleasure which, arisen before, declines;
- Those things, monks, by focus their attention to which there does not arise the influence of being’s existence (bhava) which had not arisen before or the influence of being’s existence (bhava) which, arisen before, declines;
- Those things, monks, by focus their attention to which there does not arise the influence of ignorance (avijja) which had not arisen before or the influence of ignorance which, arisen before, declines. These are the things to which he focuses their attention to because they should be wisely attended to.
…
Because he focuses their attention to thus, the three fetters were broken: wrong view as to one’s own body, doubt (of triple gems), adherence to (wrongful) rites and ceremonies from outside.
…
So, if one focuses on 4NT & N8FP in one’s life, one is experiencing Anatta.
If one keeps focusing on the self, the self only grew like adding the gas to the fire. But by directing your mind to focus on 4NT in your life. And apply the N8FP day in and day out in your own life.
1 Like
Even though I do not know Maha Boowa but somehow, I think that when you denote anything as “one’s own true essence” it immediately re-creates the “I-making”. And, the Buddha, whether intentionally or not, denoted that Liberated State not as “Paramatman” (or something similar), which again, makes “Self” appear as even more inflated than before. I suppose, this is the reason not to call it with any pronoun-like/personal notions.
I don’t know if you still enjoy hanging onto this threat. But I have written another article, a longer time ago…about the idea of continuity…If you are interested, here is the link:
It is basically an extract from my book which you also could download if you would want to go deeper into the matter:
2 Likes
I will definitely read them. Thanks!
1 Like
While thoughts end, you do not end, right? When desires disappear you do not disappear. If an experience of sound, sota-vinnana ends, you do not end. If anger ends, you do not end. If the awareness of a certain smell ends, a moment of smell vinnana, you do not end. These vinnana’s can come and go but you do not feel like you are coming and going, right?
And is it not true that while you have seen so much coming and going during you life, you do not feel that the one who has seen this, changed?
Suppose you would really come and go, how is this helpful in preventing suffering? Your life, i think will become a great mess. What does it even mean that you come and go when you cross a street? Can you cross a street that way, as a wise, coming and going?
Hi Farid,
Your question is of primordial importance. It can’t be be scoffed at or wished away just because it doesn’t fall into the consensus views of some who have attempted a reply. But you might have to move away – at least temporarily – from the Buddhist perspective to get an adequate answer.
If I can suggest another avenue, the one teacher who delved into this as the most prevalent reply to your question is (Bhagavan) Ramana Maharshi. In fact his practical teachings are all about or circle around the answer to your question. His most thorough interpreter and translator in the English language today is Michael James.
In the following blog post, the term ‘ego’ is not meant in the Freudian or contemporary sense. It means the five sheaths. If you are interested in finding out more deeply about this, I would suggest you investigate Michael James’ website. I bring this up in this forum only because it is the spot on response to your inquiry. (The folowing is only part of the complete blog post. See the link at the bottom for access to Michael’s website. The youtube video is one of hundreds that adresses your question).
You are the solitary seer of everything, eternally free. Your bondage is only seeing the seer [yourself] to be something else.
As you can see, neither of these verses says anything about any bhāva . Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi verse 552 describes the state of a mukta , and while doing so it uses two analogies, saying that he is like a witness and like the pivot of a potter’s wheel. It does not say that he is a witness, any more than it says that he is the pivot of a potter’s wheel. Moreover, since it says that the mukta is devoid of both saṁkalpa and vikalpa , it clearly implies that he is not aware of anything other than himself, because awareness of any other thing is a form of vikalpa and arises because of saṁkalpa .
Aṣṭāvakra Gītā 1.7 does not actually use the word sākṣi , but instead uses the word draṣṭā , which literally means ‘one who sees’ or the ‘seer’. However, we can infer that it does not use this word in its literal sense but only in a figurative sense, because according to Bhagavan our real self does not see anything other than itself, because it alone actually exists. Other things seem to exist only in the self-ignorant view of our ego.
That is, as our real self, we are the ‘seer’ or ‘witness’ only in the sense that we are the basic self-awareness that serves as the ground for the rising of our ego, in whose view alone other things seem to exist. When we experience ourself as we really are, we will not experience anything other than ourself, because it is only when we experience ourself as this ego that everything else seems to exist (as Bhagavan teaches us emphatically in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu and in the first sentence of verse 7 of Śrī Aruṇācala Aṣṭakam , both of which I quoted and explained in my previous article).
Therefore we can be a witness in the sense of being aware of anything other than ourself only when we experience ourself as this ego, so trying to be a witness in this sense would only nourish and perpetuate the illusion that we are this ego. This is why Bhagavan taught us that the only means (sādhana ) by which we can destroy this illusion is self-investigation (ātma-vicāra ), which entails being attentively aware of ourself alone.
Aṣṭāvakra Gītā 1.7 itself contains a clue that indicates that it does not use the word draṣṭā to mean the one who literally sees, because it says not only that you are the solitary draṣṭā , but also that you are eternally free. Since the ego and its attachments are bondage, we cannot be truly free unless we are free from both our ego and all its attachments, and in the absence of any ego who would be there to see anything, or what would there be to see?
1 Like