Anatta correct meaning?

thumbnail
Ni Nurta, modified 3 Months ago.

Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 564 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
an - not
attā - soul
anattā - not soul

Wikipedia states it means: there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul.

My opinion is that given Buddha's enthusiasm in answering questions about atman's existence this undesrstanting is too specific.

I think it is practice which could be translated as simply not it
How it is done? Person marks all objects or perceptions which arise as not it. What will ultimately remain is abslutely nothing and it will be it and this it can then experience Nibbana which at this point is simply a conditionless choice that this it makes regarding if it wants Nibbana or something else that this it can experience. It doesn't matter what this it is.

If I remember correctly Ramana Maharshi also described this technique. In his version it was to find experience of True Self and not Nibbana. Of course those are not the same and neither is superior. The conclusion one can have about Atman's existence can be different from these experiences... which gives good explanation why Buddha did not want to answer questions about existence of self.
thumbnail
Olivier, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 731 Join Date: 4/27/19 Recent Posts
In terms of practice, Dionysus the Aeropagite and generally apophatic theology also had this way of understanding/practicing.

Etymologically speaking, Atta/Atman is also cognate with the word atom.

In modern greek, atomo means "person", as in, no more than "8 atomes of 70 kgs should ride this elevator" (not joking).

As for ontology, it seems to me that the definitive buddhist position is summed up in Nagarjuna's tetralem, the famous "neither real nor not real nor both nor neither", which is different from aristotelian logic and categories which our culture is very muched based on ; but, according to some, was recognized by Plato as the correct description of reality. Well this is anecdotal, but my understanding of this is that, questions of real existence, in the tathagatha's view, do not apply.

Real comes from latin res ("thing", as in "re-public"), which in greek is on, to on, whence on-tology comes from.

Cheers

 (edited)
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
I've wondered about this a bit, because in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) the Buddha goes through each of the khandhas X and says roughly:

X is not-self. For if X were self, it wouldn't lead to affliction. And if X is impermanent, suffering and perishable, it is not fit to be regarded as self.

Reversing the logic, doesn't this imply that self (if it exists) doesn't lead to affliction and is permanent or not suffering or not perishable? Obviously it begs the question whether the self actually exists, and I believe the Buddha avoided opining on that. But even so, why would he use this logic with its implications about a putative self?
thumbnail
Chris Marti, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 3772 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
What if there's a perception of a self that we mistake for being us, but that's not us, and not permanent?
thumbnail
Chris Marti, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 3772 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
It's easy to tie ourselves up in knots when we try to use reasoning based the assumption that there are permanent objects. Yet the reasoning we're critiquing, that used in Buddhism by the Buddha if you will, has a fundamental premise that there is nothing that is permanent. In other words, there is a perception that we have a self, but that perception is fleeting, changing all the time, and doesn't represent any kind of enduring self. So... both and neither.
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Agreed, I just think it would have been simpler to say that the khandhas and are impermanent and avoiding talking about the self altogether. I can't help wondering why he did ...
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
It's  easy to tie ourselves up in knots when we try to use reasoning based the assumption that there are permanent objects. Yet the reasoning we're critiquing, that used in Buddhism by the Buddha if you will, has a fundamental premise that there is nothing that is permanent. In other words, there is a perception that we have a self, but that perception is fleeting, changing all the time, and doesn't represent any kind of enduring self. So... both and neither.

The Buddha said there were permanent things; such as the laws of nature & Nibbana. 
thumbnail
Chris Marti, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 3772 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
The Buddha said there were permanent things; such as the laws of nature & Nibbana. 

He obviously didn't know what he was talking about.
thumbnail
Ni Nurta, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 564 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
The Buddha said there were permanent things; such as the laws of nature & Nibbana. 

He obviously didn't know what he was talking about.
My scientific left hemisphere started tingling: Which laws of nature changed, how and when? emoticon
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
I know a guy who knows a guy who says that the fine structure constant is not constant.
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
agnostic:
I know a guy who knows a guy who says that the fine structure constant is not constant.
 
Irrelevant. The laws of nature the Buddha said were permanent or fixed are dependent origination (SN 12.20) and impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (AN 3.136). 

Like other rebellious rebels, instead of immediately honoring the Buddha, it seems the possibility has been entertained that the law of not-self is impermanent. 

emoticon
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
agnostic:
I know a guy who knows a guy who says that the fine structure constant is not constant.
 
Irrelevant. The laws of nature the Buddha said were permanent or fixed are dependent origination (SN 12.20) and impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (AN 3.136). 

Like other rebellious rebels, instead of immediately honoring the Buddha, it seems the possibility has been entertained that the law of not-self is impermanent. 

emoticon

Nope, I was just suggesting that physical laws of nature might change or be superceded. DO and the 3 Cs I regard as permanent and unsurpasable. Once you experience them I can't imagine how you could go back to seeing things any other way. That having been said, do you think it is possible to cling too tightly to the dhamma? Could it make you angry?
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
agnostic:
physical laws of nature might change or be superceded. DO and the 3 Cs I regard as permanent and unsurpasable. Once you experience them I can't imagine how you could go back to seeing things any other way. That having been said, do you think it is possible to cling too tightly to the dhamma? Could it make you angry?

"Physical laws of nature" emoticon

Claiming to be a stream-enterer but not confessing errors in Dhamma of claiming Buddha taught physical laws of nature like E = MC2; confusing Buddha with Einstein  emoticon

Showing rudeness to Teachers who explain to the blind. emoticon

Yes, agnostic behaviour. emoticon
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
agnostic:
physical laws of nature might change or be superceded. DO and the 3 Cs I regard as permanent and unsurpasable. Once you experience them I can't imagine how you could go back to seeing things any other way. That having been said, do you think it is possible to cling too tightly to the dhamma? Could it make you angry?

"Physical laws of nature" emoticon

Claiming to be a stream-enterer but not confessing errors in Dhamma of claiming Buddha taught physical laws of nature like E = MC2; confusing Buddha with Einstein  emoticon

Showing rudeness to Teachers who explain to the blind. emoticon

Yes, agnostic behaviour. emoticon

I no longer claim to be a stream-enterer. I now see the process of assessing one's attainments or those of others to be fairly absurd, given that the very first fetter is self-identification view.

Yes my behavior still leaves a lot to be desired.

I love your spiciness Nicky and I respect your scholarship. I have learned a lot from you. I also feel your pain. You don't need to keep doing this to yourself you know - using the dhamma as a stick to beat people over the head so they don't get too close to you.
thumbnail
Papa Che Dusko, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1574 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
"Yes my behavior still leaves a lot to be desired."

Oh please mate emoticon you are perfect as is emoticon thats the gig papa emoticon ... THAT IS THE GIG! That YOU is unfolding perfectly as IS! emoticon LOOK, LOOK, LOOK! emoticon 
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Papa Che Dusko:
"Yes my behavior still leaves a lot to be desired."

Oh please mate emoticon you are perfect as is emoticon thats the gig papa emoticon ... THAT IS THE GIG! That YOU is unfolding perfectly as IS! emoticon LOOK, LOOK, LOOK! emoticon 


the oak tree in the yard...

look!
thumbnail
Papa Che Dusko, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1574 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
terry:
Papa Che Dusko:
"Yes my behavior still leaves a lot to be desired."

Oh please mate emoticon you are perfect as is emoticon thats the gig papa emoticon ... THAT IS THE GIG! That YOU is unfolding perfectly as IS! emoticon LOOK, LOOK, LOOK! emoticon 


the oak tree in the yard...

look!

Ever chopped wood Terry? Ya know the axe way and clowing the logs style emoticon Lumps of wood flicking all over the place! Watch out! TIMBEEEEEERR! I even shmacked myself once with an axe right into me forehead (with the bold end)! Blood and all that. 

BTW, as long its not the Oak tree around the corner its fine emoticon 
thumbnail
terry, modified 2 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Papa Che Dusko:
terry:
Papa Che Dusko:
"Yes my behavior still leaves a lot to be desired."

Oh please mate emoticon you are perfect as is emoticon thats the gig papa emoticon ... THAT IS THE GIG! That YOU is unfolding perfectly as IS! emoticon LOOK, LOOK, LOOK! emoticon 


the oak tree in the yard...

look!

Ever chopped wood Terry? Ya know the axe way and clowing the logs style emoticon Lumps of wood flicking all over the place! Watch out! TIMBEEEEEERR! I even shmacked myself once with an axe right into me forehead (with the bold end)! Blood and all that. 

BTW, as long its not the Oak tree around the corner its fine emoticon 


   spent many hours with an ax... one year in the wallowas we put up 17 cords of wood for a large cabin and burnt about all of it...

(as for hauling water, that year whiskey creek froze to the bottom and we used a maul to break up chunks of ice to melt for our water...melting snow is no good, a cubic foot of snow is a trickle of water)

we sold cords of the best wood, the red fir and the larch, and burnt white pine and jack pine...

never cut myself with an ax, but heve some lengthy zippers about the knees from chain saws...

and, yes, once cut myself in the head when the saw kicked back, still have a bit of scar from it...

I don't believe I ever cut down an oak tree

yet

t
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
agnostic:
Nicky2:
agnostic:
physical laws of nature might change or be superceded. DO and the 3 Cs I regard as permanent and unsurpasable. Once you experience them I can't imagine how you could go back to seeing things any other way. That having been said, do you think it is possible to cling too tightly to the dhamma? Could it make you angry?

"Physical laws of nature" emoticon

Claiming to be a stream-enterer but not confessing errors in Dhamma of claiming Buddha taught physical laws of nature like E = MC2; confusing Buddha with Einstein  emoticon

Showing rudeness to Teachers who explain to the blind. emoticon

Yes, agnostic behaviour. emoticon

I no longer claim to be a stream-enterer. I now see the process of assessing one's attainments or those of others to be fairly absurd, given that the very first fetter is self-identification view.

Yes my behavior still leaves a lot to be desired.

I love your spiciness Nicky and I respect your scholarship. I have learned a lot from you. I also feel your pain. You don't need to keep doing this to yourself you know - using the dhamma as a stick to beat people over the head so they don't get too close to you.


   Another setup, the equivalent of asking, "when are you going to quit beating your wife?"

   You're on a roll, george. When are you going to stop rebelling against your father surrogates?

terry
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
terry:

   You're on a roll, george. When are you going to stop rebelling against your father surrogates?

You got me there, bra emoticon
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
agnostic:
terry:

   You're on a roll, george. When are you going to stop rebelling against your father surrogates?

You got me there, bra emoticon


lol
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
I love this place, you can get more insight than ten years  of therapy here ... if you're open to it 
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
agnostic:
physical laws of nature might change or be superceded. DO and the 3 Cs I regard as permanent and unsurpasable. Once you experience them I can't imagine how you could go back to seeing things any other way. That having been said, do you think it is possible to cling too tightly to the dhamma? Could it make you angry?

"Physical laws of nature" emoticon

Claiming to be a stream-enterer but not confessing errors in Dhamma of claiming Buddha taught physical laws of nature like E = MC2; confusing Buddha with Einstein  emoticon

Showing rudeness to Teachers who explain to the blind. emoticon

Yes, agnostic behaviour. emoticon

   I was recently reading a sutta where the buddha explained bodiy functions in terms of the laws of nature current at the time, referring to earth, air, fire and water... I'm sure you know da kine...

   the laws of nature should be seen as they are, as not my self...any laws of nature, or just laws of nature in the abstract...

  no disrespect, coach...go buddhists...
thumbnail
Papa Che Dusko, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1574 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
"Irrelevant. The laws of nature the Buddha said were permanent or fixed are dependent origination (SN 12.20) and impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (AN 3.136). "

All you mention from DO to Anicca, Dukkha and Annata emoticon are and always will be a perception-thought emoticon hence not fixed. In seeing THIS there is no any of what you mention unless there is reflecting/pondering on what has already passed. It's as saying after licking the ice cream "this is delicious" emoticon 

Also if both Samsara and Nirvana arise from the Mind than surely those laws of nature cease to be permanent or fixed in Nirvana/Cessation. Ops! emoticon Nothing is fixed except Pari-Nibbana maybe but I'm yet to inspect that one LOL emoticon 

But then again I'm a dhamma dummy and I'm not to question the wisdom of the Buddha. My apologies and deepest gratitude to all Buddhas of the past, present and future. Gassho. 
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
Papa Che Dusko:
"Irrelevant. The laws of nature the Buddha said were permanent or fixed are dependent origination (SN 12.20) and impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (AN 3.136). "

All you mention from DO to Anicca, Dukkha and Annata emoticon are and always will be a perception-thought emoticon hence not fixed. In seeing THIS there is no any of what you mention unless there is reflecting/pondering on what has already passed. It's as saying after licking the ice cream "this is delicious" emoticon 

Also if both Samsara and Nirvana arise from the Mind than surely those laws of nature cease to be permanent or fixed in Nirvana/Cessation. Ops! emoticon Nothing is fixed except Pari-Nibbana maybe but I'm yet to inspect that one LOL emoticon 

But then again I'm a dhamma dummy and I'm not to question the wisdom of the Buddha. My apologies and deepest gratitude to all Buddhas of the past, present and future. Gassho. 

The Buddha said these things were: (i) not peceptions but always exist regardless of perception of them; and (ii) fixed.

The relevant scriptures were cited. 

How can there be gratitude to the Buddhas when there is rebellion against the Buddhas??? emoticon 

But, yes, honesty & confession of transgressions are part of Dhamma for "dummies". emoticon
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
agnostic:
I know a guy who knows a guy who says that the fine structure constant is not constant.
 
Irrelevant. The laws of nature the Buddha said were permanent or fixed are dependent origination (SN 12.20) and impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (AN 3.136). 

Like other rebellious rebels, instead of immediately honoring the Buddha, it seems the possibility has been entertained that the law of not-self is impermanent. 

emoticon


all dharmas are conditoned...
thumbnail
Chris Marti, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 3772 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
Which laws of nature changed, how and when?

In the zillions of universes within the multiverse, there are many different sets of the laws of nature.
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Which laws of nature changed, how and when?

In the zillions of universes within the multiverse, there are many different sets of the laws of nature.


"The awake share a common world, but the asleep turn aside into private worlds."

~heraclitus
thumbnail
Ni Nurta, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 564 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Which laws of nature changed, how and when?

In the zillions of universes within the multiverse, there are many different sets of the laws of nature.
Even if this type of multiverse exists then they all use the same laws of nature, just differently expressed depending on how such universes were formed.

agnostic:
I know a guy who knows a guy who says that the fine structure constant is not constant.
Then perhaps it should not be called "constant" emoticon
thumbnail
Jim Smith, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 941 Join Date: 1/17/15 Recent Posts
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies
How the Universal Gravitational Constant Varies
Rupert Sheldrake
...
Within their laboratories, metrologists strive for ever-greater precision. In so doing, they reject unexpected data on the grounds they must be errors. Then, after deviant measurements have been weeded out, they average the values obtained at different times, and subject the final value to a series of corrections. Finally, in arriving at the latest "best values", international committees of experts then select, adjust and average the data from an international selection of laboratories.

Despite these variations, most scientists take it for granted that the constants themselves are really constant; the variations in their values are simply the result of experimental errors.

The oldest of the constants, Newton's Universal Gravitational Constant, known to physicists as Big G, shows the largest variations. As methods of measurement became more precise, the disparity in measurements of G by different laboratories increased, rather than decreased.

Between 1973 and 2010, the lowest average value of G was 6.6659, and the highest 6.734, a 1.1 percent difference. These published values are given to at least 3 places of decimals, and sometimes to 5, with estimated errors of a few parts per million. Either this appearance of precision is illusory, or G really does change. The difference between recent high and low values is more than 40 times greater than the estimated errors (expressed as standard deviations).

What if G really does change? Maybe its measured value is affected by changes in the earth's astronomical environment, as the earth moves around the sun and as the solar system moves within the galaxy. Or maybe there are inherent fluctuations in G. Such changes would never be noticed as long as measurements are averaged over time and averaged across laboratories.

In 1998, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology published values of G taken on different days, revealing a remarkable range. On one day the value was 6.73, a few months later it was 6.64, 1.3% lower. (The references for all the data cited in this blog are given in Science Set Free/The Science Delusion.)

In 2002, a team lead by Mikhail Gershteyn, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published the first systematic attempt to study changes in G at different times of day and night. G was measured around the clock for seven months, using two independent methods. They found a clear daily rhythm, with maximum values of G 23.93 hours apart, correlating with the length of the sidereal day, the period of the earth's rotation in relation to the stars.
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
Ni Nurta:
Chris Marti:
The Buddha said there were permanent things; such as the laws of nature & Nibbana. 

He obviously didn't know what he was talking about.
My scientific left hemisphere started tingling: Which laws of nature changed, how and when? emoticon

The Buddha said the laws of impermanence, unsatisfactoriess & not-self are permanent (AN 3.136). 

For example, since a change occured to your brain and since this tingling will not remain forever, it appears the Buddha was correct when he said the impermanence of conditioned things is permanent. 

As for regarding the brainy matter in the skull as "my brain", it appears the permanent law of not-self has not been comprehended. emoticon
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
The Buddha said there were permanent things; such as the laws of nature & Nibbana. 

He obviously didn't know what he was talking about.

Lol - the above sounds like a reply of a typical internet forum moderator who comes to believe they are an all knowing God. 

Do you happen to be a moderator of this forum? If so, this explains the behaviour. emoticon

Anyway, back to topic: 

1. You originally relied on Buddhism when you said in Buddhism all things are impermanent. 

2. Now you are rejecting Buddhism when you learn Buddhism says some things are permanent. 

So, regardless of whether or not you are a moderator here, it seems you regard yourself to be superior to a Buddha. 

Where do I sign up to Martism? Where can i bow down? emoticon
thumbnail
Chris Marti, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 3772 Join Date: 1/26/13 Recent Posts
Lol - the above sounds like a reply of a typical internet forum moderator who comes to believe they are an all knowing God. 

It saddens me to see my joke was lost on you, Nicky2. Based on this fundamental misunderstanding of my comment, you don't know what you're talking about, either  emoticon
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Lol - the above sounds like a reply of a typical internet forum moderator who comes to believe they are an all knowing God. 

It saddens me to see my joke was lost on you, Nicky2. Based on this fundamental misunderstanding of my comment, you don't know what you're talking about, either  emoticon

   I think you're funny...
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
Lol - the above sounds like a reply of a typical internet forum moderator who comes to believe they are an all knowing God. 

It saddens me to see my joke was lost on you, Nicky2. Based on this fundamental misunderstanding of my comment, you don't know what you're talking about, either  emoticon

emoticon
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
The Buddha said there were permanent things; such as the laws of nature & Nibbana. 

He obviously didn't know what he was talking about.

best comment...

I think we are done here...
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
It's easy to tie ourselves up in knots when we try to use reasoning based the assumption that there are permanent objects. Yet the reasoning we're critiquing, that used in Buddhism by the Buddha if you will, has a fundamental premise that there is nothing that is permanent. In other words, there is a perception that we have a self, but that perception is fleeting, changing all the time, and doesn't represent any kind of enduring self. So... both and neither.

what if there is actually no perception of self, only social conditioning?

what if self is only conditioning, a pure social construct, like assigning a letter to each subdvision of a set? like hurricane iota, or galaxy m33? 

naming is arbitrary...naming an object does not make it more real, more existent...no object actually exists, only relationships, only relativity, only the conditioned...

a mere bagatelle, compared to:


one pearl...
thumbnail
Ni Nurta, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 564 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
What if there's a perception of a self that we mistake for being us, but that's not us, and not permanent?
These perceptions should not be given special significance.
Same goes for anything else coming from mind and body.

Also no special significance should be given for any perceptions which arise when experiencing Nibbana.
thumbnail
Papa Che Dusko, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1574 Join Date: 3/1/20 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
What if there's a perception of a self that we mistake for being us, but that's not us, and not permanent?

This can be seen as a series of jerky-idea-slides-Mind moves which seem to try to self validate a passed away experience (any experience). These can have image mind impressions and often just parts of the image and in some cases only dark frames lacking image as such and have that fast move in certain direction, slide like. There is a very strong urge connected to it, very guey and has a sort of gravitational pull to it, hence I see this as the clinging move. This happens very fast and in fast succession. Imagine as if a Black Hole passed by several times and that gravitational pull towards clinging to that idea of self. I don't understand how people awaken without meditation (close investigation) as this construct of selfing is very fast. 

I might be wrong though. 
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Chris Marti:
What if there's a perception of a self that we mistake for being us, but that's not us, and not permanent?


   The "perception" of a self is the fundamental confusion. We perceive physical objects; we conceive non-physical objects, which can then only be described in perceptual terms.  

   Thus my "self" is perceived by me as a subject, and by you as an object. We infer that we personally have a objective self, from having it treated as an object by others, and viewing others as discrete selves.

   Existence is a matter of appearance. Appearance is a matter of consciousness. Consciousness is a tiny drop of oil on the buddha's foot.

 
t
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
agnostic:
I've wondered about this a bit, because in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) the Buddha goes through each of the khandhas X and says roughly:

X is not-self. For if X were self, it wouldn't lead to affliction. And if X is impermanent, suffering and perishable, it is not fit to be regarded as self.

Reversing the logic, doesn't this imply that self (if it exists) doesn't lead to affliction and is permanent or not suffering or not perishable? Obviously it begs the question whether the self actually exists, and I believe the Buddha avoided opining on that. But even so, why would he use this logic with its implications about a putative self?

The impression is the Buddha was simply saying if the aggregates were self, they could be controlled by that self to not become afflicted by disease/sickness. 

The Buddha certainly explained what the "self" is, namely, a mental formnation or fabrication born of ignorance & craving. Refer to SN 22.81, for example, or the beginning of MN 44. 
agnostic, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1255 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
agnostic:
I've wondered about this a bit, because in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) the Buddha goes through each of the khandhas X and says roughly:

X is not-self. For if X were self, it wouldn't lead to affliction. And if X is impermanent, suffering and perishable, it is not fit to be regarded as self.

Reversing the logic, doesn't this imply that self (if it exists) doesn't lead to affliction and is permanent or not suffering or not perishable? Obviously it begs the question whether the self actually exists, and I believe the Buddha avoided opining on that. But even so, why would he use this logic with its implications about a putative self?

The impression is the Buddha was simply saying if the aggregates were self, they could be controlled by that self to not become afflicted by disease/sickness. 

The Buddha certainly explained what the "self" is, namely, a mental formnation or fabrication born of ignorance & craving. Refer to SN 22.81, for example, or the beginning of MN 44. 

Ok so the "self" is a conditioned idea, defined as some kind of permanent essence, and the Buddha is saying that the aggregates don't satisfy this definition but refuses to say whether the self actually exists or not because all such speculations are just a source of suffering?

To use an analogy, a "unicorn" is defined as a horned horse and we can talk about it's properties without opining on whether it actually exists, as when we say "a horse is not a unicorn because it doesn't have a horn" or "a narwhal is not a unicorn because it doesn't have the body of a horse". 

 
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
so the self is ... defined as some kind of permanent essence
 
No. Where does the above conclusion come from? emoticon

The reality of "self", as explained by the Buddha, is it is a mental formation or deluded thought. 

The delusion of "self" held by ordinary people is the self is permanent. 

The delusions of unenligthened people are not the same as the view of a Buddha. 
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
so the self is ... defined as some kind of permanent essence
 
No. Where does the above conclusion come from? emoticon

The reality of "self", as explained by the Buddha, is it is a mental formation or deluded thought. 

The delusion of "self" held by ordinary people is the self is permanent. 

The delusions of unenligthened people are not the same as the view of a Buddha. 



from "radical zen, the sayings of joshu" ed hoffman:




Someone asked, "What is my self?"

Joshu said, "The oak tree in the front yard. Look at it."
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
terry:
Nicky2:
so the self is ... defined as some kind of permanent essence
 
No. Where does the above conclusion come from? emoticon

The reality of "self", as explained by the Buddha, is it is a mental formation or deluded thought. 

The delusion of "self" held by ordinary people is the self is permanent. 

The delusions of unenligthened people are not the same as the view of a Buddha. 



from "radical zen, the sayings of joshu" ed hoffman:




Someone asked, "What is my self?"

Joshu said, "The oak tree in the front yard. Look at it."


op cit




A monk asked, "When the mind does not probe the mind - what is that like?"

Joshu said, 'Whom are you probing?"

The monk said, "The self."

Joshu said, "There are not two."
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
terry:
Nicky2:




from "radical zen, the sayings of joshu" ed hoffman:




Someone asked, "What is my self?"

Joshu said, "The oak tree in the front yard. Look at it."


lol - Joshua and Hoffman emoticon

next there will be quotes from Goldstein, Kornfield, Salzberg, Rosenberg, Alpert and the other High Priests emoticon 
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Nicky2:
terry:
Nicky2:




from "radical zen, the sayings of joshu" ed hoffman:




Someone asked, "What is my self?"

Joshu said, "The oak tree in the front yard. Look at it."


lol - Joshua and Hoffman emoticon

next there will be quotes from Goldstein, Kornfield, Salzberg, Rosenberg, Alpert and the other High Priests emoticon 


your high priests are not patriarchs like joshu...

your buddha didn't speak pali, so who do you quote?




from "the zen teaching of huang po," trans blofeld

30. If you now set about using your minds to seek Mind, listening 10 the teaching of others, and hoping to reach the goal through mere learning, when will you ever succeed? Some of the ancients heard the Doctrine proclaimed than they hastened to discard all learning. So they were called 'Sages who, abandoning learning, have come to rest in spontaneity'. In these days people only seek to stuff themselves with knowledge and deductions, seeking everywhere for book-knowledge and calling this ' Dharma-practice*.' They do not know that so much knowledge and deduction have just the contrary effect of piling up obstacles. Merely acquiring a lot of knowledge makes you like a child who gives himself indigestion by gobbling too much curds. Those who study the Way according to the Three Vehicles are all like this. All you can call them is people who suffer from indigestion. When so-called knowledge and deductions are not digested, they become poisons, for they belong only to the plane of samsara. In the Absolute, there is nothing at all of this kind. So it is said: 'In the armoury of my sovereign, there is no Sword of Thusness*. All the concepts you have formed in the past must be discarded and replaced by void. Where dualism ceases, there is the Void of the Womb of Tathagatas. The term 'Womb of Tathagatas' implies that not the smallest hairsbreadth of anything can exist there. That is why the Dharma Raja {the Buddha), who broke down the notion of objective existence, manifested himself in this world, and lhal is why he said:  "When I was with Dipamkara Buddha there was not a particle of anything for me to attain."

   This saying is intended just to void your sensc-based knowledge and deductions. Only he who restrains every vestige of empiricism and ceases to rely upon anything can become a perfectly tranquil man. The canonical teachings of the Three Vehicles are just remedies for temporary needs, They were taught to meet such needs and so are of temporary value and differ one from another. If only this could be understood, there would be no more doubts about it. Above all it is essential not to select some particular teaching suited to a certain occasion, and, being impressed by its forming part of the written canon, regard it as an immutable concept. Why so? Because in truth there is no un-alterable Dharma which the Tathagata could have preached. People of our sect would never argue that there could be such a thing. Wejust know how to put all mental activity to rest and thus achieve tranquillity. We certainly do not begin by thinking things out and end up in perplexity. 




qu'ran 31:27

If all the trees in the earth were pens and the ocean, with seven more oceans, were ink still these could not suffice to record all the Words of God. God is Majestic and All-wise.
thumbnail
Ni Nurta, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 564 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
terry:

qu'ran 31:27

If all the trees in the earth were pens and the ocean, with seven more oceans, were ink still these could not suffice to record all the Words of God. God is Majestic and All-wise.
Same can be said about futile attempt of writing Pi in any positional numeral system or any irrational number emoticon

BTW. Universe has structure of the brain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97V8jw7rc9I

I bet that we currently live in Hangover Yuga emoticon
thumbnail
terry, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 1641 Join Date: 8/7/17 Recent Posts
Ni Nurta:
terry:

qu'ran 31:27

If all the trees in the earth were pens and the ocean, with seven more oceans, were ink still these could not suffice to record all the Words of God. God is Majestic and All-wise.
Same can be said about futile attempt of writing Pi in any positional numeral system or any irrational number emoticon

BTW. Universe has structure of the brain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97V8jw7rc9I

I bet that we currently live in Hangover Yuga emoticon


gospel of thomas:


Logion 28:
And my soul became afflicted for the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent.
thumbnail
Jim Smith, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 941 Join Date: 1/17/15 Recent Posts
Buddha's teaching on anatta is not about whether there is a self or soul. It is about what it is helpful to think of as "me" or "mine" and what is helpful to think of as not "me" or "mine". Buddha taught that it is helpful to think of the five aggregates of clinging as anatta, as not-self, ie not "me" or "mine".

When asked is there a self/soul or is there not a self/soul, Buddha refused to answer.

What you consider self is an opinion, it is not something that is true or false, so if you find that your opinion of "self" causes suffering, let go of it.

If a computer screen is displaying something white and you look at it closely with a magnifying glass, you won't see anything white, you will see red, green, and blue pixels. If you look at self (things you think are "me" or "mine") you won't find a self, you will only find the 5 aggregates of clinging. If you look at the body you see limbs, and organs, and tissues and cells. If you think they are your self that is an opinion. If you examine the mind you find thoughts, emotions and impulses arising from unconscious process you don't control. If you think that is your self, that is also an opinion. But if you hold the opinion that the five aggregates of clinging are not-self (anatta), not "me" or "mine", then you will suffer much less.


https://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

No-self or Not-self?
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
...
If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?"
...

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html


Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
...



https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html
Ven. Sariputta said: "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or 'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change & alteration.

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.

"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind."
...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.


https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html#selvesnotself
...
Usually when we hear the teaching on not-self, we think that it’s an answer to questions like these: “Do I have a self? What am I? Do I exist? Do I not exist?” However, the Buddha listed all of these as unskillful questions [§10]. Once, when he was asked point-blank, “Is there a self? Is there no self?” he refused to answer [see Talk 2]. He said that these questions would get in the way of finding true happiness. So obviously the teaching on not-self was not meant to answer these questions. To understand it, we have to find out which questions it was meant to answer.
...
So, to repeat, the issue is not, “What is my true self?” but “What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?”
thumbnail
Ni Nurta, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 564 Join Date: 2/22/20 Recent Posts
Nice summary.
It however looks like ctrl+c ctrl+v from template emoticon

I specifically do not subscribe to notions of self or no-self. I grew out of these somewhere around 2013
And even if you try to pin my understanding of Anatta as having anything to do with self then you will fail.
it is just it, it. If you like call it self but do not say I dwell in selves.

it is nice because it is universal and can be anything emoticon
Of course in classical understanding it was refering to atman. Though one could argue that if you assume that everything possess soul as its true nature (reasonable assumptions given soul is by definition true nature of things) then saying not-soul is like saying not-it if you seek true nature of things which by my definition is able to experience Nibbana.

In essence if it can experience Nibbana then it can be it and the practice is applicable.
thumbnail
Nicky2, modified 3 Months ago.

RE: Anatta correct meaning?

Posts: 41 Join Date: 4/18/20 Recent Posts
Jim Smith:


When asked is there a self/soul or is there not a self/soul, Buddha refused to answer.



The above, including Thanissaro's ideas, is a misunderstanding of SN 44.10. In SN 44.10, Vacchaggota asked Buddha two illogical questions thus the Buddha remained silent, namely: 

1. Does my self exist (atthatta)? 

2. Does my self not exist (natthatta)? 

Since each of Vacchagotta's question included an implicit belief in a self; they were invalid. Neither questions was about anatta. 

Try to read SN 44.10 carefully, including examining the Pali words used. emoticon