Anattā

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Anattā

Post by kc2dpt »

I think the danger in adopting a view of "there is a self" or "there isn't a self" is it discourages us from continuing the investigation. Nibbana is only won by looking at our experience very very closely and looking for the self - "Is this myself? Is that my self? What about this other thing that just arose; is that myself?" - on and on until our deeply ingrained habit of assuming a self is worn through.

It seems to me if we adopt the view of "self" or of "no self" then we'll stop looking. "I know the Buddha taught (self/no self) so no need to investigate this thing which arose." But that's just an intellectual thing... study of books... not actual practice. It doesn't do anything to wear through that deep-seated habit of "I making".

I really do find all my questions about anatta to be answered by SN 22.59.
Buddha wrote:Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'
I know passion hasn't faded out so I must've not found estrangement with one or more of the five aggregates.
If I haven't found estrangement yet then I must've not seen thus.
I've certainly heard it ("there is no self to be found"), but I clearly have more work to do before I've seen it.

To put it another way:
I still suffer. (1st NT)
If I still suffer then I must still be clinging to something. (2nd NT)
If I'm still clinging to something then I still have work to do developing the Path. (4th NT)
I'll know when I'm done. (3rd NT)

I think it's like someone tells you the end to a mystery novel. Jack says "The butler did it." Jill says "No, the maid did it." One might be tempted to simply believe Jack or believe Jill and stop reading. We might even argue and debate as to who should be believed. But it is only by reading the book all the way through that one can see for themselves who did it.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Anattā

Post by Prasadachitta »

Well said Peter...

If we are of the mind that there is no self let this be the support for further honest investigation.

If we are of the mind that there is a self let this be support for further honest investigation.

If we are confused let this be the support for further honest investigation.

Win Win Win and Transcend!

:thumbsup:

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4210
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: USA West Coast

Re: Anattā

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

Retro: Any kind of self that could exist outside of the five aggregates....
Would be a chimera. Any "self" that has no perception, no consciousness, no form & no feeling, could have no meaning as a "self".
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
Element

Re: Anattā

Post by Element »

Chris wrote:From the Pali Text Society Dictionary is:
Niratta
Niratta1 (adj. -- nt.) [Sk. *nirātman, nis+attan] soulless; view of soullessness or unsubstantiality;

Anattā (n. and predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul.
I cannot see much difference above.
elaine
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:59 pm

Re: Anattā

Post by elaine »

Hello all,

Imho, it is difficult to understand what anatta is when 'atta' has not been explained thoroughly. What was the understanding or explanation of 'atta' during the Buddha's time? Is there any sutta that mentions anything about 'atta'?

My understanding of 'atta' is, it is a solid permanent soul that travels from one life to another :alien:. Anatta mean that there is No permanent 'soul' that does this. I think, anatta does not mean that we are all pre-programmed action-and-reaction robot thingies that are 'beyond control' or totally out of control (but yea, some people are almost always out-of-control, e.g. me, sometimes). But I honestly believe that we can control ourselves, we just need a LOT of will-power! (But some people believe in no freewill/no control, they believe in some mysterious conditions that comes and goes naturally, but maybe that's the truth of the universe?).

But, I think the Buddha said something like this, "feelings (and consciousness, etc) are not-self, abandon it" (sorry I don't have the exact quote). My understanding is, it means that we have the ability to "abandon it" although it does not belong to "our self". There is a paradox there if you really think about it, if something does "Not belong" to us, how can we do anything or Not do anything to it? How do we "abandon" something that does NOT belong to us? If it does not belong to us, then it should come and go as it pleases, right? ((You mean, life is actually like that? I'm still suffering because I have not realized that yet??? :'( But... if we have absolute No control over ourselves, then the Buddha would be saying something like this, "feeling is not self, it will come and go when the conditions are right, so YOU don't have to do anything or Not do anything about it, just let things be". But of course, the Buddha didn't say that, he said "abandon it", which to me, means that we have the ability to choose to abandon it (or we can choose to carry it like a burden). Yes? I think the Buddha is trying to say something like this, "anger is not permanent (i.e. it is notself), so let it go. Why hang on to something that will pass on eventually"? Is my understanding correct?

Thank you.
Element

Re: Anattā

Post by Element »

Chris wrote:
Element said: In Pali, there are three words: (1) atta or self; (2) niratta or no self; and (3) anatta or not-self.
Could you give a link to your sources for the meaning you've stated?
Hi Chris

My source was Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's rendering of the Pali. As you appear to have an interest in scholars, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa received five honorary doctorates from Thai universities.
If students would like to remember the specific technical terms, there are three. The first term is "attā": there is attā which is attā. The second term is anattā: there is attā that is not-self, that is anattā. The third term is nirattā: without any kind of attā at all, nothingness. One extreme of attā is that it exists fully. The other extreme is no attā at all. Anattā, the self which is not self, is neither extreme, and is correct. There are three words: attā, anattā, and nirattā. They're totally different. Understand the meaning of these three words, then you'll understand everything.

Anatta & Rebirth
However, a seach of the suttas is interesting.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Anattā

Post by kc2dpt »

Element wrote:As you appear to have an interest in scholars, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa received five honorary doctorates from Thai universities.
An honorary doctorate does not make one a scholar.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Element

Re: Anattā

Post by Element »

Element wrote:However, a seach of the suttas is interesting.
Na tassa puttā pasavo, khettaṃ vatthuñca vijjati;
Attā vāpi nirattā vā, na tasmiṃ upalabbhati.

He has no children, cattle, fields, land.
In him you can't pin down what's embraced or rejected. (Thanissaro)

You have no children, cattle, fields, land.
You do not reach for things or throw them away. (Lebcowicz)

Purabheda Sutta
Upayo hi dhammesu upeti vādaṃ, anūpayaṃ kena kathaṃ vadeyya;
Attā nirattā na hi tassa atthi, adhosi so diṭṭhimidheva sabbanti.

For one who's involved gets into disputes over doctrines, but how — in connection with what — would you argue with one uninvolved?
He has nothing embraced or rejected, has sloughed off every view right here — every one.

Dutthatthaka Sutta
Ajjhattamevupasame , na aññato bhikkhu santimeseyya;
Ajjhattaṃ upasantassa, natthi attā kuto nirattā vā.

Touched by contact in various ways, he shouldn't keep conjuring self.
Stilled right within, a monk shouldn't seek peace from another from anything else.
For one stilled right within, there's nothing embraced, so how rejected?

Tuvataka Sutta
For me, the above translations whilst holding meaning do not include the words "self", "I" or "mine".

I think the above quotes are saying: "He does not embrace things as his or opposes things as not his".

It sounds like niratta means when one emphatically denies things from a state of attachment: "That is not me! I did not say that! That is not my opinion! How dare you say that about me!"

However, I sense these suttas do not fall within the sphere of anatta. The Buddha's use of anatta as his core teaching I sense is something much more broad & pervasive.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Anattā

Post by Ceisiwr »

How do we "abandon" something that does NOT belong to us? If it does not belong to us, then it should come and go as it pleases, right? ((You mean, life is actually like that? I'm still suffering because I have not realized that yet??? :'( But... if we have absolute No control over ourselves, then the Buddha would be saying something like this, "feeling is not self, it will come and go when the conditions are right, so YOU don't have to do anything or Not do anything about it, just let things be". But of course, the Buddha didn't say that, he said "abandon it", which to me, means that we have the ability to choose to abandon it (or we can choose to carry it like a burden). Yes? I think the Buddha is trying to say something like this, "anger is not permanent (i.e. it is notself), so let it go. Why hang on to something that will pass on eventually"? Is my understanding correct?

I think when the Buddha says "abandon" he means the craving/identification with the aggregates needs to be abandoned.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Anattā

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

Dear Retro,

Please don't be offended by what I am about to say. Please consider it a friendly inquiry.

I think that to vehemntly insist on not-self similar to insisting upon a self. I mean the soul-ish sort of self. So you and I see eye to eye in that regard.

But in reading what you've written in this thread, your position is starting to resemble solipsism or materialism to me. If we deny that anything outside of our own mind-experience and afflicted aggregates can possibly exist, how are we not leading into these other views?

Thank you kindly :namaste:
Drolma
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Anattā

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Drolma,
Drolma wrote: If we deny that anything outside of our own mind-experience and afflicted aggregates can possibly exist, how are we not leading into these other views?
I think you've misunderstood what I said... I'm not denying anything existence outside of our "world", because such a denial would be speculative... I'm only saying that we cannot experience those things in any way other than through the five aggregates. Thus their existence or otherwise is inconsequential.

SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
Another example could be that of aliens in distant galaxies. It is beyond our range to know whether there are aliens in distant galaxies. To speculate, "Yes there is", or "No there isn't" is nothing other than speculative view. As it is with any kind of atman... the Buddha teaches us that no atman can be found within the five aggregates. It is beyond our range to prove or disprove atman outside of the five aggregates. Thus searching for it is pointless, as is trying to prove that it exists or doesn't exist outside of the five aggregates. What we know, is that it cannot be known in our "world" (as previously defined)... that is what really matters.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Anattā

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

Understood, Retro. Thanks :smile:

Best wishes,
Drolma
User avatar
AdvaitaJ
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Anattā

Post by AdvaitaJ »

I've had the interesting experience of just finishing Ajahn Brahm's book, "Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond" and Bhikku Bodhi's lengthy introduction to chapter nine of "In the Buddha's Words". For both, though, the concept of anatta is tightly intertwined with NIbbana.

Ajahn Brahm makes clear that 1) Physical death after attainment of Nibbana is the end. Period. and 2) the cessation of Nibbana is not to be feared because there is no atta, "I", "self" or whatever that ceases. He also makes the very interesting statement repeatedly that attainment of jhana is necessary for most everyone to realize for themselves the truth of anatta. It certainly has me motivated. Beliefs are easy to come by, realization is tough.

Bhikku Bodhi, on the other hand, certainly mirrored many of the things that Ajahn Brahm has stated and it is certainly easy to see how Ajahn Brahm drew his conclusions. However, Bhikku Bodhi has just left open a few tantalizing hints that Nibbana may transcend the whole discussion by leading to a "state" where none of the yardsticks we use even apply, "Freed from reckoning in terms of the five aggregates, the Tathagata transcends our understanding."

Disclaimer: With less than a year's practice behind me, I certainly have no preference for one or the other nor do I see any need to set one against or above the other. I've derived great benefit from both and have nowhere near enough wisdom to even know if they agree or disagree! :reading:

Regards: AdvaitaJ
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains.
Li Bai
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Anattā

Post by Dhammanando »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:Well that is how I understand it... I am open to correction of course if this is not consistent with the Classical viewpoint.
It's not consistent with the classical viewpoint. The classical viewpoint was accurately stated in the passage from Nyanatiloka's Dictionary quoted by Chris in her opening post. Those interpretations which conceive of anattā as a strategic way of regarding things, or which assert that it's a speculative view to hold that there is no self, are misreadings of the Suttas from the classical Theravada point of view. A good rule of thumb when reading modern attempts to explain anattā is that if the writer makes no reference (implicit or explicit) to the doctrine of the two truths then the chances are he's got it all wrong.

The commentator Mahānāma, concluding his commentary on the Paṭisambhidāmagga's Treatise on Emptiness, offers a neat series of epigrams summarizing the Mahāvihāra understanding of anattā:
  • sabbe dhammā samāsena
    tidhā dvedhā tathekadhā
    suññāti suññatthavidū
    vaṇṇayantīdha sāsane


    In short, whether classed in triplets, couplets or units, all dhammas are empty. Thus is it explained by those in this religion who know the meaning of emptiness.

    kathaṃ? sabbe tāva lokiyā dhammā dhuva-subha-sukha-atta-virahitattā dhuva-subha-sukha-atta-suññā

    How so? Firstly, all mundane dhammas, through being bereft with respect to permanence, beauty, pleasure and self, are empty of permanence, beauty, pleasure and self.

    magga-phala-dhammā dhuva-sukha-atta-virahitattā dhuva-sukha-atta-suññā

    The [noble] path and fruition dhammas, through being bereft with respect to permanence, pleasure and self, are empty of permanence, pleasure and self.

    aniccattāyeva sukhena suññā

    But only on account of their impermanence are they empty with respect to pleasure;

    anāsavattā na subhena suññā

    and being free of the taints they are not empty with respect to beauty.

    nibbānadhammo attasseva abhāvato attasuñño

    The dhamma called 'Nibbāna' is empty of self only on account of the non-existence of self.

    [i.e., not on account of impermanence etc. — Dhammanando]

    lokiyalokuttarā pana sabbepi saṅkhatā dhammā sattassa kassaci abhāvato sattasuññā

    Secondly, conditioned dhammas, both mundane and supramundane, are all empty of a living being on account of the non-existence of a living being of any sort whatever.

    asaṅkhato nibbānadhammo tesaṃ saṅkhārānampi abhāvato saṅkhārasuñño

    The unconditioned, the dhamma called 'Nibbāna', is empty of formations on account of the absence [there] of formations.

    saṅkhatāsaṅkhatā pana sabbepi dhammā attasaṅkhātassa puggalassa abhāvato attasuññāti

    Lastly, all dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned, are empty of self on account of the non-existence of any person who could be classed as 'a self'.
    (PaṭiA. iii. 638-9)
Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Anattā

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings bhante,

Thank you for the official Classical explanation... I find it useful to know these things.
A good rule of thumb when reading modern attempts to explain anattā is that if the writer makes no reference (implicit or explicit) to the doctrine of the two truths then the chances are he's got it all wrong
What is the doctrine of the two truths?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply