Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SarathW
Posts: 9770
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by SarathW » Fri May 25, 2018 11:51 pm

Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?
Is Atta-sanna applicable to inanimate objects like chairs, cars etc.
ie: Is seen a chair as a chair a Atta-citta & atta-ditthi?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

chownah
Posts: 7412
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by chownah » Sat May 26, 2018 2:50 am

SarathW wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 11:51 pm
Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?
Is Atta-sanna applicable to inanimate objects like chairs, cars etc.
ie: Is seen a chair as a chair a Atta-citta & atta-ditthi?
My view is that absolutely you can and in fact you should.....are all dhammas empty of self?
chownah

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by robertk » Sat May 26, 2018 3:13 am

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form [rupa, matter] whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself

pegembara
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by pegembara » Sat May 26, 2018 3:16 am

Is the United States atta? Break it down into its component and you realise the US was determined into existence. It is anatta. So is the US Dollar bill. River Ganges. They are convenient, agreed upon fictions.

Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Toward_Unconditioned1.php
If we understand sankhāras, proliferations, and thereby subdue them, this is the greatest happiness. This is true merit, to be calmed of proliferations, calmed of ''being,'' calmed of individuality, of the burden of self. Transcending these things one sees the Unconditioned. This means that no matter what happens, the mind doesn't proliferate around it. There's nothing that can throw the mind off its natural balance. What else could you want? This is the end, the finish.
“Mark Twain put it very nicely when he said, ‘It was so cold that if the thermometer had been an inch longer, we would have frozen to death.’ We do freeze to death on words. It’s not the cold outside that matters, but the thermometer. It’s not reality that matters, but what you’re saying to yourself about it. I was told a lovely story about a farmer in Finland. When they were drawing up the Russian-Finnish border, the farmer had to decide whether he wanted to be in Russia or Finland. After a long time he said he wanted to be in Finland, but he didn’t want to offend the Russian officials. These came to him and wanted to know why he wanted to be in Finland. The farmer replied, ‘It has always been my desire to live in Mother Russia, but at my age I wouldn’t be able to survive another Russian winter.’

Russia and Finland are only words, concepts, but not for human beings, not for crazy human beings. We’re almost never looking at reality. A guru was once attempting to explain to a crowd how human beings react to words, feed on words, live on words, rather than on reality. One of the men stood up and protested; he said, ‘I don’t agree that words have all that much effect on us.’ The guru said, ‘Sit down, you son of a bitch.’ The man went livid with rage and said, ‘You call yourself an enlightened person, a guru, a master, but you ought to be ashamed of yourself.’ The guru then said, ‘Pardon me, sir, I was carried away. I really beg your pardon; that was a lapse; I’m sorry.’ The man finally calmed down. Then the guru said, ‘It took just a few words to get a whole tempest going within you; and it took just a few words to calm you down, didn’t it?’ Words, words, words, words, how imprisoning they are if they’re not used properly.”

Anthony DE Mello
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

justindesilva
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by justindesilva » Sat May 26, 2018 4:04 am

SarathW wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 11:51 pm
Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?
Is Atta-sanna applicable to inanimate objects like chairs, cars etc.
ie: Is seen a chair as a chair a Atta-citta & atta-ditthi?
Here we can be short and sweet. Lord budda only referred to existence of beings and suffering. With such relevance anatta lakkana sutta is spoken of our pancendriya with self and non self ( atta and anatta).
As atta ( self) is only related to consciousness inanimate objects cannot be included in atta or anatta.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by Dinsdale » Sat May 26, 2018 8:24 am

SarathW wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 11:51 pm
Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?
I think anatta just relates to the "person". Sunyata ( emptiness ) applies more widely.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by robertk » Sat May 26, 2018 8:37 am

from mikenz here:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=31973
Notes from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation: 

“Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within?”

Spk: In regard to this body with consciousness (imasmiṃ saviññāṇake kāye): he shows his own conscious body. And in regard to all external signs (bahiddhā ca sabbanimittesu): the conscious body of others and insentient objects. Or alternatively: by the former expression he shows his own sentient organism and that of others (reading with Se attano ca parassa ca saviññāṇakam eva); by the latter, external form not bound up with sense faculties (bahiddhā anindriyabaddharūpaṃ ). (The compound) ahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayā is to be resolved thus: I-making (ahaṅkāra), mine-making (mamaṅkāra), and the underlying tendency to conceit (mānānusayā). (So the text in Be and Se, but if, as seems likely, the plural termination derives from the asamāhāra compound, after resolution the last member should be mānānusayo.) 
“I-making” is regarded as the function of wrong view (the view of self), “mine-making” of craving. The root conceit is the conceit “I am” (asmimāna), so conceit is also responsible for “I-making.”

Any kind of form whatsoever, Rāhula, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.

This elevenfold classification of each of the five aggregates is analysed in detail at Vibh 1-12

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by Dinsdale » Sat May 26, 2018 8:41 am

robertk wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 8:37 am
Any kind of form whatsoever, Rāhula, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.
So the chair is not mine. But that is different from saying the chair itself doesn't have a self or essence.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

SarathW
Posts: 9770
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by SarathW » Sun May 27, 2018 4:06 am

Buddha said Subbe Dhamma Anatta.
Which means it applies to inanimate objects.
Isn't that so?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by Dinsdale » Sun May 27, 2018 9:32 am

SarathW wrote:
Sun May 27, 2018 4:06 am
Buddha said Subbe Dhamma Anatta.
Which means it applies to inanimate objects.
Isn't that so?
It depends on how you interpret "dhamma" in this context. I take it to mean phenomena rather than noumena, ie that which we experience. We don't experience a chair directly, rather we experience it's signs or qualities. So for example with an armchair there is the bodily experience of softness.

This Wiki article on Sunyata is worth a look:
In Theravada Buddhism, suññatā often refers to the not-self (Pāli: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman) nature of the five aggregates of experience and the six sense spheres....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
Buddha save me from new-agers!

pegembara
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by pegembara » Tue May 29, 2018 4:41 am

Not self; ownerless. No thingness does apply to inanimate objects.

Characteristic of absence of essential characteristic or self inherent existence within all things.

Among all the things that do exist in the universe, none do exist by itself. Any object or being can be nothing else than a compound of elements that undergo ceaseless modifications and which are themselves the outcome of a large number of conditions. As a consequence, nothing can be controlled; neither material objects, nor consciousnesses.

The anattā doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.

In Buddhism, anatta (Pali) or anatman (Sanskrit) refers to the notion of "not self". One scholar describes it as "meaning non selfhood, the absence of limiting self identity in people and things."

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/anatta
One can replace form with my house, car, country etc.
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" —

"Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20032
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue May 29, 2018 5:04 am

Greetings,
robertk wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 3:13 am
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form [rupa, matter] whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself
This - case closed.

:tongue:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by Saengnapha » Tue May 29, 2018 5:25 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 5:04 am
Greetings,
robertk wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 3:13 am
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form [rupa, matter] whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself
This - case closed.

:tongue:

Metta,
Paul. :)
While I agree with every word of the above statement from the Buddha, I see this as a statement of ultimate truth vs relative truth. In our own reality, that which we conceive, all experience, is mine, I, myself. It is not by thinking about the ultimate truth that we see our experience as not self. That is intellectual understanding. It is by seeing precisely that what we call my 'self' is all experience. To me, this is the only way we resolve samsara and nibbana, otherwise we will always be reacting to experience instead of enjoying our natural state no matter what arises. This duality in thinking must be brought to end.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20032
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue May 29, 2018 5:31 am

Greetings Saengnapha,
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 5:25 am
This duality in thinking must be brought to end.
Perhaps it is your duality of "ultimate truth" vs "relative truth" which must be brought to an end?

If you take the quote as an instruction, and actually follow the instruction, then there's no need for conceptual proliferation regarding whether something is "relative" or "ultimate". Instead you just regard it rightly as "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself."

Such is the training.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

SarathW
Posts: 9770
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

Post by SarathW » Tue May 29, 2018 5:51 am

Perhaps it is your duality of "ultimate truth" vs "relative truth" which must be brought to an end?
This is a good point.
Never heard this before!
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests