How does one observe Anatta ?

[cappuccino]

Do you have a method for observing "self" directly?

just do it

[Assaji]

Greetings James,

The method of Anatta observing or contemplation is from which sutta ?

I would highly recommend Chachakka sutta, which gives the full sequence, starting with contemplation of impermanence.

And is it possible to observe Anatta directly , says one look at the body or any part and find out the characteristic ?

No, this is done differently. For best results, personal instruction is required.

[Spiny Norman]

Indeed. I still haven't seen any methods here which relate to observing anatta directly. And I still don't see how limited control over the aggregates negates self-view, that sense of me and mine.

Do you have a method for observing "self" directly?

I would be trying to observe myself with myself, which is tricky.

Also tricky is trying to observe not-self with myself.

Observing not-self with not-self might be possible in the context of satipatthana practice.

[sentinel]

Greetings James,

The method of Anatta observing or contemplation is from which sutta ?

I would highly recommend Chachakka sutta, which gives the full sequence, starting with contemplation of impermanence.

And is it possible to observe Anatta directly , says one look at the body or any part and find out the characteristic ?

No, this is done differently. For best results, personal instruction is required.

Hi Dmytro ,

Thanks . But you are contemplating impermanence instead of not self !

Not self is the result of insight one attain .
You cannot observe not self .

[Spiny Norman]

You cannot observe not self .

Possibly you can observe "symptoms" of not-self, like limited control over the aggregates. I'm still not convinced it can be observed directly though.

[sentinel]

You cannot observe not self .

Possibly you can observe "symptoms" of not-self, like limited control over the aggregates. I'm still not convinced it can be observed directly though.

Dukkha , Anicca and Anatta is but realisation .
You observe the processes of the aggregates and therefore attains the insights into it.
Not that you observe the three lakkhana .
That is totally different matter .

[Spiny Norman]

Not that you observe the three lakkhana .

I think anicca and dukkha are easily observed in practice. Just notice transience and dissatisfaction.

[Mr Man]

Indeed. I still haven't seen any methods here which relate to observing anatta directly. And I still don't see how limited control over the aggregates negates self-view, that sense of me and mine.

Do you have a method for observing "self" directly?

I would be trying to observe myself with myself, which is tricky.

Also tricky is trying to observe not-self with myself.

Observing not-self with not-self might be possible in the context of satipatthana practice.

Hi Dinsdale

So everything that can be observed is not self? I guess that is what you meant by inference a page back?

You have identified the knowing as "myself" (I think) but I don't think there really is much personal about the quality of knowing.

Is the conception/sense of self something that arises within the knowing or is it the knowing?

Is that line of contemplation helpful?

[Assaji]

Greetings James,

The method of Anatta observing or contemplation is from which sutta ?

I would highly recommend Chachakka sutta, which gives the full sequence, starting with contemplation of impermanence.

And is it possible to observe Anatta directly , says one look at the body or any part and find out the characteristic ?

No, this is done differently. For best results, personal instruction is required.

Thanks . But you are contemplating impermanence instead of not self !

Why do you think so?

It's just that recognition of not-self (anattāsaññā) follows the recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā), as described in many suttas, referred to in the links I've given.

Well, this practice is indeed hard to comprehend.

[chownah]

It's just that recognition of not-self (anattāsaññā) follows the recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā), as described in many suttas, referred to in the links I've given.

Well, this practice is indeed hard to comprehend.

I do not dispute that recognizing impermanence can lead to recognizing not self. I do think, though, that the buddha gave many teachings where impermanence was not mentioned as part of a practice he suggested....for instance the Bahaya sutta in which the totality of his teaching was:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

My view is that while impermanence is a valuable tool to help one towards a realization of not self it is for some not the path followed.
chownah

[one_awakening]

For me it comes back to The Four Foundations of Mindfulness. The more I observe the mind and the body, the more I realise it's just the rising and passing away of temporary phenomenon. This rising and passing away does not require a self to be present.

[Spiny Norman]

Is the conception/sense of self something that arises within the knowing or is it the knowing?

Knowing seems to involve an inherent duality, the knower and the known, subject and object, observer and observed.

[Mr Man]

Is the conception/sense of self something that arises within the knowing or is it the knowing?

Knowing seems to involve an inherent duality, the knower and the known, subject and object, observer and observed.

Well in communication there will always be duality. But isn't duality also something that arises and passes away?

[auto]

It's just that recognition of not-self (anattāsaññā) follows the recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā), as described in many suttas, referred to in the links I've given.

Well, this practice is indeed hard to comprehend.

I do not dispute that recognizing impermanence can lead to recognizing not self. I do think, though, that the buddha gave many teachings where impermanence was not mentioned as part of a practice he suggested....for instance the Bahaya sutta in which the totality of his teaching was:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]

My view is that while impermanence is a valuable tool to help one towards a realization of not self it is for some not the path followed.
chownah

---

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html Chachakka Sutta some excerpts

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

..
now next step is path of practice leading to self-identification

"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

..
then there is a path leading to the cessation of self-identification

"Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

...

[auto]

Me and mine can't exist if there is no ability to describe what me and mine does or is. And even if we describe what I do, and what I am it doesn't mean I do anything by myself. Without the aggregates being conditioned in a certain way me and mine can't even exist the way you are.

You need develop sense of self, then you will know self. There is a path leading to self identification and after that there is path to cessation of self-identification.

But there is also pre-steps for that above, generating self, is you need work with sense consciousnesses.