The idea for this topic spawned spawned from a discussion in the Early Buddhism forum on Johannes Bronkhorst and Early Buddhism (http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3523" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Setting aside here the matters of what other religionists believed and the possible influence of that on the presentation of the Buddha's anatta teaching...
How can anatta be the object of insight? What is the object? What is the benefit?
I present my take on this subject, making reference to the following sutta
SN 22.59: Pañcavaggi Sutta (aka Anatta-lakkhana Sutta)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The thrust of this sutta is that the five aggregates are anatta because they are dukkha, and because they are anicca, and I assume it goes without saying that we take as given that dukkha and anicca are observable realities.Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.
"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, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form 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.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness 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 my self.'
"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.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.
If A is directly observed, and B is adequately demonstrated and accepted to be a logical consequence of A, as it was to those who received the above teaching... can we not say also that B is known?
In this way, I believe we can know that all dhammas are "not self" (even if this so-called "no self" remains an unproveable, speculative, ontological proposition)
"Not self" may be ontological by nature, but I believe that ontological proof of the non-existence of that "I" within the loka of experience, is sufficient knowledge to uproot all craving. Greed (attraction) and aversion (repulsion) have no meaning when there is no subject/object dichotomy in which they can operate.
So in answering the question of "How can anatta be the object of insight? What is the object?", I suggest that...
Once you know the relationship between dukkha and anatta, or anicca and anatta.... insight into one brings insight into the other. In other words, the object of insight needn't be anatta, in order for the not-self characterists of all dhammas to be known.
As for "What is the benefit?" I quote again from the above sutta...
That is my present understanding. I put it forward at a topic of discussion and encourage others to present their views, whether they agree or otherwise, with the presentation above.Any kind of [aggregate] 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 my self.'
"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.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more
Metta,
Retro.