rowyourboat wrote:Hi Ben
Thanks for the reply. I should be clear in my questions: did your understanding of dukkha lead to (proximate cause!) your understanding of anatta, or was it something else?
with metta
Interesting question. In a manner of speaking, I would say yes too. It is by confronting dukkha directly at the level of nama and rupa that I learn to understand what dukkha really is. And the more I understand what dukkha really is the more I begin to understand anicca and anatta.
Yet, to say that my understanding of dukkha was the 'proximate cause' for my understanding of anatta doesn't quite describe my experience, if by 'proximate cause' we mean 'that which is immediately responsible for causing an observed result'. This is one of those things that's hard to articulate because it is a kind of felt understanding. Maybe I can explain my experience with the notion of dependent origination.
Proximate cause implies linear causality. To this extent, it doesn't sit well with dependent origination. Dependent origination does refer to a law of cause and effect but it is not a linear one.
So if I reflect on my experience from the perspective of dependent origination, I cannot strictly say that my understanding of dukkha 'led to' my understanding of anatta. Well, in a conventional sense, it does. To begin on the path, I have to accept that there is suffering and be willing to investigate it before I can really appreciate anicca and anatta. But in investigating the nature of dukkha I am also at the same time observing anicca and anatta.
This is especially so during intense meditation. When observing nama and rupa, I may experience all sorts of pleasant and unpleasant thoughts and sensations. But observing these thoughts and sensations--even if they are extremely unpleasant--doesn't mean that I've understood what dukhha 'really is'. I will not understand what dukkha 'really is' until I see clearly that thoughts and sensations are impermanent and accept with equanimity that they do not belong to 'me'.
So to this extent, I wouldn't say that the understanding of dukkha 'led to' the understanding of anatta (or anicca). I would prefer to say that the understanding of dukkha, anicca, and anatta mutually condition one another or are mutually constitutive. If there is causality here it is not a linear one.