Anatta and Enlightenment

Bodhivaka

Hello, everyone!

Recently I have been contemplating the doctrine of Anatta, which through much reflection I have come to accept (assuming my interpretation of it is correct); however, realizing the legitimacy of this teaching has raised other questions for me. For example, if there is no self, if my existence as an individual is nothing more than an illusion caused by the five aggregates, what exactly is seeking freedom from suffering? What is it that is suffering in the first place? How can I attain enlightment if there is no me?

Perhaps I've misunderstood Anatta altogether. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Sabre

Hi,

The questions are interesting and do have an answer, but I want to say you can't understand anatta intellectually. You have to reflect on the teachings with respect to your experiences in meditation and other practices, and apply it to them. Otherwise the knowledge will be a mental gymnastic but not much more.

When reflecting on anatta this way, the questions you have won't really arise. Instead it becomes an internal reflection. The things you thought were 'you' or 'yours' will be investigated: "is this also not a 'me'?", "is this also out of 'my' control?". Things like the body, thoughts, choices, emotions, consciousness - all those things the Buddha pointed at with the aggregates. And then when you find out that nothing in the world is 'you' or 'yours', you will also answer the questions you are asking right now.

See the different in approach?

But I'm not a tease, so I will answer as I understand things:
"what exactly is seeking freedom from suffering?" - the being, the collection of the aggregates.
"What is it that is suffering in the first place? " - the aggregates.
"How can I attain enlightment if there is no me?" - You can't. At enlightenment there will be no thinking in terms of "I" or "me". There is absolutely no personal gain.


WIth metta,
Sabre

misecmisc1

my theoretical understanding says: anatta means non-self or not-mine i.e. all conditioned things are non-self or not-mine. there is a mind and a body. the mind, due to ignorance, has developed the view of 'I' in it - due to this, attachment and aversion arises, when the mind holds on to something or reject something, to feel pleasure and avoid pain. the concept of anatta means any thing(which we take and incorrectly assign to be our fixed abiding self) being conditioned meaning arising and ceasing due to its causal conditions arising and ceasing, is by nature impermanent and so cannot have a fixed abiding self. it is not the case that there is no-self, rather the self as a fixed independent abiding entity does not exist. enlightenment or nirvana is the experiencing of the unconditioned - since it is beyond the level of speaking/understanding as it is beyond words, so it neither can be described nor understood - but only directly experienced. you exist, but not in the way you think 'you' exist. to find out the true nature of this self is the essence of the spiritual path. the 5 aggregates are the 5 aggregates, clinging to the 5 aggregates creates suffering. since everything is experienced by the mind, so the mind clings to the 5 aggregates forming a self-view, due to its defilements, which is due to the ignorance. we suffer because we attach to the idea of a 'we' inside us, which is just a thought, but then the experiences become distorted around this idea of 'we', creating the drama of our life. the analogy to understand this can be - when we go to a cinema hall, the projector is throwing the white light on a reel of film shots, then the whole light is splashed on a big screen cloth and the movie starts, when we see the film, we get entangled in it, so similarly a movie runs in the mind and the brilliant radiance of the mind gets obstructed to come shining forth, because we get caught in the movie and because of our defilements not able to see what is behind the movie reel, which is aware of the mind. so mind itself creates a drama for itself to get entangled - sounds weird, but seems like it is the case that mind experiences everything and has the capacity to experience itself. the way out of this is to practice 8FP, with right view, so that morality and meditation leads to wisdom, which will remove the ignorance from the mind, to end its defilements, so that then we may be able to see things as 'just they are'. but just thinking and understanding and philosophizing about anatta is not going to help, as when the mind really sees anicca, dukkha, anatta in meditation, then the mind knows these things and so lets go of conditioned phenonmena by itself.

Zero

Bodhivaka said:

Recently I have been contemplating the doctrine of Anatta, which through much reflection I have come to accept...
however, realizing the legitimacy of this teaching has raised other questions for me. For example, if there is no self, if my existence as an individual is nothing more than an illusion....

If you have accepted and realised it, where does 'if' fit in?
Perhaps you have only realised the possibility of accepting it.
Keep going.

seeker242

According to Ajahn Chah, the answers to these question arise out of the wisdom gained from meditation practice. He said "If you want to really understand anatta, you have to meditate. If all you do is think about it, your head will explode"


I think what he is saying here is if you want to know who is suffering, who gets enlightenment, etc, etc.etc. do meditation and find out.

Other teachers say things like "anatta does not mean there is no self, it just means there is no separately existing, independent, continuing thing.


My personal answers:

"What exactly is seeking freedom from suffering?"

You are.

What is it that is suffering in the first place?

You are.

"How can I attain enlightenment if there is no me?"

By you following the 8 fold path, etc.

Now if you ask "what am I really" Well, that's the $20,000 question! I don't think that can be ultimately be explained with words, really. Which bring us back to the issue of meditative insight or "prajna" that arises with "samadhi"

zenmyste

I wouldnt get too caught up in dwelling too much about us being only an illusion ... Etc..

We are real right now.
We wont last forever, but if you can put your hand on your heart and feel it beat, then you are indeed very real..

What matters more than being here right now?

Cinorjer

Bodhivaka said:

Hello, everyone!

Recently I have been contemplating the doctrine of Anatta, which through much reflection I have come to accept (assuming my interpretation of it is correct); however, realizing the legitimacy of this teaching has raised other questions for me. For example, if there is no self, if my existence as an individual is nothing more than an illusion caused by the five aggregates, what exactly is seeking freedom from suffering? What is it that is suffering in the first place? How can I attain enlightment if there is no me?

Perhaps I've misunderstood Anatta altogether. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Saying something is an illusion is not the same as saying it doesn't exist; only that it has a false appearance. Obviously, "you" are sitting there, reading this. "No-Self" doesn't mean you don't exist. It means there is no unchanging, eternal "thing" that exists, no matter what the self appears like.

But your comprehension will deepen and change over time. Don't worry about if you've "got it right" when it comes to anything in our practice.

wondering

The trouble with much of Buddhist philosophy is that it makes no sense at all. Never will. The claim that that "you" personally will reach a state of "enlightenment" will never happen, and has never happened to anyone. It is mythical, and there can be no evidence of ever attaining it. People who claim they have attained complete freedom from suffering, are lying. People who teach that if you meditate all your suffering and questions will be answered, are lying. It is a shell game. For me, after 30 years of study and "practice" the only truth that remains is that "you don't know" and "you will never know", and that suffering is part of life.

Chrysalid

The enduring self is an illusion but the body, the brain, the electrical activity jumping from synapse to dendrite is very real. Our minds, though fleeting and always changing, are the originators and experiencers of suffering. We're like the sun, the sun isn't an object, it's a thermonuclear reaction held together by the gravitational well of it's own mass, you can't extricate "sun-ness" from the physical reaction because there isn't really any sun-ness there. Same goes for us.

aMatt

What matters more for now is that you cultivate the qualities of self that lead toward liberation. As we act in accordance with the eight fold path, our mind becomes ready to let go. Said differently, we drop the aspects of self that lead toward suffering for ourselves and others, and skillfully grow the aspects of self that lead toward freedom.

Emptiness is good if you are feeling overwhelmed by your mind, because you can gain motivation as you recognize that there is only momentum keeping your "automatic" qualities of mind arising. However, thinking about emptiness can quickly become a new form of clinging, which is not helpful. Said differently, too much thinking about anatta can lead to nihilism, because we begin to assume if the self is empty, than karma doesn't exist... therefore our actions do not matter. After all, if there is no self, then who is meditating or why even bother? This view is poison.

The way my teacher introduced this to me was by saying that karma forces a self to arise. As we use our desire to follow the 8fp, karma forces a self to arise which is more fluid or more mist-like. Then, because we are seeing more clearly, we can step aside when perceptions arise, and realize that the "objects" around us are empty from their side (does a tree call itself a tree?).

I read another description from a link someone (I think @Jason maybe) that the self is like a cage, and the qualities of self that lead toward liberation are the door. Yes, we accept that desiring liberation is clinging to the door, but we do that because we know it is a door. Then, when it opens, we are free and our actions leave no footprints in the mind.

With warmth,
Matt

Chrysalid

wondering said:

The trouble with much of Buddhist philosophy is that it makes no sense at all. Never will. The claim that that "you" personally will reach a state of "enlightenment" will never happen, and has never happened to anyone. It is mythical, and there can be no evidence of ever attaining it. People who claim they have attained complete freedom from suffering, are lying. People who teach that if you meditate all your suffering and questions will be answered, are lying. It is a shell game. For me, after 30 years of study and "practice" the only truth that remains is that "you don't know" and "you will never know", and that suffering is part of life.

Hmmm. Suffering is all in the mind, master the mind and you can eliminate suffering. There is no state of enlightenment, IMO, it's a mental discipline.

wondering

The is no such thing as "mastering the mind". There is only the concept of it. No one has ever accomplished it, no one ever will. They might believe they have for a period of time, but as with all phenomena , that is impermanent.

Chrysalid

wondering said:

The is no such thing as "mastering the mind". There is only the concept of it. No one has ever accomplished it, no one ever will.

If you say so Nostradamus.

wondering said:

They might believe they have for a period of time, but as with all phenomena , that is impermanent.

I never implied it was permanent. Everything needs practice to maintain a high level of ability.

wondering

No reason to become snippy! Hey, if you want to believe that you can master your mind, and end suffering, fine. Show some evidence of anyone who has ever done it.

Chrysalid

There is evidence that Buddha, Zeno of Citium, Epicurus, Epictetus, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope and Lao Tze all achieved a degree of mental mastery. The evidence is in their writings and teachings.

riverflow

Re: the idea of the self as "illusion." The notion of a separate, permanent, essentialized self represents the extreme of eternalism. Nihilism represents the other extreme, where "I" (however defined) does not exist. And both views rely on the notion (however contradictory) of positing this "self" entity as something one can stand outside of and examine.

"Illusory" doesn't mean "does not exist" but rather points to our mis-perception of a event which we then interpret as a separate, permanent, essentialized self.

If you have ever driven on a long stretch on a highway, off in the distance you'll see a mirage, usually what appears as a liquid-like, dark, shadowy substance. As the car appears to approach this illusory substance, it melts away and you only see the ordinary highway. This used to fascinate me as a child when my parents or grandparents would drive.

The interaction between (1) the light, (2) the angle of the road, (3) the distance involved, and (4) my eyes (and many other factors) the event does reside entirely in the imagination. But the event mis-interpreted makes it a mirage. The eyes really see this event occurring, but our minds make it into this illusory substance.

What we call the "self" works in a similar way. By not taking into account all the other factors that made this phenomenon arise, separating it from everything else, the mirage only seems "real."

In other words, the illusoriness (is that a real word??) of a mirage lies not "out there" but in the mind, in how we mis-perceive actual phenomena. So the "I" does its "I" thing, but not in the way that we imagine it-- not as a separate, permanent, essentialized self.

The Middle Way does not fall to either extreme of eternalism or nihilism. Both rely on the notion of stepping outside of oneself to examine oneself, like an eyeball trying to see itself. The method of the Middle Way uses experiential insight (via meditation & mindfulness) to examine not the phenomenon, but the mind that (mis-)interprets the phenomenon.

riverflow

And FYI: I just looked it up-- yes, "illusoriness" is in fact a real word! ha!

Jeffrey

The Buddha said we are not the skhandas. He did not say there is no experience of consciousness.

You are correct there is no being who is enlightened. The diamond sutra and heart sutra confirm this.

The bodhisattva vows to save all beings even though there aren't any. Suffering is also non-existent as Nagarjuna showed because it cannot be real unless there is a real being tied up with that suffering.