Annata

Theswingisyellow

Dear forum,
I have been working with Anatta, no self, selflessness in my life and paractice. This is my understanding of Anatta:

“Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”
MN 3.196
So in short, the five aggregates are not the self. When one attaches/identifies the five aggregates with the self this results in one's suffering. Am I correct on this point?
Also all phenomena are characterized by anatta, dukkha and annica?
In looking and trying to know annata I have been meditating on it. I have been asking the question in formal meditation as "who am I" and in my daily life "who is walking" who is speaking" "who is eating" all the while trying to maintain mindfulness and to just see, hear, or feel. When I do my daily things I can see all the five aggregates, thus I recognize my conscious thinking and discriminating mind, my body sensations, my form and my perceptions as not being the self.
When afflictive emotions arise I ask myself who is it that is angry, who is sad ect. Also I ask from where does this emotion arise.
Any suggestions as to if my ideas are skllfull or unskillfull? Meditation suggetions or suggestions how to incorporate this view into daily life would be appreciated.:)
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd

PietroPumokin

do you feel they are skillful? can you feel as if you're bathing in purer water now that you practice this way? seem good to me!!

aMatt

The practice you describe seems skillful enough, though I'm sure others will offer specific differing views. When you say "Also all phenomena are characterized by anatta, dukkha and annica?" this doesn't digest well for me, because the phenomena are absent of any attributable qualities from their own side, or in other words anatta is a portion of true seeing into the nature of phenomena, not another label we assign it.

For instance, a tree isn't transient or permanent from its own side, meaning that even annica is an attribution we make toward it from our side... with the intention of releasing our own expectations of permanence. When done absolutely, our view moves into that of anatta. So it might be more clear to say that anatta is the true nature of all phenomena... including the phenomena itself and that which observes the phenomena. In our correct view of anatta, there is no formation of dukkha because there is naturally nothing within the phenomena to cling to... ie to attributional qualities that would come before the need to draw it closer or push it away.

So it might even more skillful to look into yourself during afflictive emotions for the solid center that is experiencing such things. When you can't find it, you'll have a better experiential relationship with not-self (or no-solid-self.) If, when you say "who am I", the feeling or answer is nothing, no-one, anatta... then each step is great. You might just cut the middle-mind and say "nothing is walking." Similarly, if in the observation of phenomena you are seeing that it is not a tree, rather it has no qualities of its own, than saying "what is that tree?" is great. If you are creating conceptualizations about the phenomena, then simple breathing and breath awareness might be a more skillful way of relating to them than questions.

Does that make sense at all?

With warmth,

Matt

fofoo

When you recognize that the 5 aggregates are not the self, you are on the right track. However, a positive definition of the self seems to be impossible, although Buddha called the self "the noble witness" somewhere in Anguttara and positive definitions of the self in the Nirvana sutra. Frauwallner and other scholars argued that in Buddhism, the goal is not to know the self but instead to know what the self is not (similar to the neti neti of the Hindus or the via negativa (negative theology)

Georg Grimm put it this way in his "Great Syllogism"

1. What I recognize in myself that decays and therefore [...] bring suffering to me cannot be my Self

2. Now I see everything recognizable decaying and bring suffering to me

3.Therefore nothing recognizable is my Self

But this is merely my opinion that might not be in accord with the orthodox view of anatta

Theswingisyellow

To all thank you for your replys and input, it is very much appreciated.
From Pietro Pumokin:
"do you feel they are skillful? can you feel as if you're bathing in purer water now that you practice this way? seem good to me!!"-I feel that it is a start. I have been meditating on the breath and feel my practice in this regard has gone quite well. i wanted to then start incorporating and meditating on specific truths. The Three marks of existence, specifically anata, no self is a concept I wanted to not only understand logically but to know it. I feel that insight into no self is that what undermines the grasping and holding on to of the five aggregates, which is the cause of suffering.

From aMatt:
"When you say "Also all phenomena are characterized by anatta, dukkha and annica?" this doesn't digest well for me, because the phenomena are absent of any attributable qualities from their own side, or in other words anatta is a portion of true seeing into the nature of phenomena, not another label we assign it"
I think I was trying to understand a couple of different ideas. Not specifically anatta in this statement but that all conditioned phenomena are characterized by their lack of inherent existence, are impermenent and no conditioned phenomena will bring lasting satisfaction. This question of mine was a bit of an aside the original discussion on anatta.
"For instance, a tree isn't transient or permanent from its own side, meaning that even annica is an attribution we make toward it from our side... with the intention of releasing our own expectations of permanence. When done absolutely, our view moves into that of anatta. So it might be more clear to say that anatta is the true nature of all phenomena... including the phenomena itself and that which observes the phenomena. In our correct view of anatta, there is no formation of dukkha because there is naturally nothing within the phenomena to cling to... ie to attributional qualities that would come before the need to draw it closer or push it away."
I agree with and readily see what you are saying. The idea that all things are without inherent existence. We fix identities and labels to all phenomena and act as if they inherently exist when originally they do not. From this arises dukka. Conversely the absence of an idea of inherent existence would not give rise to dukkha.
We create transient, we create permenence. Nothing has come and gone, we make this, we make annica.
"So it might even more skillful to look into yourself during afflictive emotions for the solid center that is experiencing such things. When you can't find it, you'll have a better experiential relationship with not-self (or no-solid-self.) If, when you say "who am I", the feeling or answer is nothing, no-one, anatta... then each step is great."
This is the case. I have no answer. When I ask who am I or who does this, don't know is my answer.
"You might just cut the middle-mind and say "nothing is walking." Similarly, if in the observation of phenomena you are seeing that it is not a tree, rather it has no qualities of its own, than saying "what is that tree?" is great"
I look at everything to include myself as a dependent arising. I don't ask "what is that tree" as there is no tree to be found. It empirically exists for sure but the "tree" is a mental formation. I view myself in the same way as a dependent arising; my body, my mind and my thinking are what compose me. From this I have my understanding of my lack of inherent existence, that there is no abiding permenent self.
To fofoo;
"When you recognize that the 5 aggregates are not the self, you are on the right track"
I would agree with that. Maybe my initial post was misleading.I am not looking for the "self" as I know there is no such thing. The self to me is a creation of the mind as much as the "tree" or a "table" is the minds creation. Rather I was attempting to deepen my view of anatta and was looking for the most skillful way to accomplish that.
Again thank you for all your inputs and insights and please forgive my observations if they are in the wrong.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd

DhammaDhatu

The swing is yellow wrote: »

In looking and trying to know annata I have been meditating on it. I have been asking the question in formal meditation as "who am I" and in my daily life "who is walking" who is speaking" "who is eating". When afflictive emotions arise I ask myself who is it that is angry, who is sad ect. Also I ask from where does this emotion arise.

Hello Todd

This practise here is reminiscent of the Phagguna Sutta where, through such questioning, the phenomena "self" or "becoming" is traced back [but ultimately to ignorance].

So, instead of asking: "Who is angry?", the question changes to: "What is the condition for anger?"

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'

Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.'

Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

"Who, O Lord, craves?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'

Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.'

Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

DhammaDhatu

The swing is yellow wrote: »

Ssuggestions how to incorporate this view into daily life would be appreciated.

Hello Todd,

I would agree that there are different skilful means to approach anatta in different ways.

Ideally, anatta is a direct meditative insight.

However, because anatta is an all pervasive truth (rather than a subjective experience), it can also be approached via reasoning.

One method is instead of emphasising the term "not-self", one can change the emphasis to "not-mine", "not-yours" or "not-ours".

This nuance counters the sense of possessiveness, covetousness or ownership that can arise towards natural things.

Often Buddhism teaches renunciation, as though one is giving up something that actually belongs to oneself.

But here, instead of renunciation, one recognises that something never belonged to oneself in the first place.

These things we consider to be 'ours' are simply things created by nature.

This line of reasoning does not necessarily negate the positive quality of things.

Things can be regarded as 'gifts', 'blessings', 'necessities', 'responsibilities', etc, but remain 'not ours', 'not mine'.

Kind regards

"Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they pertain [belong] to our self."

"In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit...

Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit."

Na Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours

And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children."

And he said:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

The Prophet

DhammaDhatu

Another example of reasoned analysis in the Theravada suttas is the Buddha's second sermon.

Here, anatta was approached by using the characteristic of impermanence as the foundation for reasoning.

However, for me, the nuance here is towards ending suffering (rather than dispossession per se).

"Now, that which is impermanent, does it possess unsatisfactoriness or satisfactoriness?"

"Unsatisfactoriness, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, possessing unsatisfactoriness, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

DhammaDhatu

Nibbana (Nirvana) is a phenomena (dhatu) but the unconditioned phenomena (asankhata dhatu).

All conditioned phenomena are characterized by anatta, dukkha & annica.

Nibbana is not characterized by annica & dukkha but it is anatta.

"All conditioned things I]sabbe sankhara[/I are impermanent I]anicca[/I" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

"All conditioned things I]sabbe sankhara[/I have unsatisfactoriness I]dukkha[/I" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

"All things I]sabbe dhamma[/I are not-self I]anatta[/I" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada

Theswingisyellow

Dhamma Dhatu,
Thank you for your very insightful reply's. I am overwhelmed with gratitude. It would appear that I was trying to solve the self with the self, somewhat like trying to bite your own teeth.:D
You stated "What is the condition for anger?" Reframing it as such I find very instructive as is the Phagguna Sutta; it points clearly to the root of the matter. Becoming is the condition. I will meditate on the conditions that give rise to my afflictive emotions and on the Na Tumhaka: Not Yours Sutta. As a father your quote from The Prophet touches me deeply in so much as I want to hold onto my sons though I know I cannot, as they are not mine. As a parent this may present the biggest teaching on not mine, if my sons are not mine then all is truely not mine. Gassho.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd

DhammaDhatu

The swing is yellow wrote: »

In looking and trying to know annata I have been meditating on it...while trying to maintain mindfulness and to just see, hear, or feel.

When I do my daily things I can see all the five aggregates, thus I recognize my conscious thinking and discriminating mind, my body sensations, my form and my perceptions as not being the self.

Hello Todd

Returning to formal meditation or direct insight, the aim is to see the aggregates directly as mere aggregates.

This the Buddha called Satipatthana or the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.

Naturally, the starting point is the breath/body, because it is the grossest or least subtle object.

To see clearly 'the body breathes' rather than 'I breathe' is the goal.

To see clearly the body is the condition for the breathing rather than "I" or "me".

Then, if and when the mind is sufficient clear, to clearly see the other aggregates in the same manner.

Indeed, the Buddha encouraged to just see, just hear or just feel as the way and path.

This is a salient practice.

Kind regards

DD

"Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body as body, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (with it), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating the feelings as feelings, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (with them), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating mental states as mental states, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (with them), having overcome in this world covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating all phenomena as mere phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (with them), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief."

Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of Mindfulness

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Bahiya Sutta

Theswingisyellow

Dhamma Dhatu,
Your posts are fast and furious! I just replied to the first two posts and there is already two more:D
You give much to think about and work with, I am very humbled and appreciative of the kindness and generosity that you show me here. Being of slow mind I must take in all this that you have pointed to.
With profound respect,
Todd

"This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self"
SN 22.59
The wisdom in this sutta is overwhelming.

DhammaDhatu

The swing is yellow wrote: »

Thank you for your very insightful reply's. I am overwhelmed with gratitude.

You are welcome Todd.

Thank you for your kindness & graciousness.

Yours in the Dharma,
DD

:smilec: