My article on Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
-
As this Buddhist term Anatta gets mentioned quite often in this blog, I think it is worth some clarifications.
Did the Buddha teach No Self? There are articles which states that the Buddha did not teach No Self, but Not-Self (Anatta). Indeed, the term Anatta refers to non-self. Why non-self and not no-self? I think to term it non-self brings the point that Anatta merely rejects the view of an existent self, but does not assert non-existence of self, which is another equally erroneous extreme. Actually I have no problems with calling it No Self at all - as long as it is not taken to mean that a self becomes non-existent (rather, it should mean that no existent self within or apart from the five aggregates could be established to begin with, that could become non-existent, both or neither).
While it is true that Anatta is more like 'non-self' than 'non-existence of self', I do not agree with some of the articles' assertions that the question of the existence of self is simply a question to be put aside as something irrelevant to liberation. Although it is true that the four extremes are rejected by Buddha, it is not so much because it is 'unrelated to liberation', rather it is more like 'all the extremes views are false and relate to self-view in one form or another, and hence is antithesis to liberation' and as such, all such false assertions/views must be abandoned through insight and realization in order for there to be liberation. Those articles, while explaining the rejection of the four extremes, fail to elucidate the realization of Anatta and the freedom from views (i.e. self-view) that result from such realization.But to understand what this realization entails, it is important to first understand what exactly is this self-view we are dealing with, the self-view that is relinquished permanently upon realization. The view of a self means believing or holding the view that there is an independent, unchanging, self-entity that persists from one moment to the next and one lifetime to another, and is the agent, controller or experiencer of stuff in life. "Self" thus has the quality of permanency, independence, separateness (separate from the flow of experiences), and agenthood (being the controller, perceiver, experiencer of things). If there is any such thing, it could qualify as Self. However, the realization of Anatta is that there is no such Self. It is the realization as I wrote in my commentary on Bahiya Sutta, the realization that in seeing, there is no three things: the Seer, that is doing the seeing of the seen. (Seer seeing seen) Instead, in the seeing, there is JUST the scene - that pure, vivid experience of scenery. That's it. No experiencer apart from the experience. This realization that "seer seeing seen" is a false view or perception of reality relinquishes the notion of a self or agent, but it does not establish a conceptual position such as "the self does not exist" because non-existence only pertains to an existent going into non-existence. This realization is not a new conceptual view to be held on to, but a complete freedom from self-view. In seeing JUST the seen, and all notions pertaining to existence or non-existence of self doesn't apply there.
As I see it, without abandoning ALL views of the existence (and likewise, the non-existence, etc) of the self, we cannot gain liberation (or in fact even stream entry, which requires the abandoning of the view of self).
However, to call it not-self or non-self also leans itself to possible misinterpretation which I shall discuss later: such as treating 'not-self' as a form of dissociative practice.
If we look into the Buddha's discourses, the Buddha rejected views pertaining not only to the existence of self, but also the non-existence of self, the both existence and non-existence of self, and the neither existence nor non-existence of self. These four extreme positions are utterly rejected by the Buddha.
In reality, both self and dharma is neither existent nor non-existent (nor both, nor neither): since self and dharma has never arisen to begin with, cannot be established to begin with, cannot be pinned down to begin with, therefore self and dharma cannot go into non-existence, or be both and neither.
Here, the Buddha clarifies:
http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."...
And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:
As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."
And Padmasambhava states:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
And Nagarjuna states:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he otherthan the aggregates.The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.What Tathagata is there?”
Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.
And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we say assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions.
So as you can see, the whole point of Anatta is to reject the view and notion of an existent self, without thereby asserting the non-existence of self. I would like to borrow Loppon Namdrol's quotations on this regard:
"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."
As I have said since long ago (with regards to the emptiness of self in persons): in seeing always JUST the seen without a seer, in hearing always JUST the heard without the hearer - as what the Buddha taught in the Bahiya Sutta that led to my realization, explained here. So, no (existent) self - but also no no self. The main point is that in seeing JUST the seen (no self, no no self or whatever)! I am not asserting non-existence or any new positions to cling to, I am simply rejecting the false, misconceived, learnt view that there is an agent, a self, that stands behind the activity of seeing, hearing, thinking, etc. For in order for me to assert non-existence, there must be some base in which I can assert its non-existence, but such a base or entity cannot be found, and when the emptiness of an inherently existent self is realized, the four extreme positions cannot be established.
The liberation of the view of an agent, a self that stands behind experience as an agent that controls, or perceives, phenomena - due to the realization that such a view is utterly unfounded in the reality of 'in seeing always just the seen', liberates you from self-view without proposing any further positions to be held on to (such as the non-existence of self).
I often say that the insight into Anatta and Shunyata is not a conceptual position I cling to, but a realization and wisdom that when actualized in daily experience, is indeed a non-conceptual freedom and wonder.
Only when we see Anatta as a realization (not merely a technique to dissociate, but a realization into a dharma seal, a characteristic of phenomenon or truth) which liberates us from false views about reality, instead of something to support a position of our own, will we be able to gain liberation. It is not also not merely an experience whereby the sense of self dissolves which is temporary and is in fact rather common - but a permanent abandonment of a false view seen to be false through realization, leading to a stable non-retrogressing experience of the freedom from self-view in direct experience of 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard', etc.
The Buddha says,
"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."
As you can see, the raft of the Buddha works as merely a non-affirming negation that frees us from ALL views whatsoever.
As Thusness have said in A casual comment about Dependent Origination
Dependent Origination is too a raft; it is like the stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by fire without leaving any trace.
Loppon Namdrol have said elsewhere:
"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."
The teaching of Anatta (as I define it as the emptiness of self in persons), and the teaching of Dependent Origination (which further leads to the realization of the emptiness of self in all phenomena) are simply rafts that lead to some fundamental insight that burns away our false views and perception about reality.
Only when we are able to liberate ourselves from such false perceptions, can we stop clinging to self, and phenomena, and as a result end our afflictions, attachments, and sufferings.
No amount of trying to force ourselves to stop suffering or attachments is ever going to work, if fundamentally we hold self and phenomena to have graspable, inherent existence, that is subject to birth and death, etc. If we hold on to things as 'I', as 'mine', as objects that are real and hence conducive for grasping, craving and so on, we are never going to be liberated. Only when we give up (through insight) our attachments to the sense of 'I', to the sense of things as 'mine', to the sense that there are 'things' (by realizing them to be completely illusory and empty), will we then be able to experience what liberation is.
Having said all these, I should also mention the pitfalls of calling Anatta not-self or non-self.
The problem with calling Anatta not-self or non-self, is not so much the term itself, but that people generally think of not-self as implying a practice of dissociation. This means there is still I, here, trying to dissociate from 'other objects' as 'not-self'. As a result, I still cling dearly to the sense of 'I', or maybe a very subtle grasping (which can occur at the I AM level or even the substantial non-dual level to a subtler degree) to Knowing or Awareness as the true self beyond all objects.
So the point is: I can dissociate from all objects as 'not-self', but still cling to an ultimate non-objective Subject/Self. Therefore such a form of dissociation is never going to get us to understand what Anatta is all about. And this is also not what the Buddha set out contemplation of Anatta to be.
Why do I say so? Because the Buddha's method of contemplating on Anatta is not like the Advaita Vedanta technique of self-inquiry, contemplating on Anatta is very different from the practice of 'neti neti'. The practice of 'neti neti' is done in order to reject the not-self in order to find or discover the Self. To put it in Namdrol's terms, the Advaita technique resorts to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Why? The not-self of Advaita is established only in contrast with the True Self.
The contemplation of neti neti, or dissociation, the seperation of the witness from the witnessed, Self from not-self and so on, is done to 'support' a position of a true Self. So with regards to the phenomenal world of everchanging things, I reject as not me and mine, for I am the ultimate Witness that is perceiving all these.
The Buddha's contemplation of Anatta however, is not done for such a matter. The Buddha was very adamant throughout his teachings that the purpose of contemplating the three characteristic of phenomenon, namely: impermanence, dissatisfactoriness, and non-self are done not to discover some ultimate reality, but rather to result in knowledge and vision of things as they are (as being empty of self) which leads to dispassion and ultimately cessation (nirvana) of suffering and afflictions. The result of contemplating as such results in the realization of Anatta.
As we can see, contemplating, and realizing the three characteristic has the effect of letting go of all attachments. It does not in any way strengthen the subject-object dichotomy, the sense of an observer apart from the observed. Contemplating non-self in the Buddha's sense does NOT mean dissociation, it does not mean seperating the observing self from the observed objects: it simply means contemplating non-self in the midst of directly experiencing pure sensations as they are, resulting in the insight into Anatta, and hence relinquishing ALL sense of self with regards to all sensations, including even the sense of an observer.
To support my claims I will discuss one of the most popular technique the Buddha said could lead to the attainment of Anagamihood and Arahantship in as little as 7 days and at most 7 years (of course you must be seriously practicing it with a background of right view and understanding, otherwise you can't possibly have right mindfulness to begin with, which is why not everyone who meditates become enlightened so quickly) was the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness found in the Satipatthana Sutta (which I highly recommend everyone to read) which is according to Wikipedia the most popular Buddhist text. In that technique, one is mindful/aware of every sensation. You may think ‘oh this is probably some typical Witnessing technique found even in common self-help books to dissociate from all forms and experiences in order to transcend to the formless Self or Watcher’, BUT notice that the Watcher is nowhere mentioned in the sutta (and any other Pali sutta for that matter) and more importantly: the Buddha’s repeated expression in the sutta of "observing the body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind." Why are the words, body, feelings, mind, and objects of mind repeated? Why ‘observe the … IN THE ….’? It means you are living and experiencing IN and AS the sensations, and not observing the sensations in and as an observer/watcher and the sensations are not meant to be disassociated from in order to get to an ultimate reality or transcendental Self!
The Buddha's method of contemplating anatta therefore is for practitioners to have direct experience and contemplation of pure sensations as in Bahiya Sutta, 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard' WITHOUT the filtering of the conceptual mind, the false sense or conception of a self, or the passions and afflictions that causes all manners of craving and aversions for the sensations, so that insight and realization can arise, so that true liberation and abandonment can take place, and it is only in this context that contemplating anatta can be understood. And this is the insight meditation taught by Buddha himself, which, at least in the Pali canon, is considered as the most direct path to realization (however note that the term 'direct path' is used differently by me in my e-book).
As a side-topic:
If there is no existent self, or a soul, how does it fit in with Buddhist doctrines like rebirth? Or even more simply (for those who don't believe in rebirth), how does feeling, sensing, perceiving happen, without an existent self?
The Buddha's answer to this is direct, simple, yet profound. He explains this through dependent origination:
"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.'"
The same would apply for rebirth, which actually is a term for the continuity of a causal/karmic process and not of a self-entity.
Who is reborn is asked falsely, as the Buddha did not say 'he reborns'. The corect way to ask would be, 'What is the condition for birth?' And to that the correct reply is: 'with ignorance as condition i.e. false view and clinging to a self, birth arises'. The next birth is neither the same nor different from a previous birth in the same way that the flame of a newly lighted candle is neither same nor different from the previous candle, being merely a process of causal continuity instead of the passing on of an unchanging soul-entity.
As we can see, Dependent Origination only truly makes sense when we are not obscured by self-view. Before the realization of Anatta, D.O. can be grasped intellectually, but not fully actualized due to dualistic view, and therefore cannot be fully appreciated. Hence to realize D.O. we have to realize Anatta, then when everything becomes seen as causal processes, the insight into Shunyata (as in the secondfold emptiness, the emptiness of phenomena) can arise with further contemplations and pointers.
For further reading, see Thusness's article Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives -
Wow, I've always thought that anatta simply means that there's there's no one behind the scenes "doing stuff", which I thought naturally meant that there's no such " actual thing" as a self (i.e. non-existance of self). Turns out I can't come to a conclusion like that. Thanks AEN.
Slightly off-topic here: I wonder if the masses who believe in a soul actually don't know how to define what a "soul" is? Certainly if I have not read a few articles and posts around the net I wouldn't know how to give a proper definition, just content to let the definition be murky.
-
No one behind the scenes doing stuff is part of anatta.
However to state "the self becomes non-existent" is not anatta.
Soul is an independent, unchanging, self-entity that persists from one moment to the next and one lifetime to another, and is the agent, controller or experiencer of stuff in life. Such a soul cannot be found - there is no existent soul.
Self and dharma is neither existent nor non-existent: since self and dharma has never arisen to begin with, cannot be established to begin with, cannot be pinned down to begin with, therefore self and dharma cannot go into non-existence, or be both and neither.
-
I see, just one more question: Is this what is termed "無相" in chinese?
-
無相 animitta; nir�bh�sa. Without form, or sign; no marks, or characteristics; nothingness; absolute truth as having no differentiated ideas; nirv�ṇa.
相 has four types generally: self, others, living beings and a life
-
Wow, I got that wrong too. Thanks for the clarification.
-
so is it no self or non-self?
actually they are the same. non-self is also no self in reality.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Posted by: An Eternal NowAs this Buddhist term Anatta gets mentioned quite often in this blog, I think it is worth some clarifications.Did the Buddha teach No Self? There are articles which states that the Buddha did not teach No Self, but Not-Self (Anatta). Indeed, the term Anatta refers to non-self. Why non-self and not no-self? I think to term it non-self brings the point that Anatta merely rejects the view of an existent self, but does not assert non-existence of self, which is another equally erroneous extreme. Actually I have no problems with calling it No Self at all - as long as it is not taken to mean that a self becomes non-existent (rather, it should mean that no existent self within or apart from the five aggregates could be established to begin with, that could become non-existent, both or neither).While it is true that Anatta is more like 'non-self' than 'non-existence of self', I do not agree with some of the articles' assertions that the question of the existence of self is simply a question to be put aside as something irrelevant to liberation. Although it is true that the four extremes are rejected by Buddha, it is not so much because it is 'unrelated to liberation', rather it is more like 'all the extremes views are false and relate to self-view in one form or another, and hence is antithesis to liberation' and as such, all such false assertions/views must be abandoned through insight and realization in order for there to be liberation. Those articles, while explaining the rejection of the four extremes, fail to elucidate the realization of Anatta and the freedom from views (i.e. self-view) that result from such realization.As I see it, without abandoning ALL views of the existence (and likewise, the non-existence, etc) of the self, we cannot gain liberation (or in fact even stream entry, which requires the abandoning of the view of self).However, to call it not-self or non-self also leans itself to possible misinterpretation which I shall discuss later: such as treating 'not-self' as a form of dissociative practice.If we look into the Buddha's discourses, the Buddha rejected views pertaining not only to the existence of self, but also the non-existence of self, the both existence and non-existence of self, and the neither existence nor non-existence of self. These four extreme positions are utterly rejected by the Buddha.
In reality, both self and dharma is neither existent nor non-existent (nor both, nor neither): since self and dharma has never arisen to begin with, cannot be established to begin with, cannot be pinned down to begin with, therefore self and dharma cannot go into non-existence, or be both and neither.Here, the Buddha clarifies:http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."...And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."And Padmasambhava states:"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
And Nagarjuna states:“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he otherthan the aggregates.The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.What Tathagata is there?”
Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we say assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions.So as you can see, the whole point of Anatta is to reject the view and notion of an existent self, without thereby asserting the non-existence of self. I would like to borrow Loppon Namdrol's quotations on this regard:
"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."As I have said since long ago (with regards to the emptiness of self in persons): in seeing always JUST the seen without a seer, in hearing always JUST the heard without the hearer - as what the Buddha taught in the Bahiya Sutta that led to my realization, explained here. So, no (existent) self - but also no no self. The main point is that in seeing JUST the seen (no self, no no self or whatever)! I am not asserting non-existence or any new positions to cling to, I am simply rejecting the false, misconceived, learnt view that there is an agent, a self, that stands behind the activity of seeing, hearing, thinking, etc. For in order for me to assert non-existence, there must be some base in which I can assert its non-existence, but such a base or entity cannot be found, and when the emptiness of an inherently existent self is realized, the four extreme positions cannot be established.The liberation of the view of an agent, a self that stands behind experience as an agent that controls, or perceives, phenomena - due to the realization that such a view is utterly unfounded in the reality of 'in seeing always just the seen', liberates you from self-view without proposing any further positions to be held on to (such as the non-existence of self).I often say that the insight into Anatta and Shunyata is not a conceptual position I cling to, but a realization and wisdom that when actualized in daily experience, is indeed a non-conceptual freedom and wonder.Only when we see Anatta as a realization (not merely a technique to dissociate, but a realization into a dharma seal, a characteristic of phenomenon or truth) which liberates us from false views about reality, instead of something to support a position of our own, will we be able to gain liberation. It is not also not merely an experience whereby the sense of self dissolves which is temporary and is in fact rather common - but a permanent abandonment of a false view seen to be false through realization, leading to a stable non-retrogressing experience of the freedom from self-view in direct experience of 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard', etc.The Buddha says,"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."As you can see, the raft of the Buddha works as merely a non-affirming negation that frees us from ALL views whatsoever.As Thusness have said in A casual comment about Dependent OriginationDependent Origination is too a raft; it is like the stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by fire without leaving any trace.Loppon Namdrol have said elsewhere:
"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."The teaching of Anatta (as I define it as the emptiness of self in persons), and the teaching of Dependent Origination (which further leads to the realization of the emptiness of self in all phenomena) are simply rafts that lead to some fundamental insight that burns away our false views and perception about reality.Only when we are able to liberate ourselves from such false perceptions, can we stop clinging to self, and phenomena, and as a result end our afflictions, attachments, and sufferings.No amount of trying to force ourselves to stop suffering or attachments is ever going to work, if fundamentally we hold self and phenomena to have graspable, inherent existence, that is subject to birth and death, etc. If we hold on to things as 'I', as 'mine', as objects that are real and hence conducive for grasping, craving and so on, we are never going to be liberated. Only when we give up (through insight) our attachments to the sense of 'I', to the sense of things as 'mine', to the sense that there are 'things' (by realizing them to be completely illusory and empty), will we then be able to experience what liberation is.Having said all these, I should also mention the pitfalls of calling Anatta not-self or non-self.The problem with calling Anatta not-self or non-self, is not so much the term itself, but that people generally think of not-self as implying a practice of dissociation. This means there is still I, here, trying to dissociate from 'other objects' as 'not-self'. As a result, I still cling dearly to the sense of 'I', or maybe a very subtle grasping (which can occur at the I AM level or even the substantial non-dual level to a subtler degree) to Knowing or Awareness as the true self beyond all objects.So the point is: I can dissociate from all objects as 'not-self', but still cling to an ultimate non-objective Subject/Self. Therefore such a form of dissociation is never going to get us to understand what Anatta is all about. And this is also not what the Buddha set out contemplation of Anatta to be.Why do I say so? Because the Buddha's method of contemplating on Anatta is not like the Advaita Vedanta technique of self-inquiry, contemplating on Anatta is very different from the practice of 'neti neti'. The practice of 'neti neti' is done in order to reject the not-self in order to find or discover the Self. To put it in Namdrol's terms, the Advaita technique resorts to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Why? The not-self of Advaita is established only in contrast with the True Self.The contemplation of neti neti, or dissociation, the seperation of the witness from the witnessed, Self from not-self and so on, is done to 'support' a position of a true Self. So with regards to the phenomenal world of everchanging things, I reject as not me and mine, for I am the ultimate Witness that is perceiving all these.The Buddha's contemplation of Anatta however, is not done for such a matter. The Buddha was very adamant throughout his teachings that the purpose of contemplating the three characteristic of phenomenon, namely: impermanence, dissatisfactoriness, and non-self are done not to discover some ultimate reality, but rather to result in knowledge and vision of things as they are (as being empty of self) which leads to dispassion and ultimately cessation (nirvana) of suffering and afflictions. The result of contemplating as such results in the realization of Anatta.As we can see, contemplating, and realizing the three characteristic has the effect of letting go of all attachments. It does not in any way strengthen the subject-object dichotomy, the sense of an observer apart from the observed. Contemplating non-self in the Buddha's sense does NOT mean dissociation, it does not mean seperating the observing self from the observed objects: it simply means contemplating non-self in the midst of directly experiencing pure sensations as they are, resulting in the insight into Anatta, and hence relinquishing ALL sense of self with regards to all sensations, including even the sense of an observer.To support my claims I will discuss one of the most popular technique the Buddha said could lead to the attainment of Anagamihood and Arahantship in as little as 7 days and at most 7 years (of course you must be seriously practicing it with a background of right view and understanding, otherwise you can't possibly have right mindfulness to begin with, which is why not everyone who meditates become enlightened so quickly) was the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness found in the Satipatthana Sutta (which I highly recommend everyone to read) which is according to Wikipedia the most popular Buddhist text. In that technique, one is mindful/aware of every sensation. You may think ‘oh this is probably some typical Witnessing technique found even in common self-help books to dissociate from all forms and experiences in order to transcend to the formless Self or Watcher’, BUT notice that the Watcher is nowhere mentioned in the sutta (and any other Pali sutta for that matter) and more importantly: the Buddha’s repeated expression in the sutta of "observing the body in the body," "observing the feelings in the feelings," "observing the mind in the mind," "observing the objects of mind in the objects of mind." Why are the words, body, feelings, mind, and objects of mind repeated? Why ‘observe the … IN THE ….’? It means you are living and experiencing IN and AS the sensations, and not observing the sensations in and as an observer/watcher and the sensations are not meant to be disassociated from in order to get to an ultimate reality or transcendental Self!The Buddha's method of contemplating anatta therefore is for practitioners to have direct experience and contemplation of pure sensations as in Bahiya Sutta, 'in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard' WITHOUT the filtering of the conceptual mind, the false sense or conception of a self, or the passions and afflictions that causes all manners of craving and aversions for the sensations, so that insight and realization can arise, so that true liberation and abandonment can take place, and it is only in this context that contemplating anatta can be understood. And this is the insight meditation taught by Buddha himself, which, at least in the Pali canon, is considered as the most direct path to realization (however note that the term 'direct path' is used differently by me in my e-book).As a side-topic:If there is no existent self, or a soul, how does it fit in with Buddhist doctrines like rebirth? Or even more simply (for those who don't believe in rebirth), how does feeling, sensing, perceiving happen, without an existent self?The Buddha's answer to this is direct, simple, yet profound. He explains this through dependent origination:
"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.'"The same would apply for rebirth, which actually is a term for the continuity of a causal/karmic process and not of a self-entity.Who is reborn is asked falsely, as the Buddha did not say 'he reborns'. The corect way to ask would be, 'What is the condition for birth?' And to that the correct reply is: 'with ignorance as condition i.e. false view and clinging to a self, birth arises'. The next birth is neither the same nor different from a previous birth in the same way that the flame of a newly lighted candle is neither same nor different from the previous candle, being merely a process of causal continuity instead of the passing on of an unchanging soul-entity.As we can see, Dependent Origination only truly makes sense when we are not obscured by self-view. Before the realization of Anatta, D.O. can be grasped intellectually, but not fully actualized due to dualistic view, and therefore cannot be fully appreciated. Hence to realize D.O. we have to realize Anatta, then when everything becomes seen as causal processes, the insight into Shunyata (as in the secondfold emptiness, the emptiness of phenomena) can arise with further contemplations and pointers.
For further reading, see Thusness's article Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
Hi AEN,I can't digest all first... but i would like to ask a few questions... (just in case i got into the extreme views :(
1- non-self is not equal to non-existence of self... non-self doesn't mean self does not exist. right...?
2- If we look into the Buddha's discourses, the Buddha rejected views pertaining not only to the existence of self, but also the non-existence of self, the both existence and non-existence of self, and the neither existence nor non-existence of self. These four extreme positions are utterly rejected by the Buddha
regarding existence of self- can i say existence of self is just temporary...? meaning it still exist but not permanently.
3-Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.
erm.. does it means... when i say something exist, not existing, both exist and not exist, neither exist or non-existing is wrong... it means that once i say either one of them is based(formed) by my mind... because mind is also 1 of the aggregates too....?
Thx...
-
1. Yes, because to assert non-existence, would require the existence of a thing to begin with. It is like saying for something to cease, would require it to arise in the first place. If there isn't a real thing that arose to begin with, how could there be an "it" to go into non-existence? 2. No. There is no existence at all (likewise no non-existents, etc). 3. No, whether it is mind or not, the four extremes don't apply. In other words, matter and mind are empty. Also, matter (rupa) is the first aggregate, the remainding four aggregates are constituents of mind (nama). When the heart sutra say 色�是空，空�是色，it means matter (rupa) is emptiness, emptiness is matter (rupa). When it says �想行识 亦�如是, it means mind is likewise. Mind has the quality of luminous cognizance, whereas matter does not. However the nature of both animate minds and inanimate matter are that they are empty. The label 'self' is simply a convention or label for the dependently originated and everchanging five aggregates, which means no real self can be established in the same way as the word "weather" does not actually refer to any actual, graspable objects, likewise "self" does not refer to an inherent subject but a selfless process of activities.
-
If you can keep on looking at a new-born babe without a break for ten years you will not perceive any change. The baby born at 10 a.m. appears just the same at 11 a.m. or at 12 noon. Each moment shows no difference from the next. One condition merges into the next so imperceptibly. It is a becoming, a continuous process of becoming. Close your eyes to this process and see the baby once a month. then only will you perceive a change. Then only can you speak in terms of "baby" and "boy" and not in terms of a process or a becoming.
The baby boy becomes an old man. They are different. By giving this "person" a name eg. John there is an illusion of an entity. By convention John was born on such a date, he grew old and died on such a date. In reality John the old man was never born, only the baby John. John the baby never died, only the old man John. Will the real John please stand up!
In terms of ultimate truth no one was born and no one died.
Everything is becoming. This is a universal process, a constant flux. It is when we miss the continuity of action that we speak in terms of things (atta/self) rather than processes or becomings.I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Awakened — staying at Uruvela by the banks of the Nerañjara River in the shade of the Bodhi tree, the tree of Awakening — he sat in the shade of the Bodhi tree for seven days in one session, sensitive to the bliss of release. At the end of seven days, after emerging from that concentration, he surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw living beings burning with the many fevers and aflame with the many fires born of passion, aversion, and delusion. Then, on realizing the significance of that, he on that occasion exclaimed:
This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a "self," for by whatever means it construes [anything], that becomes otherwise from that. Becoming otherwise, the world is held by becoming afflicted by becoming and yet delights in that very becoming. Where there's delight, there is fear. What one fears is stressful. This holy life is lived for the abandoning of becoming. -
Well said. :)
-
How about Thanissaro Bhikkhu take on the subject:
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.
To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
-
Yes I read this article since years ago. His article is ok but lacks the description on the realization of anatta. On this aspect, I think Thusness's articles are very clear.