Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I realize that the concept of anatta is something that many people new to Buddhism have a difficult time understanding. It was just recently that I became aware of such a doctrine, as previously I was under the impression that Buddhist teachings were in harmony with the Hindu concept of atman and reincarnation. Since being introduced to the idea of anatta, I've been studying it in-depth, attempting to come to an intellectual understanding of it.

Despite the fact that I've heard many say that trying to understand anatta from a purely intellectual basis is pointless, I've been utterly determined to do so. Fortunately, I believe I've finally come to a fairly good understanding of this originally elusive teaching. I'd like to share my understanding of anatta on this forum so that others more educated on the subject will be able to confirm the correctness of my understanding, or otherwise correct me in my folly.

As I have come to understand anatta, nothing is permanent. Everything begins, changes, and ends. We as individuals are no different in this matter, as we also are impermanent. Nevertheless, before it can be said that I am impermanent, it must first be established what "I" am. Essentially, all I consist of are feelings, perceptions, thoughts, mental processes, etc. Seeing as how these things comprise "me," and also seeing as how these things are always changing and ending, being replaced by new thoughts, new feelings, and new perceptions, then essentially, I am impermanent. Nevertheless, all these thoughts, perceptions, and feelings are connected, as it is from the old thoughts, feelings, and perceptions that the new thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are born.

This is what I believe the Buddha was attempting to communicate when he used the illustration of a single candle lighting other candles. Each flame is connected, as they can all be traced back to the same origin, yet they are nonetheless new and different flames. Therefore, anatta is the doctrine which acknowledges the fact that, seeing as how the things that make us "us" are always changing and ending, we ourselves are therefore always changing and ending, becoming new "selves."

In short, if "the self," or "me" consists of nothing more than thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and mental processes, and these things are continually being replaced by new thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and mental processes, then essentially it is me who is becoming something new, becoming a new "self" over and over again, and therefore, there is no permanence in the "self." Is this view of anatta correct, or am I mistaken?

Hi,

My middle name is Lowell, comes from my grandma's last name on my father's side. Anyway, you may want to read this book, I'm reading it right now and it's quite illuminating...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... stions.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

another link to the same book but with options in the layout of the book...

http://www.dhammatalks.org/skill_in_que ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello Lowell,

Some resources by respected Theras to read:

Anatta or soul-lessness – Narada Thera
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 'notself' nature of "Myself" by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/notself.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris

Lowell wrote:[...] I'd like to share my understanding of anatta on this forum so that others more educated on the subject will be able to confirm the correctness of my understanding, or otherwise correct me in my folly.
[...] Is this view of anatta correct, or am I mistaken?

The essence of your view is correct, and this is my view also. But then I am not that highly educated or experienced about anatta. So let's see what other members say about your view.

(Edited.)

Hi Lowell,

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings on this issue have helped me so much that even just for that alone, he would have my deep gratitude; I recommend these:

No-self or Not-self?: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Not-self Strategy: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kind regards,

manas. _/I\_

Thank you for the responses, everyone! The advise and links provided have certainly proved to be great educational resources. Through all this I've come to the realization that my understanding of anatta possessed one serious flaw, which was the fact that it asserted the five aggregates to have something to do with the self, when in all actuality they don't. Whether or not a self actually exists, that appears to be a question that the Buddha was unwilling to answer directly. Ultimately, there seems to be some speculation over whether or not anatta is an ontological statement of existential truth, or simply a helpful way of looking at things as a strategy for achieving liberation. I suppose the only way to gain a complete understanding of the concept is through the same way the Buddha did.

Thank you again for your help, everyone!

Hi Lowell,

Lowell wrote:Is this view of anatta correct, or am I mistaken?

This view is as useful as it inspires you to practice. Anatta is an experiential change of the mode of perception. Very happy one, I would say, since it relieves suffering.

Bahiya sutta:

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor
yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kalaka sutta:

"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

"When hearing...

"When sensing...

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In practice, this is part of wisdom development, specifically, the 'seven selective recognitions' (satta-sanna)
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 834#p40805" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
described in Chachakka sutta (MN 148).

To discerns the subtle processes of identification, you would require good concentration (samadhi).
And the development of samadhi requires the development of virtue (sila).

Best wishes, Dmytro