Is this an ok definition of anatta?

[salty-J]

the Buddhist teaching of “anatta”, or non-self, which teaches there exists no separate self that truly “is” a thing as we perceive it, but that everything and everyone is a combination of various components, the way they are because of causes and conditions, that give the illusion of having a separate “self”.
I am writing a paper for art 1 at school and am making the argument that the pointillism technique of Georges Seurat illustrates the doctrine of anatta, and wanted to try and get some feedback from some of you who are qualified to judge my definition above.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

That looks OK. A minor point might be to focus, as the Buddha does, on 'experience' and not whether something 'exists' or 'does not exist'. The five aggregates are the sum of experience, and all aspects of experience are not-self, impermanent, and unsatisfactory. The Middle Way of the Buddha transcends notions of 'existence' and 'non-existence' (see SN 12.15 for details).

Metta,
Retro.

[OcTavO]

That's an interesting analogy to pointillism. I like it.

You may find this link of interest also, in case you haven't already seen it before: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html

[mikenz66]

Hi Salty,

If you have time you might have a listen to some of Steve Armstrong's talks here:
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/170/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The talk: "Not Who I Am" - Anatta Characteristic
I believe should contain a simile that he often uses that is rather similar to yours, but using a woven picture, rather than a piontillist picture. It may give you some inspiration...

If it's not that it would be one of the older talks involving anatta...

Mike

[salty-J]

thank you, gentlemen! I did go with "not-self" as opposed to no-self, like the link talks about, but I see the point about existing and what does or does not! Thank you so much!
I changed it like this:
the Buddhist teaching of anatta, or “not-self”, which says there can not be found any separate self that truly “is” a thing as we perceive it, but that everything and everyone is a combination of various components, the way they are due to causes and conditions, which form the illusion of a separate “self”.

[DNS]

I am writing a paper for art 1 at school and am making the argument that the pointillism technique of Georges Seurat illustrates the doctrine of anatta,

I like it, it sounds like an analogy for the chariot story, originally from the bhikkhuni Vajjira and then later in detail by Nagasena. See:

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Anatta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;