I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
A beginner's understanding
Re: A beginner's understanding
That is indeed a correct understanding of Dhamma.
Re: A beginner's understanding
I think your understanding is technically correct for the time being.Josaphat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:59 am I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
Start following the Noble Eightfold Path and hopefully you will understand this from your own experience.
Anatta and Nibbana are the hardest to understand in Buddhism by logic.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: A beginner's understanding
You have phrased it very well, Josaphat! I'm very impressed. Don't worry too much about full understanding, as others have said, it is one of the most difficult concepts in the Buddha's teaching, largely because it goes against so many of our ingrained conceptions. Be patient, and fuller understanding will come.
Re: A beginner's understanding
No.
Not self is not a doctrine like a principle you choose to embrace. Not self is one of the deepest understandings one can achieve by following the Buddha's instructions fully, this means you have to behave impeccably and you have to learn and get to understand.
This illusory self is a doctrine and this kind of attachment should be abandoned. But there are other kinds of non-attachments pursued by the followers of the Buddha, like the sensual pleasures kind of non attachment and the doctrines or views kind of non attachment, and the rules and vows kind of non attachment. And I think the goal of buddhist mediattion is finding understanding not "let go of one's attachment to this illusory self"
There is becoming and rebirth when there is attachment. And why there's attachment? Because there's craving for sensual pleasures or for existence (or for non-existence). And why there's craving? Because of not understanding. Not understanding leads to take what is impermanent and suffering and unsatisfactory as permanent and happiness and satisfactory.
So, you mean it doesn't exist?
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: A beginner's understanding
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall (and broke into 5 heaps)
All the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
At Savatthi. "Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. [1] Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.
"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden.
"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the taking up of the burden.
"And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. This is called the casting off of the burden."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:12 pm
Re: A beginner's understanding
What you say about anatta seems very correct to me, in the end I would put a small nuance (just in case, since it is a common misconception, I don't know if it is your case).Josaphat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:59 am I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
The noble eightfold path is the way to cease suffering, and meditation (sitting meditation) is only one branch of the path, all the path works together to realize anatta. (don't make the mistake of thinking, like me at the beginning, that Buddhism is meditation and progress is only made by meditating), sila, samadhi, pañña (virtue, meditation, wisdom) should work together for progress, no progress with only a branch.
Re: A beginner's understanding
I think much emphasis is put on “realizing” anatta.
It’s really not hard to realize and “realizing” anatta is not the goal of Buddhism - any more than realizing anicca and dukkha are the “goals” of Buddhism.
The Buddha stated in his first noble truth that “life is dukkha.”
That, seems to be the preeminent discovery for us. Realizing anicca is even more rudimentary.
Is form permanent or impermanent? Impermanent.
Is that which is impermanent suffering or ease? Suffering.
Is it “appropriate” to call that which is impermanent and suffering “Self”? No, Lord.
That is, really, how the concept gets discussed in Buddhism. These wild extrapolations about “not-self” and how we are not-self and do not experience the suffering we experience. And how we must understand not-self so that not-self will set us free from samsara … etcetera … it’s all missing the point.
The point is: dukkha SUCKS. Anicca SUCKS. And “not-self” sucks. We MISTAKE our existence for the opposite of these when really it is these marks that condition our being. Knowing that is a step to having right view.
Here I would agree with others that having this knowledge of right view ultimately shapes right Concentration. But the idea of acquiring “not-self” as one’s fundamental insight is as absurd as acquiring “suffering” or “impermanence” as one’s fundamental insight. The insight is that craving conditions the continual renewal of these marks. The insight is that by abandoning craving we abandon suffering. The goal is to ABANDON not-self. The goal is not to acquire liberation of not-self through insight into it.
As I said, understanding not self shapes right view. Effort, Mindfulness, and Concentration are ultimately shaped by a kind of disenchantment with the marks, not an ultimate understanding of them. In and of itself “not-self” is a property of suffering; not a liberation from it.
It’s really not hard to realize and “realizing” anatta is not the goal of Buddhism - any more than realizing anicca and dukkha are the “goals” of Buddhism.
The Buddha stated in his first noble truth that “life is dukkha.”
That, seems to be the preeminent discovery for us. Realizing anicca is even more rudimentary.
Is form permanent or impermanent? Impermanent.
Is that which is impermanent suffering or ease? Suffering.
Is it “appropriate” to call that which is impermanent and suffering “Self”? No, Lord.
That is, really, how the concept gets discussed in Buddhism. These wild extrapolations about “not-self” and how we are not-self and do not experience the suffering we experience. And how we must understand not-self so that not-self will set us free from samsara … etcetera … it’s all missing the point.
The point is: dukkha SUCKS. Anicca SUCKS. And “not-self” sucks. We MISTAKE our existence for the opposite of these when really it is these marks that condition our being. Knowing that is a step to having right view.
Here I would agree with others that having this knowledge of right view ultimately shapes right Concentration. But the idea of acquiring “not-self” as one’s fundamental insight is as absurd as acquiring “suffering” or “impermanence” as one’s fundamental insight. The insight is that craving conditions the continual renewal of these marks. The insight is that by abandoning craving we abandon suffering. The goal is to ABANDON not-self. The goal is not to acquire liberation of not-self through insight into it.
As I said, understanding not self shapes right view. Effort, Mindfulness, and Concentration are ultimately shaped by a kind of disenchantment with the marks, not an ultimate understanding of them. In and of itself “not-self” is a property of suffering; not a liberation from it.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Re: A beginner's understanding
Josaphat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:59 am I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
Looks to me like a first step into the right direction of understanding.
A more developed understanding of anatta is beyond questions about the nature of a self (real, not real, illusion, no illusion, existent, non existend ...), although you can find thoughts and declarations of that kind of sort within the texts of the palicanon.
It is more about the understanding of the shankaras, that includes: perceptions, consciousness, feelings - all of those one can recognize as not self, that means one can recognize all of them bound to a certain citta - arisen in dependance of a certain citta.
Re: A beginner's understanding
What is the certain citta?
Re: A beginner's understanding
That is correct. Five aggregates are impermanent, therefore they are bound to sufferings. Since these aggregates impermanent and suffering due to the change, on what basis we say:"This is me, mine and my Self"?Josaphat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:59 am I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
Certainly, all five aggregates are not me, not mine, and not my Self.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: A beginner's understanding
Ontheway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:26 amJosaphat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:59 am I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
Certainly, all five aggregates are not me, not mine, and not my Self.
Are you certain/aware of that in every moment? I would say its a helpful practise to try to recognize this way, depending on the object of course. Surely the willpower to overcome bad habits for example should be seen and of course should be feeled as 'mine', wouldnt you say?
Just wanted to point out a maybe hindering idea (all five aggreates are (!) not mine) to which one can cling as well, and this of course in a unwholysome way too.
Re: A beginner's understanding
All five aggregates are impermanent, suffering, and not me, mine or my self.pops wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 7:20 pmOntheway wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:26 amJosaphat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 3:59 am I am a recent convert to Buddhism and I have been trying to wrap my head around the essential teachings as best I can. The doctrine I am having most difficulty with is that of anatta. From what I understand this means that the five aggregates are both impermanent and unsatisfactory and by mistaking them for a substantial self we continue the cycle of rebirth. Words like I, mine and myself are a useful way of referring to something that only seems to exist. In much the same way that the word chariot refers not to an actual thing, but a collection of interdependent parts. To let go of one's attachment to this illusory self is the goal of Buddhist meditation.
Is this similar to your understanding? If not where did I go wrong?
Certainly, all five aggregates are not me, not mine, and not my Self.
Are you certain/aware of that in every moment? I would say its a helpful practise to try to recognize this way, depending on the object of course. Surely the willpower to overcome bad habits for example should be seen and of course should be feeled as 'mine', wouldnt you say?
Just wanted to point out a maybe hindering idea (all five aggreates are (!) not mine) to which one can cling as well, and this of course in a unwholysome way too.
No exception.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: A beginner's understanding
obviously one must say so. But for what reason? Is it based on own insight, can it therefore stand as a suggestion out of compassion for others to change their way of thinking and acting and craving ?
I say it is at least a suggestion Buddha (!) gave his monks and nuns. To try to perceive this way, to try to understand - to try to be aware of annica, dukkha and anatta. Of course he thereby meant all shankaras, whereas in other contexts he encouraged to pursue and strengthen wholesome habits/ways of thinking. And that one can see as an encouragement to make something ones own.
I know its Theravadin Doctrine, and of course there is some motivation to present them. I am not here to engange in discussing the worth of doctrines/the worth of strong rules of thinking and declaring. Instead, for example, I would also encourage to try to perceive this way, especially in regard to anger and the darker forms of greed.
I say it is at least a suggestion Buddha (!) gave his monks and nuns. To try to perceive this way, to try to understand - to try to be aware of annica, dukkha and anatta. Of course he thereby meant all shankaras, whereas in other contexts he encouraged to pursue and strengthen wholesome habits/ways of thinking. And that one can see as an encouragement to make something ones own.
I know its Theravadin Doctrine, and of course there is some motivation to present them. I am not here to engange in discussing the worth of doctrines/the worth of strong rules of thinking and declaring. Instead, for example, I would also encourage to try to perceive this way, especially in regard to anger and the darker forms of greed.
Last edited by pops on Sun Jan 22, 2023 5:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.