How does one observe the characteristic of anatta (notself)?

[Shonin]

You missed the Pali Canon class? It was quite a class.

[termite]

Greetings Termite,

"Direct observation" is anatta. There is no observer present.

Sure, all dhammas are anatta and that includes perception itself... but that doesn't mean that perception is perceived as being anatta. If it were always perceived as such, we would be enlightened.

Metta,
Retro.

I may be confused about the topic. We were talking about direct perception, weren't we?

If "observation" is not anatta, it is not "direct."

[TTT]

sorry to ask but whant is direct preception?

I have no clue.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Termite,

I may be confused about the topic. We were talking about direct perception, weren't we?

It's about whether direct observation of the anatta characteristic is even possible, or whether it has to be perceived indirectly via direct observation of dukkha or anicca, at which point anatta becomes known via inference.

We could ask the question "Is direct observation of emptiness possible, or it is perceived indirectly via direct observation of impermanence" in the one of the Zen areas of this forum, and I'm sure that would be quite interesting. When you "just sit" are you observing emptiness directly, or inferring (imagining?) it based on an observation of impermanence? I'm inclined to think these are pretty important questions - I may be wrong.

If "observation" is not anatta, it is not "direct."

Since all dhammas are not self (including those in perception/cognition aggregate), it goes without saying that is it anatta. Even a false perception of atman is anatta!

Metta,
Retro.

[Kojip]

Anatta is an antidote to Atta. Since we begin with the assumption of Atta we need the antidote of Anatta. Once the antidote has been effectively appplied it dissolves along with Atta. The result is not reducible to Atta or Anatta, Self or absence of Self. Personally (no pun intended) I prefer the interpretation as "No-Self" rather than "Not-Self". Not Self is prone to subtle eternalism ( this is not Self therefore...). Within the Theravada there are different usages.

[MattJ]

My approach is very simple. It must be, because meditation turns us into idiots.

I look at something and ask: is this me? If I am looking at it, I know that it cannot be me; just as the eye cannot see the eye.

Is this beneficial? Yes. Because if it isn't me, then it makes it easier to put down.

[Dan74]

Greetings Termite,

I may be confused about the topic. We were talking about direct perception, weren't we?

It's about whether direct observation of the anatta characteristic is even possible, or whether it has to be perceived indirectly via direct observation of dukkha or anicca, at which point anatta becomes known via inference.

We could ask the question "Is direct observation of emptiness possible, or it is perceived indirectly via direct observation of impermanence" in the one of the Zen areas of this forum, and I'm sure that would be quite interesting. When you "just sit" are you observing emptiness directly, or inferring (imagining?) it based on an observation of impermanence? I'm inclined to think these are pretty important questions - I may be wrong.

If "observation" is not anatta, it is not "direct."

Since all dhammas are not self (including those in perception/cognition aggregate), it goes without saying that is it anatta. Even a false perception of atman is anatta!

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Paul

Well how can you observe anatta? Who would be observing? There can be a realization of anatta, but no one realizing it. To say "I have observed anatta" is an oxymoron, isn't it? Once anatta is realized the entire premise of the one who realizes anything is demolished and is subsequently used only for convenience, for want of a better way.

Still we can get an inkling of anatta in different ways when we observe some identifications dissolve or fall by the wayside. But for as long as we observe, there is an observer, ie a sense of self.

When I sit and there is a letting go a lot of the reification dissolves and there is a sense of the world as being much much closer. People speak of no separation, no barrier between self and other, because the self is not at the forefront. I don't think this is emptiness yet. When there is a realization of emptiness, there is no concrete reality anymore, only a flux of ever-changing phenomena dependently arising every moment, changing every moment. And there is nothing else, no "one" looking on. It's a completely transformed way of seeing with every moment amazingly spacious and vibrant.

Tends to take patience, perseverance and a balance of alert attention and letting go. (Me to myself: Thanks for the reminder, Dan!)

_/|\_

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

Well how can you observe anatta?

Exactly, I don't think you can. I think the anatta characteristic is super-imposed in the process of perception.

Who would be observing? There can be a realization of anatta, but no one realizing it.

Sure. I don't think a self which does the observing needs to be added to the equation - I was already assuming its absence. There can be action without an actor... there can be perception without a perceiver... seeing without a seer, and so on.

Even when there is just "seeing", there still has to be the "seen" (i.e. the visual form), even if no "seer" is assumed. How is the anatta characteristic of a visual form ("seen") or the act of "seeing" to be known? Is there something about the visual forms or the act of seeing which is discernibly anatta, or is anatta inferred or perceived, based on the observation of impermanence in the changing visual form?

But for as long as we observe, there is an observer, ie a sense of self.

There may be a perception of self, but that perception is obviously false, and conditioned by ignorance. That is why it is more useful to perceive in terms of "perceiving" rather the "perceiver"... the point being that these are modes of perception, conditioned by something (either wisdom or ignorance)... they are not raw, unprocessed characteristics.

Apologies if that seems a little obscure, but I believe it is deep in the foundations of nama-rupa in which the untangling needs to take place.

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

How is the anatta characteristic of a visual form ("seen") or the act of "seeing" to be known? Is there something about the visual forms or the act of seeing which is discernibly anatta, or is anatta inferred or perceived, based on the observation of impermanence in the changing visual form?

This is a question worth coming back to perhaps, but the immediate response is that when the form (sensation, perception, mental formation and consciousness) is left just as it is, anatta is immediate. In other words, anatta is lost when the deluded notion of observer begins to reify them as objects and believe them to permanent and then to desire the form (sensation, perception, mental formation and consciousness) and identify with them. Otherwise everything is just brilliantly anatta just as it is, ever-changing and dependently arisen, and empty in and of themselves, coming together from causes and conditions and likewise dissolving...



Hopefully someone will supply a real Zen answer.

_/|\_

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

Do you understand anatta to be a mode or flavour of experience, then?

Slightly related question, if that's what you take anatta (not-self) to be, then how do you interpret the term anattata (not-self-ness).

Hopefully someone will supply a real Zen answer.

That would indeed be cool... I only put this topic into this section so that both Theravada and Zen perspectives on this question could be discussed and compared on a level playing field without one necessarily trumping the other because of the forum/sub-forum we're in.

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

Greetings Dan,

Do you understand anatta to be a mode or flavour of experience, then?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Anatta (emptiness, dependent origination) are descriptions pointing to the way it is.

"A mode or flavour of experience" suggests a concrete characteristic of something that can be perceived or apprehended (experience) and there is neither anything concrete there, nor anything to be apprehended.

Following Madhyamaka it is about removing incorrect notions than positing some new ones. Suchness is suchness is empty = anattata. Beyond that we get further away from it and into philosophical games, I feel. Maybe you can say that anattata is fundamental but that's reifying it as something. There is nothing that can be grasped and all the teachings are exhortations to us to let go of all the grasping in the fundamental sense of the word.

Don't know if this is of any help. I probably missed the point of what you were asking.

_/|\_

PS Needless to say this is not how it is 99.9% of the time for me.

Slightly related question, if that's what you take anatta (not-self) to be, then how do you interpret the term anattata (not-self-ness).

Hopefully someone will supply a real Zen answer.

That would indeed be cool... I only put this topic into this section so that both Theravada and Zen perspectives on this question could be discussed and compared on a level playing field without one necessarily trumping the other because of the forum/sub-forum we're in.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

"A mode or flavour of experience" suggests a concrete characteristic of something that can be perceived or apprehended (experience) and there is neither anything concrete there, nor anything to be apprehended.

Not really. A mode of experience could be "drunk" or "beer goggles", but that doesn't necessitate anything concrete or reified... only the way in which the raw sense data experienced at the sense doors through contact, come to be perceived. By way of analogy, think of those pictures that depending how you look at them, are actually a different thing... same sense data, different perception. That's why I asked if you see anatta to be a mode of experience... a filter, or frame of reference, by which raw sense data is processed.

Following Madhyamaka it is about removing incorrect notions than positing some new ones. Suchness is suchness is empty = anattata. Beyond that we get further away from it and into philosophical games, I feel. Maybe you can say that anattata is fundamental but that's reifying it as something. There is nothing that can be grasped and all the teachings are exhortations to us to let go of all the grasping in the fundamental sense of the word.

Yes, but knowing how to let go is the tricky part isn't it? That's what I feel the Buddha was trying to teach us when he undertook detailed analysis on sense bases, aggregates, dependent origination. Not for the purposes of reification but to make sense of what is experienced and allow it to be dissected and dismantled as inherent of self.

I won't comment on whether Madhyamaka methods assist in this pursuit or not. However, here's a brief extract from Analayo's text on Satipatthana (p. 262) which talks about where this path of observation needs to ultimately lead if we are to attain nibbana (bolding for emphasis).

"Unity, in terms of subjective experience, entails a merging of the subject with the object. Experiences of this kind are often the outcome of deep levels of concentration. Nibbana, on the other hand, entails a complete giving up of both subject and object, not a merger of the two. Such an experience constitutes an "escape" from the entire field of cognition. Although nibbana partakes of non-duality in so far as it has no counterpart, its implications nevertheless go beyond experiences of oneness or unity."

"[In S II 77]... the Buddha rejected the view "all is one" as one of the extremes to be avoided."

Whether it's just the way people explain it sometimes, but often it seems that sometimes people forsake the Buddha's frames of reference for such an "all is one" philosophy, supposedly justified by the teaching of sunnata. I don't know - I can only say how it appears from my own understanding, which is obviously rooted in the Sutta Pitaka, rather than Madhyamaka or Zen.

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

That's why I asked if you see anatta to be a mode of experience... a filter, or frame of reference, by which raw sense data is processed.

I would say rather that it is what is when all filters and frames of reference are let gone of.

Yes, but knowing how to let go is the tricky part isn't it?

When I am there, I will be sure to let you know!

That's what I feel the Buddha was trying to teach us when he undertook detailed analysis on sense bases, aggregates, dependent origination. Not for the purposes of reification but to make sense of what is experienced and allow it to be dissected and dismantled as inherent of self.

My guess is that he taught this to undermine people's incorrect beliefs and to get them to inquire and experience what actually is. But I could be wrong. I can't see how one can reason one's way out of delusion but logical analysis could be like the end of the thread of a yarn of wool to unravel the whole charade.

Your quote sounds right on the point to me.

"All is one" is at best a provisional stage in Zen. There is a koan "All returns to One. But what does One return to." And "No mind, no Buddha." To me they are saying the same thing as your quote.

Letting go is indeed tricky when what we are used to is grasping and holding on.

Hmmm....

_/|\_

PS Hopefully OmegA can contribute - I am certainly out of my depth both in terms of scholarship and experience. Should've kept quiet...

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

I would say rather that it is what is when all filters and frames of reference are let gone of.

To me, the term "vipassana" (seeing things as they really are) is close to what you're saying, except that involves seeing with wisdom (i.e. seeing in accordance with Right View) rather than seeing without any frames of reference whatsoever. By your logic, you could almost argue that a baby or a sleeping dog was enlightened!

To me, anatta just means "not-self". Whatever you could conceive or experience is "not-self"... so it's about (non-reified) dhammas, rather than "seeing things as they really are". All dhammas are anatta, whether there is anyone there to perceive them as such, or otherwise.

What's that old koan, when a tree falls and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?...



Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

Greetings Dan,

I would say rather that it is what is when all filters and frames of reference are let gone of.

To me, the term "vipassana" (seeing things as they really are) is close to what you're saying, except that involves seeing with wisdom (i.e. seeing in accordance with Right View) rather than seeing without any frames of reference whatsoever. By your logic, you could almost argue that a baby or a sleeping dog was enlightened!

Well, what is seeing with Wisdom? I thought Right View is that which leads to the end of craving, so letting go of frames of reference includes the reference of that which is pleasant to me, that which is related to me, in such and such way, etc. So no frame of reference mean a lot has been let gone of, basically the delusory construct of self and relating everything to it, that's all gone.

A baby would at times have very pure vision and in that sense perceiving anatta (there is not much atta there to speak of) but there may still be a lot of craving and insecurity there, so there are still frames of reference (breast? no breast? fear? safe? etc)

Not sure what you meant with a sleeping dog. An animal would perceive the world very much in relation to its needs. It's frame of reference is quite fixed.

To me, anatta just means "not-self". Whatever you could conceive or experience is "not-self"... so it's about (non-reified) dhammas, rather than "seeing things as they really are". All dhammas are anatta, whether there is anyone there to perceive them as such, or otherwise.

Seeing things as they really are is seeing non-reified dhammas, how else could it be? I am not getting the distinction you are making here.

Or maybe you are postulating objective world with its characteristics, dhammas "out there"? To me that's speculative (there is objective reality vs there isn't) and has nothing to do with practice.

What's that old koan, when a tree falls and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?...



Metta,
Retro.

That's Bishop Berkeley, rather than a koan, but a good question nevertheless (still it's speculative just like the above). Here's Ronald Knox's summary of Berkeley's treatment of it:

there was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

_/|\_

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

Looks like we're having a bit of language disconnect, but that's OK.

When I speak of "frames of reference" I was speaking about satipatthana rather than self-view, though to be sure, self-view is a frame of reference too, albeit an ignorant one.

Or maybe you are postulating objective world with its characteristics, dhammas "out there"?

The dhammas I were referring to are those of the five aggregates, the six sense bases and so on.

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

Uh-oh! Sorry...

I had a feeling we had our wires crossed. I can barely keep up with your Pali terminology and as for terms like "frames of reference" I took them in a conventional sense.

Not sure what we've been talking about anymore but will give it another look later!

_/|\_

[just]

By your logic, you could almost argue that a baby or a sleeping dog was enlightened!

Beautiful! Great statement!
But see it this way:
Without logic and argument, is the sleeping dog enlightened?
Will he ever realize the non self nature of being?

But anatta will never be deduced by logic.
Better sleep on it.
Wouff!!

[Carol]

In Zen we "observe the characteristic of anatta" simply by observing the self. Linji (Rinzai) said: "Upon the lump of red flesh there is a true person of no rank, ceaselessly going in and out of the gates of your face. For those who have not recognized him yet, look, look!"

[Shonin]

You sure got you're money's worth out of that quote Carol! Good for you - it's quite a remarkable passage. My teacher shared it with us at a sesshin weekend before last.