• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Have you had any insight into anatta?

DreadFish

DreadFish

Cosmic Vagabond
Yeah, it's relieving and gives a feeling of more space. It's not so suffocating to have thoughts racing through the head or any kind of unpleasant thoughts/emotions/feelings. At this point, there are still plenty of samskaras (impressions/impulses) and I generally just go through with them moderately, but seeing them as simple impressions/impulses makes their pull less strong and greatly lessens any frustration over having them because there is little identification with them. Not really at the point of being able to forgo most of them entirely without discomfort.

The main insight, it really is stressful maintaining the idea of a solid being. It's the ol' ball and chain that nags when it's not satisfied :D

Im looking to get a divorce...
 
Banjankri

Banjankri

Active Member
Spiny Norman said:
what was it like?
Click to expand...
Imperfections are nowhere to be found.
"Cables under my desk are perfectly muddled"; that was my first impression.
Premeditation is gone, and there is no desire to fix anything.
Mental effort is gone, and bringing it back requires great exertion.
Content-wise, it's really empty, but this emptiness has no boundaries like the usual emptiness of...
 
apophenia

apophenia

Well-Known Member
Anatta is really easy to understand and experience - unless wrongly interpreted to mean 'no self'

Which it does not mean !

I am amazed at how persistent this schoolboy error is.

One more time - it means that the collections are not self.

It NEVER meant 'no self', only that the 'collections' are not self.

This is a simple misunderstanding caused by using the interpretation 'no self' rather than 'not self'.

But that misinterpretation has become the foundation of ersatz buddhism.
 
V

von bek

Well-Known Member
The five aggregates represent the totality of the cosmos. Form is not self. Feelings are not self. Perceptions are not self. Volitional formations are not self. Consciousness is not self. You can also break experience down into the sense bases. The eye is not the self, nor are visible objects. The ear is not the self, nor are sounds. The nose is not the self, nor are smells. The tongue is not the self, nor are tastes. The body is not the self, neither are tactile objects. The mind is not the self, nor are mental objects. The Buddha also says that nibbana is not the self. Nothing whatsoever should be clung to as self. As long as there is the production of "I" and "mine", suffering will always be present. This is what the Buddha teaches.

Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence
 
V

von bek

Well-Known Member
The Sabba Sutta, from the Samyutta Nikaya:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Click to expand...

Sabba Sutta: The All
 
V

von bek

Well-Known Member
apophenia said:
Anatta is really easy to understand and experience - unless wrongly interpreted to mean 'no self'

Which it does not mean !

I am amazed at how persistent this schoolboy error is.

One more time - it means that the collections are not self.

It NEVER meant 'no self', only that the 'collections' are not self.

This is a simple misunderstanding caused by using the interpretation 'no self' rather than 'not self'.

But that misinterpretation has become the foundation of ersatz buddhism.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the matter. However, I wish you peace and happiness on your journey. I am trying to limit my participation here on RF to matters of practice while avoiding philosophical issues. I sometimes do a bad job of sticking to my plan! :)

I have one simple question, no challenge is implied. I will not debate what you say, only curious. Do you believe that there is a self that underlies the aggregates?

By the way, I love your avatar picture! It always catches the eye. But, maybe it is just my eyes deceiving me. :)
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
At the moment, with the present knowledge, an 'advaitist' would say yes. But there is so much more to know. It all depends when we find the key to existence of physical energy. When we know how existence differs from non-existence, or it does not. Of course, your question was to Apophenia. Buddham Saranam. :)
 
Srivijaya

Srivijaya

Active Member
Regarding the Self V No Self (or Not Self) debate, the Ananda Sutta nails it:
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda

Anatta is not a metaphysical proposition, it's experiential, which can be a problem for people to accept, as our intellect habitually needs something to play with.

I experienced it as a relinquishment of the stress of 'ownership'. Peaceful and vast; dependent on the degree of relinquishment.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Trying it once again, 'Anatta' is 'not substantial', nothing that can be 'It'. all 'Its' are circumstantial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top