Why exactly does realization of Anatta/Impermanence lead to the cessation of suffering?

[punkdbass]

So recently I've been reading Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, and thoughout the book the author often asserts that realization of Anatta/Impermanence (i.e. that nothing inherently exists) results in the cessation of suffering. I don't have the book on me so unfortunately I can't offer any exact quotes. And I will also say that nearly every book I've read on Buddhism also asserts this teaching, but it really hasn't been until now that I've began to seriously contemplate it.

But I've been pondering this saying today, and I think I understand what he means, although I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts here. This is what I think he means: since nothing inherently exists, there is no need to cling or get attached to things since everything is impermanent. Once you realize this, whatever you fear or are afraid of, whatever makes you sad, you no longer have to suffer from these things because now you realize that what you fear does not inherently exist. What makes you sad, does not inherently exist. It is just a wave, an ebb and flow. You can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," so there is no need to cling. Let me illustrate with a rather basic example:

Suppose on my walk to class, it is down-pouring cold rain. Now, if I am not mindful, I may become attached to this feeling and react negatively, expressing my discomfort with the cold rain. However, if I have realized the truth of anatta/impermanence, I can react mindfully and know with confidence that this "discomfort from the cold rain" is impermanent, it does not inherently exist. I can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," and thus there is no need for me to cling to the negative feelings towards the cold rain, rather I can experience the feeling of the cold rain for what it is, in the moment.

I know this is a rather trivial example, but the same logic can be applied to more serious cases of suffering: such as sickness, broken hearts, loss of possessions or loved ones, etc. What do you think?

 

[LuisDantas]

A more subtle yet perhaps important example is the attachment to things related to one's sense of identity, such as a surname or a nationality - or even a favorite sports team.

Quite a few of our worries are related to the need to "defend" what amounts to a perception of importance.

 

[DreadFish]

Zen Mind is a great book. That was my first exposure to Buddhism, in general.

This is my personal understanding, based on what i've read and experienced.
The realization of anatta and dependent origination go hand-in-hand. No things have inherent identity because all things are defined through their relation to other things. Thus, there are no "things" there are just kaleidoscopic appearances of things in the interrelation of various things going on.

All stress and discontent seem to originate in the investment in our own identity. If all other things only appear and are not really there, our personality is the same; it's just another one of the myriad things, in flux, changing in relation to other things changing. I think it all comes down to realizing that you are not the ego self. The five aggregates: forms, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness, are not my self, they do not belong to myself, they are not what I am.

If there is nothing that is you or belongs to you, there is no reason to be upset by any of it. The problem is the stress of maintaining a solid "me" where there is not one and we always impute that "me" on conditioned object phenomena that are always in flux and changing.

 

[DreadFish]

There is a sutta somewhere in the Pali canon where the Buddha states something about how "a sage at rest" does not think "I am this, I was this, I will be this" etc..

 

[Sees]

I think of it very simply as understanding and accepting change. How optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral towards this varies a lot.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I let things be simply true with all the complaints, swearing, bemoaning, and whatever discomforts cold rain brings. I gave up artificially hiding my frustrations and let everything play out to it's natural conclusion like the rain itself.
Then it's done. Just that. :0)

 

[crossfire]

There is a sutta somewhere in the Pali canon where the Buddha states something about how "a sage at rest" does not think "I am this, I was this, I will be this" etc..

This one?
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

 

[DreadFish]

This one?
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

Not sure that's it; I specifically remember the whole "sage at rest" thing. Im pretty sure I read it on access to insight, so it's not just a translation difference.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

So recently I've been reading Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, and thoughout the book the author often asserts that realization of Anatta/Impermanence (i.e. that nothing inherently exists) results in the cessation of suffering. I don't have the book on me so unfortunately I can't offer any exact quotes. And I will also say that nearly every book I've read on Buddhism also asserts this teaching, but it really hasn't been until now that I've began to seriously contemplate it.

But I've been pondering this saying today, and I think I understand what he means, although I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts here. This is what I think he means: since nothing inherently exists, there is no need to cling or get attached to things since everything is impermanent. Once you realize this, whatever you fear or are afraid of, whatever makes you sad, you no longer have to suffer from these things because now you realize that what you fear does not inherently exist. What makes you sad, does not inherently exist. It is just a wave, an ebb and flow. You can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," so there is no need to cling. Let me illustrate with a rather basic example:

Suppose on my walk to class, it is down-pouring cold rain. Now, if I am not mindful, I may become attached to this feeling and react negatively, expressing my discomfort with the cold rain. However, if I have realized the truth of anatta/impermanence, I can react mindfully and know with confidence that this "discomfort from the cold rain" is impermanent, it does not inherently exist. I can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," and thus there is no need for me to cling to the negative feelings towards the cold rain, rather I can experience the feeling of the cold rain for what it is, in the moment.

I know this is a rather trivial example, but the same logic can be applied to more serious cases of suffering: such as sickness, broken hearts, loss of possessions or loved ones, etc. What do you think?

There's nothing to add. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Ablaze]

Not sure that's it; I specifically remember the whole "sage at rest" thing. Im pretty sure I read it on access to insight, so it's not just a translation difference.

This.

"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."

Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta (MN 140)

 

[Ablaze]

So recently I've been reading Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, and thoughout the book the author often asserts that realization of Anatta/Impermanence (i.e. that nothing inherently exists) results in the cessation of suffering. I don't have the book on me so unfortunately I can't offer any exact quotes. And I will also say that nearly every book I've read on Buddhism also asserts this teaching, but it really hasn't been until now that I've began to seriously contemplate it.

But I've been pondering this saying today, and I think I understand what he means, although I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts here. This is what I think he means: since nothing inherently exists, there is no need to cling or get attached to things since everything is impermanent. Once you realize this, whatever you fear or are afraid of, whatever makes you sad, you no longer have to suffer from these things because now you realize that what you fear does not inherently exist. What makes you sad, does not inherently exist. It is just a wave, an ebb and flow. You can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," so there is no need to cling. Let me illustrate with a rather basic example:

Suppose on my walk to class, it is down-pouring cold rain. Now, if I am not mindful, I may become attached to this feeling and react negatively, expressing my discomfort with the cold rain. However, if I have realized the truth of anatta/impermanence, I can react mindfully and know with confidence that this "discomfort from the cold rain" is impermanent, it does not inherently exist. I can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," and thus there is no need for me to cling to the negative feelings towards the cold rain, rather I can experience the feeling of the cold rain for what it is, in the moment.

I know this is a rather trivial example, but the same logic can be applied to more serious cases of suffering: such as sickness, broken hearts, loss of possessions or loved ones, etc. What do you think?

Some of the Buddha's last words (in fact, his dying words) were, "aniccā vata saṅkhārā, uppādavayadhammino, uppajjitvā nirujjhanti tesaṃ vūpasamo sukho," meaning "all things are impermanent, they arise and they pass away, to be in harmony with this truth brings great happiness."

Seeing the transitivity of all experience, both pleasant and unpleasant, enables us to let go, to stop grasping, to loosen our grip, and to thus experience the immense relief and expansiveness that accompanies this realization.

 

[Ekanta]

Some of the Buddha's last words (in fact, his dying words) were, "aniccā vata saṅkhārā, uppādavayadhammino, uppajjitvā nirujjhanti tesaṃ vūpasamo sukho," meaning "all things are impermanent, they arise and they pass away, to be in harmony with this truth brings great happiness."

Seeing the transitivity of all experience, both pleasant and unpleasant, enables us to let go, to stop grasping, to loosen our grip, and to thus experience the immense relief and expansiveness that accompanies this realization.

FAIL!
The correct translation is:
"Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."

Aniccā impermanent
sabbe all
saṅkhārā contructs

 

[von bek]

FAIL!
The correct translation is:
"Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."

Aniccā impermanent
sabbe all
saṅkhārā contructs

The atman you are so attached to is one of those sankharas. A compounded thing, a fabrication. This is what Buddhism teaches and has taught for 2500 years. You may disagree with the teaching of anatta, that is one thing. But, to continue insisting that this teaching is a forgery inserted into the tradition at a later date without any evidence of when this slander would have actually occurred is tiresome. Anatta is a distinctive and counter-intuitive idea. It is incredibly difficult to imagine that the Buddha did not really teach such an idea, but instead someone else came up with the innovation and decided to pretend that the Buddha taught it. Apparently, no monk challenged this deception. We have the writings of Hindu teachers who debated Buddhist monks. The Hindus at that time understood exactly what the Buddhists were saying, that is why they disagreed. Follow their lead if you want to critique the idea, do not distort what the Buddha taught to make it agree with the opinion you already have. It would be like if you were debating a Muslim over whether there is only one god. To argue that there are many gods is one thing, it is quite another to tell that Muslim that Muhammad himself taught multiple gods...

 

[Ekanta]

The atman you are so attached to is one of those sankharas. A compounded thing, a fabrication. This is what Buddhism teaches and has taught for 2500 years. You may disagree with the teaching of anatta, that is one thing. But, to continue insisting that this teaching is a forgery inserted into the tradition at a later date without any evidence of when this slander would have actually occurred is tiresome. Anatta is a distinctive and counter-intuitive idea. It is incredibly difficult to imagine that the Buddha did not really teach such an idea, but instead someone else came up with the innovation and decided to pretend that the Buddha taught it. Apparently, no monk challenged this deception. We have the writings of Hindu teachers who debated Buddhist monks. The Hindus at that time understood exactly what the Buddhists were saying, that is why they disagreed. Follow their lead if you want to critique the idea, do not distort what the Buddha taught to make it agree with the opinion you already have. It would be like if you were debating a Muslim over whether there is only one god. To argue that there are many gods is one thing, it is quite another to tell that Muslim that Muhammad himself taught multiple gods...

What I marked above in blue is just plain lies, I never said that. And the rest is nonsense.

 

[von bek]

What I marked above in blue is just plain lies, I never said that. And the rest is nonsense.

Then, what is your explanation for the introduction of anatta into Buddhism? It has to have a source. When you deny the Buddha taught it, you imply someone else did. What part was nonsense? That Hindus debated Buddhists in India?

 

[Ablaze]

FAIL!
The correct translation is:
"Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."

Aniccā impermanent
sabbe all
saṅkhārā contructs

Relax.

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā = all conditioned things are impermanent
Sabbe dhamma anattā = all things (both conditioned and unconditioned) are not self

:namaste

 

[DreadFish]

This.

That'd be it

 

[Ekanta]

Then, what is your explanation for the introduction of anatta into Buddhism? It has to have a source. When you deny the Buddha taught it, you imply someone else did. What part was nonsense? That Hindus debated Buddhists in India?

LOOK --> The good old Buddha taught anatta from the beginning and no one introduced it into buddhism.

Buddha said that the five aggregates/skandhas (body, feelings, perceptions, habits, thinking consciousness) "that is not my self" (na me so atta).

"The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha, unsatisfactory; whatever is dukkha, that is without attaa, self. What is without self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. "
The Three Basic Facts of Existence: I. Impermanence (Anicca)

Both Theravada, Vajrayana and Mahayana agree with this (perhaps there is/was some strange sect which didnt but I leave them out for now).

Some buddhist interpreted the above as there is "no-self" and others as a teaching of what is "not-self" (which in all honesty seems to be what Buddha actually said, at least literally).
Then there is the mahayana teaching of Buddha-nature which is interpreted by some as impermanence and by some as a permanent reality beyond the skandhas and thus the essence of all (self/atma, since self means the innermost essence). Now remember, this is not a denial of anatta as explained above since Buddha-nature can be viewed as beyond the 5 skandhas. Even the tripitaka gives room for such an interpretation, there is the classic example:

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3) [Ud 8.3]
"There is, monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned."
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)

-------------
Between, here is a riddle: How can nirvana be permanent if everything is impermanent?

-------------

I will not go into how the hindus debated buddhism, since I havent referred to hinduism and since within hinduism there are several different views on what atman is, like dualists, semi-dualists and non-dualists etc.

 

[DreadFish]

LOOK --> The good old Buddha taught anatta from the beginning and no one introduced it into buddhism.

Buddha said that the five aggregates/skandhas (body, feelings, perceptions, habits, thinking consciousness) "that is not my self" (na me so atta).

"The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha, unsatisfactory; whatever is dukkha, that is without attaa, self. What is without self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. "
The Three Basic Facts of Existence: I. Impermanence (Anicca)

Both Theravada, Vajrayana and Mahayana agree with this (perhaps there is/was some strange sect which didnt but I leave them out for now).

Some buddhist interpreted the above as there is "no-self" and others as a teaching of what is "not-self" (which in all honesty seems to be what Buddha actually said, at least literally).
Then there is the mahayana teaching of Buddha-nature which is interpreted by some as impermanence and by some as a permanent reality beyond the skandhas and thus the essence of all (self/atma, since self means the innermost essence). Now remember, this is not a denial of anatta as explained above since Buddha-nature can be viewed as beyond the 5 skandhas. Even the tripitaka gives room for such an interpretation, there is the classic example:

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3) [Ud 8.3]
"There is, monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned."
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)

-------------
Between, here is a riddle: How can nirvana be permanent if everything is impermanent?

-------------

I will not go into how the hindus debated buddhism, since I havent referred to hinduism and since within hinduism there are several different views on what atman is, like dualists, semi-dualists and non-dualists etc.

Now this makes a bit more sense to me. I am not a scholar, but I have read many people say nirvana =/= atman. I guess the point is the "unborn" thing". I think many of us mistakenly take something that is described as "unborn" as being a thing, but it is not a thing if it is unborn, there is nothing to say about the unborn. I think this goes both ways, as people, usually Buddhists, take atman to be a thing with a static nature when advaita teachers clearly do not teach it to be an actual thing. The problem, to me, is that advaita teachers use positive language to describe things.

As far as Buddha-Nature, I don't personally take any Mahyana sutras as anything the Buddha actually said. So many years went between the Buddha's life and the Mahayana sutras that they are far more likely teachings that teachers of that time taught that were written in the same format as the Pali suttas. I dont really have to knowledge to judge the understanding of those who wrote any of the Mahayana sutras, some of them could have been fully awakened masters, but I think its safe to say that Gautama Buddha did not teach those specific teachings like they are attributed in the Mahayana Sutras.

As far as "no-self", "not-self": it is definitely "not-self". I dont remember the it, but the word for "no-self" is different. Anyway, regardless, views about self are obstacles.


Also, for your riddle, nirvana is not conditioned, nirvana does not fall under the criteria for impermanence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can know with confidence that "this too shall pass," so there is no need to cling.

Yes, impermanence ( anicca ) which also ties in with things being dependently arisen ( anatta ) and unsatisfactory ( dukkha ).

See here for example: Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic