Understanding of Anatta

[Abhaya]

From my perspective as a student of neuroscience, I've made a couple of connections between anatta and my area of study. These two excerpts from the Samyutta Nikaya got me thinking...

Samanupassana Sutta: Assumptions (SN 22.47)

"Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....047.than.html

Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed (SN 12.61)

"Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....061.than.html

Based on these observations - in text, in my meditation practice, in everyday interactions, in the lab, in the world around me - I've noted a couple of things.

In modern scientific circles, the brain is often argued to be at the root of selfhood, and this holds true to a certain, limited extent. Although our likes/dislikes, predispositions, biases, opinions, personality traits, and sense of distinction from other people can be said to be contained in the brain - wired by means of conditioning and neuroplasticity - the network of connections that make up this cortical seat of consciousness is in no way stable or the same from one moment to the next. Constantly firing in a multitude of directions, the brain's activity gives rise to a wide array of mental happenings. The inner workings of the brain are not still and unmoving. Hence, there is no reason to believe the brain is the absolute epitome of what makes us who we are. There is such a thing as a conventional self that is born and dies, just no lasting Self that is exempt from arising and passing away.

[Esho]

Constantly firing in a multitude of directions, the brain's activity gives rise to a wide array of mental happenings. The inner workings of the brain are not still and unmoving. Hence, there is no reason to believe the brain is the absolute epitome of what makes us who we are. There is such a thing as a conventional self that is born and dies, just no lasting Self that is exempt from arising and passing away.

Very interesting Abhaya

This quotation from your post resembles the khandha doctrine, about mental fabrications or mental formations which arises and fades, during meditation, with out a trace.

By the way, knowing you are into the field of neuroscience, the next quotation -quite old- fits well with what Gotama Buddha taught, mostly about consciousness as non self:

The process [consciousness] is discrete, discontinuous; however we perceive the outside world in a unified way, like a continuum along the arrow of time. That is, imagines are created one after another so fast that they seem to be analogical and not digital, like a move or a film. This means that imagines proceeding from the senses are mixed, not in a place in the Brain -there is no inner observer- but in time, which is thus determined by the shooting frequency of neurons. So, consciousness, in accordance with this findings, tells Llinas, is the dialogue between thalamus and Brain cortex, modeled by the sensory inputs.

Llinás, R., Ribary, U., Joliot, M. and Wang, X.-J. (1994). "Content and context in temporal thalamocortical binding". In: G. Buzàki et al. (comp.) Temporal Coding in the Brain. Springer Verlag, Berlín, pp. 252-272.

and this other quotation can be interesting,

For John Searle, Brain produce consiousness. Paul Churchland has been critical to this understanding giving a simple analogy from Thermodynamics: "to say that the Brain causes consciousness is equivalent as saying that molecular vibration causes heat, being that heat is molecular vibration."

Churchland, P.M (1995). The engine of reason, the seat of soul. MIT Press. Cambridge. Massachusetts.

What makes me keep this quotations is the agreement of Gotama's teachings about consciousness and its object of consciousness explained in a way that makes me understand that it is not about a continuum but discrete event. When object of consciousness is removed, consciousness ceases. I don't have at hand the sutta, but I will look after it.

PS: The translations of the quotes into English are mine because the book I have is written in Spanish so I apologize if there is a lack of a fluid gramatical sense.

[Esho]

Continuing with the understanding of Anatta , one of the core moments was that of "This is not mine".

When this was realized dukkha was better understood. Possessiveness is a core aspect around dukkha because a very careful contemplation of things can reveal that there is no such thing that is ours; neither things, nor people. Ownership is a big source of dukkha.

[Esho]

In modern scientific circles, the brain is often argued to be at the root of selfhood, and this holds true to a certain, limited extent. Although our likes/dislikes, predispositions, biases, opinions, personality traits, and sense of distinction from other people can be said to be contained in the brain - wired by means of conditioning and neuroplasticity - the network of connections that make up this cortical seat of consciousness is in no way stable or the same from one moment to the next.

And not only from neuroscience Abhaya; Social sciences in this postmodern era have realized the fact that there is no such entity called a self as is the main approach of social constructivism whose foundational ideas can be found in Herbert Mead's analysis of reality:

Mead believed in the reality of many perspectives and of many presents. Mead took time seriously, as do all process thinkers; and this view commits Mead to a pluralism and a qualified relativism. This pluralism and objectivity of perspectives, plus his stress on the primacy of experience, adds up in Mead's case to what we have called a "social idealism". The individual is ultimate; but his reality is not complete if isolated. It must be achieved in part, through being related to a wider process.

The Social Self, by Paul E. Pfuetze. 1954.

I think this is an evidence, once again, that approaches us to understand the fact of anatta.

[Abhaya]

Dear Esho,

Thanks for sharing passages from those publications. This subject never ceases to fascinate me.

Based on the findings of neuroscientic research, and as can be experienced for oneself via meditative practice, consciousness is indeed discrete. The Buddha appears to have taught [in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38) and elsewhere] that consciousness is NOT continuous, instead changing from moment to moment, never the same over time. I recall that consciousness dependent on the eyes (as one of the numerous sense media) and forms (as one of many types of sensory stimuli) is specifically called eye-consciousness (the rough equivalent of vision, one of the sensory modalities). The same is true of the ear, with ear-consciousness arising out of contact with sounds, and likewise with the nose, tongue, body, and mind. Consciousness only functions when it has something to be conscious of, primarily via contact. When this object of consciousness is no longer present, consciousness subsides, as does the sense of self.

A number of suttas spring to mind based on this topic. Could this be the sutta you reference?

Parileyyaka Sutta (SN 22.81)

There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication, sense consciousness to be "the self".

That assumption is a fabrication.

Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that.

And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....081.than.html

Or could it be this? Forgive me for the length of the following excerpt. I feel this section from the middle of the sutta should be included in its entirety, as every word contributes to the overall meaning.

Chachakka Sutta (MN 148)

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

"If anyone were to say, 'The ear is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The nose is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The tongue is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The body is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self and ideas are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"One assumes about the ear...

"One assumes about the nose...

"One assumes about the tongue...

"One assumes about the body...

"One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"One assumes about the ear...

"One assumes about the nose...

"One assumes about the tongue...

"One assumes about the body...

"One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....148.than.html

As I understand it, there is no Self that sees, only an eye that sees. Without an object of vision, eye-consciousness (which may be mistaken for a Self) ceases. And at the very next moment, eye-consciousness may re-arise in dependence upon another object of vision.

Interestingly, this sentiment is echoed by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika:

Mulamadhyamakakarika III.7.
As the birth of a son is said to occur presupposing the mother and the father,
Knowledge is said to occur presupposing the eye being dependent on the visible forms.

Mulamadhyamakakarika III.8.
Since the "object seen" and the vision do not exist (independently, on their own),
there is no four-fold consequence: knowledge, etc. cognitive sensation, affective sensation, and "desire".
Also, then, how will the acquisition (upadana) of karma and its consequences i.e., existence, birth, aging, and death be produced?

Mulamadhyamakakarika III.9.
Likewise hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thought are explained as vision.
Indeed one should not apprehend the "hearer," "what is heard," etc. as self-existent entities.

http://www.orientalia.org/article492.html

The connections between this ancient understanding and modern science is astounding. I will add more another day.

[Esho]

Dear Esho,

Thanks for sharing passages from those publications. This subject never ceases to fascinate me.

Yes Abhaya. Of course it is fascinating. Neuroscience is not the field of research with which I work but learning and it is impossible to found them overlapping. So some general principles are needed to be known.

Or could it be this?

Yes. It is Chachaka Sutta. Thanks.

I feel this section from the middle of the sutta should be included in its entirety, as every word contributes to the overall meaning.

I agree.

Also, this doctrine, in the overall teaching of Gotama is a core one in the deep understanding. Many commentaries lead to think that even though there is something that endures; sometimes usually labeled as "continuum of..." which stimulates metaphysical entanglements loosing the very essence of what Gotama taught to definitive quenching of Dukkha.

[Bundokji]

Hello Abhaya,

Anatta doesn't deny responsibility - owning up to one's actions of body, mind, and speech

Excellent, i could not agree more please have a look at the following story:

Tit Porng[d] went to visit the Venerable Abbot of the nearby monastery. At one point, he asked:

"Eh, Luang Por, the Buddha taught that everything is not-self, and is without an owner -- there is no-one who commits kamma and no-one who receives its results. If that's the case, then I can go out and hit somebody over the head or even kill them, or do anything I like, because there is no-one committing kamma and no-one receiving its results."

No sooner had Tit Porng finished speaking, when the Abbot's walking stick, concealed somewhere unknown to Tit Porng, swung down like a flash. Tit Porng could hardly get his arm up fast enough to ward off the blow. Even so, the walking stick struck squarely in the middle of his arm, giving it a good bruise.

Clutching his sore arm, Tit Porng said, "Luang Por! Why did you do that?" His voice trembled with the anger that was welling up inside him.

"Oh! What's the matter?" the Abbot asked offhandedly.

"Why, you hit me! That hurts!"

The Abbot, assuming a tone of voice usually reserved for sermons, slowly murmured: "There is kamma but no-one creating it. There are results of kamma, but no-one receiving them. There is feeling, but no-one experiencing it. There is pain, but no-one in pain ... He who tries to use the law of not-self for his own selfish purposes is not freed of self; he who clings to not-self is one who clings to self. He does not really know not-self. He who clings to the idea that there is no-one who creates kamma must also cling to the idea that there is one who is in pain. He does not really know that there is no-one who creates kamma and no-one who experiences pain."

The moral of this story is: if you want to say "there is no-one who creates kamma," you must first learn how to stop saying "Ouch!"

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma6.htm#Do

Stating that our knowledge and understanding, our use of grammar and writing style, and our brain processing of info from different sources have all come from the outside is not denying responsibility In my opinion, when we have good understanding of dependant origination and Annata we will stop giving ourselves credit when we come up with good ideas (pride/delusion) and we will not get ashamed when we come up with a stupid idea (also a delusion). We will replace pride and shame with understanding.

Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm, even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...p.06.budd.html

I am not a native english speaker, but i think the word (under - standing) has a lot of significance. It implies that you become on top of things! And this is what the Buddha encouraged us to do, to be on top of conditioned phenomenon (freedom) and hopefully stop taking things personally

By the way, as a student of neuroscience you must be familiar with the evolution of human brain, so It can be added that natural selection has given us brains to help us survive and pass on our genes (the survival of the fittest) hence greed, anger and delusion are necessary for survival (but not necessary for happiness). However, Buddhists choose not to survive but to break out of the cycle of suffering and misery.

Regards,
Bundokji

[Bundokji]

Hello Trilaksana,

Yes but there is a uniqueness to each individual's understanding or at least to the way each individual would describe the idea of anatta because each bring their understanding from different places and have a different brain processing it.

Looking for uniqueness might not help us much to understand Anatta in my opinion. We can use our eyes to look for uniqueness and strengthen our sense of self, or we can train the very same eye to see how I, Osho, Aloka, Youself, Woddscooter, Esho, Abhaya and every single one who is reading this intersting thread are connected

Currently I live in Jordan and i believe that every single member is reading this from a different location. I invite all of you to look at the same moon tonight . This is another way of understanding Annata

Regards,
Bundokji

[Aloka]

Looking for uniqueness might not help us much to understand Anatta in my opinion. We can use our eyes to look for uniqueness and strengthen our sense of self, or we can train the very same eye to see how I, Osho, Aloka, Youself, Woddscooter, Esho, Abhaya and every single one who is reading this intersting thread are connected

Currently I live in Jordan and i believe that every single member is reading this from a different location. I invite all of you to look at the same moon tonight . This is another way of understanding Annata

Sounds like Thich Nhat Hanh's concept of "Interbeing. "


.

[McKmike]

Dear friends,

I'd be really interested to hear about your current understanding of "anatta"(not-self).

Are you able to apply it to your everyday life ? If so, please share some examples.



with kind wishes,

Aloka

Hi Aloka

In respose to your original post, my current understanding of Anatta is that the teaching points to an understanding that there is no fixed core traits that create a permanatly fixed entity called self, from observation it becomes obvious that the self we can take as a permanent entity is in fact a process that is created as a result of interactions with the world.

The importance of this knowledge for me on a day to day basis is that an awful amount of what I think of me and mine, is in fact my mental volitions ( I prefer to call them Concoctions - Skandhas), it is not permanent conditions, things can change because of Anatta, therein lies the freedom to become, what you become depends on intention as the process can be influenced by intention

So to summarize, if there is an aspect of my life that is causing me dis-ease, I have confidence that coming to an understanding and forming an intention I can affect that dis-ease