Help me understand Anatta

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

Hello all, decided to join the forum to hopefully learn more about various topics which interest or still confuse me so I figured I'd start with the big one, namely those issues dealing with anatta, the skandhas, and nirvana and/or Buddhahood. Please help me see if I am understanding the mainstream perspective correctly:

There are 5 skandhas, all of which possess the qualities of anatta, dukkha, and anicca, etc. There is nothing whatsoever that transcends the skandhas since that would be akin to the Hindu atman and therefore the skandhas are the totality of a sentient being, human in our case. The goal of the Buddhist path is to end the causes and conditions for future rebirth and hence the continual arising and dissolution of the skandhas, namely samsara.

If the skandhas are the totality of a sentient being and no metaphysical entity or otherwise transcends them and nirvana is simply the elimination of future rebirth, how is this not nihilism or annihilationism? Since by definition there is nothing "outside" the skandhas and they are by nature suffering and impermanent, their final end cannot be anything but absolute negation correct?

If this is correct, how is this not spiritual suicide? It would replicate what a materialist atheist would think would occur at death, the only impediment being the karmic conditions for future rebirth in the Buddhist view, but with their elimination what differentiates the Buddhist nirvana from the aforementioned atheist suicide?
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Queequeg »

Point 1 - you are in a Mahayana and Vajrayana forum so, in the least, your terminology needs some adjusting. You may also end up with different answers than what you might get from a Theravada view.

anatta=anatman, dukkha=dukkha, anicca=anitya, skandha=skandha

Mahayana arguably starts (and ends) with sunyata - emptiness.

These verses from Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika summarize this teaching:

Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation, / Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen / Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing / Does not exist.

All compounded dharmas are empty. Why? Because dharmas are mere distinctions tentatively projected onto confluences of causes and conditions. All dharmas, in other words, are arisen from the confluence of causes and conditions, including our own view as the observer who observes the dharma, and all of these are in turn empty/dependently arisen.

Its not nihilism because emptiness is not nihilism. We might say, its just indeterminacy.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

Well the Pali cannon technically is a part of Mahayana too in the form of the Agamas, but I see your point about mixing the Pali vs. Sanskrit terminology.

As to Madhyamaka, yes it is a bit confusing isn't it? I am no expert on the philosophy personally since my interests are more East Asian Buddhism wherein Madhyamaka is ranked as a lower or provisional teaching compared to other philosophies (such as Tathagatagarbha or Huayan.) So I am not entirely sure what you are saying or how it answers my question, what does parinirvana look like for Madhyamaka? Would it not still be situation I described, namely the permanent end of rebirth and therefore the dissolution of the skandhas which nothing transcends and hence annihilation?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seitaka wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:28 pm There is nothing whatsoever that transcends the skandhas since that would be akin to the Hindu atman …
That’s correct, but it’s not entirely correct.
There is no thing, no specific individual being who you might say “owns” the skandhas. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not awareness happening without an individual facilitator or “me” character playing it all out.

It’s like how a pumpkin serves as the foundation for a jack-o-lantern face. But just because there’s not a face carved into it, doesn’t mean there’s no pumpkin.

Likewise, there is always awareness. But ultimately it doesn’t belong to anybody. In fact, just the opposite. This awareness serves as the basis for the arising (illusion) of atma, or self.

The character of ‘samsaric being’ that you or I play in (as) life can cease, yet from the same awareness, another being emerges in a next life

Although the arising of one’s experience of a continuous “me” is more or less produced by the skandhas, that imagined “me” isn’t what is aware.

The nihilistic view would be that when the individual mind-stream ceases, so does awareness, which is basically the example you offered, and seems to be a snag. But again, this is predicated on the idea of the ‘individual being, as the cause of awareness and not the other way around.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:48 pm That’s correct, but it’s not entirely correct.

There is no thing, no specific individual being who you might say “owns” the skandhas. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not awareness happening without an individual facilitator or “me” character playing it all out.

It’s like how a pumpkin serves as the foundation for a jack-o-lantern face. But just because there’s not a face carved into it, doesn’t mean there’s no pumpkin.

Likewise, there is always awareness. But ultimately it doesn’t belong to anybody. In fact, just the opposite. This awareness serves as the basis for the arising (illusion) of atma, or self.

The character of ‘samsaric being’ that you or I play in (as) life can cease, yet from the same awareness, another being emerges in a next life

Although the arising of one’s experience of a continuous “me” is more or less produced by the skandhas, that imagined “me” isn’t what is aware.

The nihilistic view would be that when the individual mind-stream ceases, so does awareness, which is basically the example you offered, and seems to be a snag. But again, this is predicated on the idea of the ‘individual being, as the cause of awareness and not the other way around.
So what is this awareness which transcends the skandhas? Why is this awareness not my true nature and hence Self as opposed to my false nature which is non-self, namely the particularized skandhic entity? What occurs to this awareness in relation to ultimate liberation or parinirvana rather than in regards to rebirth? If it is conditioned or impermanent and hence annihilated with parinirvana, we are back to square one. If it is unconditioned and isn't annihilated, isn't this what people often pejoratively call crypto-Advaita or eternalism?
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Queequeg »

Seitaka wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:08 pm Well the Pali cannon technically is a part of Mahayana too in the form of the Agamas, but I see your point about mixing the Pali vs. Sanskrit terminology.

As to Madhyamaka, yes it is a bit confusing isn't it? I am no expert on the philosophy personally since my interests are more East Asian Buddhism wherein Madhyamaka is ranked as a lower or provisional teaching compared to other philosophies (such as Tathagatagarbha or Huayan.) So I am not entirely sure what you are saying or how it answers my question, what does parinirvana look like for Madhyamaka? Would it not still be situation I described, namely the permanent end of rebirth and therefore the dissolution of the skandhas which nothing transcends and hence annihilation?
Well, technically, the Pali canon is NOT part of the Mahayana canon. The Agamas are a distinct set of texts, though they are similar to the Pali in terms of content in many respects.

You're asking if nirvana is some sort of nihilism. It is not. A correct understanding of emptiness would clear that up.

Emptiness is still a central teaching in Tathagatagarbha thought. Tathagatagarbha without a proper understanding of emptiness tends to go off the rails. Can't speak to Huayan, but I think emptiness is central in those teachings also.

Sanlun which claimed to be a Madhyamaka lineage is not the limit of Madhyamaka thought in East Asia.

In Madhyamaka, Samsara = Nirvana and Klesha are Bodhi. How is this possible? Because of emptiness.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Queequeg »

Seitaka wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:28 pm The goal of the Buddhist path is to end the causes and conditions for future rebirth
This is a sravaka goal. The goal of the bodhisattva is buddhahood.
If the skandhas are the totality of a sentient being and no metaphysical entity or otherwise transcends them and nirvana is simply the elimination of future rebirth, how is this not nihilism or annihilationism?
Nirvana, at least in Mahayana, is not merely the end of birth and death.
Since by definition there is nothing "outside" the skandhas and they are by nature suffering and impermanent, their final end cannot be anything but absolute negation correct?
You are assuming Theravada ideas about nirvana. From the Theravada view, nirvana cannot be characterized in terms of negation. In a well known sutta, someone asks the Buddha what happens after parinibbana. The Buddha declines to answer and then gives the metaphor of the man with an arrow in his eye. From the Theravada perspective, after the parinibbana is inconceivable and indescribable. Notwithstanding, in the Theravada Abhidhamma, there is posited a Bhavanga, a sort of latent state of consciousness that connects between lives. In Mahayana, according to one view, this connecting consciousness is identified as the alayavijnana. This is, put in a simplistic manner, is the continuity from life to life. In Mahayana, when one attains nirvana, there isn't nothing, but rather what endures is inconceivable. Buddhas continue to arise but the manner in which they do is not really explainable, at least by me. There are others here who can explain more.
If this is correct, how is this not spiritual suicide? It would replicate what a materialist atheist would think would occur at death, the only impediment being the karmic conditions for future rebirth in the Buddhist view, but with their elimination what differentiates the Buddhist nirvana from the aforementioned atheist suicide?
Suicide would assume there was something to kill in the first place.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:57 pm Well, technically, the Pali canon is NOT part of the Mahayana canon. The Agamas are a distinct set of texts, though they are similar to the Pali in terms of content in many respects.

You're asking if nirvana is some sort of nihilism. It is not. A correct understanding of emptiness would clear that up.

Emptiness is still a central teaching in Tathagatagarbha thought. Tathagatagarbha without a proper understanding of emptiness tends to go off the rails. Can't speak to Huayan, but I think emptiness is central in those teachings also.

Sanlun which claimed to be a Madhyamaka lineage is not the limit of Madhyamaka thought in East Asia.

In Madhyamaka, Samsara = Nirvana and Klesha are Bodhi. How is this possible? Because of emptiness.
Yes but the content of the Agamas, which includes the nikayas, of course represents perspectives found in Theravada Buddhism and is also part of the heritage of Mahayana, so outside of technicalities I think it can be agreed that discussion of Pali/Agama/Nikayan/Theravadin perspectives isn't necessarily divorced from Mahayana/Vajrayana. What would be the main difference between Theravada Nirvana and Mahayana Buddhahood either way? Is the latter subject to rebirth?

In any case nihilism can have a variety of definitions, but I would say both the perspective that it's illusion all the way down or the perspective I initially outlined regarding the impermanent skandhas would fit the bill. Indeed I was recently reading a work where I came across Jamgon Kongtrul stating:
It is explained clearly that sutras teaching all phenomena have no inherent nature (nihsvabhava) are not to be taken literally. Anyone who accepts such statements as literal is a propounder of nihilism.
I suppose this is why you get the Shentong "Other Emptiness" view in Dolpopa and others.
Last edited by Seitaka on Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seitaka wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:13 pm So what is this awareness which transcends the skandhas? Why is this awareness not my true nature …
It is your true nature.
It’s just not “YOUR” true nature.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:12 am
Seitaka wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:13 pm So what is this awareness which transcends the skandhas? Why is this awareness not my true nature …
It is your true nature.
It’s just not “YOUR” true nature.
It’s like a snowman in a as field of snow, in a snowstorm, whose true nature is snow.
The snow is just there, everywhere.
The snowman is only there because some of the snow is packed together, with stick arms and a carrot nose. Those are the snowman’s skandhas. You undo those, and the true nature of the snowman (just snow) is revealed.
The “snowman” is just a concoction, an illusion. A snowman doesn’t even really look like a man. But in our imagination we see the parts and imagine a human form.
Likewise. We create ourselves the same way.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Astus »

Seitaka wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:28 pmIf the skandhas are the totality of a sentient being and no metaphysical entity or otherwise transcends them and nirvana is simply the elimination of future rebirth, how is this not nihilism or annihilationism? Since by definition there is nothing "outside" the skandhas and they are by nature suffering and impermanent, their final end cannot be anything but absolute negation correct?
The extreme view of non-existence or annihilationism means that there is somebody/something that ceases to exist, and that there are actions without consequences.

As Nagarjuna summarises (MMK 15.10-11; cf. SN 12.15):

'To say that things exist means grasping at their permanence;
To say they don’t exist implies the notion of annihilation.
Thus the wise should not remain
In “this exists” or “this does not exist.”
Something that exists by its intrinsic being,
Since it cannot not exist, is permanent.
To say that what once was is now no more
Entails annihilation.'


Annihilation does not apply to what happens to a liberated person after death, because there has never been any entity to cease in the first place.

Nagarjuna's summary (MMK 22.12-14; cf. MN 27, SN 22.85-86)

'Permanence, impermanence—all the four alternatives:
Where are they in the Peaceful One?
Finite, infinite—all the four alternatives:
Where are they in the Peaceful One?
Those who crudely think:
“The Tathagata does exist,”
Will think, regarding his nirvana,
“He does not exist.”
Regarding Buddha, who is empty of intrinsic being,
It’s untenable to think
That, having gained nirvana,
He exists or else does not exist.'


Here's also Gampopa's explanation for refuting grasping at non-existence (Jewel Ornament of Liberation, p 242-243):

'Since the two selves do not exist in any form of existent things, it might be said that they are therefore nonexistent. However, they are not nonexistent either. How is this? Because the two selves or mind could only be said to be nonexistent if they had previously existed and then later ceased to exist. Yet, since phenomena, which are called the "two selves" or "mind," have from the very beginning had no inherent existence, they are beyond the extremes of existence and nonexistence.'
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Supramundane »

Welcome to the forum:)

You've made a dramatic entrance, my friend. This issue is very complex, and even the Buddha himself wondered at a certain moment if it was possible to convey or teach it to others. It is very subtle.

Nothing is self does not mean there is no self.

Buddhism eschews nathatta.

As for nirvana, I think there are various sutras that you can read on the subject. As far as I know, none of them equate nirvana with nihilism or nothingness. If not existing were tantamount to nirvana, it would be sufficient to die to reach nirvana. That is not the case. There's no free lunch:)

Perhaps you should do a thought experiment and try to see if you can equate Samsara with Nirvana as two sides of the same coin. That would solve the nihilism problem and explain why the Buddha called his way of thought the 'middle way', neither eternalism nor nihilism.

But how can samsara be the same as Nirvana? That is what you should look into...

Various systems treat it in a different way, which does not make things easier. You can look at it via the theory of sunyata, emptiness, or through the lens of Zen and the inscrutability of the obvious, among others. Rebirth is a return to existence while the end of rebirth equals claiming your original state.

Nirvana is not death, it is deathlessness.

It is loka uttara, sunnata dhatu.

In other words, the fish caught in the stream will eventually find its way to the Delta...!

I hope this clears things up. All the best

SM
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:50 am It’s like a snowman in a as field of snow, in a snowstorm, whose true nature is snow.
The snow is just there, everywhere.
The snowman is only there because some of the snow is packed together, with stick arms and a carrot nose. Those are the snowman’s skandhas. You undo those, and the true nature of the snowman (just snow) is revealed.
The “snowman” is just a concoction, an illusion. A snowman doesn’t even really look like a man. But in our imagination we see the parts and imagine a human form.
Likewise. We create ourselves the same way.
Yes this is a bit like Fazang's example of the Golden Lion where gold formed into various shapes is all still gold in essence regardless of the shapes it is formed into. I can get behind this where the skandhas, the person in the mirror, is illusory but there is a principle (理) (in Buddhist case the Dharmakaya-Tathagatagarbha) which is our true nature, which the Ratnagotravibhaga at least describes as possessing the four gunaparamitas of eternity, bliss, purity, and self (atman.) But then I hear some claim this is eternalism so I get confused, especially since true eternity is timelessness or transcendence of time rather than an infinite extension in time and in the Pali nirvana is definitely described as timeless (kalavimutta) and the arhat also as one who has transcended time (kappatita.)
Astus wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:05 am
The extreme view of non-existence or annihilationism means that there is somebody/something that ceases to exist, and that there are actions without consequences.

Annihilation does not apply to what happens to a liberated person after death, because there has never been any entity to cease in the first place.
Yes this is a specifically Buddhist definition of nihilism but I was speaking of it more in a general sense and in the latter sense what you are describing, namely that "nothing is" or it is illusion all the way down or that there is no annihilation because there was nothing in the first place, is also nihilism. The result is still the same, with the annihilation I described in my initial post there is absolute negation after extinguishing karmic conditions for future rebirth whereas in your scenario there is absolute negation simply from the start and we just don't know it.

That also makes one wonder, who or what realizes or knows there has never been a person? If there is no metaphysical entity that transcends the casually conditioned and impermanent person, how can this be known? Is this not a self-negation paradox?
Last edited by Seitaka on Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Supramundane »

Seitaka, you ask a very good question because it goes right to the heart of the matter. Remember that if you continue to be in the register of 'is' or 'is not', you are still trapped in the world of duality and samsara.

You are looking at a reflection of the moon and asking whether or not it exists... Free yourself from this delusion because there is a real moon to be apprehended... !

Do not imagine that Nirvana is a state of bliss that you will experience like the feeling of drinking a well-prepared chai latté in the morning. It is not a feeling of pleasure but of liberation. Of snuffing out. Yes, it is a negation. It is a freedom from something. But we cannot say that there never was anything in the first place. That would be nihilism. Of course there is something.

The release we feel is blissful but bliss from a paring down, not from a sensory overload. This snuffing out or extinguishing or liberation or paring down, or however you wish to term it, is an abnegation of the self --- which leads to the release, which is Nirvana, and therefore, your question of who experiences Nirvana is a non sequitur... Do you follow me? :)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Seitaka wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:40 am But then I hear some claim this is eternalism so I get confused, especially since true eternity is timelessness or transcendence of time rather than an infinite extension in time and in the Pali nirvana is definitely described as timeless (kalavimutta) and the arhat also as one who has transcended time (kappatita.)
it would be eternalism if we were talking about a soul of some kind of entity. But Buddhism doesn’t suggest that.
That also makes one wonder, who or what realizes or knows there has never been a person? If there is no metaphysical entity that transcends the casually conditioned and impermanent person, how can this be known? Is this not a self-negation paradox?
It’s a paradox only because of the insistence that the experience of awareness has to assume some kind of personal-entity (atman, soul, etc) configuration.
So, let’s turn that around and approach it from the other direction, and ask, “why is that a requirement?”
What is it specifically about “atman-ness” that is required for awareness to function?
Again, you are starting out with: first there must be a being, and then secondly, only after that, there is awareness. But why does ‘being’ happen first, and awareness happens second? Why not the other way around?
(This should take some time to work out, I think).
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Queequeg »

Seitaka wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:40 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:50 am It’s like a snowman in a as field of snow, in a snowstorm, whose true nature is snow.
The snow is just there, everywhere.
The snowman is only there because some of the snow is packed together, with stick arms and a carrot nose. Those are the snowman’s skandhas. You undo those, and the true nature of the snowman (just snow) is revealed.
The “snowman” is just a concoction, an illusion. A snowman doesn’t even really look like a man. But in our imagination we see the parts and imagine a human form.
Likewise. We create ourselves the same way.
Yes this is a bit like Fazang's example of the Golden Lion where gold formed into various shapes is all still gold in essence regardless of the shapes it is formed into. I can get behind this where the skandhas, the person in the mirror, is illusory but there is a principle (理) (in Buddhist case the Dharmakaya-Tathagatagarbha) which is our true nature, which the Ratnagotravibhaga at least describes as possessing the four gunaparamitas of eternity, bliss, purity, and self (atman.) But then I hear some claim this is eternalism so I get confused, especially since true eternity is timelessness or transcendence of time rather than an infinite extension in time and in the Pali nirvana is definitely described as timeless (kalavimutta) and the arhat also as one who has transcended time (kappatita.)
You're making the error of taking the metaphor too literally.

The snow or the gold as the case may be should not be interpreted as some existent substrate that composes everything else. People learn about "eternity, bliss, purity and self" and think this is some affirmation of self. This is Tathagatagarbha gone off the rails. Proposing li - principle as distinct from its expressions is an idealistic error. A grounding in Madhyamaka would help one avoid that error. The snow and gold are themselves empty. It is not the case that its turtles all the way down.

It is eternalism because it assumes existent self (snow, gold, li). The way you seem to be using terms like timelessness is as a relational term defined in contrast to time. This is the same with transcendence - to transcend, you need something to transcend. The timelessness that describes nirvana is in contrast to our idea of time. Its a term to deny our idea of time, but it doesn't go further than that. The timelessness of nirvana is inconceivable.

As Supramundane pointed out, though its subtle, you're operating in dualistic thinking.

That's why we keep trying to point you toward an understanding of emptiness. If you can grok emptiness, a lot of these questions you are asking would just fall away.
Astus wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:05 am
The extreme view of non-existence or annihilationism means that there is somebody/something that ceases to exist, and that there are actions without consequences.

Annihilation does not apply to what happens to a liberated person after death, because there has never been any entity to cease in the first place.
Yes this is a specifically Buddhist definition of nihilism but I was speaking of it more in a general sense and in the latter sense what you are describing, namely that "nothing is" or it is illusion all the way down or that there is no annihilation because there was nothing in the first place, is also nihilism. The result is still the same, with the annihilation I described in my initial post there is absolute negation after extinguishing karmic conditions for future rebirth whereas in your scenario there is absolute negation simply from the start and we just don't know it.

That also makes one wonder, who or what realizes or knows there has never been a person? If there is no metaphysical entity that transcends the casually conditioned and impermanent person, how can this be known? Is this not a self-negation paradox?
Again, this exhibits the dualistic thinking - nihilism posits existence as a point to deny. If things are empty to begin with, nihilism makes no sense. This is why nihilism is a wrong view - because its a position in opposition to another erroneous view - existence. Existence is a wrong view because dharmas are compounded - ie. they have no self.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:43 pm it would be eternalism if we were talking about a soul of some kind of entity. But Buddhism doesn’t suggest that.

It’s a paradox only because of the insistence that the experience of awareness has to assume some kind of personal-entity (atman, soul, etc) configuration.
But the atman of various Vedantic systems is not a personalized, individuated entity (or soul, etc.) either, that would be the jiva if I recall, rather the atman is also often seen as impersonal and equivalent to Brahman, the Absolute. I fail to see how this is much different than the Zen idea of one moon reflected in many bodies of water but all still really being one moon.
Supramundane wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:42 pm The release we feel is blissful but bliss from a paring down, not from a sensory overload. This snuffing out or extinguishing or liberation or paring down, or however you wish to term it, is an abnegation of the self --- which leads to the release, which is Nirvana, and therefore, your question of who experiences Nirvana is a non sequitur... Do you follow me? :)
I do follow you but my problem arises from the negation of self that would not just be limited to the individual, empirical, skandhic self but also anything at all which could be said to not be that skandhic self, namely a metaphysical "awareness" or "nature" or "spirit" or whatever term you wish to use, whether conceived of as personal or impersonal or otherwise. The explicit denial of the latter seems to be propounded by many Buddhists, both Theravada and Mahayana/Vajrayana, and therefore nirvana for them again cannot but be an absolute negation, the same end an atheist thinks awaits him at death, which is nihilism.

I don't personally believe that is the case, but it seems the Buddhist voices that have contradicted this were and are accused of heterodoxy, crypto-Advaita, etc.
User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 621
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Supramundane »

I think that's where the stumbling block is; you equate negation with nihilism. Negation is not nihilism. Emptiness is not nihilism.

Take a look at Buddhism and materialism. You will see that the Buddha was very careful to not place himself in the realm of pure materialism. No, there is not a soul articulated in Buddhism, but there is something, and so therefore, we are not simply a body that dies.

It is that 'something' that concerns us. Sometimes we speak of rebirth, sometimes of Buddha nature, sometimes of Trikaya... that is where you can focus to find the answer to your questions.

Tell me what you think the middle way is...
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Astus »

Seitaka wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:40 amThe result is still the same, with the annihilation I described in my initial post there is absolute negation after extinguishing karmic conditions for future rebirth whereas in your scenario there is absolute negation simply from the start and we just don't know it.
Both the Buddha and his numerous completely liberated disciples continued to live as other human beings, except they were without the suffering part. The assumption that when skandhas no longer regenerate is annihilation is an incorrect one that identifies the skandhas as self. The skandhas are of course often mistaken for a self, but if looked at correctly, they are seen as very much impermanent even now. To point to a specific event (death) as the end is the idea that until death there is someone/something that suddenly ceases to exist.
That also makes one wonder, who or what realizes or knows there has never been a person? If there is no metaphysical entity that transcends the casually conditioned and impermanent person, how can this be known? Is this not a self-negation paradox?
Realisation and knowing can happen only within a consciousness that changes, not within a permanent entity that cannot change.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Seitaka
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Re: Help me understand Anatta

Post by Seitaka »

Queequeg wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:42 pm It is eternalism because it assumes existent self (snow, gold, li). The way you seem to be using terms like timelessness is as a relational term defined in contrast to time. This is the same with transcendence - to transcend, you need something to transcend. The timelessness that describes nirvana is in contrast to our idea of time. Its a term to deny our idea of time, but it doesn't go further than that. The timelessness of nirvana is inconceivable.

As Supramundane pointed out, though its subtle, you're operating in dualistic thinking.

That's why we keep trying to point you toward an understanding of emptiness. If you can grok emptiness, a lot of these questions you are asking would just fall away.

Again, this exhibits the dualistic thinking - nihilism posits existence as a point to deny. If things are empty to begin with, nihilism makes no sense. This is why nihilism is a wrong view - because its a position in opposition to another erroneous view - existence. Existence is a wrong view because dharmas are compounded - ie. they have no self.
Advaita also states that temporality is an illusion and Brahman, the timeless Absolute, is the only reality from the very beginning, so what is the difference? Is it that Advaita states there is an Absolute reality whereas Buddhism denies one? If so Buddhism is claiming that all is nothing but interdependently originated conditioned dharmas, all of which have the qualities of being impermanent, suffering, and being dream-like or illusory, or in other words that "nothing is", there has never been anything at all from the beginning, which is indeed nihilism, a term that is not limited to the definition you and others are using, i.e. an entity that exists and then ceases to exist.
Astus wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:57 pm Both the Buddha and his numerous completely liberated disciples continued to live as other human beings, except they were without the suffering part. The assumption that when skandhas no longer regenerate is annihilation is an incorrect one that identifies the skandhas as self. The skandhas are of course often mistaken for a self, but if looked at correctly, they are seen as very much impermanent even now. To point to a specific event (death) as the end is the idea that until death there is someone/something that suddenly ceases to exist.
Let's put it a different way, what is the ultimate difference between saying someone/something never existed to begin with and a someone/something is annihilated at death? The latter involves something that was and is lost and becomes nothing, the former simply states that there was nothing to begin with. In both cases the ultimate truth or end is nothing, namely nihilism. What exactly about that view corresponds to some of these words used in the Pali to describe Nirvana:

The unfashioned, the end,
the effluent-less, the true, the beyond,
the subtle, the very-hard-to-see,
the ageless, permanence, the undecaying,
the featureless, non-differentiation, peace, the deathless,
the exquisite, bliss, solace,
the exhaustion of craving,
the wonderful, the marvelous,
the secure, security, nibbanna,
the unafflicted, the passionless, the pure,
release, non-attachment,
the island, shelter, harbor, refuge,
the ultimate.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”