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

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

How can anatta be the object of insight?

What is the object?

How is it observed?

What is the benefit?



Metta,
Retro.

[Catmoon]

What is an object of insight, Retro?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Catmoon,

What is an object of insight, Retro?

The meditation subject - what you direct attention towards.

In the context of this question, if one wanted to gain experiential insight into anatta, what would be observed in order to do this?

Metta,
Retro.

[Catmoon]

One observes the absence.

Sry, best I can do.

[retrofuturist]

That's a good answer, catmoon!



Metta,
Retro.

[meez]

One observes the absence.

Sry, best I can do.

If there were a self, I would agree with Catmoon's statement. Really, beyond coming to that realization, what else would there be to focus on aside from the absence?

[Element]

Greetings Retro,

Seeing anatta is two-fold.

First, there is seeing anatta via the deepening of concentration & expanding of consciousness, when thoughts, including thoughts of 'self', naturally dissolve.

Second, in this increasing mental clarity, there is seeing anatta via insight & satipatthana, namely, directly & unambiguously seeing the body (& breathe) as body, feelings as feelings, mental states as mental states and consciousness & its objects as merely consciousness & objects. The five aggregates are seen as the five aggregates.

The opposite of this is, in meditation, is seeing "I am breathing" rather than "the body is breathing".

When the mind views an external object, such as a tree, it generally does not see "I am" in that tree. But internally, when the mind looks within, it often sees or perceives "I am" in relation to the five aggregates.

This is why samma samadhi is to be developed, so internal objects are seen clearly with the same detachment or distance as with external objects.

When the meditation object becomes very distinct & clear, anatta will be seen because the meditation object will be clearly seen as something distinct from the 'small thought of self' in the mind.

It will be seen "the body breathes" rather than "I breathe".

To see feeling clearly requires development towards piti & sukha via anapanasati.

Watching physical pain, say via Goenka method, will generally have an degree of 'auto-suggestion' to it.

Feeling & mental states must be experienced to a degree that they become clearly distinct & separate from consciousness; that they appear as mere elements.

Kind regards

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Element,

Thank you for the lucid and detailed explanation.

Metta,
Retro.

[Bhikkhu Ananda]

Greetings,

1 How can anatta be the object of insight?

2 What is the object?

3 How is it observed?

4 What is the benefit?



Metta,
Retro.

Discourse about the Marks of Selflessness from Connected Discourses of the Buddha Chapter 22.

Thus it was heard by me. At one time the Blessed One was living in the deer park of Isipatana near Benares. There, indeed, the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks.

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

"Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'

"Perception, O monks, is not-self; if perception were self, then perception would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since perception is not-self, therefore, perception leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding perception: 'May my perception be thus, may my perception not be thus.'

"Mental formations, O monks, are not-self; if mental formations were self, then mental formations would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my perception be thus, may my mental formations not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to affliction and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.'

"Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.'

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever perception, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that perception must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

The 5 aggregates affected by clinging are prone to affliction.

1 By contemplating that the 5 aggregates affected by clinging are not fit to be reguarded as self.

2 Form, feeling, perception, formations, and conciousness.

3 They arise and cease.

4 Arahantship through disenchantment with the 5 agregates affected by clinging is the highest personal benefit for a monk. The weakening of the fetter of personality view to assist in the attainment of stream entry is the 4th highest benefit for an angel or human.

[Spiny O'Norman]

Feeling & mental states must be experienced to a degree that they become clearly distinct & separate from consciousness; that they appear as mere elements.

I get a sense of stuff just coming and going, arising and ceasing - is that the sort of thing you mean?

Spiny

---