Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gem
Anatta literally means 'an' or 'ana' (no) and 'atta' (self), but 'self' is used to mean a fundamental identity, and 'no self' merely means there is no such thing, but rather, all phenomena arise interdependently, sans a fundamental substance. Most of the rhetoric says something about 'non-self' in this context.
There is a more practical application of the idea which affirms how the things we experience are 'not-self'. This is related to Buddhism's core tenet of impermanence with is directly derived from the substanceless nature of phenomena. Simply, because experience comes and goes in a continuous flux of change, no phenomena in the world can be regarded as 'me, mine, my or I'.
I think the two Buddhist philosophies that provide a rich context to the idea of anatta are 'dependent origins' and the '5 skandas' (5 aggregates). These two are closely related but whereas the former explains the continued rising of subjective phenomena, the latter more directly addresses a person. Please do your own googling on those two subjects.
The key to this is not to take any of it personally because none of this is supposed to pertain to your existence. It really only pertains to the insubstantial, temporal nature of things.
|
Thanks Gem.
The core tenant of impermanence is something I am quite comfortable with and speaks to a sense which I was brought up with. Framing it in terms of personal ownership is not a connection I have made prior to reading your response though, so thanks for that perspective.
The rest of your post I will have to consider some more at this particular time.
Though I do think I somewhat grasp what your saying about the lack of person- ablity in regards to temporal nature of... well life and nature... stuff just happens in response to other stuff lol.