On Monday, September 28, 2009 at 12:14:14 AM UTC+5:30, attasarana wrote:
ANATTA / ANATMAN IN DETAIL
The definition of one word where modern Pseudo-Buddhism took a turn
into the dark corner of ignorance
Copyright 2007 webmaster attan.com, REVISED 2-2008
The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an
adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being
devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded
subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only
refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms,
feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye- consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose,
tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being
Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine
of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is
used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the
Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).
Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal
and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at
large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the
nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca
(impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a
blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All
these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman],
such as passage (SN 1.169).
Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the
permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-
rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman
in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective,
(A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane,
consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means
of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism.
The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/no[nattha]+atta’[Soul]), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if
there “was no-soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position
to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist
sutra (and Vedanta as well) is the denial of psycho-physical
attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with
same. The Buddhist paradigm (and the most common repeating passage in
sutta) as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), this most common utterance of Gotama the Buddha in the Nikayas,
where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutta, to hold the view
that there was “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = natthika (nihilist).
Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali
natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to
observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither
affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That [Brahman]” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa/ or khandhas, mere self as =
anatta) i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-
rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with
its consciousness”. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of
either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite’ [SN 2.77] both of this
positions are existential antinomies, and heresies of annihilationism])’”. In contrast it has been incorrectly asserted that affirmation of the atman is = sassatavada (conventionally deemed ‘eternalism’). However the Pali term sasastavada is never associated
with the atman, but that the atman was an agent (karmin) in and of
samsara which is subject to the whims of becoming (bhava), or which is
meant kammavada (karma-ism, or merit agencyship); such as sassatavada
in sutta = “atta ca so loka ca” (the atman and the world [are one]),
or: ‘Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi ‘the all is entirety’, and sabbamekattan ‘the all is one’s Soul’ [SN 2.77] both are heresies of perpetualism]). Sasastavada is the wrong conception
that one is perpetually (sassata) bound within samsara and that merit
is the highest attainment for either this life or for the next. The
heretical antinomy to nihilism (vibhava, or = ucchedavada) is not, nor
in sutta, the atman, but bhava (becoming, agencyship). Forever, or
eternal becoming is nowhere in sutta identified with the atman, which
is “never an agent (karmin)”, and “has never become
anything” (=bhava). These antinomies of bhava (sassatavada) and
vibhava (ucchedavada) both entail illogical positions untenable to the Vedantic or Buddhist atman; however the concept of “eternalism” as = atman has been the fallacious secondary crutch for supporting the no-
atman commentarialists position on anatta implying = there is no
atman.
Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama,
the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the spirit/mind
[Greek = nous] (cittavimutta; Greek = epistrophe) is effectuated thru
the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and
samadhi (assimilation, or synthesis, complete disobjectification with
all objective [unreal] 'reality'), must first be educated away from
his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in
that he (the common fool) “saw any of these forms, feelings, this body
in whole or part, to be my Self/Atman, to be that which I am by
nature”. Teaching the via negativa methodology of anatta in sutta
pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to
perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’” [MN 1.232]. The
one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the
meaning of anatta is as follows: [Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time
in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the
Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray
tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul
(anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not
the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta),
consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end
of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has
been done.”
Anatta as taught in the Nikayas has merely relative value as it
is directly conducive to Subjective awakening, or illumination; it is
not an absolute one. It does not say or imply simply that the Soul
(atta, Atman) has no reality, but that certain things (5 aggregates),
with which the unlearned man (fool = puthujjana, as is always implied
in spiritual texts, a materialist) identifies himself, are not the
Soul (anatta) and that is why one should grow disgusted with them,
become detached from them and be liberated. This principle of the
extremely abused and misunderstood term anatta does not negate the
Soul as such, but denies Selfhood to those things that constitute the non-self (anatta), showing them thereby to be empty of any ultimate
value and to be repudiated; instead of nullifying the Atman (Soul)
doctrine, it in fact compliments and affirms it in the most logical
method by which Subjective gnosis is initially gained; that by and
thru objective negation. It has been said that: ‘No Indian school of thought has ever regarded the human soul (another error, since the
soul is not a possession of, nor is of the nature of the persona, or
'human') or the carrier of human personal (persona [Bob, Larry, Sue]
is never confused by the Metaphysician, with the Person/Atman/Purisha) identity as a permanent substance (literally meaning, absurdly
"permanent impermanence [substance]")’, which is certainly true when referring to the empirical persona (mere self [aggregates/namorupa],
as opposed to the Person, spirit, atman), that ‘ensouled’ being, as
was common in old English to say: “late at night, not a soul (mere
person) was to be seen walking about”. That the atman is not to be understood as a cartesian thinking substance, phenomena, or eternal
soul, is certainly the case, and logically cannot be otherwise.
It cannot be missed that in so discussing the commentarialist’s position of a ‘doctrine of anatta’ that anatta is merely a qualifier
of something else and that anatta in and of itself in standalone is
utterly meaningless and untenable to speak or make mention of an
‘anatta doctrine’ without qualification of what, and in what context, anatta is being qualified of X (the afore mentioned 22 things of which
anatta is said to equal) i.e. that which is defacto equivalent to or
with anatta. That anatta in doctrine is aught but ever equivalent to
what is evil, foul, disgusting, phenomenal and repulsive, to therefore
make declaration that, as many fool "buddhists" (in name only) have
done, “anatta is a core tenant of Buddhism” cannot be enjoined, since the principle upon which Buddhism was founded is the quest for the
immortal (amatagamimagga SN 5.9), and the unceasing bliss as gained by
and thru liberation in wisdom’s culmination. Anatta is, obviously so,
a key principle in the doctrine of Buddhism (and other via negativa
systems, of which Advaita also makes extensive use of the term
anatman) and the metaphysics thereof quantify anatta and being meant
all physical and mental consubstantial and temporal objectivity; all compounded things either in simplex (matter, hyle) or complex
(mental). As an-atta is meant not-Subject (=object [phenomena]), those things, as Buddhism declares “the unlearned fool bemuses himself as
being (those things)”. "What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches,
and leaves and did with them as they wished or burned them up, would
it occur to you: These people are carrying us off, are doing as they
please with us, and are burning us? No, indeed not Lord. And how so?
Because Lord, none of that is our Soul, nor what our Soul subsists
upon! Just so followers, what is not who you are, do away with it,
when you have made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and
welfare for as long as time lasts. What is that you are not? Form,
followers, is not who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences, consciousness" [MN 1.141]. Just as ‘disgusting (anatta) doctrine’ cannot make logical sense, neither does ‘anatta doctrine’ bring light to studiers of Buddhism what anatta is contextually or its philosophical importance as being merely a qualifier of that which is
evil, foul, disgusting, phenomenal and repulsive (= anatta). Anatta is
of course a doctrinal tenant within Buddhism used to earmark
phenomena, however as conventionally and irrationally conceived, there
is absolutely no such creature in Buddhism as a "no-Soul doctrine".
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me
so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of
the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma
hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge
that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but
what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no- Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta,
feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha
denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning
of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob,
Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command
‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and
highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their
readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the
Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca)
of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently
speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly
than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these
are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body
(rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama),
a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something
real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for
the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad
anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for
Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial
of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright
declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon
for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no
avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves.
Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism,
such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly
Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all
these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions
(aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the
second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a
earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a
period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the
accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the
earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and
well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving
the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any
later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.],
anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by
Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and
now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches
the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of
suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the
reference by which one should be directed as to a further
understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder
of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the
exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his
passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman.
Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”-“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in
order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.”-”Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful
and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman),
comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2],
“the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non- Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the
notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of
Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for
"there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to
cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion
of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is,
hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of
Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
Due to sectarian (and secular) propagation of commentary over
that of doctrine, and more still a nominalized, or neutered
mistranslation of the original Pali texts, a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as a status quo, however
there exists no substantiation for same in sutta for Buddhism’s denial
of the atman, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive
sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration
of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very
transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and
Selfless (anatta)”. The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169. Buddhism’s ‘na me so atta’ is no more a denial of the Atman than is Socrates’ ‘to…soma….ouk estin ho anthropos’ (the body is not the Man
[Aniochus 365]) is a denial of the Man. Young men asked Gotama as to
the whereabouts of a woman they were seeking to which he replied “What young men do you think, were it not better for you to seek the Atman
(atmanam gavis) than a woman?” [Vin 1.23]. In fact the term “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist sutta, existing
in only non-doctrinal Theravada, in some Mahayana, and Madhyamika commentaries. As the truism holds, a “lie repeated often enough over
time becomes the truth”. Those interested parties incident to learning
of Buddhism are most often incapable of pouring through endless
gigantic piles of Buddhist doctrine, and have therefore defacto
accepted the commentarial-based trash, the notion of a “doctrine of
anatta (or often said "no soul doctrine")” as key to Buddhism itself,
when in fact there exists not one citation of this untenable and
irrational concept in either the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara,
or Khuddaka Nikayas. Unless evoking a fallacy, we who seek out
Buddhism sans the commentarialists slants and opinion-based musings,
must stick strictly to sutta as reference, wherein the usage of anatta
never falls outside of the parameter of merely denying Self or Soul to
the profane and transitory phenomena of temporal and samsaric life
which is “subject to arising and passing”, and which is most certain
not (an) our Soul (atta). Certainly the most simple philosophically
based logic would lead anyone to conclude that no part of this frail
body is “my Self, is That which I am”, is “not my Soul”, of which Gotama the Buddha was wholeheartedly in agreement that no part of it
was the Soul i.e. was in fact anatta. The spiritual and metaphysical
adept is one who must be the “dead man walking” who has followed the commandment: “die before ye die!”, and is one who has died to that
(mere) self and lives in the Spirit, or the Self. This is the
discernment between the Great Self (mahatta) and little self
(alpatman); or the fair Self (kalyanatta) from the foul self
(papatta).
The perfect contextual usage of anatta in sutta: “Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there are (the
five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as
suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an
affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind (citta) away from these and gathers
his mind/will within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This
is tranquility; this is that which is most excellent!” [MN 1.436]. The Buddha never considered the atman to be micchaditthi (wrong view). If
the Buddha disbelieved in an atman (soul) why did he not deny the
atman unambiguously? There is no such denial.
By denying outright the soul, by default, the Theravadins,
western ‘scholars’ examining Buddhism, and modern "buddhists" imply
that the five aggregates are ultimate. This of course is absurd.
They have merely shifted Buddhism to an empiricism by ignoring pro-
atman statements. According to them, what is real is what makes
sensory knowledge possible, namely, the five aggregates which,
ironically, according to the canon, are = Mara, or evil (papa); [SN
3.195] “Mara = five khandhas (empirical self)”. It begs the question
to assume that the no-soul doctrine had been established at the
beginning of the Buddha’s ministry and that the atman (soul) was, in
every respect, an abhorrent term. Still, for such a supposedly
abhorrent term, there are innumerable, are countless positive
instances of atman used throughout the Nikayas, especially used in
compounds which are easily glossed over by a prejudicial commentator
and nominalist translators. In meeting these instances, not
surprisingly, these same prejudicial translators have erected a theory
that the atman is purely a reflexive pronoun. The lexical rule that
atman (Pali: attan) is to be used strictly in a pronominal fashion, or
simply should be used as a signifier for the finite body, is
unwarranted. Scholars like C.A.F. Davids, Conze, Humphrey, Schrader,
Horner, Pande, Coomarswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sogen, Suzuki, Julius
Evola, and Nakamura, just to name some important scholars, disagree
with the claim that Buddha categorically denied an eternal (nicca)
soul, whose teachings then, would be classified as Annihilationist and Materialist. In fact there are utterly none living or dead who have
examined the original texts in detail whilst refraining from sectarian
and commentarial explanations and concluded Buddhism has in any way
denied the atman thru and by means of the usage of the term anatta or otherwise. The fatally determined conglomeration which comprises the
temporal body “headed for the grave” is not in dispute and is what is meant by anatta. To this there can be no opposition since all forms of metaphysics cry out for a “freedom from (that mere) self”, as Buddhism
is in full agreement: [Dhm. 147] "Behold! That painted puppet this
body, riddled with oozing sores, an erected façade. Diseased heap that
fools fancy and swoon over; True Essence is not part of it! For the
body befalls utter destruction, [Dhm. 148] "This body is soon worn
out. It is that very same abode for disease and sicknesses that is
broken apart. The body is soon cast away, that very putrid heap. It is
always in death that life meets its end!”, [Dhm. 150] "Behold! This
city of bones, plastered together with flesh and blood. Within its
walls are old age and death. Pride, arrogance, and hypocrisy are its townsfolk!", [MN 1.185] "What of this short-lived body which is clung
to by means of craving? There is nothing in it to say ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or
‘me’."
The term anatman is found not only in Buddhist sutras, but also
in the Upanishads and lavishly so in the writings of Samkara as
mentioned earlier. Anatman is a common via negativa (neti neti, not
this, not that) teaching method common to Vedanta, Neoplatonism,
Buddhism, early Christian mystics, and others, wherein nothing
affirmative can be said of what is “beyond speculation, beyond words,
and concepts” thereby eliminating all positive characteristics that
might be thought to apply to the Soul, or be attributed to it; to wit
that the Subjective ontological Self-Nature (svabhava / atman) can
never be known objectively, but only thru “the denial of all things
which it (the Soul) is not”- Meister Eckhart. This doctrine is also
called by the Greeks Apophasis. Via negativa can only go so far, such
that the Subject (Witness/Atman) cannot be negated (Subject precedes
any object of negation, even and also false attempts at Subject/
Witness negation [=nihilism]). Objective negation culminates in
Subjective gnosis and liberation, not to mention is the most expedient
means to Atman-realization (atmanbodhi, cittavimutta, pannavimutta,
etc.). Just as a fool might, for hundreds of hours, pick thru a pile
of straw (phenomena) in search of a needle (atman), the wisest of men,
in mere seconds, lights a match to the phenomena (straw) which quickly
burns and blows away, leaving before his feet the needle sought; and
this is of course part of the expediency as core to the via negativa methodology.
Modern Buddhism (so-called, not that it is Buddhism in any way)
labors under the heinous delusion that from the outset there is no
immaterial and ontological soul, or atman in the system of Buddhism
and therefore the only logical conclusion from this false premise is
that Buddhism is merely a profane moral Humanism based in
compassionate empirical idealism, ‘liberation but no Liberant’, and
this is palpably false. Under the guise of a more polished form of physicalism or rather, Atheism, a mere qualifier of objective
phenomena, anatta, has overrun a noetic metaphysics, Buddhism, based
in extracting the nous (spirit, citta, Self) from the objective cosmos (=anatta) wherein it has been miserably immersed since time immemorial
as due to the attribute of the Absolute (Brahman, Greek = Hen), that
being avijja (agnosis, nescience, as is philosophically meant
Emanationism). Avijja (a+vijja [atman]) and anatta (an+atman) in no
way differ, such that both refer to the beginningless privation, or objectivity immanent to the Absolute. Overcoming this objective desire (tanha) and enthrallment which constitute what is meant by anatta, is
vijja (illumination), or conventionally liberation (vimutta,
vijjavimutta); namely the only connection between atman and anatta is
that of avijja to which Buddhism’s endgoal is pannavimutta (liberation
via wisdom) in which avijja has no longer any footing; where avijja is
not present, so too is anatta absent, this is the very Tathagata (gone
to Brahman, or That), the same ‘dead man walking’, he who has ‘died before he has (physically) died’. Like the ancient riddle about the
fool "who rides upon horseback looking to and fro for a horse, and
seeing none, denies that horses exist", so too is modern buddhism
inept and impotent in 'seeing' that the focus is the Witness (atman),
that very Subject which cannot be known (empirical knowledge)
objectively, but which can be Known (gnosis, wisdom); thereby
effectuating "liberation", "immortality" (amata), and the declaration
that "this is my last life".
That myself or anyone need go into such extensive and repetitive
detail about a simple term, anatta, which now corruptly forms the
basis of modern Buddhism, only demonstrates the heights from which
original Buddhism has fallen severely over the past 2400 years. Like
an ancient city in the jungle overgrown with vines and weeds, shat
upon by nesting birds, and inhabited by fanged monkeys who fling their
feces at visitors, modern "buddhism" attracts only the mentally
perverse, often spiritually suicidal, who wrongly see superficially
something noble in a soulless nihilistic Humanistic idealism.
Yes, atheism is the cancer destroying the world in the age og Kali.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)