Arahattamagga Arahattaphala - The Path to Arahantship

In the glossary, many of the technical words are explained with the special meanings which these terms render in Buddhism.

For instance, here is the explanation about anatta (Sanskrit is anatma). Anatma is no self. It can be not-self. This is the author’s definition.

anattã: Not-self; the truth that all phenomena are devoid of anything that can be identified as “self”. This means that none of the physical and mental components of personality (the 5 khandhas ) make up an entity, either individual or collective, nor can a self-entity be found anywhere within the heart (citta). Therefore, what is experienced as being an abiding self is no more than a phantom personality born of ignorance and delusion—inherently transient, unstable, and bound up with suffering.

Mi~Beloved’s Remark:

This explains that all phenomena lack anything which can be identified as self. However, that is absurd because any event which is described must have an observer. If, however one can prove that the observer is a combination of factors, then one must also list the factors.

If someone says that an engine is not one thing, then he is left to list what parts comprise the engine. To say that the engine does not exist because it is not one thing, is an evasion due to lack of knowing the components.

He uses the word heart to mean citta but that is absurd as well. However, if we accept that at face value, to say that the self is not found in the heart or citta, is merely a declaration with no proof. For instance, the body as it is, with its limited range of vision, cannot see electricity coursing through a wire. Hence those people who feel that the body is itself the total evidence, honestly see that electricity does not exist. They may not agree to the evidence of the shock if a live wire is held or if a motor spins when a current flows through it.

Not finding a self during meditation is not proof that there is no self but it is proof that the particular meditator did not find a self. The lack of discovery of a self neither proves that there is or there is not a self because such a self if it is there, is not dense enough where there can be an agreement about it.

According to this Buddhist philosophy, personality comprises of 5 khandas. The writer gave this.

khandha: Literally, “group” or “aggregate”. In the plural, khandhas refer to the five physical and mental components of personality (body, feelings, memory, thoughts, consciousness) and to sensory experience in general (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations). Also known as “aggregates of attachment” because they are the objects of a craving for personal existence, they are, in fact, simply classes of natural phenomena that continuously arise and cease and are devoid of any enduring selfidentity whatsoever.

According to this:

body, feelings, memory, thoughts, consciousness with sensory experience = khandas

Each of these five and the rendering of that through the medium of sensory experience, requires an observer but the writer avoids dealing with that. Why?

The reason is that the observer must use consciousness to gain experience and to assert itself or deny itself of the experience if it can do that. However, the apparent unification of the observer and consciousness does not prove that the observer does not exist. A temporary manifestation of something is no proof that the object in question does not exist.

The suspension of continuity of a self does not prove that the self does not exist. The mere idea that anything recurs means that a declaration about its non-existence is invalid.

Saying that it did exist, it fails to exist now and hence it is anatta and has no validity, is absurd. It would be better if the Buddhists were to declare that the whole idea of a continuity of self is a matter of great urgency and uncertainty, where one cannot pin the atta or self down to be existing forever or to be insubstantial forever.  But all the same, they already agreed to regulate the behavior of the self because they issued moral values which they install as vows for their monks.

They should declare:

We are not sure that there is an enduring self. Some evidence for a self is there but to us it is inconclusive. In the meantime, we suggest that everyone act as a self and follow certain principles which reduce incidence of violence to the supposed selves in the world. And until we can prove a self conclusively, we suggest a partial or complete erasure of the any notion of self. That will relieve the seeker of trauma which is the ultimate target for elimination.

I will support that the literature delves into and describes states of citta. This is useful in itself and is an assist to anyone who does meditation irrespective of being Buddhist or not.

It does not matter the system, as Marcia Beloved stresses, it is the experience of these seasoned meditators that gives us insight into higher states.