anatta
The term anatta in pali means: “non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings. This is a very concentrated definition, I want to zoom the focus back a bit more and redefine it in a very general manner. The redefinition I am going to state is that non-self is the smaller concept within the large general concept of non-abstraction. Think of non-abstraction as that as a field in which a firm law resides. This law states that absolutely no concept is permitted within the field of non-abstraction.
Now I want you to consider English words that comprise the language of English. Now for a little thought experiment. I am going to provide a statement then expect a firm realistic reliable conclusion. “Did you just see that person?” Can you at all provide me with a firm realistic and reliable conclusion upon that statement? Firstly, it entirely depends if we are within the same area in which we can both see equally from, doesn't it? The act of just asking such a question within the blog post just violated the only firm rule of the non-abstract field. Concepts are very common and used very frequently in our way of structuring thought and language. To think of a mental field in which you are required to not use concepts is very narrow and tightly constrained.
Back to the main topic this concept is normally focused upon in regards to western thought. The idea of not having a permanent self or soul as ones source of consciousness. Is the soul or an permanent self things that violate the rule of no concepts? Thinking of the definition of a soul or self, they are entirely abstractions that have no solid physical basis to reference to. The absolute absence of a physical objective phenomena completely violates the principle of our non-abstract field. Since this is the case, the redefinition I provided is of a larger more general scope that contains the primary of anatta definition within it. I just wanted to provide the more general definition of anatta because the logical principle behind it is incredibly important and useful in Buddhism.
This then leads to the term: vipassana. Vipassana is correct vision or right vision. There are three important traits required to gain access to this style of seeing. They are: anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), anatta (non-self). Anicca is simply stating that everything is constantly changing and is never permanent within reality. Dukka is just that all conscious beings have a built in alert system that infinitely sends notifications of dissatisfaction or craving for what is not currently attained. Anatta I just previously went through in detail. All three of these are tightly related ideas, and overlap each other in many different ways and points in time. It is very helpful to refine these three ideas for any practice of Buddhism I think.
The one thing I feel I must express is how absolutely important aerobic exercise is. The idea of aerobic exercise has been something I've been vaguely searching for every once in awhile in regards to how it fits within the Buddhist theological doctrines. The best I've been able to find is the practice of walking meditation. I suppose this can be entirely understandable since the time from which Siddhartha (Buddha) is from is very far in the past. I don't expect that the concept of aerobic exercise was a piece of knowledge that was floating about in that day and age. Survival required completely different skill-sets and ideologies in the time of Buddha. Although I firmly believe in the discoveries of modern physiological science in reference to the human body. I do think that strenuous activities/movement was most likely very common in Siddhartha's day for survival. As part of the animal kingdom, we as homo sapiens require movement and interaction with our physical environment precisely the same as other animal do. Separation of the ideal of the abstract soul from humanity, and you're just left with another animal living on planet Earth. Lock a large wild animal in a house and what would you call that? Most likely animal cruelty. The image of a dog trapped in a house seems to be one that I have found to mention that easily communicates the idea of how that causes the dog to become very saddened. As I just recently had mentioned, human beings are part of the animal kingdom too!
Technology seems to be force feeding the field of concepts through its digital screens. First, it was the television tube, then the computer, and finally our phones. When will it stop? Will retinal vision chips be the next phase? Ahhhhhhhh welp,
Cheers!
周培森