3 ms·

Is this what they call anatta?

• kobeya 10y ago
  That would be my interpretation, yes. To be fair Searle would say that it proves the opposite, but his argument isn't much more than "isn't that crazy?!" (Ok that wasn't very fair.)
• AlexCoventry 10y ago
  It depends who they are. (Ha ha.) That's one perspective on anatta, but not a particularly useful one. You may find this interesting: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/selves... If you've ever taken an introductory course on Buddhism, you've probably heard this question: "If there is no self, who does the kamma, who receives the results of kamma?" This understanding turns the teaching on not-self into a teaching on no self, and then takes no self as the framework and the teaching on kamma as something that doesn't fit in the framework. But in the way the Buddha taught these topics, the teaching on kamma is the framework and the teaching of not-self fits into that framework as a type of action. In other words, assuming that there really are skillful and unskillful actions, what kind of action is the perception of self? What kind of action is the perception of not-self?