Nothing in Conditioned Experience is Substantial
Pablo Picasso
As described earlier, rather than experiencing actual "somethings", all we really experience is interpretations of sensory information which we take to be existing and real. A good analogy is that we live in a sort of movie, where items on the screen can, if we suspend our disbelief, seem like they are actual people and other things. And yet, they are just projections onto a screen that, if we really get absorbed in what is happening, only seem existing and real.
That this can happen is not unexpected, since it is what we tend to do with everything we experience, whether we are aware of it or not. Whether it is a coffee cup, a thought about what we might have for lunch, or the steering wheel in our hands while driving, even though what we actually experience amounts to projections on the screen in our mind, these items seem to be independently what they are, as if we are passive observers. What this reminder tells us is that we are anything but passive observers: we have conditioned what we experience to seem substantial and real, as if everything has a certain quality, essence or nature that inherently makes it what it is. In the unfettering process, the projection of substance onto such things goes away when the seventh fetter evaporates, and we see that the entirety of experience "out there" is nothing but insubstantial mental images "in here".
What we have conditioned to be the most substantial and thus real is ourselves. As is central in some faith traditions, we believe there is an essence or soul that makes us who we are, a "me-ness" that transcends the tangible or physical world. While this belief is in place, no words or concepts are needed to know that it seems like there is a “me” - we know it in our bones as it were. Simply intoning the terms “me… me...” or “I… I…” will reveal the resonance with these terms - there really does seem to be someone “in here”, even if we cannot point to a cause or manifestation of that someone. It also doesn’t require identification with any particular aspect of experience, such as consciousness, memory, the body or anything else; “I Exist”, and that is that. In the unfettering approach, the eighth fetter is the belief that “I Am” or “I Exist”, by which even when one strips away the first seven fetters, taking along with them the belief that there is anything that is owned by (or proves that there is a) “me” or “I”, we are still left with the fundamental and unmistakable sense that “I Am”.
No "Me" Whatsoever
The reminder that nothing in our conditioned experience has any substance or essence (Pali anatta) is intended to contradict the underlying belief that there is a “me” or “I”, nor does anything else we experience have any substance essence. This reminder is necessary because we are born with the underlying tendency to assume there is a “me” that exists "in here somewhere", by which we seem to naturally have a certain perspective on other things that are as real as we are. This reminder is in fact sometimes translated as "no self", which can apply to ourselves and everything else. It’s not that there is a “me” or “I” that is insubstantial, or one that is impermanent: there’s no such thing whatsoever. As with items appearing on a movie screen, what we actually experience is just sensory information that we condition ourselves to experience as real somethings.
The reminder that nothing in our conditioned experience is substantial, if approached conceptually, often relies upon the argument that, because everything is impermanent, nothing can possibly have the permanent substance that we might presume it has. Not only is this argument conceptual, it is quite abstract as well, and encourages us to look around "out there" at all of the people and things around us to see how they exist impermanently, rather than looking "in here" to see that we don't exist at all. The reminder that what we condition what we experience to be substantial is therefore meant to be thorough and complete, especially in terms of "me" - there is no such thing, of any sort. While some interpretations of this term are that there is no permanent “me”, this can actually serve to keep the illusion of an impermanent “me” more firmly in place. This is because anything (or anyone) that is thought to be “impermanent” will, by definition, elude our grasp should we try to find it or verify its existence. Therefore, the fact that we cannot find a “me” may in fact serve to affirm that “I” do in fact exist in an impermanent way.
Dispelling the belief that there is a substance called “me” is therefore a central focus of Buddhist practice. While the overall intent or outcome of the Buddhist path is of course the cessation of suffering, it is the “I” or “me”, and all of its apparent proofs and manifestations, that are also obvious indicators of whether or not we have sufficiently let go of untrue assumptions.
The Experience of “No Me”
For some, seeing that there is no “me” whatsoever might be done in one (very large) step. In the Buddhist tradition, the monk Bahiya was told that “in the seen, there is simply the seen… there is no “you” in any of that”, and that was all it took. However, that is very much the exception, and the the Buddha remarked that Bahiya was the only one who was able to immediately take that large step. Non-Buddhist teachers, such as Nisargadatta, have also presented a path in which this substantial leap all the way to and then past the “I Am” is the primary focus, though he himself noted that few were able to take that leap.
Most people will therefore find a gradual path more practicable in order to see that they are an insubstantial projection. The unfettering approach is one such approach, which strips away each layer of “me” until all that remains is the bare sense of “me”, or “I Am”. With this gradual approach, we begin to understand what the reminder that nothing (including us) is substantial is pointing toward when the first fetter falls, seeing that there is no separate “self” or ego that goes by a certain name and is the agent or controller of experience. Eventually, when the eighth fetter falls, we conclusively and forever see that there is no substance or “me” whatsoever: at that juncture, all sense of identity, and thus resonance with terms like “I” or “me”, evaporates completely.
When one has completely dispelled the belief in “I” and “me”, no words or concepts are necessary to know the fact that there isn’t (and never was) such a thing - it is entirely experiential. It should be emphasized that, while all sense of “me” evaporates, it’s not that experience goes blank or that we become some sort of mindless zombie; the only thing missing from experience at that point is the belief in a “me” or that “I Am”. Also, the eradication of identity is so complete that even though we might recognize a coffee cup as an insubstantial image, we don't recognize "ourselves" at all. We can still use first-person pronouns to navigate daily life, but they no longer appear to refer to anyone or anything.
While anatta or insubstantiality is thus technically still true once fully awake, it is also no longer of any use: we no longer need to be reminded of the fact that there is no “me” because the belief has completely fallen away. It is rather like having had a bad cold for several days and then fully recovering: rather than going through each day thereafter reminding ourselves that we don’t have a cold, the fact that there is no longer a cold present is simply the “new normal”. Whether or not we have a cold is therefore no longer important.
Similarly, when all sense of “me” evaporates, this too becomes the “new normal”, whereby all else in life continues on: the only thing missing is a “me” to which anything could be referenced. We also no longer habitually project an essence or substance onto anyone or anything else, even as we nominally recognize things like coffee cups and red stop lights in the course of daily life. As the Zen saying goes, upon awakening, mountains are still mountains and rivers are still rivers, albeit not the “real” sort of mountains and rivers we originally thought they were. The most important change, though, is that we no longer believe there is a “me” or “I” that is the center or basis of experience, and no reminder of this is necessary.
That this can happen is not unexpected, since it is what we tend to do with everything we experience, whether we are aware of it or not. Whether it is a coffee cup, a thought about what we might have for lunch, or the steering wheel in our hands while driving, even though what we actually experience amounts to projections on the screen in our mind, these items seem to be independently what they are, as if we are passive observers. What this reminder tells us is that we are anything but passive observers: we have conditioned what we experience to seem substantial and real, as if everything has a certain quality, essence or nature that inherently makes it what it is. In the unfettering process, the projection of substance onto such things goes away when the seventh fetter evaporates, and we see that the entirety of experience "out there" is nothing but insubstantial mental images "in here".
What we have conditioned to be the most substantial and thus real is ourselves. As is central in some faith traditions, we believe there is an essence or soul that makes us who we are, a "me-ness" that transcends the tangible or physical world. While this belief is in place, no words or concepts are needed to know that it seems like there is a “me” - we know it in our bones as it were. Simply intoning the terms “me… me...” or “I… I…” will reveal the resonance with these terms - there really does seem to be someone “in here”, even if we cannot point to a cause or manifestation of that someone. It also doesn’t require identification with any particular aspect of experience, such as consciousness, memory, the body or anything else; “I Exist”, and that is that. In the unfettering approach, the eighth fetter is the belief that “I Am” or “I Exist”, by which even when one strips away the first seven fetters, taking along with them the belief that there is anything that is owned by (or proves that there is a) “me” or “I”, we are still left with the fundamental and unmistakable sense that “I Am”.
No "Me" Whatsoever
The reminder that nothing in our conditioned experience has any substance or essence (Pali anatta) is intended to contradict the underlying belief that there is a “me” or “I”, nor does anything else we experience have any substance essence. This reminder is necessary because we are born with the underlying tendency to assume there is a “me” that exists "in here somewhere", by which we seem to naturally have a certain perspective on other things that are as real as we are. This reminder is in fact sometimes translated as "no self", which can apply to ourselves and everything else. It’s not that there is a “me” or “I” that is insubstantial, or one that is impermanent: there’s no such thing whatsoever. As with items appearing on a movie screen, what we actually experience is just sensory information that we condition ourselves to experience as real somethings.
The reminder that nothing in our conditioned experience is substantial, if approached conceptually, often relies upon the argument that, because everything is impermanent, nothing can possibly have the permanent substance that we might presume it has. Not only is this argument conceptual, it is quite abstract as well, and encourages us to look around "out there" at all of the people and things around us to see how they exist impermanently, rather than looking "in here" to see that we don't exist at all. The reminder that what we condition what we experience to be substantial is therefore meant to be thorough and complete, especially in terms of "me" - there is no such thing, of any sort. While some interpretations of this term are that there is no permanent “me”, this can actually serve to keep the illusion of an impermanent “me” more firmly in place. This is because anything (or anyone) that is thought to be “impermanent” will, by definition, elude our grasp should we try to find it or verify its existence. Therefore, the fact that we cannot find a “me” may in fact serve to affirm that “I” do in fact exist in an impermanent way.
Dispelling the belief that there is a substance called “me” is therefore a central focus of Buddhist practice. While the overall intent or outcome of the Buddhist path is of course the cessation of suffering, it is the “I” or “me”, and all of its apparent proofs and manifestations, that are also obvious indicators of whether or not we have sufficiently let go of untrue assumptions.
The Experience of “No Me”
For some, seeing that there is no “me” whatsoever might be done in one (very large) step. In the Buddhist tradition, the monk Bahiya was told that “in the seen, there is simply the seen… there is no “you” in any of that”, and that was all it took. However, that is very much the exception, and the the Buddha remarked that Bahiya was the only one who was able to immediately take that large step. Non-Buddhist teachers, such as Nisargadatta, have also presented a path in which this substantial leap all the way to and then past the “I Am” is the primary focus, though he himself noted that few were able to take that leap.
Most people will therefore find a gradual path more practicable in order to see that they are an insubstantial projection. The unfettering approach is one such approach, which strips away each layer of “me” until all that remains is the bare sense of “me”, or “I Am”. With this gradual approach, we begin to understand what the reminder that nothing (including us) is substantial is pointing toward when the first fetter falls, seeing that there is no separate “self” or ego that goes by a certain name and is the agent or controller of experience. Eventually, when the eighth fetter falls, we conclusively and forever see that there is no substance or “me” whatsoever: at that juncture, all sense of identity, and thus resonance with terms like “I” or “me”, evaporates completely.
When one has completely dispelled the belief in “I” and “me”, no words or concepts are necessary to know the fact that there isn’t (and never was) such a thing - it is entirely experiential. It should be emphasized that, while all sense of “me” evaporates, it’s not that experience goes blank or that we become some sort of mindless zombie; the only thing missing from experience at that point is the belief in a “me” or that “I Am”. Also, the eradication of identity is so complete that even though we might recognize a coffee cup as an insubstantial image, we don't recognize "ourselves" at all. We can still use first-person pronouns to navigate daily life, but they no longer appear to refer to anyone or anything.
While anatta or insubstantiality is thus technically still true once fully awake, it is also no longer of any use: we no longer need to be reminded of the fact that there is no “me” because the belief has completely fallen away. It is rather like having had a bad cold for several days and then fully recovering: rather than going through each day thereafter reminding ourselves that we don’t have a cold, the fact that there is no longer a cold present is simply the “new normal”. Whether or not we have a cold is therefore no longer important.
Similarly, when all sense of “me” evaporates, this too becomes the “new normal”, whereby all else in life continues on: the only thing missing is a “me” to which anything could be referenced. We also no longer habitually project an essence or substance onto anyone or anything else, even as we nominally recognize things like coffee cups and red stop lights in the course of daily life. As the Zen saying goes, upon awakening, mountains are still mountains and rivers are still rivers, albeit not the “real” sort of mountains and rivers we originally thought they were. The most important change, though, is that we no longer believe there is a “me” or “I” that is the center or basis of experience, and no reminder of this is necessary.