A note from present day Alana: Back in April 2023, a notion was just beginning to take shape in my mind:

That which is conditional can’t be about me, it can’t be who I am.

At that time, the concept was pretty blurry, and the contemplations, frankly, half baked. But –spoiler alert – over the last few years, this idea has become central to my contemplations on Anatta.

Now, whenever I ask myself the core questions: Why is this situation not me/ about me? What proves this can’t be who I am? How do I know these belongings are not mine? How can I be sure this person does not confirm me? Where can I look in a given situation for proof of anatta? Why don’t I have control? Why is there no meaning in my being a cause/a curator/an arranger of traits/relationships/belongings? The answer always comes back to ‘this is conditional and what is conditional can’t be about me.’

In short, my view of anatta, the core concept I use to understand it, comes back to the idea of conditionality.

Now, this is some deep shit. And, I know its not quite fair, throwing it out there with no context and with no lead-up in the contemplations that got me there. And yet, I don’t know how else to lead into the next 2 blogs below.

The following two blogs then are each simple stories, from teachings I heard from LP Anan and Mae Neecha, on 2 occasions in April 2023. They capture some very early notions of this topic of conditionality and anatta. And my hope is that they will give a little context on the import of this topic, which takes center stage of my practice today. It will be quite hard to separate my very early (2023) understanding to all that has been layered on in more recent considerations. Especially as more recent contemplations provide a clarity I want to share with you readers. So consider these next two blogs a little flash back and a little flash forward…

Story 1) LP Anan was teaching a class that I tuned into. There was some scenario he shared, someone getting super upset at a comment made online. He asked the question, “What is a comment?”, and I started thinking in these terms:

An online comment is something that arises based on a particular arrangement of causes and conditions. It is much like a phone call. A phone call requires the functionality of hardware and software of a phone, the proximity to a tower, the battery life, the characteristics — voice, skillfulness in using technology, etc. — of the caller. If any of these factors change — say proximity to a tower — the quality and characteristics of the call change. Too far from the tower, and the ability of the phone to produce the characteristic of calling is lost all together.

A comment arises based on the particular arrangement of experiences and circumstances that create someone’s point of view and allows them to express it in a certain way, using a certain format. The comment, like the call, is just a manifestation, an arrangement, of factors that create a view/expression.

These characteristics of calls or comments, they are just the natural product of a particular state. A state of a phone that allows calls. A state of experiences and imagination that creates particular views and the comments that ensue.

But states change. The phone runs out of batteries or gets a software update and the details, the characteristics of a call change. A view gets updates based on new information, new imagination, and the comments change. State changes result in characteristic changes. This is evidence there is no identity that can be defined by characteristics arising from states – states are always in flux, not fixed. Characteristics are always in flux, not fixed. The particular arrangements that create states are also changing and not fixed.

You can observe changes in a call to prove change in a phone or use change in phone to prove a change in a call. This works from both directions. Looking at cause will illuminate that there are effects and looking at effects will illuminate that there is a cause.

There is no identity in a state because the state will change and so too will all the characters we assume (samutti) to be the markers/ building blocks of identity. A phone is something that makes calls — till it’s not – and then state changes, and the defining characteristics of a phone’s identity, are over.

For a long time beauty has been a trait I have deeply identified with. Alana is beautiful, alana’s beauty proves other aspects of her identity –namely goodness. And when I look in the mirror and see my beauty fade, I think it is a personal defeat. I feel like my physical form doesn’t correspond to the me I want to be, to the person I imagine I am and that I want to project to the world. I botox, and filler, pluck and diet, all to try and force my body to reflect an identity that entails/embodies/includes the characteristic of beauty.

And yet, beauty is a characteristic of a particular state. It is a physical manifestation of rupa (4es) in a particular, peak, arrangement. And then –as I so clearly see in the mirror, that arrangement shifts, ages, sags, fattens, changes. Rupa is in flux, not fixed. Its shifting is dictated by causes and conditions in rupa. How can I use the product/characteristics of a shifting state to prove who I am? How can I use a state that arises and ceases based on causes and conditions beyond me, my control, my imagined identity, to prove anything about myself?