<p>It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.</p>

<p>But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.</p>

<p><strong>Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I".</strong> therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T10:06:49.517Z
2018-08-27T10:12:02.440Z
2018-08-27T10:12:02.440Z
Bonn
<p>On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T02:39:51.457Z
2018-08-27T02:39:51.457Z
Krizalid_Nest
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't &quot;owner of kamma, heir of kamma&quot; a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't
associate our self with?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>MN 117 says there are two types of teachings, where kamma is a mundane teaching and the noble eightfold path, per AN 6.63, is a supramundane teaching that ends kamma</p>
<p>so the reflection on 'heir to kamma' is mundane however is also useful for all non-arahants to remind themselves of kamma because all non-arahants can have lapses in mindfulness that can result in doing unpeaceful kamma, such as scolding puthujjana</p>
<p>when a noble non-arahant uses the kamma reflection and is mindful of not-self, the &quot;I&quot; in the kamma reflection is merely a convention. however it remains effective to remind them to maintain good kamma</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-08T18:14:06.027Z
what exactly is meant by a convention?  ideas are objects of conceptuality whereas the existing i arises with the aggregates specifically the bhavanga,  is the object of nonconceptual awareness, and is the basis for ascertaining the absence of self.
bw tho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-08T12:30:34.590Z
2021-07-08T12:30:34.590Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Let's see what the Buddha has to say :</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of
a certain monk: &quot;So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self,
perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is
not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what
is not-self?&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of
thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: &quot;It's possible
that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving
— might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this
way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is
not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then
what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'</strong>
Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard
to this &amp; that topic here &amp; there? What do you think — Is form
constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord.&quot; &quot;And is that which is
inconstant easeful or stressful?&quot; &quot;Stressful, lord.&quot; &quot;And is it
fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:
'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?&quot; &quot;No, lord.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;... Is feeling constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord&quot;...</p>
<p>&quot;... Is perception constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord&quot;...</p>
<p>&quot;... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?&quot; &quot;Inconstant, lord&quot;...</p>
<p>&quot;What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?&quot;
&quot;Inconstant, lord.&quot; &quot;And is that which is inconstant easeful or
stressful?&quot; &quot;Stressful, lord.&quot; &quot;And is it fitting to regard what is
inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my
self. This is what I am'?&quot; &quot;No, lord.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: Every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come
to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'</p>
<p>&quot;Any feeling whatsoever...</p>
<p>&quot;Any perception whatsoever...</p>
<p>&quot;Any fabrications whatsoever...</p>
<p>&quot;Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it
has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
what I am.'</p>
<p>&quot;Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge,
'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'&quot;</p>
<p>That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in
the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given,
the minds of sixty monks, through lack of clinging, were fully
released from fermentations. - MN 109</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also, the predicament faced by Ven. Channa is quite similar to what several of us feel, hence Ven. Ananda gives him some advice :</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, &quot;I, too, think that form is
inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant,
fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant; form is
not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications
are not-self, consciousness is not-self; all fabrications are
inconstant; all phenomena are not-self. But still my mind does not
leap up, grow confident, steadfast, &amp; released in the resolution of
all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of
craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. Instead, agitation &amp;
clinging arise, and my intellect pulls back, thinking, 'But who, then,
is my self?' But this thought doesn't occur to one who sees the
Dhamma. So who might teach me the Dhamma so that I might see the
Dhamma?&quot;</strong></p>
<p>Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, &quot;This Ven. Ananda is staying
at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. He has been praised by the Teacher and
is esteemed by his knowledgeable fellows in the holy life. He is
capable of teaching me the Dhamma so that I might see the Dhamma, and
I have sudden trust in him. Why don't I go to Ven. Ananda?&quot;</p>
<p>So, setting his lodgings in order and carrying his robes &amp; bowl, Ven.
Channa went to Kosambi to where Ven. Ananda was staying in Ghosita's
Park. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with the Ven.
Ananda. After an exchange of friendly greetings &amp; courtesies, he sat
to one side. As he was sitting there, he [told Ven. Ananda what had
happened and added], &quot;May Ven. Ananda exhort me, may Ven. Ananda teach
me, may Ven. Ananda give me a Dhamma talk so that I might see the
Dhamma.&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Even this much makes me feel gratified &amp; satisfied with Ven. Channa,
that he opens up &amp; breaks down his stubbornness. So lend ear, friend
Channa. You are capable of understanding the Dhamma.&quot;</p>
<p>Then a sudden great rapture &amp; joy welled up in Ven. Channa at the
thought, &quot;So I am capable of understanding the Dhamma!&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, friend Channa.
Face-to-face with him have I learned the exhortation he gave to the
bhikkhu Kaccayanagotta:[2] 'By &amp; large, Kaccayana, this world is
supported by[3] a polarity, that of existence &amp; non-existence. But
when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with
right discernment, &quot;non-existence&quot; with reference to the world does
not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it
actually is with right discernment, &quot;existence&quot; with reference to the
world does not occur to one.</p>
<p>&quot;'By &amp; large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
clingings (sustenances), &amp; biases. But one such as this does not get
involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of
awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on &quot;my self.&quot; He
has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress
is arising; and that when there is passing away, stress is passing
away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this
extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.</p>
<p>&quot;'&quot;Everything exists&quot;: That is one extreme. &quot;Everything doesn't
exist&quot;: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a
requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a
requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
requisite condition comes name-&amp;-form. From name-&amp;-form as a requisite
condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite
condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes
craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes
clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition
comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging &amp; death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair come into play. Such is the
origination of this entire mass of stress &amp; suffering.</p>
<p>&quot;'Now from the remainderless fading &amp; cessation of that very ignorance
comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&amp;-form. From the
cessation of name-&amp;-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
cessation of birth, then aging &amp; death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, &amp; despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
mass of stress &amp; suffering.'</p>
<p>&quot;That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the
holy life like Ven. Ananda — sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, &amp;
teaching. Just now, for me, listening to Ven. Ananda's
Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-08T11:25:06.810Z
2021-07-08T11:25:06.810Z
Arkaprava Paul
<p>Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T02:53:50.560Z
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T03:14:26.367Z
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
santa100
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T02:26:19.097Z
2018-08-27T03:32:26.247Z
2018-08-27T03:32:26.247Z
santa100
<p>I don’t think there is any contradiction in the sayings, “I am the owner of my kamma…..” with the teaching of anatta (not-self). A lot of us desire good karmic fruits (pleasant experiences) but abhor bad karmic fruits (bad experiences) but we don’t get to choose what (either good or bad), when, where and how our karma comes to fruition.</p>
<p>It’s like a man mistakenly planted lots of bitter gourds in his backyard. When the bitter gourds ripen, he bemoaned, “Oh why do I have so much bitter fruits, I want sweet tasting fruits!”. He can’t snap his fingers and miraculously change the bitter gourds to mangoes. Similarly, we really understand why it is anatta when we are experiencing our bad karmic fruits. In such times, we can’t do anything but just endure. Nor can we transfer some of these bad karmic fruits to another time or place. The same goes with good karmic fruits, we can’t store them or delay their ripening till an appropriate time.</p>
<p>We can plant karmic seeds, that’s about it. The whole process of those seeds germinating, ripening and coming into fruition is anatta or not-self.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-15T16:52:49.733Z
The last paragraph.: the process itself is not-self...this is true, karma is not-self
blue_ego
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-15T13:44:18.210Z
2023-07-15T13:44:18.210Z
Desmon
<p>This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level. </p>

<p>The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.</p>

<p>Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T11:53:41.287Z
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana” as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
Saptha Visuddhi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T13:13:22.540Z
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T13:36:20.430Z
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of  "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
Saptha Visuddhi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T17:21:52.703Z
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T04:54:44.380Z
2018-08-27T05:08:02.743Z
2018-08-27T05:08:02.743Z
Sankha Kulathantille
<p>Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "<em>I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do</em>" when this seems to contradict anatta?</p>

<p><strong>Isn't thinking "<em>I am X</em>" contradicting the teaching of anatta?</strong></p>

<p>There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.093.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 22.93</a>. <strong>Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "<em>owner of kamma, heir of kamma</em>" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?</strong></p>

<p>Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "<em>there's no self in this body and mind doing anything</em>"? What's the consequence of this view? </p>

<p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.57</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T02:25:18.770Z
appears contradictory to me too.
Dheeraj Verma
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T04:43:02.763Z
Yes. So "*owner of kamma, heir of kamma*" is not self, isn't it?
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-27T11:38:56.273Z
You can see how the word “anatta” got translated incorrectly as “no-self”by carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta” which is different from “attā” (with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of  “atta” not of “attā“. Anātma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-self”), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
Saptha Visuddhi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-19T15:41:22.083Z
Atta is like flour? Atta flour used to make roti...I think atta means “was”, Buddha teaching “was not”
blue_ego
<personal-practice><karma><anatman>
Why the view "I am the owner of my karma" not contradict anatta?
# Why the view "I am the owner of my karma" not contradict anatta?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-08-27)

Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do*" when this seems to contradict anatta?

**Isn't thinking "*I am X*" contradicting the teaching of anatta?**

There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. [SN 22.93](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.093.than.html). **Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "*owner of kamma, heir of kamma*" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?**

Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "*there's no self in this body and mind doing anything*"? What's the consequence of this view?

From [AN 5.57](https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi):

> “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
> householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
> my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
> relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
> good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
> and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
> is either completely abandoned or diminished.

**Tags:** personal-practice, karma, anatman

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: appears contradictory to me too.  
> **username_0**: Yes. So "*owner of kamma, heir of kamma*" is not self, isn't it?  
> **username_2**: You can see how the word “anatta” got translated incorrectly as “no-self”by carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta” which is different from “attā” (with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of  “atta” not of “attā“. Anātma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-self”), has been misinterpreted as anatta.  
> **username_3**: Atta is like flour? Atta flour used to make roti...I think atta means “was”, Buddha teaching “was not”  

---

## 7 answers

### Answer by username_11 on 2018-08-27. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.

The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.

Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana” as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.  
> **username_11**: @SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)  
> **username_2**: Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of  "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.  
> **username_11**: No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-08-27. Score: 2

It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.

But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.

**Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I".** therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-08-27. Score: 1

On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.

On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2021-07-08. Score: 1

> **Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't
> associate our self with?**

MN 117 says there are two types of teachings, where kamma is a mundane teaching and the noble eightfold path, per AN 6.63, is a supramundane teaching that ends kamma

so the reflection on 'heir to kamma' is mundane however is also useful for all non-arahants to remind themselves of kamma because all non-arahants can have lapses in mindfulness that can result in doing unpeaceful kamma, such as scolding puthujjana

when a noble non-arahant uses the kamma reflection and is mindful of not-self, the "I" in the kamma reflection is merely a convention. however it remains effective to remind them to maintain good kamma

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: what exactly is meant by a convention?  ideas are objects of conceptuality whereas the existing i arises with the aggregates specifically the bhavanga,  is the object of nonconceptual awareness, and is the basis for ascertaining the absence of self.  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2021-07-08. Score: 1

Let's see what the Buddha has to say :

> Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of
> a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self,
> perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is
> not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what
> is not-self?"
>
> **Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of
> thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible
> that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving
> — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this
> way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is
> not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then
> what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'**
> Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard
> to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form
> constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is
> inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it
> fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as:
> 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord."
>
> "... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord"...
>
> "... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord"...
>
> "... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord"...
>
> "What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
> "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or
> stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is
> inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my
> self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord."
>
> "Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
> internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
> near: Every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come
> to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
>
> "Any feeling whatsoever...
>
> "Any perception whatsoever...
>
> "Any fabrications whatsoever...
>
> "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
> internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
> near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it
> has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
> what I am.'
>
> "Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
> disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
> perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
> consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
> dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge,
> 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
> the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
>
> That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in
> the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given,
> the minds of sixty monks, through lack of clinging, were fully
> released from fermentations. - MN 109

Also, the predicament faced by Ven. Channa is quite similar to what several of us feel, hence Ven. Ananda gives him some advice :

> **Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, "I, too, think that form is
> inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant,
> fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant; form is
> not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications
> are not-self, consciousness is not-self; all fabrications are
> inconstant; all phenomena are not-self. But still my mind does not
> leap up, grow confident, steadfast, & released in the resolution of
> all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of
> craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. Instead, agitation &
> clinging arise, and my intellect pulls back, thinking, 'But who, then,
> is my self?' But this thought doesn't occur to one who sees the
> Dhamma. So who might teach me the Dhamma so that I might see the
> Dhamma?"**
>
> Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, "This Ven. Ananda is staying
> at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. He has been praised by the Teacher and
> is esteemed by his knowledgeable fellows in the holy life. He is
> capable of teaching me the Dhamma so that I might see the Dhamma, and
> I have sudden trust in him. Why don't I go to Ven. Ananda?"
>
> So, setting his lodgings in order and carrying his robes & bowl, Ven.
> Channa went to Kosambi to where Ven. Ananda was staying in Ghosita's
> Park. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with the Ven.
> Ananda. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat
> to one side. As he was sitting there, he [told Ven. Ananda what had
> happened and added], "May Ven. Ananda exhort me, may Ven. Ananda teach
> me, may Ven. Ananda give me a Dhamma talk so that I might see the
> Dhamma."
>
> "Even this much makes me feel gratified & satisfied with Ven. Channa,
> that he opens up & breaks down his stubbornness. So lend ear, friend
> Channa. You are capable of understanding the Dhamma."
>
> Then a sudden great rapture & joy welled up in Ven. Channa at the
> thought, "So I am capable of understanding the Dhamma!"
>
> "Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, friend Channa.
> Face-to-face with him have I learned the exhortation he gave to the
> bhikkhu Kaccayanagotta:[2] 'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is
> supported by[3] a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But
> when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with
> right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does
> not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it
> actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the
> world does not occur to one.
>
> "'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
> clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get
> involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of
> awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on "my self." He
> has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress
> is arising; and that when there is passing away, stress is passing
> away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this
> extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
>
> "'"Everything exists": That is one extreme. "Everything doesn't
> exist": That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the
> Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a
> requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a
> requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
> requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite
> condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
> requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite
> condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes
> craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes
> clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition
> comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
> From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow,
> lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the
> origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
>
> "'Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
> comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
> fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
> of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the
> cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
> From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
> contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
> From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
> cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
> the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
> From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
> cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
> distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
> mass of stress & suffering.'
>
> "That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the
> holy life like Ven. Ananda — sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, &
> teaching. Just now, for me, listening to Ven. Ananda's
> Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated."


---

### Answer by username_9 on 2018-08-27. Score: 1

Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?  
> **username_9**: Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.  

---

### Answer by username_10 on 2023-07-15. Score: 0

I don’t think there is any contradiction in the sayings, “I am the owner of my kamma…..” with the teaching of anatta (not-self). A lot of us desire good karmic fruits (pleasant experiences) but abhor bad karmic fruits (bad experiences) but we don’t get to choose what (either good or bad), when, where and how our karma comes to fruition.

It’s like a man mistakenly planted lots of bitter gourds in his backyard. When the bitter gourds ripen, he bemoaned, “Oh why do I have so much bitter fruits, I want sweet tasting fruits!”. He can’t snap his fingers and miraculously change the bitter gourds to mangoes. Similarly, we really understand why it is anatta when we are experiencing our bad karmic fruits. In such times, we can’t do anything but just endure. Nor can we transfer some of these bad karmic fruits to another time or place. The same goes with good karmic fruits, we can’t store them or delay their ripening till an appropriate time.

We can plant karmic seeds, that’s about it. The whole process of those seeds germinating, ripening and coming into fruition is anatta or not-self.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: The last paragraph.: the process itself is not-self...this is true, karma is not-self  

---

