Marilyn Monroe never existed? (Anatta)

Marilyn Monroe Buddha digital art by Mark Ashkenazi (Fine Art America)

Norma Mortenson as Marilyn Monroe

How could it both be the case that Marilyn Monroe (aka Norma Mortenson) existed as possibly the most famous female Hollywood icon of all time and did not exist? It's easy. As with more paradoxical riddles, it is a matter of semantics. In the conventional sense, of course she existed. Look, that's her in Some Like It Hot. However, in the ultimate sense, she did not.

Of course, it sounds crazy and goes against all of our most deeply cherished assumptions about what life is. But this is why the cycle of rebirth goes on and on, wandering unenlightened with next to no chance of ever finding the truth. Most never even begin to fathom the true nature of existence. We fight against it. We won't stand for it. Far from hard truths, we want comforting lies.

The Holy Order of Saint Marilyn

Some people might argue, "Well, of course, the character of 'Marilyn Monroe' was a manufactured Hollywood fantasy." But we would have to counter that that illusion is real, as it were. There really is an illusion, a fable, an image or persona called MM. The argument here is that that doesn't exist. The contention is much bolder that the underlying figure, the Norma J. Mortenson, ultimately speaking, does not now exist and never did before. That's a headscratcher. Surely she had to be for the fairytale built around her to exist. Both are illusory. And a wise way to counter argue is not to deny what the Buddha and the noble (enlightened) ones are asserting as ultimate truth, but to ask, "Then what does exist? What is real? This is a fruitful question to because there is an answer. And this will not be debated until someone wins an argument. One will have to know-and-see directly -- then there is no doubt and no need to argue. This is not a belief; it's a living reality. There is a reality, and it is important to arrive at it rather than drowning again and again in illusory samsara.

That's crazy talk, of course she existed!

Here is an example of how opposite things could be true based on whether we are speaking conventionally or ultimately. A scientist says, "This solid matter is composed mainly of empty space." Is that true?

Well, according to the atomic theory of things, it is. A tiny electron spins around a nucleus. The components of the atom (an indivisible unit) are so infinitesimally small that between them is only empty space. All material things are composed of atoms, so all material things, even the densest, are mostly empty space. Is this true? Scientists swear it is. Doesn't that mean that getting a hit by a lead pipe will feel like a puff of empty air? The assumptions we hold about what it must mean are the problem, not the reality. A lead pipe is both made mostly of empty space and will hurt a lot if struck. In the same way, not only Marilyn, but "I," too, am composed of impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal parts. To really under this is to awaken. (To misunderstand this is to seize a snake by the wrong end and be grievously injured by wrongly grasping it). Understanding what we presume to be impossible is possible by grasping Dependent Origination. But won't we lose ourselves by understanding? There is no "self" to lose. By clinging to ignorance and delusion, we are bringing about a world of incalculable misery, and it wouldn't be this way if we allowed the truth to set us free.

• A better, more useful question to ask than, "Did Marilyn exist?" is, "In what sense can anyone rightly say she did not exist?" The Buddha did not introduce a teaching that so goes against the stream of everything we cling to without a purpose. That reason is because the ego, the clinging to views, holds us apart from Truth. The Buddha taught that people will not even reach the first stage of enlightenment without understanding this principle of not-self. They will not see the Buddha or the Dharma without seeing Dependent Origination. (If we ask, "Well, if there is no self, what is there then?" The answer is "Dependent Origination"). What would be better, to escape to reality or hold views deluded ignorance? It seems we have a deep-seated fear that if we let ourselves believe in "not-self" we would suddenly disappear in "a puff of unsmoke." But belief is neither here nor there. It is the wisdom (insight) to see clearly what is there and what is not that counts by direct experience, not any belief or faith.

The no-self teaching | Buddhism

Marilyn Monroe almost invisible (Mark Ashkenazi/Fine Art America)

.

(SEEKER TO SEEKER) When one says, "I am," what does the word "I" refer to? According to the Buddhist teaching of no-self (anatta), to be able to answer this question correctly is to reach liberation (nirvana through enlightenment). It is to reach the end of all pain and misery.

Let's explore the Buddha's teaching of the Five Aggregates (skandhas or khandhas) clung to as "self." This teaching is variously called anatta, anatman, no-self, egolessness, nonself, the doctrine that all things are impersonal.

Italian poster for Some Like It Hot

The essence of the teaching is that liberation (moksha) and enlightenment (bodhi) come about when one realizes that every model of the self we can have is a wrong model.

When one lets go of clinging -- falsely identifying self with the contents of experience -- only then can one put an end to all pain and suffering (dukkha) once and for all.

⭐ Support channel: seeker2seeker 💰PayPal donation: paypal.com/donate... 📨 Subscribe to the newsletter: mailchi.mp... #wisdom #buddhism #philosophy #existential

• Seeker to Seeker, 10/9/21; Pat Macpherson, Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly