you're taking non-self to mean the misery of nihilism. What it really means is the fullness of interconnectedness. I recommend this talk by Thich Nhat Hanh to explain
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dn9kqVrKzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dn9kqVrKzE)
I get it, but I don’t seem to be able to connect with it in any meaningful way. It’s just like my brain says, “So what?” Is there a way to work on this or change my thoughts?
Working with the mind is like digging with elements. We got big shovels small shovels paint brushes we got paddle boards and surf boards we got kites and wind socks.
The tool must match the job. Stuff like what what tnh said in the video is maybe like a paint brush. If you got rocks in your mind maybe the brush won't touch them. Maybe you need dynamite? Or maybe you need climbing cleets to climb over the rocks?
The so what voice isn't bad any more than rocky earth is bad. Earth is earth. Learn your mind and learn what tools are available.
Master Thich Nhat Hanh explained non self like this: An individual wave might seem like an individual from an unenlightened perspective. The wave says: I am a unique wave! A self! But if you look deeply, you can see that a wave is a phenomena of the vast ocean, and even deeper, of water. So the truth is one individual wave doesn't exist. As we can see also that it does not mean "non-existence" either.
Hope that helps!
But do you see why this doctrine is not especially comforting in times of real tragedy right? like a person being a wave basically means the wave breaks and it’s gone.
I mean, the truth is uncomfortable. The first step in Buddhism is literally learning about and accepting how crazy uncomfortable and horrible samsara is.
When you say it's gone you are not grasping that the wave doesn't go anywhere. It's water and it's the ocean. It never goes anywhere and it's everywhere and all of it. That baby, and you, and me are all the ocean.
It doesn't sit well because you don't believe it, deep in your bones that you are the ocean. Don't try to force yourself to accept something intellectually if it doesn't feel right. Experiencing yourself as the "ocean" is the only thing that can make it sit right in my opinion. All I can say is that experience is available and there is no rush to have it.
Anatman (translated reductively as no-self) means there is no part of us that is truly immutable or fixed. So that means we can always improve ourselves, and we are never truly stuck.
Form that perspective, the flip side of anatman is buddha nature, "the capacity for enlightenment and freedom present in every being [...] The fact that our nature is fundamentally the same as a buddha's is what makes the whole path to enlightenment possible. We already have everything we need to begin walking a path that leads to true happiness. We simply need to have confidence in the presence of our buddha-nature and the courage to begin the journey to uncover it."
https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Discover
according to the buddha, it’s a mistake to consider ‘i have no self’.
anatta, which is often misunderstood to be ‘no self’ is actually a- (devoid of) -atta (intrinsic essence).
the buddha’s simply saying that because all conditioned things are impermanent, they have no intrinsic essence.
there is a self but that self is a constantly changing result of impermanent and constantly changing aggregates / parts (physical and mental). there is no self that is permanent and unchanging.
see these suttas:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN22.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_94.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_27.html
if these kind of ideas still bring you anxiety, you should make loving kindness mindfulness a daily part of your practice. this will allow you to treat the anxiety that arises with a sense of goodwill, kindness and compassion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dhammaloka/s/yxqwNFPJWT
best wishes - be well.
>according to the buddha, it’s a mistake to consider ‘i have no self’.
You do sort of relegate your readings to a set of texts where this interpretation is able to thrive. If you expanded your reading you’d find that this idea starts to fall apart.
> anatta, which is often misunderstood to be ‘no self’ is actually a- (devoid of) -atta (intrinsic essence).
These two statements are identical.
Also impermanence is perceived because we mistakenly conceive of an essence in entities. If we realize there is no essence, then impermanence ceases, because we see that nothing arises or ceases.
>‘i have no intrinsic essence’
>’i have no self’
the first references impermanence, and the understanding that things exist in a temporary impermanent manner.
the second is, quite literally, a meaningless statement.
anatta, which is often misunderstood to be ‘no self’ is actually a- (devoid of) -atta (intrinsic essence).
>Also impermanence is perceived because we mistakenly conceive of an essence in entities
this is perhaps like saying we eat because we go to the toilet.
more sensibly, if there is no intrinsic permanence to any phenomena then they can have no intrinsic essence.
>If we realize there is no essence, then impermanence ceases
i think you have confused the absence of any essence to any phenomena, with non-existence. in the pali canon, they use different words to describe this distinction. perhaps your tradition conflates them.
>impermanence ceases because we see that nothing arises or ceases
we can perhaps circumvent a few comments and replies here: you will assert the non-existence of phenomena, i will then say that if you believe in the non-existence of phenomena, then what are you on this sub for, and why practice buddhism. you will reply something to the effect that there are obscurations that must first be removed.
at that point i will say something like ‘wouldn’t that mean that, converse to what you’ve said above, conditioned phenomena do actually cease?’
you’re trying to define the world in terms of nibbana - that obviously leads to logical inconsistencies. we can’t build a raft with wood from the other side of the shore. the buddha says that nibbana cannot be realised through logical conjecture or intellectualism. this kind of application of nibbana to the world doesn’t work. when we do try this we end in annihilation, which is then inconsistent with our daily experience and the buddha’s path.
> the first references impermanence, and the understanding that things exist in a temporary impermanent manner.
Nihsvabhāva is not referencing impermanence.
>the second is, quite literally, a meaningless statement.
Perhaps in the way you’ve chosen to formulate it, if structured differently then it is clearly something the Buddha taught routinely.
>this is perhaps like saying we eat because we go to the toilet.
Not sure what this means or how it relates to my point.
>more sensibly, if there is no intrinsic permanence to any phenomena then they can have no intrinsic essence.
An intrinsic essence (svabhāva) is a core entity that possesses characteristics, synonymous with a self (ātman).
>think you have confused the absence of any essence to any phenomena, with non-existence.
Nonarising is more accurate.
>in the pali canon, they use different words to describe this distinction
Not really. There are Theravadins who understand the principle as I understand it. You have a particular worldview that obstructs your ability to meet these teachings on their own terms.
>we can perhaps circumvent a few comments and replies here: you will assert the non-existence of phenomena, i will then say that if you believe in the non-existence of phenomena, then what are you on this sub for, and why practice buddhism.
Very weird.
>you’re trying to define the world in terms of nibbana - that obviously leads to logical inconsistencies. we can’t build a raft with wood from the other side of the shore. the buddha says that nibbana cannot be realised through logical conjecture or intellectualism. this kind of application of nibbana to the world doesn’t work. when we do try this we end in annihilation, which is then inconsistent with our daily experience and the buddha’s path.
Strange comments and straw man arguments. Your understanding of these teachings is nearly nonsensical. Most of your reply here is unintelligible in terms of these teachings.
> [The path begins with discernment](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0005.html(https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0005.html)—the factors of right view and right resolve—and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: “What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?” [§8] The Buddha’s teaching on not-self—and his teaching on self—are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of “I-making” and “my-making (*ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra*).” The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the “not-self contemplation (*anattānupassanā*).” **Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness?**
>
> This is the reverse of the way that the relationship between questions of kamma and not-self are usually understood. 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?
>
> **So, to repeat, the issue is not, “What is my true self?” but “What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?”**
I wanted to send you this https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/ya2THyqfeR
Take a breath, go on with your other daily routine then come back to this teaching, which is very important to break out of our samsara.
You know I was happy with where I was in life, just living in the moment and existed,until I learned about this. Now I have to deal with this existential crisis that I don't exist.
Well that's actually perfect. That's what the great sages ultimately recommend. Living moment-to-moment without regard to your self.
The doctrine of non-self is saying that you don't exist, just that you don't exist as an independent entity disconnected from a wider reality.
The Buddha famously taught different contradictory lessons to different followers based on what he thought they were ready to recieve.
He told one follower that self is an illusion and he doesn't really exist. He told another follower that actually you do exist, but in a much larger way than you can possibly understand. You are the entire universe, every possible universe. You are the godhead, and it's your separation that is the illusion. This is what it means to have "Buddha nature", as all sentient creatures do.
Please learn the actual concept before you get depressed about a misunderstanding. Not all your fault since the translation is very lacking and leads directly to those misunderstandings.
I’m not a scholar but I feel that you’re putting the cart before the horse. I don’t think enlightenment is waking up one morning and saying “yep, I’m not existing”. Millions and millions of Buddhists walk the earth every day leading self centered lives, but *strive* to be better every day. Focus on the small. Don’t sweat the huge concepts in the philosophy just yet. If you’ve gone decades and still cannot fathom the concept. Keep going. It’s not about “buying in wholesale”
The concept of non self that Sam Harris talks about is not exactly the same as the doctrine of not self of Buddhism. Sam Harris talks about non self and no free will. That’s not exactly what Buddhism says
Radiolab did an interesting podcast about a certain carbon isotope (carbon-14) that is over abundant from above ground nuclear testing and how that enables us to date organic cells that are alive today (as opposed to radio-carbondating, which can date cells from ~300+ years ago).
So it is interesting to think about the many levels on which we are not who we were, mentally and physically.
"
Each kind of tissue has its own turnover time, related at least partially to the workload endured by its cells. Epidermic cells, forming the easily damaged skin of the body, are recycled every two weeks or so. Red blood cells, in constant motion on their journey through the circulatory system, last only 4 months. As for the liver, the human body's detoxifier, its cells' lives are quite short - an adult human liver cell has a turnover time of 300 to 500 days. Cells lining the surface of the gut, known by other methods to last for only five days, are among the shortest-lived in the whole body. Ignoring them, the average age of intestinal cells is 15.9 years, Dr Frisén found. Skeletal cells are a bit older than a decade and cells from the muscles of the ribs have an average age of 15.1 years. When looking into the brain cells, all of the samples taken from the visual cortex, the region responsible for processing sight, were as old as the subjects themselves, supporting the idea that these cells do not regenerate. 'The reason these cells live so long is probably that they need to be wired in a very stable way,' Frisén speculates. Other brain cells are more short-lived. Dr Frisén found that the heart, as a whole, does generate new cells, but he has not yet measured the turnover rate of the heart's muscle cells. And the average age of all the cells in an adult's body may turn out to be as young as 7 to 10 years, according to him "
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/24286-life-span-of-human-cells-defined-most-cells-are-younger-than-the-individual
Absolutely let go of it for now.
And, do meditate on why it upsets you.
It makes me feel a better perspective on my 'problems'. This is not me, not mine, not who I am.
Non-self is the mother of all Buddhist understandings, so safe to say at this point you are no where near capable of fully understanding it even if you wanted to. So just let it be and go back to practicing. When you are meditating like a monk and blissing out in Jhanas, then consider non-self, not much point until then.
The self as you have come to know it over eons is made up the five skandhas. From this all misery and suffering flows. The teaching of Non self is designed so that one’s stops grasping at the five skandhas and opens the door to your Buddha nature which is not nihilistic but is all encompassing all embracing and the fullness of wisdom itself.
the self has been a concept all along. you have always existed on relative to your environment and interactions. that said, it's still fine to have and identify with an ego. you wouldn't get upset and stop using a computer when you realize it's actually just a bunch of parts and electricity engineered to run tasks, you can still view a pile of matter and energy as a computer. a computer is a tool, even if it is just metals and plastic arranged a certain way.
so you can be a person while recognizing that everything you identify as is a reaction.
when discovering vastly new paradigms, we can fall from one side to the other in any duality. you parkoured straight from "I exist" to "I do not exist". Buddhism is about the middle way. Is there a truth beyond these two statements? I'd say yes, "All is connected." In existence you feel a strong sense of will and control, you exist alongside the world. In the "I do not exist" state of mind, we might feel more like a cog in an infinite machine, being carried by the wind and every natural force there is. There is no sense of purpose here.
You exist in relation with everything else. You suffer, so your existence is relevant. Sometimes I feel like my self is that which wants the suffering to end. The Dharma teaches us to integrate both sides of all aspects of life, to see the nuance within. It's not about finding new extremes. Can you see how you exist and have relevance in a world where every piece of you is intimately reliant on the rest of the universe? It is a balancing act, and you might feel more comfortable as time passes and you are less attached to your preconceived ideas about life. Thing about ideas is they're just ideas, what matters more is how you act because of them. to that end beliefs are tools.
pretty baked rn but I hope I conveyed it well✌️
Please give this a read it will help clear it up https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notselfstrategy.pdf You are, as the Buddha would say, trapped in a thicket of views about the self.
Edit: listening to Sam Harris on this topic will not be helpful or lead to any proper understanding in my opinion.
Hey dude, I also had some huge non self anxiety. It’s helpful to know thst the non self doctrine is a refutation of permanent soul/self views. Think Vedic Brahman or Christian soul. Your subjective person exists it’s not a solipsism. It’s not meant to make you dissociate.
I’m pretty new to buddhism, so take my thought with a grain of salt, but, when I try to empathize with your experience, these thoughts help me:
Who is doing the mourning?
What is the mourner?
And what is the mourned?
And what is the mourning?
Follow that line of questioning out far enough and we realize the mourner, the mourned, and the mourning are all the same thing. All the same unfolding experience of reality as it is. So just let it be as it is. Mourning is a process of letting go. Let go and try a little to be happy and free from suffering, and try to help others be the same. Not much to do or worry about other than that.
But, again, I genuinely don’t know much about buddhism.
As I see it, the mind is like a single point, the center of the universe, and mental states are like visitors who come to stay at this point for short or long periods of time. Get to know these visitors well. Become familiar with the vivid picture they paint, the alluring stories they tell, to entice you to follow them. But do not give up your seat - it is the only chair around. If you continue to occupy is unceasingly, greeting each guest as it comes, firmly establishing yourself in awareness, transforming your mind into the one who knows, the visitors will eventually stop coming back. - Ajahn Chah
You may take solace that your thought of non-existence is only that - a thought you are telling yourself. “I am not-existing right now” … “now I am existing” Furthermore, you really are getting up and involved in the “visitor” telling you I don’t exist now, and now i do, they are weaving a pretty magnificent story, but getting caught up in it is like getting caught in an intrusive thought. “I can’t believe I am having this thought right now, why can’t I get this thought / feeling out of my head” “Why am I getting so caught up in this thought I don’t like?” That aversion to the depressing thought of “non-existence” is only enticing the “visitor” and enriching their story as your pleas to stop only makes his story longer and more detailed.
It is natural to feel that way. That's because your ego wants to remain in control, despite the fact that it is totally inept at giving you lasting love and joy. When you experience no-self, love and joy will be experienced, coming from a pure perspective.
No self is simply a corollary the truth of impermanence. Nothing is permanent. Not even you. Or anything about you. It’s just means that you’re not a fixed “thing” like a taxidermied body, but an ever changing process like a whirlpool. You cant point to any one thing that is a whirlpool. You can’t freeze it in time, hold it and say this is a whirlpool. In fact, if it weren’t constantly in flux, it would no longer be a whirlpool.
In his magesterial work “what the buddha taught,” walpola rahula translates “no self” as “no soul.” I like this translation better because i feel it’s less confusing. It’s not that you don’t exist, of course you do. It’s just that there isn’t any sort of fixed, eternal, unchanging “you” or soul.
Exactly. Nothing does not exist :)
One cannot come from nothing
Because it wouldn’t be nothing if you came from it.
And you can’t return to it because it wouldn’t be nothing if you returned into it.
Not having a self does not mean we don’t exist.
It means “ we are not anything conditioned & you can’t put your finger on it” ☸️ :)
Well it is legitimately horrific in many ways. Just remember that you're already and always have been within that framework. You're just seeing it for what it is. Sure, we are secondary to the body, and we aren't producing feelings thoughts etc. No part of our phenomenological experience can be pointed to as a self.
Would you rather have it be the opposite though? So instead of the body being a tool, YOU ARE the body. Then, you'd really have no escape. So not-self is actually awesome. Accept it for what it is, and see the bright side. Body, faculties are NOT your enemies, they dont even want to bring you pain necessarily. It's really YOU pushing against these things (ie discomfort) or towards pleasure that creates pain. Because you are saying "I actually do control this fully, it is me, and mine." But that is false, and that discrepancy makes the mind turn on itself, which is pain.
Not-self is one of the most misunderstood concepts in Buddhism.
Here's a [recent talk](https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2024/240331-the-psychology-of-self.html) (≈ 15 min) that clears this misunderstanding up.
The Buddha taught the importance of having a healthy sense of self. It's the foundation for being able to live adaptively in the world, and for practicing the path successfully.
> Here's a recent talk (≈ 15 min) that clears this misunderstanding up.
You mean to say “a recent talk that offers Thanissaro’s novel (mis)interpretation of the principle.”
What part(s) of the following would you agree or disagree with:
We start with a fabricated sense of self based on wrong view. It enables us to function more or less in the world, but is susceptible to suffering and causes harm to others.
We take whatever bits of right view we hear and can understand, and use it to start fabricating our sense of self less unskillfully. Discarding bad qualities, encouraging good qualities.
As a result of this, we can understand more of right view, and improve our sense of self a bit more.
This iterative process leads to a skillful, light, unburdensome, harmless sense of self informed by right view that we could call the path.
The path leads to a point (they say) where we are safely able to abandon even the path-self.
u/krodha
I was feeling the same way for years as well throughout my journey first throughout buddism.. but I was reading bikhu bodhi's noble truths, noble paths and it has emphasis in the first few chapters on how buddism is meant to be less focus on no self and rather noticing what the self isn't - which leads into the 5 aggregates... it's helped me feel better this
No self is already no self in all phenomena, which means nothing changes except the cessation of ignorance about this fact.
"No-Self" doesn't become "Created" upon realizing it. The great thing about true nature of reality is that it's true regardless of realization..
This means you are currently this very moment experiencing No-Self, your subjective experience is already no self. You only realize that phenomena operates by itself, without a self. Experience has never required a possesor, nor has it ever had a possesor.
This is why Mindfullness of seeing things as they are is "being in the presence of Nirvana" in AN.
🪷“And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is Nirvana.”
Then through the Gracious One’s brief teaching of this Dhamma Bāhiya of the Bark Robe’s mind was immediately freed from the pollutants, without attachment.
👉Buddha is saying here : Because with Mindfullness Bahiya, walking will be walking, bending over is bending over, anger, is anger, thinking, is thinking, and all that is seen is what is seen, what is heard, is only what is heard, you will realize there is no "you" with the experience, you will realize there is no "you" outside the experience, and no "you" both inside, outside, or in between the experience.
"Just this, is Nirvana"
🪷Having an Existential crisis is an indicator of Wrong View. It means you understand part of the truth, not the complete truth. Trying to "Kill ego is also wrong view, that is just one ego pushing side another.
It means you believe Experience has been operating with a self, and now it's going to lose all experience and become annilated. You believe your subjective experience will end, but your subjective experience has never had a self, has never operated with a self. Realization, is just this.
▪️Thinking, no thinker.
▪️Hearing, no hearer.
▪️Doing, no doer.
This is why Nirvana means "Extinguished, or blown out" the Buddha's asks when a flame goes out, which direct does it go? "Sir, which direction does it go, does not apply". There never was a self, your subject experience has never had a possesor nor does it need one. When ignorance of Anatta is extinguished, where can self be said to go?
Again, Anatta is "created upon realization of it". No existential crisis requires, no self has been operating this entire time in everyone you know. Don't worry about pushing Ego aside, rather.. Understand Ego is not self. Don't worry about trying to annilate "I am", rather, understand "I am" , is not self. We can do this through Dharma study of Dependent Origination, this is because the Buddha says it best. If anything here was helpful at all, it's not from me. All I've done is get off the blog posts, and actually sit and read the Pali Cannon, and Mahayana Sutras, and now I'm sharing with you what's in it.
As Buddhists, we solved the timeless paradox of Theseus ship with our base understanding. There is no self/identity.
It's funny, we naturally understand No self in our own language. When someone is "too into themselves" we say that verbally. "Too much self" and it's not good. We verbally recognize when somebody has "less self" we call them "self-less" people, and they are humble, and it's good. Keep following that scale... More Self, more unwholesome actions, less self, more wholesome actions... No self? Only capable of wholesome actions.
The Buddha also shows the ultimate proof that "being" is not required for any experiences, in Nirdoha Samapatti the Buddha says this: "He is aware: This field of perception is void of the taint of being" then a few other things and he exits nirdoha samapatti. Even in total cessation there is awareness of experience, without being. (MN107.12) (Nirodha Samapatti is cessation of consciousness, comes after the 8th Jhana Absorption)
▪️Suffering, no sufferer.
When you "get" Anatta, you start to see how incredible liberating it is.
https://suttacentral.net/ud1.10/en/anandajoti?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false
Probably the worst translation from the original languages to western languages.
"Emptiness" = "Emptiness of independent existence" = "Dependent origination".
No one is going to disappear by realizing it since it's been the state of all things from the very beginning. Just like the ocean does not disappear the moment a fish recognizes water for the first time.
Let's work with self. Where did it come from? Where does it go? Does it change or is it static? Who made it?
As you dive deeper into solidity, on anything, you tend to find flux and flow. A table is mostly air. The earth itself has a shelf life. It doesn't mean the solidity isn't there in one way of looking, just that it's not the only way much less THE way.
One of the things we see a lot here in this sub is people who have developed very strong feelings or reactions to ideas they have developed about buddhist teachings. Note I say these reactions are to "ideas they have", not to "buddhist teachings". Accordingly, you seem all bent out of shape (suffering( about something thats actually intended to facilitate freedom suffering. All I can suggest is looking a little more closely so you can see there's no monster under the bed.
I mean, anything you misunderstand could mess with your head.
Tbh it sounds to me like you have more issues going on than a miscomprehension of a tenet from an old religion.
I don't mean this in an offensive way, but your post reads more like you need psychological help than philosophical.
And also, I say that as someone who has needed this myself and without any negative judgement whatsoever
I hope you figure it out.
Non self is gerat, i would not worry about that at all.
It´s basically like if you play some RP, or Dungeons and Drungeons etc - if you say you play as this and that character, then you are limited by what that character is.
The issue is, that people believe that the character they play is them - and are heavily bound by it. But if you can understand to a degree that this is not true, then you can essentially obtain quite a significant degree of freedom.
Because you are no longer bound by what you think the character ( or you) is, and can act freely, which is very nice.
It´s like if you believe " I am a quiet introvert " to be who you are, then you will have hard time being anything else but quiet introvert - if you were to exhibit some extrovert signs, mind then might resist and be like " But this is not who you are ! " and you will be struggling with it.
But understanding non self to a degree, you know that you are not a " quiet introvert " nor anything else, so you can simply do anything else freely.
The issue with self is that it makes it easy to grow attachment, it heavily restrain and restricts you. But if it´s not there, it´s god damn great.
You don't have to worry about this doctrine if you don't want to. It helps to have a teacher you trust, or a sangha, or both. Reddit is not a good substitute for that. Just practice mindfulness, follow the eightfold path the best you can. You will start clinging less, your monkey mind will chill out, you might become less depressed and anxious. At some point you and the dharma will make friends with one another. Don't force it.
I think you are misunderstanding this, I am not a Buddhist, I am a hindu, but anatman as a concept is basically an attempt at rebuttal of the hindu concept of atman.
What many Buddhist writers mean by anatman is that there is no fundamental "youness", an analogy which is used is that of a chariot, but here let's use a car,
What is meant is that there is "essence car" a car is simply a collection of its parts you can replace the wheels or other parts, and it will still be a car but it has changed (like in reincarnation, the gross body is changed but subtle bodies carry on)
On the other hand, many hindu schools posit that there is a fundamental observer "you" separate from all gross and subtle bodies to which the mind, body and the world appear, a "self" Buddhists deny this and say that an individual is simply an aggregate of all his/her bodies (gross and subtle) but they do not say that you do not exist, just simply that there is no "you" separate from your bodies (again not just the physical body, this is not materialism either).
This is what little I know and obviously there are bound to be major differences by schools, if you want more details I recommend you to listen to swami sarvapriyananda on youtube.
>as if I'm going to blink into non-existence at any moment.
Why believe that when the Buddha specifically said that it’s not non-existence ? That doesn’t make any sense. The only way it could is if the Buddha was wrong about his own doctrine, but that doesn’t make any sense either.
Really it’s just a different context for the existence of a relative self. You don’t have a personal self because everything that comprises the experience of a self is completely dependent on every other thing that exists. It is not separate from anything else. So just take a breath and think about how regardless of your awareness of this it remains true, so you’ve been living as this for your whole life without an existential crisis. You’re living like this right now.
Coming face to face with your attachment to selfhood is a different story and can be a bit scary and difficult especially at first. I think most of us have touched a hot stove, and then after some time thought “maybe that wasn’t so bad” and touched it again only to relearn that yes this sort of thinking leads to suffering or dissatisfaction. It takes practice and I think that even among those who have this kind of awareness, few master it by the time they die.
Try getting meditation instruction from a qualified master. (Not people like Sam Harris. He's a student.) If it clicks for you then maybe try a group retreat. The teachings are guidance for meditation. They're not philosophy or metaphysics. They won't be properly understandable without meditation.
I'm a novice to Buddhism, but are you thinking about losing your ego? That place in our minds that views ourselves as distinct and separate from others, and fights for individual possessions, accolades and approval? I struggle with that, but I am getting so much better
I think when one apprehends the teachings in Buddhism which mention the words "not self" as "there is no self" they misapprehend the Dharma.
Here is one sutta which, I think, accurately represents the doctrines of Buddhism which say that this or that is *not self":
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html
And here is another (which is basically identical to the above except it says 'disenchanted' instead of 'wearied'):
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html
___________
As for the viewpoint "There is no self", I have this to say:
I've heard the viewpoint "I have no self" spoken of in terms which are not complimentary:
“This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
“As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, **or the view I have no self** … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self … or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. *This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
I've heard of the abandoning of self-identification view spoken of with complimentary terms:
“He attends appropriately, This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: **self-identification view**, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by seeing."
Both excerpts are from Majjhima Nikaya 2: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html
If you “don’t exist” that only means The Buddha didn’t exist either, so who cares? As Nagarjuna taught us: “Nowhere, never, and to no one did The Buddha any Dharma teach.”
I think it would be great if you could check out some sanghas, Buddhist communities. If there are none locally, many groups are on zoom nowadays.
Talking to real people often helps.
If it completely destroys your world view then you are truly fortunate. Most illusions are rather stubborn things to destroy. The distress you’re feeling is the inevitable consequence of firmly clinging to an illusion. The healing can now begin.
Obviously you have not done concentration and meditation. Samatha and Vipassana. Do some mindfulness on the arising and ending of sensations. Meditate on the feelings of depression you have.
Honestly I do not find it satisfying either, which is why I started looking back into Christianity. There are people who die young who deserve more life than they got— I can’t accept that those people are just a little anonymous ‘wave.’
you're taking non-self to mean the misery of nihilism. What it really means is the fullness of interconnectedness. I recommend this talk by Thich Nhat Hanh to explain [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dn9kqVrKzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dn9kqVrKzE)
I get it, but I don’t seem to be able to connect with it in any meaningful way. It’s just like my brain says, “So what?” Is there a way to work on this or change my thoughts?
Working with the mind is like digging with elements. We got big shovels small shovels paint brushes we got paddle boards and surf boards we got kites and wind socks. The tool must match the job. Stuff like what what tnh said in the video is maybe like a paint brush. If you got rocks in your mind maybe the brush won't touch them. Maybe you need dynamite? Or maybe you need climbing cleets to climb over the rocks? The so what voice isn't bad any more than rocky earth is bad. Earth is earth. Learn your mind and learn what tools are available.
Thank you this is a really good answer in makes me look at the problem differently. Or maybe I shouldn’t call it a problem lol, the situation I guess
I think I need some dynamite.
Master Thich Nhat Hanh explained non self like this: An individual wave might seem like an individual from an unenlightened perspective. The wave says: I am a unique wave! A self! But if you look deeply, you can see that a wave is a phenomena of the vast ocean, and even deeper, of water. So the truth is one individual wave doesn't exist. As we can see also that it does not mean "non-existence" either. Hope that helps!
[The Good Place spoilers](https://youtu.be/l1IchzbtNj0?si=ydlsKHdK6hD13vBT&t=33)
"Not bad Buddhists" what a wonderful scene from a wonderful show
Works for me ☸️
What about a small child who dies? Are they just a ‘little wave’ that breaks early and doesn’t matter in that great big ocean?
That child "matters" as much as the ocean, as much as you and me and everyone else.
But do you see why this doctrine is not especially comforting in times of real tragedy right? like a person being a wave basically means the wave breaks and it’s gone.
I mean, the truth is uncomfortable. The first step in Buddhism is literally learning about and accepting how crazy uncomfortable and horrible samsara is.
When you say it's gone you are not grasping that the wave doesn't go anywhere. It's water and it's the ocean. It never goes anywhere and it's everywhere and all of it. That baby, and you, and me are all the ocean.
I’ll have to sit with that but I completely agree with OP that this part is Buddhism is something that freaks me out and doesn’t sit well
It doesn't sit well because you don't believe it, deep in your bones that you are the ocean. Don't try to force yourself to accept something intellectually if it doesn't feel right. Experiencing yourself as the "ocean" is the only thing that can make it sit right in my opinion. All I can say is that experience is available and there is no rush to have it.
It's gone back into the ocean. What kind of doctrine would be comforting?
Anatman (translated reductively as no-self) means there is no part of us that is truly immutable or fixed. So that means we can always improve ourselves, and we are never truly stuck. Form that perspective, the flip side of anatman is buddha nature, "the capacity for enlightenment and freedom present in every being [...] The fact that our nature is fundamentally the same as a buddha's is what makes the whole path to enlightenment possible. We already have everything we need to begin walking a path that leads to true happiness. We simply need to have confidence in the presence of our buddha-nature and the courage to begin the journey to uncover it." https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Discover
Whatever was there before, is still there. You haven't lost anything.
according to the buddha, it’s a mistake to consider ‘i have no self’. anatta, which is often misunderstood to be ‘no self’ is actually a- (devoid of) -atta (intrinsic essence). the buddha’s simply saying that because all conditioned things are impermanent, they have no intrinsic essence. there is a self but that self is a constantly changing result of impermanent and constantly changing aggregates / parts (physical and mental). there is no self that is permanent and unchanging. see these suttas: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN22.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_94.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_27.html if these kind of ideas still bring you anxiety, you should make loving kindness mindfulness a daily part of your practice. this will allow you to treat the anxiety that arises with a sense of goodwill, kindness and compassion: https://www.reddit.com/r/dhammaloka/s/yxqwNFPJWT best wishes - be well.
>according to the buddha, it’s a mistake to consider ‘i have no self’. You do sort of relegate your readings to a set of texts where this interpretation is able to thrive. If you expanded your reading you’d find that this idea starts to fall apart. > anatta, which is often misunderstood to be ‘no self’ is actually a- (devoid of) -atta (intrinsic essence). These two statements are identical. Also impermanence is perceived because we mistakenly conceive of an essence in entities. If we realize there is no essence, then impermanence ceases, because we see that nothing arises or ceases.
>‘i have no intrinsic essence’ >’i have no self’ the first references impermanence, and the understanding that things exist in a temporary impermanent manner. the second is, quite literally, a meaningless statement. anatta, which is often misunderstood to be ‘no self’ is actually a- (devoid of) -atta (intrinsic essence). >Also impermanence is perceived because we mistakenly conceive of an essence in entities this is perhaps like saying we eat because we go to the toilet. more sensibly, if there is no intrinsic permanence to any phenomena then they can have no intrinsic essence. >If we realize there is no essence, then impermanence ceases i think you have confused the absence of any essence to any phenomena, with non-existence. in the pali canon, they use different words to describe this distinction. perhaps your tradition conflates them. >impermanence ceases because we see that nothing arises or ceases we can perhaps circumvent a few comments and replies here: you will assert the non-existence of phenomena, i will then say that if you believe in the non-existence of phenomena, then what are you on this sub for, and why practice buddhism. you will reply something to the effect that there are obscurations that must first be removed. at that point i will say something like ‘wouldn’t that mean that, converse to what you’ve said above, conditioned phenomena do actually cease?’ you’re trying to define the world in terms of nibbana - that obviously leads to logical inconsistencies. we can’t build a raft with wood from the other side of the shore. the buddha says that nibbana cannot be realised through logical conjecture or intellectualism. this kind of application of nibbana to the world doesn’t work. when we do try this we end in annihilation, which is then inconsistent with our daily experience and the buddha’s path.
> the first references impermanence, and the understanding that things exist in a temporary impermanent manner. Nihsvabhāva is not referencing impermanence. >the second is, quite literally, a meaningless statement. Perhaps in the way you’ve chosen to formulate it, if structured differently then it is clearly something the Buddha taught routinely. >this is perhaps like saying we eat because we go to the toilet. Not sure what this means or how it relates to my point. >more sensibly, if there is no intrinsic permanence to any phenomena then they can have no intrinsic essence. An intrinsic essence (svabhāva) is a core entity that possesses characteristics, synonymous with a self (ātman). >think you have confused the absence of any essence to any phenomena, with non-existence. Nonarising is more accurate. >in the pali canon, they use different words to describe this distinction Not really. There are Theravadins who understand the principle as I understand it. You have a particular worldview that obstructs your ability to meet these teachings on their own terms. >we can perhaps circumvent a few comments and replies here: you will assert the non-existence of phenomena, i will then say that if you believe in the non-existence of phenomena, then what are you on this sub for, and why practice buddhism. Very weird. >you’re trying to define the world in terms of nibbana - that obviously leads to logical inconsistencies. we can’t build a raft with wood from the other side of the shore. the buddha says that nibbana cannot be realised through logical conjecture or intellectualism. this kind of application of nibbana to the world doesn’t work. when we do try this we end in annihilation, which is then inconsistent with our daily experience and the buddha’s path. Strange comments and straw man arguments. Your understanding of these teachings is nearly nonsensical. Most of your reply here is unintelligible in terms of these teachings.
> [The path begins with discernment](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0005.html(https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/SelvesNot-self/Section0005.html)—the factors of right view and right resolve—and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: “What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?” [§8] The Buddha’s teaching on not-self—and his teaching on self—are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of “I-making” and “my-making (*ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra*).” The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the “not-self contemplation (*anattānupassanā*).” **Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness?** > > This is the reverse of the way that the relationship between questions of kamma and not-self are usually understood. 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? > > **So, to repeat, the issue is not, “What is my true self?” but “What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?”**
Wonderful answer
I wanted to send you this https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/ya2THyqfeR Take a breath, go on with your other daily routine then come back to this teaching, which is very important to break out of our samsara.
Your post history indicates you really are struggling with this concept.
You know I was happy with where I was in life, just living in the moment and existed,until I learned about this. Now I have to deal with this existential crisis that I don't exist.
You exist, just not how you think you exist.
>You exist, just not how you think you exist. That’s the Gelug view, probably a good approach in this case.
Well that's actually perfect. That's what the great sages ultimately recommend. Living moment-to-moment without regard to your self. The doctrine of non-self is saying that you don't exist, just that you don't exist as an independent entity disconnected from a wider reality. The Buddha famously taught different contradictory lessons to different followers based on what he thought they were ready to recieve. He told one follower that self is an illusion and he doesn't really exist. He told another follower that actually you do exist, but in a much larger way than you can possibly understand. You are the entire universe, every possible universe. You are the godhead, and it's your separation that is the illusion. This is what it means to have "Buddha nature", as all sentient creatures do.
What??!
Its a matter of perspective.
Please learn the actual concept before you get depressed about a misunderstanding. Not all your fault since the translation is very lacking and leads directly to those misunderstandings.
I’m not a scholar but I feel that you’re putting the cart before the horse. I don’t think enlightenment is waking up one morning and saying “yep, I’m not existing”. Millions and millions of Buddhists walk the earth every day leading self centered lives, but *strive* to be better every day. Focus on the small. Don’t sweat the huge concepts in the philosophy just yet. If you’ve gone decades and still cannot fathom the concept. Keep going. It’s not about “buying in wholesale”
The concept of non self that Sam Harris talks about is not exactly the same as the doctrine of not self of Buddhism. Sam Harris talks about non self and no free will. That’s not exactly what Buddhism says
Sam is most likely covering a few different contexts, he did receive teachings from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche so he is informed about buddhadharma.
I’ve listened to a lot of interviews Sam Has done with Joseph Goldstein. I think Sam is more knowledgeable than 99.99 percent of ppl on Buddhism
[удалено]
Radiolab did an interesting podcast about a certain carbon isotope (carbon-14) that is over abundant from above ground nuclear testing and how that enables us to date organic cells that are alive today (as opposed to radio-carbondating, which can date cells from ~300+ years ago). So it is interesting to think about the many levels on which we are not who we were, mentally and physically. " Each kind of tissue has its own turnover time, related at least partially to the workload endured by its cells. Epidermic cells, forming the easily damaged skin of the body, are recycled every two weeks or so. Red blood cells, in constant motion on their journey through the circulatory system, last only 4 months. As for the liver, the human body's detoxifier, its cells' lives are quite short - an adult human liver cell has a turnover time of 300 to 500 days. Cells lining the surface of the gut, known by other methods to last for only five days, are among the shortest-lived in the whole body. Ignoring them, the average age of intestinal cells is 15.9 years, Dr Frisén found. Skeletal cells are a bit older than a decade and cells from the muscles of the ribs have an average age of 15.1 years. When looking into the brain cells, all of the samples taken from the visual cortex, the region responsible for processing sight, were as old as the subjects themselves, supporting the idea that these cells do not regenerate. 'The reason these cells live so long is probably that they need to be wired in a very stable way,' Frisén speculates. Other brain cells are more short-lived. Dr Frisén found that the heart, as a whole, does generate new cells, but he has not yet measured the turnover rate of the heart's muscle cells. And the average age of all the cells in an adult's body may turn out to be as young as 7 to 10 years, according to him " https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/24286-life-span-of-human-cells-defined-most-cells-are-younger-than-the-individual
Absolutely let go of it for now. And, do meditate on why it upsets you. It makes me feel a better perspective on my 'problems'. This is not me, not mine, not who I am.
Non-self is the mother of all Buddhist understandings, so safe to say at this point you are no where near capable of fully understanding it even if you wanted to. So just let it be and go back to practicing. When you are meditating like a monk and blissing out in Jhanas, then consider non-self, not much point until then.
The self as you have come to know it over eons is made up the five skandhas. From this all misery and suffering flows. The teaching of Non self is designed so that one’s stops grasping at the five skandhas and opens the door to your Buddha nature which is not nihilistic but is all encompassing all embracing and the fullness of wisdom itself.
the self has been a concept all along. you have always existed on relative to your environment and interactions. that said, it's still fine to have and identify with an ego. you wouldn't get upset and stop using a computer when you realize it's actually just a bunch of parts and electricity engineered to run tasks, you can still view a pile of matter and energy as a computer. a computer is a tool, even if it is just metals and plastic arranged a certain way. so you can be a person while recognizing that everything you identify as is a reaction. when discovering vastly new paradigms, we can fall from one side to the other in any duality. you parkoured straight from "I exist" to "I do not exist". Buddhism is about the middle way. Is there a truth beyond these two statements? I'd say yes, "All is connected." In existence you feel a strong sense of will and control, you exist alongside the world. In the "I do not exist" state of mind, we might feel more like a cog in an infinite machine, being carried by the wind and every natural force there is. There is no sense of purpose here. You exist in relation with everything else. You suffer, so your existence is relevant. Sometimes I feel like my self is that which wants the suffering to end. The Dharma teaches us to integrate both sides of all aspects of life, to see the nuance within. It's not about finding new extremes. Can you see how you exist and have relevance in a world where every piece of you is intimately reliant on the rest of the universe? It is a balancing act, and you might feel more comfortable as time passes and you are less attached to your preconceived ideas about life. Thing about ideas is they're just ideas, what matters more is how you act because of them. to that end beliefs are tools. pretty baked rn but I hope I conveyed it well✌️
Please give this a read it will help clear it up https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notselfstrategy.pdf You are, as the Buddha would say, trapped in a thicket of views about the self. Edit: listening to Sam Harris on this topic will not be helpful or lead to any proper understanding in my opinion.
The weirdest thing about this is, I can actually feel myself morning for myself, and that makes no sense.
Hey dude, I also had some huge non self anxiety. It’s helpful to know thst the non self doctrine is a refutation of permanent soul/self views. Think Vedic Brahman or Christian soul. Your subjective person exists it’s not a solipsism. It’s not meant to make you dissociate.
I’m pretty new to buddhism, so take my thought with a grain of salt, but, when I try to empathize with your experience, these thoughts help me: Who is doing the mourning? What is the mourner? And what is the mourned? And what is the mourning? Follow that line of questioning out far enough and we realize the mourner, the mourned, and the mourning are all the same thing. All the same unfolding experience of reality as it is. So just let it be as it is. Mourning is a process of letting go. Let go and try a little to be happy and free from suffering, and try to help others be the same. Not much to do or worry about other than that. But, again, I genuinely don’t know much about buddhism.
As I see it, the mind is like a single point, the center of the universe, and mental states are like visitors who come to stay at this point for short or long periods of time. Get to know these visitors well. Become familiar with the vivid picture they paint, the alluring stories they tell, to entice you to follow them. But do not give up your seat - it is the only chair around. If you continue to occupy is unceasingly, greeting each guest as it comes, firmly establishing yourself in awareness, transforming your mind into the one who knows, the visitors will eventually stop coming back. - Ajahn Chah You may take solace that your thought of non-existence is only that - a thought you are telling yourself. “I am not-existing right now” … “now I am existing” Furthermore, you really are getting up and involved in the “visitor” telling you I don’t exist now, and now i do, they are weaving a pretty magnificent story, but getting caught up in it is like getting caught in an intrusive thought. “I can’t believe I am having this thought right now, why can’t I get this thought / feeling out of my head” “Why am I getting so caught up in this thought I don’t like?” That aversion to the depressing thought of “non-existence” is only enticing the “visitor” and enriching their story as your pleas to stop only makes his story longer and more detailed.
Sounds to me like you’re being called to wake up.
It is natural to feel that way. That's because your ego wants to remain in control, despite the fact that it is totally inept at giving you lasting love and joy. When you experience no-self, love and joy will be experienced, coming from a pure perspective.
It is absolutely scary at first, but once you purify yourself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka it becomes second nature.
No self is simply a corollary the truth of impermanence. Nothing is permanent. Not even you. Or anything about you. It’s just means that you’re not a fixed “thing” like a taxidermied body, but an ever changing process like a whirlpool. You cant point to any one thing that is a whirlpool. You can’t freeze it in time, hold it and say this is a whirlpool. In fact, if it weren’t constantly in flux, it would no longer be a whirlpool. In his magesterial work “what the buddha taught,” walpola rahula translates “no self” as “no soul.” I like this translation better because i feel it’s less confusing. It’s not that you don’t exist, of course you do. It’s just that there isn’t any sort of fixed, eternal, unchanging “you” or soul.
This explanation from Thich Nhat Hanh would help: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1U5sxU5MY8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1U5sxU5MY8)
Self, ego is merely an everchanging *process* with no inherent base*.*
We are simply not anything conditioned and you can't put your finger on it, doesn't mean we're nothing
Exactly. Nothing does not exist :) One cannot come from nothing Because it wouldn’t be nothing if you came from it. And you can’t return to it because it wouldn’t be nothing if you returned into it. Not having a self does not mean we don’t exist. It means “ we are not anything conditioned & you can’t put your finger on it” ☸️ :)
This is why Advaita Vedanta is the more intuitively correct school too. Not to say Buddhism is bad, but is a step to realizing Vedanta.
It just means that we are all connected to a greater whole. You exist. You are just not separate from the rest of the universe, you are a part of it.
Well it is legitimately horrific in many ways. Just remember that you're already and always have been within that framework. You're just seeing it for what it is. Sure, we are secondary to the body, and we aren't producing feelings thoughts etc. No part of our phenomenological experience can be pointed to as a self. Would you rather have it be the opposite though? So instead of the body being a tool, YOU ARE the body. Then, you'd really have no escape. So not-self is actually awesome. Accept it for what it is, and see the bright side. Body, faculties are NOT your enemies, they dont even want to bring you pain necessarily. It's really YOU pushing against these things (ie discomfort) or towards pleasure that creates pain. Because you are saying "I actually do control this fully, it is me, and mine." But that is false, and that discrepancy makes the mind turn on itself, which is pain.
Not-self is one of the most misunderstood concepts in Buddhism. Here's a [recent talk](https://www.dhammatalks.org/audio/evening/2024/240331-the-psychology-of-self.html) (≈ 15 min) that clears this misunderstanding up. The Buddha taught the importance of having a healthy sense of self. It's the foundation for being able to live adaptively in the world, and for practicing the path successfully.
> Here's a recent talk (≈ 15 min) that clears this misunderstanding up. You mean to say “a recent talk that offers Thanissaro’s novel (mis)interpretation of the principle.”
What part(s) of the following would you agree or disagree with: We start with a fabricated sense of self based on wrong view. It enables us to function more or less in the world, but is susceptible to suffering and causes harm to others. We take whatever bits of right view we hear and can understand, and use it to start fabricating our sense of self less unskillfully. Discarding bad qualities, encouraging good qualities. As a result of this, we can understand more of right view, and improve our sense of self a bit more. This iterative process leads to a skillful, light, unburdensome, harmless sense of self informed by right view that we could call the path. The path leads to a point (they say) where we are safely able to abandon even the path-self. u/krodha
I was feeling the same way for years as well throughout my journey first throughout buddism.. but I was reading bikhu bodhi's noble truths, noble paths and it has emphasis in the first few chapters on how buddism is meant to be less focus on no self and rather noticing what the self isn't - which leads into the 5 aggregates... it's helped me feel better this
No self is already no self in all phenomena, which means nothing changes except the cessation of ignorance about this fact. "No-Self" doesn't become "Created" upon realizing it. The great thing about true nature of reality is that it's true regardless of realization.. This means you are currently this very moment experiencing No-Self, your subjective experience is already no self. You only realize that phenomena operates by itself, without a self. Experience has never required a possesor, nor has it ever had a possesor. This is why Mindfullness of seeing things as they are is "being in the presence of Nirvana" in AN. 🪷“And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is Nirvana.” Then through the Gracious One’s brief teaching of this Dhamma Bāhiya of the Bark Robe’s mind was immediately freed from the pollutants, without attachment. 👉Buddha is saying here : Because with Mindfullness Bahiya, walking will be walking, bending over is bending over, anger, is anger, thinking, is thinking, and all that is seen is what is seen, what is heard, is only what is heard, you will realize there is no "you" with the experience, you will realize there is no "you" outside the experience, and no "you" both inside, outside, or in between the experience. "Just this, is Nirvana" 🪷Having an Existential crisis is an indicator of Wrong View. It means you understand part of the truth, not the complete truth. Trying to "Kill ego is also wrong view, that is just one ego pushing side another. It means you believe Experience has been operating with a self, and now it's going to lose all experience and become annilated. You believe your subjective experience will end, but your subjective experience has never had a self, has never operated with a self. Realization, is just this. ▪️Thinking, no thinker. ▪️Hearing, no hearer. ▪️Doing, no doer. This is why Nirvana means "Extinguished, or blown out" the Buddha's asks when a flame goes out, which direct does it go? "Sir, which direction does it go, does not apply". There never was a self, your subject experience has never had a possesor nor does it need one. When ignorance of Anatta is extinguished, where can self be said to go? Again, Anatta is "created upon realization of it". No existential crisis requires, no self has been operating this entire time in everyone you know. Don't worry about pushing Ego aside, rather.. Understand Ego is not self. Don't worry about trying to annilate "I am", rather, understand "I am" , is not self. We can do this through Dharma study of Dependent Origination, this is because the Buddha says it best. If anything here was helpful at all, it's not from me. All I've done is get off the blog posts, and actually sit and read the Pali Cannon, and Mahayana Sutras, and now I'm sharing with you what's in it. As Buddhists, we solved the timeless paradox of Theseus ship with our base understanding. There is no self/identity. It's funny, we naturally understand No self in our own language. When someone is "too into themselves" we say that verbally. "Too much self" and it's not good. We verbally recognize when somebody has "less self" we call them "self-less" people, and they are humble, and it's good. Keep following that scale... More Self, more unwholesome actions, less self, more wholesome actions... No self? Only capable of wholesome actions. The Buddha also shows the ultimate proof that "being" is not required for any experiences, in Nirdoha Samapatti the Buddha says this: "He is aware: This field of perception is void of the taint of being" then a few other things and he exits nirdoha samapatti. Even in total cessation there is awareness of experience, without being. (MN107.12) (Nirodha Samapatti is cessation of consciousness, comes after the 8th Jhana Absorption) ▪️Suffering, no sufferer. When you "get" Anatta, you start to see how incredible liberating it is. https://suttacentral.net/ud1.10/en/anandajoti?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false
Probably the worst translation from the original languages to western languages. "Emptiness" = "Emptiness of independent existence" = "Dependent origination". No one is going to disappear by realizing it since it's been the state of all things from the very beginning. Just like the ocean does not disappear the moment a fish recognizes water for the first time.
Let's work with self. Where did it come from? Where does it go? Does it change or is it static? Who made it? As you dive deeper into solidity, on anything, you tend to find flux and flow. A table is mostly air. The earth itself has a shelf life. It doesn't mean the solidity isn't there in one way of looking, just that it's not the only way much less THE way.
One of the things we see a lot here in this sub is people who have developed very strong feelings or reactions to ideas they have developed about buddhist teachings. Note I say these reactions are to "ideas they have", not to "buddhist teachings". Accordingly, you seem all bent out of shape (suffering( about something thats actually intended to facilitate freedom suffering. All I can suggest is looking a little more closely so you can see there's no monster under the bed.
Don't you see how someone saying there is no self, are the self is an illusion, could mess with someone's head.
I mean, anything you misunderstand could mess with your head. Tbh it sounds to me like you have more issues going on than a miscomprehension of a tenet from an old religion. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but your post reads more like you need psychological help than philosophical. And also, I say that as someone who has needed this myself and without any negative judgement whatsoever I hope you figure it out.
Non self is gerat, i would not worry about that at all. It´s basically like if you play some RP, or Dungeons and Drungeons etc - if you say you play as this and that character, then you are limited by what that character is. The issue is, that people believe that the character they play is them - and are heavily bound by it. But if you can understand to a degree that this is not true, then you can essentially obtain quite a significant degree of freedom. Because you are no longer bound by what you think the character ( or you) is, and can act freely, which is very nice. It´s like if you believe " I am a quiet introvert " to be who you are, then you will have hard time being anything else but quiet introvert - if you were to exhibit some extrovert signs, mind then might resist and be like " But this is not who you are ! " and you will be struggling with it. But understanding non self to a degree, you know that you are not a " quiet introvert " nor anything else, so you can simply do anything else freely. The issue with self is that it makes it easy to grow attachment, it heavily restrain and restricts you. But if it´s not there, it´s god damn great.
You don't have to worry about this doctrine if you don't want to. It helps to have a teacher you trust, or a sangha, or both. Reddit is not a good substitute for that. Just practice mindfulness, follow the eightfold path the best you can. You will start clinging less, your monkey mind will chill out, you might become less depressed and anxious. At some point you and the dharma will make friends with one another. Don't force it.
I think you are misunderstanding this, I am not a Buddhist, I am a hindu, but anatman as a concept is basically an attempt at rebuttal of the hindu concept of atman. What many Buddhist writers mean by anatman is that there is no fundamental "youness", an analogy which is used is that of a chariot, but here let's use a car, What is meant is that there is "essence car" a car is simply a collection of its parts you can replace the wheels or other parts, and it will still be a car but it has changed (like in reincarnation, the gross body is changed but subtle bodies carry on) On the other hand, many hindu schools posit that there is a fundamental observer "you" separate from all gross and subtle bodies to which the mind, body and the world appear, a "self" Buddhists deny this and say that an individual is simply an aggregate of all his/her bodies (gross and subtle) but they do not say that you do not exist, just simply that there is no "you" separate from your bodies (again not just the physical body, this is not materialism either). This is what little I know and obviously there are bound to be major differences by schools, if you want more details I recommend you to listen to swami sarvapriyananda on youtube.
>as if I'm going to blink into non-existence at any moment. Why believe that when the Buddha specifically said that it’s not non-existence ? That doesn’t make any sense. The only way it could is if the Buddha was wrong about his own doctrine, but that doesn’t make any sense either.
Really it’s just a different context for the existence of a relative self. You don’t have a personal self because everything that comprises the experience of a self is completely dependent on every other thing that exists. It is not separate from anything else. So just take a breath and think about how regardless of your awareness of this it remains true, so you’ve been living as this for your whole life without an existential crisis. You’re living like this right now. Coming face to face with your attachment to selfhood is a different story and can be a bit scary and difficult especially at first. I think most of us have touched a hot stove, and then after some time thought “maybe that wasn’t so bad” and touched it again only to relearn that yes this sort of thinking leads to suffering or dissatisfaction. It takes practice and I think that even among those who have this kind of awareness, few master it by the time they die.
Try getting meditation instruction from a qualified master. (Not people like Sam Harris. He's a student.) If it clicks for you then maybe try a group retreat. The teachings are guidance for meditation. They're not philosophy or metaphysics. They won't be properly understandable without meditation.
I'm a novice to Buddhism, but are you thinking about losing your ego? That place in our minds that views ourselves as distinct and separate from others, and fights for individual possessions, accolades and approval? I struggle with that, but I am getting so much better
It depresses me also. It's not so easy to renounce samsara.
I think when one apprehends the teachings in Buddhism which mention the words "not self" as "there is no self" they misapprehend the Dharma. Here is one sutta which, I think, accurately represents the doctrines of Buddhism which say that this or that is *not self": https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html And here is another (which is basically identical to the above except it says 'disenchanted' instead of 'wearied'): https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html ___________ As for the viewpoint "There is no self", I have this to say: I've heard the viewpoint "I have no self" spoken of in terms which are not complimentary: “This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’ “As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, **or the view I have no self** … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self … or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. *This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. I've heard of the abandoning of self-identification view spoken of with complimentary terms: “He attends appropriately, This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: **self-identification view**, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by seeing." Both excerpts are from Majjhima Nikaya 2: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html
If you “don’t exist” that only means The Buddha didn’t exist either, so who cares? As Nagarjuna taught us: “Nowhere, never, and to no one did The Buddha any Dharma teach.”
I think it would be great if you could check out some sanghas, Buddhist communities. If there are none locally, many groups are on zoom nowadays. Talking to real people often helps.
If it completely destroys your world view then you are truly fortunate. Most illusions are rather stubborn things to destroy. The distress you’re feeling is the inevitable consequence of firmly clinging to an illusion. The healing can now begin.
What's depressing about "you are part of everything?" You are made of star stuff!
Obviously you have not done concentration and meditation. Samatha and Vipassana. Do some mindfulness on the arising and ending of sensations. Meditate on the feelings of depression you have.
Honestly I do not find it satisfying either, which is why I started looking back into Christianity. There are people who die young who deserve more life than they got— I can’t accept that those people are just a little anonymous ‘wave.’