If there is no self in mental formations and volition, then who carries out mindfulness? I try to see that there is no self in things. Is it not therefore that I am? 'Being mindful you'll see that even the ambition to be mindful has no self' - who sees that?

So far as I understand the terminology, there are two levels of knowledge: 1. "conceptual knowledge" like "man" and "woman" 2. "ultimate reality" like the five khandas The importance of understanding Anatta or Anatman (egolessness) as the "ultimate reality" is explained in Access to Insight article on Egolessness: - [The Three Basic Facts of Existence III. Egolessness (Anatta)](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html) Anatta contemplation is about a clear understanding of egolessness. Does this insight come from Dhammanupassana (contemplation on the teachings of the Buddha)? As an example of this question, how do these two fit together: - “There is no doer, but only the doing” - The yogi should just note “seeing, seeing”.

In *Cracking The Walnut: Understanding the Dialectics of Nagarjuna*, Thich Nhat Hanh explains how in the four conditions out of which a phenomenon arises (seed condition, continuity condition, object of cognition as condition, supportive condition) we can not find the self-nature of the phenomenon itself. The text which he is explaining, The Verses on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna, conclude this about the matter: > 3. The self-nature of phenomena \ is not found in the conditions. \ Since there is no self-nature, \ how could there be an other-nature? To illustrate this point Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire. > For example, we may look for the self-nature of a flame in a box of matches. In the box are matches made of wood and sulfur. Outside the box is oxygen. When we search inside the wood, sulfur, and oxygen can we find the self-nature of the flame? Whether the match has already been lit or not, we cannot find this self-nature. What we call the self-nature of something cannot be found in its conditions at all. My question is, how can Nagarjuna make the leap that because self-nature is not found in the causes or grounds out of which a phenomenon arises that therefore said phenomenon does not possess self-nature? For instance, if we at first assume that objects possess a separate self-nature and we take the example of ice instead of fire, we see that the conditions out of which ice arises (freezing temperatures, water, air pressure) do seem to possess something resembling the self-nature of their product. This is why I am confused when Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire to illustrate the point -- surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

Buddha has taught that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. I agree, however being an ignorant fellow, I believe I am body, I am eyes, I am intelligence, I am consciousness, my wife is mine, my son is mine. What do you find as you, yours, or yourself, honestly? (This question attempts to find out depths of our ignorance)

I feel curious about what it actually feels like when someone directly experiences anatta. How do practitioners describe that experience? Is it sudden or gradual? Does it come with a sense of liberation, fear, or something else entirely? I’m especially interested in how this experience is understood or explained within different traditions, like Theravāda or Zen, if there are differences. Please note I'm not looking for just theoretical explanations. I’d really appreciate if there are descriptions from those who lived and felt experience of realizing anatta.

Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā). This includes not only material objects but also the self, other beings, and even emotions and concepts. Yet, the cultivation of love , compassion, and empathy is central to the Buddhist path. Other philosophical or religious systems offer clear metaphysical grounds for love: - In Advaita Vedānta, love is said to naturally arise from the realization that all beings are ultimately the same Self (ātman). - In Bhakti traditions like Vaishnavism or even other theistic religions like Christianity, love is grounded in the belief that all beings are ' divine eternal souls', either a portion of God, or children of God. But Buddhism does not appear to endorse either of these metaphysical views. If everything is empty from a Buddhist perspective, wouldn’t that imply that emotions like love, compassion, and empathy are also empty and devoid of inherent existence? Then why should one love at all? How can these qualities be understood, justified, or cultivated within the framework of emptiness? Looking for answers grounded in Buddhist philosophy, ideally drawing from classical texts or traditional commentaries, to better understand how this seeming paradox is resolved.

I'm a bit confused about the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (non-self). Does this teaching mean that Buddhism denies the existence of any kind of soul or self altogether? Or is it more accurate to say that Buddhism accepts some concept of a self, but denies that it is eternal, unchanging, or independent? I'd appreciate any clarification on whether the rejection is total or just about the soul's permanence.

I read the following on the internet: > Sunyata is absolute reality. Emptiness. There are also the 3 marks of > existence, suffering, impermanence and non self. This is ultimate > reality for a being in samsara. Are anicca, dukkha & anatta the marks of existence for a being in samsara?

I've been applying Buddhist teachings to my life for the past 6+ years now. I don't meditate often, but I've noticed some extreme and what seem permanent changes in my mindset after constantly challenging and embracing Buddhist concepts. One of the traits my mind currently has, is not seeing people as fixed beings, but rather just playing out factors. I don't believe in good/evil anymore, and think anyone, no matter the disgusting or terrible things they do, deserve empathy. The drawback right now, is that it feels hard to connect to people, because I feel like I'm not on their level in a way... not in an egoistical way, but it just feels like I have a different approach to everything, at the fundamental level. It feels like I'm not real, they are not real, but they have not realised that, so I'm just watching their actions play-out whilst observing both my reactions and theirs, which I know are the result of conditions, and therefore have no real essence? It's really hard to put into words, but my question is basically: How do I reconnect with people at a human level. Is it possible at this level of understanding? Am I being deluded and potentially taking the practices too far?

I believe that a soul exists due to my religious background, and my religious scriptures say that those who shall not have faith(in existence of soul and few other things) will face extreme sadness in the afterlife. I have many sufferings in life, including emotional, physical, etc., and I have been facing this by constantly telling myself that I will enjoy the afterlife, but now I am doubtful of any kind of afterlife at all. So, I decided to follow the teachings of Buddha, as they do not require faith in something that is not knowable to stop suffering. I do not want to convert to Buddhism, as I am a little sure but doubtful about what my scripture says about the afterlife is somewhat true, and it will create a problem in my family. ***Main question: If one believes in atman/self and also believes that the teaching of Buddha will end suffering (except for the teaching of no self). Will Buddhist teachings to end suffering be good for this type of person? Are there sets of Buddhist practices to end suffering that I can follow even after believing in a soul/self, or do I require to abandon my belief in the existence of a soul? Also, what are the Buddhist practices to end suffering in which one cannot do till he does not believe in the absence of self?*** Request :Answer in simple terms as I have very basic knowledge about Buddhism and please avoid commenting on my faith.

Made a thread that was sorta related on here: Does Teleonomic Matter imply Subjectivity without Identity? Triggered again by this answer: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/78860/88743 and I was sorta triggered further when I read this comic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 By the way I wouldn't recommend reading the comic, might not sleep tonight. But anyway, I've read Buddhism, attended some of the teachings from monks, and talked to Buddhists and the concept that always eluded me was no-self (attachment also but that's something else). I never really understood how it was supposed to be a good thing. That there is no enduring, unchanging essence that we can call me or "I", it's just a collection of causes and effects that is constantly in flux. It's "death" and "rebirth" in a metaphorical sense. To me it sounds like loosing so much that makes us human. No friends because there is no one you are friends with (even if you have friends), you aren't falling in love with someone because there is no "one" you are falling in love with. I can't really say "I like this" or "I wanna do this for a living" because that's not a permanent part of me, can't feel good or proud about myself when I achieve something because there is no one to feel that or celebrate, etc etc. Is it wrong to feel sad if my dog or dad dies because no "one" died? Am I even alive? It's something I try to avoid thinking about because when I listen to it and just view people as a collection of causes and aggregates I just stop caring about them, I can't really explain it. When I see myself like that my emotions just shut off for some reason. So with all that said I'm wondering how this is supposed to be beneficial for someone, let alone society (which I assume is the goal for Buddhism), because so far it's just hurt me and held me back from doing things in life rather than liberating me like they said. IMO Buddhism just feels like a religion that says everything I think and do is wrong, but I digress. I really need help with getting this because it's haunted me for years.

A Mahayana-practising member wrote this comment : > With respect, the Theravada generally has a much more coarse > understanding of emptiness and anatta and is confused as to the object > of negation. In much the way that placing a bag of ice on a gushing > head wound has some efficacy, yet is utterly incapable of actually > curing the wound the Theravada understanding anatta doctrine is very > helpful, but insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance > and hence suffering ..... The Mahayana tenet systems ... > believe Theravada adherents are not ready to understand, > but will understand the selflessness of phenomena eventually as they > continue to progress on the path. I would like to understand the perspective of Mahayana Buddhists on why Theravada's anatta (and dependent origination) doctrine is "*insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance and hence suffering*" compared to Mahayana's sunyata (emptiness) doctrine?

The following are some arguments I came across from Advaita vedantists in some online forums against the buddhist view of the self. I am curious as to how Buddhists well versed into the philosophy would respond to them. **Buddhist Perspective on Self** > The Buddhist denial of Self is based on a misunderstanding of what > Advaita means by Atman. Atman is not a separate, individual entity but > the very essence of consciousness itself. The Buddha’s teaching of > No-Self (Anatta) was primarily aimed at refuting the notion of a > permanent, unchanging individual self, which Advaita also rejects. > > Advaita agrees that there is no permanent individual self, but asserts > that there is an underlying, unchanging consciousness (Brahman/Atman) > that is the substrate of all experience. This consciousness is not > separate from the world but is its very essence. > > The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada’s Karika demonstrate that waking, > dream, and deep sleep states all require a conscious witness that > persists through all states. This witness-consciousness is what > Advaita refers to as Atman. **Arguments Against Atman** > The Buddhist argument that the Self is a mental abstraction fails to > recognize the self-evident nature of consciousness. As Shankara points > out in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the existence of the Self > is self-evident and cannot be denied, for it is the very basis of all > denial. > > The Buddha’s reluctance to explicitly state “There is no self” can be > seen as an acknowledgment of the problematic nature of such a > statement. If there truly is no self, who is it that realizes this > truth? Who attains Nirvana? > > Advaita agrees that the idea of an individual, separate self leads to > suffering. However, it posits that the solution is not to deny the > Self altogether, but to realize one’s true nature as the universal > Self (Brahman). > > The Buddhist critique of “me” and “mine” is valid for the ego-self, > but not for the universal Self of Advaita. Realizing one’s true nature > as Brahman leads not to selfishness, but to universal love and > compassion, as seen in the lives of great Advaita sages. **Conditioned Genesis and Dependent Origination** > Advaita acknowledges the validity of Dependent Origination at the > empirical level (vyavaharika satya). However, it points out that the > very recognition of this interdependence requires a consciousness that > is not itself part of the causal chain. > > The 12-factor formula of paticca-samuppada is a brilliant analysis of > the cycle of samsara. However, Advaita asks: Who is aware of this > cycle? The awareness of the cycle cannot itself be part of the cycle. > > The Buddha’s rejection of soul-theories is understood in Advaita as a > rejection of limited concepts of self, not of consciousness itself. > The “correct approach” described in Buddhism of seeing things > objectively without mental projections is precisely what leads to the > Advaitic realization of non-dual awareness. > > In conclusion, while Buddhism provides valuable insights into the > nature of reality, Advaita Vedanta offers a more comprehensive > framework that accounts for both the changing phenomena and the > unchanging awareness that is their substrate. It is this unchanging, > ever-present consciousness that we call Brahman or Atman, the > realization of which leads to true and lasting freedom.

Anatta is often described as "not-self" which I understand to mean that our identities are illusions. But it's also described as "soullessness" which I think implies that there is no mind other than the brain itself. But many Buddhists believe in rebirth. If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

I've become aware through sutta study that avijja (the fetter of ignorance) refers to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Is there a specific canonical sutta that says that avijja is ignorance of the anatta doctrine? I know inferentially if anatta is part of the Four Noble Truths, then that would follow, however sometimes the various connections are hard to hold in the mind at the same time. Thanks.

I read the following on the internet: > Primary mistake is thinking that anattā means no soul or that "there > is no self". In Sabbāsavā Sutta the Buddha explicitly says that "there > is no self" is a wrong view born of inappropriate attention. "**I am** > nothing" or "**I** **do** not exist" is a wrong view born of asking the wrong > questions. Did the Buddha explicitly say in Sabbāsavā Sutta "there is no self" is a wrong view?

The Theory of "Emptiness" is the concept that all phenomenon are empty of inherent existence. Something has the illusion of existence when the right causes and conditions arise. Example: there is no inherently existing chicken soup. You only get chicken soup when you put together a dead chicken, hot water. Veggies etc. in this theory, you illusory sense of self comes from the right causes and conditions, parents, a body, a brain etc. following this logic, upon death, the self should simply cease to exist because that which made you a self has dissolved and since you do not inherently exist you should just vanish, and yet the Buddha is clear we take rebirth. This is illogical and makes no sense. Perhaps this is why the Buddha never taught a theory of emptiness. This idea is nowhere in the entire Pali Canon.

>the Aṣṭā­daśa­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā: > >Furthermore, Subhūti, you should know that a sentient being is nonexistent because a self is nonexistent. You should know that a living being, a creature, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, and one who sees is nonexistent because a sentient being is nonexistent. You should know that the very limit of reality is nonexistent because … one who knows and one who sees is nonexistent. You should know that space is nonexistent because the very limit of reality is nonexistent. You should know that the Great Vehicle is nonexistent because space is nonexistent. You should know that the infinite, the countless, and that which is beyond measure [F.201.b] are nonexistent because the Great Vehicle is nonexistent, and you should know that all dharmas are nonexistent because that which is beyond measure is nonexistent. Therefore, Subhūti, the Great Vehicle has room for infinite, countless beings beyond measure. And why? Subhūti, it is because a self, up to one who knows and one who sees, the very limit of reality, space, the Great Vehicle, the infinite, the countless, that which is beyond measure, up to all dharmas all cannot be apprehended. And why? Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see form; do not see feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness; do not see eyes; do not see ears, nose, tongue, body, or thinking mind; do not see a form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, or a dharma; do not see ignorance; do not see volitional factors, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, contact, feeling, craving, appropriation, existence, birth, or old age and death; do not see greed; do not see hatred or confusion; do not see a self; do not see a being, a living being, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, or one who sees; do not see the desire realm; do not see the form realm or formless realm; do not see śrāvakas and the śrāvaka dharmas; do not see pratyekabuddhas and the pratyekabuddha dharmas; do not see bodhisattvas and do not see bodhisattva dharmas; do not see buddhas [F.68.b] and do not see buddha dharmas; do not see awakening, up to do not see all dharmas. And while not seeing all dharmas they do not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified.” My question is : Are all sentient beings non existent as the sutra claims ?

From the sutta below, why would form (and the other aggregates) not lead to affliction, if it were self? Why would it be the case that form (and the other aggregates) could be compelled to change according to will, if it were to be self?   > “Mendicants, form is not-self. > *“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā.* > > For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could > compel form: > *Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ > ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe:* > > ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ > *‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.* > > But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t > compel form: > *Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ > ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:* > > ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ > *‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.* > > Feeling is not-self … > > Perception is not-self … > > Choices are not-self … > > Consciousness is not-self. For if consciousness were self, it wouldn’t > lead to affliction. And you could compel consciousness: ‘May my > consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because > consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t > compel consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not > be like that!’ > Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59)

Specifically, I mean this meaning of locus-of-control The way I see it, if one doesn't have a strong internal locus of control, it becomes very hard to go through daily life, since you keep considering the outcomes of your actions to be driven by external forces outside of your control. On the other hand, it makes sense to me that the self is an illusion (anatta), that it is in constant flux, and impermanent. From this logic, it seems like an internal locus of control also means buying into an illusion. How does one not have a strong internal locus of control, and still deal with the myriad challenges in daily life?