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 asked this question in Philosophy and was advised to ask the question here on Buddhism as I may get better answers HERE. So I am pursuing Spirituality for quite some time now, I've had REALISATIONS but not the Proverbial Self-Realisation because questions remain. So was kinda wondering what is it EXACTLY that they realise. I've been told, you realise, "YOU ARE THE ONE" but it does nothing to me, no effect. So DEFINITELY IT'S NOT THE WORDS. What is it then?

Are beliefs in a permanent, unchanging soul / self considered detrimental to spiritual progress in Buddhism? If so, why? Please explain in detail.

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.

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?

In grade school while in class, children would sometimes shoot paper darts with a rubber band at someone sitting in front of them. Often the class would end and all would be forgotten. However, if the harassment went on for a long time, the child in front would get so irritated, and they would snap and do something violent to whoever was harassing them. Of course, the teacher would only see/hear the violent reaction and would get no backstory about what led up to it. And the victim would end up looking like the bad person. From my perspective, in addition to being angry at the person harassing them, the victim is also frustrated at themselves for losing control after being provoked. What does Buddhism have to say about this? A victim might intellectually try to resolve their problem by saying that all is "maya", but their anger would still be real. There is still an "I" that is being harassed. When fists can't resolve the problem, what other approaches can one use?

> "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than > feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In > fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... > Elsewhere than consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > > "No, lord." > > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering." Based on the above, who is it that is really suffering? And who is I?

Wondering if anyone knows the sutta where the Buddha talks about the aggregates and multiple selves. As in there is a changing group of khandas, and in one moment there is a self, (which could be called a self though it is fleeting) and another moment another self. (But its so fleeting it can hardly be called a Higher Self or Soul ect, as its only momentary). Its been about 6 years since I read the sutta, but I did find it, I am not explaining very well. It is quite short and direct. This is not talking about just the body as a self, its talking about the fleeting moment of the four or five aggregates (khandas). I know the simile that will likely be quoted but this was a more obscure reference. Some groups use this reference to refer to the "billions of selves". I am sure it exists in one place probably the Connected Discourses. Blessings in the Buddha Dhamma

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)

I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy. The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth. So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

the unborn , is described by Buddha: > The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated > of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being > through nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for > delight. **The escape from that is calm, permanent, a sphere beyond > conjecture, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the > cessation of stressful qualities, stilling-of-fabrications bliss.** Doesn't this describe nirvna? Can the description infer us to a true-self (*atta*), not-self (*anatta*), or anything else other than what is listed? Can you infer emptiness? As I was saying to other, losing with a self is so bad, I couldn't justify calling this so-called unborn a self, and it wouldn't be me or mine unfortunately. Regardless, this text says permanent, and what is the harm in selfing this permanence? What is the harm? What was permanent is no longer mine? It doesn't say 'end of defilements', 'end of existence', but perhaps you can infer that. How do you infer it?

I am currently doing some emotional work, and in the process, I am recognizing that I have low self-worth and self-esteem. So, I am wondering, what are the roots of this? I mean, this clearly exists as a phenomena but not necessarily as an elementary phenomena or ground truth. So, from a Buddhist perspective, what is this phenomena ultimately made up of? It immediately comes to my mind that it is related to things feeling dualities like inferiority-superiority, hatred-love, aversion-craving, and somehow it is also related to confidence. So, what are your views on it and how to improve it for a person who has low self-worth?

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?

I don't want to consult any doctor about my obsession. I do not even want to speak about it to my family and friends. I wish to get an answer tailor-made for me about my obsession with getting dead-drunk and practicing self, the meditation. Please don't take it otherwise but a question to Buddha & his disciples. I am so fed up of the dependence of me on drugs. It happens, believe me (i have seen many others, too). Please provide/mark/show/point wordings of Buddha if he has said something near to this. If any modern Buddha is reading this than please share actual revert of you with example. I am standing at a dead-end (may be here's some way ahead but my thought isn't going beyond my confusion. My philosophy about buddhism says that it's a way of living that is worth living. I am practicing meditation in routine in early morning timings. The rest of the day i depend on drugs to stay connected to the will of mine to become a Buddha, it appears like a bridge that i can walk and i walk across it, everytime. *How is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs?* I want to quit my drugs. I wish to be free.

Arahants have eliminated the conceit of, "better," amongst other aspects of conceit and other fetters. However, if they are perfected people, that would mean they are perfect. Other people are not perfect, by very virtue of not being arahants. How do we explain the fact that an arahant doesn't feel better than anyone, though in reality they are better, morally, spiritually, and emotionally? Doesn't an arahant also lack ignorance? It seems knowing what you are and where you stand is a lack of ignorance.

I'm asking this question based on this comment and this question . It is well known that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. However, it is popularly mistaken (as seen in the cited comment and question) that Buddhists have to rush towards destroying their sense of self, skipping over the balanced wholistic practice of the Noble Eightfold Path . I think this is not correct. The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in order to become a sotapanna or stream winner. However, a stream winner, has still not yet eradicated the fetters of sensual desire, ill will, material-existence-desire, immaterial-existence-desire, conceit and ignorance. I take it that total eradication of the sense of self happens with the eradication of the higher fetters, especially ignorance (avijja). After all, if the sense of self has been totally eradicated by the stream winner, it does not make sense that he could still have conceit, right? So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really? Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more? Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience? **How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?**

In Buddhist philosophy, the Pali term 'atta' is frequently translated into English as 'self.' However, this translation can be misleading since in common English usage, 'self' often implies an inherent identity or individuality that the Buddhist concept of 'anatta' (not-self) seems to refute. Some might argue that 'essence' could be a more fitting translation, as it suggests the fundamental qualities of a person or thing. Given this, why do translators choose to use 'self' rather than 'essence' when translating 'atta' from Buddhist texts, especially when the term 'essence' might avoid the misconception of an enduring, independent self that Buddhism actually seeks to dispel?

The third mark of existence states *sabbe dhamma anatta* - all phenomena is not self. Despite that, the following sutta states that there is a self-doer (*attakārī*). Also, this implies free will. How is it that the existence of the self-doer (and free will) does not conflict with the third mark of existence? > “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring > beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, > this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a > doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving > forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no > self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” > AN 6.38 (translated by K. Nizamis) > “Brahmin, if there is this element of approaching, brahmin, then it is > evident then that beings are approaching: this is what beings do > themselves [self-agency], this is what is done by others > [other-agency].” “Yes, sir.” > > “Brahmin, I do not hold such a doctrine, > such a view [that there is no action of one’s own, that there is no > action by others]. For, I have neither seen nor heard of a situation > where one could oneself step forward or one could oneself step back, > and yet say, ‘There is no action of one’s own, there is no action by > others.’” > AN 6.38 (translated by Piya Tan) > “Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have > energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of > another. > > Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or > view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that > one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s > volition?” > AN 6.38 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

It can be understood that the self is not some real permanent thing, but I wish to know whether we can find a real *temporary* self? We can define a temporary self, which lasts for some small duration, and at a certain location. For example, we can identify this temporary self with the mind which is controlling the ideas I am presenting here as a question. Is this definition of a temporary self in some sense real?

If there is no Self , then what Self is there to be affected by the karma which the non-Self now performs? EDIT: A similar question I guess was asked in Samyutta Nikaya and Buddha replied as follows : " With thy thoughts, which are under the dominion of desire, dost thou dream thou canst overhaul the teaching of the Master " However I not sure what that means. I would be really happy if someone can explain the meaning of that answer from Buddha.