The analogy in practical terms doesn't work because it is riddled with identifications. No point describing the sunset in words to someone that can't hear you.. No point in the blind leading the blind. All I am saying is that the non self won't acknowledge the analogies / concepts. There is no point in explaining the mechanics, Non self can't relate to any of it, this is what point I am making. All that is transpiring here is that there is one identification swapped with another and they are all delusional.

I am fine with suggestions regarding what is a chair made up of but in regards to the non self the chair or what the chair is made up of doesn't play a part in the proceedings, so I am at this point giving preference to what non self actually means in relation to what we call a chair. I am happy to speak of analogies once we have established the foundation of what non self is in reflection of this world.

I don't need meditation practice to see how the mind starts to figure out the not me theory, I am focussing my attention to the buddhist chap that perhaps thinks that there is no self while brushing his teeth. Again let me reiterate my point in that a non identified self will not have the thought to brush their teeth. What I have also gathered is that what is experienced or realized beyond the waking world won't cut the mustard of the waking world. This is why when no self is realized beyond the mind it doesn't therefore imply that there is no self of the mind.

One last point, if i was to speak to someone that suggested they do not entertain a self identity then how else am i going to relate to such a non person, non self, non entity other than relating them to be as I am, as a self identified individual?

It may sound contradictory in terms relating them as being someone, but it's not I that would proclaim to be unidentified ..


As an edit all that has been spoken about regarding non self is from a place of self identification and this is the main problem with this concept of non self.




x daz x

1) the analogy is one that you can is see is true, and it reflects the Buddhist pbhilosophy of aggregates 2) you can hear me.




I just explain anatta as per Buddhist philosophy.




The experience of teeth brushing is not-me, and it also devoid of identity. It's nothing to do with 'you don't exist'.





I didn't say anatta means you don't exist. It does imply the self you imagine someone to be is a fabrication, though.



Anatta means not-self in the meditation context of neti-neti, and non-self regarding the emptiness or impermanence of phenomena. You keep making it about 'someone', but it doesn't have anything to do with your existence.

I know that you are speaking of the philosophies behind the buddhist term for non self. Again, I am speaking of what non self means in relation to this world. It apparently doesn't mean anything at all does it.

If non self applies to a meditational neti neti approach then like said it has no bearing on an individual thinking the chair is not a chair.

You said earlier that non self relates to no identification but neti neti involves identifying what you are not in reflection of what you are. So we have a self identification in place in order to say what we are not.

How can you identify what you are not in reflection of what you are as non self in this world?

You said earlier Non-self (are empty of fundamental identity) and this has been my port of call.

Now you put it across as emptiness or impermanence of phenomena ..

It's getting confusing because a non self that entertains the neti neti approach IS identifying and the neti neti approach isn't empty of anything either.

All I wanted to know was if a buddhist dude was speaking about non self while drinking tea, is this expression or whatever word suits empty and non identified?

I would say no, not at all, in fact it's the complete opposite.

If we are speaking of deep sleep / meditation / trance then fine, but I am speaking of what it means practically in every day life.

If non self has no bearing on ordinary life then whatever the chair is made of means absolutely nothing to that which doesn't even identify with self.



x daz x

:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

The inherent identity is there and is manifest and experienced in every way possible to one who is liberated. I suppose it comes down to how you are defining the word "identity. Ultimately, under or beyond all the delusion we identify with, is our true identity. It is the "stuff" of consciousness or awareness itself and this "thing" which is what we are, is known as experience and perception now, it has no other place it lives. It cannot be found in any idea, belief, or concept as it's immediacy is only know as experience/awaraness in the present moment. An experience free of mind.

If someone wanted to be a poet, they could say our true identity is love, or the divine. They could attempt to describe their experience and perception using words such as those.

Non-self in religious and philosophical systems of thought, I would say is merely a pointing towards truth. One is caught in mind in various ways and so a concept like "no self" is pointing one towards freedom. Letting go of the self is done by the self after all.The true self. The one who eventually experiences liberation.

A better phrase than "empty of inherent identity" would be "empty of false identity" but then this leaves plenty of room for an ego to defend itself as the true self.

As far as Buddhism's "Anatta" the simple explanation is Buddhism was competing with Hinduism which relies heavily on the "soul" concept and so Buddhism had to deny such a thing to differentiate itself from Hinduism. It obviously gets a lot more complicated than this as the goals of practice and a lessining of ego is involved in the teachings and philosophy as well.

Typically. a person thinks of themselves as "having a soul" instead of "being the soul." We are consciously or subconsciously aware of our own impermanence and the "soul" lives forever or is conceptualized as clear and perfect so we push the concept out conceptually as something we have, and not what we are.

The denial of a soul in Buddhism serves the purpose to deal with what I am, as this is all that exists. It lights a fire so to speak in those seeking to find a new way of being. If one projects the spiritual self outward and away from what I am, like in the concept of a "soul" it can lead to one taking no responsibility to how one acts and behaves. "Yes I am a sinner, but my soul is not" etc.

The "anneta" concept serves many philosophical duties but yea it leads to a false proclamation of the denial of what we are. Buddhism of course answers this in a subtle way which is rarely talked about as follows:

"Citta-saṃtāna (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind",[3] is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding "self" (ātman), which Buddhism denies. Wiki"

We are an individual awareness and perceiver and nothing we are aware of or perceiving is us by definition. But quantum physics has shown the perceived changes in the presence of an observer. So ultimately it is probably true we are that. All the exists sprung from consciousness itself and so changes form according to the nature of that which is observing. The observed is the stuff of the observer.

Consciousness is a creator. Then the things it creates affect it's experience. It's a self enclosed bubble. Religion or philosophy is a key out of that prison. It states ones experience is not the only experience possible. One can "wake up" and realize I am the creator of my own suffering and thus be free of it. Not in the sense of "it" disappearing..... in the sense of my reaction to "it" disappears. That which reacts is not me.....it is just something I have chosen to identify with as me. The focusing of one's attention on this or that, which results in experience, can be done consciously or unconsciously,. done habitually or directed. Religion points to the possibility of a new experience. A new me.

The human body and it's mind is not us. It is just a place we live in for awhile then leave. It is an exercise machine for an enteral conscious awareness.

' As far as Buddhism's "Anatta" the simple explanation is Buddhism was competing with Hinduism which relies heavily on the "soul" concept and so Buddhism had to deny such a thing to differentiate itself from Hinduism.'


But Buddhism came way before Hinduism and Anatta was taught from it's earliest days... :smile: No competition at all, just Buddha's realization.

Happy suffering.

Liberation is also a big thing in Buddhist philosophy




I was only talking about things being composites and having no inherent identity. The Buddhist teachings imply that personal identity is an assumption based aggregates. In the meditation on explores throughout the body and mind, and finds no self (not-I) in any mind/body phenomena, and eventually discovers that phenomena itself is empty (no self).




Buddha didn't teach self as 'what you really are', and he teach God either. The Brahmans weren't happy about that. I don't know anything about Brahmans and I find Hinduism a bit silly, though admittedly, I find a lot of Buddhism a bit silly, too. It just so happens that I went to learn the meditation and philosophical discourse was part of the training.





To me, soul=mind and all individuality is body/mind condition. So when I say 'what I am', I say I am now the sum of all my past experience.




Anatta doesn't mean 'you don't exist'. It only implies that what you might think you are is delusion.




Buddhism claims that everything arises from mind.




In Buddhism, the volition is the origin of kamma, so in that sense volition is the creator but volition is an aggregate or an element of 'dependent arising'. Consciousness in Buddhism is not a fundamental, prior entity which creates. It arises concurrently with 'contact' along with the senses and experienced phenomena.





That's Exactly the crux of Buddhist teaching.





Hence the relevance of anatta as I have described it.

Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional :D

The liberation of not grasping (form,feeling,perception,mental formations, consciousness) then the self emerges ^vrikshasana^ from the blossoming lotus flower on still waters.:toothy4: :sunny: