[Gem]

Originally Posted by God-Like

The parts of the chair would be more delusional parts that are identified as that. The non-self doesn't identify. All you are doing is creating an example of illustrating the chairs composition in different ways, when identification is absent there are no descriptive analogies to be made.

It's an analogy which illustrates a meaning of anatta.

This is what I am pointing out. The non identified, non self buddhist is bogus when engaging and interacting in this world.

The world is the interaction of aggregates (I explained a couple of posts back).

The chanting

No chanting

buddhist sitting crossed legged that perhaps says they are unidentified would in my eyes be a false statement.

Try the sitting meditation and within 30 minutes you see how your mind starts 'oh me, oh my, oh mine, oh I', and in time you will know this thinking is a fabrication that gives rise to a lot of suffering. Hence, anatta: not-me my mine and I and no self-theory.

A non self, non identified individual would not be sitting, standing, chanting or speaking with an absence of identification.

Sitting standing are all experiences. Composites of aggregates, and dependently arising. In the meditation you will explore the finest details of the sensations, and see that very subtle feeling. You already know that feeling is not you, not yours - and you also know that feeling has nbo continuity. It's change (we call anicca). Impermanence.

The individual that is blissed out in a trance type of state that doesn't have a sense of their individual self, that doesn't entertain a thought of chanting or meditating or speaking of non self is what I would call unidentified, there is just awareness of this world but there is no central point of self observing, because self has no central point.

That's right, you observe because not because you do, but because its true that you are aware of the experience as it is.

If the buddhists agree that non self only applies to the trance states then I would agree, so there would be no need to speak about delusional aspects of the chair that are comprised of this and that for these descriptors will be null and void.

I'm merely explaining the meaning of anatta in Buddhist philosophy for the sake of the level of intellectual understanding. The chair is a good enough analogy, and I also explained it in other different ways such as the nature of sensation, the other aggregates, 'contact', etc.

Maybe you would believe a non identified buddhist who offered you tea to be unidentified, I certainly wouldn't because I know the difference between being able to identify and not..

It doesn't make sense to consider 'someone' as unidentified. It's a contradiction. A non identified Buddhist is a contradiction of terms. In my personal opinion, do enough meditation and you'll lose your religion. It will start to seem menial and irrelevant, but you might still follow the traditions anyway if you like living that way. I mean, you have live some way according to some sort of culture, after all.