Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ketzer
This is a concept I often think I understand. However, when I do I can't help but wonder who or what is doing the understanding.
How do you understand (or not understand) the buddhist concept of "anatta" (no-self)?
How do you buddhists see it misconstrued by non buddhists?
And finally, for those who do believe they understand this concept, who is doing the understanding?
|
The word 'anatta is used in different contexts, such as not-me, mine, my or I in meditation; no substance of things in in the universe (or emptiness); no continuous self that endures time; and/or no actuality of ego - and each these aspects have their own elaborate philosophical tangents.
Anatta is generally misconstrued by non-Buddhists as 'you don't exist', whereas in a very general sense it means there is no fundamental identity to anything.
No one actually understands the concept, but Buddhist philosophy unifies both intellectual learning for the acquired knowledge, and meditation practice for deeper insight and wisdom.