non-self

[argalorn]

I was wondering if I have this part of the buddhist teaching correct about non-self.

seeing as how nothing about us is permenant and everything is subject to change within each of us and there is no one inside of us at the controls telling us what to do we really do not have a self.

Am I right about this or is there more to it?

[elliberto]

Am no expert on buddhist teaching, but logic would dictate that if you want to really understand why there is no "self", you should start by defining exactly what you mean by "self". So what properties must a "self" absolutely have to be called "self".
After that it's probably a lot easier to prove/really understand non-self.

[Matthew]

argalorn, fundamentally you are right yes. There is no feature of what we call our "self" that is unconditioned and not subject to change and dissolution.

[shendy]

Allegedly the buddha used the term anatta which seems to have 2 main translations ;

1. No Self.
2. Not Self.

The most common understanding of anatta is No Self, but there is another interpetation along the lines of Not Self e.g. .... well where is the self?  feelings are not self, the body is not self, memory is not self, so where is the self?

The implication is these things are not the self so where is the self?

It seems to have been a common teaching method used by Buddha to say what things were not and not what they were. On some issues he said what things were not rather than say what they were.

Allegedly there are sections in the sutta's where buddha talked about the unborn and undying, and other descriptions of what looks like he is describing the soul.

Older schools of Buddhism developed the theory of the unborn/undying in ways not know in Theravada.

I personally believe in the excistance of my soul.

I believe the Buddha was fallible and made mistakes. My personal experience of what has happened to me in meditation seems to be different from how the Sutta's suggest should happen.

Many people have different experiences from the descriptions in the pali texts e.g. Muslims, Christians, Jews etc.

I also suggest the Buddha's description of Patchidasampuda ( 12 steps of creation) was fine for him. I have experienced more than 12 steps.

[Matthew]

Allegedly the buddha used the term anatta which seems to have 2 main translations ;

1. No Self.
2. Not Self.

The most common understanding of anatta is No Self, but there is another interpetation along the lines of Not Self e.g. .... well where is the self?  feelings are not self, the body is not self, memory is not self, so where is the self?

The implication is these things are not the self so where is the self?
.....

In your head and there alone.

M

[bloom]

Well said, Elliberto.  What you refer to here re logic is also very helpful in meditations re the lack of an "inherently existing self," as well as other "links" (of dependent origination).  I have learned that we must first "identify" what it is we wish to negate.  If clinging, for instance, is a link in the chain that keeps us bound to suffering, before we let go (of clinging), well we need to identify exactly what it is that we "cling" to.  With ignorance being the first link, one might assume that this means we cannot identify what it is we cling to, for if we did we would not longer be "ignorant" (i.e. not knowing).  So in regard to no-self, a suggested practice is to ask "Who am I?", or "Who is it that asks this question?".  Upon identifying and answering this question, we then may "deconstruct", so to speak, this illusory self, and know that "nothing is as it appears."

[Matthew]

The Buddha defines the self in terms of the five personality factors or Skandhas.

Try searching the Forums.

Matthew