Buddhism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people practicing or interested in Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Many of us have been trying hard to understand the Dhamma which essentially teaches impermanence,unsatisfactoriness & nonself. Buddha famously did not give answer to Vacchagotta's direct question "Is there a self ?" However Buddha definitely said that "all phenomenon are nonself".
Suppose I ask you : Do you experience presence of self now?
What would be the honest reply?
I think that a Buddhist answer is "There's nothing that should be viewed as self".
For example I experience (or "there is a perception/recognition of") "looking at the computer screen", however "looking at the computer screen" shouldn't be viewed as "self" ... it's not permanent.
The "Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN 22.59)" is maybe the most famous sutta about "anatta", but my favourite is the "Alagaddupama Sutta -- The Discourse on the Snake Simile (MN 22)" which I mentioned in this answer, i.e.:
there was no view of self that would not lead to suffering
Or in more detail:
Bhikshus, you may well cling to the self-doctrine that would not cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair to arise in one who clings to it. But do you see any such possession, bhikshus?”
“No, bhante.”
“Good, bhikshus. I, too, do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair in one who clings to it.
See also the topic How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?: where people talk about the difference between a fixed/permanent "view", and a temporary/transient "thought, feeling or emotion".
"Do you experience presence of self now?"
While thinking how to answer your question, I experience presence of self, which I know is no self ... a fabrication ... not truth.
When I completely stopped thinking, there was no experience of presence of self.
Nobody here essentially has an experience of "non self" unless they have reached high states of enlightenment. It is very very brief otherwise. Just a few seconds, for example when you were at a very intense state of physical activity or totally involved in your work. Which isn't much is it?
Our normal state right now is that our minds are convoluted. So when you are experiencing thoughts and seeing everything as just projections of how you see "yourself", where is there a question of this "non self" you keep mentioning. Is it true in your experience?
This is what I answered even to your previous question. We are all an aggregation of thoughts and karma. Without a sense of self, (that is our mental and physical formations), we can't experience anything here. You only truly know non self, when it is true in your experience that you can be free from your physical and mental afflictions.
I feel totally repelled by form, feelings,perception, discrimination and consciousness. Repelled? Aversion isn't the correct route anyway, my friend. And repelled by consciousness? What are you then, unconscious? True Consciousness is the very ultimate nature we are chasing. Yet we remain distracted forever.
The teaching of Buddha's Anatman/無我/Anatta is the most potent medicine, yet grasping it wrongly is the most potent poison. I see so many in the communities wriggling in poisoning, esp. those who don't have the access to the original teaching but feeding on interpretation by 2nd hand toothless academic certified; still some holding onto part of the teaching exclaiming + urshering all to believe, that's the total.
It's better to not start learning then learning the wrong Dharma; wrong understanding propelled wrong view: secular Buddhism? Karma? Rebirth, no self? I don't exist, I'm an aggregation pie, the feelings are not me/mine... Believing in God perhaps is better off, or buying into none of any belief/religion.
Anatman can only be realized in very very high Dhyana, or sudden enlightenment endorsed by Ch'an practice. A very good disposition personnel with perfect mind may grasp a fragment in intellectual contemplating.
The easiest way to examine is, ask, you realized no-Self? Can you then make yourself disappeared - since there, no-Self...?
You experience the presence of the self now, because you hold the view of the self.
For e.g. you experience the feeling of love towards your mother, because you hold the view that, that woman, is your mother.
And your mother holds the view that you are her son, and due to that, experience feelings of love towards you. If she were to suffer from dementia, she might not recognize who you are, and then she would not hold the view that you are her son, and thus would not experience feelings of love when she sees you.
There are some people who have extended their view of their self to include the car that they own and drive, so much so, that when their car gets hit by another car, they express feelings of pain and ask the other driver, "why did you hit me?" rather than, "why did you hit my car?".
Please take a look at the research of Prof. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran in this TED Talk YouTube video. From here, you can see that people have deep rooted views of their body that it's possible to experience the feeling of phantom limbs (and pains in them) in patients who have had one of their limbs amputated, and phantom menstrual cramps in some women who have had their uterus removed. Ramachandran has devised some therapies to rid the patients of their phantom limb pains.
Similarly, the Buddha too has given us his "therapy" to remove our wrong self views, but this may take time, because it's very deep-rooted.
But you must understand that both the views of that "I have a self" and "I have no self" are wrong according to the Sabbasava Sutta:
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
There are these wrong views of the self in the Nakulapita Sutta:
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
Also applies to the other aggregates.
The Buddha clearly states that in the Ananda Sutta that:
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
But at the same time, in the Attakari Sutta, the Buddha also says that the view of "there is no self-doer and there is no other-doer" is also wrong.
So, it's not easy for someone to get precisely the right view of the self.
