New answers tagged

1

In scientific research on "Near Death Experiences" it is established that an individual who has had, say an experience, such as a near fatal motor accident, recalls the entire episode later after recovery in hospital. In this instance, the individual was able to cognize the entire episode from a detached "self". The doctors are often surprised that the ...


0

Because from the statement 'i have no self' it infers that 'i am otherwise', there being 'i am" it follows that an "I" element exists and refers to some a true element like a color seen by the eye or an idea seen by intellect ie of speed or of motion, that a true discernable element is talked about in this way. This can't be established as a true element. ...


0

As Ruben2020 points out Even the Buddha used personal pronouns like "I" and "me" Seems obvious -- to me -- then that the mistake is with the 'have': the idea that the skandhas include something called "no self". There is nothing in addition to the skandhas, including some "not self" quality. Mind you I can't read Pali.


0

In my experience anyway, the idea of an absence of self as 'self importance' could seem completely crushing -- depending on how you look at it. From a quasi existential position, there may be some freedom to having a goal -- enlightenment -- that cannot ever be reached by me or you, is just about some impersonal causal series; or that may make it all seem ...


0

When there is no self, there is no war since just because everyone has been fighting for their own goods. People in heaven knows to help, share with each other, hence they live there peacefully for a long time. Greedy, hatred and ignorance/illusion are all because there is a self to bear. Until understanding there is no self, there won’t be any afflictions ...


1

Please see this question and the selected answer for it which is based on SN 1.25. The Buddha sometimes referred to himself as "I" and this is not out of conceit or self view, but because he is simply using conventional language. Why does he refer to himself in the third person as Tathagatha - "firmly established in reality"? The way I see it, this is ...


1

Well, it's not about the self existing or not existing, it's about taking this one thing to be all-important, important over everything and everyone else. And then all the suffering that everyone (including you, the thing) has to experience because you want this thing to live the longest and bestest life. This is why it is emphasized, because undoing this ...


1

The doctrine of self varies in what is assumed to be true and what is taken to be a self. The notion of self is a massive cause of psychosis. In dependence on it one thinks; 'i was, am or will be..', 'i am good because of this..', 'i am bad..', 'this is mine, may this be mine', 'this is my self, my self is good, is bad or may it be otherwise' etc This idea ...


0

I mean, everyone understand that no-self is truth but how can it help us remove our suffering..the only option i see is that you pretend that because things were no-self ,it changed..but ask yourself does this pretending ever help ...no.never. Maybe because one's still "pretending" to see this truth instead of actually put in the time and effort to actually ...


2

The intellectual understanding of anatta is not particularly complicated, and i agree with you in that regard. However, dhamma teaches us that intellectual reflection is one out of three types of wisdom: Learned panna (suta-maya-panna) Intellectual reflecting (cinta-maya-panna) Spiritual experiencing (bhavana-maya-panna) And how is final knowledge ...


2

We are trapped in this vicious understanding of Self. I am superior , I am inferior , I am equal ... I did that ... I am doing this ..I will do that... The conceit and view of 'I AM ' runs our life. We are holding wrong view and this wrong view is pushing us into greater trouble forever. Therefore holding the right view and holding no conceit of 'I AM' takes ...


Top 50 recent answers are included