No-self vs The Self

[Highest]

It goes to say that we have a Self beyond the ego, eternal and infinite. There are others who say that there is no self. I like the idea of no-self (Anatta) but the Upanishads make a good case for the Self which they claim can be directly experienced and known, which they also claim is identical to Brahman (God). What is your opinion, do we have a self or not, and why?

[eputkonen]

The Self is eternal and infinite, but it is not personal...there is no "me" in it.  This 'no "me" in it' is why the Buddha started teaching no-self...because people were attaching to the Self as a "me" that will continue forever and trying to identify with it.  He wanted to break that attachment, identification, and belief in a continuing "me".

The terms are not really contradictory, but pointers from different angles towards the same point.  Another way to put it....'what-is' is not Atman, nor anatman, nor both, nor neither.  These are just terms and concepts we are applying...usually through second-hand knowledge and second-hand understanding.

From my understanding...after seeing through the "me"...either pointer is an acceptable pointer.  Self or no-self.

[Nahm]

4 hours ago, Highest said:

It goes to say that we have a Self beyond the ego, eternal and infinite. There are others who say that there is no self. I like the idea of no-self (Anatta) but the Upanishads make a good case for the Self which they claim can be directly experienced and known, which they also claim is identical to Brahman (God). What is your opinion, do we have a self or not, and why?

To know, let go of what anyone says, and what you “like the idea of”. Only direct experience will do. Practices, psychadelics, nature, Maslow’s pyramid, retreats, etc. Thinking about this produces the opposite of what you want here. 

[WindInTheLeaf]

What happens to the self when you meditate?

[krazzer]

11 hours ago, Highest said:

It goes to say that we have a Self beyond the ego, eternal and infinite. There are others who say that there is no self. I like the idea of no-self (Anatta) but the Upanishads make a good case for the Self which they claim can be directly experienced and known, which they also claim is identical to Brahman (God). What is your opinion, do we have a self or not, and why?

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of how to formulate the unformulatable. The true self and no-self are the same thing. If you experience it you can see how you are nothing and everything at the same time.

[Preetom]

@Highest In Hindu text, the Existence aspect of the Absolute Reality is referred to as the SELF. It is impersonal. But it is called the self because that's what you ultimately are.

On other hand, Buddha used the term no-self as one of the three marks of Nature. If you observe your experience non judgmentally, you can discover these 3 marks yourself.

1) Impermanence= all your experiences are constantly changing. Nothing remains constant

2) Anatta/no-self= there is nothing called a 'me' in any experience if you observe it carefully

3) Suffering= yet if you cling to experiences in spite of impermanence and anatta, that very clinging is your ego and you suffer from everything because your clinging is on totally false grounds

[Toby]

Both point to the same.

[Nahm]

On 5/18/2018 at 9:18 AM, WindInTheLeaf said:

What happens to the self when you meditate?

You read that a few times, you might tap into a cosmic laugh. Love you.