Did the Buddha say there's no SELF?

There has to be a "self" -- and here he is!

Imagined debate between ordinary person and one who sees what the Buddha meant by "no-self"

Imagine a Mini Me driving this body to act.

Okay, if the Buddha himself said "there is no self," he himself must be cr*zy! How could there be no self? Anyone (any self) who thinks there's no self ought to have his (or her) head examined. The SOUL (Pali atta, Sanskrit atman, Spanish alma) is right here, in the chest, standing next to the heart with his arms crossed, a little homunculus who sometimes takes the backstairs of the spinal column into the cranium and looks out through the eyes of the head while manipulating levers and switches, which is how we live.

Driver's seat, where he steers the body

Who's inside of that guy?

Beg your pardon?

Who is driving the homunculus?

Well, um, there's an even smaller "mini me" homunculus driving that one.

And that one?

And that one what?

Who or what is driving that one?

And so on, ad infinitum! There's always a smaller one until we get down to the level of the cell, which has a mitochondria seat where the mini-mini-mini me homunculus sits to drive the cell.

And what's smaller than a cell?

An atom, of course.

Each with its own homunculus, I suppose.

Now you're catching on!

I'll knock the homunculus out of you, mofo

Well, it sure feels that way, that a homunculus is driving the human body, but have you ever known a guy to get punched in the head so hard, like a Pantera album cover (Vulgar Display of Power), that his homunculus gets knocked out of his seat and flies out of his ear and now doesn't have a big homme (Hummer) to drive?

Well, no, of course not. He would die.

And his body would disappear?

No, of course, not. Why would it disappear?

Because we don't find homunculi during autopsies.

Well, that's because they disappear, yes, disappear right out of existence once the car is undrivable, dead as it were, stuck with the levers and switches not working...

In a coma or vegatative state?

Vegatative state, yes, no longer functional and then, vamoose, homunculus goes to Heaven or the great beyond where all the homunculi gather and have parties by drinking and singing and dancing in circles until they're reborn into another body.

No hell?

Well, of course there's a hell, but, I mean, the homunculus has had to have gotten up to some pretty high hijinks to go there. Class dismissed!

Just one more question: You KNOW this to be true?

Just one more answer: I FEEL this to be true...

But that...

No more questions! Class dismissed! Get out, get out!

The Buddha never said, "There is no self"?

O, poor little homunculus self

It seems to us the Buddha did say such a thing, not to everyone. Nearly no one can understand this liberating truth. Even fewer can accept it. The entire practice is to bring about insight (clear seeing) so that we can see what is and is not true in order that the Truth set us free.

Liberation from all suffering takes insight, and long before insight arises, one needs calm, stillness, silence, serenity, samadhi (superconsciousness deriving from mental purification by "concentration" in the form of meditative absorptions called jhanas (dhyanas, zens, chans) -- overcoming the Five Hindrances and attaining equipoise, composure, equanimity, balance, brightened faculties now that everything has become coherent and gone online without hindrance and obstruction, a temporary state that serves as the foundation for the arising of insight (vipassana).

Insight cuts off the mental defilements at their roots and results in awakening, the experience of enlightenment (bodhi), which results in ultimate liberation known as a glimpse of nirvana (complete peace or ultimate bliss, the highest happiness), a thing so different it cannot rightly be called a "thing" at all because it is unlike all we have ever known in this world of things called samsara (the Cycle, the Wheel of Life and Death) or this simulation we have been endlessly cycling through due to karma (deeds) and delusion, i.e., ignorance of Dependent Origination).

Does the Buddha say there's a self? Yes but only because he is speaking conventionally. How does he define this "self"? He does so by the Five Aggregates clung to as "self." This is when he is speaking in conventional terms. However, when he is speaking in ULTIMATE terms (in terms of what is ultimately true), he points at what insight will reveal to anyone who develops it: There is, ultimately speaking, no self.

(The question "Is there a self?" is wrong because it is full of assumptions. We assume we have a self -- that is to say and speaking more correctly, the impersonal aggregates cling to the misunderstanding that a self is present -- even from the standpoint of asking the question. Form forms (the body bodies), feelings feel, perception perceives, mental formations will and intend, consciousness is conscious so that it seems as if Self is the Asker, the Thinker, the Doer, the Worrier, the Watcher (the Atman or Immortal Soul), the One who practices and will or will not be enlightened/awakened).

• There is an "Immortal Soul" in a way. That is to say, there is something mistaken for a soul, ego, essence, heart, personality, individuality, a "self," who persists through time unchanged as its perfect self, the Doer, the Knower, the Experiencer, but it is not what it seems. This is what the Buddha is pointing out. We are certainly more than we know, but all those things we cling to will ultimate frustrate, disappoint, and prove mistaken. Even if we (or these aggregates) cling to the exalted notion, "I am the ALL," "I am Brahman," or "I am that I am," Tattva, Tat Tvam Asi, all of these exalted Vedic, Brahmanical, Hindu, and later Judeo-Christian ideas,

There is a better way to ask and find an answer: "What is there?" There is Dependent Origination (the 12-link chain of causality, its elements each giving rise to the other in a causal chain), which is how all "things" come to be, how "self," that is, the illusion/delusion of self, arises and originates and seems to exist.

Some wrongly say, "There is no separate self." This is true, but some are wrong because they misunderstand "separate," imagining as Hinduism does, that there is unity (of Atman and Brahman), Union with Brahma or Brahman, a raindrop returning to the sea, plunging into its home again after a roundabout journey, now merged and losing itself into the ALL, the Whole, the Ultimate Reality)

The Five Aggregates clung to as self

IN BRIEF: All of reality, in this dimension and universe or any other, is marked by three universal characteristics: All "things" are (1) impermanent, (2) unsatisfactory, and (3) impersonal. These are the Three Marks of Existence. Nirvana is the only non-thing (non-composite), for it is not dependently originated, whereas everything else is. Therefore, the Path to Freedom the Buddha taught leads to nirvana, complete freedom.

SUTRA: "Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic"

Ven. Ñanamoli Thera (trans), Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59 PTS: S iii 66 CDB i 901) © 1993 edited by Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One (the Buddha) was living at Benares (Varanasi), in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the wandering ascetics known as the group of five:

"Meditators."

— "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One then said this [with regard to the Five Aggregates clung to as a "self"]:

"Meditators, form [this body] is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could will: 'Let my form be thus, and let my form be not thus' [Let my form (body) be this way and not that way]. Since form is not-self, it leads to affliction (pain, distress, disappointment), and no one can will: 'Let my form be thus, and let my form be not thus.'

• [The body (form), though treated as one thing as if it were singular, is actually four things -- the Four Great Elements or four characteristics of materiality. They are condensed for simplicity into one because they are regarded as less worthy of note than the mind, which is treated in detail as the remaining four aggregates. "Mind" is not one thing but about 50 distinct processes -- feeling, perceiving, determining, and consciousness, all of which are mental formations; the remainder of the 50 are packed into the category of "mental formations" (sankhāra), of which the most important in the category is determination (cetana = intention, volition, impulse, will, motive). The Buddha considered these five the most important to single out for the sake of liberation by wisdom, that is, to gain insight (vipassana = clear seeing) that all we are, all "self" is, are heaps of these impersonal processes, not an actual "self" (soul, atta, atman, essence) that goes on unchanged and immutable through time and experience as philosophers and other religions hold the view. All that we are, all that we cling to as ourselves, is radically impermanent, ultimately disappointing (never able to fulfill us), and most unbelievably impersonal or not-self.]

"Meditators, feeling is not-self...

"Meditators, perception is not-self...

"Meditators, mental formations (determinations) are not-self...

"Meditators, consciousness is not-self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could will: 'Let my consciousness be thus, and let my consciousness be not thus.' Since consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction, and no one can will: 'Let my consciousness be thus, and let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Meditators, how do you conceive of it: Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?"

"It is painful, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent and painful (since it is subject to change) fit to be regarded this way: 'This is mine, this is me, this is my self'"?

"No, venerable sir."

Did the Buddha teach that there's no self?

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are mental formations (determinations) permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"It is impermanent, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?"

"It is painful, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent and painful (since it is subject to change) fit to be regarded this way: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded this way: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

The Middle Path leads to complete freedom

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded this way: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Meditators, when a noble [enlightened] follower who has heard (the Truth) sees thus, that person finds estrangement in form, finds estrangement in feeling, finds estrangement in perception, finds estrangement in determinations, finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When one finds estrangement, passion fades away. With the fading of passion, one is liberated. When liberated, knowledge arises that one is liberated. One [intuits] understands: 'Rebirth is exhausted, the supreme life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond [to come].'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The meditators were glad, and they approved of his words.

During this utterance, the hearts of the meditators of the group of five were liberated from the taints by letting go and renouncing clinging. Source

• Buddha Face - Etsy; Bhikkhu Jayasara, Student of the Path, Dhamma Short (anatta); Dr. Doug Smith (Doug's Dharma); Ven. Ñanamoli (trans), Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59); Dhr. Seven and Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Wisdom Quarterly