A question for fellow Buddhists, or anyone that understands Buddhism?

Question

I was telling my friend about Buddhism and I mentioned the concept of the non-existence of self, and she kept saying that Buddhism does not teach this, that, quote: "Buddhism is not nihilism". Yet in many teachings this is mentioned, it is even part of the four noble truths. She is pitting me in a debate against a friend of hers who studies Buddhism, do you know of any teachings that I could use to defend this fundamental part of my beliefs?

N3WJL: I have no faith, but I have a hope: that someday you and the rest of humanity will see that we are all the same, and that hatred has no place in this world...

No afterlife? You obviously do not understand Buddhism, we believe in rebirth...

Pangel: We believe this, but behind it is a compex psychological theory involving the self. Our core belief is not in rebirth or the after life, it is that all suffering comes from our desire for worldly things. This in turn is caused by the ego, or self, the thing that we believe defines us, when it really causes us pain by separating us from things that we are fundamentaly one with. We try to detroy the ego through a combination of introversion and extroversion. The way we do this is though Compassion, Meditatation, and Action, and these are incorporated in the Noble Eight-fold Path...

a_delphic_oracle: Yes, that sounds like the essay I wrote that threw her off so much. The problem she has is with the fact that she KNOWS that she exists, and I do not know what I should do, because I try to explain it to her but she applies it to the belief that everything is created by its opposite, a belief that I find extremely fallacious, but to go any further would hurt her feelings...

Thetaalways:
Ātman (Sanskrit) or Atta (Pāli) literally means "self", but is sometimes translated as "soul" or "ego". In Buddhism, the misplaced or inappropriate belief in ātman is the prime consequence of ignorance, – itself the cause of all misery - the foundation of saṃsāra itself. Some Buddhist sutras, however, accept the Reality of the Atman, when it is equated with the essential being of the Buddha.
- Wikipedia Article -

RabidBunyip: Thank you, that is very helpful! I will try it on her. You see, I have no choice but to argue, not to convince her that I AM right, to convince her that I could be right...

Robson: If you don't like the question then don't answer it! If you hate religion then why are you in this section?

Answer 1

As a Buddhist, should you be debating anyone in the first place? One of the things I've learned from Buddhism (I'm not a Buddhist, BTW), is that whatever direct knowledge or insight you gain about the nature of reality, you're never going to be able to explain in words. If someone wants to know, they just have to find out for themselves. You can point them in the right direction, but you can't explain reality because of the nature of language.

But, if you want to defend the idea of "no self," I suggest you invite your friend or the person you are debating to describe her "self" in words. Ask her who she is. If she tells you her name, indicate that that is just a word that represents the idea of a self. If she says she is her body, ask which part. If parts of her body were removed, would she still be "her?" If she says that she is her mind, ask what would happen if you removed her childhood memories, or her capability to feel sadness, happiness, or boredom. Would she still be "her?" What part of her mind is "her?" The point is, there is no one part of you that is "you." "Self" is just an idea, one that is an illusion. In addition, you can ask if her concept of self includes her liver, her blood cells, her hair follicles, her vertebrae, etc. The concept of self doesn't include these things, and so it is incomplete and therefore mistaken.

Whatever it is that we really are, we don't have a name or a concept for it. We are the thing that observes all that happens, and in observing we become the object of observation. This knowledge is obscured by the fact that believe we are an ego trapped in a bag of skin, which is why the idea that "self" is a mistaken concept is important. In fact, all concepts are inherently false, because they are really just a convenient, shorthand way of referencing our experience; but they're not "bad," they're just incomplete.

EDIT: It's totally understood why you're debating, and I didn't mean to negatively criticize you; read that first sentence: "Can you really even debate the fact that there is no self?" Meaning, words and ideas can't convey things that are capital T True, they have to be experienced directly. Debates are necessarily restricted to words and ideas, so I suggest your focus be on directing your "opponent" (for lack of a better word) towards the experience of the lack of self, rather than trying to describe or justify it.
Good luck! :)

Answer 2

"Yet in many teachings this is mentioned, it is even part of the four noble truths."

Q: Just curious, where is "anatta" or non-self mentioned in the Four Noble Truths? Can you please post a site or resource.

Also, just so I understand, can you please share what your understanding is of "self" or the term "anatta" (non-self)? I think this is important to answer because once you have an answer to this, your friend (and I also) will be clear as to what you are "defending." Perhaps this is where a 'debate' is stemming from---both parties may not be fully expressing their understanding?

You posted that your friend said: "Buddhism is not nihilism" From my readings in the Pali Canon, the Buddha's teachings neither lead to views of eternalism nor nihilism, but the Middle Way. A quote regarding "nihilism:"

>cut&paste, quote #1<
The materialistic philosophy of annihilationism (ucchedavada) is emphatically rejected by the Buddha as a false doctrine. The doctrine of kamma is sufficient to prove that Buddhism does not teach annihilation after death. It accepts survival, not of an eternal soul, but of a mental process subject to renewed becoming; thus it teaches rebirth without transmigration. Again, the Buddha's teaching is not a nihilism that gives suffering humanity no better hope than a final cold nothingness. On the contrary, it is a teaching of salvation (niyyanika-dhamma) or deliverance (vimutti) which attributes to man the faculty to realize by his own efforts the highest goal, Nibbana, the ultimate cessation of suffering and the final eradication of greed, hatred and delusion. Nibbana is far from being the blank zero of annihilation; yet it also cannot be identified with any form of God-idea, as it is neither the origin nor the immanent ground or essence of the world."

"She is pitting me in a debate..."

>cut&paste, quote #2<
"Whereas some ascetics and Brahmins remain addicted to disputation such as: 'You don't understand this doctrine and disciple - I do!' ... the ascetic Gotama [the Buddha] refrains from such disputation. Digha Nikaya 1.18. (This sutta is the 'Brahmajala' concerning wrong views and what the teaching is not.)"

I think it might be helpful to first identify where a person stands when taking a position...as mentioned earlier...some things cannot be fully explained because it has to be directly experienced. If the person we engage in seem to not agree with our understanding, there is also a position of "letting go."

I hope the sources are helpful in some way. w/Metta.

(P.S. I thought the website where quote #1 was from was an interesting essay, there might be answers in there to a question I often come across this forum regarding Buddhism,atheism,god,no-god etc.)

Answer 3

That is a very difficult concept to understand --'non-self'. I have struggled with it for years. I even had the wonderful opportunity to ask a Tibetan monk about it but came away as confused as ever. But his spirit was awe inspiring, such serenity!

Anyway--to me it means that we think we are a certain person but are we? If every aspect of existence is dependent on our perception, then our sense of self is as well. So the person you think you are does not exist. There IS a individual, but delusion keeps us from seeing our-self clearly until we have really really tamed our big ego. Perhaps this is the most difficult delusion to over come of them all because we are so close to it, in maintaining this delusion we exist, so to speak.

I hope I am halfway clear in trying to express this. It has been a hard lesson for me.

She is right though, Buddhism is not nihilism, not by a long shot. I feel Buddhism is very positive and very hopeful.

Nice to see you back.

Answer 4

As far as I understand Buddha, before he came along there was no Buddhism. He studied the Veda, and in particular Advaita or 'non dualism'. This teaches that the individual self is not separate from the Universal Self. Far from nihilistic, it embraces the realization of oneness with all being. Yes, the little i or ego is subjugated - burned in the fire of knowledge as it were. But in doing so we take on a much farther reaching understanding of Self.

Answer 5

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is this: Buddha said that everything is an illusion. The truth of the matter is that we are all little bits of the great energy that is expressed as OM, pretending that we are separate from each other when really we are all the same essence.

Along the lines of 'all the world's a stage and the men and women are merely players' concept.

I think. I defer to someone who knows the writings better.

Answer 6

Though I am not a Buddhist, you might try this:

We have an experience of a "self" much like we have an experience of seeing color and an experience of hearing sound. In that sense the "self" has an independent reality just as color and sounds have reality. However, our experience of a self (like our experiences of color and sound) are part of our illusion of samsara. Only when we attain nirvana will we recognize that these experiences are contaminating illusions. The reality of the self is derived from our clinging to samsara. Liberated from samsara we realize that the self is not identical to the stream - it flows in the stream, part of it but not identified with it.

It should be noted that, as with so many such things, there is an opposite yet equally valid alternate explanation - that it is our clining to the idea of the self which traps us in samsara, and when we free ourselves from this clinigng we will attain nirvana. This is not to say that the "self" doesn't exist, simply that its existence is inherent in samsara. To be liberated from samsara is to be liberated from a clinging to the idea of the self just as it is to be liberated from a clinging to other ideas.

Frankly though I think you'd be better seved meditating on (and practicing) the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, and the five precepts. Many modern Buddists get bogged down trying to hash out metaphysical arguments that have been unfolding for centuries. IMHO these arguments are ultimately unimportant. What is important is compassion for life and assisting others in the attainment of nirvana. If arguments like this evolve into a "battle of wits" between you and your friend or prevent you from enjoying your time with her, then they aren't helping you or her. Let them go.

Answer 7

Here is one of the tricks to Buddhism ... It's different to everyone! What you get out of it depends on your state of mind. For example if you read the bible as a child and reread it as an adult you might read more into what Jesus is saying. At different times in your life you can read the same passages and they can take on totally different meanings. As for the concept of the nonexistence of self...obviously you exist that isn't really the question. It isn't so much what you are, as much as what you aren't. By that I mean once you attain spiritual Niravana you become everything and nothing at the same time. You exist in everything but are personified by nothing. Basically what you do now is insignificant in the greater scheme of things but it's still significant to the few people that you do effect...if you give a homeless person shelter and food, it would mean everything to that person. But you giving someone something won't matter in 100 years, because 100 years from now who will appreciate it...it means nothing. The point is not to do something for recognition but because it's the right thing to do. By reaching Nirvana you will exist but you will not be consumed by the physical entity that was you because you'll be everything and yet nothing. You and your friend shouldn't be arguing semantics, because the end result means...nothing! All arguing over right and wrong answers is irrelevent. You and your friend shouldn't argue it's just that at this time you're going through different things so words mean different things to you. Don't worry about details, focus on the underlying message of all religion LOVE ONE ANOTHER! Jesus said to not cast pearls before swine, meaning if someone doesn't agree with something that you know to be true...don't push it, it won't help anything. I personally am Christian in that I admire Jesus and recognize him as the son of God and that he died for our sins and strive to be Christ like (at which I fail miserably) but I believe religion is there to teach us how to be (they all teach the same basic principles) and I include all of them in my own religion because I think they all have good points and means to get closer to spiritual truth. Wars are started because of insignificant debates like you and your friend, just agree to disagree and move on...don't forget the basics!

Answer 8

Not a Buddhist myself but very familiar with it's basic roots and spiritual philosophy. Can't see where you get this concept from.
The state of "bodhi" which is the goal , is defined as one who has attained intellectual and ethical perfection by human means.
A buddha is simply one who has attained "bodhi" There have been many buddhas and will be many more.
The concept of ethical perfection does include other areas of life
beyond self ( family, group, race , mankind, etc) but the source
of this state is oneself.
Guatama Buddha wrote in Dharma-Parda:
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. It is founded upon our thoughts. It is made up of our thoughts."

But he was talking to us as individual spiritual beings.

Answer 9

as a non Buddhist i have nothing for your defence
i thought though ... they feel they will reincarnate until reaching a state of perfection , which will lead to a release of physical cycles .. Nirvana ... freedom of the soul .. peace and end

have i got this wrong ? lol

i understand and thank you for the lovely explaination .. i can relate to this so much also xx

Answer 10

The truth needs no defense.

Love and blessings Don