Sorted by New


A non-mystical explanation of "no-self" (three characteristics series)

Altough buddhism does a good job showing there is no such thing as a homunculus/controler self, i don't think it succeeds at showing there is no-self at all.

The minimal-self (by philosopher Zahavi) survives to the buddhist via-negativa imho " In several books and articles, Zahavi has defended the existence and significance of pre-reflective self-consciousness, and argued in favor of the idea that our experiential life is characterized by a form of self-consciousness that is more primitive and more fundamental than the reflective form of self-consciousness that one finds in various kinds of introspection.[1][2][3] More generally speaking, Zahavi has spoken out against different reductionist approaches to consciousness, and insisted on the theoretical significance of subjectivity and the first-person perspective.[2][4] "

It's nothing but the "meeness", first-personal "experiencing" of experience itself.

And if you exclude any self, the path of buddhism itself doesn't make any sense. Why would i go to such extreme lengths engaging in practices and studies to liberate another momentary self that will rise another second from now but won't be me ? Who makes the insight that there is no-self ? Who is liberated ? Sutras like the diamond sutras make some attempt to answer those paradoxes, but the attempt is unsuccessful IMHO.