Selflessness in Buddhism.

[Lotus of the abyss]

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

[Cobie]

It means the 5 aggregates are not-the self, so there is a self.

 

 

Edited August 13 by Cobie

[Lotus of the abyss]

But I thought buddhism didn't have a self at all. Isn't the idea of there is no self a central idea in buddhism?

[Cobie]

 

44 minutes ago, Lotus of the abyss said:

… self … no self …

 

Nobody knows anything, because it is unknowable.  Remember, “take responsibility”; believe whatever you deep inside actually believe.  

 

Edited August 13 by Cobie

[Krenx]

The Buddha did not say there is no self. The Buddha taught non self. If there was actually no self, none of us would be suffering. But we do suffer. It is more the process of attending to phenomena more honestly. We cling into a sense of self, and hold on to qualities of me, mine, myself not just conventionally speaking, but also internally. 

 

With ignorance, there is a self. 

 

With wisdom, the self gradually has to  dissolve. The Self does not hold water, it is not dependable, unstable. We see how things are unfit to be regarded as self. 

 

The "self" in Buddhism is defined as something that is "permeant", ever lasting, does not change. 

 

But as we go through phenomena, we realize things in the world are unfit to be regarded as "self", due to the impermenant and changing qualities.  

 

And so we attend to the nature of phenomena, and navigate skillfully to release ourselves from suffering. And that involves seeing anatta, non self. 

Edited August 13 by Krenx

[Cobie]

All cultures spin elaborate fantasies around their core belief. Systems in isolation become more elaborate and complex. Exchange of ideas strips down again to the core basic principles. 

 

 

[Cobie]

"Becoming a Buddha is like ... You discover yourself, you don't get rid of yourself.”

 

(Yongey Mingyour Rinpoche - From Confusion to Clarity)
https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/55590-is-buddhism-a-complete-path/?do=findComment&comment=1025834 

 

 

Edited August 13 by Cobie

[Keith108]

14 hours ago, Lotus of the abyss said:

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Sounds like you have yourself a koan now! 

 

Seriously, it's a very good question to consider. If the Buddha taught the view of non-self, then what is reading these words, and what is typing them? This kind of question can't be answered philosophically or intellectually. The answer is instead "experienced". Give it a try!

 

And, to say there is no self is a big mistake, as it is to the say there is one. 

 

One thing is all things;

All things are one thing.

If this is so for you,

There is no need to worry about perfect knowledge.

The believing mind is not dual;

What is dual is not the believing mind.

Beyond all language,

For it there is no past, no present, no future.

(trans. R.H. Blyth, Zen and Zen Classics)

 

Just popped this off the Xin Xin Ming wiki page.  The verse talks about avoiding dual thinking (such as self and no self), and also an idea that has been going through a couple different threads about time, or the lack thereof. I like the last two lines, which suggest that the the 3 times of present past and future are empty. Even the present! Because as soon as we say "this is the present", it's gone. It's a very important concept when considering Buddhist teachings. 

 

Edited August 13 by Keith108

[steve]

On 8/12/2025 at 9:07 PM, Lotus of the abyss said:

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

 

Some great responses here.

 

Edited August 14 by steve

[Mark Foote]

18 hours ago, Lotus of the abyss said:

I always had a question about, that if there's no self in Buddhism, then who realizes its absence? Like who learns about Buddhism? Who does anything?

 

I just don't understand how something that is not there, then who is learning about its absence?

 

 

(A certain monk asked) "... knowing what, seeing what, are there no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body and all the phenomena external to it?"

 

(Gautama replies:  ) Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present… (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.
 

“Then a reasoning arose in the mind of a certain monk thus: ‘It is said, sir, that material shape is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, the habitual tendencies are not self, consciousness is not self. Then what self do deeds affect that are done by not-self?’

 

Then [Gautama], knowing by mind the reasoning in the mind of this monk, addressed the monks, saying: This situation exists, monks, when some foolish man here, not knowing, ignorant, with his mind in the grip of craving, may deem to go beyond the Teacher’s instruction thus: ‘It is said, sir, that material shape is not self… consciousness is not self. Then what self do deeds affect that are done by not-self?’ You, monks, have been trained by me (to look for) conditions now here, now there, in these things and in those.”

 

(MN 109, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 68-69)

 

 

 

I'll note that in the original question to Gautama, the monk said "in regard to this consciousness-informed body and all the phenomena external to it." Gautama, in his reply, only said "in regard to this consciousness-informed body."

As soon as you have "no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body", then you will find yourself looking for "conditions now here, now there, in these things and in those" instead of a "doer".
 

You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around.

(Kobun Chino Otogawa, closing a lecture at S. F. Zen Center in the '80's)

 

 

[Cadcam]

I think the self is based on actions we take and our responses to things.

 

I know for myself, I have gone through many choices, often ones contradicting others taken in the past. I am what I choose and do, and though I think I change and move into new attitudes,  my dreams tell me differently, for in them, I behave differently than I currently believe,  and what greater indicator of who I am than how I behave in a dream?