On the one hand it is not difficult to understand or even experience the concept that not only one's external environment is not one's self, but also that one's body and the internal activities of the mind are also intrinsically not one's self due to their impermanent nature, although this seems to imply that the nature of the self must be permanent, which I do not believe is inherent in the concept, especially as there are multiple variations of the definition of self (these are described in Buddha's teachings found in the link at the bottom). However, I have trouble contemplating there being no self at all.
I believe there is a fundamental, core level of consciousness that is the true self, as my experiences in deeper levels of spiritual realities have seemed to reveal. I believe the true self is the deepest level of pure awareness, pure consciousness, pure experience of beingness, separate from any manifestations or fabrications that result in various illusory experiences of physical and nonphysical realities. The true self lies beneath the ever-changing experience, it is that source level of consciousness that perceives dukkha, anicca, and anatta, that core essence that is the constant observer.
After doing some research, it would appear that the idea of NO-self is a misinterpretation of the Buddha's teachings, with the more accurate interpretation being NOT-self. Here are some relevant pieces of information I have come across to clarify this issue and which I believe show that there is no contradiction between my belief in a fundamental self and the Buddhist concept of not-self, aside from the fact that Buddha taught not to have any beliefs regarding the nature of the self, and that it cannot be concluded that there is no fundamental level of consciousness that is the true seat of the self based on the Buddha's original teachings:
"This teaching (of No-Self) is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth?"
"Instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress...For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress."
"The Buddha, in teaching not-self, was not answering the question of whether there is or isn't a self. This question was one he explicitly put aside.... The issue is not, "What is my true self?" but "What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?"
"In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?"
"On one interpretation, although Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent self, it does not reject the notion of an empirical self (albeit consisting of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena) that can be conveniently referred to with words such as "I", "you", "being", "individual", etc. According to Buddhist teachings, this phenomenon should not, either in whole or in part, be reified, either in affirmation or denial."
"One misinterpretation is that the Buddha's not-self teaching is aimed specifically at negating the view of self proposed in the Brahmanical Upanishads — that the self is permanent, cosmic, and identical with God"
"The second misinterpretation is the exact opposite: The Buddha is negating the idea that you have a small, separate self, but he's affirming the existence of a large, interconnected, cosmic self."
"The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent."
"None of these interpretations fit in with the Buddha's actual teachings, or his actual approach to the question of whether there is or is not a self. They misrepresent the Buddha both for formal reasons — the fact that they give an analytical answer to a question the Buddha put aside — and for reasons of content: They don't fit in with what the Buddha actually had to say on the topic of self and not-self."
"Another problem with this misinterpretation is that it opens the Buddha to charges of lying in the many passages where he does refer to the self in a positive way — as when he says that the self is its own mainstay. If there really is no self at all, why does he talk about it as if it exists? To get around this problem, the interpretation introduces the distinction between two levels of truth: conventional and ultimate. Thus, it says, when the Buddha is talking about self, he's doing so only in a conventional way. On the ultimate level, no self exists. The problem with this distinction is that the Buddha himself never uses it — it was introduced into the tradition at a much later date — and if it were so central to understanding his teachings, you'd think that he would have mentioned it. But he didn't."
My understanding is that the Buddha taught that contemplation and conceptualization of the idea of the self leads to suffering, but I don't see how this implies that there is no true self, especially as there are many aspects of the nature of the self and reality which are simply imperceptible to human awareness.
If anyone has a grasp on this concept I would be interested in hearing your opinions!
More can be found here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#talk6
