{"id":357,"date":"2014-12-12T18:28:28","date_gmt":"2014-12-12T18:28:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/escrituras-eremitas.com\/english\/?p=357"},"modified":"2014-12-12T18:32:09","modified_gmt":"2014-12-12T18:32:09","slug":"meaning-not-self","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/escrituras-eremitas.com\/english\/2014\/12\/12\/meaning-not-self\/","title":{"rendered":"What is the meaning of not-self?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Not<\/a><\/p>\n

What is the meaning of not-self?<\/h2>\n

The unenlightened person assumes that there is a permanent independent entity behind our experience, and that this entity is our self, who we really are. We take for granted that this \u201cme\u201d is the one who sees, who thinks, who feels, who hears, who talks, who acts. The Buddha taught that this understanding of who we are is mistaken, based upon a certain fundamental misperceptions, and is the root of cause of human suffering.<\/p>\n

Buddhism teaches that far from being the solid center of experience, the sense of self is created moment by moment, by means of an instinctive identification with aspects of experience \u2013our body, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, sense-consciousness. The Buddha encourages us to look more closely at our experience in order to see if we can discover this self that seems so obviously to exist. Recognizing that life is flow of phenomena, dependent on causes and conditions, but without an owner or controller, is the insight into \u2018not-self\u2019 or anatta.<\/p>\n

One way of understanding this teaching is to consider the phrase \u201cit is raining\u201d. Here the word \u201cit\u201d is comparable to the sense of self. What does the word \u201cit\u201d refer in this phrase? Is there actually an \u201cit\u201d that is raining, or in referring to \u201cit\u201d are we simple employing a linguistic convention?<\/p>\n

The teaching of not-self is counter-intuitive and can only be realized in a stable and happy mind. For this reason emphasis is put is creating a solid foundation for this insight by practicing generosity, moral conduct and meditation.<\/p>\n

Is there is no-self, then what is reborn?<\/h2>\n

The teaching of not-self points to the fact that the things exist as processes rather than as discrete objects. A candle flame provides the traditional analogy for illustrating the relationship between not-self and rebirth. What we call a candle flame is not a thing in itself, but the expression of a time-bound relationship between candle-wick and oxygen. If a new candle is lit from an old one it is only conventionally true to say a thing called a flame has migrated from one candle to another; in fact a process has been maintained with the supply of a new material base. Similarly, there is not a thing called a self that is reborn at the death of the body, but a process that manifests in a new a fitting form.<\/p>\n

Is there is no self, how can anybody be considered responsible for their actions?<\/h2>\n

Buddhism makes a distinction between reality and social convention. The idea of self is recognized to be very useful, indeed indispensable, element of social life. In conversation, enlightened masters use \u201cI\u201d and \u201cyou\u201d in the normal way; they answer to a name. The difference is that they recognize a convention as a convention and do not confuse it with ultimate reality,<\/p>\n

The majority of Buddhist teachings deal with life on the conventional level. Personal responsibility is given a central role. In the Dhammapada, the Buddha says:<\/p>\n

\"Not-self<\/a>

From the ilustrated version of the Dhammapada, verse 160<\/p><\/div>\n

{160<\/a>}
\nOne indeed is one\u2019s own refuge;
\nWho else could one\u2019s refuge be?
\nWith oneself thoroughly tamed,
\nOne obtains a refuge hard to gain.<\/p>\n

More questions and answers<\/span> HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

Source:<\/span><\/p>\n