I asked myself the same question years ago while I was riding in a metro. I was trying to “find” myself because somehow I felt I had lost myself. So, during that ride, I tried to pinpoint who I was. At the end of the ride, I was frustrated because I couldn’t define who I was. Maybe I would have felt less frustrated if I had heard this theory back then. 😂 Now, I have a sense of self. But if I look at this sense of self, I notice that it consists of labels and things that I cling on to. These labels change and when I am not willing to let them change, I suffer. I understand this Eastern philosophy and I agree with it. Only change is constant and when you give yourself form by defining who you are/giving yourself structure (aka creating the self) you set yourself up for having that structure broken (like the Tower card). Because there is no growth possible with fixed boundaries/structure. And every time you have your structure broken, you suffer. Unfortunately, we have to navigate society and doing that demands you define yourself and give yourself a structure/form. So, yeah it is complicated. I feel as if to navigate society, you need the ego. But to navigate the spiritual world, the ego is useless. And, I could be wrong, I feel as if mysticism begins by telling you that you need to lose the ego if you want to navigate the realms.

Hi Benebell, Thank you so much for creating this kind of content Integrating craft and Buddhist practice is a perfect fit for me. As a practicing Buddhist, The way this subject is described to me by my teachers is the concept of NON-self, as opposed to NO-self, meaning there is no permanent existing self. If you think about what you call "you" as a 5 yr old that is a different self "you" are when you're a teenager. Your teenage non-self is different from when you become 40. The concept of " Non-self is a fluid ever-changing being that when we die depending on our Karma determines where we will end up in our next life, be it fortunate, unfortunate, or neutral. We do have an existing"self" of sorts but its ever-changing, hence NON-self as opposed to no-self. sound simple yet complicated 😂🙏

(Personal Gnosis, at this point in time/space.) Self = Belief! Belief seems to be governed by thoughts. So I agree, partially, with Descartes on the “I think therefore I am” of it all. Sort of. More like, “Thinking creates who I am.” I agree that “The Self” most likely is just a conception/construct, made up of what we’ve decided (consciously or subconsciously) we believe. I agree that having the the concept of the self is very useful, and I also agree that going towards enlightenment-dissolving the ego-is useful because it makes us and the world more malleable, more likely to be able to bend and change as life depends, rather than remain so rigid with airtight belief systems and forget we ourselves can be wrong. And there is validity in that noting, experientially, that the existence of the concept of self matters, it’s important to many of us. And if we find it important, it is. (Even though in the big picture it is likely illusion.) Conclusion: Both? But it really doesn’t matter in practice as long as we maintain some level of compassion and flexibility and continue to ask all of these questions, grow, learn, heal, make mistakes, learn again, make new mistakes, change our minds, and care for one another. (But both. Definitely both. 😘)

I think that we can distinguish ourselves like we might distinguish anything in nature that has its qualities that are maybe very similar. We can be a part of a Whole and be fractal expressions of the Whole that are very distinguishable from one another. I think of our bodies, neurologies as extensions of the Universe, that the Universe evolved as useful or expressions of Life. Is our feedback from observing and experiencing the Universe our self?

This is always fascinating for me. I try to approach most things as a "thing of nature"...having said this... I have been judged harshly by people who do not live in a natural area or think that humans are "superior". I think that "thinking" about our existence itself is the dual curse and blessing. You are "blessed" by the moments that are sublime but you suffer immensely when things are catastrophic, as you said. Natural world beings have no "expectations". The trees and animals do not "expect" a better tomorrow, nor a worse one. Each moment is fully realized...but that does not mean they do not plan ahead...as we see with squirrels storing food, or birds building nests for their young. The huge problems come with "expectation and ego", from my experience. This is a huge topic, and is so profound that religions, beliefs and worlds have been built up on this single question. Perhaps if we had not looked into the water and liked our own reflections so well, we wouldn't worry on these things day to day? It is admirable of you to bring this up and open this topic up online. I am hoping it will be met with thoughtfulness and that you receive intelligent feedback. I love this subject, I never come away from these thoughts without an even deeper appreciation for nature. Thank you for your books and videos again. Always interesting and beautiful.

I did a whole paper and presentation on this topic. The idea of 'no existing self' is a misinterpretation of the buddhist concept of Anatta, and the definition of self defined in psychology. And then when we talk about other sciences, the 'self' is considered real, as real as emergent properties..... The self problem in all Dharmic religions is self-centeredness and selfishness. If the self doesn't exist there would be no karma.

I think that Buddhist philosophy has one thing backwards. Awareness of self or consciousness does not cause suffering, but rather suffering creates or deepens consciousness and self-awareness. Consciousness begins with desire, and the desire that the world should be a certain way. When we find that the world is not the way we desire it to be, it causes suffering, and that suffering deepens awareness of self. Without self-awareness one cannot even begin to reach enlightenment. This is why Siddhartha Gautama’s journey and experiences of old age, disease and death was necessary before becoming the Buddha.

You certainly make us think. However, these thoughts have been swirling through my brain for all of my life, so it was nice to listen you you mention the many things that have been impossible for me to find answers. I believe that to each person "self" is all that really matters. I believe we are sent here, almost like a video game, to have life throw all kings of things at us. Each time we get up, we get points. At the end of the "game", we can laugh at our failures, rejoice in our gains, rethink our strategy and try again. I am close to the end of this earthly cycle and actually excited to be where it is all clear again for a bit before I return to try again. Like you, I have no desire to reach the point of losing self. I love all the things that being in the self has to offer. Family, friends, food, laughter, tears, pain, joy. If we move too far up the ladder I fear that those things would be missing. But, maybe we just get put into a different game when we've learned all we can here.

My interpretation of no self is selfless. The self you believe is you and yours is not you and not yours. It’s like not owning any thing, so there is no need to feel anything after it’s lost, when you figure that out, you see yourself as a part of the world, you understand the way of nature and it’s cycle.

I believe that the Me in this life and the consciousness that is being Me in this life is constantly changing evolving growing in this life and that Me is never the same yet I Am the Same..... I am Me because you are You...because of my brother...the stranger that smiled at me. I am...yet I am not..... I absolute appreciate the way you convey information. Your presentation is always so profound yet so simple to comprehend. Thank you 🙏🏽

Thanks for this video - always found this concept hard to grasp - still do! My immediate thought after watching this was about Dr Iain McGilgrist’s (philosopher/literary scholar/psychiatrist) idea of ‘attention as a moral act’ - not in a subject/object (self) way but as in a consciousness co-creating- what we give our attention to changes the thing and us because we are part of eachother and the whole

Very nice attempt to tackle such a tricky concept!

12:00 is a partial view. In real they teach that the virtuous positive feelings arent really emotions, so one can enjoy and feel, but without the negative effect Otherwise the buddhist sanskrit word Sambhogakaya (selfenjoyment body) wouldn’t make sense

I always come back to "wave and particle" theory when I think of self and no-self/motion/process...like "both, and"...east/west

Lots to unpack here. First, thank you so much for your channel. Absolutely love your content! To approach this from the point of enlightenment: As an end in it "self", my understanding is there is no thing such as this. In other words, there is no "enlightenment" as a final destination or steady state of being. There is, however, enlightened, or more accurately, ways of acting, thinking, speaking, perceiving, and being that are more fitting or appropriate within a specific, given context. Since the uni(multi?)verse is in constant motion, these contexts are perpetually changing. Hence, appropriate responses to them need to be constantly changing as well. This requires fluidity in all things: the tao.

Thank you for this.

Thank you for saying "being human is awesome." You've expressed many thoughts and emotions that I've felt in this video. I believe the truth of "self vs no self" is somewhere in the middle of the two. The middle being the relationship between self vs no self, which, to me, ultimately forms duality as I see "self vs no self" as "subject and object" and the relationship is the experience of subject and object. To have an experience, you need duality, but to have duality, you need experience. Experience, subject, and object are cyclical and dependent in nature and come to represent The Dao, perhaps yin/yang (my perception could be wrong), Shiva (in Kashmiri Shaivism), and what other monist beliefs may call God-- my only issue with using the word "God" is then determining whether "God" is impartial or partial, and then, for me, the cycle starts again. On another note, I've been watching many of your videos recently and I have come to appreciate the work you do very much! So thank you for that.

You’re awesome 💖

Hopefully in the future you can talk more about your critiques of Buddhism. I am not a born Buddhist but learning about it late in my life. To hear you talk about it is very helpful. Stay well and thank you for your thoughts.

Not only do I love your channel. I absolutely love your I ching the Oracle book. It's such a big book to digest but I love how deeply you go into the schools of thought and make it so flexible for every culture. I love all your attention to detail. I'm a baby philosopher I love the study of thought processes. I didn't know that there was no self in Eastern Philosophy. I think the Ego mind is only a tip of the ice burg when it comes to learning individuality. We unfortunately have to direct so much in our society and for westerners' religion and politics rules the mind, so we have to make since of everything in our world and we don't think about a specific thought form for several months. We try to mesh together stories to make since of what we don't understand and that's why westerners are so confused because our structure is built up from foreign knowledge and we are taught just to accept everything as fact and lash out when we don't understand something. We also cry when we have to question because we are taught not to ask the right questions. Thank you so much for your work, I've found so many gems and pearls of wisdom.

Different POV’s, illuminating from the interactions between zeroes and one

I believe that the I think therefore I am was more of a conclusion that if nothing else is known to exist that there is something that is thinking . As for the centre of the brain that is thinking , we are just at the beginning of being able to study the brain and how it functions .

As a believer of Nonduality (Advaita Vedanta) and practioner of both Daoism/Taoism and Vajrayana Shingon Buddhism, I have realized that There is ONLY the One Immanent and Transcendent, Cosmic Self. "普通人讨厌孤独。但大师却利用了孤独，拥抱孤独，意识到自己与整个宇宙融为一体" 老子，道德经 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म (Sarvam khalvidam BRAHMAN: All this is Brahman) 🕉 ⚡ 😑 ⚔ 🙏🏽 🪷 ☯️

Irrelevant what we believe.

Thanks. : )

Thank you for your work and content! I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this topic; I've been practicing and studying (mostly Japanese) buddhism for the last three(ish) years, and this has definetly broadened my perspective on self/no-self from a different Buddhist perspective. I personally would love to hear your thoughts on the doctrine of "earthly desires are enlightenment" developed by thinkers like T'ien-t'ai, Dengyo, and Nichiren at some point! I'm still getting a firm grasp on the basics of the history and theory (let alone finding my own experience in it), but something that resonated with me and attracted me to my current practice were sentiments that affirmed life: '...these are the teachings of prime importance. These are also what is called "earthly desires are enlightenment," and "the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana." "The sufferings of birth and death are mirvana" exists only in realizing that the entity of life throughout its cycle of birth and death js neither born nor destroyed...'---'Earthly Desired are Enlightenment', Nichiren; ~1272). "I" can't wait for your next video, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo!

There is no self because everything and everyone is a dream of a mind which is the only thing that exists.

Thanks dear Benebell, great topic! Is it Zooming In and Zooming Out of an infinite Fractal? The Human Self may be an XYZ co-ordinate for operating in the 3D world. Just my initial pre-coffee thoughts 😅😂

omg thankyou so much this answered a few questions that have been floating around in my mind lately!! ur content is precious!

i could choose to interpret zhuangzi to say that there are two selves in me: one who is a person and a one who is a butterfly. big think has its own agendas to push. fine. but my self isn't subject to their judgements. how could i be told to value my misfortunes as i value my self if didn't have a self to begin with?? acknowledging the self without overvaluing it, and being able to recognize those other selves of other people and value them, seems a requirement to using one's energies to greatest benefit

I hardly dare to say this because everybody loves this no self idea and thinks it's fantastic, but I'm not fond of it. And although it's popular, I think comparing Western secular philosophy with Eastern religious philosophy is not perfect. Unlike in secular philosophy, in western religious philosophy (Christianity) there is also a very strong emphasis on getting rid of the self, letting go of one's own thoughts and wishes and to become completely obedient to God and to reach a state of "not me but God lives in me". I know Christians and Buddhist often are very insistent that it's all very different and totally not the same, and of course there are differences (although there are many schools in both and some schools are quite close to the other religion's point of view). But this anti self attitude is still very similar, and many religious practices are similar in that regard. I don't like the idea that the solution to all unhappiness and suffering is that the self has to be dumped because the effect of that is that it makes people passive and stimulates a status quo and that's of course wonderful for the privileged people who want things to stay as they are. So I am dubious about that whole doctrine, it's too much what the people in power (in secular and religious institutes) want. And there is the total materialism of many, they search in the physical body and can't find the I? Maybe because it's not physical? A lot of it also feels like people cannot see the forest for the trees. They focus on all kinds of thoughts and perceptions and physical things instead of stepping back and simply feel themselves. And of course there is the near death experiences (NDE), the out of body experiences (OOB) and people seeing and or experiencing departed loved ones, or the spirit worlds. That is something that happened in all ages and all over the world. Of course this can be dismissed as illusions too, or dismissed as a lower state (I heard somebody say these were unevolved souls who didn't dissolve in the All) But why be so dismissive? And people saying that the fact that they experienced life from the view point of an other person (for example during a meditation) was proof that they were the other person too. Maybe it was just telepathic connection between souls? Just like people saying they experienced the All so they were the All. Maybe they connected with a higher being's experience for a moment? I'll stop this is getting too long already. Personally I feel we, as yet, have no real idea of reality and all our ideas of self and no-self are still much too simple.

The Real Self - the personal identity associated with our own body has no center. It is like the Dao, the empty space, the hub around which all the bodily functions act and contribute to providing the experience of the Real Self - our own personal experience of living with our body. We are a mind/body unity. There is no central section of the brain that is the self; that is true. All of the brain sections are needed to build up our sense of self. Just like there is no place that is the Dao. It is the totality. The self is the process that arrives out of a mind/body unity. The yin and yang of identity. The self is not a fixed, static thing; it is a process of change and the memory of that process of change.

I enjoyed this immensely. Thank you! Some years ago I learned about the concepts of linear vs non-linear time. How could we understand the beliefs of many new age philosophers who say all time is now and that upon death of the body we are not subject to sequential time anymore. So I feel that our perception of linear time with our bodies bonded response to eating sleeping, breathing etc truly give a sense of self. I have a body. This is me. When I pass from using this body then it is an unknown. I cannot accept that I will "go somewhere" or "be absorbed" or "return to the primordial ocean of godself"...because the one writing these words here cannot prove that happens or speak from experience. I love this question and contemplation you have asked of us. Who do we think we are?

What are ghosts if the self is an illusion? How/why does this happen cross culturally? What are the metaphysical sources of (within Taoism) of these experiences?

Am I an individual person? Of course. Is the definition of individual complex and many layered? Of course.

I've been thinking that maybe what Eastern philosophy calls "self" is what I call ego and ego is an illusion. I try to find out what my soul needs and also pay attention to what my body needs as I do live in the world and body is the soul's vehicle to function here on physical level. But ego's needs can be ignored and if I don't do that but follow those needs instead, it seems to cause mental suffering in one way or another.

In Japan (2023) I turn into Bat Form , ☯️🦇🇨🇳🇯🇵🎄🎁🎅🎆🐇🎇☯️🐉🇨🇳🎉🎶 Michael Jacson Thriller and Invincible Transformation able to gain size the UNICRON .!Xingpingyi the Fu🦇🇨🇳🐉☯️Armageddon

From what I gather, although i'm not sure, perhaps the Buddha left home to understand the suffering of the world, and probably because he was aware it was prophesied he was to be some kind of Sage of sorts.

There is a selfish self in Eastern Philosophy, like Zhuangtzu waddling in the mud like a pig (meant as a praise)

each statement is true. they are just true on different levels of reality. in the dimension we are currently in the self iis realand defind sepertly from others. in higere demsions it gets less true. honestly i belive everything that exists is god/source..basicall source has given it self a massive case of multiple personality disorder. .

Interesting

Thank you. I remember wondering this as a kid, not in this sophisticated way, of course. lol Thank you for breaking this argument down for us.

Wonderful! Thank you! :-)

Any concept about the Self is not the Self. just as a word is a symbol of what it represents. The self is an illusion that exists like a smiley face in the pattern of a piece of jade. It is both real and not real just as sunyata exists only in relation to maya. as for loving ones spouse on par with a mosquito shows the compassion of a buddha lol

🙏🙏🙏👍🏼👍🏼🦉🦋❤️

Long live CHOSON

maybe be Buddhas maras hell was his own expression?

When The Science looks at a certain representation & manifestation of the self called the brain and starts searching for a self inside the self it really proves a point: How useless and moronic that The Science is. 😂

You are important, but that importance does not and should not supersede the prioritization of our accumulative importance?

Anatman, non self. There is no you that survives death. The human ego cannot accept it doesn't exist.