People often claim that the Buddha taught "there is no self." But I have found that sentiment difficult to locate in the older sources. What I find instead is the phrase, "the self is nowhere to be found in the world," which has a distinctly different meaning. Some even suggest that the idea that there is no self is a form of nihilism. What are your thoughts on this?
I don't know much, so dont put any stock in my response. The Buddha used the term anatta (anatman in sanskrit) which translated to No-self or not-self, which is where the term comes from. It's certainly not a form of Nihilism though as Nihilism and Existentialism are both extremes that can't capture the full truth. I recall a story where a man asks The Buddha whether there is a Self, and the Buddha remains silent. The man then asks The Buddha if there is No-self, and still The Buddha stays silent. As I understand it, Self and No-self are both views that should be let go if you want to attain a fuller picture of ultimate reality.
People often claim that the Buddha taught "there is no self." But I have found that sentiment difficult to locate in the older sources. What I find instead is the phrase, "the self is nowhere to be found in the world," which has a distinctly different meaning. Some even suggest that the idea that there is no self is a form of nihilism. What are your thoughts on this?
I don't know much, so dont put any stock in my response. The Buddha used the term anatta (anatman in sanskrit) which translated to No-self or not-self, which is where the term comes from. It's certainly not a form of Nihilism though as Nihilism and Existentialism are both extremes that can't capture the full truth. I recall a story where a man asks The Buddha whether there is a Self, and the Buddha remains silent. The man then asks The Buddha if there is No-self, and still The Buddha stays silent. As I understand it, Self and No-self are both views that should be let go if you want to attain a fuller picture of ultimate reality.