"Buddha taught No-self incomplete according to Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

I have encountered practitioners of the no-self teaching who claimed the sutra to be a forgery. I admit that the main reason I enjoyed the sutra so much is because it resonated with all my previous beliefs about enlightenment when I first read it. It may not be authentic, but I suspect the main reason it is considered a forgery to be because it conflicts with no-self dogma.

To those whom consider the text authentic, it is one of the most important teachings of the Buddha, perhaps his best effort at explaining Nirvana before he died.

The sutra describes Buddha and Bodhisattva as having compassion for all beings as if their first born son. My experiments with unconditional love leading up to my reading this Sutra had led me to suspect that Nirvana was induced by some form of impersonal love, not attached to anyone yet all embracing. The sutra denounces attached love, and still emphasizes the importance (for instance) of loving-kindness throughout.

When Buddha came to the no self teaching, he claimed that while it was true, he had introduced the teaching to inhibit pride. Since the teaching had sunk in somewhat by the time of his authoring the sutra and things seemed yet incomplete with its adherents, he decided a new teaching was necessary to complete what no self had started: the Buddha Self inherent in all beings.

It is my opinion that no self is an authentic enlightenment teaching that only takes the practitioner part of the way, where they get stuck if they identify the teaching is complete. The enlightenment advantages of cutting off self reflection are considerable, but if pride remains, an ego remains -- and it is as large and problematic as that pride.

I suspect that when self reflection stops, most of the ego’s triggers are cut off and there is no verbal internal impulsive dialogue. I also suspect that a complex of emotional motivations persist, creating a subliminal instead of a verbal ego. This subliminal ego can be reprogrammed.

Thru self initiation and meditation, after a particular initiatory event wherein I dumped pride in favor of an unconditionally loving state of mind, after one try to silence the mind, I permanently turned off my impulsive internal dialogue. I had barely heard of no self, studying other, mostly Western, schools of enlightenment. I don't have to meditate to silence my mind. I haven't experienced a moment of sorrow or self doubt since this happened.

If it is not possible to telepathically interrogate Buddha to authenticate his version of enlightenment, building a Buddha Self is at first only going to go as far as "the best you can come up with". The most realistic list of qualifications that can actually exist in you, if you identify with them and don't question them at any level.

Because of impermanence, there is no abiding permanent self. My interpretation of this is that because everything is vibration, everything dies when the particles shift. Think about it. How is it possible to survive if instant to instant isn't even composed of the same particles?

If consciousness persists, someone could call it a self. So long as it was not confused with an abiding permanent self, no internal self reflection is motivated. Giving someone else the credit, the previous vibrational states all being separate individuals, doesn't trigger pride, humiliation, nor guilt.

The Buddha Self doesn't improve anything if confused with an abiding permanent self, thereby baiting self reflection.

Im sorry but you’re thoroughly deluded about Anatta


When these Mystics make various teachings it’s for the various levels of understanding
(Some have no dust on their eyes, some a little, some a lot ~ some seekers are like trying to light wet wood, some like kindling and some ready as gunpowder)

The Silence (no-self) is for those who are ready to hear it. The “teachings” are for those who are not.

There is absolutely no entity, ego or otherwise that has ever been. This is what Buddha described in his CENTRAL teaching of Anatta.

There is absolutely no entity.

Seeing you are still throughly identified with a conceptual self (since that is the only “self” there could be, and appearance) you will see entity in everything.

“The I-am-the-body-idea continually spins out its thread of illusion”

You’ve just substituted a physical human body for things like “concsciousness”
And “particles”

Yet you’re still identified thinking there is some “thing.” That is exactly what Buddha was trying to show you:

The waves appear separate but are just ocean.
You are still stuck in appearance, in wave-logic.

Substituting your belief for different bodies will never get you to the root of your conceptual self. Neither will conceptualizing, EVER, take you beyond concepts.

You’re using “mind to seek for mind”
Or “Buddha to seek Buddha”

“There is absolutely no difference between a Buddha and an ordinary being” points to this impersonal Reality, which is not a thing.

I love the ones that get stuck on “particles” and energy can’t be destroyed yada yada…. As if FORMLESS BEGINNINGLESS REALITY is going to be wrapped up in some concepts.

Your Original Face as well as your Original Body is STILLNESS. Stillness before the dream before appearance of Samsara and its convincing illusions.

Much before the “I-Am” of the universal appearance (there exists a universe for bodies for minds for karma to play out in the endless beginningless dream of Maya)

Much before even your first concept you clothed yourself in of “space”, to make your world, to populate it with your angels and demons (benevolent and wrathful deities of your own infinitude.)


It’s all a matter of identity friend, and you’ll suffer from your identities in Direct Proportion to how much of your identity you derive from each of those beliefs. You’ll be limited in direct proportion to how much you’ve assumed concepts atop your utterly liberated nature




(Clue: more concepts won’t help you clear out from them. Time you actively gaze, truly sit, and air out)

⭐️ it’s called the “stench of zen”
And you stink


As long as mind has set one thing against another, reality has been torn in half, clarity of the single eye shattered. I Reality needs not your ideas about it friend, since they don’t touch it. It needs you to approach your “self/no-self” without them



Talk to you when you fit through the eye of the needle, b it then we won’t need words


✌🏻 , reply to: WalkingHolic

Saying things like
“How is it possible to survive if instant to instant isn’t even the same particles?”

Maaaaaan you really think Logic is king in a Magical beginningless universe don’t you


People like you need an outing with a bag of mushrooms or something, AT LEAST ONCE…. To crack that dry logical shell.


No one understands what came before the Big Bang or how it arose, and here Mr. Physicist is caught on thinking he needs his particles grouped or he’ll cease to be lol.

Using your intellectual mind so heavily shows me all, really. You’re still very much “in control” of your world, I bet. And it’s the shame really, I have a good mind too but if you can’t set it down to dive deeper you’re merely a parrot


Only the Pearl Diver finds,
And you’re not finding any pearls in borrowed concepts im sorry. Gonna have to dive for “your self”


A Goooood fast from borrowed humanoid knowledge now (which is all of it, remember)

Try and touch what it means when Buddha said

Form IS Emptiness
Emptiness IS Form


Your understanding is completely dualistic and Reality admits not to division


👌🏻



a reply to: WalkingHolic

a reply to: Theuncutblock

Welcome to ats......I see you have just posted your first two posts.

This thing about egos and subtle egos….

Have you ever seen an ego? Ego~ing is more like a verb. An after-thought identification.
It’s not a “thing”. This is just fear projecting it’s wish for a “soul.”


Here Bub,
I’ll fill you in.
The dream never began. It always rested in the heart of a timeless stillness. Like a Pearl, it contains all dharmas…. All infinite happenings. (It truly is Infinite)

The “character” who played all those parts? Well, the Beginninglessness, of course. The Imagination in the “Heart of God” was always “with” god as “god” (here I mean the timeless unborn of course)


Within this impersonal dream you love and die as every being zillions of times. Here you appear as such and such, here as so and so. But where is this play happening?

Where are “You”, now?
Arm of the Milky Way? Where?
Where does this space sit where all sits.


Here/there
Infinite/finite
Self/no-self
Big/small
Lower/higher

Reality is none of these.

It cannot be said to exist, not exist, neither, or both

It is not Infinite, finite, neither or both


These are all ideas!!!!!

Reality contains ideas not the other way ‘round!
wAke up!!!!


a reply to: WalkingHolic




Show me what your face looked like before your parents were born.

For some help, within this “dream” the samskaras (mental astral impressions) travel along with the “souls” (in this appearance of a Play of Journeys)…. As they (because of beginningless karma) interplay with one another.

In this “long” (haha) journey the OverSoul winds itself into identification with its forms (call it evolution), until it reaches some point like the center of a circle in which it begins to UNWIND (involution).

Those “souls” which are drawn to meditation, self-inquiry etc are the threads of the dream that are coming full-circle, realizing it never was forms at all but the impressionlessness. This is the True flux or impermanence.


You never were the forms friend. But when truth deepens even more you’ll see you’re equally all of them, too.

It’s just that the entire Kozmos with all
It’s Grand dramas…. :

Just a speck of dust ✨ in your Heart 🔥 ♥️

Hello and thank you friend~ long time lurker here )

Gratitude 🙏🏻 a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: WalkingHolic

a reply to: Theuncutblock
'Funny how strange quirks of the Universe appear out of nothing. I had always assumed that Humbleness was a cornerstone to enlightenment and self was to be denied. Thank you for the correct.

It is my opinion that no self is an authentic enlightenment teaching that only takes the practitioner part of the way, where they get stuck if they identify the teaching is complete.

Even though Anatta is true from the aspect of our consciousness. It is not true from the aspect of the ultimate reality. Because our consciousness cannot experience the ultimate reality. The ultimate reality does not exist for our consciousness.

If Anatta is successful in extinguishing all the conceptualizations within our consciousness. What remains is the ultimate reality.

So in effect you pealing an onion to get to the source. It will make you cry.

a reply to: WalkingHolic

No self is the five aggregates/skandhas of clinging to an illusory 'self': Form, feeling, perception, consciousness, thoughts.

In dhyana/mediation one goes through levels of jhana that dispel those as a permanent lasting self. That existing beyond those is nirvana why it is called an end to suffering is because one cannot be re-born or re-become in any of those modes of existence so saying that there is or is not a self is not the goal; practice at seeing the causes arise to grasp at or after what presents as a self when it is an illusion? Is. Once that grasping has ceased the three fires are put out; Delusion, hate, and greed. As this is not me this is not my self and this is not mine as all of that depends on an origin of the same essence or previous causes that are neither good or bad just directly experienced in the moment they arise that is referred to as the present.

The irony is one has to take up the path and see it with a self to put an end to their own grasping at a self hence making it a path as no intellectual grasping or anyone that has completed it can do that for you. Devotion. veneration etc. only loosens the bonds of slavery to the wheel of life wherever it occurs giving a sense of freedom and ease but; it doesn't break them.

a reply to: WalkingHolic

When climbing the mountain, it's recommended to carry a light load.

Except : there is no mountain.

a reply to: WalkingHolic

Because of impermanence, there is no abiding permanent self. My interpretation of this is that because everything is vibration, everything dies when the particles shift. Think about it. How is it possible to survive if instant to instant isn't even composed of the same particles?

No thing was ever born so no thing can ever die.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Ceasing the infinite amount of craving that the combined elements have formed with and without the intellect is one arm of freedom... Realizing that it essentially is just earth, fire, water and air one is raving. Helps reign in the fire known as kama-raja to end re-birth that desires chasing around the infinite. While producing that stuff would fall under right livelihood? Following the path of Lord Gautama in training it would be wrong effort in wanting or craving after those things.

I understand the main point of the no-self teaching to be the transcendence of impulsive conceptual thought, thinking that is not wordless experience of the present, or the result of control. If there is no self, there is no instinctive self reflection. & one's internal dialogue is almost 100% self reflection until concentration is obtained.

I do not agree that concentration carried to the point of pure experience of the present moment transcends conceptual thought as the goal. Everything the spontaneous manifestation of being? Conceptual thought can be useful to turn back on after it has been turned off. Maps are not the territory, but they provide useful directions. However, if sufficient concentration has resulted from one's efforts that meditation is not necessary to silence the mind, turning conceptual thought back on is the spontaneous manifestation of being.

The only thing I consider missing about the no-self teaching is the actual state of consciousness symbolized by the term "Buddha" in the early writings on the subject. I don't think no-self results in Nirvana, just perfected focus.

If the "Buddha Self" of the Sutra of my first post corresponds to a description of the Buddha and the Bodhisattva having compassion for all beings like their first born son. I suspect the meaning of this was hidden from early Buddhists to prevent the teaching from being enclosed by rambunctious early-day royals. To abide in Nirvana to me means, yes, lacking self reflection: transcending impulsive internal reasoning. But also to abide in a rare, pure state of love that expands rapidly and forever.

It is possible to surrender all attachments to an unconditional love for all sentient life, and to minimize thru concentration the size of one's pride, so that it is small yet unconditionally secure. It is also possible to think the glory of being apart from conceptualization is the end of the game, the carrot of the seeker, and nirvana itself.

a reply to: WalkingHolic

I do not agree that concentration carried to the point of pure experience of the present moment transcends conceptual thought as the goal. Everything the spontaneous manifestation of being?

That is the point of what is called access concentration where abhijna takes place... So no; it doesn't transcend it. However; Lord Gautama warned against abhijna as they are a fruit of practice not the goal. Since the use of them requires intention? It builds kamma. Those arising and passing without any directed thought however? Is a cause for developing wisdom.

There is no such a thing/persons ever mentioned as a bodhisatta in the Pali-cannon.

a reply to: WalkingHolic

I love the concept of "No Self" (Anatta) because it translates into Western as "no soul or divine self". Therevada particularly.

There's a lot of sanskrit Buddha BS in there, but I feel it is a more accurate take of reality. Just can't get lost in all the zen koans and fluffy spiritual nonstatements.

Life as phenomenal (only what can be experienced by the senses) and not a grand eternal design, but still reminiscent of a "natural form" (dukkha). Samsara (Rebirth) as merely the effect you had while alive, tapering off after death. The way to align Anatta with reincarnation concepts.

Non-self to me is a doctrine against abstraction. Teaching the mind to NOT LOOK UP to the sky. To not see a divine permanent reflection, but instead see a (technically) nihilistic framework of causal sacks of flesh living day by day, moved by adversity and plight.

a reply to: Degradation33

No self would mean there is no person separate from what's appearing to happen.

What is happening is inescapable yet ungraspable.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm not Buddhist, but I did steal a lot from Buddhism for my personal philosophy.

I have always understood Anatman (Anatta, Non Self) as a rejection of Brahman. The grand ego eradication. You're not godly and you will die on a planet of suffering. So make the best if it. It's like Momento Mori (with no afterlife and a natural hostility to your existence) as a central religious concept.

No person separate from what's appearing to happen is one of those overly koan-like Buddhist platitudes, at least for me. Though it says the same thing, it is not easily translated to practical use. Freaking zen loves that crap, though.

* Seems counterproductive when the concept is the visceral experience. Just say "Life is only what is perceived by the senses" and stop trying to dress it up in robes. Jeez Buddhism.

Wikipedia has Anatman dead on.

refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.

And if life is phenomenal... it says there is no divine essence in what you can live and perceive.

Non-self to me is the anti-snowflake concept. You're not special, and your life is not part of a grander design. It instead asserts impermanence and default indifference/hostility as an illusion of design, which I feel is WAY more in line with the universe itself.

That's why I love Anatman's western applications. It reverses the concept of divinity in your experience. Bottom-up, not from on high, and it removes superstition of divine plans. It's about the phenomenal experience of life and only that.

In a way, Brahman is to determinism as Anatman is to indeterminism.

Keep in mind, this is mostly the Therevada take warped through my global hybrid philosophy of religious ideas.

a reply to: Degradation33

No person separate from what's appearing to happen is one of those overly koan-like Buddhist platitudes, at least for me. Though it says the same thing, it is not easily translated to practical use. Freaking zen loves that crap, though.

It can't be done. There's no practical use ......

What is happening cannot be used by anyone.........it just is ( mystery).

a reply to: Degradation33

The all is the senses the no self(skandha) business mistaken as the all 'ego' isn't. As even if someone at the level of Brahma dies life will still go on including his in the all as name(nama) and illusion(form) by those that perceive the name and then dream Brahma such as Shiva did.

When someone says your name you respond in total not just name but in a form that has a collection of all the sense experiences that has ever occurred to it both real as experiences sensed the same no matter the person and imagined or not real that get called a personality... Someone acting off of their total sense experiences that comes off as a unique character something animals in the wild do not seem to possess; However such a thing as personality arising from a different environment in them can be inferred when not in the wild and living with or among humans.

That inferred personality even among humans like someone living in a place for several years picks up the local accent.

The idea that someone can be known no matter the amount of years other than seeing their habits and differences is an impossibility as if one were to take on their exact habits; A fight would soon break out as they are typically blind to them and showing them their "self" subconsciously becomes cause for them to act in the same frustration others have had but not said at those habits when displayed by someone else.

Until someone can see the suffering they keep causing them-self needlessly? They are going to keep chasing the house builder blaming it or them instead of taking personal responsibility where before then; They only take the expected responsibility, and live a life of just going through the motions due to that or basically living unfulfilled and blaming everyone else for it.

Zen koans are only meant to stop the mind's thoughts as there is no answer to the question one is repeating so repeating it knowing the real answer is just silence it is supposed to train the dualistic mind that questions itself and answers itself to stop doing that as doing that only creates the delusion that one knows when one really doesn't so they stop the inquiry forgetting they lied to them-self with the wrong answer. That's all it is really good for is to not build the house of delusion for those answers that are not the truth other than that they create suffering and then anger when such a thing is argued that it is the truth when it really isnt having answered the question them-self having first asked them-self the question. So it's kind of funny in that sense but not really.