Does Buddhism "deny the self"?

[Orbit]

I have heard this many times, and have heard different answers. I ask you, does Buddhism deny the concept of "self"? Why or why not?

 

[JRMcC]

I say yes, but I think different schools have different ideas of what that really means.

 

[JRMcC]

I have heard this many times, and have heard different answers. I ask you, does Buddhism deny the concept of "self"? Why or why not?

Speaking of different answers, I've heard different explanations for why there is no self. One way of looking at it is that that the so called "self" made up of so many different smaller parts and is so temporary that it barely makes sense to even act as if you are or have a self.

That's my average dude view on it. You'll get more brainy and exact answers though, I'm sure.

 

[Mequa]

In my personal experience of years of Buddhist practice, yes. Then again, not everyone has had as bad an experience with Buddhism as I have.

Heads up: If a person has a good self-esteem, strong personal boundaries and is perhaps a bit on the cocky and narcissistic side, Buddhist practice could well do them good to help moderate their sense of self, as well as smooth over relationships with others.

For someone living in a Western individualist culture, having gone through an oppressive Christian background and lots of humiliation, who at the time is really down on themselves and lacks a strong healthy ego and strong ego boundaries (as I was when I jumped headfirst into Buddhism), Buddhist practice, such as practised by many Western Buddhism groups, can be incredibly toxic.

For many Westerners it's the wrong pill for the wrong malady.

 

[JRMcC]

having gone through an oppressive Christian background and lots of humiliation, who at the time is really down on themselves and lacks a strong healthy ego and strong ego boundaries (as I was when I jumped headfirst into Buddhism), Buddhist practice, such as practised by many Western Buddhism groups, can be incredibly toxic.

Can you explain how it was toxic for you?

 

[Mequa]

Can you explain how it was toxic for you?

For the wrong person doing it, denial of the ego (sense of self) can lead to self-hatred.

I'm of the school of thought that a strong healthy ego is absolutely necessary for good mental health.
However, I am actually in agreement with Buddhist philosophy that selfhood is a construct. That doesn't mean that dynamiting it is healthy, which is sadly what my experience of Buddhist practice boiled down to.

Case in point: Metta-Bhavana practice, for me, attempting to directly force myself to feel love and compassion for all beings, had a nasty rebound effect where I felt highly painful intense universal hatred instead (including of myself).

Mindfulness of Breathing practice left me feeling spaced out and dissociated from the world and my emotions for days on end.

Studying Buddhist ethics left me feeling tormented by guilt. So did the snotty moralistic attitudes of many younger Buddhists I encountered (their holier-than-thou stances on vegetarianism being a case in point).

I could go on. But Buddhism was indeed toxic to me.

 

[George-ananda]

I have heard this many times, and have heard different answers. I ask you, does Buddhism deny the concept of "self"? Why or why not?

I hate to do this but I must ask; what do you mean by 'self' in this context?

 

[Faybull]

the self, denying the self? Sounds odd.

 

[sampuna]

The analysis of this non-self concept should be done as per scriptural instruction. The Buddha reflected on what constitutes our common belief in 'I', 'me' & 'mine' through the 5 aggregates of :

i. form (body)
ii.feeling
iii.perception
iv.determination
v.consciousness

A brief teaching on non-self can be read here Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

In summary, the 'self' as one posted , is but a mental make up. Knowing the fleeting and impermanent nature of what we call 'the self' is not for 'self-denial', but leading to non-attachment by seeing the true nature of things.

hope this helps

 

[Orbit]

I hate to do this but I must ask; what do you mean by 'self' in this context?

Whatever is customarily meant by it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have heard this many times, and have heard different answers. I ask you, does Buddhism deny the concept of "self"? Why or why not?

Depends on what Buddhism does.

 

[psychoslice]

I think to deny the self means not to let the self or ego take first place in your life, of course we need the self to adventure through our life as a human being, but at the same time we must learn how to keep the self silent when not in use, or when not needed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Whatever is customarily meant by it.

That may be missing the point. Such a bold statement as "there is no self" can only make some sense and serve a constructive purpose when very carefully considered.

Choosing to pay much attention to what is "customary" is far more likely than not to lead one stray in such a task.

There is no "customary" in such matters. There are instead many possible understandings of some words, and there is a very practical need to learn both how specific people build their own understandings and how to effectively, constructively deal with those.

Mequa above has the right of it, IMO. It is entirely too easy, particularly from those who have been exposed to some forms of Christian (or perhaps Muslim) values, to take these specific teachings of no-self (Anatta, perhaps Sunyata as well) in a completely misguided, unhealthy way.

When push comes to shove, there is no truth in mere words. There is no wisdom in attempting to read the average or customary meanings of words as if they were recipes for personal growth, sight unseen. Much as a physician must consider the actual person before making a prescription, religious wisdom can only be prescribed in forms that are appropriate for the religious person proper.

 

[metis]

Buddhism is not nihilistic, so we do exist but not as an independent, unchanging entity ("self").