How would you reply to these arguments by a philosophy Professor against non-self?

The Watercooler
29

I think the main point of self is the conception that it’s permanent, thus always there, not possible to do away with, not possible to disappear.

Following Ajahn Brahm’s description of deep meditation resulting in insight into no self, it’s the following:

  1. 1st Jhana: body disappears, thus one can see that the body cannot be a self, cause the body has been left behind when one goes into this deep meditation.

  2. 2nd Jhana: will (the doer) disappears, thus one sees that the will is not self.

The following is more of my speculation:

  1. Reaching to the sphere of nothingness, consciousness disappears, thus consciousness is seen to be not self.

  2. Reaching to the cessation of perception and feelings, both perception and feelings disappear, and after emerging, one sees that even perception and feelings are not self.

All 5 aggregates are seen then to be not self, self is not to be found anywhere.

Again, note that this self is the conception of it being permanent, always there no matter what.

That’s the logic of how deep states of meditation can lead to insight into no self.

5 Likes