Hello dear friends, the spiritualities of the Self stemming from Vedanta are omnipresent in the West today. I’m looking for clear, convincing, psychological and pragmatic arguments to refute the Self hypothesis without using arguments of authority such as “it’s true because the Buddha said so”. Here’s a first proposal: the Self hypothesis is based on the distinction between a small, illusory self and the great, universal, divine and eternal Self. In reality, it is always the small impermanent self, distressed by its ontological fragility, that projects itself into a great eternal and divine Self to reassure itself. Having said that, we also need to show how we can practise without the hypothesis of the Self and achieve authentic happiness and freedom. I welcome your suggestions. With mettā, Alain Durel
Years ago I read a book by philosopher Thomas Metzinger titled “The Ego Tunnel”. He argues that the „self“ does in reality not exist, and brings up various sorts of experiments to support this. This was a very interesting read for me.
In the second part of the book however he contemplates possible consequences of this, and ends up recommending drug use in order to “improve” the experience of our consciousness—which isn’t exactly my cup of tea.
There is just a huge difference between viewing, conceiving, in short: grasping something as ‘this is me, mine, my self’ AND abiding in a mind at ease, without such grasping, Nibbana, the relinquishing of all acquistions.
All such grasping leads to suffering. So whatever you grasp as: this is me, mine, my self, all that leads to suffering. If for example feelings are grasped as me, mine my self OR if peace, inner stillness and openess is grasped as me, mine, my self, it all leads to suffering.
There is no person with a doctrine of self that knows the truth and does not suffer.
Some people are very much involved in self-knowledgde, this is not the Path of the Buddha. Such knowledge blocks ones development. It does not lead to release.
Buddhism is not even about knowledge and vision. The only goal of all means is to end grasping, and free ourselves from taking up the burden of the khandha’s.
In this life this can be achieved. Nothing will get lost but suffering.
I have seen that People with self-knowledge are extremely involved in knowledge and vision and feel possessors of special knowledge. It is all very conceited and has no relation to buddhism at all.
As long as someone feels he/she is such a possessor of knowledge and vision, of wisdom, of love, of compassion, nothing is learned. A world of conceit.
Most spiritual people want to possess something, a Buddhist wants to empty him/herself of all possessivenes because he/she understand this is what it means to really live the holy life and one is most helpful to realise ones own and others wellbeing
I believe Thomas says, “that you cannot get a glimpse of the process which creates your virtual reality. You can get around that by taking hallucinogenic drugs to subvert the illusion”.
And it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he wasn’t talking about the ‘Amanita Muscaria’.
I’ve never taken these but I know people who have, these are currently making breakthroughs in the Western world (Holland especially) and healing depression.
Through my research the ‘Amanita Muscaria’ gives the user an unique look into not only nature itself, but the building blocks of the whole Universe.
It is said that only after one experience of these is all that is needed, and people who have been heavily depressed for years are cured afterwards.
I do pick these myself, and I do prep them, but for me they are more like ornaments, they are the only ornaments I own.
The life of an Amanita Muscaria is very short, and finding them is a window in time you have to get familiar with, like I said I have never ingested them, I’m lucky to experience the process of an Amanita Muscaria by letting nature absorb me when I walk.
I’m sure back in the ancient days, people were more familiar with these, and way more in tune with the universe and nature than anybody now could ever imagine, nature has everything out there for everything imaginable, you just have to completely let it absorb you to receive and understand the language! 
I agree with you, but you should maybe try to speak with an honest and calm vedantist to understand what I’m searching for. I have no doubt about the fact that the Buddha teached anatta (little or big self). But, for a vedantist the pāli canon has no authority, and what the Buddha really taught is unknowned, etc. You can find all types of this kinds of arguments including that the Buddha was an heretic ! I am thinking of my numerous friends, sometimes very famous, following the teachingw of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargaddata Maharaj. For them there no suffering in the experience of Self, but on the contrary only bliss ! (Saccitananda).
As a mediative attainment? The argument from there is that any such experience is temporary, no matter how blissful.
Hi,
The “how” is to contemplate and practice the N8FP, including the 4NTs and DO.
None of which postulate or need any kind of enduring or inherent self/soul.
Until this practice is actually engaged with, there will be speculations and abstract arguments.
When the selfless conditions that manifest via the six senses are seen into and seen through, craving ends, the defilements cease, and that is nibbāna/liberation while alive.
As in SN43.1:
" And what is the unconditioned? Katamañca, bhikkhave, asaṅkhataṁ?
The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. Yo, bhikkhave, rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo
This is called the unconditioned. idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, asaṅkhataṁ.
None of these practices, including the Buddha’s teachings on causation, involve any references or teachings on a “self” of any kind. See DN1.
.
It’s more along the lines of seeing into processes and their ceasing by ending the conditions for their perpetuation.
Remove the fuel and the flame goes out. No self/soul is involved or necessary.
That’s partly why the teachings are so radically different.
Human beings are constitutionally unable to go about without an empirical sense of self. You may disprove the self a hundred times, it will still be there in everyday experience. Same with free will.
Trying to lose your empirical sense of self outside of meditation will lead to disaster for you and those around you.
Hi, also Buddha did not study a Pali Canon 
His object of study was his own mind.
I do not exclude that there are Enlightened Ones in other traditions or religions too.
Regarding small and big self.
I believe that a small self never really exist. A small self is nothing but wrong understanding taking root in the mind.
For what it is worth, i agree. It is only natural to have an empirical sense of being present in the world. Having presence. But this is something different then the experience that one is present in the world as an atta, as a mental entity that feels, experiences, knows etc. That can be lost, i believe. Then only wrong view gets lost not really a Me, ego or atta.
When the notion of being present as Ego or Atta fades away ones natural presence in the world becomes Enlightening. One shines effortlessly as Sun. Like a Buddha.
Hi,
You may wish to keep an open mind regarding the awakened mind. The suttas make clear that self-view ceases with awakening.
That doesn’t mean arahants are zombies. The senses remain intact and there’s seeing, hearing, and conventional differentiation between various beings.
As in SN1.25:
" “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: would they say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s labels, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”
But in SN22.89 Ven. Khemaka says the non-arahants " “… still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated.”
The indication is that there can in fact be responsiveness and navigation of the world without the delusion of “I am.”
I think this is more important than any verbal argument against the idea of self. If one practices well and is generous, virtuous, kind, learned, and wise, others will see this. They may become curious about what drives you. They may learn of your faith in the Triple Gem and the teaching on not-self. This seems a more natural and pleasant way.
It takes great communication skills, learning, and wisdom to debate complex religious teachings without giving rise to unskillful states in both oneself and others. I am happy to speak about simple things or to present teachings. “These are my views and this is why I have them.” But for something as deep as anattā, I have not even fully understood it myself. How then could I rightly debate others about it?
The last thing I want is to leave someone with a negative impression of Buddhism. My intentions may be good, but if clumsiness prevents their skillful expression, harm can result. I think each person should evaluate themselves carefully before engaging in debate on complex and contentious topics, religious or otherwise: Am I qualified to argue about this?
In Dhamma self or atta isn’t hypothesis but deception, more, very widespread deception, since every common man is a victim of it.
If this is so, the aim is not to refute the reality of self - people are selfish and this is sad reality - but to cure oneself from deception.
In Dhamma self is recognised as ignorance on reflexive level, namely it is a wrong view, ( certain thing is taken as a self) and this wrong view supports more fundamental ignorance on pre-reflexive level, namely conceit “I am”.
You cannot in direct way to deny that you exist, the very act of denying your own existence would confirm it. But you can see, that assuming yourself, you are in existential contradiction, since all things which you take as yourself are impermanent. And here, at least reality of everyday “self” as people experience it, and Hindu Self, (whatever it is meant by the word) have the some common factor, namely subjectivity is associated with perception of permanence.
Summarise, your task is not to deny self, but by seeing things as: “this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self”, to liberate yourself from wrong view with following it liberation from conceit “I am”.
This is the teaching of the Buddha (I know it and agree with it), but this is not an argument for someone who is not a buddhist. I am afraid you don’t understand my question.
This is not my question.
I have benefited from Listening to Thanissaro Bhikku As he speaks of self as a strategy, I will paste the link below. This is the first talk In a two talk series. In my own practice I noticed that the doctrine of Anatta Was particularly alluring. It is also particularly profound And as with many of The teachings of Gotama The Buddha Can easily be misunderstood. I was initially very Off course with the doctrine of Anatta And I still am off course, It took a lot of guidance To utilize the doctrine of Anatta To be of benefit. Personally I don’t think there are any ‘Good arguments’ In this domain. Argumentation For me Disturbs the mind And can detract from the practice. There are many reflections in MN2 Which have to do with Unwise reflection, The Thicket of views, And also wise reflection, Which I think and don’t quote me on this because I’m not a teacher Can be used to refer to skillful and unskillful uses of self. Ajahn Geoffs talks About Freud’s work describing a healthy sense of Self or ego Which I find pragmatic. For me implementing the teachings And building the raft which is self as strategy And as Ajahn Geoff says Defining ‘myself’ Around the path Alleviates the necessity for me to argue with myself Or anybody else If there is a self or if there is not a self.
Please Community I would like some feedback on the above post If you have time.
This forum is extremely disappointing. Everyone recites his Buddhist catechism. There is no real sharing, no common path. It’s an accumulation of monologues. Be happy !
Sorry you haven’t found the responses you were looking for.
Since you brought this up in a Buddhist forum, you’re generally going to get responses based on the Dhamma.
Perhaps you might have better luck bringing this up in a philosophical forum or perhaps a scientific one.
For example, current neuropsychological research and understanding finds no evidence for a stable “self”:
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05441.x
and
But even in these studies and others, it’s causal inter-related processes.
Like the Buddha taught. 
Anyway, best wishes. But seeing into anattā won’t come from various “good arguments.”
I will have another look.
The truth about the self cannot be discovered by arguing about it, that’s why the discussion is endless and without a winner. There are no good arguments for or against, any discussion will mainly tell you something about the perspective of the people you are discussing with. The Buddha’s method is experiential, not philosophical.