It's crazy to think the centre of experience is mine

Returning to stuff I was puzzling over as a teenager. Somehow I got distracted from this. Consciousness has an interesting component. It is not just pictures in a gallery closed with the lights off, and it is not just a gallery full of visitors, there is a self-knowing quality to it so that it knows that it is experiencing, it is self contained and in need of nothing else. I am seeing is enough to say, I don't need anyone or anything else to complete the situation and make the seeing more or less. It stands by itself. Now this is unique in the world where everything else is conditional.

But we make a mistake. Armed with the extraordinary self-contained and self-justifying nature of experience we then seek to own it and say that it is mine. What do we mean by mine? We already said that it was self contained and standing alone what does "owning" it and making it mine add to it? It is like throwing water at a ducks back, experience is already perfect and complete there is nothing to add to it, there is no where for "mine" to stick.

As if trying to own experience is not already ridiculous we can then ask what are we planning to make the owner? What possible candidates are there? Well Buddha makes the absolute point that everything is an invalid choice for self. This is what he means by anatta or non-self.

Lets be clear about one thing. When we are searching for a self to own experience we are not looking at factual library entities like a galaxy in space or a gene in the DNA. We are looking with our experience for evidence of something that could possible be present to own that experience. Well first issue here is that everything present is being experienced. Is the feeling of the wind against our face a good candidate for self? Well hardly it is gone as quickly as it came. The very quality of things in the Present are that they are temporary and for self we are looking for something much more fundamental to be the owner of experience itself.

So quickly we give up looking for a self to own experience, there is just experience. Nothing in experience has anything like the necessary qualities to be the owner of self-knowing experience itself.

But this raises a rather radical new issue.

Our experience of the world is something like this. Perhaps not with the gun unless you are an American, but probably with some hostility to some people and love for others. Either way the key thing to note is that in our experience contains other "people". Now are they candidates for selves? If this was real is the person in the pciture shooting "selves"?

We examined our experience and we could not find any thing that was self or at least a candidate to possess our experience. So how can our experience contain candidates for other selves?

There is a big problem here. We should not be seeing or experiencing selves at all.

To be clear by "self" we are talking about the something that can stand with the self-knowing self-contained and self-standing nature of experience. We don't need to ask someone or consult ChatGPT to have an experience. It is completely self contained. This final court of judgement is what we mean by Self. The end point of experience. What is often called the "observer" or the "subject" but actually these are more inadequate candidates. That is another sneaky way of trying to get a kind of owner or possessor into the picture. But we have already seen that nothing could possibly hold a candle to experience itself.

So if there are no selves what are we looking at when we see other people? Well we already know the answer we are seeing people. What is kind of obvious when we see it is that people are not the same as consciousness of experience. People experience, they are not experienced.

Now this points at what seems crazy. Where are people? Well if they are not "inside" experience, they certainly are not "outside" experience so they are no where. Experience is nowhere. "where" is actually created by experience, so it cannot be anywhere itself. This means that "people" including "myself" are actually just phenomena. The magic lies in the self-knowing experience which is not owned by anyone. Once we let go of it we can see that it is the source of everything and everyone.

==

Quick question to ChatGPT about extinction of self and a great answer (as always; a truly amazing piece of technology) 

In Buddhist philosophy does anatta mean that there is no self at all, or does it mean that there is nothing which is the self.

ChatGPT said:

In Buddhist philosophy, the concept of anatta (Pali) or anatman (Sanskrit) is central to understanding the nature of the self and existence. The interpretation of anatta can be nuanced, leading to the question you posed: does it mean that there is no self at all, or does it mean that there is nothing which is the self?

1. Anatta as "No-Self"

The first interpretation is that anatta means there is no permanent, unchanging self. This interpretation is common and emphasizes that what we consider the "self" is actually a collection of constantly changing physical and mental components. These components are known as the five aggregates (Pali: khandhas):

• Form (material body),
• Sensations (feelings),
• Perceptions,
• Mental formations (thoughts, inclinations),
• Consciousness.

Buddhism teaches that none of these aggregates are permanent, nor do they constitute an eternal self. Together, they create the illusion of a cohesive "I," but when analyzed, it becomes clear that this "I" is not a fixed, independent entity.

2. Anatta as "Nothing Which is the Self"

The second interpretation suggests that anatta means there is nothing intrinsic that can be identified as the self. While this may seem similar to "no-self," it emphasizes the idea that while we experience a sense of identity and selfhood, this identity is contingent and lacks inherent existence. It points out that what we consider "self" is merely a convenient designation for a dynamic and interdependent process.

In this view, the self exists in a conventional sense—our experiences, thoughts, and consciousness are real on a practical level—but there is no permanent, underlying essence behind them. This understanding helps avoid the extreme of nihilism (complete non-existence) and aligns with the Middle Way, a core principle in Buddhism that avoids both eternalism (belief in an unchanging self) and annihilationism (belief in a complete absence of existence).

Conclusion: No Permanent Self

In summary, anatta in Buddhist philosophy primarily indicates that there is no permanent, unchanging essence or "soul" that constitutes a self. The concept does not deny subjective experience but asserts that what we identify as "self" is impermanent, constantly changing, and lacking an independent essence. Whether interpreted as "no-self" or "nothing which is the self," the central teaching is that clinging to the idea of a permanent self leads to suffering, and understanding the impermanent nature of all things—including the notion of self—is key to liberation.