Michael writes
> Brian, you talk like "no-self" means you have no self, no perception,
interpretation, and enactment of your individuality, your separateness and
partial independence from other people and things. If that's your claim,
you are wrong.
That is not my claim. No-self means that human beings have no intrinsic nature, no soul if you will. Human beings are in a constant fluid state of change.
As you note, human beings possess perception, the capacity to interpret, a provisional separateness and independence, and commit actions. Buddhism would refer to these things as aggregates of human existence. But I do not think you are arguing that the componments of what you call the "self" are also the self. On the other hand, if the presence of these aggregates indicate the existence of self, what happens if one of the aggregates is missing? Does that mean that self does not exist? Is there a specific list of aggregates that must be present in order for a self to exist?
> If "no-self" simply means that your Buddhism leads you to strive to
maximize your understanding and sympathy for other beings and things and
your connections to them, then I believe you.
One aspect of Buddhism means that I strive to make myself aware of these connections, connections which exist whether I understand/perceive them or not. What I have to become aware of is my misunderstanding/misperception of reality in order to do this. For me, emphasizing the doctrine of individualism is comparable to claiming that the earth is flat -- both notions are based on a limited knowledge of reality.
> Nobody, however, has no self, whether or not they struggle to practice
no-self.
It is not a struggle to practice no-self, it is a realization of the ultimate nature of reality.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister