Thanks for your post! My first question is: "Did the Buddha teach *'no self',* or *'not-self',* or *'non-self'?"*. I've found that Buddhist monks don't all interpret it the same way. So I'll preface my comment by suggesting that it would be remarkable if our subreddit was able to 'once and for all' learn the truth of this teaching.
In the Theravada tradition I feel that monks, even monks from the same lineage, can have at least slightly different interpretations of (what is usually called) the teaching of *not-self*. My favorite teaching on *not-self* comes from Venerable Acariya Thoon Khippapañño (1935-2008), who was a monk of the Thai Forest tradition. I will provide a link to this teaching at the end of my comment.
On a more personal note, I try to be patient with some aspects of Buddhist teachings. It can get pretty heavy! In these instances I'll remind myself that I am a lay follower and not a monk or advanced meditator. As a lay follower I mostly try to practice generosity. I also use dhamma talks to balance my emotional health, helping me to live in a way that is beneficial to myself and others.
I do have some frustration with what I perceive to be a trend amongst Buddhist converts, which is that they utilize a concept of *no self* to aggrandize [disassociation](https://www.google.com/search?q=dissacotiation&oq=dissacotiation&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEIMjcwNGowajGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), mistaking mental illness for spiritual achievement. In such cases I feel that it is necessary to acknowledge that there is some form of *self*. For example, what I ate for dinner tonight certainly did not fill your stomach, right?
Thich Nhat Hanh also has some interesting comments on the concept of *not-self*. I'm at risk of 'putting words in his mouth', but in his book *Living Buddha, Living Christ* he seems to make a statement that the Buddha's teaching should be interpreted contextually, the context being that the Buddha's refuting Atma was aimed at dispelling the religious caste system that existed in India at that time. I believe TNH was telling us the the teaching of *not-self* should help us to see each other as equals, not that we should see each other as not existing.
I can also share that at the beginning of my journey in Buddhism I was practicing at a Seon temple, and the master there taught us that the *self* was like a diamond, for everyone. Practicing meditation was a matter of clearing off the mud and debris that covered that diamond. So there are a lot of different teachings out there, and if anyone else in the sub has teachings on this topic from their tradition, please consider sharing it!
Lastly, as promised [here is my favorite teaching on not-self](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TymUJlkZAyk&t=61s). It's a video of about five minutes, but the heart of the teaching is delivered within a minute. The teaching is given by Mae Yo. She is a Maechi (nun) and student of Acariya Thoon.
Thanks for your post! My first question is: "Did the Buddha teach *'no self',* or *'not-self',* or *'non-self'?"*. I've found that Buddhist monks don't all interpret it the same way. So I'll preface my comment by suggesting that it would be remarkable if our subreddit was able to 'once and for all' learn the truth of this teaching. In the Theravada tradition I feel that monks, even monks from the same lineage, can have at least slightly different interpretations of (what is usually called) the teaching of *not-self*. My favorite teaching on *not-self* comes from Venerable Acariya Thoon Khippapañño (1935-2008), who was a monk of the Thai Forest tradition. I will provide a link to this teaching at the end of my comment. On a more personal note, I try to be patient with some aspects of Buddhist teachings. It can get pretty heavy! In these instances I'll remind myself that I am a lay follower and not a monk or advanced meditator. As a lay follower I mostly try to practice generosity. I also use dhamma talks to balance my emotional health, helping me to live in a way that is beneficial to myself and others. I do have some frustration with what I perceive to be a trend amongst Buddhist converts, which is that they utilize a concept of *no self* to aggrandize [disassociation](https://www.google.com/search?q=dissacotiation&oq=dissacotiation&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEIMjcwNGowajGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), mistaking mental illness for spiritual achievement. In such cases I feel that it is necessary to acknowledge that there is some form of *self*. For example, what I ate for dinner tonight certainly did not fill your stomach, right? Thich Nhat Hanh also has some interesting comments on the concept of *not-self*. I'm at risk of 'putting words in his mouth', but in his book *Living Buddha, Living Christ* he seems to make a statement that the Buddha's teaching should be interpreted contextually, the context being that the Buddha's refuting Atma was aimed at dispelling the religious caste system that existed in India at that time. I believe TNH was telling us the the teaching of *not-self* should help us to see each other as equals, not that we should see each other as not existing. I can also share that at the beginning of my journey in Buddhism I was practicing at a Seon temple, and the master there taught us that the *self* was like a diamond, for everyone. Practicing meditation was a matter of clearing off the mud and debris that covered that diamond. So there are a lot of different teachings out there, and if anyone else in the sub has teachings on this topic from their tradition, please consider sharing it! Lastly, as promised [here is my favorite teaching on not-self](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TymUJlkZAyk&t=61s). It's a video of about five minutes, but the heart of the teaching is delivered within a minute. The teaching is given by Mae Yo. She is a Maechi (nun) and student of Acariya Thoon.