Sane interpretation of no-self: the self is an illusion, so I don't have to believe thoughts derived from having one.
Real-world interpretation of no-self: the self is an illusion, so if you use personal pronouns or have personal preferences, this means you are not awakened.
Conversation
Replying to
Everything.
Generally you mean the sense of separate, defined me-ness is the illusion, not the person itself, so...
Some make more extreme ontological statements ("nothing is real"...), but, they're pretty much optional (and quite possibly also illusions).
Replying to
Just because there can be no clear boundaries doesn't mean there is no center or focal point
1
Replying to
Certainly. Now find it in yourself.
The strong ontological statements - that I tend to ignore - are mostly asserting something like an absolute universal self (like your mythical Empyrean) or whatever, so they don't necessarily conflict.
1
Show replies
Replying to
There are degrees in connectivity even if everything is connected some things are more connected with each other and synchronized.
1
Replying to
So in thinking up a tweet to reply, I realized this is probably better told as a page or two of writing. I'll go ahead and write it up now.
1
1
Show replies