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).
2
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
Replying to
You can't find yourself. Each time you think you have you are not you. You have retreated in a tighter Self. Arguably you can continue the process until You find an irreducible Self, and even go past it and dissolve the Self. I prefer to incorporate more, than shed layers
1
Replying to
I think that's fine. Not my style, but I don't have beef with it.
Replying to
Holistic vs Analytic both lead to nothing and everything just not in the same order