How is anatman supposed to be understood?

The teach of no-self seems to be quite a difficult one to properly grasp. This is how I'm conceptualizing it at the moment, please let me know what you all think and whether this is accurate. To understand what the Buddha was getting at, we need to understand what is meant by Atman. From my very basic understanding of Hinduism, Atman is the unchanging essence or soul of a person. The goal is to realize and unite with the intrinsic soul within us. What the Buddha is saying by anatman, is that there is no unchanging soul within us. We change with everything else based on the prior and present condition and if there is a soul it is also changing.

This seems quite different from how I originally understood the idea of no-self, and likely how many people that don't know Eastern concepts think about no-self. Hearing this, one might think there is no person at all. That we are only material and that our awareness is just an arising phenomenon. This conception seems to have a very hard timing fitting in with other Buddhist notions of liberation, different starts of awareness, and especially rebirth. If there really was no person to experience, then there is no one to be enlightened, similarly there is no one to be reborn.

So what I'm getting at is that there is a self but this self contains no eternally unchanging aspect. The self I am in this moment will be completely different from a future self.

Is this understanding closer to what Buddhism is actually trying to convey or is this incorrect? When delving into this concept it seems we need to understand the Hindi idea the Buddha was originally addressing. Any readings or talks would also be appreciated. I don't mean for this to be an explanation of the concept, just want to raise this conception as a basis for scrutiny. Thanks!

submitted by /u/JayToasty
[link] [comments]

from Buddhism https://ift.tt/2Q4sVpt