reflection wrote:Alex, you've now seen that one can argue a self and one can argue no self. And the arguments may seem convincing either way. But some doubt remains. That doubt will remain until one steps beyond arguing and instead experiences things directly. That is not by a thought, argument or idea, but by looking deeply inside ourselves. Then you don't need arguments anymore.
If for the time you have issues with the idea of no-self that's because you see it at the level of intellect. I don't think it's really a problem as long as you can put aside the intellectual understanding when you meditate.
The problem is that what you're suggesting is circular / self-referential. Ie. if one learns to see things a certain way, one will see them that way, which will seem like one is "seeing things as they really are." And any path of practice, whether Buddhist, or scientific, or Hindu or whichever, is like that - even though they typically suggest that they can overcome this problem of circularity / self-referentiality.
What you're suggesting requires absolute faith
that the process usually taught as "Buddhist" is true and leads to the proposed results.
IOW, all this seems to be more of a meta-practical, meta-religious problem.
I don't know how to solve it directly. But for me, investigating concepts of religiousness, religious choice, religious epistemology etc. has helped to alleviate the felt urgency of the issue.