Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Have I Realized Anatta?
Bodhivaka
Veteran
Hello, everyone. I've been thinking a lot about anatta recently. I realize most people are of the opinion that anatta isn't something you can come to realize through analyzing it, but I seem to be unable to learn that lesson because I can't stop trying. Anyway, I've written out a conversation that is essentially an internal conversation I had with myself. For convenience, I've put it in the form of a student and a teacher having a dialogue. I'd like anyone who is willing to read it and tell me what I think. Have I figured out anatta, or am I at least close?
I realize that not everything in the discussion below is concrete, and that many of the assertions are controversial (particularly material monism and determinism), so please keep in mind that these are only my latest thoughts in a continually evolving stream of consciousness in my attempt to understand anatta. I think I'm pretty close. Thanks in advance for any input!
-----------------------
Student: Teacher, recently I’ve come across the Buddhist doctrine of anatta. I’ve been studying Buddhism for months now and everything has been so easy to understand; but anatta just continues to elude me.
Teacher: Do your best to try and explain to me your current understanding of anatta.
Student: Well, from what I can grasp, anatta seems to teach that I don’t really exist.
Teacher: That’s essentially correct. There is nothing you can truly call “you,” and therefore, you don’t exist. The existence of “self” is nothing more than an illusion.
Student: An illusion?
Teacher: Yes. The illusion of “self” is born out of the five aggregates. When form, feelings, perceptions, mental formulations, and consciousness are combined into a single organism, it gives rise to the illusion of “self.”
Student: Well, I can see how I’m not my feelings or perceptions -- that seems quite obvious; but I’m not so sure about form, mental formulations, or consciousness. I tend to think that I am indeed those things.
Teacher: Well, let’s investigate that thought. We’ll go through each of those three aggregates one by one and see if they can qualify as your true self; but first we must establish what a “true self” is.
Student: It’s hard to describe, but I believe my true self would be the thinker behind my thoughts, the agent or entity that ultimately controls my will and actions.
Teacher: Very well, now let’s go through each of the three aggregates you’re concerned about and see if we can find what you’ve described in any of them. Let’s start with form, or your physical body.
Student: Alright.
Teacher: You must realize that the whole of your body is composed of approximately 75 trillion individual cells! These cells are independent life forms. They perform their individual functions, replicate, die, and get replaced all on their own. Now, if your body can be reduced to nothing more than independent cellular life forms which are separate and distinct from what you call your “true self” is it reasonable to suggest that your body is your true self?
Student: I suppose not.
Teacher: Very good. Let’s move on to mental formulations, or your thought processes.
Student: Okay.
Teacher: Many individuals falsely believe that they control their thought processes; however, advances in neuroscience have suggested otherwise. Experiments conducted by Dr. Haynes have found that neuroscientists can accurately predict a decision someone will make before they even become consciously aware of that decision.
Student: How so?
Teacher: Participants in Dr. Hayne’s study were placed in front of a button and told they could press the button with either their left or right hand. During the experiment, all participants were hooked up to an fMRI machine and their brain processes were examined in real time. What the neuroscientists found is that they could accurately predict which hand the participants would chose to push the button with up to 7 seconds before the participants even became consciously aware of their decision [1].
Student: So what you’re saying is that an individual’s unconscious brain determines what an individual will choose to do before they even become conscious of that decision?
Teacher: Yes. The evidence from neuroscience suggests that individual decisions are made in the neuronal regions of the brain long before such decisions even reach a person’s conscious awareness. This also seems to strongly challenge the idea of free will.
Student: There’s no free will?
Teacher: Of course not. How can that which doesn’t exist have free will? Again, the existence of a “self” is an illusion born out of the five aggregates. There isn’t actually any “self” to have free will in the first place. In fact, other experiments have been conducted by neuroscientists in which participants were asked to perform a certain function, such as raising one of their hands while a particular region of their brain was stimulated. When neuroscientists would stimulate the right side of an individual’s brain, they would raise their left arm 80% of the time, despite the fact they were right handed. When the right side of the brain was stimulated, the opposite effect occurred; however, participants thought they had chosen with their own free will which hand to raise, therefore further demonstrating the illusion of free will.
Student: What about consciousness? Even though there is apparently no free will, and even though the brain makes all of my decisions for me before I ever become consciously aware of them, isn’t it possible that my true self is simply the awareness?
Teacher: If dualism (the belief that the brain and mind are separate entities) is correct, then yes, it is possible that your true self might be the conscious aspect of the mind; however, all evidence seems to suggest that consciousness is not something separate from the brain; rather, consciousness is simply a higher level process of the brain itself.
Student: What do you mean?
Teacher: For example, it is well known that an individual’s conscious awareness can be altered simply by altering the physical brain. Drugs and brain damage are obvious examples of this. The fact that conscious awareness can be altered simply by tampering with the physical brain suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain.
Student: So consciousness is just the brain being aware of itself?
Teacher: Essentially, yes. The fact that the brain (which is composed of independent living cells and chemical reactions that perform functions and make decisions without your conscious awareness) is the cause of consciousness makes it quite evident that you can’t truly be said consciousness; to say otherwise is to say that you are your brain, for consciousness is only but an aspect of the brain, and to say that you are your brain is to say that you are the individual cells and chemical reactions which compose it, which you obviously are not.
Student: I see. I think I finally understand anatta. I obviously can’t be any of the aggregates, seeing as how all five can be reduced to things which I am not. My existence is an illusion born out of a culmination of the five aggregates, but when they are separated, I see that there isn’t even one that I can call “me.”
Teacher: Now you understand.
[1] http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
I realize that not everything in the discussion below is concrete, and that many of the assertions are controversial (particularly material monism and determinism), so please keep in mind that these are only my latest thoughts in a continually evolving stream of consciousness in my attempt to understand anatta. I think I'm pretty close. Thanks in advance for any input!
-----------------------
Student: Teacher, recently I’ve come across the Buddhist doctrine of anatta. I’ve been studying Buddhism for months now and everything has been so easy to understand; but anatta just continues to elude me.
Teacher: Do your best to try and explain to me your current understanding of anatta.
Student: Well, from what I can grasp, anatta seems to teach that I don’t really exist.
Teacher: That’s essentially correct. There is nothing you can truly call “you,” and therefore, you don’t exist. The existence of “self” is nothing more than an illusion.
Student: An illusion?
Teacher: Yes. The illusion of “self” is born out of the five aggregates. When form, feelings, perceptions, mental formulations, and consciousness are combined into a single organism, it gives rise to the illusion of “self.”
Student: Well, I can see how I’m not my feelings or perceptions -- that seems quite obvious; but I’m not so sure about form, mental formulations, or consciousness. I tend to think that I am indeed those things.
Teacher: Well, let’s investigate that thought. We’ll go through each of those three aggregates one by one and see if they can qualify as your true self; but first we must establish what a “true self” is.
Student: It’s hard to describe, but I believe my true self would be the thinker behind my thoughts, the agent or entity that ultimately controls my will and actions.
Teacher: Very well, now let’s go through each of the three aggregates you’re concerned about and see if we can find what you’ve described in any of them. Let’s start with form, or your physical body.
Student: Alright.
Teacher: You must realize that the whole of your body is composed of approximately 75 trillion individual cells! These cells are independent life forms. They perform their individual functions, replicate, die, and get replaced all on their own. Now, if your body can be reduced to nothing more than independent cellular life forms which are separate and distinct from what you call your “true self” is it reasonable to suggest that your body is your true self?
Student: I suppose not.
Teacher: Very good. Let’s move on to mental formulations, or your thought processes.
Student: Okay.
Teacher: Many individuals falsely believe that they control their thought processes; however, advances in neuroscience have suggested otherwise. Experiments conducted by Dr. Haynes have found that neuroscientists can accurately predict a decision someone will make before they even become consciously aware of that decision.
Student: How so?
Teacher: Participants in Dr. Hayne’s study were placed in front of a button and told they could press the button with either their left or right hand. During the experiment, all participants were hooked up to an fMRI machine and their brain processes were examined in real time. What the neuroscientists found is that they could accurately predict which hand the participants would chose to push the button with up to 7 seconds before the participants even became consciously aware of their decision [1].
Student: So what you’re saying is that an individual’s unconscious brain determines what an individual will choose to do before they even become conscious of that decision?
Teacher: Yes. The evidence from neuroscience suggests that individual decisions are made in the neuronal regions of the brain long before such decisions even reach a person’s conscious awareness. This also seems to strongly challenge the idea of free will.
Student: There’s no free will?
Teacher: Of course not. How can that which doesn’t exist have free will? Again, the existence of a “self” is an illusion born out of the five aggregates. There isn’t actually any “self” to have free will in the first place. In fact, other experiments have been conducted by neuroscientists in which participants were asked to perform a certain function, such as raising one of their hands while a particular region of their brain was stimulated. When neuroscientists would stimulate the right side of an individual’s brain, they would raise their left arm 80% of the time, despite the fact they were right handed. When the right side of the brain was stimulated, the opposite effect occurred; however, participants thought they had chosen with their own free will which hand to raise, therefore further demonstrating the illusion of free will.
Student: What about consciousness? Even though there is apparently no free will, and even though the brain makes all of my decisions for me before I ever become consciously aware of them, isn’t it possible that my true self is simply the awareness?
Teacher: If dualism (the belief that the brain and mind are separate entities) is correct, then yes, it is possible that your true self might be the conscious aspect of the mind; however, all evidence seems to suggest that consciousness is not something separate from the brain; rather, consciousness is simply a higher level process of the brain itself.
Student: What do you mean?
Teacher: For example, it is well known that an individual’s conscious awareness can be altered simply by altering the physical brain. Drugs and brain damage are obvious examples of this. The fact that conscious awareness can be altered simply by tampering with the physical brain suggests that consciousness is a product of the brain.
Student: So consciousness is just the brain being aware of itself?
Teacher: Essentially, yes. The fact that the brain (which is composed of independent living cells and chemical reactions that perform functions and make decisions without your conscious awareness) is the cause of consciousness makes it quite evident that you can’t truly be said consciousness; to say otherwise is to say that you are your brain, for consciousness is only but an aspect of the brain, and to say that you are your brain is to say that you are the individual cells and chemical reactions which compose it, which you obviously are not.
Student: I see. I think I finally understand anatta. I obviously can’t be any of the aggregates, seeing as how all five can be reduced to things which I am not. My existence is an illusion born out of a culmination of the five aggregates, but when they are separated, I see that there isn’t even one that I can call “me.”
Teacher: Now you understand.
[1] http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
1
Comments
Thich Nhat Hanh, from The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching:
"In his first Dharma talk, the Buddha cautioned his disciples not to be attached to either bhava or abhava, being or nonbeing, because bhava and abhava are just constructs of the mind. Reality is somewhere in between... If you say that the purpose of the practice is to destroy being in order to arrive at non-being, this is entirely incorrect. With nonattachment, we see both being and nonbeing as creations of our own mind, and we ride the wave of birth and death... Let us not present the teaching of the Buddha as an attempt to escape from life and go to nothingness or nonbeing."
If you approach anatta as the nonbeing of self (i.e. the opposite of the being of a self), then you've simply replaced one dualistic assertion with another. Both represent the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism which merely exist on opposite ends of the same conceptual continuum. The Middle Path asserts neither extreme.
It seems a common thing that people think they can get insight into these kinds of things if they just think it through hard enough. But it's not like that. The Buddha made it clear on many occasions that insight is through clearing the mind and not through reasoning.
The view of self is so deeply ingrained you can't really touch it with thoughts. The mind needs to be still and tranquil to be able to see what is not there, and let the attachment to the self go. Of course an initial intellectual understanding paves the way for deeper understanding, but be careful to know its limits and not get attached to the ideas, because they will always be wrong.
To really see there is no free will, to really see that consciousness is empty of a substance, that creates the way to start to understand anatta really. As long as you are thinking about it, you are too far away from it, not really looking deeply.
You could compare it to feeling things in the body, for example pain. Scientifically you can find all sorts of neurological explanations to why people feel pain. You can explain the hormones and all that stuff, but if you feel pain really, it is something totally different. You don't need to think about it to know it as it really is. This is really comparable to how you should see experiencing anatta versus thinking about anatta.
With metta,
Sabre
To the degree that you play with the house is the degree to which anatta is obscured....and to the degree that you don't empower the house is the same degree to which the delusion of you possessing a soul simply dissipates.
In the Buddha's words: So the various examples you gave does indeed show that form, mental formations and consciousness are not-self by pointing to their uncontrollable nature. So when you say that the body comprises of independent cells, that proves this point. Can we tell our cells to always function properly and not develop cancer or cause us to age because this makes us suffer and we don't want to suffer? No, the cells will not listen to our wishes and they will cause us to develop cancer or age in accordance to their causes and conditions despite whatever we may desire. Therefore, the body cannot be considered as "mine" or "myself" or "I".
This would be the same for your other examples regarding the fact that there are studies which suggest that thought processes are made in neuronal regions of the brain that are beyond a person's conscious control. Similarly with the fact that what affects the brain can affect our consciousness. These examples point to the fact that mental formations and consciousness are not actually within one's control and thus cannot be considered as "mine" or "myself" or "I"
Nonethless, some teachers do regard intellectual understanding as a useful guideline to develop true insight. Eg. Bhikkhu Bodhi:
That which never existed cannot be annihilated.
Perhaps my understanding on this matter is mistaken, but it seems to make sense.
Buddhism does not deny the reality we live, but rather the myopic metaphysical categories with habitually superimpose upon it. The independent and unchanging self does not exist, but neither does it NOT not-exist. Dualistic metaphysical categories distort our experience, creating all the delusions that bring about dukkha.
@misecmisc1 above said it succinctly: "things are, but not the way we think they are."
I posted something in another thread which relates to what "illusory" means, which does not merely mean "does not exist": Linguistically speaking, we can only point to what we should NOT confuse anatta with. It helps to clear the ground so as to avoid further confusion. But we cannot state it in positive, definitive terms. That can only come via real-ization of insight-- not more concepts. At best they serve a provisional purpose only. I think this explains why the Buddha did often resort to "Noble Silence" when other pressed such metaphysically framed questions. Buddhism addresses metaphysics only in order to deconstruct it, and in doing so, to real-ize a nondual reality we experience but entirely misunderstand.
At any rate, I currently understand it in this way.
Therefore, to say that you can "escape" the aggregates is like saying a mirage can "escape" reality; it was never actually there to escape in the first place, it was the aggregates which produced the illusion of its existence. As I see it, destroying the aggregates (ie, suicide) would in fact end the illusion of self, and as I am a naturalist/physicalist who is skeptical of literal rebirth, I believe it would also end suffering; therefore, I believe a reasonable case could be made that the "breaking up of the body" as the Buddha called it, is equivalent to Nirvana; however, I also believe that the illusion of self and suffering can be overcome without destroying the aggregates, thereby making suicide/death unnecessary to attain Nirvana.
This sutta below is quite illustrative of this topic. Starting off with somebody who did try to understand the Dhamma in terms of thought, but did not really see the Dhamma. Then Ananda quited the Buddha explaining dependent origination.
The transcendence of any of that self results in proportionately experiencing the waking up from the self's dream world.
Those suiciding monks were thinking that the death of the self was the same as it's transcendence which is MISTAKEN because the death of a dreaming self brings no awaking from the dream whereas transcending it does.
I realize this view raises very difficult questions, particularly concerning enlightenment and how it can happen if there is nothing to become enlightened in the first place, but I nevertheless feel confident in the soundness of my position, despite the existence of some (what are for me at the moment) unanswerable questions.
Nihilism teaches that a self is annihilated, but that teaching is incorrect because according to anatta there was never a "self" to be annihilated in the first place. A "self" doesn't exist anymore than a mirage exists; it's only an illusion produced by the five aggregates. You cannot destroy a mirage, you can only realize that it was never actually there to begin with.
If the aggregates "drop dead" then there is nothing to produce the illusion of "self," which would result in the end of suffering, which (in my view) is Nirvana.
Some may mistakenly say that destroying the aggregates will make you "stop existing," but that view is incorrect only because you never existed in the first place. That which never existed cannot stop existing.
I will try to explain it this way, using the simile of the lamp. The simile of the lamp has been used to describe rebirth in the Milinda Panha, as follows: Here, we see that it is the flame of a lamp which causes rebirth because in the case of an unenlightened being, the causes for the existence of the flame has not been extinguished and thus at the time of death, the flame is passed on to another lamp which is rebirth (without transmigration). So there is a further existence after death, albeit no transmigration.
However, in the case of an arahant (an enlightened being), it is said that the flame goes out at the break up of the aggregrates because the arahant has extinguished ignorance which is the cause of birth (per the dependent origination theory). Therefore, at the time of death, the flame of the lamp has already been extinguished and therefore, there is no rebirth in contrast to the case of the unenlightened being who still has ignorance. So the significance of the simile that "an Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished" is simply to point out that as ignorance (the cause of rebirth) has been extinguished, there is thus no future existence for an Arahant after his/her death. So it is not saying that death produces Nirvana.
In fact, earlier in the same Chapter, Ven. Walopola clearly states the following (capitalization is from the original text, not mine): So, Ven. Walopola also clearly explains that as Nirvana is unconditioned, it is not an effect produced by a cause. So, it would be incorrect to say that "the destruction of the aggregates produces a state of Nirvana". Nirvana is thus something which is there to be realized and is not produced by anything.
In the Milinda Panha, the above is explained as follows: Now if one were to ask what is exactly the nature of Nirvana? In the closing paragraphs of the same Chapter, Ven. Walopola gives this advice:
In my opinion, you are right to say that we are not the aggregates. The aggregates, when combined, give rise to the illusion of "self."
For example, a mirage is an illusion created by a culmination of two aggregates in particular, namely mental formations and perception; likewise the "self" is an illusion created by a culmination of all five aggregates, or least three of them (form, mental formulations, and consciousness.)
Just as a mirage is an illusion created by the aggregates that only seems to exist, but doesn't, so too is the self an illusion created by the aggregates that only seems to exist, but doesn't.
It is somewhat incorrect to say that "we are apart from the aggregates" because that seems to imply that there is some kind of "true self" that is separate and distinct from them. In my view, there is no self at all, there is only the illusion of "self" born out of a combination of the five aggregates.
Again, I realize this is an unorthodox and controversial view, and perhaps it may change in the future, but for now it suffices me. In my opinion, Nirvana is the attainment of an individual state of non-suffering produced as result of enlightenment. Again, my views aren't orthodox, but they make more sense to me personally than any other view I've come across.
The mind reaches a state of knowing, whereby it then understands the laws of nature, the universal law or Dharma.
It understands the very essence of all phenomena, hence enlightenment. A fully enlightened mind produces Buddhahood.
The mind only concept clearly explains it.
Now pardon me for not having the exact quote in the suttas, but the Buddha praised those believing in annihilation (I mean the materialistic sense you are talking about) as the 'best among second views' in a sense that it leads to an acceptance of cessation, which is nearly a synonym for nirvana.
Recognize that he is talking from a sense of practice; he did not call it the right view. So what I would recommend is using your current view as a base for practice, not as a fixed view where things end. There are many other aspects to the Dhamma other than anatta and these are to be experienced as well. You can't take aside one aspect and only understand that.
And remember that the Buddha said the 8-fold path leads to the end of suffering, not suicide.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html So if any of the ideas "I exist, I don't exist, I neither exist nor not exist" or any variation thereof occurs. The fact that these ideas are still occurring is proof that one has yet to realize it. The whole idea of existence and non-existence becomes completely irrelevant. To one who has realized it, thoughts about existence "does not occur to him". Because it's a question that is "inappropriate for attention". In giving his most detailed explanation of appropriate attention (MN 2), he starts with examples of inappropriate attention, which center on questions of identity and existence: "Do I exist?" "Do I not?" "What am I?" "Did I exist in the past?" "Will I exist in the future?" These questions are inappropriate because they lead to "a wilderness of views, a thicket of views" such as "I have a self," or "I have no self," all of which lead to entanglement, and none to the end of suffering.
Also reminds me of this: And the interesting footnote: SN 44.10
One of the good way to practice Buddhism is to keep reevaluating your own views, rather than to keep solidifying them. To keep an open mind rather than a closed mind.
I always think of TNHs' poem "Call Me by my True Names" when somebody is contemplating this conundrum.
Call Me by My True Names
Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow
because even today I still arrive.
Look deeply: I arrive in every second
to be a bud on a spring branch,
to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile,
learning to sing in my new nest,
to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower,
to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry,
in order to fear and to hope.
The rhythm of my heart is the birth and
death of all that are alive.
I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river,
and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time
to eat the mayfly.
I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond,
and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence,
feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones,
my legs as thin as bamboo sticks,
and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
Uganda.
I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat,
who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea
pirate,
and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and
loving.
I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my
hands,
and I am the man who has to pay his "debt of blood" to, my
people,
dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all
walks of life.
My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once,
so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names,
so I can wake up,
and so the door of my heart can be left open,
the door of compassion.
Thich Nhat Hanh
With warmth,
Matt
I would say "you don't exist" but that statement is somewhat self-contradictory, as it still suggests there is a "you." There never was a you, just as there was never really a mirage. It's all an illusion.
That's my opinion, anyway.
Your question poses an I that abandons the aggregates, but it is not like that. The aggregates abandon themselves is more correct.
eternalism - The body dies but consciousness somehow survives and continue to exist.
nihilism - Body dies and the consciousness dies with it. Nothing survives.
Both are extreme views, not the Middle Way, since things(sankhara) are really no-thing(empty of inherent existence).
As to the Buddha having never said the self is an illusion, I disagree. Although the Buddha may have never said the exact words "self is an illusion," he did say we are not the five aggregates, and for me, a naturalist/physicalist, to say that the five aggregates are not self is equal to saying there is no self at all.
If you believe there is some kind of entity that exists separate and distinct from the aggregates which constitutes the "real you," I can respect that belief, but I'm unaware of the Buddha having ever taught something to that effect.
Moreover, if such an entity actually did exist, exactly what function would it perform? If you are indeed correct to say that the Buddha was simply attempting to bring us to a realization of our "true self" through the dis-identification of the aggregates, then the following must be true of the "self":
1. It must be immaterial, for the Buddha taught form is not self.
2. It must be emotionless, for the Buddha taught feelings are not self.
3. It must be insentient, for the Buddha taught perception is not self.
4. It must be mindless, for the Buddha taught mental formations are not self.
5. It must be unconscious, for the Buddha taught consciousness is not self.
So what exactly would the nature of this entity be? That which is immaterial, emotionless, insentient, mindless, and unconsciois can hardly be called a "self" in my opinion. If your assertions are true, the only conclusion I'm able to reach is that our true "self" must be an impersonal force like gravity; however, I'm not the type to claim that something like gravity is a "self," rather, it's simply a natural force lacking any kind of sentience whatsoever.
In order to really see what the mind is we need to develop refined introspection. Because the average person can't discern subtle mental states described in Buddhism doesn't say anything about their existence or nature. I like the analogy Alan Wallace gives, he says for the average person looking into the mind is like Galileo trying to look at the stars through his telescope if it were mounted on the back of a moving camel in a sandstorm.
The people who claim to know such things have generally spent tens of thousands of hours developing their introspection and concentration to where it can be used as an effective instrument to observe the subtle workings of the mind.
The Buddha also called the aggregates murderous at SN 22:85. All in all he is trying to get us to stop clinging to the aggregates which are the problem. We have always fundamentally transcended the aggregates, except that in a state of ignorance we cling to them as our refuge and make them, unconsciously, the measure of all things. It is only by letting go of these murderous aggregates that are painful, will we discover who we really are. In Mahayana Buddhism this is the Buddha Nature.
"Understanding the mind requires deep introspection," I agree; however, I also believe the sciences have a lot to contribute to our understanding of the mind through empirical research, as well.
Nevertheless, I think Buddhism is quite clear that the mind is not self; in my opinion, the mind is simply a combination of form (the physical brain), mental formations (the thoughts that arise as a result of the inner workings of the physical brain), and consciousness (a sense of awareness that, although not fully understood, is most likely a higher function of the physical brain. I prefer John Searle's "Biological Naturalism" as a likely explanation).
What it really comes down to I suppose is monism vs dualism. If you believe that the mind is simply a function of the physical brain, it becomes obvious that the mind cannot be "self," however, if you accept dualism, it's possible to postulate that perhaps the mind is the real you. Obviously, I'm a monist.