A Misunderstanding of Non-Self Already Visible in the Title
I saw the title of a video and left a comment. I had watched almost none of the video, so the title might have been written merely to attract attention. Yet the phrase “passing through the state of non-self by meditation, then reaching a white room, a black room, and shining dust” already showed clearly what had been misunderstood.
How does that sentence sound to you? When a white room, a black room, and glittering dust follow the word non-self, it sounds as though a mysterious sequence of practice is unfolding. It gives the impression that a meditator crossed a secret passage unavailable to ordinary people and saw a special scene at its end.
That mysterious impression is precisely the problem. When non-self is not understood, it is turned into an extraordinary experiential state, while colors and lights appearing afterward are presented as signs of awakening. I regard the expression itself as something one says because one has not understood what non-self means at all.
Non-Self Is Not a State to Be Reached
The claim that one reaches a state of non-self through meditation assumes that one is not non-self now but can become non-self later through successful practice. Non-self is imagined as a condition of consciousness, and meditation as the means of entering it. But non-self is not the name of such a state.
It does not mean that I ordinarily possess a substantial self and temporarily lose it during meditation. It describes the fact that nowhere in the world is there an independent, eternal, and unchanging substance. Whether I understand this or not, and whether I meditate or not, phenomena already arise in this way.
The statement that one saw a white room after reaching non-self therefore begins from an error. It turns non-self into one rung on a ladder of awakening and then places another sensory scene beyond it. It employs Buddhist vocabulary, but what it actually draws is a map of mystical experiences.
Would We Speak of Entering an Impermanence State or a Dependent-Arising State?
The contradiction becomes easier to see if we replace non-self with impermanence. If someone heard that the world is impermanent and replied, “I reached a state of impermanence through meditation,” would that not sound strange? A description of the world’s constant change has been converted into a special state entered by consciousness.
The same applies to dependent arising. If one hears that the world is dependently arisen and says, “I reached the state of dependent arising through meditation,” the statement makes no sense. Dependent arising explains that this arises in relation to that and that nothing appears independently of causes and conditions. Reality is not non-dependent before meditation and dependent afterward.
Non-self is exactly the same. To say that reality is already without self points to the absence of a fixed substance called “me.” But to seek to reach a state of non-self imagines that a substantial self exists now and can disappear later. The sentence itself becomes evidence that non-self has not been understood.
Dependent Arising, Impermanence, and Non-Self Describe Different Aspects of the Same World
That the world does not remain constant is impermanence. That it arises in relation to many causes and conditions is dependent arising. That nowhere within it is there an independent and unchanging “thing itself” is non-self. These are not separate mystical stages but different descriptions of the same world.
I am not saying that people must not meditate. One may sit, observe the breath, calm the mind, enter concentration, or practice yoga. But if colors, lights, or rooms appearing in that process are immediately called the realization of dependent arising, impermanence, or non-self, entirely different matters are being mixed together.
Attaching Buddhist terms does not transform a sensory experience into wisdom. A powerful and unfamiliar experience must be distinguished from understanding the facts by examining one’s illusions about the world and oneself. Without that distinction, one can be dragged around by sensation while imagining that one has transcended sensation.
Chasing White Rooms and Shining Dust Is Wandering in a Dream
A white room, a black room, or something resembling glittering dust may indeed appear. We see countless scenes in dreams, and unusual sensations may also arise in meditation. But the mere appearance of something does not connect that experience to awakening.
If one assigns special meaning to those scenes and seeks a deeper scene the next time, one is being led by sensation. One wanders in a dream produced by sensation while declaring that one has reached non-self. I strongly call this a futile activity that has nothing to do with awakening.
Satisfaction in having gained a mystical experience easily produces a new self-image: “I reached a special stage.” One speaks of non-self while building a more exceptional self. The more one boasts about the color and brilliance of the experience, the farther one may move in the opposite direction from non-self.
If one is dragged around by mystical sensory experiences while claiming to have reached non-self, that is not awakening but wandering in a dream.
The Logical Contradiction of the ‘I’ Who Experienced Non-Self
For the sake of argument, let us grant that a “state of non-self” truly exists. If it is a state in which I am absent, who feels the fact of having become non-self? If the experiencing subject has disappeared, who sees the white room, remembers it, and later reports having been in a state of non-self?
The sentence “I saw this after reaching non-self” leaves the “I” intact throughout. There is an I who reached it, an I who saw it, an I who remembered it, and an I who now explains it. At the same time, the speaker claims that it was a state in which the I had vanished. This is a complete contradiction.
The contradiction arises because non-self has been mistaken for the content of an experience. Non-self is not a room that someone enters and leaves. It is an account that does not establish fixed substances when observing phenomena, including the understanding that what I call myself also arises and changes according to conditions.
A World That Is Already Impermanent and Already Without Self
When we hear that all conditioned things are impermanent, we do not say, “I will reach the state of impermanence.” The world already does not remain constant. Likewise, the world is already dependent and without self, so seeking to become a separate state of non-self is misguided.
Once a destination is invented, the practitioner stops looking at present reality and pursues a place created in the mind. Evidence of arrival is then sought in colors, lights, and special sensations. Practice becomes an attempt to confirm one’s own map rather than an examination of facts.
Understanding non-self is not the acquisition of a new state. It is seeing how what I had held to be a substance actually arises, changes, and disappears. The more deeply that fact is understood, the more cautious one becomes about declaring, “I have become something.”
Look at the Consistency of the Words, Not the Label of Meditation
The use of words such as meditation, practice, and awakening does not prove that a person understands them. Someone may sound plausible on one subject and then make a statement that contradicts it moments later. What is needed is not submission to authority or atmosphere but an examination of what the sentences mean.
A large number of subscribers or conversations with famous people does not create depth. A wise-looking expression, mysterious editing, and impressive stages of practice are not evidence of understanding. We must ask whether someone speaks of non-self while installing a self who attained non-self, or speaks of dependent arising while assuming an independent substance.
When depth is absent, words heard here seem correct while words borrowed from somewhere else immediately contradict them. They are not one’s own language but fragments joined together. A few questions are enough to expose the gaps.
Do Not Turn Buddhism into a Mystical Experience Story
Because Buddhist language is unfamiliar, it is easily used for mysticism. Linking non-self, concentration, and awakening to colors, lights, rooms, and vibrations makes listeners feel that a profound world exists beyond their knowledge. The moment the unknown is merely labeled mysterious, questions stop.
I believe we should instead return these claims to ordinary language. If non-self is a state, who enters it? If something was seen after non-self, who saw it? In a world already without self, what was the self before meditation and what is it afterward? Such questions must not be avoided.
If one cannot answer and covers the problem with still more mysterious words, that is not wisdom. To see Buddhism clearly, we must first ask what the concepts mean and whether the explanation is coherent before envying extraordinary experiences.
Awakening Is Not the Collection of Sensations
When awakening is understood as a collection of sensory events, the goal of practice endlessly recedes. Today one sees light, tomorrow a stronger light, and next time one must enter a deeper room. Yet no number of scenes produces wisdom if one’s illusions about the world and oneself remain intact.
Dependent arising, impermanence, and non-self are not devices for making experience spectacular. They are words that allow us to see that present phenomena change within causes and conditions and contain no eternal substance to grasp. This understanding is not a secret room for special people but a question everyone must examine in life and thought.
Facts and logic therefore matter more than a meditator’s authority or mystical narrative. We must examine what a statement presupposes and whether that presupposition contradicts non-self. Non-self is not the final condition that I attain and possess. It is an explanation that calls both the possessing “I” and the possessed “state” into question.
This article was edited by AI solely from the supplied video captions and description. No external sources were used.