Short answer
No. You are real: a soul that God (﷾) made, knows and keeps. The claim that the self is an illusion goes further than the Pali texts, the oldest Buddhist scriptures. Those texts say that nothing in body or mind is a lasting self. Asked outright, the Buddha kept silent. The claim in its modern form says the "I" does not exist at all and only seems to. Its evidence falls short. Looking within and finding only passing thoughts does not show that no one is there. What the brain builds is not false for that reason. Every night the sense of self stops, and the same person wakes. The Qur'an speaks of this: God (﷾) takes the soul in sleep and sends it back (39:42). Islam's answer is not to deny the soul but to purify it (91:9-10).
Full explanation
Two claims, not one
People often say that Buddhism teaches that the self is an illusion. That joins two different claims. One is in the Pali texts, the oldest Buddhist scriptures, which the Theravada school holds to be the Buddha's word. They say that nothing in body or mind is a lasting self. The other is the claim in its modern form, found in books and courses on meditation and in some writing on the brain. It says the single "I" behind your thoughts does not exist at all and only seems to. The two need separate answers, so this page takes them one at a time.
“This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
“But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement.”
The Pali teaching: not-self
In the Linked Discourses the Buddha goes through the five parts of a person: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness. Of each he says the same words, shown below. The Dhammapada puts it in one line: all things are not-self. The Pali word is anatta. The aim is practical. A follower stops treating any part of body or mind as "me", grows disillusioned with it and lets it go. So the teaching tells you what not to take yourself to be. The page "Can there be karma and rebirth without a soul?" sets out these texts and what they mean for deeds.
“This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.”
“All things are not-self— when this is seen with wisdom, one grows disillusioned with suffering: this is the path to purity.”
Asked outright, the Buddha kept silent
The wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Buddha two questions. In Pali they turn on the words atthatta and natthatta. Word for word these ask "is there a self?" and "is there no self?". The translation below gives them as whether the self survives or does not survive. The Buddha kept silent both times. He then told Ananda why. To say yes would side with the eternalists, who hold that a self lasts for ever. It would not help the knowledge that all things are not-self. To say no would side with the annihilationists, who hold that the self ends at death. It would leave Vacchagotta more confused. Another discourse lists both "My self survives" and "My self does not survive" among six views that come from attending to the wrong questions. In Pali the second is natthi me atta, "there is no self of mine". It calls these views a thicket. So "there is no self" is not the Buddha's recorded answer, and neither is "there is a self". This matters because the popular slogan uses his name for a sentence he would not say.
“"Worthy Gotama, does the self survive?" But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. "Then does the self not survive?" But for a second time the Buddha kept silent.”
“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that 'the self survives' I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that 'the self does not survive' I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.”
“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that 'the self survives', would that have facilitated the arising of the knowledge that all things are not-self?”
“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that 'the self does not survive', Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: 'It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.'”
“When they apply the mind irrationally in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact. The view: 'My self survives.' The view: 'My self does not survive.'”
“This is called a misconception, the thicket of views, the desert of views, the twist of views, the dodge of views, the fetter of views.”
The nearest the Pali texts come to "illusion"
Some lines do come close, and they should be read as they stand. One discourse compares consciousness to an illusion shown at a crossroads. It compares form to a lump of foam and feeling to a bubble. The point of each picture is that the thing is hollow, with no essence in it. Another text counts "Taking not-self as self" among four perversions of perception. A third says a self and what belongs to a self are "not found as a genuine fact". These are strong words, and many Buddhists read them as a denial. But the illusion in the picture is a real show at a real crossroads, empty of what it seems to hold. It is consciousness that is compared to it, and the discourse does not say that no one is there. So these lines speak of what is hollow or not found. The Buddha still would not give Vacchagotta the plain "no".
“Suppose an illusionist or their apprentice was to demonstrate an illusion at the crossroads. And a person with clear eyes would see it and contemplate it, examining it rationally. And it would appear to them as completely vacuous, hollow, and insubstantial. For what essence could there be in an illusion? In the same way, a mendicant sees and contemplates any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near—examining it rationally. And it appears to them completely vacuous, hollow, and insubstantial. For what essence could there be in consciousness?”
“Mendicants, there are these four perversions of perception, thought, and view. What four? Taking impermanence as permanence. Taking suffering as happiness. Taking not-self as self. Taking ugliness as beauty.”
“But since a self and what belongs to a self are not found as a genuine fact, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: 'The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever'?”
All things are not-self
The self survivesSilent when asked.
The self does not surviveSilent when asked.
The self is an illusionThe discourse compares consciousness to an illusion, and calls it hollow.
- Said
- Would not say
- Not what the text says
How the tradition went further
The tradition did not stay with the silence. In the Linked Discourses the nun Vajira tells Mara, the tempter, that "sentient being" is a convention, as "chariot" is the word used when the parts are assembled. The Milindapanha, a classic Theravada text, uses the same picture. In the fifth century the Theravada commentator Buddhaghosa wrote in the Visuddhimagga that in the ultimate sense there is suffering but no one who suffers, and doing but no doer. In 1959 the Theravada monk and scholar Walpola Rahula wrote that, on the Buddha's teaching, the idea of self is "an imaginary, false belief". He called nirvana the end of the illusion of self. Many Buddhist teachers today speak in these terms. Rahula explained the silence as care for one confused man, and that reading is answered under Perspectives. These lines go beyond what the Buddha told Vacchagotta, so a reader should know which layer is speaking.
“"Why do you believe there's such a thing as a 'sentient being'? Māra, is this your theory? This is just a pile of conditions, you won't find a sentient being here. When the parts are assembled we use the word 'chariot'. So too, when the aggregates are present 'sentient being' is the convention we use. But it's only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then expires. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering ceases."”
King Milinda asks the monk Nagasena his name. Nagasena says "Nagasena" is only a generally understood term, a designation in common use, for no permanent individuality is involved. The king objects: then who gives the monks their robes, who lives righteously, who takes what is not his own, who lives an evil life? There would be neither merit nor demerit, and neither doer nor causer of good or evil deeds. Nagasena asks how the king came. By carriage. Is the chariot its pole, its axle, its wheels, all of them together, or something besides them? The king says no to each. Yet the word "chariot" is used on account of all the parts together, and in the same way "Nagasena" is used when the five constituent elements of being are present. He cites a saying of the nun Vajira.
Says that in the ultimate sense the truths are void, because there is no one who experiences, no doer, no one who is extinguished and no one who goes. A verse then says there is suffering but no one who suffers, and doing but no doer. A commentary-era Theravada work, not one of the Buddha's discourses.
Rahula, a Theravada monk and scholar (1907-1997), writes that Buddhism denies the existence of a soul or self, and that on the Buddha's teaching the idea of self is "an imaginary, false belief" with no reality behind it (p. 51). He calls nirvana the end of the illusion, the false idea of self (p. 37). He gives Vacchagotta's two questions as "Is there a self?" and "Is there no self?". He explains the silence as care for a confused man who was not yet able to understand not-self (pp. 62-64).
The modern claim
The modern claim has its own history in the West. In 1739 the Scottish philosopher David Hume looked within and said he only ever met some perception. He called people "a bundle or collection of different perceptions". In 1984 the Oxford philosopher Derek Parfit argued that a person's life is a series of connected events, and that identity is not what matters. He said the Buddha would have agreed. His appendix on the Buddha's view does not mention the silence before Vacchagotta. It quotes the Milindapanha, a nun's verse to Mara, the Visuddhimagga and the later Indian writer Vasubandhu, who quotes a saying as the Buddha's. So this link to the Buddha rests mostly on the later voices of the section above. In 1992 the American philosopher Daniel Dennett compared the self to a centre of gravity: useful, but "a theorist's fiction". Parfit and Dennett did not deny that people exist. Modern writing on meditation often goes the last step and calls the self an illusion that careful watching can see through. It usually leaves out rebirth, karma and the path to nirvana. So this claim cannot rest on the Buddha's word. It has to stand on its own evidence, and five tests show whether it does.
“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.”
“But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement.”
Argues that a person's existence just consists in a brain, a body and a series of connected events, and that personal identity is not what matters. He says that persons exist, though a complete description of reality could leave them out. He writes that the Buddha would have agreed (section 92, p. 273). His Appendix J, "Buddha's View", quotes the Milindapanha, a nun's verse to Mara, the Visuddhimagga and Vasubandhu, with sayings Vasubandhu gives as the Buddha's. It does not mention Vacchagotta. He writes that the view is very hard to believe but possible, at the reflective or intellectual level, and that he expects never to lose completely his intuitive belief in the older view (section 94, p. 280). He says that giving up the older view felt like leaving a glass tunnel for the open air (section 95, the opening of chapter 13).
Compares the self to a centre of gravity. A centre of gravity is a useful abstract object, "a theorist's fiction", and not one of the real things in the universe in addition to the atoms. Dennett says a self is also "an abstract object, a theorist's fiction".
| Who | What is said |
|---|---|
| The Buddha, asked outright | Silence, both times. |
| The Buddha, on each part of a person | "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self." |
| The nun Vajira, in the Pali texts | "Sentient being" is a convention. |
| Buddhaghosa, fifth century | In the ultimate sense, suffering but no one who suffers. |
| Walpola Rahula, 1959 | The idea of self is "an imaginary, false belief". |
| Hume, 1739 | People are "a bundle or collection of different perceptions". |
| Dennett, 1992 | The self is "a theorist's fiction". |
| Modern writing on meditation | The self is an illusion that careful watching can see through. |
Test 1: not finding is not the same as not there
Hume looked within and found only perceptions, and a meditator who watches the mind reports the same. Think what this kind of search can find. It can only turn up what appears in attention: thoughts, feelings and sensations. An eye does not appear among the things it sees, and no one concludes there is no eye. So if a self exists, this search could never have shown it. The real finding is smaller: no passing thought is the self. In 1785 the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid said so in the words below. Hume was not satisfied either. In his appendix he wrote that "all my hopes vanish" when he tried to explain what unites our perceptions. So the main evidence for the claim does not reach its conclusion.
“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.”
“I am not thought, I am not action, I am not feeling; I am something that thinks, and acts, and suffers.”
“But all my hopes vanish, when I come to explain the principles, that unite our successive perceptions in our thought or consciousness. I cannot discover any theory, which gives me satisfaction on this head.”
Test 2: built by the brain is not the same as false
The sense of "I" depends on the brain. Injury, illness and drugs can change it. From this some conclude that it is a trick the brain plays. But the brain builds all that we know. It builds sight from signals, and the chair you see is still there. A map is made by someone, and it can still be true. So showing how a sense is built does not show that it is false. That needs a further argument. The reasoning also undoes itself. If "built by the brain" meant "false", the thought "the self is an illusion" would be false too, because the brain built that as well.
Compares the self to a centre of gravity. A centre of gravity is a useful abstract object, "a theorist's fiction", and not one of the real things in the universe in addition to the atoms. Dennett says a self is also "an abstract object, a theorist's fiction".
Test 3: an illusion needs a better check
We call something an illusion when a better check corrects it. A stick looks bent in water, and your hand finds it straight. A mirage fades when you walk up to it. The sense of being one person has checks too: your memory, your family, your signature, the promise you kept, the plan you finished. They agree that you are the one who began them. Memory can slip on a detail, and the other checks then correct it. Nothing has corrected the whole. A theory is not such a check, and neither is a state of mind. Each is one more thing to be tested. A centre of gravity is a useful point with no inner life. You know your life from the inside, and the page "Can consciousness be explained by matter alone?" shows why that has not been explained away. So the word "illusion" has not been earned.
Compares the self to a centre of gravity. A centre of gravity is a useful abstract object, "a theorist's fiction", and not one of the real things in the universe in addition to the atoms. Dennett says a self is also "an abstract object, a theorist's fiction".
“On the earth are signs for those of assured Faith, As also in your own selves: Will ye not then see?”
Test 4: what meditation can and cannot show
Deep meditation can quiet the sense of "I", and people who report this are telling the truth about what they felt. But the sense of self stops every night as well. Hume wrote that in sound sleep he "may truly be said not to exist". Then he woke, the same man, and went on with his book. So the sense of self can stop while the person goes on. People who look inward also report opposite things. Teachers of Advaita, a Hindu school, look inward and teach that the true self is Brahman. The Pali texts say all things are not-self. Within Buddhism, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra calls the Buddha-nature, what makes every being able to become a Buddha, the Self. The page "Which texts are the Buddha's word?" shows this. These cannot all be the last word. So an inner state tells you about that state. It does not settle what exists.
“When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist.”
“Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self. Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas.”
“All things are not-self— when this is seen with wisdom, one grows disillusioned with suffering: this is the path to purity.”
Test 5: can anyone live by it?
Hume could not keep hold of his doubts outside his study. After dinner, backgammon and friends, he wrote, they seemed "cold, and strained, and ridiculous". He meant all the doubts of his book, not the self alone. Parfit wrote that his own view was very hard to believe, though he could hold it when he reasoned it through. He expected never to lose completely his older belief. Everyone who calls the self an illusion still keeps promises, saves for old age and grieves. A Buddhist teacher will answer that this is only convention, and the Buddha too used the world's common words. But if the word "self" serves in every part of life, and no check corrects it, then "illusion" adds only a claim about what is ultimately there. That is the claim the Buddha would not make to Vacchagotta. What this means for guilt and justice is on the page about karma and rebirth.
“I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”
Argues that a person's existence just consists in a brain, a body and a series of connected events, and that personal identity is not what matters. He says that persons exist, though a complete description of reality could leave them out. He writes that the Buddha would have agreed (section 92, p. 273). His Appendix J, "Buddha's View", quotes the Milindapanha, a nun's verse to Mara, the Visuddhimagga and Vasubandhu, with sayings Vasubandhu gives as the Buddha's. It does not mention Vacchagotta. He writes that the view is very hard to believe but possible, at the reflective or intellectual level, and that he expects never to lose completely his intuitive belief in the older view (section 94, p. 280). He says that giving up the older view felt like leaving a glass tunnel for the open air (section 95, the opening of chapter 13).
“These are the world's common usages, definitions, expressions, and descriptions, which the Realized One uses to communicate without getting stuck on them.”
“"Worthy Gotama, does the self survive?" But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. "Then does the self not survive?" But for a second time the Buddha kept silent.”
Looking within finds no selfThat search only finds what appears in attention.
The brain builds the sense of "I"The brain builds sight too, and the chair is still there.
It only seems realNo better check has corrected it.
Meditation quiets itSo does sound sleep, and the same person wakes.
A person can live by the claimParfit found his own view very hard to believe.
What the watcher sees rightly
Watching the mind does teach something true. Thoughts pass. A mood is not the whole of you. Clinging brings pain. The Qur'an says as much. Its story of Joseph gives the words that the human soul is "certainly prone to evil" unless God (﷾) shows mercy. It calls the life of this world "goods and chattels of deception". The page "Is the world an illusion (maya)?" takes up the world itself. So Islam agrees that the grasping ego is a real problem, and that nothing passing can be leaned on. It does not conclude that no one is there. It calls the soul to be purified.
“"Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."”
“Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.”
A real soul that God (﷾) knows and keeps
The Qur'an treats the soul as real. God (﷾) gave it its order and made its wrong and its right known to it. He knows what it whispers, and He is nearer to a person than the jugular vein. He takes it at death, and in sleep. Those on whom He has decreed death He keeps back, and the rest He sends back for a term. This fits what Test 4 found. The feeling of self can stop, because the person never rested on that feeling. The soul is held by God (﷾), not by your attention. So a Muslim need not grip the self, and need not deny it. Because the soul is real, it answers for itself. He succeeds who purifies it, and he fails who corrupts it. Muslims claim no more about its nature than God (﷾) has told them. The Qur'an says of the spirit that people have been given only a little knowledge. Yusuf Ali words that verse as "the Spirit (of inspiration)". Ibn Kathir records a report from Ibn Abbas that the question was about the spirit in the body. So the soul is not offered as something a scan would show.
“By the Soul, and the proportion and order given to it; And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-”
“It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.”
“It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that die not (He takes) during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back (from returning to life), but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.”
“Truly he succeeds that purifies it, And he fails that corrupts it!”
“Nay, man will be evidence against himself, Even though he were to put up his excuses.”
“They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)"”
| Question | The Pali texts | The modern claim | The Qur'an |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a self? | The Buddha kept silent. | No. It only seems so. | Yes: a real soul that God (﷾) knows and keeps. |
| What is the problem? | Taking not-self as self. | Believing in a self. | A soul left corrupted. |
| What is the cure? | Seeing each part as not-self and letting it go. | Seeing through the illusion. | Purifying the soul. |
Peace that keeps you
Many people come to this idea looking for peace. Letting go of the self promises rest from worry and regret. Islam offers rest as well, and you are not lost in it. The Qur'an says hearts find satisfaction in the remembrance of Allah (﷾). It speaks of the soul at complete rest, called back to its Lord, well pleased and well-pleasing. It also warns of a real way to lose oneself: those who forgot Allah (﷾) were made to forget their own souls. Ibn Kathir explains that they forget the good deeds that would benefit them on their return. So the self is not lost by being real. It is lost by forgetting its Maker.
“"Those who believe, and whose hearts find satisfaction in the remembrance of Allah: for without doubt in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find satisfaction.”
“(To the righteous soul will be said:) "O (thou) soul, in (complete) rest and satisfaction! "Come back thou to thy Lord,- well pleased (thyself), and well-pleasing unto Him! "Enter thou, then, among My devotees! "Yea, enter thou My Heaven!”
“And be ye not like those who forgot Allah; and He made them forget their own souls! Such are the rebellious transgressors!”
An invitation to look at the Qur'an
What you are decides how you should live. The case for Islam does not rest on a feeling of calm, and the Qur'an does not ask to be taken on trust. It says that had it come from anyone but God (﷾), much discrepancy would be found in it. It also says that Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent to all people as Allah's (﷾) Messenger. Muslims ask every reader who has sat in silence and watched the mind to take one further step. Look at the Qur'an and at the last Prophet (ﷺ), and weigh what they say about the soul, its Maker and its return.
“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.”
“Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."”
Perspectives
The Pali texts and later Buddhist teaching
A Buddhist reader may say that the Buddha taught not-self, that the texts compare consciousness to an illusion, and that a person is a name for parts. The Theravada commentaries add that in the ultimate sense there is no one who suffers. A modern Theravada scholar calls the idea of self a false belief and explains the silence as care for one man.
The Dhammapada says all things are not-self. Surely that means the Buddha taught that there is no self.
Rebuttal
If that were the plain conclusion, he could have said so when asked. He kept silent, and he said a plain no would side with the annihilationists (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10). So the texts leave that question without a yes or a no. The Qur'an answers it: God (﷾) takes the soul and keeps it (39:42).
The Buddha kept silent only out of care for a confused man. To those who could understand, he taught plainly that there is no self. Walpola Rahula read the silence this way.
Rebuttal
Vacchagotta's confusion is one reason the discourse gives. But the Buddha speaks with the same reserve to his own monks. He tells them of each part "this is not my self", and that a self is "not found as a genuine fact". He also warns them off the view "My self does not survive" (Majjhima Nikaya 2). So even with them he says what is not found and stops short of the flat denial. The flat denial is Rahula's own wording. The Qur'an speaks plainly: God (﷾) takes the soul and keeps it (39:42).
The Pali texts compare consciousness to an illusion, and they call taking not-self as self a perversion of perception.
Rebuttal
Granted, and the page quotes them. The picture says consciousness is hollow, with no essence in it. It does not say no one is there. The Qur'an says something close about this world's goods, that they deceive (3:185). It still calls the soul real and answerable (91:7-10).
A person is like a chariot. There is only a word, used when the parts are assembled (Samyutta Nikaya 5.10; the Milindapanha).
Rebuttal
A chariot has no inside. It feels nothing, and it has never regretted a word or kept a promise. Other people give it its name from the outside. You know your own life before anyone names it. So the picture fits things better than it fits people.
The self is only a convention. The Buddha used the world's words without getting stuck on them, and in the ultimate sense there is suffering but no one who suffers.
Rebuttal
"No one who suffers" is Buddhaghosa's line, from the fifth century. A statement of what is ultimately there is what the Buddha would not give Vacchagotta. And no check corrects the everyday view, so nothing shows that it is the lesser truth. The Qur'an speaks of the soul plainly (39:42; 91:7-10).
The modern claim
Modern writers say that looking within finds no self, that the brain builds the sense of "I", and that deep meditation shows it to be empty. Some add that this brings freedom, and that science has found no soul.
Look within as carefully as you can. You will find thoughts and feelings, and never a self. Hume said so in 1739, and meditators say the same.
Rebuttal
That search can only find what appears in attention, as an eye does not appear among the things it sees. It shows that no passing thought is the self. Hume himself wrote that "all my hopes vanish" when he tried to explain what unites perceptions.
Brain science shows that the sense of self is built by the brain. It is a useful story, and not a fact.
Rebuttal
The brain builds sight too, and the chair is still there. Being built does not make a thing false. If it did, the claim that the self is an illusion would fall with it, because the brain built that thought as well.
A person is a series of connected events. Seeing this frees you. Parfit said it was like leaving a glass tunnel for the open air.
Rebuttal
Parfit also wrote that this view is very hard to believe. A view that brings relief is not shown to be true by the relief. A person who loves, keeps promises and answers for his deeds is more than a series of events to himself, and man will be evidence against himself (75:14).
I have felt the self disappear in deep meditation. That experience shows that it was never there.
Rebuttal
The experience is real, but the sense of self also stops in sound sleep, and the same person wakes. The Qur'an says God (﷾) takes the soul in sleep and sends it back (39:42). Teachers of Advaita, a Hindu school, look inward as well and teach the opposite, that the true self is Brahman. So the inner look does not settle it.
Science has never found a soul. So the soul is the real illusion.
Rebuttal
Islam does not offer the soul as something a scan would show. The Qur'an says people have been given only a little knowledge of the spirit (17:85). The page on consciousness shows that science has not explained your inner life either. Not finding a thing with a tool that cannot detect it shows nothing.
Belief in a self is the root of suffering. Drop it and peace follows.
Rebuttal
Greed, pride and fear do grow from the ego, and Islam says so (12:53). The cure it gives is to purify the soul, not to deny it (91:9-10). Hearts find satisfaction in remembering Allah (﷾) (13:28). Calm does not prove a teaching true. The Qur'an asks to be tested on other grounds (4:82).
The Islamic perspective
Each person is a real soul that God (﷾) shaped, knows and keeps. The grasping ego is a real problem, and the cure is to purify the soul, not to deny it. The soul at rest returns to its Lord. Muslims ask every reader to look at the Qur'an and at the last Prophet (ﷺ).
Allah (﷾) takes the souls at death, and of the living during their sleep. He keeps back those on whom He has decreed death and sends back the rest.
The soul has its wrong and its right made known to it. He succeeds who purifies it, and he fails who corrupts it.
God (﷾) created man, knows what his soul whispers, and is nearer to him than his jugular vein.
Hearts find satisfaction in the remembrance of Allah (﷾), and the soul at rest is called back to its Lord, well pleased and well-pleasing.
The Qur'an asks to be examined, and Muhammad (ﷺ) was sent to all people as Allah's (﷾) Messenger.