The Illusion of Self

> We have no direct contact with reality because everything we experience is an abstracted version of reality that has been through the processing machinery of our brains to produce experience.

This is very true.

It's been said that our minds create the whole of our reality at every moment, everything is a thought (an action), from the color, to the shape, to the relationship, to the idea.

It's also been said that if you drop that reality and simply exist in the now, a point where you stop "doing" (action) and start "being" (no action), you'll remove that separation of the "self" from the rest of the Universe and shed everything that's false, temporary, and transitional.

Abstraction is not the same as illusion.

Index of older Buddhist writings on the same subject (a mere couple of thousand years older) - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#anatta

Pertinent quote: "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

"Feeling is not self...

"Perception is not self...

"[Mental] fabrications are not self...

"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'

...

Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"

Note that Buddhism is not the only Indic philosophy to espouse 'not-self' as a pertinent subject of meditation / consideration (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman); at least Jainism and Hinduism share this theme.

Fascinating concept. For those interested (and who have not yet done so) look into Zen Buddhism, which has been teaching this lack-of-self for ages. I recommend Herrigel's "Zen in the art of Archery," and Suzuki "An Introduction to Zen Buddhism." Both Zen and the more modern take on the ego (or lack thereof) in this book are endlessly interesting.

With all due respect, it's one of the basises of Buddhist philosophy.

Don't be such an egotist! Try to come up with a clear demarcation of "self" and you will find it impossible.