user-1: I'm energetically trying to uproot the view of self, meaning, the sense that there is a subject of experience.
I have read/heard authors such as Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein say that the self as a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."

Sam Harris, Page 92
The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of
experience in each present moment— the feeling of being a thinker of
thoughts inside one’s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant
of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a
kind of vehicle.
And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found— and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears.
Josteph Goldstein, No-Self (17:00)
Losing the self is not necessary, you don’t have to get rid of the
self because it is not there in the first place.

Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?

user111: Knowing is a part of the experience. An experience is merely the arising and vanishing of the five aggregates: Rupa(form), Vedana(feeling), Sanna(perception), Sankhara(mental formations), Vinnana(knowing/awareness).
If the meditation is done correctly, the awareness can be seen as merely an aspect of the experience along with the other 4 that comes and goes. Not as a person.

user43: -- Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
No, the feeling that there is a subject of experience is real. The illusion is real. This is like rainbow - the appearance is real, it's just not indicative of its real nature. When you get closer and start looking carefully it disappears and you only see the individual components.
-- "Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?"
The actual subject is unreal, it is inferred. When you stop inferring it, you will clearly see that the experience occurs without a subject. Experience is all there is. Then, from memory, comes an attitude to the experience, which then becomes a thought about the experience. Neither the memory nor the attitude nor the thought are the subject of experience. We infer that "the direction" the thought/attitude comes from -- must be the subject. But if we examine what lies in that direction - all we find is our memory of past experiences.
The feeling of "subject being aware of itself" only occurs when we turn attention to reflect upon our mind - in which case "the experience" comes from manas as opposed to an external organ, but the memory/attitude/thought sequence remains the same. See my answer to How to experience Anatta for a detailed analysis of this state. The bottom line is, it is only a thought following (experience of a) thought. If you look carefully, there is no subject.

-1: <p>I'm energetically trying to uproot the view of self, meaning, the sense that there is a subject of experience.</p>
<p>I have read/heard authors such as Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein say that the self as a subject of experience &quot;cannot be found&quot; or &quot;is not there in the first place.&quot;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sam Harris, <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1451636024" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Page 92</a></p>
<p>The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of
experience in each present moment— the feeling of being a thinker of
thoughts inside one’s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant
of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a
kind of vehicle.</p>
<p>And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found— and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears.</p>
<p>Josteph Goldstein, <a href="https://beherenownetwork.com/joseph-goldstein-insight-hour-ep-28-cutting-identification-consciousness/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">No-Self (17:00)</a></p>
<p>Losing the self is not necessary, you don’t have to get rid of the
self because it is not there in the first place.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a <em>feeling</em> that there is a subject of experience &quot;cannot be found&quot; or &quot;is not there in the first place.&quot;?</p>
<p>Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?</p>
 111: <p>Knowing is a part of the experience. An experience is merely the arising and vanishing of the five aggregates: Rupa(form), Vedana(feeling), Sanna(perception), Sankhara(mental formations), <strong>Vinnana(knowing/awareness)</strong>.</p>

<p>If the meditation is done correctly, the awareness can be seen as merely an aspect of the experience along with the other 4 that comes and goes. Not as a person.</p>
 43: <p>-- <em>Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a <strong>feeling</strong> that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?</em></p>

<p>No, the <em>feeling</em> that there is a subject of experience is real. The illusion is real. This is like rainbow - the appearance is real, it's just not indicative of its real nature. When you get closer and start looking carefully it disappears and you only see the individual components.</p>

<p>-- <em>"Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?"</em></p>

<p>The actual subject is unreal, it is inferred. When you stop inferring it, you will clearly see that the experience occurs without a subject. Experience is all there is. Then, from memory, comes an attitude to the experience, which then becomes a thought about the experience. Neither the memory nor the attitude nor the thought are the subject of experience. We <em>infer</em> that "the direction" the thought/attitude comes from -- must be the subject. But if we examine what lies in that direction - all we find is our memory of past experiences.</p>

<p>The feeling of "subject being aware of itself" only occurs when we turn attention to reflect upon our mind - in which case "the experience" comes from manas as opposed to an external organ, but the memory/attitude/thought sequence remains the same. See my answer to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26577/43">How to experience Anatta</a> for a detailed analysis of this state. The bottom line is, it is only a thought following (experience of a) thought. If you look carefully, there is no subject.</p>
