Son of Buddha wrote:your statement has nothing to do with what I posted....I simply pointed out that to view Enlightenment as a Phenomena is a substantialist view.
Everything including Nirvana is a phenomena, however, Nirvana is an unconditioned phenomena/unconditioned dharma, while the aggregates and so forth are conditioned dharmas/phenomena.
Substantialist view does not lie in describing the dharmas/phenomena on a conventional level. Substantialist view lies in establishing the svabhava, or intrinsic essence, of these dharmas/phenomena. Substantialist view also lies in establishing a self, including the True Self that you promulgate. To state that Nirvana is more than empty phenomena or that it is a substantially existing True Self is to fall into a substantialist view.
To clearly comprehend that even Nirvana is empty and illusory*, is to be free from substantialist views.
* "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion." ~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra
the Suttas actually reject the idea that Enlightenment is No-Self,in fact the suttas state No Self leads to suffering and is suffering.
First of all, I never said that enlightenment is no-self, as no-self or anatman is the nature of dharmas, it is always already the case. If anatman were enlightenment, then everyone in the world would have been enlightened, because every person's mind, every dharma, that anyone has experienced is by nature already anatman.
Awakening is not anatman *but the direct realization or knowledge of anatman*. That knowledge is also by nature anatman, but it is a specific knowledge that must manifest from one's practice and contemplation, otherwise one remains deluded and under bondage of the false views and conceit of self/I Am.
You are completely misunderstanding the suttas. The suttas simply states a very factual observance: 1) the aggregates are subject to suffering: birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain (be it physical and mental), etc. 2) because these aggregates are not self, not I or mine, there is no control or agency involved that could stop these suffering.
The Buddha never said that No Self leads to suffering, he is saying that because there is no Self, suffering could occur and are not under the control of a Self. Or as Buddhaghosa said, "Suffering is, no sufferer". If there were a Self/Controller, then suffering will not be occurring because you can control them anytime and they will stop. This is not the case. Suffering arise due to causal conditions based on Ignorance.
Selfhood involves: 1) agency/control, and are 2) permanent, and 3) independent, and 4) separate. If anything fulfills such criterias, we could say that a Self can be established. But such a self cannot be found and is a mere delusion. Aggregates happen by causality and not self-agency, aggregates are impermanent (and there is also no permanent self behind or observing them), everything is dependently originating and there is no separate self distinct from these aggregates.
By the ending of Ignorance via penetrating the deep profound truths of no-self, dependent origination and emptiness, there is release from the entire afflictive causal chain that leads to suffering.
4 (2)-34 (12) Subject to Mara, tc.
... "Radha, you should abandon desire, you should abandon lust, you should abandon desire and lust, for whatever is subject to Mara ' ..  ". for whatever is impermanent ... for whatever is of an impermanent nature for whatever is suffering ...
for whatever is of a painful nature for whatever is nonself ' .. for whatever is of a selfless nature ... for whatever is subject to destruction ... for whatever is subject to vanishing ... for what¬ever is subject to arising ... for whatever is subject to cessation. And what, Radha, is subject to cessation? Form is subject to ces¬sation. Feeling ... Perception ... Volitional formations ... Consciousness is subject to cessation. Seein thus ' .. He understands:
there is no more for this state of being.''
as you can see you are supposed to abandon the Idea of No-Self,seeing as No self is what belongs to Mara, No Self was actually used by the Buddha to describe what was NOT Enlightenment.
You are misinterpreting the suttas. It does not say "you must abandon the idea of No-Self". It says you must abandon lust and desire for what is not self. This is of course true, if you still have the slightest desire or lust for anything at all then you have not accomplished total Nirvana.
Furthermore the suttas say: Blissful is passionlessness in the world, The overcoming of sensual desires; But the abolition of the conceit "I am" — That is truly the supreme bliss
In Bahiya Sutta and Malunkyaputta Sutta it is taught: "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
The suttas also say that the perception and recognition of anatta should be cultivated, and that it leads to liberation: SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta (abridged):
Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.
It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.
"Son of Buddha"(2)so if Enlightenment is without self nature then it belongs to mara and should be abandoned correct? (Yes or No)
This is a wrong question. First of all, Buddha never say "what is without self nature is Mara". The Buddha said there that forms, feelings, volition, perception and consciousness are Mara. He is describing "the mara of the aggregate factors of experience". Nirvana is not-self but it is not the five aggregates* - it is the cessation of afflictions (passion, aggression and delusion) therefore it is not Mara. Awakening does not lead to attachment to Mara but rather it leads to the release of bondage (clinging to) of Mara.
According to the Buddhism's term, there are four types of Mara (the sutta you quoted is talking about number 3), namely:
1. the mara of death (the Lord of Death),
2. the mara of disturbing emotions and attitudes,
3.the mara of the aggregate factors of experience (the five aggregates),
4. the Mara who is the son of the gods. (Devaputta Mara)
*Note: Nirvana does not fall under the scheme of the Five Aggregates that classify conditioned dharmas, however it falls under the scheme of the Twelve Ayatanas and Eighteen Dhatus which covers all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. "The 'meritorious qualities' (gunas) and the bodies and lands of the Tathagatas are comprised in the Skandhas, Ayatanas, and Dhatus, as it is fitting that they should be so comprised; but the Skandhas, etc., may be pure (anasrava) or impure (sasrava). ... It is certain that the qualities, bodies, etc., of the Buddha are comprised in the Dhatus. - Why? Because, according to the texts, all Samskrtas (conditioned dharmas) are comprised in the five Skandhas, all dharmas are comprised in the eighteen Dhatus and the twelve Ayatanas ; there is no nineteenth Dhatu (Vimalakirti). ... Let us therefore conclude that the eighteen Dhatus are found in the body of the Buddha but are absolutely pure (anasrava)." (Ch'eng Wei-Shih Lun, p 787-789, tr. Wei Tat)
Malcolm: The Sabbasutta is just a description of the twelve āyatanas. The twelve āyatanas contain all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, including the supreme Dharma, nirvana.
The twelve āyatanas: eye | form ear | sound nose | scent tongue | tastes body | tactiles mind | dharmas
That is it. There are no phenomena taught in any buddhist teachings that can go beyond this list. The dharma āyatana contains the aggregates of sensation, ideation and formations (vedanasamjñā̄saṃskaraskandha), as well as space and the two kinds of cessation. When the twelve āyatanas are broken out in to the eighteen dhātus, the dharma āyatana changes its name to the dharmadhātu. Mano āyatana, the mind ayatanā is the aggregate of consciousness, vijñāna skandha, and the ten material āyatanas, eye, form, etc, are the rūpaskandha.
your not getting what I am trying to say. the sutta is saying you are to abandon anything that is without Self nature cause it is what belongs to mara,IF Enlightenment was without Self nature then it would also need to be abandoned by you cause it would be suffering also.
Every dharma including Nirvana is not self and are not meant to be clung to. The Buddha stated in Mulaparipaya Sutta that the Buddha does not delight in Nirvana nor conceive of Nirvana in terms of self. However, there is no need for him to abandon Nirvana, because abandoning only applies when there is clinging in the first place. If you do not even cling to anything (by definition that is Nirvana) what need is there for abandonment?
Venerable Rahula:https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawha ... of-no-soul
Those who want to find a ‘Self’ in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say that there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates.
This position is untenable for two reasons:
One is that, according to the Buddha’s teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.
The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Ātman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.
In the Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important and essential in the Buddha’s teaching. They are nos. 5, 6 and 7 of chapter XX (or verses 277, 278, 279).
The first two verses say:
‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ (Sabbe SAṂKHĀRĀ aniccā), and ‘All conditioned things are dukkha’ (Sabbe SAṂKHĀRĀ dukkhā).
The third verse says:
‘All dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe DHAMMĀ anattā).
Here it should be carefully observed that in the first two verses the word saṁkhārā ‘conditioned things’ is used. But in its place in the third verse the word dhammā is used. Why didn’t the third verse use the word saṃkhārā ‘conditioned things’ as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhammā instead? Here lies the crux of the whole matter.
The term saṃkhāra denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned, interdependent, relative things and states, both physical and mental. If the third verse said: ‘All saṃkhārā (conditioned things) are without self’, then one might think that, although conditioned things are without self, yet there may be a Self outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates. It is in order to avoid misunderstanding that the term dhammā is used in the third verse.
The term dhamma is much wider than saṃkhāra. There is no term in Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvāṇa. There is nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned, relative or absolute, which is not included in this term. Therefore, it is quite clear that, according to this statement: ‘All dhammas are without Self’, there is no Self, no Ātman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them.
This means, according to the Theravāda teaching, that there is no self either in the individual (puggala) or in dhammas. The Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy maintains exactly the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point, putting emphasis on dharma-nairātmya as well as on pudgala- nairātmya.
In the Alagaddūpama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: ‘O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavāda) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation. But, do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?’
‘Certainly not, Sir.’
‘Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation.’
If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha’s view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems, producing in its train grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.
Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:
‘O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: “The universe is that Ātman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity” – is it not wholly and completely foolish?’
Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Ātman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing.
Those who seek a self in the Buddha’s teaching quote a few examples which they first translate wrongly, and then misinterpret. One of them is the well-known line Attā hi attano nātho from the Dhammapada (XII, 4, or verse 160), which is translated as ‘Self is the lord of self’, and then interpreted to mean that the big Self is the lord of the small self.
First of all, this translation is incorrect. Attā here does not mean self in the sense of soul. In Pali the word attā is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun, except in a few cases where it specifically and philosophically refers to the soul-theory, as we have seen above. But in general usage, as in the XII chapter in the Dhammapada where this line occurs, and in many other places, it is used as a reflexive or indefinite pronoun meaning ‘myself’, ‘yourself’, ‘himself’, ‘one’, ‘oneself’, etc.
Next, the word nātho does not mean ‘lord’, but ‘refuge’, ‘support’, ‘help’, ‘protection’. Therefore, Attā hi attano nātho really means ‘One is one’s own refuge’ or ‘One is one’s own help’ or ‘support’. It has nothing to do with any metaphysical soul or self. It simply means that you have to rely on yourself, and not on others.
Another example of the attempt to introduce idea of self into the Buddha’s teaching is in the well-known words Attidīpā viharatha, attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, which are taken out of context in the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta.This phrase literally means: ‘Dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves your refuge, and not anyone else as your refuge.’ Those who wish to see a self in Buddhism interpret the words attadīpā and attasaraṇā ‘taking self as a lamp’, ‘taking self as a refuge’.
We cannot understand the full meaning and significance of the advice of the Buddha to Ānanda, unless we take into consideration the background and the context in which these words were spoken.”
in this sutta NO SELF IS an affliction
No, the sutta never said no self is affliction. It says what is an affliction cannot be I, me, or mine, because if there were a Self the affliction could end under the control of that Self.
the True Self isn't an individual personality,this is talking about the "self and the world" or "the Self the size of the thumb" which were the views of self of the non buddhists.
Actually that translation is not good. The more accurate translation is this:Subhuti replied, "No, World-Honored One. Why? There is no separately existing thing that can be called Arhat. If an Arhat gives rise to the thought that he has attained the fruit of Arhatship, then he is still caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, and a life span. World-Honored One, you have often said that I have attained the concentration of peaceful abiding and that in the community, I am the Arhat who has most transformed need and desire. World-Honored One, if I were to think that I had attained the fruit of Arhatship, you certainly would not have said that I love to dwell in the concentration of peaceful abiding."
The "Self" here in refutation is not merely a personal ego or self, but the very idea of an "inherently existing Self", a self that has the characteristics of independence, permanence, agency, separateness.
The Self of the non-Buddhists are much closer to your idea of a True Self than you think. Read the Advaita books, all of them are not talking about an individual self but an impersonal True Self with capital S that is all-pervasive Brahman/pure consciousness. I have not yet met a Hindu who identifies the True Self as "the Self the size of the thumb".
I myself have been through this phase of realization and experience (identifying the all-pervasive Awareness or Brahman as the True Self). Fortunately with right guidance I was able to penetrate deeper with insight that allowed me to transcend the views of substantialism/Self.
this sutta makes it very clear that the reason the 5 aggregates lead to suffering is BECAUSE they ARE NO SELF.
O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering
in fact if the 5 aggregates were Self they would not lead to suffering.
this entire sutta is actually claiming that Not Self is the reason for the suffering
You are still not understanding what the sutta is saying. As I explained, The Buddha never said that No Self leads to suffering, he is saying that because there is no Self, suffering could occur and are not under the control of a Self. Or as Buddhaghosa said, "Suffering is, no sufferer". If there were a Self/Controller, then suffering will not be occurring because you can control them anytime and they will stop. This is not the case. Suffering arise due to causal conditions based on Ignorance.
Not-Self is *not* the reason for suffering, the reason for suffering is craving (four noble truths), and ignorance (twelve links of dependent arising). Not-Self merely *enables* suffering to occur, because if aggregates were self, then all sufferings could be stopped by hard will and control of an agent/controller/Self. There is no such Self.
next you mention that IT IS NOT YOURS.....okay so what is yours???????
Not one dharma is I, me, or mine.
‘All dhammas are without self’ (Sabbe DHAMMĀ anattā).
you do realize that whether you say "suffering is not self" or "Not Self is suffering" that it is saying the same exact thing just written backwards.
what does the sutta say?? that what is suffering IS Not Self.
There never was a self, suffering or not suffering.“Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found.
Actions exist, but no doer of actions is there.
Nirvana exists, but no one who enters it.
The Path exists, but no traveler can be seen.”
the 4 noble truths is the termination of suffering,and no self is suffering.
What is suffering is empty of self. That freedom from suffering (Nirvana) is also empty of self.
P.S. visuddhimagga quotes are not definite also they contradict the Self Doer teachings found in the AN
There is no contradiction at all. You simply have to understand the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth.
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el414.html
"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.
"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Lastly ill add this
The Buddhas teach that emptiness
Removes, without fail, all clinging to views,
But those who cling to the view of emptiness
Are said to be incorrigible.
Clinging to the view of emptiness only occurs when there is establishment of the extremes of existence and non-existence."The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected." - Malcolm