Let me quote something from there.
Cooran (moderator of Dhammawheel) pointed out that a note to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of this sutta is worth considering:
‘’We should carefully heed the two reasons that the Buddha does not declare, ‘’There is no self’’: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating ‘’a strategy of perception’’ devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that ‘all phenomena are nonself’’ (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since ‘’all phenomena’’ includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self."
(Part of Note 385 on Page 1457 of The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi).)
this has nothing to do with the suttas I provided,its not commentary on the ACTUAL suttas its simply reification of one owns traditions views.
for instance he tries to claim that Enlightenment is a phenomena, this is an entirely substantialist view,Enlightenment is not a phenomena nor is it a product of this phenomena reality.
second and most importatnt the sutta itself refutes his views which is why he doesnt even try to comment on the actual sutta cause if he did he would end up with what Im about to ask you.
based on the (SN 23.24)
4 (2)-34 (12) Subject to Mara, tc.(I wont reference the suttas again you know where to find them to reference the questions)
(1)does this sutta state that Whatever is of a Selfless nature belongs to/is subject to mara and you should abandon it??? (Yes or No)
(2)so if Enlightenment is without self nature then it belongs to mara and should be abandoned correct? (Yes or No)
Based on SN 22.59
(3)does this sutta not state that No self leads to suffering? (Yes or No)
(4) does this sutta state that IF the 5 aggregates WERE SELF they would not lead to suffering? (Yes or No)
(5) if Enlightenment has NO Self then it would lead to suffering correct? (Yes or No)
(6)if Enlightenment WERE Self then it would NOT lead to suffering Correct? (Yes or No)
Based on SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
(7)does this sutta state that No self is Suffering?(Yes or No)
(8) if Nirvana has no self then that would mean it is suffering correct?(Yes or No)
(9)isn't Nirvana the end of suffering or are the 4 noble truth a lie?(Yes or No)
as you can see,once you actually answer the questions in direct relation to the actual suttas in question there is no room for the Idea that Nirvana is without a self
Here, the Buddha clarifies:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
this supports my position.and is my point exactly Enlightenment is NOT the 5 aggregates it only uses realitive phenomena when it is in the realm of realitive phenomena
this further supports the transcendent aspect of Nirvana./
"When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.
if would be like me saying I AM NOT a hand,this does not mean I do not use a hand just that I am simply NOT the hand itself.
And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:
As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."
the 5 aggregates are not the self
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html
And Padmasambhava states:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
this support my position,also its in reference to the idea of the self of non buddhists which is based on the 5 aggregates
And Nagarjuna states:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”
thats what I said earlier
And the Vajira Sutta states:
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."
Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.
And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions.
nothing you said has anything to do with that passage whatsoever,that passage is simply saying their is no self in the 5 aggregates.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html
“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”
“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself  — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”
]Nothing here suggests that Tathagatahood means a changeless, independent Self. Tathagatagarbha, in the Lankavatara Sutra is just another means of demonstrating emptiness.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
this is not denying the true self only the philosophers idea of self.
also you say the Tathagatagarbha is just another means for demonstrating emptiness.............okay to what is the Tathagatgarbhas teachings on emptiness?
Queen Srimala Sutra Chapter IX
The Underlying Truth:
The Meaning of Emptiness
“O Lord, the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata’s wisdom of
O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen nor attained
originally by all the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas.
“O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to
The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from,
free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments.
And the tathāgatagarbha
that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different
from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the
sands of the Ganges River.
“O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with
reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness.
All arhats and pratyekabuddhas
revolve in the realm of the four contrary views because of their knowledge
Thus, arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not originally see nor
attain [the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha].
Son of Buddha
your incorrect about what the early doctrines of Buddhism state, also the pali canon doesnt even support non duality Bhikkhu Bodhi actually wrote a extensive paper on the subject..........essentially there is conditioned and Unconditioned..ect
The not-conditioned in the Pali canon simply means the cessation of afflictions.[/quote]
your reply had nothing to do with the topic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_27.html
At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to change, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha's repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned existence.