"There are many sources in the Dharma where Buddha talks about what is not the self."
I agree with this provided what you mean is something called 'attta' (pali), aatman (sanskrit) is not to be found anywhere, I repeat anywhere, in the Buddha's (the Tathaagata) experience. The basic characteristic of this atta is that it survives what we call death and therefore brings about continuity of the individual and so on.
-----------------------------
"I would suggest you read the Alagaddūpama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya to see what Buddha has to say about this." Thank you, I read it again. It is about the wrong -view of Ari.t.tha. During the course of the exposition the Buddha explains why nothing could be considered as I, me or mine.
----------------------------
"For the most part this world is dependent on a duality,on the notion of existence or non-existence. But for the
one seeing the origin of the world as it really is, with correct wisdom,
there is no notion of non-existence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it
really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence with respect to
the world." (Bodhi, 2000, page 544. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha. Boston: Shambhala)."
This is a sutta that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. If you go to the very end of the sutts the Buddha says: "ete te kaccaana ubho ante anupagamma majjhena dmamma.m deseti. AVIJJAA PACCAYAA SA.NKHAARAA..." Now this 'majjhena dhammma (Dhamma by the middle) is "Avijjaa paccayyaa ..."; and is PA.TICCASAMUPPAADA. A subject totally beyond me as a puthujjana. [Therefore, I believe, the English translators of the Suttas]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However we use these concepts of "be" and "self" all the time to relate to each other, communicate and conduct ourselves in the world. They have a certain conventional validity and usefulness (if we don't take them seriously), but no ultimacy.
What do you mean "ultimacy"? But just tell me, can we function in this world without the concepts "be" and "self?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed One who bears his final body, He might still say, ‘I speak,’ And he might say, ‘They speak to me’ Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions.”
(Buddha speaking in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, SN
I 14, Connected Discourses, Bodhi 2000, 102 )
The purpose of this sutta is to explain that an arahnt has no 'conceit' (maana). That is he viitaraaga viitadosa, vittamoha. (Totlally eradicated, greed hatred and delusion.) If one does not have these three then then he doesn't have I, me and mine.
D. G. D. C. Wijeratna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]