Can't make sense of rebirth AND no self.

[beeblebrox]

It is a categorical and unequivocal denial of self [ . . . ]

If there was no self, then why does one have to prove that in the first place? (Or try to find all the infos that appear to affirm its non-existence, or tries to frame them in that way.)

If one wants to prove that the self exists, then why does he need to do that? (Or try to find all the infos that appear to affirm its existence, or tries to frame them in that way.)

The ideas of self and no self = a big thicket... or an endless entanglement for those who don't know any better.

[easylite]

If there was no self, then why does one have to prove that in the first place?

It is not so much that there is no self, but rather the self is illusion/delusion/confusion that convinces us it is real when we let it.

There is no self, there is no mirage.... there is no spoon;)

The ideas of self and no self = a big thicket... or an endless entanglement for those who don't know any better.

Yes I think so, but I suspect that the thicket is caused by expecting deep - or complex - answers when the answer is very simple.

[beeblebrox]

It is not so much that there is no self, but rather the self is illusion/delusion/confusion that convinces us it is real when we let it.

That's right,"no self" is a part of that illusion. It doesn't transcend it. Every time someone tries to deny the "self," he would have to perceive what he thinks that this "self" is, before he could deny it.

There's really no way that one could get around this. That was why the Buddha said that annihilationism wasn't a valid view... it will never lead one to the nibbāna, which is a total, complete unbinding.

[easylite]

That's right,"no self" is a part of that illusion. It doesn't transcend it. Every time someone tries to deny the "self," he would have to perceive what he thinks that this "self" is, before he could deny it.

Maybe, but not in every case. Again, its not complex:) "Self" may just be a shorthand for one of many things and perspectives that we confuse for more than it is.

That was why the Buddha said that annihilationism wasn't a valid view... it will never lead one to the nibbāna, which is a total, complete unbinding.

You seem very sure of these views!:)

[beeblebrox]

Maybe, but not in every case. Again, its not complex:) "Self" may just be a shorthand for one of many things and perspectives that we confuse for more than it is.

If we're strictly talking about the Dhamma, I think the "self" refers to atman... the universal "self." It's a delusion.

That was why the Buddha said that annihilationism wasn't a valid view... it will never lead one to the nibbāna, which is a total, complete unbinding.

You seem very sure of these views!:)

Of course... there's no doubt about the annihilationism being an invalid view. The Buddha himself said so, unless you're talking about the annihilation of greed, hatred and delusion.

[easylite]

If we're strictly talking about the Dhamma, I think the "self" refers to atman... the universal "self." It's a delusion.

((I need to be careful not to get lost in the swamp here:) ))

(If one talks about Dharma then one talks about truths true of all things, there is no ring fence, at least not that I am aware of.)

The view that atman is peculiar to beings is a compelling and sensible view.

I find it helpful personally to see this issue as is more about inherence as an impossible property of all things, people, souls, chairs , planets and.... spoons!

So to me there is nothing special about ego delusions over and above any wrong view of inherence.

Of course... there's no doubt about the annihilationism being an invalid view.

I agree that it is a mistaken view of reality, but I think this belief can be doubted and I think that its certainly not refuted from within dharma.

Its not as if we are presented with two extreme views and then these views are refuted and the middle path revealed. It seems more that the views are presented and not refuted except by association that "they do not lead away from attachment and towards happiness".

You know, I am trying to practice removing views and beliefs and "I" and "my" from my thoughts and talks here, it's so very hard!

The Buddha himself said so...

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, either way the Dharma remains.