acinteyyo wrote: What they know is all things are not-self. . . But they certainly can make statements about reality. . .
So when all things are not-self there isn't anything left which is or belongs to a self all you can say is that all things are not a self or do not belong to a self.
Then we're not anymore talking about things which are accessible through perception (because all things, the world and everything is already not-self, and we can't say anything about which is beyond). There isn't anything left which is perceivable and therefore there isn't anything which could be labeled "no self". It is now very difficult for me to find the right words.
acinteyyo, do you have a sutta reference for the above? I'd be most grateful to be pointed towards a sutta in which the Buddha is talking about only being able to talk about that which is accessible through perception.
My understanding is that the Buddha's teaching about anatman was in direct reaction against the Vedic concept of atman, and that atman was an "eternal, unchanging, separate self". So then what the Buddha said was that the evidence of our investigations in looking for that self (atman) and what belongs to it would show us that there is no "eternal, unchanging, separate self" to be found. Further, that everything arises from causes so nothing is eternal, nothing is unchanging, nothing is entirely separate (except nibbana). However, this leaves room for there to be something to do with "self" that is not eternal, is changing, and is not separate that moves from life to life but THAT WE CANNOT LOCATE THROUGH OUR SENSES. There could be something soul-like that changes and moves through lives BUT we have no evidence for it, we can therefor garner no information about it -- not the rules it follows nor its properties -- so it is MOOT.
What the Buddha taught is a method to end suffering starting NOW using the evidence of this life. Anything that we cannot access through perception is useless speculation.
I'm hoping that states, in a different way, what you were trying to say about "things which are accessible through perception . . . and we can't say anything about which is beyond".