Basically, yes.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:58 amThe above is by Sister Vajira.The above appears to say form, feeling, perception, formations & consciousness are not-self. I does not appear to be an attempt to deconstruct the self. Instead, it appears to be the insight revealed about examination of body & mind. You appear to be placing the cart before the horse. When Gotama undertook the Noble Search, was he searching to deconstruct the Self?pegembara wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:51 amAn another -
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
Also deconstructing both the cart and the horse
(The examples of the butcher, and the chariot).
By pointing out that nothing identifiable as a ‘self’ can be found anywhere in the body (or outside of it) he draws one to the conclusion that nothing truly ‘exists’ which can be identified as ‘self’.
Why is this the conclusion arrived at?
Because to truly ‘exist’ as the condition of self-being, it must mean that whatever one is identifying is not merely a collection of parts, and does not arise or pass away conditionally but rather, is self-arising and cannot be divided into components. In other words, atman.
But the Buddha never says, “here is the self, but it doesn’t exist”. Nor does the Buddha deny that the experience of a self occurs. Indeed, it is that experience and clinging to it, which is why we have the suffering the Buddha sought to remedy.