Can we call nibbana as true/real/higher self?

It seems no such a teaching found in the core teachings of SN/SA suttas.


Why should it be sn suttas in the first place ? I think let alone suttas even the elders opinions like ledi/mahasi sayadaw books, meditation experiences in reddit or even quran and visuddhimagga can be used if we can prove it by experiences

The two types of nirvana are: sopadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana with a remainder), and anupadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder, or final nirvana). When someone reaches arahanthood, with the aggregates intact in this life, they still experience the world (feelings, perceptions, etc.) and their aggregates manifest in accordance with their past conditioning, etc (fuel). (For example, if an arahant sees a food item that one used to like, they would experience a pleasant feelings, etc., but without craving happening, because they have seen all things with wisdom.) - this situation is sopadhishesa-nirvana. On the other hand, anupadhishesa-nirvana is what happens when an arahant passes away (parinirvana) – then the manifestation of aggregates in samsara is over – they wouldn’t manifest again.
So, aggregates manifesting in sopadhishesa-nirvana are NOT due to ‘effluents,’ but due to ‘fuel’ accumulated in the past that continues until parinirvana.


I didn’t make time read all replies. But I find that Self-Mastery and Self-realization is used in suttas. We all have a Higher Self. Meaning it’s the best version of us. In Buddhist term, mind is originally pure but it’s defiled. Self-Mastery is reason Buddha was bodhisattva. The mind is so powerful to know future and past that’s why the Mind has a Higher Version of our Self.

1 Like

People who have an issue with saying there is no Self may consider that the Self is Empty, which is accurate, but there also is no Self, this is an accurate description of an Empty Self. Follow the Buddhist Dhamma that will lead you to Enlightenment, for behind the Philosophy of Buddhism is the Buddha, and the things that the Buddha has factually said in the Pali Suttas. You need a Healthy Faith in the Buddha’s Teachings in order to reach Enlightenment. Open your mind and believe the Buddha’s words in His Teachings.

1 Like

As I see it, you are clinging to the concept (i.e., perception) of “a Higher Version of a Self” – any kind of clinging causes us to suffer. Note that the terms “self-Mastery” and “self-realization” are conventional descriptions. When considering ultimate realities – there is no self in any of the aggregates – they all arise and cease due to causes and conditions. This understanding is what leads to peace.

1 Like

True. Faith is listed as one of five powers that are conducive to awakening. But even without a great deal of faith, if one studies the dhamma carefully (and sees it within oneself) – then it is possible to understand how much sense the teachings make.

1 Like

Very good my friend. Your making that a view also. Calm down. Understand the point my friend. I’m not saying there is a Self with capital S. As reaching Nibbana the mind-body experience the best mind state, but it was there already. Because it was the mind that didn’t see things as they are. Empty already. Nibbāna can be experienced temporarily because everything is already empty. That’s why the Higher Self is same as black implies white. Let me change it in Buddhist words for you. There is the Defiled Mind and there is the Undefiled Mind. How does a person see past life? With the power of the Undefiled Mind in Meditation. Everything work in duality in the world. “Self“ is the defiled mind who thinks in terms me and other, inferior and superior and non-self is the Undefiled Mind which doesn’t think in terms of me and other, doesn’t think in duality. You can speak with a pure mind or with a dirty mind. Everyone speak as if Buddha never knew things are “infinite”. He just used empty as the correct meaning for it. In Jhana state he says Infinite Consciousness. Drop a stone in a hole that reaches far down the earth and there is no sound to listen. Time to just understand the point of these spiritual terms. While your living on this earth, there is Dhamma to guide you. It’s your opened Dhamma eye that makes you be able to make good choices. The Dhamma of the wise never dies. Before or after Buddha there will always be enlightenment. That’s why there is private Buddhas.

Could you define what higher self is ?

In my own words. It’s what can see what you cant see. So it’s obviously non-self. I use pendulum to ask who will win election. And the answer that came out happened. Why is that possible? Because the Pure Mind(Higher Self) can see past and future. Higher Self just means what is connected to you and everything. That’s why Buddha says Nibbāna is Oneness without attachment. Everything in the world is connected up to the ancestors that is the “gods”. That’s why there is feeling of oneness. But your not that feeling. Seeing things as they are is the ability of your Higher Mind. As the brain has left and right. You have the sense of “I” for survival purpose. Without this underlying feeling the mind is already pure. This is a part of your brain that turn the feeling of mine, on and off.

Just a reminder to please stick to the EBT’s (Early Buddhist Texts) when giving replies. One of the purposes of this forum is to discuss what the Buddha actually taught, in order to get clarity and be able to separate out other beliefs and interpretations that have crept in and corrupted the teachings :pray: :thaibuddha: :dharmawheel:


To suggest we know better than pali commentators is a bad idea imo we don’t know pali like them we don’t know the context of medieval time like them

I honestly want to know how medieval monks do meditation obviously their lineage could still be traced to Buddha pretending that we know meditation better than them is a bad idea

Furthermore the sutta doesn’t cover every buddha words of 40 years of his dhamma, it’s possible that some of his instruction is preserved in commentaries and further in sub commentaries due to very implicit nature of dhamma otherwise the commentator would not be able to explain it that details to make it more explicit

The commentators have better reasons to accuse us of using conjecture to understand suttas Since even if they use conjectures, their conjecture is much more accurate than our conjecture

So the only argument left is the commentators use bad faith when composing the commentaries but it’s not good that we argue like this since we even don’t know whether they are arahants or not

It’s not good to us to assume that the commentators don’t want to preserve the original teaching, since we can’t generalize all commentators like that it’s possible that some commentators have more faith than us to the buddha and dhamma, it’s possible that some commentators want to preserve the Original teaching more than us wanting preserve the original teaching

Since we too are actually commentators so honestly I want to know why our assumption is better than earlier assumptions by earlier commentators, what makes it different if not due to our lack of context ?

What do we have that we have better authority to make the sutta more explicit than earlier commentators ?

The next argument is our logic is better than earlier commentators but I don’t find evidence that it’s the case

Since suttas are very implicit and dense then someone must make it more explicit so future generations can understand it like current generation understand it that’s why the commentaries were written I don’t think that we are better than earlier pali commentators regarding this very problem,I don’t think our English commentaries in this forum is better than earlier pali commentaries regarding confirmity with original teaching either


Dear @Ratana, there is no argument here about what is ‘best’ or ‘good’, or what choices people make with regards to the teachings they prefer to follow, it is simply a fact that THIS forum is set up to discuss the EBTs. Please see the forum guidelines and FAQ’s.


Our opinions are not ebt bro the pali commentators opinions were earlier than ours, they are more ebt than ours

Nibbana is a direct experience outside the ALL therefore cannot be considered as a self. It is that which experiences it!


Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.

Permanent and waiting for you to see it for yourself.


Part of the ideology of EBT movement like this forum is that we want to try to see the suttas without being overly influenced by the lens of the commentaries, Abhidhamma and all later works, as much as possible.

It’s because some of these later works has contradiction with the suttas in some places that it’s good to have some fresh look at the suttas, do comparative studies and so on to try to recover the original Buddhism as much as possible. Of course, during the process of EBT reading, sometimes some people may have extreme views, and some others disagree. Commentaries can help as an example of what the ancients think of the same texts we all read, but doesn’t have to be binding, as the few examples of contradiction with sutta shows that it’s not 100% reliable.

Those movements which would claim that commentaries can overwrite the suttas, we should trust in the commentaries 100% is called traditional Theravada, so it’s cool to advocate such a position of relying on commentaries in Theravada forum.

Please mention one case where the commentaries and sub-commentaries contradicts the sutta

My position is that earlier commentators are ebt proponents while we are lbt proponents therefore we must not invent new ideas and instead use existing ideas, instead of making assumptions about suttas we must use existing assumptions by earlier pali commentators, we have no right to claim we are better than earlier pali commentators in interpretating suttas we should not think earlier commentators never thought about our assumption obviously they consider it but for some reason they didn’t accommodate it because they thought our assumptions conflict with what the Buddha said

1 case where we can disagree with earlier commentators is where the sutta explicitly said “eye needs to be abandoned” but the commentary said it’s the greed for eye not the eye itself that needs to be abandoned, you see that even explicit sutta like that can be wrongly interpreted if we don’t use commentaries let alone implicit dense suttas

So please mention 1 case where the earlier commentators disagrees with us

Both earlier pali commentators and late English commentators like us think that only our assumption comply with what the Buddha said while others are wrong but because truth is only one therefore either early commentators or late commentators are right, it can’t be both

Now of course I want earlier commentators to be proved wrong but the living meditation tradition was cut off at 12 ce onward therefore all teachers since 12 ce didn’t practice meditation while earliest meditators since 12 ce was ajahn mun at 19 ce who practiced not according to what his teacher and buddha said due to broken lineage but he invented his own technique which was followed by ajahn chah and later ajahn brahm while living masters at 11 ce and earlier practiced their teacher instructions which can be traced back to the buddha due to unbroken lineage due to this fact for practicality sub-commentaries is very useful because of its explicit nature because we can’t argue that we know better about meditation and theory than living masters at 12 ce and earlier whose lineage could still be traced back to earlier,second,third and later generation arahants, now obviously there are arahants every generation and if they disagree with commentaries and sub commentaries they will write their own pali commentaries and sub commentaries at that very time thus even though some sub commentaries and sub sub commentaries were wrong views others were not because these others were written especially to refute wrong teachings in other sub commentaries

Could you provide a source or more context for this claim?

1 Like

According to Buswell, by the 10th century vipassana was no longer practiced in the Theravada tradition, due to the belief that Buddhism had degenerated, and that liberation was no longer attainable until the coming of Maitreya.[6] According to Braun, “the majority of Theravadins and dedicated Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused on cultivating moral behavior, preserving the Buddha’s teachings (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous giving.”[web 1] Southern Esoteric Buddhist practices were widespread in the whole Theravadin world before being replaced by the Vipassana movement.

The interest in meditation was re-awakened in Myanmar (Burma) in the 18th century by Medawi (1728–1816),

1 Like

When your experiencing Nibbāna and seeing things as they really are? Are you also seeing how you really are? How should that moment be? Your seeing the body-mind real nature?

I think we should just see the meaning. And try to be like Buddha. When they called him Magician.

Experiencing Nibbāna the person becomes truly Happy. Experiencing Nibbāna is the Highest Happiness. So is there is a lowest happiness, the happiness of the body-mind? Thinking in terms of I am. Then the Highest Happiness is not thinking in terms of I am.

Where what Buddha called Higher Mind that’s what we as Buddhist should consider Higher Self. Not as people see it. As soul. But understand meaning. Like Jhana is possible because the mind has the capacity to go into it already.

the four jhānas that constitute the higher mind and are pleasant dwellings in this very life

Buddha taught us how to adapt very good in sutta.