Hello. What if it’s not an argument by silence? I’ll also add something, which is my opinion on how to reconcile with seeing something as self which is outside the five aggregate.
Suppose a person, experiencing the hardship of life, thought to themself “this life is difficult and distracting, with suffering,” so they strongly wished “If only I were enlightened!”, and they added even more suffering to their life by desiring this, since their hopes are not met. It seems that struggling for enlightenment is going the opposite way from it.
What is this person’s antidote? What should they understand in order to give up desire for enlightenment? By understanding that enlightenment doesn’t happen to them; not theirs; not themself…
Not having wisdom, having delusion,
if someone sees nibbāna as self,
this happens: “I desire nibbāna”.
Ironically, they wouldn’t cross over.
I think you all agree enlightenment couldn’t possibly literally be self, so taking this as true…
Why would someone desire the absence of phenomena,
pain to go away, ending of existence, nothingness?
Is it not because they take those as ‘things’, and take that as self,
even though they aren’t actually self?
We see the absence of stuff as tangible,
but they aren’t actually.
We see feelings as tangible,
but they aren’t actually.
Yet people do take emptiness as self. How could that even be? What’s their antidote? Besides understanding that it’s just empty.
What solves this: enlightenment and emptiness not technically being self for one reason or another is just on the philosophical talking level. Is that really what not-self is about, something that’s meant to be real, life-changing, beyond words? What about the characteristic and quality of someone’s five aggregates itself?
Let’s say we can desire something and see something as self which is only from the five-aggregates, and it’s useless to say that anything outside of it is not-self, since it doesn’t involve our life at all. Now how could nibbāna be not-self?
Given that, what should the person desiring enlightenment hear as their antidote?
We are ‘trapped’ by the subjective experience, it’s everything you could possibly say is “me”, you can’t really truly touch anything outside of it, for that touch lies within that experience. That interface with the world is where this plays out: they have a thought, perception, mental formation, feeling, opinion, or view about nibbāna (without experiencing it since it’s not an experience, just like many other things like hatelessness, shameless, painless, pleasureless, blind). For the record, the divide between inside and outside is nonsense; you = nature (that’s part of why not-self is true).
If we necessarily only desire something from the aggregates, the phrase “nibbāna being not-self” would be impractical if you don’t consider that it was just referring to what you think it feels like or perceiving it beforehand, so it could really mean “perception of nibbāna is not-self”, which is more useful.
When someone sees dhammā as self or not-self (yadā paññāya passati), that “seeing” is within experience, so this isn’t explicitly a philosophical declaration.
So it’s down to taking “is” as “literal equivalence”, or taking it as “seen as”. There’s sutta talk that supports both of these at the same time, but it’s vague to divide/classify it exactly, especially since Indian systems of thought tend to take that as the same (that’s one possible reason I think “dhamma” was used, an approximately equally vague word).
It’s hard to see how something outside of the five aggregates can be taken as self, yet one takes such things as self constantly from their internal perspective. The food itself that one desires is outside of aggregates, only existing through the interface of the senses as smell, taste, or thought.
Just like saying “mangoes are not-self” is a bit weird, and isn’t included in the anattalakkhana sutta, since it’s obvious that literal plant matter isn’t whatever “self” is and a mango also is not an experience. Therefore what that phrase should probably usefully mean is “the taste/thought of mango is not-self”. On a practical meaning-of-text level, I read both of these phrases the same, and I think our mind doesn’t actually distinguish between the two without deep awareness - seeing the seen as merely the seen, a sight and the knowing of that sight totally separate. I would still actually say something like “enlightenment/a mango isn’t me or mine, so why desire attaining/eating it” to myself if I found myself desiring it.
You can also still take food as self and suffer if the food were actually a hallucination and doesn’t actually exist in physical reality. The objects in video games and the internet aren’t real yet people get really angry over it.
Thoughts of the past, future, even present, although they are trying to represent events on a timeline, of course, they are just thoughts. The seen is just the seen, the thought is just the thought. Thoughts of nirvana are just thoughts. You can’t truly touch anything “permanent”, it turns out, only thoughts of permanent things.
So, when someone sees/thinks of nothing, absence of feelings, or the absence of suffering/nibbāna, this seeing/thought is within the aggregates, then it’s part of vedanā before desire etc. We constantly desire stuff that doesn’t actually exist, in my experience. Not getting what you want is suffering. Like desiring the ending of a feeling, dead/absent relatives, nihilism, lost times, a feeling that we don’t have, physical objects elsewhere. We may see all of those as existent, but it’s just some kind of mental object, and it doesn’t exist, maybe even physically.
Hopefully my suggestions may be of use for you to be peaceful.