I am not sure you understood me there. I am not suggesting that the ātman is the psychophysical body with its skandhas.
I am saying that is the conventional perception (the view of pṛthagjana-s / puthujjana-s) that early-Buddhism takes as its pūrvapakṣa and seeks to seeks to dislodge. Early-Buddhism says the conventionally held ātman (the body with its skandhas) is actually anātman, as they are anitya, and conduce to duḥkha. This is not my opinion, this is merely me translating into English what the Pali says. Thus our disagreement appears to stem from our differences in understanding the source.
Not sure what you mean there. To say that the skandhas are conventionally real (in saṃsāra) is not an unconventional interpretation. They are as real as everything we see around us. Nobody has suggested otherwise as far as I know.
Can we agree this is outside the scope of this thread?
Sure, but since the arguments you made about the actual topic included this, I thought to respond about this would also form part of the discussion.
I am not saying that was your view. However, claiming the 5 khandhas are “real” says nothing about whether a “perception” of a “self” is real or not. Your posts in other threads represent an unconventional view, which I sympathise with but don’t necessarily agree with.
More importantly, what the Buddha said was that what we normally perceive as the “self” is generated by the 5 khandhas, is not permanent, and therefore is not “atta”. The Buddha doesn’t then try to define whether there was a “self” or not, he in fact goes out of his way to state the existence/non existence of a “self” is a tetralemma.
I am trying to respect the Buddha by not entering into any discussions pertaining to whether there is a self or not, and what it might be, as I agree with the Buddha - it’s not relevant and counter productive.
I hope you will respect my wishes. If you really wish to discuss this, why don’t you contribute to the multitude of threads already discussing this subject (I’ve noticed you’ve already been very active in some of them). I hope you won’t mind if I don’t join you there.
It is not the perception (of the ātman) that is impermanent, rather it is the things that are described as anātman which are impermanent - so I think you are superimposing your preconceptions on the source text - but I dont want to belabour the point, thanks for engaging.
But that’s not what I said. A “perception” of a “self” is just a perception, it exists only in the mind and nowhere else. It doesn’t exist in “spacetime”. Both the “perception” as well as the “self” that is perceived are impermanent.
I am not going to enter into a debate about whether “anatta” means “no self” or “not self” - again, I wish to avoid discussing this altogether.
