Question about wrong views about self

Okay in that case if you take “with not-self” to mean “as understood”, then your statement “seeing not-self with not-self” means “seeing not-self as understood”.
So are you basically stating “seeing the teaching of not-self as understood” or simply understanding “not-self” teaching - that is not regarding the five grapsing aggregates as self, having-self, in self, self in it?
That too are mental concepts/views. The simile of raft states that even the teaching is not to be clung to. The right view is a view too - thus a mental concept. (eg.: “there’s meaning in giving,…”)

That means that the following implication is incorrect, if something is a mental concept it does not mean it is not right view, it can be.

Well, if that is your impression - it is mistaken. I was sincerely asking to clear out misunderstanding and if there is a statement I believe you’ve said is incorrect I point it out out of compassion for your benefit, also hoping that if that is really the case, then it might finally resolve the question.
I consider ‘self’, ‘not-self’ as views/mental concepts. We seems to not agree on this point. You did not agree on this point because you’ve said it “would imply a mental concept… and thus not be right view” - then I pointed that “mental concept does not prevent a right view” - at this point you’ve stated the above.
However, if you’d take both ‘self’ and ‘not-self’ to be simply mental concepts, would not the question be answered?

I’ll leave this discussion if you wish with this sutta. Thou if you wish to continue later, I’ll gladly come back. (Also as I believe in Bible, I do believe in undying, unborn spirit and in God as well - as beyond the scope of logic & language; but concept of self is clearly defined in language, and associated with aggregates)

MN22:

“But can there be anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally?”

“There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha. “It’s when someone has such a view: ‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ They hear the Realized One or their disciple teaching Dhamma for the uprooting of all grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistences, and underlying tendencies regarding views; for the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. They think, ‘Whoa, I’m going to be annihilated and destroyed! I won’t even exist any more!’ They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. That’s how there is anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally.”

Mendicants, were a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘Belonging to my self’?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Were what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘My self’?”

“Yes, sir.”

“But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: ‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be that, permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”

“How could it not, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”

I will give an example because I had the wrong view of perceiving “no self with not self”. Basically it means you identify some parts as not self while you identify some parts as self.

Example: If you think thoughts are not self but an underlying mind is self, since you can’t perceive mind but you can perceive thoughts, you will perceive mind(self) through thoughts(not self).

Or if you think thoughts as not self & controller(I) which can not be perceived - Then you will say I perceive controller/doer(self) through intentions/thoughts/feelings(Not self).

1 Like

Would an example be the view that the body is “me”, ie self? The view is not-self.