A very summery of Buddhist teaching gives the impression that the Buddha proposed his doctrine to refute erroneous Brahmanic views, but in the suttas, the Buddha calls himself a Brahmin.
Itivuttaka 100
Catukkanipata
Brahmanadhammayagavagga
Brähmanadhammayagasutta
2.1 "Ahamasmi, bhikkhave, brahmano yacayogo sadã payatapani gntimadehadharo
anuttaro bhisakko sallakatto. Variant: payatapani → payatapãni (bj, sya-all) 2.2Tassa me tumhe putta orasã mukhato jata dhammaja dhammanimmita dhammadayada, no amisadayada.
So It Was Said 100
The Book of the Fours
The Chapter on the Brahmin’s Offering of the Teaching The Brahmin’s Offering of the Teaching
This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.
2.1"l, mendicants, am a brahmin, committed to charity, always open-handed, bearing my final body, a healer, a surgeon. 2.2 You are my true-born sons, born from my mouth, born of the teaching, created by the teaching, heirs in the teaching, not in things of the flesh.
The fact that “all phenomena are neither Atman/Attan & Atta” nor Ahamkara/Ahamkara" so completely complies with both the letter and spirit of Brahmanic philosophy that it has the force of non-refutation. The Vedic Atman and the Pali Atta/Attan are mentioned in the Canon not only to affirm the existential status of phenomena. A number of suttas contain Atman in their titles: Attantapasutta, Attadipasutta, Attanuvadasutta, Attarakkhitasutta, Attantapasutta.
Therefore, the fact that modern Buddhism does not include the concept of Atman as part of its teaching cannot be understood either from the standpoint of common sense or from the standpoint of philological intuition.
Such concepts as manas or buddhi, aham or atta, are not synonyms, and are translated into English arbitrarily, approximately, as “I” or “mind” without conveying the original meaning intended by the compilers of the Canon.
Ahankara Samyutta Nikãya 22.43
5. Attadipavagga
Attadipasutta
Savatthinidanam.
"Attadipa, bhikkhave, viharatha attasarana anaññasarang, dhammadipa
dhammasarang ananñasarans
Attadipanam, bhikkhave, vihartam attasarananam anaññasarananam
dhammadipanam chammasarananam gnaññasarananam yoni paparikkhitabba
'Kimjatikã sokaparidevadukkhadomanassypayasa, kimpahotika’ti?
Minor Collection
Dhamma Verses
The Chapter about the Self
If one regards oneself as dear one should guard oneself right well, during one of the three watches of the night the wise one should stay alert.
First one should establish oneself in what is suitable, then one can advise another, the wise one should not have any defilement.
The Canon also mentions Jiva Atman.
Dīgha Nikāya 23
Pāyāsisutta
14.12Yadā mayaṁ jānāma ‘kālaṅkato so puriso’ti, atha naṁ kumbhiṁ oropetvā ubbhinditvā mukhaṁ vivaritvā saṇikaṁ nillokema: Variant: nillokema → vilokema (sya-all, km) 14.13‘appeva nāmassa jīvaṁ nikkhamantaṁ passeyyāmā’ti. 14.14Nevassa mayaṁ jīvaṁ nikkhamantaṁ passāma. 14.15Ayampi kho, bho kassapa, pariyāyo, yena me pariyāyena evaṁ hoti: 14.16‘itipi natthi paro loko, natthi sattā opapātikā, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṁ kammānaṁ phalaṁ vipāko’”ti.
14.12When we know that that man has passed away, we lift down the pot and break it open, uncover the mouth, and slowly peek inside, thinking, 14.13‘Hopefully we’ll see his soul escaping.’ We assume that a soul must be immaterial and invisible, but clearly this was not always the case at the time. 14.14But we don’t see his soul escaping. 14.15This is how I prove that 14.16there is no afterlife.”
Concepts such as manas or buddhi, aham or atta are not synonymous and have been translated into English arbitrarily, roughly, as “self” or “mind,” without conveying the original meaning intended by the compilers of the Canon.
Ancient Indians considered transpersonal experience in its most subtle forms, which cannot be fully reduced even to the best modern frameworks or models. To conduct a discussion consistent with the Canon, it is necessary to understand that in ancient India, consciousness research was not based on any set of axioms and far exceeded what can be imagined by common sense or constructed from the theoretical frameworks of Western philosophical thought.
The Western intellectual tradition has defined a way of knowing in meta-terms and conceptual clichés, which modern people consider more reliable sources of knowledge than the multidimensional and holistic vision of the ancient Indian shastras. These concepts/terms are implicit in any movement of thought, whether we realise it or not, because they can be extracted from it. This way of organising thought demonstrates how the perception of meaning works. Experience is acquired indivisibly and only then subjected to analysis, unlike the construction of a metaphysical picture of the world from a set of ideas, which can be likened to the opposition of a living organism to an imaginary machine.
Mindfulness, the reading of experience, occurs only in one direction, from the whole to the particular. Just as it is impossible to reconstruct an unknown word from a set of letters, despite the fact that only knowledge of them makes reading possible.
But in order to understand the experience of perception, it is first necessary to reduce it to further indivisible and unique quanta of meaning (color, shape), to see how they are interconnected (place, relationship), and to assign meaning to it in accordance with linguistic terms.
Therefore, mindfullness can be called the objectification of perceptual experience in the most accessible, conventional manner.