I just wonder whether the translation of the following is correct. > And what are those things that are better and finer than knowledge and vision? *Katame ca, brāhmaṇa, dhammā ñāṇadassanena uttaritarā ca paṇītatarā ca?* > [SuttaCentral](https://suttacentral.net/mn30/en/sujato) I translate this as: What knowledge and vision are better and finer than this.

I have read psychological studies and commentaries by meditators that *frequency is more important than duration* for meditation. Thus, 10 minutes seven days a week is more beneficial than 70 minutes in one sitting according to this view. 1. I am wondering what this site thinks of this idea. **Is regularity more important than duration?** 2. I am wondering whether changing the hour of regular meditation (e.g. one time at 5PM and another at 8AM) impedes on the efficiency of meditation practice. **Should meditation occur towards the same time each day ideally?** 3. If the previous ideas are true, then: **Would meditating a short amount each day, whatever the time, ensure regularity?** I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you.

In the Khemakabhikṣusūtra, 差摩比丘經, _Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó_, T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103 (readable in Pāli at [22.89 of the Saṁyuttamikāya](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html))Venerable Chà Mó, who is _Khemakabhikkhu_ in Pāli, gives a sermon to "many elder monks". This has to-do with Ven Chà Mó's not-yet-having-attained severance from pernicious and subtle self-view. To illustrate his quandary and, in so doing, seemingly educating himself to overcome his fetter, he delivers the simile of the flower's scent and the simile of the perfumed rag. The simile of the flower's scent challenges the elders to locate the locus of the scent of a flower. The simile of the perfumed rag speaks of a launderer who hides the filth introduced to a piece of fabric with a skilled application of perfumes. What do these mean? Context: > Like this I heard: > > One day, there were myriad elder monks dwelling in Kauśambī at > Ghoṣitārāma. > > At that time, there was the monk Chà Mó dwelling also in Kauśambī by > the badarikā orchard, his body was increasing in iterations of woe and > sicknesses. > > At that time, there was the monk Tuó Suō keeping watch over the sick. > At that time, Tuó Suō came to the myriad elder monks, bowed to the > myriad elder monks’s feet, then to one side retreated to reside there. > > The myriad elder monks spoke to the monk Tuó Suō: “You, go to the monk > Chà Mó, speak: ‘The myriad elders implore you: Does your body slowly > come to find peace? Do suffering and misery not increase, is it yes?’” > > At that time, the monk Tuó Suō, subject to the myriad elder monks' > dispensation, came to the monk Chà Mó and told to Chà Mó their > tellings, saying: “The myriad elders beseech you, your body slowly > comes to find peace, sufferings and miseries do not increase, yes?” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I am sick and not recovering, I do > not find peace, myriad hardships accumulate without salvation, > tremendous and mighty suffering aches me, I presently suffer and > endure much. It is like the slaughter of a bull, the sharp knife > having cut into the live stomach, to fetch its inner organs, that > bull’s stomach pain is the very same as what I am enduring! My present > stomach pain is greater than that of the bull’s. It is as if two > warriors clutched one weak man, suspended him attached above a fire, > burning his two feet, my present two feet’s burnings are greater than > his.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō returned to the elders, according to what Chà Mó > had said, he told them of his great sickness, entirely explaining to > the elders. > > At that time, the elders returned Tuó Suō, dispatching him to come to > Chà Mó, that he might speak to Chà Mó, to say: “The Bhagavān has > taught these five aggregates of binding, which of these five? The > rūpaskandha, vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, vijñānaskandha, you, Chà Mó, > can only poorly observe that these five aggregates of binding are > without you, and are nothing to you belonging resolutely.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō subject to the elders taught likewise > thereafter, went forth to speak to Chà Mó, saying: “The elders speak > to you, the Bhagavān speaks of these five aggregates of binding, you > poorly observe they are without you, and are nothing to you belonging > resolutely.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō, saying: “I, in these five aggregates of > binding, am able to find no me, and they are nothing to me belonging.” > > Tuó Suō returned to address the elders: “The monk Chà Mó spoke, > saying: ‘I, in these five aggregates of binding, observe and find no > me, and they are nothing I own.’” > > The elders again dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: “You, > in these five aggregates of binding observe and find no me, and they > are nothing I own, thus āsravāḥ are all-ended, and you are an arhat, > resolutely?” > > At that time, Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, came closer > to the monk Chà Mó, speaking to Chà Mó, saying: “The monk is able to > thusly observe the five aggregates of binding, thus his āsravāḥ are > all ended, an arhat he is, resolutely?” > > Chà Mó replied to Tuó Suō, saying: “I observe these five aggregates of > binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, but it is not that my > āsravāḥ are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, addressed the > eldesr: “Chà Mó spoke: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and > find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ > are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.’” > > At that time, the elderes spoke to Tuó Suō: “You will again return to > speak with Chà Mó: ‘You say: “I observe these five aggregates of > binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that > my āsravāḥ are all ended [and it is not] that I am an arhat.” The > front and end of your notion are incoherent.’” > > Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, went forth to Chà Mó: “You > say: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and find no me, > nothing to me belonging, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ are all > ended and it is not that I am an arhat.’ The front and end of your > notion are incoherent.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I in these five aggregates of > binding, observe and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, > meanwhile I am not an arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, this > I-making. I am not yet resolute, not yet knowing it, not yet having > severed from it, not yet having vomited it out.” > > Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, himself speaking to the > elders: “Chà Mó said: ‘I in these five aggregates of binding, observe > and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, meanwhile I am not an > arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, I-making, I am not yet resolute, > not yet knowing, not yet having severed, not yet having vomited. > > The elders once more dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: > “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your > form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings, > thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than > consciousness?” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I do not say that my form is me, nor > am I other than form; nor that feelings, thoughts, formations, > consciousness, are me and mine, nor that I am other than > consciousness, thus in these five aggregates of binding I have pride, > I have desiring, these are I-makings. I am not yet resolute, not yet > knowing, not yet having severed from it, not yet having vomited it > out.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “What vexation moves you, spurring you > on to directions contrary? You fetch a cane, that I may come, I myself > with my cane, will approach the elders, I beseech you, give me my > cane.” > > At that time, the myriad elders, in the distance, saw Chà Mó with his > staff on his way coming, themselves spread out a seat for him, found a > place to rest his feet, themselves went forth to greet him, to take > his robe and alms bowl, ordering that he promptly sit, exchanging > words to reassure the weary, speaking to Chà Mó saying: > > “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your > form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings, > thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than > consciousness?” > > Chà Mó Bhikṣu spoke: > > “It is not that form is me, but it is not that I am other than form; > there is no feeling, thought, formation, or consciousness that is > mine, yet I am not other than consciousness, thus in these five > aggregates of binding I have my pride, I have my desiring, this > I-making. I am not yet resolute, I am not yet knowing, not yet having > severed, not yet having vomited. It is like the flowers. The utpala, > paduma, kumuda, or puṇḍarīka flower's. It is like these flowers' > scent. Is it the roots' scent? Is the scent other than the roots? Is > it the stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents' or > the coarse constituents' scent? Are the fine constituents other than > the coarse constituents? It is so said, no?" > > The elders responded: "No, resolutely, Chà Mó! It is not the utpala's, > the paduma's, the kumuda's, the puṇḍarīka's roots’ scent, but it is > not that the scent is other than root, so too also it is not the > stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents', or the > coarse constituents' scent, so too also it is not that the fine > constituents are other than the coarse constituents." > > Chà Mó again asked: "It is what's scent?" > > The elders replied: "It is the flower's." > > Chà Mó again replied: "I, too, am thus so. It is not that my form is > me, yet I am not other than form; there is no feeling, thought, > formation, or consciousness that is resolutely mine, yet I am not > apart from consciousness. So I in these five aggregates of binding see > no me, and they are nothing I own, as such is my pride, my desiring, > I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet having severed, > not yet having vomited. Elders, hear my exposition of analogy. > Worldlings and sages, on account of metaphor attain to understanding. > Such an analogy is this: The wet-nurse has a cloth, she pays the > launderer to wash it, he washes it with all kinds of grey broth, he > rinses until glistening. The filth still remainders lingering in > fumes, there must be applied to it all kinds of incenses & perfumes, > he knows how to cause these fumes to vanish. Like this, one must > inquire into what extent the sage disciple severs from these five > aggregates of binding, with true insight there is no me, and there is > nothing I own, enduring these five aggregates of binding I have pride, > I have desiring, I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet > having severed, not yet having vomited. Afterwards, in these five > aggregates of binding, further investigation is undertook, profound > insight into saṃsāra is attained, this form, this form’s origin, this > form’s cessation, this feeling, thought, formation, consciousness, > this consciousness’s origin, this consciousness’s cessation. And so, > in these five aggregates of binding, with profound insight into > saṃsāra, after that, my pride, my desiring, these I-makings, are all > entirely cast away, this is called penetrating insight into the true > aspect.” > > When Chà Mó spoke the dharma, those elders’s manifold contaminants > became immaculate with their attainment of the pure dharma eye. (Khemakabhikṣusūtra 差摩比丘經 _Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó_ T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103)

My person, just seeing that you are certain gifted to be, possible not so aware, gifted to have another Noble one around here thought it would be good to be asked an importand question: What needs to be done, what should a community take care of, in the case someone more skilled in liberating means would approach? How does one "bind" such a blessed gift? *[Note: this is not given for stackes, exchange and trades in the world, but to get bind toward liberation. Should be deleted if place does not have interest in releasing it's visitors.]*

I understand that Buddhism is meant to end sufferings. The Buddhists welcome everything and don't clinging when it's gone. They don't necessary cut existing attachments (knowledge, relationships), but they don't necessary seek to strengthen them. However, is there a case that a Buddhist wants to attach?

We all know that after Lord Buddha's *parinirvana*, he will never be born again. So my question is, if Lord Buddha does not have a rebirth after parinirvana, what is actually happening to him (after death)?

In this sutta the Buddha lists various reasons why people are generous and where their generosity will lead them. At the end of the sutta he mentioned the most powerful way of giving: > " — nor with the thought, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,' > >" — **but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind'** — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world. **Now my question(s)** How exactly is this done? And how does it differ from the former? "Makes the mind serene" vs "This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind"

DN 2 states: > *When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no > fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no > other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no > brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, > proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and > realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary > elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with > the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with > the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the > external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the > external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four > men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are > sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn > pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by > idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are > false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the > foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after > death.'* Ajita Kesakambali is similar to another wrong view, found in DN 1, namely: > *Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form; > it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father > and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed > with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this > point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim > the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent > being*. Now the Buddha taught extensively about the elements, such as in MN 115 & MN 140. Or in MN 43, Sariputta mentions how the sense faculties are scattered at the termination of life, as follows: > *Yvāyaṃ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato tassa kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhāniruddha paṭippassaddhā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā > paṭippassaddhā, āyu parikkhīṇo, usmā vūpasantā, indriyāni > paribhinnāni.* > > *In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications > ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is > exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered.* How do the teachings of Ajita Kesakambali & other annihilationists compare to those of the Buddha? What makes them different?

Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching? I just wonder the teaching of Gandhabba is not a Buddhist teaching. ‘But do you know ‘Jānanti pana bhonto— how an embryo is conceived?’ yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti? ‘We do know that, sir. ‘Jānāma mayaṃ, bho— yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hoti. An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of her menstrual cycle, and the spirit being reborn is present.’ Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti. https://suttacentral.net/mn93/en/sujato

While Nihilism and the Uposatha of the Jains lead to no prosperity at all (and is said to stand far from the Path), the Uposatha of the cowherds (cow-boys) is said to have still chances (that seems at first glance equal for both, but the context makes clear, i mentions the comments in other suttas an commentaries of the Arahats). Given that Self-view is actually not included in the grave wrong views leading upward, maybe an argument that might help out of taking a stand. Are the answers which could challenge: is a tendency toward hope of lasting self a far better bet and anchor for most? Without that hope might be people be cut off from the path, before they actually waking to it with sure ideas of no-self? What about vibhava-tanha? There are some views of non-self which are actually wrong: >The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three: > - (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), > - (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), > - (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi). > >from: *[How to address wrong view?](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,2134.msg9448.html#msg9448)* Maybe this is a reason why the Buddha never really taught the higher Dhammas to "householder"(1), not beyond holding on world? What is taught at large where you dwell? And to whom from whom? **When ever possible, try to answer without getting caught in papanca and self-defense, holding a stand, as a householder. Refuge first might help, or the other recollections if available.** 1) Housholder means a person who has not left the sphere of six sense and has not come to a borderland (i.e. accessconcentration). Discussions whether an othwardly householder can access the Dhamma or not are useless and it's known that Dhamma is taught in steps, i.e. amount of ones release/liberty of mind and never the Dhamma of the Arahat has been taught to housholder, standholder, since they can not understand it right at all. The Ariya Uposatha serves exactly this purpose but of cause need refuge first and not the ironic approach of the modern Jain "Make your self an island", yet drifting away on an island build of conceit "I am not, I am nothing...". *[note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or ;uddh-ism, but simply for a tiny door to liberation]*

I've seen statements like "When one is in jhana, all defilements are suppressed temporarily." Is there any scriptural source for this?

I've seen pictures that depict the Buddha floating in the air and emitting fire from this torso and water from his legs. The fire and the water might be the other way around. I think the picture illustrates a sutra or other text. Does anyone know what the original text might be?

I read when the British came to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) during the colonial era, Buddhism was virtually extinct in Sri Lanka and has degenerated into very low forms of superstition. However, because some Sri Lankans wanted to stop British Christianity, they requested the Burmese Sangha to reinstate a Sri Lankan monastic Sangha. I read some intellectual Sri Lankan laymen had debates with Christians, where both sides (logically) accused the other side of superstition. Why did Buddhism become virtually extinct in Sri Lanka? Was that 'extinction' somehow related to the form of Buddhism or how it was practised, or something else?

What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhava Tanha? There are three kinds of Tanha. (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava) some description of Vibhava Tanha: > “And how do some slip right past? Some, feeling horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with that very becoming, relish non-becoming: ‘When this self, at the break-up of the body, after death, perishes & is destroyed, and does not exist after death, that is peaceful, that is exquisite, that is sufficiency!’ This is how some slip right past. > > [Itivuttaka 49](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Iti/iti49.html) See also [What is Vibhava Tanha?](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33188) (on Dhamma Wheel).

From [What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31241/13525) , I get that it is important to ask questions to get out of sufferings. However, when we are getting stuck it is very difficult to realize that we are stuck. With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, [detachment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)) , does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation? Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?

his question is based on the sutta translation of MN60. What is the Pali translation of “apannaka” https://suttacentral.net/mn60/en/sujato Ven. Sujato translate it as “guaranteed” Bhikkhu Bodi translate it as “incontrovertible truth” I.B Horner translate it as “the sure” Ven. Thanissaro translates it as “Safe Bet” When I read the Sutta, my understanding is that the meaning is very close to the word “safe bet” even though the gambling is very un Buddhist. Perhaps I would say “safe action”

My son will be four soon. I would like to introduce him to Buddhist philosophy, and some meditation practices. However, stillness is, at this point, completely foreign to his personality :) My wife is Christian, and has taken him to church a few times, but not regularly, or recently. She and I are okay with sharing our differing beliefs with our son. I'm not active (or aware of, really) any local Buddhist groups, and, unfortunately don't even meditate regularly anymore. Still, I think meditation, and an understanding of the philosophies, would be very helpful to my son, and I'd like to get him involved as soon as is practical. How do I best introduce him, both to meditation and Buddhist philosophy? At what age is he likely be ready for either?

During my past several meditation sessions, which have been getting a little longer (approx 20 minutes now), I have noticed that my eyes twitch and move involuntarily -- it feels similar to the eye movements you can see when people are in REM sleep. As far as my meditation is concerned, it feels very distracting -- it typically occurs when I feel like I'm on the precipice of deeper concentration, but it results in so much motion and tension that it typically breaks my concentration. Has anyone else encountered this before? After googling around, I found one meditator explain that this was a sign of slipping into "trance," not of deeper concentration. Is that a thing? Any thoughts on remedies? Thanks!

My conclusion from tipitaka and commentaries:

Most of Tipitaka canons and commentaries, except Kathāvatthu the forth of abhidhamma, began before 1st saṅgāyanā, but catagorize at 1st saṅgāyanā (see: DN.Commentary.) But some tipitaka canons had done at 1st saṅgāyanā, some at 2nd, some at 3rd, and just vinaya-history in parivāra had done after 3rd saṅgāyanā (because vinaya have serious rule about the qualification of vinaya-successor, so list of vinaya-memorized successor's names were required, in parivāra, that began in upāli-thera school). What canons were done at 1st? Because of unanimous decision of 500 saṅgha at 1st saṇgayanā, that saṅgha must not add/cut/change any buddha's words off teaching. So this canons must done in 1st saṇgayanā: 1. Buddha's literal canons, that was learn & memorized by ānanda, upāli: - 7 vinaya-pitaka (except sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga), parivāra-content (except vinaya-history), 4 nikāya, buddha's literal canons in kuddaka-nikaya. 2. Sāriputta's literal canons, that was learn & author by sāriputta-mahāsāvaka and memorized by his students, who were in 1st saṇgayanā instead of sāriputta, who died before 1st saṇgāyanā. Buddha chose to support sāriputta as the best teacher (etadagga) like himself. So no one can change his speech, too. So his canons should had done in 1st saṇgayanā, too: - Sāriputta's literal sutta in 4 nikāya, sutanipāta, sāriputta-theragāthā, niddesa, paṭisambhidāmagga, sāriputta-apadāna, cariyāpitaka, 6 abhidhamma-pitaka, Mahāaṭṭhakathā (The great commentary). - In my opinion I think buddha-apadāna and many jātaka are memorized by sāriputta, too. Because of buddhavaṃsa's and cariyāpitaka's characters. And in nidāna of DN.Commentary. also have an conversation between ānanda (dīghabhāṇaka) and sāriputta's students (macchimabhāṇaka) at first saṇgāyana about the categorization of KN. & buddhavaṃsa & cariyapitaka that should include in suttanta or in abhidhamma. 3. The other sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech, that were memorized by some saṇgha in 1st saṇgāyanā: - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were memorized by ānanda: Itivuttaka, The remaining speech in 4 nikāya. - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by the owners: Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna. - Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by their students: Sāriputta-theragātha/therāpadāna, Moggallāna-theragātha/therāpadāna, etc. What canons were done at 2nd? 1. Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna (some thera died after 1st saṇgāyanā such as ānanda, kassapa, anuruddha, upāli, etc.) 2. Sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga and just sattasatikakhandhaka's commentary. (In my opinion arahanta, in 3rd saṇgāyanā, did not author 3rd saṇgayana history anymore because they realized that it will be over responsibility of future-generations-vinaya-memorizers). What canons were done at 3rd? 1. Kathāvatthu and just kathāvatthu's commentary. 2. Commentary about 3rd saṇgāyanā history. What canons were done after 3rd? 1. Vinaya-history in parivāra. 2. None-Pali commentaries' translation and extension (andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, kauanadī-aṭṭhakathā, pañcarī-aṭṭhakathā). 3. Visuddhimagga and Abhinava-aṭṭhakathā (the combination of commentaries. It is just old commentaries in new package. Buddhaghosa wrote that he never add/edit anything. He just remix fussy/duplicate texts and translate siṇhala commentaries to pali language). 4. Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, abhidhammāvatara, and many conclusion-commentaries. Related Answer: - Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali Canon (Ganthadhura And Vipassanādhura) - Layers of pali literality already being in buddha-living-period.https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21166/10100

The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self 'Self' appears in the positive very many times in that sutra, e.g. [here (Chapter 33)](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Nirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_Thirty-Three:_On_Bodhisattva_Lion%27s_Roar_(A)) ,,, > Knowledge ["jnana"] sees the Void and the non-Void, the Eternal and > the non-Eternal, Suffering and Bliss, the Self and the > non-Self. The Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void > refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and > death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana. or [here (Chapter 37)](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Nirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_Thirty-Seven:_On_Bodhisattva_Lion%27s_Roar_(e)) ... > ""The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self. "The Self is the Pure. "The Pure is Bliss. "The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata. > "O good man! For example, space is not the east, > nor is it the south, nor the west, nor the north, nor the four directions, nor up or down. It is the same with the Tathagata etc. e.g. [here (Chapter 23)](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Mahayana_Mahaparinirvana_Sutra:_Chapter_23:_On_Bodhisattva_Lion%27s_Roar) ... > The Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha truly exist, and the > Tathagata always expounds the essentials of all laws [Dharma] Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?