[Rwujnezq]

Hi Xenusfreeman

My understanding is that the Buddha is repeating Potthapada's terms or ideas of "mind-made self" and "formless-self" to show that neither are correct views. They aren't terms or views of the self that the Buddha would subscribe to in my opinion of this sutta because he explains they are not accurate. They aren't accurate views of self because the perception (how we visualise or imagine the self to be or not be in our minds) still implies an idea of a self and any idea of a self is a wrong view in Buddha's teaching.

It is different simply because Potthapada still holds that there is an object, like a soul, called "self" in the sutta. The Buddha teaches there is no such soul or self. We are closer to a complex mix of process and urges which arise depending on other processes and urges. So we are empty of a self, but we constantly active, we are constantly feeling, thinking, perceiving which gives a sensation of self, but no real self.

That is why the Buddha shows that Potthapada's perception will be wrong if he sees the self as being "mind-made" or "formless" (even formless self implies an idea or imagined perception of a kind of self) which the Buddha denies.

The Buddha has a way of not saying "no" directly, as we would today, nor does he just come out and define what a no-self is, because he is trying to avoid defining something which simply doesn't exist. However he does explain why "mind-made self" and "formless self" are not correct:

Because they are not conducive to the goal, are not conducive to the Dhamma, are not basic to the holy life. They don't lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That's why I have taught and declared them to be non-categorical. URL http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...09.0.than.html

He also explains why they still talk about them, yet he doesn't explain his view explictly. In other words he wants us to arrive at a conclusion of anatta without actually telling us what anatta is. We must negate and negate until we arrive at a new understanding of that which we consist. Here:

"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." The "world" means way of understanding which the run-of-the-mill-view of people who have not yet studied the Dhamma still understand.

This is my understanding and my opinion. Please let me know if this raises more questions, doubt, and I will do my best to clarify.



Metta