Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
Eh? Where are you getting this from? It is certainly not a Buddhist teaching.
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
Eh? Where are you getting this from? It is certainly not a Buddhist teaching.
Calling the aggregates as me, mine, or myself is not the same thing as taking ownership of them? To identify with them as me, mine, or myself is this not the same thing either?
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
Eh? Where are you getting this from? It is certainly not a Buddhist teaching.
Calling the aggregates as me, mine, or myself is not the same thing as taking ownership of them? To identifying with them as me, mine, or myself is this not the same thing either?
There is no self, only self-view or self-identity view.
"Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Lord, how does self-identity view come about?"
"There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html
The Bahiya Sutta passage describes the cessation of self-identity view, which results from insight.
There are many suttas on this theme.
It would be nice to see some Mahayana texts on this topic ( apart from the Heart Sutra ), but I'm not holding my breath. It seems that some people are more concerned with promoting their own opinions than developing a deeper understanding of Buddhist teachings.
Well @Bunks ....You now know what "I" think many times over
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
You really don't think your view is a belief? To qualify as knowledge it needs to be justified and true. Are you saying that your view qualifies as true then? I think you could use to be a little less certain about things.
Again, I've already explained this.
Agnosticism is where belief takes a back seat to what makes the most sense with the available information.
Just because I have no beliefs does not mean I think I know everything.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
Just a lot of opinions, which seem very little to do with what Buddhism actually teaches.
This is just your opinion. It seems to me all you know how to do is parrot and cherry pick suttas.
But that's your business.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is straightforwardly describing the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen". It really couldn't be clearer.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
That's right!
I forgot that @SpinyNorman is actually the Buddha!
How dare we question his utmost brilliant knowledge of half quoted suttas!
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
Just a lot of opinions, which seem very little to do with what Buddhism actually teaches.
This is just your opinion. It seems to me all you know how to do is parrot and cherry pick suttas.
But that's your business.
I am backing up my point of view with Buddhist texts, and providing coherent explanations.
You are doing neither.
You have nothing useful to say here, you are clearly more concerned with promoting your own half-baked opinions than developing a deeper understanding of Buddhist teachings.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Wow, @SpinyNorman... For someone that speaks out on self view, you are absolutely dripping with it, lol.
You must think a lot of this self of yours.
The only problem is we were asked for what we thought, not to parrot half quoted suttas and pretend we have the only understanding possible.
I don't care what you think about my view. How many times do you need that said?
Judging by your lame ad-homs and defensive reactions, I suspect you just can't cope with the fact that there are several people in this thread with a deeper understanding of Buddhist teachings than yours. It isn't just me who is challenging your assumptions.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This is too ironic and funny.
Please, continue!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
You really don't think your view is a belief? To qualify as knowledge it needs to be justified and true. Are you saying that your view qualifies as true then? I think you could use to be a little less certain about things.
Again, I've already explained this.
Agnosticism is where belief takes a back seat to what makes the most sense with the available information.
Just because I have no beliefs does not mean I think I know everything.
Maybe we're getting hung up on the definition of belief here. For me belief is the same as opinion, so just swap out belief with opinion.
I do think that there are interpretations of the teachings that are more correct than others and we should seek to understand those rather than assert our own interpretation.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
@person, that could be and I'm likely not helping since validity of some terms is what my main argument is on this thread.
However, I can't imagine Buddha telling me to tow the party line instead of using my own discernment with the dharma.
Comparing and sharing views is how we may come to learn something through cooperative efforts.
This pissing contest going on here is tiresome and doesn't bear any fruit. If we would all listen for comprehension instead of looking for points to score we all just may learn something together.
I see belief as taking unaccounted factors for granted. If I say "I think that is impossible" it doesn't mean I believe it is impossible because I could be wrong.
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is straightforwardly describing the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen". It really couldn't be clearer.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
Can you explain this a little more? I've heard this before and it only confuses me. How does no-self translate to a nondual experience?
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is straightforwardly describing the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen". It really couldn't be clearer.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
Can you explain this a little more? I've heard this before and it only confuses me. How does no-self translate to a nondual experience?
With no self-view, there is just experience itself, seeing, hearing, feeling, no sense of "me" as an object. You get a taste of it when mindfulness is strong, being fully in the present, the sense of "forgetting" yourself. It's a liberating feeling.
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is straightforwardly describing the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen". It really couldn't be clearer.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
Can you explain this a little more? I've heard this before and it only confuses me. How does no-self translate to a nondual experience?
With no self-view, there is just experience itself, seeing, hearing, feeling, no sense of "me" as an object. You get a taste of it when mindfulness is strong, being fully in the present, the sense of "forgetting" yourself. It's a liberating feeling.
An interesting extract from the introduction to "In the Buddha's words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
"These five aggregates are the building blocks that we typically use to construct our sense of personal identity; they are the things that we cling to as being “mine,” “I,” and “my self.” Whatever we identify with, whatever we take to be a self or the possessions of a self, can all be classified among these five aggregates. The five aggregates are thus the ultimate grounds of “identification” and “appropriation,” the two basic activities by which we establish a sense of selfhood. Since we invest our notions of selfhood and personal identity with an intense emotional concern, when the objects to which they are fastened—the five aggregates—undergo change, we naturally experience anxiety and distress. In our perception, it is not mere impersonal phenomena that are undergoing change, but our very identities, our cherished selves, and this is what we fear most of all. However, as the present text shows, a noble disciple has clearly seen with wisdom the delusive nature of all notions of permanent selfhood and thus no longer identifies with the five aggregates. Therefore the noble disciple can confront their change without anxious concern, unperturbed in the face of their alteration, decay, and destruction."
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2016
Moderator Note:
@David, it would be welcome, if instead of consistently deriding @SpinyNorman and ridiculing his contributions, you actually presented link and reference to support your counter-arguments.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of prising the two of you apart. You come over like a pair of petulant schoolboys.
Please quit with the sarcasm, and discuss the matter by presenting more than simply ad hominem attacks. Quit with the bickering. BOTH OF YOU.
No response necessary.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sounds like the Middle Way.
Knowing we are temporary we navigate change as skillfully as possible.
"... This is what I found: The ego vanished: the everyday ‘I’ which the world knew and which knew the world, was no longer there. But a new and diviner individuality appeared in its place, a consciousness which could say "I AM” and which I recognized to have been my real self all along. It was not lost, merged or dissolved: it was fully and vividly conscious that it was a point in universal Mind and so not apart from that Mind itself. Only the lower self, the false self, was gone, but that was a loss for which to be immeasurably grateful.” Paul Brunton http://www.paulbrunton.org/realizing-soul-study-guide.php
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@lobster said:
^^. Duz they haz naughty non-self delusion?
Ah, geez.
I'm pretty sure I am not a permanent self so I don't bother taking the "I" down too many notches. I made happiness a choice a few years back. A few years too late by some standards but I am no longer plagued by depression and am getting better at taming my tiger.
Don't want to sweep my temporary existence under the rug nor does it need or deserve a pedestal.
One way to look at the Middle but life is rife with it.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
I was going to leave it at that because the post above says it all and I humbly regret sharing certain of my short-comings with you all.
That being said I was asked to provide some source material to back up my claims of the "I" being found in action.
I don't seem to be able to copy and paste on my phone so it makes it harder.
There is a chunk missing simply to save space and bring attention to the fifth fact but I have provided the link.
.......................................
Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.'...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.'...
"'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.'...
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.'...
"These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
...
"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...
...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who -- whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings -- past and future, passing away and re-arising -- all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions as their arbitrator. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the factors of the path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."
From this I get the feeling that Buddha taught free will over determinism and that the "I" does not have to be a "self" in order to be happening as an actual fact through action.
@Bunks said:
So I was meditating on dependent arising and the emptiness (lack of inherent existence) of the I this morning and I wondered if the I we percieve as being solid and existing independently is a thought, a feeling or perhaps both?
Interested to hear what others think.
I'd say it's both in the sense that, when we self-identify and think "I am this and that," it arises as a thought-form; and those thoughts come with feelings tones, i.e., pleasant, painful, neither pleasant nor painful. In fact, this process of self identification permeates at the aggregates, not just sankara and vendana.
Comments
Eh? Where are you getting this from? It is certainly not a Buddhist teaching.
Calling the aggregates as me, mine, or myself is not the same thing as taking ownership of them? To identify with them as me, mine, or myself is this not the same thing either?
There is no self, only self-view or self-identity view.
"Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Lord, how does self-identity view come about?"
"There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html
The Bahiya Sutta passage describes the cessation of self-identity view, which results from insight.
There are many suttas on this theme.
It would be nice to see some Mahayana texts on this topic ( apart from the Heart Sutra ), but I'm not holding my breath. It seems that some people are more concerned with promoting their own opinions than developing a deeper understanding of Buddhist teachings.
Well @Bunks ....You now know what "I" think many times over
Again, I've already explained this.
Agnosticism is where belief takes a back seat to what makes the most sense with the available information.
Just because I have no beliefs does not mean I think I know everything.
This is just your opinion. It seems to me all you know how to do is parrot and cherry pick suttas.
But that's your business.
That's right!
I forgot that @SpinyNorman is actually the Buddha!
How dare we question his utmost brilliant knowledge of half quoted suttas!
I am backing up my point of view with Buddhist texts, and providing coherent explanations.
You are doing neither.
You have nothing useful to say here, you are clearly more concerned with promoting your own half-baked opinions than developing a deeper understanding of Buddhist teachings.
Wow, @SpinyNorman... For someone that speaks out on self view, you are absolutely dripping with it, lol.
You must think a lot of this self of yours.
The only problem is we were asked for what we thought, not to parrot half quoted suttas and pretend we have the only understanding possible.
I don't care what you think about my view. How many times do you need that said?
Get over yourself already.
Judging by your lame ad-homs and defensive reactions, I suspect you just can't cope with the fact that there are several people in this thread with a deeper understanding of Buddhist teachings than yours. It isn't just me who is challenging your assumptions.
This is too ironic and funny.
Please, continue!
Maybe we're getting hung up on the definition of belief here. For me belief is the same as opinion, so just swap out belief with opinion.
I do think that there are interpretations of the teachings that are more correct than others and we should seek to understand those rather than assert our own interpretation.
@person, that could be and I'm likely not helping since validity of some terms is what my main argument is on this thread.
However, I can't imagine Buddha telling me to tow the party line instead of using my own discernment with the dharma.
Comparing and sharing views is how we may come to learn something through cooperative efforts.
This pissing contest going on here is tiresome and doesn't bear any fruit. If we would all listen for comprehension instead of looking for points to score we all just may learn something together.
I see belief as taking unaccounted factors for granted. If I say "I think that is impossible" it doesn't mean I believe it is impossible because I could be wrong.
Can you explain this a little more? I've heard this before and it only confuses me. How does no-self translate to a nondual experience?
With no self-view, there is just experience itself, seeing, hearing, feeling, no sense of "me" as an object. You get a taste of it when mindfulness is strong, being fully in the present, the sense of "forgetting" yourself. It's a liberating feeling.
Simply put, to be without being.
An interesting extract from the introduction to "In the Buddha's words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
"These five aggregates are the building blocks that we typically use to construct our sense of personal identity; they are the things that we cling to as being “mine,” “I,” and “my self.” Whatever we identify with, whatever we take to be a self or the possessions of a self, can all be classified among these five aggregates. The five aggregates are thus the ultimate grounds of “identification” and “appropriation,” the two basic activities by which we establish a sense of selfhood. Since we invest our notions of selfhood and personal identity with an intense emotional concern, when the objects to which they are fastened—the five aggregates—undergo change, we naturally experience anxiety and distress. In our perception, it is not mere impersonal phenomena that are undergoing change, but our very identities, our cherished selves, and this is what we fear most of all. However, as the present text shows, a noble disciple has clearly seen with wisdom the delusive nature of all notions of permanent selfhood and thus no longer identifies with the five aggregates. Therefore the noble disciple can confront their change without anxious concern, unperturbed in the face of their alteration, decay, and destruction."
http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/buddhas-words/selections/buddhas-words-introduction-part-i--human-condition
Moderator Note:
@David, it would be welcome, if instead of consistently deriding @SpinyNorman and ridiculing his contributions, you actually presented link and reference to support your counter-arguments.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of prising the two of you apart. You come over like a pair of petulant schoolboys.
Please quit with the sarcasm, and discuss the matter by presenting more than simply ad hominem attacks. Quit with the bickering. BOTH OF YOU.
No response necessary.
Sounds like the Middle Way.
Knowing we are temporary we navigate change as skillfully as possible.
^^. Duz they haz naughty non-self delusion?
"... This is what I found: The ego vanished: the everyday ‘I’ which the world knew and which knew the world, was no longer there. But a new and diviner individuality appeared in its place, a consciousness which could say "I AM” and which I recognized to have been my real self all along. It was not lost, merged or dissolved: it was fully and vividly conscious that it was a point in universal Mind and so not apart from that Mind itself. Only the lower self, the false self, was gone, but that was a loss for which to be immeasurably grateful.” Paul Brunton
http://www.paulbrunton.org/realizing-soul-study-guide.php
Ah, geez.
I'm pretty sure I am not a permanent self so I don't bother taking the "I" down too many notches. I made happiness a choice a few years back. A few years too late by some standards but I am no longer plagued by depression and am getting better at taming my tiger.
Don't want to sweep my temporary existence under the rug nor does it need or deserve a pedestal.
One way to look at the Middle but life is rife with it.
I have a "self" or I have no "self" are just views. Let them go and be at peace.
Some recluses and brahmans, so called,
Are deeply attached to their own views;
People who only see one side of things
Engage in quarrels and disputes.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.6.04.than.html
I was going to leave it at that because the post above says it all and I humbly regret sharing certain of my short-comings with you all.
That being said I was asked to provide some source material to back up my claims of the "I" being found in action.
I don't seem to be able to copy and paste on my phone so it makes it harder.
There is a chunk missing simply to save space and bring attention to the fifth fact but I have provided the link.
.......................................
Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.'...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.'...
"'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.'...
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.'...
"These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
...
"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...
...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who -- whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings -- past and future, passing away and re-arising -- all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions as their arbitrator. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the factors of the path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html
From this I get the feeling that Buddha taught free will over determinism and that the "I" does not have to be a "self" in order to be happening as an actual fact through action.
There is a line we should not cross that is all, and that line appears right before attachment, passion, clinging, or "self view" emerges.
I'd say it's both in the sense that, when we self-identify and think "I am this and that," it arises as a thought-form; and those thoughts come with feelings tones, i.e., pleasant, painful, neither pleasant nor painful. In fact, this process of self identification permeates at the aggregates, not just sankara and vendana.