"All Dharmas Are Not Self": Have We Got It Wrong?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- "All dharmas are not self" is perhaps the deepest wisdom in Buddhism. How should we understand it? We'll look at both a traditional interpretation and a new understanding based on the suttas by monastic scholar Bhikkhu Sujato.
🧡 If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
📙 Check out my book, A Handbook of Early Buddhist Wisdom, with a Foreword by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
☸️ Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
🎙Check out my podcast with Jon Aaron, Diggin' the Dharma: digginthedharma.com/
✅ Videos mentioned:
What is "The Unconditioned" in Buddhism? - • What is "The Unconditi...
The Parable of the Raft in Early Buddhism: Right View and Non-clinging - • The Parable of the Raf...
✅ Suttas & Texts mentioned:
suttacentral.net/dhp273-289/e...
suttacentral.net/pli-tv-pvr3/...
suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/s...
✅ Secondary material:
discourse.suttacentral.net/t/...
discourse.suttacentral.net/t/...
www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Aj...
Webpage: www.dougsdharma.com/
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Mastodon: mindly.social/@dougsdharma
Instagram: / dougsdharma
Threads: www.threads.net/@dougsdharma
❤️ Thanks to Patreon Patrons:
Anonymous (3)
John Oborne
DunJing
Jimmy Maa
Debbie Mattison
Steve H.
Ron Peat
Michael S. Kearns
Matthew Smith
Shantha Wengappuli
Karma_CAC
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
Upayadhi
Andi and Erik
ATGuerrero686
Michael Scherrer
khobe schofield
Alex Perdomo
Benji Forsyth
Blaze Way
Sonny Flink
Steve Marlor
Joy L Lee
Andrew Tom
Anthony Tucker
Karlee R
Ethan M
Billy in Singapore
Olivia Otter
Carl Lennartson
xiao mao
Jeff Harvey
Andrew Ingrouille
Kenneth Grandchamp
Doug Fonner
Rene Gariepy
Russell Needham
Smoggyrob
Mac Roja
Bernardo
Clémence Ortega Douville
Kwan Alex
Scott Johnston
Richard J Beninger
Nathanael O. Arnquist
SaturnianMandala
Trin P
Letesa Isler
Dorien Izel
Robert Paterson
Jake Tobiason
Louvenia Ortega
Steve S.
Richard Rappuhn
Sarah Kress
John Aaron
Paul Niklewski
Kong Ing Kai
Dave Gorman
rhys reed
Osanda Wijeratne
Scarlett Farrow
BJ - RetreaTours™
00:00 Intro
00:29 Dhammapada’s three-part distinction
02:18 Traditional interpretation of “all dharmas are not-self”
03:49 Bhikkhu Sujato’s interpretation
05:42 Sujato’s key sutta
06:33 Dharmic principles as invariant laws of nature
07:12 Dharmic principles as not-self
Note: as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
I suspect this statement is a deliberate counter that the Buddha makes to the prevalent teachings of the upanishads at the time, which state that everything is actually part of the self (Atman), and the self is actually the same as the eternal unconditioned Brahman. By saying all dharmas are not self, he is emphasizing his revolutionary teaching that both the concept of self and the concept of Brahman are actually illusions, and there is in the end only emptiness (sunyata).
Yes that's definitely in the background.
That’s what they are saying essentially if you spend time with them. Your words draw division.
@@andrews7414 the Buddha didnt teach that 'all words are illusions', he didn't teach a mystery practice of silence or aversion to words. He avoided statements about the 'nature of things' and focused on the suffering we create for ourselves through our actions and intentions. He taught that we should become sensitive to our intentions behind words, deeds and actions, to train ourselves to abandon intentions grounded in greed and aversion, foster intentions grounded in renunciation, serenity
@@michelangequay2794 That being said, with all due respect, literary vexation seems to have become desensitized in these traditions.
There was no Upanishad at that time. If you carefully study Pali Suttas and the Upanishads then you will find that Upanishads are post Buddha literature or written on criticism of Buddhism and other schools. The Concept of Brahman (abstract concept) is the Post Buddhist development. In Buddha time, there was no concept of Brahman but only Brahma (Creator God) which Buddha rejected. The concept of Soul is not only propagated by the Brahamins but the Jains and other schools too.
It’s said in MN1 that nibbana being seen as self is a view non-arahants have.
“He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.“
Good point! Yes, MN1 is very interesting.
When you attained/realized the unconditioned Nirvana, the notion of self or non-self and all conceptual constructs will naturally fall away through non-clinging.
This video is so brilliant that I have no words - except of "this video is so brilliant that I have no words". 😂
And to be totally honest, I had to watch it twice in order to get all the subtleties. Very sophisticated stuff. But absolutely worth thinking about.
Thanks, Doug! 🐱🙏
Glad you enjoyed it! Of course all thanks for the brilliance go to the Buddha and Bhante Sujato. 🙏😊
@xiaomaozen What is your understanding of the term "dharma" in the context of this video?
This is similar to Prajnaparamita sutra. All things are empty. And so, they can't be the self.
In longer Prajnaparamita sutra, (I check the 10.000 lines and 25.000 lines version), there is a saying at the beginning:
prajñāpāramitā prajñāpāramitety ucyate yad idaṃ sarvadharmānabhiniveśaḥ.
= that which is called the transcendent perfection of wisdom is the absence of fixation with respect to all things
🦁
I have been hearing your discussions and insights into the various teachings of the Early Buddhist teachings, and I must say you have done your work so well, I have gained greater wisdom thanks to you, Doug. Keep up the good work and one of my goals is to write the Dhammapada into the original Pali.
There is simply so much wisdom in this short compilation of teachings.
May you have a great week!
Thanks so much! 🙏😊
I recommend Rodney Smith's amazing book called 'Stepping out of Self-Deception". It covers this topic thoroughly.
I feel this is covered well by The Heart Sutra. It's recently been re-translated by the late Thich Nhat Hahn in his book The Other Shore. Highly recommended reading.
Hello Doug. You should have millions of subscribers. I've watched every video you made. They are invaluable. I've read and investigated a lot of teachers and books for many years (e.g. Academic studies at University, Alan Watts, Krishnamurti, etc.) I call this site my gelatin mix. It has cleared so many misconceptions. This is what I needed. Thank you and triple thanks to my favorite "creamy Westerner" (:
Thanks, glad to hear you're getting something out of these videos! 😄
Rather than say 1) All conditions are impermanent 2) All conditions are suffering 3) All things (dharmas) are not-self we should understand that the Pali to English translations are not capturing the intended meanings of the 3 characteristics of existence. All conditions are of ANICCA nature, DUKKHA nature, and ANATTA nature. The three words are ANICCA, DUKKHA, ANATTA and should be understood in the following way.
1) ANICCA means “All forms/conditions” or more accurately (The Five Aggregates, which are loosely translated as 1) Matter and Energy, 2) Feelings, 3) Perceptions, 4) Mental Formations, 5) Consciousness) in existence are unsatisfactory and not to our liking, meaning we will NEVER be able to keep/maintain any worldly thing/forms or mental entity to our satisfaction IN THE LONG RUN. (ANICCA) "Nicca" means to our liking whereas "Anicca" means not to our liking. Anicca - Literally means "Not in accordance with your will or expectation." Essentially UNKEEPABLE. It is the inability to keep what we like. Not getting what one desires or craves is the opposite of “icca” or “na icca” or “anicca“. 'Icca' means liking. Anicca is the opposite of liking. You expect things to be permanent but all formations are transient/impermanent and so when expectations aren't agreeable to the mind it causes suffering. Anicca means everything has the characteristic of impermanence and more specifically, nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction. It's the inability to fulfill our desires. "icca" means strong attachment or liking. The key is that the perception of anicca is in a person's mind. That means we form a strong attachment or liking of sensual things in this world and we try to maintain them to our satisfaction indefinitely even though that is impossible. As long as we are reborn and there is existence the suffering that we don't like will always arise at some point and the pleasures we like will always come to pass. The intrinsic nature of this world is “anicca“, i.e., we will never get what we crave for, and thus at the end (at least at death) we will leave all this behind and suffer, that is dukkha. A world which is based on constant change, or more correctly constant disorder, (impermanence) is inherently incapable of providing stability (thus Anicca is not impermanence, but Anicca arises out of impermanence). The fact that everything is impermanent is not the real cause of suffering. For example if I have a headache it's a relief from suffering that the headache is not permanent.
Anicca Nature - This world is of “anicca nature,” meaning there is no refuge from suffering anywhere in this world. The translation of “anicca” as “impermanent” is wrong.
2) DUKKHA - suffering is built into the act of attaching to any of the five aggregates with a Nicca mindset. Suffering happens in the mind and ONLY happens if we attach to any worldly thing/forms or mental entities. Inanimate objects for example don't suffer as suffering originates in the mind and can also cause physical suffering. All our efforts to pursue such ‘lasting happiness” in worldly things/forms and mental entities only lead to more suffering. DUKKHA All existences have suffering (dukkha nature). As along as there is a craving being, there is suffering. All formations are subject to Suffering (dukkha). When one strives to achieve maintaining anything in the world, it leads to suffering (dukkha). However, many people try to gain “happiness” by resorting to immoral deeds, and then end up in the apāyā. That is how one becomes genuinely helpless. There is confusion about what the Buddha said about suffering because most cannot distinguish between dukha and dukkha. But the Pāli word for suffering is dukha. Dukkha (dukha+khya) means there is hidden suffering AND that suffering can be eliminated (khya is removal). And dukkha sacca (the first Noble Truth) is the knowledge on seeing that those things we value as “sense pleasures” are in fact the CAUSE of this “hidden suffering”.
3) ANATTA - All things are without a self is the mundane poorly translated interpretation. “Anatta” is having “no control” and “without substance” or “without essence.” "Atta" means being in control of things whereas "Anatta" is not in control. No-self was the original Pali to english translation but the actual Pali word for no-self is Anatma. Cravings for any kind of matter and energy (Rupa) that has an transient/unsatisfactory (Anicca) nature are unfruitful leading to ones demise as they are helpless in the rebirth process. Thus any efforts seeking release from suffering WITHIN this world of 31 realms is useless and will leave a person helpless in the rebirth process. Another word for anatta is “anätha” (this is the Sinhala word), which means “utterly helpless”. That is the status of a human being who is unaware of the perils of the rebirth process. The opposite is “nätha“, which is actually also used in Pāli to refer to the Buddha (as in one becomes “nätha” when one embraces the message of the Buddha). In other words, “there is a ‘me’ as long as one craves for things in this world”. Denying that perception is not the solution. One craves for things in this world because one believes there is happiness to be had by seeking “things” in this world. That tendency to seek things will not reduce until one understands that it is fruitless to strive for such things in the long term; even though one may not know it, one is truly helpless. And that is the real meaning of Anatta. Any worldly thing/forms or mental entity (five aggregates) don't have any real or lasting essence and are not under our control. "Atta" perspective brings with it the illusion that we are under control our ourselves and the world around us or that we can get those things under control with enough effort. Clinging to the illusion leaves us helpless in this life and the next like a fish that believed it was in control of the bait attached to the fishing hook. Therefore, all such efforts are in vain; they are unfruitful (lead to bad results in this life and the next). The correct saññā (perception) that, (i) this world of 31 realms cannot offer any “essence” or “true happiness” and, (ii) therefore, one who is struggling to find such “ultimate truth or refuge in this world” is truly helpless. (ANATTA)
My source for this is Puredhamma.net
I go to the Sanskrit translations of these Pali terms when I can, I'm comfortable with the Sanskrit and less so with Pali. The translator says anicca = anitya, which means "not nitya". Nitya means innate, sometimes it means eternal. I'm not sure how you're getting something else. Please explain, it seems like you're breaking this as an iṣṭa which seems strained.
Sorry, that's not the Buddha's teaching. He NEVER referred to these to three as intrinsic marks of existence - that would be contradictory of course, theres no thing waiting to be called existence that has the 3 characteristics. Avoiding all word games that rie from describing the world he focused on our own behavior and used these 3 characteristics in descriptive response to anything we might cling to. So it'sa descriptive antidote to our clinging as though things are graspable, pleasant and for me. Any attempt to describe the intrinsic nature of life was ALWAYS rigorously avoided by the Buddha, called a dead end and a distraction from the issue of the suffering arising from our craving and clinging. The 3 characteristics were always and only used in this context, in antidote to our behavior
While it's true that the Buddha focused on addressing human suffering and the causes of suffering, the concept of the three characteristics of existence (Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta) is widely recognized in Buddhist tradition as fundamental aspects of reality itself, not just as responses to human behavior. These characteristics are seen as inherent qualities of existence that apply universally to all phenomena, not just to human experience. This is not just my opinion either. It is agreed upon by virtually every scholar of Buddhism and every Master there ever was. It seems that you are arguing that the concept of "existence" itself is not a concrete, independently existing entity that can possess intrinsic characteristics. You seem to be suggesting that the concept of "existence" is ultimately a conceptual construct or designation applied by sentient beings, and therefore, it does not inherently possess characteristics like (Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta). In other words you're arguing, something that doesn't exist can't have intrinsic characteristics. And by extension you're saying that existence is just an illusion of the mind. I'm assuming you arrived at this conclusion based on certain interpretations within Buddhist philosophy that emphasize the insubstantial or empty nature of phenomena, including the concept of "existence." In Buddhist thought, the ultimate nature of reality is often described as empty of inherent existence (sunyata), meaning that phenomena lack inherent, independent existence and are dependent on various causes and conditions. This isn't claiming that nothing actually exists. The Buddha did not teach that there is no existence at all and it is only in our minds. Existence is temporary, constantly changing, and dependent on conditions to keep going. Our continued existence in future rebirths is dependent on us ignorantly craving aspects of reality. If a person reaches enlightenment they don't just disappear. Their body still remains but their minds no longer crave or cling to anything. They still must live out their days until the karmic energy that led to the creation of their body runs out. After that they cannot be found anywhere in this world. The constantly changing personality is dependent on craving to keep going from one life to another. But the physical body that is created does exists temporarily moment by moment. It undergoes changes from moment to moment but in each moment a sentient being exists. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions also change from moment to moment but do exist in each moment. The Buddhas teachings focused on understanding the true nature of existence and the causes of suffering. In Buddhist philosophy, existence is acknowledged, but it is understood to be impermanent, interdependent, and devoid of inherent, independent existence. In simple terms, our bodies, minds, and everything around us is constantly changing and because they are constantly changing there is no permanent unchanging body, mind, or object. The teaching of that very fact, "impermanence" by the Buddha is describing the intrinsic nature of reality. Can you find anyone or anything in this world that is permanent? Impermanence is one intrinsic characteristic of existence. However as I stated in my first post, Anicca means more than just impermanence in Pali. Body, mind, and objects also arise based on conditions so they don't come into existence without causes. The Buddha teaches exactly what those causes are in the teachings of dependent origination. Ignorance, Mental formations, Consciousness, Name and form, Six sense bases, Contact, Feeling, Craving, Clinging, Becoming, Birth, Aging and death. When craving and clinging exist, there is a sentient being to speak of. The Buddha said that you can never touch the same person twice. If you touch them once and then a second later touch them again there were a lot of imperceptible changes that occurred in that short time frame. Cells in their body have died, blood has flowed to new locations, their body position may have changed, their thinking a new thought, and on and on. So the self is an ever changing self both in mind and body. So there is a temporary self and it does exist from moment to moment and objects in this world temporarily exist in each moment as well but are constantly in motion, constantly changing, and are subject to unexpected change that is beyond our control. Therefore nature intrinsic characteristic is Anicca (Unsatisfactory, or Literally means "Not in accordance with your will or expectation.") Existence does exist but it is constantly changing and it arises based on conditions. The concept of a soul is rejected by the Buddha because it assumes there is a personality that stays the same and is unchanging that moves from life to life. Energy creates the new life form during rebirth but that energy is constantly changing and so is the personality, consciousness, and perception.
So in conclusion you are quite mistaken. The Buddha's teachings indeed describe the intrinsic nature of existence. You need to read what the Buddha actually said and not what you think he said or think he means. Go read www.urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf and specifically the chapter called "THE THREE CHARACTERISTICS." And then in that PDF you should read the chapter called, "PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE." because you claim there's no thing waiting to be called existence that has the 3 characteristics. The Buddha points out exactly what is REAL and what is UNREAL in that chapter. After you have established that indeed there are three characteristics to existence taught by the Buddha you should then move on to the real Pali to English translation from an expert. In the PDF the English translations aren't fully accurate and state, "it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law: that all formations are impermanent (Anicca), that all formations are subject to suffering (dukkha); that everything is without a Self (an-atta)." However the post puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-concepts/anicca-dukkha-anatta-2/anicca-dukkha-anatta/ clearly demonstrates that the English meaning of the three words Anicca, dukkha, and anatta show up around the internet and were translated incorrectly by early European Scholars. puredhamma.net/historical-background/misinterpretation-of-anicca-and-anatta-by-early-european-scholars/@@michelangequay2794
All, or everyone or everything are dangerous concepts. It's always OK to question them.
I always thought that the only thing permanent and free of suffering would be nibbāna, but sujato's interpretation makes more sense to me.
It's worth considering, anyway.
Interesting, when I took a course in taoistic philosophy 101 many years ago, in the very first class I heard that everything changes in nature, except the laws of nature. That is the most common knowledge in taoism. But I've talked about that with some buddhists priests and they didn't receive it well.
Yes it is interesting to consider!
Thank you sir!
You are welcome!
Great video, Doug. I wonder what Bhikkhu Sujato has to say about Nagarjuna's famous quote that all dharmas are empty.
Thanks! Usually emptiness is defined as being empty of self-nature, so in that case this sounds very similar.
Hi Doug, I noticed that the Vietnamese translation for "conditions" is the same word as the 4th aggregate, "hành". Could it be that "all conditions" mentioned here referring to the 4th aggregate, mental conditions, exclusively? That explains the broader scope of all (physical) dhammas versus all (mental) conditions. Thank you.
"Conditions" in Pāli is saṅkhāras, which has a very wide range of meanings. In this context it basically means "conditioned things" rather than the 4th aggregate in particular.
@@DougsDharma Okay, I see the consistency in the translation. It's the same Pali word for both cases, though it still makes more sense for me to interpret it as the 4th aggregate. Only the mind can perceive impermanence and experience suffering.
🙏🏼
Are the kalapas what is left when the dhammas are consumed?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalapa_(atomism)
Well I would say everyone possesses a superficial understanding of the fact that all phenomena don't last long, but not everyone is able to fully grasp it at a deeper level
Yes, agreed.
So all products are impermanent; The process of becoming impermanent is actually "permanent". Is Nirvana a product, a process, or a byproduct once you let go of both product and process?
Well nirvana isn't a product (it's not dependent on anything else), and isn't a process. It doesn't involve change. To say more than that becomes controversial, I think. I will be doing a video on nirvana eventually where I may get into some of this.
Can anyone, please, give me the sound answer to this: is the Dharma a dharma?
Good question, I think Bhante Sujato's idea is that it is. If for example anything that can be cognized is a dharma, then since the Dharma can be cognized it is a dharma. But that's just a hypothesis.
I think there's nothing wrong with traditional interpretation. But if it is compared to Bhikkhu Sujato's interpretation, it's lack of textual evidence, except for text from later period. So I tend to support Bhikkhu Sujato's from academic perspective. However, for the sake of convenience, for pragmatic purposes, I think we still can use the traditional one because it doesn't contradict suttas.
Yes, and Sujato agrees with the traditional point anyway.
Because self, even divested of all personas, is yet itself a persona? There is no tangential I. No narrative self. There only is the being... ?
I miss the "hello hello" 😅
😄 Hello hello!
It seem obvious to me that rhe conditions refered to are our conditions. I dont think the Buddha meant to posit conditiond things against the Unconditioned thing only to passively infer that its not self. There seems to be no reification of a Nibban in rhis particular early passage. I understand him as pointing out simply that our conditions are unwieldy and painful bcayse nothjng is mine, ours.😢
Isn't "Not Self" the "Self in Change"?
I thought this was widely known since at least mid century? Isn't it a logical consequence of sunyata?
How do you mean?
@@DougsDharma I watched the video again and I hope I'm getting the point right. I said it is a logical consequence of sunyata because all these things are void and therefore not self. That implies the unconditioned dharmas, which it seems sujato wants to make explicit? It is said that once one has voided everything, one must then void the void. Scholarship has probably known for a lot longer, but I have been slacking on my Donald Lopez lately. Even when one meets the Buddha on the road, it is said that it's best to kill him. Is this all not what is meant by thoroughly void?
@@Linqua2112 Yes that is part of what Sujato is saying, though not explicitly. And indeed, it has been known since long before Donald Lopez ... since Nāgārjuna in fact. However Bhante Sujato is speaking of texts from early Buddhism which is perhaps seven centuries prior to Nāgārjuna himself.
Is there one Dharma ? If so, can you get it out of the long history (literally thousands of years) of philosophies, schools, teachers, and meanings that get lost in translation ? IMHO...no.
Buddhism is not one thing, is a living dharma. We will never agree on one particular view regarding self, Self, soul, realms of existence, Nirvana, consciousness, emptiness, "suffering", rebirth, karma, etc.
Are we getting it wrong then ? yes in so far as we cannot know what Buddha really meant (and I bet my beads we would disagree with him a lot even if we did), but also no, as in we do get it right if we achieve the goal of living a better life (that is, a peaceful and mindful life amidst change in our time).
🙏😊
Subhuti, those who would now set forth on the bodhisattva path should thus give birth to this thought: ‘However many beings there are in whatever realms of being might exist, whether they are born from an egg or born from a womb, born from the water or born from the air, whether they have form or no form, whether they have perception or no perception or neither perception nor no perception, in whatever conceivable realm of being one might conceive of beings, in the realm of complete nirvana I shall liberate them all. And though I thus liberate countless beings, not a single being is liberated.’
And why not? Subhuti, a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a being cannot be called a ‘bodhisattva.’ And why not? Subhuti, no one can be called a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a self or who creates the perception of a being, a life, or a soul.
Many roads lead to the Path but basically there are only two: reason and practice. To enter by reason means to realize the essence through instruction and to believe that all living things share the same true nature, which isn't apparent because it's shrouded by sensation and delusion. Those who turn from delusion back to reality, who meditate on walls, the absence of self and other, the oneness of mortal and sage, and who remain unmoved even by scriptures are in complete and unspoken agreement with reason. Without moving, without effort, they enter, we say, by reason. To enter by practice refers to four all-inclusive practices suffering injustice, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing, and practicing the Dharma.
This is where doctrine fails. Go see for yourself.
Nirvana is not self but when you realize there is no self that is nirvana.
Nirvana means extinguished, what is extinguished? The delusion of self.
Under rated comment. Anicca is deep, it is very deep. At first you want to lean into "killing your ego", then it becomes more clear every day... Your direct experience right now, rather.. "the" direct experience occurring right now as you read this, IS ALREADY a direct experience of "not self". There never was a posses of experience, it doesn't require a self to exist. No dhamma requires a self to exist. There isn't a state of mind to achieve, or a being to annilate, or ego to destroy.. Ego can still remain, Infact it is, just... Not self. I am can still remain, Infact however, it is just, not self. All conventional dhamma will remain, as they are, however.. They are "not self". Nirvana does not arise, nor cease. This means it is ever present in every moment. You only realize that no self, anicca, IS how everything always has been. There never has been a "self" possessing the experiences. There is no self to realize Nibbana, it is only causes and conditions of unwinding depending origination to less to its realization. There is no self to be annilate, because there was no self ever existing in the first place, and I'm not being semantic.. I am saying literally right now, your subjective experience is already not self. All that changes is the ignorance of that is extinguished.
Buddha created a straw dog then negates it.
สัพเพ ธัมมา อนัตตา