Hi
Some people say that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal autonomous substantial Self, but that the Buddha did not deny the existence of an impermanent relative conventional Self. For these people, the Buddha does not go against the idea that our relative identity is our human body and human mind, he would only reject the eternal autonomous substantial Self.
Except that when I read sutta of the Pali Canon, it is often said:
« the 5 aggregates are not the “I”, the tongue and the consciousness of taste are not the “I”, the body and the consciousness of touch are not the “I” ».
So I don’t get the impression that the Buddha was only rejecting an eternal autonomous substantial self, but ALSO the impermanent relative conventional self.
In fact, I think that although the Buddha totally rejects the idea of a “self”, he does accept the existence of individual minds undergoing rebirths. But we can’t call these individual minds “I”, even conventionally speaking. Is this correct? I wish to align myself with the orthodox Theravada position.
What do you think about this?
Also, I tend to meditate on the fact that I am neither a permanent autonomous substantial Self, nor an impermanent relative conventional Self. Is that dangerous? I should only meditate on the absence of a permanent autonomous substantial Self?
Thanks in advance.
May all beings reach the causelessness.