Mr Z said: "He has quoted Rob Burbea several times "We’re not trying to destroy the sense of self, where trying to understand something about it”. He claims Angelo and others have taken it a step too far."

Soh replied:

Rob Burbea is not correct here. Buddhism does destroy the sense of self, but only at an advanced phase of one's practice.

Destroying the sense of self is part and parcel of overcoming the third and ninth fetter of Buddha’s teachings (I am not speaking here of Kevin Shanilec’s version which I consider to be not exactly the same as Buddha's definitions but that's another story).

However the way the fetters are destroyed is not through forcing it out. That cannot be done.

As John Tan said:

"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising. "

~ Thusness (source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)

"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another form of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force yourself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."

~ Thusness

- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html

So if that is what Rob Burbea meant, then he is correct. However, if he meant that the sense of self will forever be around, then it is clearly wrong, and he is clearly at odds with the Buddhist scriptures from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana. Sense of self will indeed vanish without a trace in true liberation. Also see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/buddhahood-end-of-all-emotionalmental.html

Buddha or arahants will still be able to respond to someone calling his name, but it does not mean he/she has a sense of self.

"Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)"

- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFNGVgBHTq9uH1IuxwgiDtblDUbra_E7HnGM2DmoHhF_XIBOtuwE2EnrfDEXjkmhQ

And here's another better translation:

SN 1.25

Question: When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: would they say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”

The Buddha replied: “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

Question: “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit if they’d say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”

The Buddha replied: “Someone who has given up conceit has no ties, the ties of conceit are all dissipated. Though that intelligent person has transcended substantial reality, they’d still say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

Lastly, another sharing of an excerpt of Buddha's discourse in MN 140:

29. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’

30. “‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?

31. “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and is not agitated. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he be agitated?

32. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ Bhikkhu, bear in mind this brief exposition of the six elements.”

----

The Buddha said: Blissful is passionlessness in the world, The overcoming of sensual desires (i.e. anagami); But the abolition of the conceit "I am" (i.e. arahantship) — That is truly the supreme bliss.

Also, the Buddha said:

“The noble ones have seen as happiness

The ceasing of identity.

This [view] of those who clearly see

Runs counter to the entire world.



“What others speak of as happiness,

That the noble ones say is suffering;

What others speak of as suffering,

That the noble one know as bliss.”

-- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/05/early-buddhism-model-of-awakening.html