Page "Anatta" Paragraph 51

According to this analysis, the Buddha did not make the metaphysical assertion that nibbana is not self, but neither did he hold the metaphysical view that it is self.

In fact, a statement by the Buddha that nibbana is atta or that it is anatta is nowhere to be found in the Canon, and according to Nanavira Thera, both statements regarding nibbana from the perspective of the arahant are inconsistent with statements he did make.

In this analysis, the self / not-self dichotomy simply is not applicable there.

As AN 4. 174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining ( or both, or neither ) after the complete realization of unconditioned consciousness is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated ( or to complicate the uncomplicated ).

The range of differentiation goes only as far as the " All :" The Blessed One said, ' What is the All?

Simply the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas.

This, monks, is called the All.

Anyone who would say, " Repudiating this All, I will describe another ," if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.

Why?

Because it lies beyond range.

" Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the " All.

" Thus someone who is not liberated should not cling to any object of the six sense spheres, including nirvana if it has been tasted but not fully realized, as a permanent self, and for a liberated individual who has gone beyond experiencing nirvana as an object, ideas of self and non-self do not apply.