Ron-The-Elder wrote:My suspicion is that English is not your first language. The definition of "categorical" does not in any way pertain to a follower being a novice. Buddha did categorically deny the existence of any permanent self.
In
AN 4.42, the Buddha is very clear that there are four ways of answering a question - categorically, analytically, with a counter question, or questions that should be put aside.
When asked outright if there is a self or no self, the Buddha refused to answer. Thus, this is not a categorical denial. It is instead a question that should be put aside.
As an example of categorical statements made by the Buddha, we can look at
AN 2.18, the Ekasema Sutta, which Thanissaro translates as "Categorical".
Likewise, in
the Potthapada Sutta (DN. 9), the Buddha states his "categorical teaching" comprise the Four Noble Truths.
Note that the first set of categorical statements concern action, and the second set the frame of reference for experience and action. Neither of them concern the existence or non-existence of a self.
Likewise, the Buddha identifies the view
I have no self as a case of inappropriate attention, just as much as the view
I have a self - see
MN2:
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he doesn't attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends (instead) to ideas fit for attention...
"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing."
So in conclusion I think we can say that the Buddha does not categorically deny the existence of the self. What he denies is the usefulness of the concept of self and no-self as a frame of reference for our experience. Experience should be approached from the framework of the Four Noble Truths, and within that framework we employ the perception of phenomena as not-self as a useful strategy for putting an end to suffering.
This is not the same thing as advancing a metaphysical position about the self. Even if our position is that the self does not exist, this is just one of the six kinds of view.