text:
How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not
  there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said
  that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is
  to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of
  Buddhist practice impossible.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the skandhas can be identified as a self, as long as they aren't then taken to be in any way unchanged from moment to moment

Encyclopedia of Buddhism, By Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish

So I was wondering if that above silence means that any dharma can fulfill the role of that empirical self.

An example would be: Adam tastes the apple
Supposing this "taste" can be considered a kind of self, then if Adam sees smells touches feels nothing, just tastes the apple, there is "continuity" and he's still Adam. But as long as he does have other senses, and from moment to moment, the taste of apple doesn't make him who is he.
I've never read any commentary which claims this is what the empirical self is in Buddhism, so would be really surprised that this counts as a categorical denial of substantial self.

I'm not sure about the premise (that "The Buddha claimed that the self neither exists nor doesn't exist"). Can you reference that quote? Might you be mis-remembering or badly paraphrasing it? Which school of Buddhism? Would it be a relevant answer, to just reference a sutta (i.e. SN 44.10) in which he said something sort of similar but rather different (in order to kind of 'refute' the question if that's not being rude)? It might be difficult to answer this question if it's based on a false premise.

@ChrisW would never think refuting me was rude... will find

yes please find the source for what you would like to discuss.  if it is in the scriptures then it could be a great topic to ask about.  in general, there are three marks of existence and one of them is selflessness (of all phenomena).

please change the title of your question to reflect the edit

@sova no problem. i couldn't find a sutta which used the "neither exists nor" phrase

The phrase is used in other suttas of the Avyakata Samyutta (SN44), for example in SN 44.6: "That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'" See also Tetralemma.

Conventional language, which means the language used by the world of unenlightenment people, is taken in Buddhism to  be mere words or language. Mere words about 'self' does not mean there is any real self. Instead, it is just a word. One of the 4 kind of attachment is "clinging to words about self". The matter of the words "I" & "mine" being mere conventional language for fully enlightened beings is found in SN 1.25 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.025.wlsh.html). There is often no merit is citing the opinions of authors since they are often wrong.

actually most people think that language is just language, and need not refer to anything "real"@Dhammadhatu

Yes, Again, you answered your own question. In Buddhism, language is not anything real and, self, being only language or mere words, is not real. In Buddhism, as previously explained, 'self; is only an idea, assumption or view.

i nowhere said or asked if the self was "real", i think that's where my confusion is coming from @Dhammadhatu

The Buddha never endorses a positive metaphysical position for reasons explained by Nagarjuna. Thus he will not give a straight answer regarding the self or any metaphysical issue. Rather, he asks us to abandon extreme views and endorse a neutral metaphysical position. The avoidance of extreme metaphysical views leads us to the the non-dual metaphysics of the Perennial philosophy. Thus when asked whether there is a self we must remain silent or speak (seemingly) paradoxically. The Buddha usually opts for the former approach to avoid confusing his listeners.  .

Buddha kept silent in response to Vacchagotta’s question  because answering it in either way, it would have been misunderstood. This nature of the self is beyond the level of understanding of Vacchagotta. He is not yet at that stage in his spiritual development. Buddha never denies the existence of the self. He  rejects annihilationism.  Read the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22), Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85), Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65), Ananda Sutta SN 44.10.  In fact Buddha explained this  when asked by the Venerable Ananda about his silence regarding Vacchagotta’s question. He said that this would have lead Vacchagotta to misinterpret the answer in a way that would bring him further attachment.
With regard to self, the  Buddha said to Ananda in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, to stay as those who have the self as island, as those who have the self as refuge, as those who have no other refuge. (DN 16). As per the scriptures existence is real, but it is transitory.

Dhamma is much more than a mere intellectual pursuit.  It starts with the ‘Guna’ that is cultivating one’s innate nature through virtue and merit. Then only you can touch ‘wisdom’.  Then you start seeing things in a different light.  Then yours will be a positive kind of a withdrawal.... With metta.

The Buddha taught in many places the 'self' is dukkha therefore how can the self be a refuge? Only Hinduism seeks 'The Self' as a refuge. DN 16 actually states: "seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge". Dhamma as a refuge means the suffering wrought deluded disease of self is given up (rather than embraced). DN 16 only uses 'self' in conventional language, meaning to not depend on others externally but to depend on the Dhamma internally. 'Self as refuge' means 'internal refuge' depending only on the Dhamma.

I quoted only partially what Buddha said to get my point across, and now you are doing the same. So we are both right & wrong at the same time. But remember well that there are no contradictions in all of the 18,000+ Theravada Suttas. Every time that we go up the Path it is the same truths that we contemplate on, and get to see them in another light up until becoming an Arahant.. So it is time for you and I to put virtue and merit to the forefront and practice the little that we know and have confidence in what Buddha preached. Let us not argue on this matter any further. With metta.

In DN 16, the Buddha taught his true disciples are to be expert at refuting those of other sects (rather than trying to accommodate the self-views of those from other sects & bring them into Buddhism).

If you think the way that I see it is wrong, check what Arahant Kathiyana's interpretation of this was. His understanding was, "This process of birth and aging sweeps you away just as the deep waves of the great ocean.  So make yourself a protective island that will bring happiness to your life, for there isn’t an external refuge for you." - Thera Gatha. You seem to be even wiser than an Arahant, @Dhammadhatu. So who am I to comment on your insights. So this is my very last comment to you, until you see otherwise. With muditha.

You should not believe or hold a view that:

there is a self
there is no self

But whatever you consider as self is not worthy of being called self as:

you cannot control it to your will
it is impermanent

Since if you take a being as parts in terms of the 5 aggregates or 6 faculties each part which constitutes a being is not self. E.g. the eye is not self, what you see is not self, what you feel is not self, your corporeal body is not self, etc.

Adam tastes an apple. If this "taste" can be considered an
  ephemeral (short-lived; transitory) self, then supposing Adam sees smells touches feels nothing, only tastes the apple, there is a
  continuity and he's still Adam. But as long as he does have other
  senses, the taste of apple doesn't make him who is he.

The taste does make Adam 'who' 'he' believes 'he' is because there is no (self) 'becoming' without sense experience.

Thus kamma [Adam believing "he" is eating the apple] is the field, consciousness [tasting the apple] the seed and craving the
  moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance
  & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
AN 3.76

There is no real ephemeral 'self' in Buddhism. In Buddhism, 'self' is a 'view' or 'idea' born of ignorance. It is considered to be a 'disease' or 'suffering'.

...assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now
  what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
  the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
SN 22.81

It is not Adam that tastes the apple but consciousness & the nervous system of the tongue, brain, etc, that taste the apple. To quote:

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
  the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
  since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
  be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
  correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
  sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
SN 12.12

More relevant quotes below:

This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a
  'self.'
Ud 3.10

~~

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10

~

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
  clingings & biases. But one such as this does (with right view) not get involved with or
  cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,
  or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty
  or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when
  passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent
  of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
SN 12.15

~~

'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a
  construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I
  shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall
  not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor
  non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing
  is a cancer, construing is an arrow.
MN 140

i have accepted this answer on the grounds that if it's right then i'm no buddhist. what good news. cheers

No problem. Now you can realise for yourself why the Buddha remained silent.

Amazing answer.

I'm not a Pali scholar but "wrong" sounds like a wrong translation.
It  is "something that leads one to suffering" to believe that the self exists, or that it doesn't?
The view or belief that there is a self is the most fundemental idea that leads beings to suffering on an individual scale and is the separator of us all.

There's a Dhamma talk titled "Selves & Not-self". The second part of it, Talk 2: Out of the Thicket and Onto the Path discusses the sutta that you're asking about.
That article is too long to quote but it's short enough to read.
The use of "the Thicket" in the title is presumably a reference to this passage in MN 2,

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 stay just as it is for 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.

I think this passage (from MN 2 above) helps to explain why the Buddha wouldn't want to declare whether or not "there is a self".
I think it's saying that "I have a self" is a view, and "I have no self" is another view.
They are "fetters of views" (or become fetters) ... as opposed to "right view":

The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not 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 precepts & practices.

Further to that I think there's another sutta, I don't remember which sutta but the following is a quote from an article This is not me; this is not mine, I am not this  by Bodhipaksa,

The Buddha did not teach, incidentally, that there was no self. The word “anatta,” which is often translated as “no self” is invariably used in the Buddhist scriptures in the context of saying “This is not myself. That is not myself.” It’s never used, as far as I’m aware, to say “there is no self.” And in fact when the Buddha was asked flat out if he taught that there was no self he refused to answer, and he also said that there was no view of self that would not lead to suffering: including the view that there is no self. I do sometimes say there is “no self” but what I mean by that is that there is no self that exists as we think it exists: separate and permanent. That kind of self doesn’t exist.

Edited to add: Bodhipaksa was paraphrasing paragraph 23 of the The Discourse on the Snake Simile -- Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22):

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

Re. the question in the OP, whether "the skandhas can be identified as a self", the footnote [27] says,

Attavaadupaadaanam upadiyetha. While in most translations the term upaadaana has been rendered by "clinging," we have followed here a suggestion of the late Bhikkhu Ña.namoli, rendering it by "assumption" [see The Wheel No. 17: Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha, p. 19 (Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy)]. In this context, the word "assumption" should be understood: (1) in the sense of a supposition, (2) in the literal sense of its Latin source: adsumere, "to take up," which closely parallels the derivation of our Paali term: upa-aadaana, "taking up strongly." In this sense we have used it when translating the derivative verb upaadiyetha by "you may accept." Attavaadupaadaana is one of the four types of clinging (see Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary), conditioned by craving (ta.nhaa). This term comprises, according to Comy, the twenty types of personality-belief (sakkaaya-di.t.thi).
Quoting this passage of our text, the Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula remarks: "If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the monks to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha's view, there is no such soul-theory..." (What the Buddha Taught, London, 1959; p.58).

The so-called "twenty types of personality-belief" are listed in MN 44 as well as in SN 22.1 i.e. four types of belief for each of the 5 khandhas:

That the khandha is the self
That the self possesses the khandha
That the khandha is in the self
That the self is in the khandha

Dharmafarer has a similar translation of MN 22:

Bhikshus, you may well cling to the self-doctrine194 that would not cause sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief and despair to arise in one who clings to it.195 But do you see any such possession, bhikshus?”
“No, bhante.”
“Good, bhikshus. I, too, do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair in one who clings to it.

Or perhaps you're asking whether it's OK to "consider" a khandha as self, as long as they're not taken to be unchanged?
Paragraph 23 of MN 22 says that you can't "cling to" (or "assume") a self-view that doesn't cause suffering.
Maybe your question hinges on whether you can "consider" (as it says in the question) or "believe" (as it says in the title) something (a belief or identification) that's impermanent? If so perhaps the answer is that words like "view" and "doctrine" and "belief" are taken to be somewhat fixed, not transient -- see for example the answers to this question, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
I guess I need to leave it to you to decide whether your saying "skandhas can be as a self, as long as they aren't then taken to be in any way unchanged from moment to moment" matches something like SN 22.1,

Ven. Sariputta said: "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
(as well as 'form', likewise for feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness)
And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a 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 — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

Correct. As I just posted in a new post, the problem is: "I have a self" is a self-view and "I have no self" is another self-view. They are both self-views.

Poor translations often lead to unnecessary questions.
The Pali in SN 44.10 is & poorly translated as follows:

kinnu kho bho gotama, atthattāti...Kiṃ pana bho gotama, natthattāti
Is there a self? Is there no self?

The words 'atthattāti' & 'natthattāti' also appear in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta, again, poorly translated, as follows:

The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence (atthitañceva) or to non-existence (natthitañca). But he does
not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy and
dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: ‘This is my
self.’ He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever [self-view
that] arises is merely dukkha that whatever [self-view that] passes
away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on
anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.

‘Atthi’ appears to mean “to be” or “to exist” & related to the word ‘asmi’ (“I am”). ‘Atthitā’ is said to mean ‘state of being’ (where ‘ta’ means ‘state’) and to be an abstact of ‘atthibhāva’. The word ‘natthi’ naturally has the opposite meaning.
Therefore, in SN 44.10, Vacchagotta probably asked the following questions (in order to illicit the response of the Buddha to Ananda):

Am I a self? Do I have a self?

Am I not a self? Do I not have a self?

Since both questions are not free from the idea of being an 'I', they are bewildered questions.
When a mind ('person') believes it is a 'self' & tries to annihilate this self, in MN 102, the Buddha compared this to a dog chasing its own tail.

...through fear of identity & disgust with identity, keep running &
circling around that same identity; just a dog tied by a leash to a
pillar keeps running around that same pillar...
MN 102 - Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

again you don't really answer the question directly enough for me, but thanks, i get it anyway... "self" is always a loaded term

Again, you are responding the same as Vacchagotta, which, again, shows why the Buddha remained silent to Vacchagotta.

http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2013/waht-to-do-when-someone-doesnt-answer-your-question-but-what-just-what-they-thi

There's an English translation of MN 102 linked from SuttaCentral: Those recluses and brahmins, who declare the annihilation, destruction and the non existence of the conscience, fear the self loathe it, and run round that same self. Like one bound to a wooden or iron post would run round and round the post

There no contradiction. The opening post contains a serious misunderstanding.
There is one primary sutta where the Buddha remains silent. This was for the sole reason the listener (Vacchagotta) was unable to understand, i.e., 'bewildered'.
Vacchagotta asked the question: "Is there a self (atta)? Is there no self (nanatta)"? (kinnu kho bho gotama, atthattāti...Kiṃ pana bho gotama, natthattāti.)
It was Vacchagotta that defined the words or terms used in the discussion (rather than the Buddha). Vacchagotta was not asking a question about Buddhism but asking a question based on certain non-Buddhist doctrines. Vacchagotta did not ask about the Buddhist 'anatta'.
Please carefully read the relevant sutta below:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self (atthattāti) — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self (natthattāti) — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of the self]. If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"
SN
  44.10

Please don't use comments for Criticisms which do not add anything constructive

There is no right or wrong in Buddhism. As the saying goes "One man meat is another man's poison". That is why Buddha expounded 84,000 paths. All leads to Enlightenment.... Look for a good teacher!

The Buddha referred to the four qualities of his existence: permanence, individuality, bliss and purity. A self that lacked these qualities would not be a good enough self so I infer that the Buddha teaches there is a Self, in the sense of the above-mentioned type of individual existence, and it is arrived at or realized by Awakening, hence the meaning of the word "Buddha".
We must acknowledge that we exist in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't have an opportunity for thought at all. So we must assume that the Buddha's teaching was never intended to be understood as a negation of being itself, but one that any right-minded person with the willingness to reason could fathom. The Buddha's teaching on the "skandhas" is that they are composites, and because of this they aren't real, they'll fall apart into their constituent elements, are inherently unreliable and therefore it's not wise to regard them as a self.
The body, like all physical structures in the universe, is no self, has no self, is not the Self, which is fine because having arisen it then must pass away, which would be inconvenient if it were the real You.
The mind is no self, has no self, is not the Self, again because it arises and passes away at each new perception, and because one doesn't see fit to attribute being to mere perception, which is only the mutually non-exclusive proliferation of differentiation and identification of things that aren't You. In the hypothetical case of the perception of two identical objects the mind would be baffled, yet one would know immediately that the knowledge of which is which is what's missing, and that knowledge could never be supplied by mere perception.
As for an "empirical" (measurable) or "substantial" self, it's impossible, since being in essence cannot be delimited as physical, nor as non-physical, nor mental, nor non-mental, nor both, nor neither nor any combination of these.

so I infer that the Buddha teaches there is a Self I haven't made that inference, instead I assumed that "there is a Self" was a pre-existing/contemporary belief (e.g. in Brahman), which he was contradicting or (if not contradicting) which he was addressing.

@ChrisW user's question was about the existence or non-existence of "a self" but Vachagotta's question was about whether or not the view of eternal, unchanging being was correct, and also whether or not the view that death is the annihilation of being was correct. User and V seem to come from opposite directions about the same issue: existence, rather than issue of identification/differentiation that "there is a self" - thinking of clarifying answer...thanks

First of all there is a doctrine of self to which there can be a clinging.
This doctrine is of several types, ie;

mind is held to be a self
body is held to be a self
mind & body are held to be a self
everything external & internal is held to be a self

These doctrines are included in 'ideation' which can be understood to be a function of the nervous system, this doctrine [included in ideation] exists as a descriptive model of what is perceived & thought about as internal & external to the nervous system and that which is thought about as 'the nervous system' in & by itself.
These doctrines are also included in classification of ideas as 'delusion' and 'wrong view' because they turn out to be false and are not rightly descriptive of what is perceived & thought about.
Flawed doctrines are not nothing, they come into play as they provide context. In & in dependence on that very context there comes to be grasping with wrong view. In dependence on that grasping  with wrong view there comes to be the conception & perception of ideation classed as craving-verbalizations such as 'I am', 'I am good', 'I am bad', 'I am like this', 'May i be like this', 'May i be otherwise' etc.
Intent on becoming 'like this' or 'like that' does not come into play without the context provided by these flawed doctrines, the notion 'I am' depends on it.
Arahants abandon these lines of reasoning;

One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address.

Craving for existence [bhava] does not come into play without the context of those doctrines.
Existence does not occur independently of those doctrines since craving-verbalizations do not occur independently of those doctrines. Existence is to that extent born of delusion.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

The perception & conception of the world depends on delusion & wrong views.
These doctrines are a flawed description of the world and this flawed understanding of the world sustains it's perception & conception of the world

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one.

When The Buddha asks Anuradha to pin down existence of The Buddha in the here & now as a truth or reality, then Anuradha is unable to do it.
Yet when asked 'Is the Buddha without feeling?', then Anuradha answers 'No' thus affirming the existence of 'what he couldn't pin down as a truth or reality' but that in dependence on the context in which question was posed.
Thus you can see that the question 'Is the Buddha without feeling?', Is posed in the context of the delusional doctrine thus postulating existence of 'what can't be pinned down as a truth or reality' but that in the context of delusion.
To answer the question in the title in short;
the correct expression is that the word 'self' means something [exists] in the context of the delusional doctrine but it's existence can not be pinned down as a truth or reality [doesn't exist] (which is why the doctrine is falsified).
It would be wrong to assert that 'self' is nothing [doesn't exist] as if it is meaningless and it would be wrong to assume that it's existence can be pinned down as a truth or reality.

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

It is a difficult question. But it is not unanswerable. Suppose you have a glass of milk , you will say it is milk. Now if you boil it ,you can not say it was same milk as it was before. If you leave it ,it will  change into curd. You are now calling that milk, curd. If you boil milk enough it changes into Ghee (Indian cheese). The milk has become Ghee. The milk changes from one state to another and none of the state is permanent. We can not find a name which defines a glass of milk forever. It is a analogy. Similarly I am ,let us say, Rehman ,a muslim, ... I am different from what I was when I was born. I will be different from what I am today. These changes do not stop with just my one life... I die and become a Christian ,James. All my sanskar change... Now tell me what defines me? Is it a valid question to ask whether there is Rehman or there is no Rehman ?
Similarly it is wrong to debate whether self exists or doesn't.Hope it helps.

This seems to be a major point of conflict between not just Theravada and Mahayana but also Zen and other views of the west. The distinctions actually become rather pedantic and I believe that is the source of the Buddha's silence.
The word "shunyata" literally means emptiness. The ABSENCE of things. Space. If you make that space into an object ... that is the self in accord with many interpretations within the Mahayana tradition. They simply objectify the emptiness and give it a name and that name is "self".
It's not so different from the Theravada tradition. The 5 skandhas are said to make up the entire person with no "self" to possess them. Thus making any idea of self a delusion. So any ideas of a self are an illusion.
Imagine an empty box. Nothing is inside. But instead of nothing let's call it "self". There's plenty of nothingness, or "self", outside the box as well. In fact that's pretty much most of the universe. Now give that box some sensory organs like a pair of eyes and some ears and a nose. And now a brain to interpret the signals and save the results. All of these inputs create the illusion that the empty space is now different than it was (an individual identity), but it is still just some space. That is the self.
So there's really not a lot of distinction between there being a self (emptiness objectified) or there being nothing (hollow). Hence the Buddha's silence on the matter directly.
I know many here are interpreting English so I am not sure if this explanation as I write it will be completely understood in translation. Please don't immediately rule this explanation out just for that reason. Try to envision the box example.

let's call it "self" If the "self" is the "being-me" of a person, doesn't the "self" of an object (e.g. of a table) refer to the "being-a-table" or the "table-ness" of a table? I thought that Theravada anatta is about, like, emotional attachment to "self"; whereas Mahayana sunyata is about, like, experience being subjective not objective, objects being impermanent (and dukkha), object boundaries (names) being kind of arbitrary. See also here and here.

It doesnt have to be so esoteric Chris. If you look at each of our atoms we are mostly space. Depending on your perspective we might appear as a solid or a space. And of course all that space is connected and everywhere at once. All across existence. I appreciated the links. They were useful.

I read in David Loy's book Lack and Transcendence that one interpretation of shunyata is not so much 'empty' as: "full of possibilities". I found that very helpful. Chogyam Trungpa also talks about 'space' and 'spaciousness' and how when we cling, the space becomes solid and we are no longer free within it.

This is question for pāli and abhidhamma, but no one answer it in pāli and abhidhamma. So, the people still doubt in self, because no one answered the whole story of "self" word.
Self of wrong view is attha-paññatti (paññatti/vijjamāna=unreality) that can be just avijjamāna-sadda-paññatti in conversation's context. So, the conversation must has some wrong causes and effects in it's context.
But self, atta-sadda, in pali language can be every (6) type of sadda-paññatti:

vijjamāna-sadda-paññatti = vocabulary of reality refer to reality, such as "contact (mind-factor)" word.
avijjamāna-sadda-paññatti = vocabulary of unreality refer to unreality, such as "self" word of wrong view.
avijjamānena-avijjamāna-sadda-paññatti = vocabulary of unreality,
and speaker use  another vocabulary of unreality to refer to that
unreality in conversation, too, such as "world-creator-self" word,
world-creator=unreality, self=unreality, world-creator-self refer to
self-unreality.
vijjamānena-avijjamāna-sadda-paññatti =  vocabulary of unreality, but speaker use  another vocabulary of reality to refer to that  unreality in conversation, such as "nibbāna-sphere" word of mahāyāna-nikāya)**, nibbāna=reality, sphere=unreality, nibbāna-sphere refer to sphere-unreality. This is called upamāpubbapada-visesanopama-kammadhāraya-samāsa in pāli.
avijjamānena-vijjamāna-sadda-paññatti =  vocabulary of reality, but speaker use  another vocabulary of unreality to refer to that  reality in conversation, such as "person-elements" word, person=unreality, elements=reality, person-elements refer to 4 element-reality. Or, such as "nibbāna-sphere" of theravāda, nibbāna=reality, sphere=unreality, nibbāna-sphere refer to nibbāna-reality. This is called upamānuttara-visesanopama-kammadhāraya-samāsa in pāli.
vijjamānena-vijjamāna-sadda-paññatti vocabulary of reality, and speaker use  another vocabulary of reality to refer to that  reality in conversation, such as "mind-factor" word, mind=reality, factor=reality, mind-factor refer to mind's factor-reality.

Every sadda-paññatti can spoken by everyone, but each person maybe expect to refer to the difference meaning from another speaker, such as "nibbāna-sphere" of mahāyāna that is very difference from  "nibbāna-sphere" of theravāda tipitaka.
So in pāli language, we specify mahāyāna's "nibbāna-sphere" word as  upamāpubbapada-visesanopama-kammadhāraya-samāsa, but we specify theravāda's "nibbāna-sphere" as upamānuttara-visesanopama-kammadhāraya-samāsa.
P.S.  kammadhāraya-samāsa = guṇa-samāsa in ancient pali canon.

It is not wrong but it is void. Investigate for yourself!
For whom is it wrong and to whom is it important whether or not such a being can exist?!

The answer to your question can be found in the following quote, from SN 22.1:

“How is one afflicted in body and afflicted in mind?
Here, the uninstructed worldling, ... , who
is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined
in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or
form as in self, or self as in form. He lives obsessed by the notions:
‘I am form, form is mine.’ As he lives obsessed by these notions, that
form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of
form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and
despair.

And similarly for feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
So, let's list out the relationships here, with X being the aggregates:

X as self / I am X
self as possessing X / X is mine
X as in self
self as in X

OP: An example would be: Adam tastes the apple

Let's say I bite, chew, taste and relish the flavour of a sweet juicy apple right now in my mouth and on my tongue.
Mmmm... I am having the taste (feeling) of a nice sweet juicy apple right now.
What's this? The self as possessing a feeling. I am possessing this pleasant feeling right now.
It's my apple. The apple is mine. What's this? The self as possessing the physical form of the apple.

OP: How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

The sutta quote above continues: "With the change and alteration of X, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair."
Let's continue our story.
Suddenly, someone snatches my sweet juicy half-eaten apple away from me, and throws it to the muddy ground, where it becomes dirty and inedible.
What happened now? The feeling that the self possessed changed. The form that the self possessed changed.
Due to this, I become angry because someone took my apple away from me. I become angry because someone denied me of my enjoyable taste of the apple. That's pain and displeasure. That's suffering.
The last of the taste of the apple vanishes from my tongue. I miss it. I could have tasted all of that apple. That apple could have satisfied my taste buds. But alas! It is gone!
What's this? The feeling as in the self. The taste as in me, on my tongue. My tongue? That's self as possessing form - my tongue.
I clung to the taste of the apple. That's clinging. Now the taste has gone, so I suffer. This kind of clinging is always relative to the self using the relationships stated above.
This is how self-view causes suffering.


text:
What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?
In the question "A question regarding the level of worldly participation for a buddhist monk", Bhante gave an answer containing a Zen quote.
The quote is;

"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water.  After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

What is the origin of the quote?
What is the meaning of the quote?

Thank you for your time.

I'm no expert in Zen, but above quote reminds me of something from Ajahn Chah, "when i told people that there is nothing at Nibbana, people start to have second thought."    If i have to guess, the owner of the quote tries to relate Sunyata (emptiness, void) to enlightment.

Related question: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9375/how-is-samsara-nirvana

It means that enlightenment is not about changing your external circumstances in the world, but instead your mind

Before Enlightenment, you hate your life. You chop wood and carry water, but secretly wish to get out of it all. You bear with these activities through habit and out of hopelessness, but you really wish you could do something else. In a way, you are a victim, a slave - the wood chops you and the water carries you, and there is no way to escape. This could go for eternity, it is like living in eternal hell.
After Enlightenment, you are in harmony with the universe. You realized emptiness of it all, so you see that there is nothing more important than chopping wood and carrying water. All activities are equalized, there is no preference, no discrimination. Because there is no "you", no ego, no personality, no being, no separate individuality - there is no conflict. No need to escape. No other bank to be reached, no Nirvana to seek. But also, because you have mastered your mind, you are not chopped by the wood and carried by the water anymore. You can flip your perspective at will. It is your choice to chop wood and carry water, and you live it in complete suchness and spontaneity. You are beyond the beyond. And even beyond "beyond the beyond".
Another user proposed a slightly more cynical version:

After Enlightenment, you are no more in harmony with the universe than you were before, but you try to remind yourself through your ongoing Hell on earth that for one shining, brilliant moment, you realized the emptiness of it all, so sometimes now you see that there is nothing more important than chopping wood and carrying water. All activities are equalized, there is no preference, no discrimination. Because there is no "you", no ego, no personality, no being, no separate individuality - there is no conflict. No need to escape. No other bank to be reached, no Nirvana to seek. You have not mastered your mind, and you are a fool to think you have but you know that you don't have to be chopped by the wood and carried by the water anymore. You probably can't flip your perspective at will, it takes monks, shamans and yogis lifetimes to reach that level, but at least now you know that it is your choice to chop wood and carry water. Your feelings don't change, the world doesn't change. You still feel the same conflicts and oppositions, but now you have learned that you can choose how you react to those things, and that is the only control any of us have.

"Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha"

I can relate to the non-cynical and cynical version, but I think the cynical version implies that there can be no enlightenment with pain. To me enlightenment in the buddhist sense doesn't imply that you're not subject to the normal ebbs and flows of life, it just means that you have the ability to enjoy life for it's own sake, and appreciate the present moment regardless of circumstance.

I am not sure about the origin of this quote but possibly as it used as a Zen message it may have come from Bodhidharma. I am sure about its meaning however. It relates both to Enlightenment and Mindfulness. The true practice of mindfulness which means watching the mind to find the Essence of the Mind will lead to Wisdom and Enlightenment. In simple terms we can say that before I developed the true nature of Wisdom I could chop wood and carry water but my mind was everywhere-it was heavily polluted with mental obstructions and worldly thoughts-it was not present. After I found the Essence of my Mind and found true Wisdom then I experience Enlightenment. To the external eye nothing is different-I still appear to chop wood and carry water but in fact within the internal eye everything is different. Everything has changed. It teaches us to be aware of the transience of visual forms. Nothing is what it appears to be and No thing is what it appears to be.
Thay

It means your liabilities are before and after the enlightenment the same ones. You have to live a life, to meet responsibility and to master challenges. You still have to follow the Path.
Edit
I found on http://www.dharmanet.org/ a source quoting Wu Li as a source:
Before enlightenment chop wood and carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.
Wu Li
See here for details.
And this Site:
顿悟之前砍柴挑水，顿悟之后砍柴挑水——吴力。
Dùnwù zhī qián kǎnchái tiāo shuǐ,
Dùnwù zhī hòu kǎnchái tiāo shuǐ.
–Wú Lì
Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water;
After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.
–Wu Li
Note: Enlightenment does not relieve one of the details of daily life.

I have no unequivocal spring identified, so, a similar quotation was possibly modified for the western Zen.

Thanks for finding source.  Amazing how often quotes go unattributed.

"Chop wood and carry water"
This was first told to me as a story. Here is an abbreviated version.
A young boy became a monk. He dreamed of enlightenment and of learning great things. When he got to the monastery he was told that each morning he had to chop wood for the monks fires and then carry water up to the monastery for ablutions and the kitchen. He attended prayers and meditation, but the teaching he was given was rather sparse.
One day he was told to take some tea to the Abbot in his chambers. He did so and the Abbot saw he looked sad and asked him why.
He replied every day all I do is chop wood and carry water. I want to learn. I want to understand things. I want to be great one day, like you.
The Abbot gestured to the scrolls on shelves lining the walls. He said, "When I started I was like you. Every day I would chop wood and carry water. Like you I understood that someone had to do these things, but like you I wanted to move forward.  Eventually I did. I read all of the scrolls, I met with Kings and and gave council. I became the Abbot.  Now, I understand that the key to everything is that everything is,'chopping wood and carrying water.' and that if one does everything mindfully then it is all the same."

I understand the quote differently: The young monk was pursuing something, which is an attachment, seeking great knowledge, and perhaps in that, fame as well. I think his dissatisfaction indicates that "seeking enlightenment" was perhaps not yet his true purpose. I understand "Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water" is a message to teach humility.

Interesting to read a different view on it. Thanks.

Well, I think they left out the middle part. Quote from this page:

"Before I studied Zen," goes a famous Zen saying, "I saw mountains as
  mountains and rivers as rivers. When I had studied Zen for thirty
  years I no longer saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. But
  now that I have finally mastered Zen, I once again see mountains as
  mountains and rivers as rivers."
The author of that saying is the poet and Ch’an master Ch’ing Yuan,
  who lived in the eighth century CE.

I think the point is to say that 1) the experience of becoming enlightened is not the point, and need not be explained, 2) afterwards, you are outwardly the same, 3) inwardly, you are just as alone, inexplicable and inscrutable to everyone as ever, still responsible only for yourself. Seeing that everything changes and nothing changes is the point - there is in fact, no point. That's the point.

point means 'advantage' or 'purpose', i think it could be better phrased as the point is that there is no point rather than there's "no point. That's the point"... after enlightenment we still chop wood: we get that it has no purpose, it's not that getting that has no purpose.

Isn't it a koan? I'm not sure if koans have definite answers. It probably means something like "there's no material status change after enlightenment. Enlightenment makes one ordinary". One with wrong view  might think that if you win Nirvana you get a crown, a Ferrari and you never have to keep warm or drink water again. So if a Zen master ever heard a student talk like this they could say,
"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

It relates to the essential Mahayana teaching Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra refer to. Teaching about the nature of signs and conceptual appearances coming from mind and eventually, transcending the dualistic nature of mind.
There are signs, but sings are not signs, therefore they are signs. It is the essence of Diamond sutra. Enlightened being continues to do the same activities in after Enlightenment - but the perception of reality is drastically different. Since Zen is all about Yogacara, elaboration of that is conveyed in Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma sutras that are essential parts of this school.
Famous saying in this context is:

Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters;
  after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer
  mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment,
  mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.

As yous see there are three phases of conception (turnings). The only difference is that this original saying you posted, omits the intermediary part where one "doesn't chop the wood, and carry water".
The last step, nonetheless, is realising Three Natures of all things:

Parikalpita (conceptual)
Paratantra (dependent)
Pariniṣpanna (absolute)

Where only the last two are the ones established as ultimate phenomena.

This quote means- Before enlightenment you use to chop wood n carry water. Now an enlightened soul will also continue to do the same chores, coz enlightenment doesn't have to do anything with the activities of living.. it is totally about the way life happens to a soul once enlightened.. it's a state of living..

Firstly, Zen is not ashamed that monks and priests integrate daily life into practice in the form of work.
Secondly, the original quote is from Layman Pang; from Wikipedia: "Layman Pang (Chinese 龐居士 Páng Jūshì; Japanese Hōkoji) (740–808) was a celebrated lay Buddhist in the Chinese Chán (Zen) tradition. Much like Vimalakīrti, Layman Pang is considered to exemplify the potential for non-monastic Buddhist followers to live an exemplary life and to be fully awakened."
"It was sometime during this period that Shitou asked Pang what he had been doing lately, and Pang responded with a verse whose last two lines are well known in Chinese Buddhist literature:
How miraculous and wondrous,
Hauling water and carrying firewood![3]"
Thirdly: Wu Li's cryptic "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water;
After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." only means the same thing as "When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing." and "Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them." "There is nothing infinite apart from finite things." - Wu-Men (another Zen Master). Wikipedia: "Wumen Huikai (simplified Chinese: 无门慧开; traditional Chinese: 無門慧開; pinyin: Wúmén Huìkāi; Wade-Giles: Wu-men Hui-k'ai; Japanese: Mumon Ekai) (1183–1260) was a Chinese Chán (Japanese: Zen) master during China´s Song period. He is most famous for having compiled and commentated the 48-koan collection The Gateless Barrier (Japanese: Mumonkan).[1]"

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Does 'right speech' prohibit expressions which "hate" anything at all?
Does 'right speech' prohibit expressions which "hate" anything at all?
So, not an individual, or even really a point of view, but to ex-press the sensation of intense (if not actually visceral) dislike?

Here on Access to Insight there's a anthology of descriptions of right speech speech from the Pali suttas: Right Speech samma vaca
IMO something like, "It is spoken with a mind of good-will", or "speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large", might be quite incompatible with "express the sensation of intense (if not actually visceral) dislike".
I think the Buddha as portrayed in the suttas might point out that an action or view was "unskillful", or "leads to suffering" ... but wouldn't say something like, "I hate that".
But see also What is a wrathful Buddha? (from another tradition, Tibetan Buddhism) about maybe appearing to be angry.
See also this question, Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?, in which I asked whether the Buddha would "display affect". The accepted answer says, "The closest he gets to actual disturbance is ... Pretty tame, but then that's to be expected; he was, after all, a fully enlightened Buddha."
Also, "hate" is usually seen as one of the fundamental "three poisons" (with possibly some difference between Theravada and Mahayana viewpoints e.g. as might be inferred from this topic, Could Lobha(craving) and Dosa(aversion) be working in tandem?) -- see also the fact that equanimity is a virtue: it's presumably better to abandon even the experience of hate, let alone the expression of hate.

good ending, and synposis

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is it possible to "naturally" reach the first three jhanas
Is it possible, having been taught meditation by a zen master, to naturally enter the 1st three jhanas. By that, I mean through mental effort which is not really meditation as we normally think of it (seated or walking, all effort being applied to that).
I ask because the 1st three jhanas seem, potentially, much more mundane than the rest, worldly. e.g. I feel pretty strong sensations of pleasure most of the time, as long as I'm not there and then planning to do something.
If that second paragraph seems super delusional, then how close is dhyana to a pleasure in which you can't identify why you feel good?

All dogs are animals but all animals are not dogs. Similarly, each of the 1st three rupa jhanas has pleasure as a factor however all feelings of pleasure are not jhana. Each jhana is characteristized by ekaggatā (one-pointedness; stillness; unmovingness) rather than by feelings of pleasure.
That said, jhana is not reached by 'effort'. It is reached by 'letting go', as quoted below:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
SN 48.10

Therefore, when you say: "I feel pretty strong sensations of pleasure most of the time, as long as I'm not there and not planning to do something", this is the 'natural' path to jhana the Lord Buddha described in SN 48.10.
This is similar to the Zen masters, for example:

The Supreme Way is not difficult If only you do not pick and choose. Neither love nor hate, And you will clearly understand. Be off by a
hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth. If you want the
Way to appear, Be neither for nor against. For and against opposing
each other This is the mind's disease. Without recognizing the
mysterious principle It is useless to practice quietude. The Way is
perfect like great space, Without lack, without excess. Because of
grasping and rejecting, You cannot attain it.
Hsin Hsin Ming

Buddhadasa, Thai teacher, who fancied Zen, spoke a lot about natural concentration:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
correct samadhi.  Heartwood from the Bo Tree

Also refer, here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa10.htm

I think one can conclude that there are other activities, apart from the classic meditation, which may lead to states similar to the lower jhanas. Long distance runners often speak of getting into unrestricted states of mind. Where thinking is moved to the background and concentration is unwavering but not tense, there are feelings of deep joy, rapture, loss of all doubt, loss of hindering self conscious. The runner feels as if he can go on forever. (Similarities with The Tibetan Lung gom pa, trancerunner, comes to mind)
Other athletes than runners also describe kicking into similar states of "flow". These states mainly appear after longer repetitive tasks that requires keeping the mind on one place, so to speak.
Artists, and especially musicians move in and out of states that are very similar to the first levels of jhana. One might suggest that they enter even higher levels. The difference being that the musician is bodily active playing an instrument. And since he/she also utilises parts of the active mind to do so, it cannot get passed that level of absorption.
So, yes. I would definitely say that other activities, more or less mundane, indeed can trigger states that in comparison are quite the same as the Jhanas.


text:
Has there ever been a systematic persecution of Buddhist heretics?
I was reading about the Cathars, and was really struck by the scale of persecution by Christians of Christian heretics.
Obviously there are reasons for that besides not meditating well enough. But in the 2,500 year history of Buddhism all I can think of in those terms is some political manoeuvring in Tibet, and arguments.

Has there ever been a systematic persecution of Buddhist heretics

King Asoka liked the Dhamma so much that he lavished the monks with robes, food and medicine...
This attracted many fake monks...
Monks were beheaded in an effort to find the imposters but that didn't work.
They started the third council to purify the monastic order by questioning monks to find out who knew the Dhamma and who held heretical views so they could  expell the real imposters   from the Sangha.

I think the post of @Saptha Visuddhi is related to the question because it is very difficult to avoid this departure into why Buddhism became extinct in India when asked a question about heresy.
Generally, 'true believers' do not persecute others & it is the 'true heretics' that persecute others.
I would speculate King Asoka was related to the distortion of the teachings that gave pre-eminence to creating populist reincarnation & Brahmanism-directed (conversion) teachings, which ultimately lead to the extinction of Buddhism in India.
I would speculate Buddhism was a victim of its own anti-Brahmanism-directed propaganda.
If we read the Pali suttas, what became to be 'Hinduism' (eg. Tri-Murti of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva or moksha after reincarnations) did not exist during the Buddha's life but, in fact, was possibly distorted adaptations of the Buddhist teachings.
For example, the Pali suttas contain suttas (MN 1, AN 4.124, etc) that equate each meditation jhana with a Brahmanistic god but then state attachment to being a Brahmanistic god leads to hell.
While such suttas appear to be a form of anti-Brahmanistic propaganda (not spoken by the Buddha), most Buddhists believe the Brahman cosmology to be a true & real Buddhist cosmology.
This shows how Buddhism was possibly a victim of its own anti-Brahmanism-directed propaganda & shows how monks with the True Dhamma were probably treated as heretics (while monks with the false teachings that were indifferentiable from Hinduism got absorbed into Hinduism) .
One has to ask what heretical atmosphere prompted Nāgārjuna to compose so many treatises in an attempt to expound a pure & genuine Buddhist doctrine of emptiness & cause-&-effect?
For example, last century in Thailand, there was a young monk, who named himself Buddhadasa, who began publicly teaching supramundane Dhamma, which resulted in the Thai religious authorities (for a short time) accusing young Buddhadasa of 'heresy' & seeking to disrobe him.

He was opposed by conservative monks and laymen such as those from the Abhidhamma Foundation and Anan Senakhan who strongly disagreed
with his interpretation of Buddhism to the point of accusing that
Buddhadasa devalues Buddhism by explaining it simply and that tried to
match the ultimate truth of Buddhism with the ideas of modern man.
Buddhadasa was even accused of being a heretic and communist.
In his book he wrote the title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction between what he considers the interpretation
of Buddhist teaching using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense.
He is convinced that uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy
has obscured a real encounter with the Buddha's dhamma. The criticism
of Visuddhimagga implies that Buddhadasa goes against the belief and
understanding of not only most Thai Buddhists but also Buddhists in
general. Consequently, he is condemned by some groups of monks and
laymen as an ungrateful and heretical person who destroys
Buddhism. On the other hand, his book has became an important
reference which most of Buddhist students have to take into
consideration.
Buddhadasa's Movement: An Analysis of Its Origins,
Development and Social Impact

There is a lot more to what @Uilium mentioned in the earlier post. It was the moguls that did most of the killing of Buddhist Monks, and the process of decline continued until Buddhism got fully wiped out in India by the end of the 12th century, when Somapura Mahavihara (in the present day Bangladesh) was set ablaze. In 1199 CE Odantapuri Mahavihara close to Nalanda was burnt down after killing all the monks. Buddha’s place of Enlightenment, Bodhgaya too was attacked. If only the Mughals and other Muslims of yesteryear, were not like the present day ISIS, we would be having a lot priceless idols, monuments, original scriptures of Asoka era that were there at Nalanda and elsewhere.  Let me now tell you’ll in brief how it all happened from the time of King Asokha.
As @Uilium mentioned, the third council got underway to purify the monastic order of the bad monks.  These other monks who used to practice ‘Buddhism’ according to their own interpretations rose up again. It was a death blow to those who practiced the true dhamma. Their first act was to translate the Dhamma into Sanskrit. They rejected attaining of the Margaphala.
At the time only the Brahmins’ Veda was written in Veda and Sanskrit languages. Brahmins never felt that other religions will be a threat to their own since Veda as it was the only religious script written in Sanskrit. However, after the translation of the distorted scriptures into Sanskrit by the falsified monks who were thrown away from the third council, the Brahmins started to argue pointing out its content. In trying to defeat these Brahmins, these other monks built large universities like Nalanda with the aim of learning the Veda. The language used in these universities was Sanskrit. They tried to outdo the Brahmins. They tried to argue with the Brahmins. This is in contradiction to the Alagaddūpama Sutta, which states that “if anyone tries to learn my teachings to argue with others, then he will be destroyed like the man who tried to catch a snake by its tail.”
When the monks won an argument the monks got the king to make the Brahmins their servants in the Nalanda University. The monks were beheaded when Brahmins won their arguments. The Brahmins went for the kill, because of the change that these monks have made to the Brahmin society. An extremist Sothern Indian Brahmin called Sankarāchārya rose up to break the power of these monks. The  Musālman invaded India at this time. The Brahmins got them to first destroy Buddhism, or at least what was left of it. This was how the Buddhism got wiped out from India.

I guess the OP was asking about persecution of "Buddhist heretics" by "Buddhists".

There is no record of any buddhists being killed by other Buddhists. Since “Chandasoka” or Asoka the Wicked was transformed into “Dharmasoka” or Asoka the Righteous after the Kalinga war in the tenth regnal year he never let any killings to take place in all of his kingdoms. The killings took place after his time, by other kings, when 'adhamma' took the upper hand. Whenevr the Brahmins won a debate, they got the king at the time to behead the monks.


text:
How important is the surangama sutra in cotemporary buddhism?
How important is the surangama sutra in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism?
As far as I know there's never been any "school" which based itself on its interpretations, unlike the Mahaparinirvana, hua-yen, lotus, etc.
Where can I find out about its historical and contemporary use?

Very good question. You can see that no scholars here can answer this question.
It really depends on which school you follow.
In the Theravada school, the Surangama Sutra does not exist: the Surangama Sutra exists only in the Mahayana school. Many of those here are answering questions based on the Theravada school, and in a scholarly manner.
The Buddha's Teachings is not about being scholarly or showing off your knowledge! I am not here to write great answers but to clarify.
The Japanese said that Surangama Sutra is not real and written by someone. The someone must be highly wise. The reason for Surangama Sutra being accused of not being  genuine is because it contained a lot of actions that we should not do and precepts to follow. The Japanese did a lot of those forbidden actions.
Welcome to the Kali Yuga period or Dharma Ending Age or Apocalypse.
In the Kali Yuga period, the Buddha's Teachings will become an academic exercise like what is happening here. How scholarly with your knowledge.
The Surangama Sutra will be the first sutra to disappear in the Kali Yuga period.
Inside the Surangama Sutra, there is the Surangama Mantra which is now separated from  the Sutra as a standalone. This is the daily morning recitation mantra, that all Mahayana Buddhist temples in the world recite (when sky is still dark).
It is the most important part of the Surangama Sutra in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism.
However, the Surangama Sutra is losing its importance in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism. The reason being it is a long sutra to be recited, and it is not easy to understand if it is in Chinese.
The best book on Surangama Sutra is Surangama Sutra translated by the late Charles Luk K'uan Yu (he died in 1978).
The late Master Hsuan Hua and his disciples did some translations. It is available on their web.
The Warning to practitioners section really tells you what will happen when you reach a certain stage. It is a good warning.
In order to recite the the Surangama Sutra, the person must be a full time vegan without eating the 5-6 pungent items -- some Mahayana monks said. I am not sure about being a full time time vegan only you can recite the sutra. Don't try reciting it unless you want to invite demons and devils to fight with you in the first place. Read it first.
Not many can do so, then it is losing its appeal.
So Surangama Sutra and Mantra only exist actively in temples. Externally it is just another book with a few that will recite.
As far as I know there's never been any "school" which based itself on its interpretations, unlike the Mahaparinirvana, hua-yen, lotus, etc.
All schools are the same -- upekkha or equanimity.
Hua Yen-Avatamsaka sutta a great book that I will fall asleep reading.
What is there to interpret about? It is a straightforward book. Use it in your meditation and daily life.
Where can I find out about its historical and contemporary use?
Read the whole book. The Surangama Sutra is about Ananda and Matangi: yes, Matangi. The mantra is about breaking breaking evil spells like Atanatiya.
Contemporary use -- it is not about theory and exorcism. It is all there.Read it.
Usually more suited for monks and upasakas who had been monks before.
If you don't understand, please seek more clarification from me.
The cult endless attacks on Nalanda University put the Surangama Sutra existence only in Chinese after Chinese monks brought it back to China before the 12th century. The destruction of Nalanda University dealt a big blow not only to the Buddha's Teachings but to the Sanskrit Surangama Sutta existence. All important knowledge destroyed and later claimed by the cult.
Many cult students attended the Nalanda University before they informed their blood brothers to destroy all the knowledge that should be left to us.


text:
How To Follow Buddhism Without Offending
I am wondering how to go about starting on the path of Buddhism without offending or appropriating the culture. As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged with the ability to overlook the repercussions of my actions when adopting a new practice/lifestyle what have you.
I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it - but I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist. I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" and I also don't want to offend those who's cultures were shaped by it.
I guess what I'm asking is - how can I start myself on the path respectfully in a manner that shows my true reverence for the teachings of the Buddha? I have privately tried my best to follow the path for some time now, but I've realized I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it.
Advice?

Just one note, in my tradition, we sometimes tell that we are not Buddhists, but we practice Budhism, this is to emphasize that Budhism is just not belonging to a group of people with common interests, but to stress the importance of the continous practice. Metta

what exactly is so humiliating about "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" are whites superior?

@AbelTom see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation -- it's sometimes (or by some people) seen as insensitive, politically incorrect, offensive, to want to adopt elements of another culture.

@AbelTom can you explain your comment? not being bostile at all, just can't tell what angle you're coming from. it sounds like a hostile phrase, playing two races off against each other. then again obsessions -- with people you don't know -- can be viewed with suspicion

i feel you must live in a particularly diddicult place. Around here, in Yorkshire, England, it is not uncommon for people to mention they're a Buddhist student or practitioner. Indeed. there seems to be something of an epidemic.

Well, I'm just going to give my two cents, based on not being raised a Buddhist or in a Buddhist etc. nation.
You can read about the effects of cultural appropriation, and decide if you want to call yourself a Buddhist, practice as one, etc.. I had never encountered this in scholarship, but it doesn't exist peculiar to Buddhism only. There'll be blogs discussing it, but who do you believe?
I think the question of religion, like philosophy and ethics, is not just cultural. So (and I wouldn't want to affect concern) if you feel Buddhism could be sound on these accounts, and / or you need it (to be?), then I would suggest retaining your interest, and concern.
I embraced reading about it because it felt right to. Terms like "Buddhist" don't seem as important, which may be offensive but also seems right. IME asking people "is this offensive" is offensive, and you have to ultimately have to make that judgement yourself, short of being ordained or something.
I hope that you get the answer you're looking for!

Incidentally, I asked this question of a philosopher who lectures on cultural appropriation, but is more concerned with e.g. white musicians playing the blues, over religion. Their answer -- in paraphrase -- was: most religions are keen for new adherents; with its reach and varieties it's unlikely to class as "cultural appropriation".

Thank you for your response! I suppose you're right and it doesn't necessarily matter if you take on the label.

As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged
That's as may be.
Nevertheless I think that "cultural appropriation" is a relatively modern obsession: that it has become fashionable for "holier-than-thou" people in college to fuss about it; but sfaik other people are less likely to think that way (to see or preconceive it as a concern).
I suppose if you've heard of Buddhism, maybe "Buddhism" has begun to be present "your culture" too.
Also your being born into a place and time where you're able to be interested in Buddhism (not only human, but able to hear and understand Buddhist teaching) might be seen as a good thing, a fruit of good kamma. I suspect that Buddhists might feel Mudita towards your good fortune, such as it is.
I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist
Yes. Well there are other ways to phrase a declaration if the situation arises; for example:

I'm interested in Buddhism
As you said, "I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it"
I find Buddhism helpful for X or Y reason
I study or practice with this or that group, or with such and such a teacher

Some people on this site (see these topics) don't like the -ism (Buddhism) word. Buddhist as an adjective is a bit more precise, maybe paired with a noun like (Buddhist) Dharma or (Buddhist) practice etc.
I too have "felt uneasy", by the way:

If said to someone, "I am Buddhist" or "I am a Buddhist", then would that misrepresent Buddhism ... am I a bad examplar, might I put other people off Buddhism?
Is it even true (is that a true statement about myself)?
Is it an view of self, a conceit, a misguided thing to say?
Would it make other people inclined to see me (and Buddhism) as alien?

Such unease could be egocentric nonsense, but anyway, with that kind of thing in mind I have preferred to make declarations that are more concrete, kind of objectively true, sensible (tangible), justifiable: for example "I have been interested in" etc. ("I verb a noun" rather than "I am an adjective").
In a slightly analogous way I'm content to be vegetarian (i.e. to eat vegetarian food) but I'm usually less comfortable with saying so to other people ... in case people think I'm weird (I've been doing it for so long that I think it's normal, it's normal for me) or that I'm judgmental i.e. that I think that they too ought to be vegetarian (it's common but not normal in my culture, some 10% of the total population).
I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture"
I suppose we don't have total control over how other people see us. If someone sees you as a white guy, that's their privilege burden. :-)
Maybe how you see yourself (or attach to a view-of-self) that's more to the immediate point.
If having "an obsession with asian culture" is said to be wrong, my guess would be that's because "culture" is ephemeral and distant, and "obsession" might be harmful. Whereas instead, Dharma (as opposed to culture) is meant to be akalika (timeless or immediate) ... practical. And being harmless (causing no injury) is one of the Buddhist virtues.
I also don't want to offend those whose cultures were shaped by it
I don't see why you'd offend. To be inoffensive, don't claim to know more or to be better, "don't criticize what you can't understand", be a friend. Beware of the elements of Right Speech.
I don't remember anyone telling me I shouldn't be interested in Buddhism.
Normally if you share someone's interest they see that as a good thing.
Look at the "Dhamma gifts" available (i.e. people trying to share Dhamma), I think they're there because the donors want the gifts to be available to us.
how can I start myself on the path respectfully
One answer (or non-answer) is that there are many "dharma gates": i.e. it's up to you and your environment.
Some people choose to "Take the Triple Refuge".
You can practice with (and/or live with) a group of Buddhists, study with a teacher, study texts, find or make a good friend, do good, be generous.
I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it
Ah yes. I don't know if that's true. :-)
If you look at, the 'fetters' which are abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment in the Theravada tradition, the question is maybe tangled up in two of these fetters: i.e. maybe "identity view" includes "I can never truly embrace it" and "declaring myself Buddhist"; and "making a declaration" might be mistaken for a "right and ritual".
And what you said about needing "courage" also isn't necessarily quite canonical: maybe what you want instead of "courage" is a "confidence" or a lack of doubt.
Or maybe it's called faith and energy.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong about courage, but if you can't seem to summon enough of it maybe it's something else (e.g. confidence and so on, right view, etc.) you could develop instead.
Or I suspect that courage and so on might be part of a Buddhist training, but maybe a Mahayana training of a sort that requires a teacher or at least a group to practice with?

I just want to thank you so much for your response. It really has given me a lot to think about and reflect on. I think you may be right that some of my concerns are egocentric, and any hesitance I have may be primarily based on fear of looking a certain way to others. I think finding a teacher would be beneficial to me.

I suggest that you do not overthink matters in relation to Buddhism. Remember that the Buddha was not a Buddhist. He practiced The Way and then showed others how to overcome suffering in their lives. This is basically it. Do Good-Avoid Evil and Purify your Mind. The value in The Buddha Way is not in intellectualism but rather within the intuitive practices. You can become your greatest teacher just find your Way.

I think specifically when you are facing this problem you have specific people in mind who might judge you for being a Buddhist. Contemplate on who these people are and why might they object and what is the fear that is driving you to not say this out loud. For example being raised in a Hindu Brahmin household, my family hated the fact that I had turned to Buddhism as my spiritual path. I was often mocked , humiliated and insulted by my family often to the point where I started developing an irrational fear that they would take my Dhamma away from me. Due to the fact that I started developing such negative mind-states , I stopped commenting on people's questions about my spirituality. Also because when you announce this to everyone and as a human you have a failing , when you do something wrong , people often quip " so this is what your religion is teaching you". Its a very double edged sword.
In the Brahmajala Sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html) Buddha said :
"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken?"
Hence , if you are afraid of censure from the outside world , it will work against your own spiritual development. As the whole practice of Buddhism is about looking inward.
However if you find that speaking about it would generate negative mind-states , best not speak about it with people you know are going to react with censure or insults.
Cultivate a close relationship with a Sangha and interact with people who understand the jewel that the Dhamma is.

Appropriate the culture of the Noble Ones, not the Asian culture.
Practicing the teachings one venerates the Buddha and nobody in the universe can rightly censure you for it.
The immeaditely visible Buddhist culture with temples, customs, teachings and traditions were mostly shaped during the last 300 years and are not necessarily based on Canonical texts which weren't then as easily accessible as they are nowadays.

Yes.   As an English speaking American white male, I am fully aware of the irony of my practicing the Buddha way.  I know that certain Sutras would have never been translated into English, if the British Empire had not established a hostile colonial presence in India and China.  My own exposure to Mahayana Buddhism came through the Sokka Gakkai sect, which was brought to America via Japanese war brides in the mid-twentieth century.
And most of my research into Buddhism came through the Internet, which was invented for military purposes and made public by for-profit companies.
So, how is it okay for me and us to be Buddhist?
You could try to justify it with a pro-white pride argument; Shakyamuni Buddha himself was literally a blue-eyed white male.  (For goodness sake, don't seriously internalize that argument; it is not in accordance with the dharma.)  You could make the contrast between Europe's empires and other imperial powers.  British and American scholars translated Buddhist texts into English; by contrast, many texts in India were permanently lost during periods of Islamic rule.  (This also does not lend itself easily to philosophical pacifism, or interfaith understanding.)
You should never claim permission to practice the Buddha dharma except by appealing to the dharma itself.  The Buddha set in motion the wheel of the dharma; he came to liberate all living beings.  He preached to all who would hear, even to cruel conquerors and war lords.  The Buddha taught against the caste system; he therefore opposed all claims of spiritual hierarchy and exclusive legitimacy based upon tradition or lineage.
The Buddha came down from the Tucita heaven, took on the agonizing and rotting body of an ape, and an ape's limited brain and five senses.  And he was born in the palace of a king and queen, and walked away from all his lawful worldly possessions, accepting for alms only the food he ate.   He gave and taught the dharma to flawed and foolish mortals, in exchange for nothing.  How dare anybody then say to me, "my ancestors lived in the country of the Buddha, and yours did not!"  Or, "some of your ancestors killed some of mine, and stole their money!"
The dharma is, in itself, the solution to war; it is the solution to exploitation, greed, and inequality.  It liberates all who hear.  That is why nobody should be forbidden to hear or practice the dharma.

Don't practice the culture or Buddhism.
Practice what the Buddha taught.
I bet Jesus said the same thing elsewhere but in another language, culture and interpretation.


text:
Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts
Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts?
Killing a Buddha results in (immediate) rebirth in avici; what is the karma for cheating on your spouse?
Karma is karma, but I'm asking merely because I don't think many people realise it is considered important in Buddhism.

Ask yourself if the misconduct will bring about less suffering for any being.
Bring yourself to be honest with the person you wronged, take on their burdens.
Only once the suffering is forgiven will you see your true life potential Buddha nature.

light karma from sexual misconduct is creating enemies (someone who is delighted to see your destruction).  heavy karma is to be born in suffering realms (hell, animal wombs, hungry ghosts).
No need to have supernatural power to see this.. wives, mistresses, girlfriends, husbands, boyfriends, parents of children under their custody, etc. will try to get back at cheaters.  I will post reference if I find the Sutta.

The story of Arahant bikkhuni Isidasi in the scriptures, is a good example of karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts. She became aware of the secret of the cause of her suffering only after she attained Arahantship.

She realized seven births prior to her current birth she had being born a male.  During that life he had molested young girls.  After his death he was born in hell.  He suffered in hell for a considerable period of time.  Next he was born a monkey.  Attacked by an older monkey he was wounded.  The wound festered.  The festered wound did not heal for a long time and finally died after much suffering.  His ‘kamma’ was not over. He was born a goat, next a cow and suffered similar fates.  Thereafter he was born a human being.  He was born a female.  Her mother was a low caste poor servant.  One day debtors took the young girl away from the mother.  Her life ended thus.  Finally she was fortunate to be born during the time of the Buddha and was liberated from the sufferings of ‘samsara’.  Thus we all should realize that we should reform our inner selves by conforming to the Dhamma if we are to attain liberation.

The Buddha taught us that one finds a faithful, loving and committed spouse as a result of their past actions. Those who did not engage in sexual misconduct, and those who stayed faithful to their husbands and wives in their past lives, in turn receive loving and faithful spouses in their prospective lives. But those who engaged in sexual misconduct in their past lives face results of their unwholesome actions in their present or future lives. Hence, the Buddha advised us to restraint from engaging in sexual misconduct and to cultivate love and faithfulness to one’s partner.


text:
How does extinction fit in the 12 links?
I'm thinking that the presence itself, in sense objects, of ignorance, the first link, is never erased; that with final nirvana something has being, the absence of the 12 links. Can the absence of causation itself be present like sense objects are, in absolutely any Buddhist philosophy?
Or is that silly, like saying that the there exists the non existence of a crow's teeth?

If you want to learn more about existence/non-existence you should read about non duality where buddhist philosophy dives into the idea of neither existence nor non-existence.

The ideas of existence (atthitañceva) & non-existence (natthitañca) are both 'self-views' although often not translated as such (per SN 12.15) but sometimes translated as such (per SN 12.17, Iti 49, etc). 'Existence' means "I exist and will continue to exist' and 'non-existence' means "I do not exist & I will cease to exist". Both contain "I" belief. Neither existence nor non-existence merely means no self-view (per SN 12.15). Neither existence (atthitañceva) & non-existence is about physical things.

@Dhammadhatu so there's no "existence" without "self existence"?

There is but that is not really the subject of suffering & liberation but can be interesting philosophy. Regards

In Buddhism, there are many kinds of causation. See this link about the five 'niyama' or 'laws of causation' (physical, biological, mental, moral & dhamma/spiritual).
The twelve links are the conditions leading to suffering; the cessation of which leads to Nirvana. They are 'dhamma niyama' or 'spiritual causation'. The twelve links are not mental causation (citta niyama).
Therefore, sense objects can be experienced without ignorance because mere sense objects (which are mental causation) are not suffering in themselves.
The only absence of causation is Nirvana, when the twelve links stop creating suffering.
As for the other four kinds of causation, they keep rolling on (unless human life becomes extinct, which would make extinct moral causation & leave three laws of causation).

When you ponder, weigh, and compare the teachings of the Buddha, you have to base it on adopting the right attitude and asking the right questions about them. AN 2.25 points out that some of the teachings are meant to have their meaning inferred, whereas others are not. Only a Stream Entrant will be able to see this difference. So you and I have a way to go.
If everything is impermanent and transitory, how can there be anything be present or absolute?  Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real independent identity (anatta) so do not truly ‘exist’, though to ordinary deluded minds this appears to be the case. Simply stated Dependent Origination can be said as,
With this as condition, That arises. With this NOT as condition, That does NOT arise.
This "Coming to be, and Ceasing to be" is happening all the time. All phenomena are subject to this unending interaction. And since all phenomena are dependent on other phenomena, they are all transient and impermanent. Avidyā the first condition.

Can the absence of causation itself be present like sense objects are, in absolutely any Buddhist philosophy?

There is only one this arisen by casue - Nirvana. Everything else is asien due to a case. Sense objects, sense faculties and contact and the sensation that follows are also arise by cause. Sense faculties cease when you are in Nirvana.

with final nirvana something has being, the absence of the 12 links.

Nirvana is when you break out of the vicious cycle so it cannot be part of the dependent origination.

I'm thinking that the presence itself, in sense objects, of ignorance, the first link, is never erased;

As long as you do not understand the 4 Noble Truths. You have Ignorance. This asies at the point of contact. When you contact an object you feel a sensation and perceive the object not inline with its true nature and react with craving or aversion. How to break Ignorance at this point is to be aware of the true nature (arising and passing) of the experience keeping you mind firmly equanimous.