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:
Auto-suggestion and buddhism and how to use it
Two questions about Auto-suggestion :

What is buddhism's view on Auto-suggestion? What does Auto-suggestion affect?
How to use Auto-suggestion?

You can answer one question or both: the more you explain the better, but all answers and links are appreciated.
I would like people to expand on the subject, because I couldn't find much about it
Edit :  i mean to use it not for meditation itself or to affect it - but on all other aspects like  "i will meditate a lot" "i wont do things for fun" ect ...
To be even clearer : I know how to meditate - im not asking about how to improve my meditation with autosuggestion but how to use it to make myself meditate more and act better in daily life
what i wonder is : can i say "meditate" or "dont do stuff for fun"  and "brainwash" myself somehow to help advance my practice somehow ?

A widely used human strategy when someone has to deal with difficulty is autosuggestion.  Whenever anything unpleasant comes up, we convince ourselves that it is pleasant rather than unpleasant. This is auto-suggestion.  But what the Buddha pointed out is quite the opposite. He never wanted us to hide or disguise an unpleasant matter, the Buddha's teaching encourages us to examine it to the fullest. It is important that we confront the less pleasant aspects of existence, and, to see ourselves in an unbiased way, complete with all our sorrows and inadequacies. Confronting unpleasantness when it arises is really being kind to oneself.
Auto-suggestion means implanting feelings that you don't really have or avoid feelings that you do have. The truth of the matter is that if you are miserable, in reality you are miserable.  So rather than avoiding this reality, we have to learn to confront it, to observe it mindfully.  The only way out of such phenomenon is to thoroughly examine it. Do this by taking the phenomenon apart piece by piece. Then you are free from such trappings.
Buddha talked about it in this way not because He is pessimistic but because He is optimistic. He has a solution. Life is suffering and that is the real truth. We have to learn to confront this uncomfortable reality of pain, death and illness. To learn how to deal with it is not pessimism, but a very pragmatic form of optimism. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is not. They are two different things. Life can seem pleasant for most of the time, but there comes a time that we have to face the unpleasant. So it is advisable that we invest some of our time and energy in learning to deal with unpleasantness, because some pain is unavoidable.
There are occasions, as in the case of illness, which weaken the mind, when hetero-suggestion has been found to be more effective if you have not yet learnt to confront the situations by self. Hetero-suggestion is used by one person to influence another at times of great illnesses. Here another will help you to think through the Dhamma. The Buddha has shown that the mind is very closely linked with the body that mental states affect the body's health and wellbeing.  There is no such thing as a purely physical disease. It is possible so to change one’s mental state grounded in reality, as to cause mental health and physical well-being to follow thereafter.
A couple of examples of what I mean by "hetero-suggestion" in the context of Dhamma:
Maha Kassapa Thera Bojjhanga Sutta is a chant that Buddha recited when both both Ven. Maha Kassapa and Ven. Maha Moggallana were sick.  (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html )
Girimananda Sutta was recited when Bhikku Girimananda was diseased, in pain, severely ill. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html)

The Supreme Buddha never rejected any activity, if that was wholesome and profitable to the people. The Buddha said that if through some kind of incantation or a mantram, or through a well-spoken word, or through a traditional Act of Truth, or through some mystical power of the Three Refuges, good could be done to the people, then an attempt should be made to bring about that kind of blessing.
  - Mahamevnawa Pali-English Paritta Chanting Book

Bhanava is not quite the same thing as auto-suggestion. At some places in the Suttas, the Supreme Buddha explained: “If one does this, these things will happen”. We come across places where Dhamma is explained directly in this manner. In Asavakkhaya Sutta and the Nibbida Sutta, the Supreme Buddha explains, “Oh Bhikkhus, there are five activities which if practiced, if practiced extensively results in the eradication of defilements”. Buddha adviced a bhikku in his deathbed to do this same five meditations. If one feels that there is no possibility of getting liberated from samsara such a person has the fear for samsara. It exists at times of grave illnesses and one has to live in that fear. If an individual is certain that he has a chance of getting liberated from samsara his fear of samsara starts to desipate. The understanding in such a person will turn out to be a realization.
For that you will have to develop the meditation on repulsiveness (Asubha Saññā’) - perceiving the impurity of the body; ‘Ahare Patikkula Saññā’ -perceiving the impurity of material food; ‘Sabba Loke Anabhirata Saññā’ - not taking delight in worlds; ‘Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Saññā’ -impermanence of all aggregates, and of ‘Marana Sati’ -to be mindful of death. (read Asavakkhaya Sutta where the Supreme Buddha explains these five). I could not find the Access-to-insight link, but you can read it in Bhikku Bodhi’s Book.
If these five meditation activities were to be carried out, dispassionateness will arise in you. When you become dispassionate with understanding, then you will begin to lose the desire and craving for materialistic things and sensual pleasures.  Your mind will become calmer and calmer. Only with such a calmed mind will it be possible to develop the special wisdoms.  Your Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) will leave you. You will see results in this very life.

I think this is a good answer. I can think of three ways to possibly improve it further: 1) identify (maybe reference with a hyperlink) what type[s] of meditation you're referring to when you say, "examine it to the fullest" and "taking the phenomenon apart piece by piece" etc. 2) reference some example[s] of what you mean by "hetero-suggestion" 3) explain why bhanava (e.g. mettā-bhavana) is or isn't quite the same thing as auto-suggestion.

Thank you @ChrisW for the feedback. I will get into it right away. :)

just put an edit after you wrote this    : i mean to use it not for meditation itself or to affect it - but on all other aspects like "i will meditate a lot" "i wont do things for fun" ect ...

That is good @Breath. Without a proper foundation, it is fruitless to get into meditations.  The starting point for any disciple of the Buddha is sila (virtue). Standing on the firm ground of sila (virtue), only, should one strive to achieve a collected mind. A virtuous state of mind would help one to keep any evil influence at bay, and be protected from all harm.

what i wonder is : can i say "meditate" or "dont do stuff for fun"  and "brainwash" myself somehow to help advance my practice somehow ?

There are a couple of things to do first, if you want to advance your practice. Most important is to find a noble friend. If lucky, you will find the right one - depends on past merits that you've done. Then listen to and follow his advice. You may like many things. But liking to Dhamma should far exceed all other likings. Be very private about your personal practice. Do not share it with others. When trying to escape from prison, are you going to tell everybody else about it? No, you will not. you keep it to yourself. Then there is a chance that you might escape from samsara. Good luck.

i practice for a few years now including retreats ect  but not a regualr paractice and im looking for ways to make the practice regualr tried a lot of ways (trying to meditate only 1 minute a day ect)   so im checking into this autosuggestion subject maybe it can help

In a previous post I wrote that we live in very unfortunate times. The outside forces (both within and without, both of this world of our friends and loved ones, and of the other unseen world (that are far more powerful than that of the known world) are too strong for us to overcome by ourselves. That is why the Buddha said that it depends 100% on our association of noble friends. Can tell you more on this but in private - we can communicate by messenger? - so why not join my FB page "Saptha Visuddhi" ? BTW  One Minuit per Day Meditation is great. Keep it up. It is a proper start.

Edit: not using the link previously provided in the answer
I have never heard of this word before, I just read the wikipedia article about it:

Autosuggestion is a psychological technique [...] It is a form of self-induced suggestion wherein the thoughts, feelings, or behavior of an individual are guided by oneself. This technique is often used in self-hypnosis.
[...]
The Coué method centers on a routine repetition of this particular expression according to a specified ritual, in a given physical state, and in the absence of any sort of allied mental imagery, at the beginning and at the end of each day

What I wonder is: Can I say "meditate" or "don't do stuff for fun" and "brainwash" myself somehow to help advance my practice somehow ?
I still find this technique (from what I've read in Wikipedia) problematic for several reasons:

Coué maintained that curing some of our troubles requires a change in our subconscious/unconscious thought, which can only be achieved by using our imagination

When you regularly say to your self things like "meditate" or "don't do stuff for fun", then you're brainwashing yourself, that's right. You are therefore creating a view/opinion inside yourself, which is based on a judgement. The reasoning behind these thoughts is: "Meditation is good. Therefore you have to meditate.", "Doing stuff for fun is bad. Therefore I mustn't do stuff for fun.";
In your practice you should try to balance the 5 faculties:
Faith and Wisdom
Having faith that meditation is beneficial is a good thing. But don't belief blindly in it. Balance it with wisdom. Reflect rather than suggest. Also, a problem using auto-suggestion could be that you become more and more self centered. "I" am doing meditation, it is "me" practicing. Who is "I" that should do something? Who is trying to auto-suggest?
Energy and Concentration
From Wikipedia:

The patient must thus abandon his willpower and instead put more focus on his imaginative power in order to fully succeed with his cure.

That's not what Buddhism teaches. You have to put effort into your practice. Nobody and no technique will do the actual work of bringing yourself back to the present moment for you. If you find yourself lazy and don't want to meditate, you cannot overcome this by programming yourself, but by seeing your lack of energy as a hindrance and bringing up energy.
Mindfulness
Reminding yourself is mindfulness. But Right Mindfulness means being without judgement. Remind yourself of your wish wanting to meditate as a intention, not as something that you have to do.
If you want to develop faith, you could do chanting. It's probably more effective and doesn't bring you in conflict with yourself. Also differentiate suggestion from determination. If you make the determination to meditate whenever possible or to keep the 5 precepts, that's different from what I've read you would do using auto-suggestion and imagination.

i practice buddhism for a long time -  i didnt put the link in the question itself but as some example -  someone edited it for me an added it in the question //////
can you please delete this answer cause it diverts from the question i wanted to be answered //////
from my question :
Edit : i mean to use it not for meditation itself or to affect it - but on all other aspects like "i will meditate a lot" "i wont do things for fun" ect ...
what i wonder is : can i say "meditate" or "dont do stuff for fun" and "brainwash" myself somehow to help advance my practice somehow ?

@breath I asked you what "auto-suggestion" is (to clarify the question) because I think it's not a standard Buddhist term, and in reply to that you posted the link as a comment. And so I edited the link into the question (trying to make it clearer what the question is asking about) and then deleted the comments. So far the two answers seem to agree that "auto-suggestion" (at least, insofar as as it's described in the link) is not a technique which they're familiar with, nor which seems to concur with (their orthodox) Buddhist practice.

i just googled autosuggestion buddhism to give you a link so you wont delete my question
its hard to explain the connection of auto suggestion to buddhism - im not trying to say its part of the practice itself but a tool to aid it - perhaps by making myself meditate more

@breath If it's a modern or unknown technique then traditional Buddhism wouldn't have a view on it. Also to the extent that it involves lying to yourself, people are probably going to find it odd. Still I found that this answer mentions (recommends) autosuggestion, I posted a comment to that author (BlackFlam3), with luck they might answer here about their experience in more detail.

what about saying : "i will not do stuff for fun"      --- its not lying

@breath I don't know what "auto-suggestion" is (except for what was written about it in the link you posted, and the Wikipedia article about it).

what im thinking of :    saying every few hours "i will not do stuff for fun"  or each morning

Or "i will mediate whenever possible" ect

@breath I edited the answer :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
prior life what hope can we have related to our present life?
If our present existence is the result of something we could not control (from a prior life), what hope can we have related to our present situation in this life?

Our present 'existence' (state of mind) does not have to be related to a prior life. The scriptures explain having such a view results in having no hope & leaves one stuck in inaction.

When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a
  contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those
  brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.
Tittha Sutta

Yes, that's a good attitude but past life karma was the reason a person was born, "prarabdha" karma. It's what caused a person to take another life and it must be settled. But all life is not "past karma" playing out. There are 4 flavors of karma in play. Sometimes knowing what debt we have brings awareness of how to live and settle things and avoid future karma

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

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


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]"

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


text:
Credible Modern Videos/Stories of Buddhist Six Paranormal Powers
Buddha and others repeatedly says that those that have genuine samadhi can easily cultivate the Six Paranormal Powers--if they have not experienced them by accident already. The Path of Purification even outlines the step-by-step method to cultivate them after obtaining concentration attainment.
In the Taoist tradition there are plenty of stories of such immortals and super-powered people, some of them even very modern, such as the Youtube video of John Chang emitting fire through his hands. [The books that are based on him are very awesome and interesting, like The Magus of Java.]
What are some modern accounts in the Buddhist tradition?
When I meet Buddhist people and others, they often say they have samadhi but they seem quite ordinary to me. Oftentimes, I am convinced that they make claims of samadhi merely to gain a following--however small it may be.

The Buddha forbade monks to demonstrate psychic powers to lay people. Therefore, at least in Theravada Buddhism, it is uncommon to meet Buddhists claiming & displaying psychic powers.
The monks rules state:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.
  Displaying psychic powers. A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to
  display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkata [offense].

Page 263 to 266

Psychic powers are said to occur only in individuals with a latent pre-disposition. For example, many arahants, such as Venerable Sariputta, a jhana master, did not have supernormal powers.
Therefore, the Buddha could not have repeatedly said that [all of] those that have genuine samadhi can easily cultivate the Six Paranormal Powers. In the Susima Sutta, it is reported the Buddha explains to Susima that development of psychic powers is not a prerequisite for enlightenment.
Therefore, suttas such as Kayagata-sati Sutta (quoted below) that generalise about samadhi & powers are probably fake.

Monks, for one in whom mindfulness immersed in the body is
  cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis,
  given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken, ten
  benefits can be expected. Which ten?
[5] "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes
  many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He
  goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through
  space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on
  water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he
  flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches &
  strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises
  influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.
[6] "He hears — by means of the divine ear-element, purified &
  surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine & human, whether
  near or far.
[7] "He knows the mind of other beings, other individuals, having
  encompassed it with his own mind....

The Buddha himself did not think highly of psychic powers (Kevatta Sutta) despite often using psychic powers to only help monks with their practise (example, Sona Sutta).
We must also understand the Buddha's enemies, such as Devadatta & Mara, had psychic powers.
In summary, psychic powers are 100% unrelated to the goal of Buddhism.


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


text:
Escape the suffering?
if believe we can escape the suffering of this world and the limits of our material existence by observing and practicing a set of practices. for Christian, we know that the way of “escape” is only through faith in Jesus Christ as they are spiritually reborn with God’s life through the Holy Spirit? what about Buddhist?

The answer to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? includes,

We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect, unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight- fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña).

One answer to your question is that the 'way' to escape suffering is the "Fourth Noble Truth", which is the "Noble Eightfold Path", which is also known as the Threefold Training.
Another answer might the "taking refuge" in the Triple Gem:

We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.

Maybe the above are slightly Theravada-centric answers. The answer I accepted to this question, How to explain what Buddhism is?, reveals a range of other/different Buddhist schools/understandings also.
Someone like the Dalai Lama seems to preach compassion and a kind of selflessness, maybe thinking of all people as the same, as a way to escape suffering.
And something like the answer to this question, What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? begins to explain another school of Buddhism. If you're familiar with the idea that, as you wrote in the OP, "escape is only through faith in Jesus Christ", this answer too depends on a kind of "faith" or realization.

The above is a theoretical or a referenced answer.
An answer more from personal experience (this site wants answers based on references and/or personal experience) is that there is some escape from suffering (when suffering arises) from having learned (i.e. read or hear, study, try to understand, make sense of, internalize, and apply) dhamma.
Consequently if a conceit like "I am experiencing suffering" arises, then some dhamma (or awareness of dhamma arises and) might provide some kind of mental, habitual antidote.
Examples of what I'm talking about are summarized as/by relatively short phrases. The phrases are short enough that they can be "held in mind" i.e. I can remember a phrase as a unit. I haven't tried to remember a whole paragraph at once, but I find that a short phrase is helpful as mental furniture.
I won't try to explain every phrase in this answer (that would be wordy) but the following are some of those phrases or important summaries that I found helpful:

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves (SN 56.31)

Therefore your duty is the contemplation,

'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.'

Your duty is the contemplation,

'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: On the No-self Characteristic (SN 22.59):

Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever (of the five khandhas) ... all that ... must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus:

'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1)

Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward.

Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman (SN 51.15):

Whatever ... he first had ..., on attaining ... that ... is allayed. This is a path with an end

People also recommend good company (friends, teachers) and good communities as helpful; for example:

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life) (SN 45.2)

Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

But also:

It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth

See also, for example, this comment.
It's not easy in an answer to answer from the whole of Buddhism; so the above is biased on my personal experience. See also for example this topic (Tibetan) and/or maybe this topic (Zen).


text:
What are the differences between the three types of becoming?
When reading through the Maha Nidana sutta I came across the three types of becoming: Sensual becoming, form becoming, and formless becoming. I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different, it only says that birth occurs if any type of becoming occurs. To try to understand the differences I read the Bhava sutta; this sutta says

"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness 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.

This is repeated replacing "sensuality-property" and "sensuality-becoming" with "form-property" and "form-becoming", and likewise for formless property/becoming.
Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming, the Buddha just splits becoming into these three types. From these suttas it appears that knowing what sensuality-property, form-property, and formless-property mean is all there is to knowing the differences in the types of becoming but I haven't been able to find information on what they are.

I think the passage you're asking about (in the Access to Insight translation of DN 15) is this:

"'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"

I think that's a summary of the previous paragraph, i.e.:

If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?

I.e. the types of becoming correspond to birth in the various planes of existence.
Dharmafarer's introduction to the Bhava Sutta describes them as follows:

Another interesting feature of the two discourses is their treatment of the
  three realms as “low” (hīna dhātu), “middling” (majjhima dhātu), and “subtle” (paṇīta dhātu), that is,
  the sense-world, the form world, and the formless world, respectively.
The “lowly” sense-realm (kāma,dhātu) [§1b] is the realm of beings dependent on some form of physical
  senses, and is the lowest of the three existential spheres. It comprises the human world, the subhuman
  realms (the hells, the animal kingdom, and the ghost realm of the departed), and the six lower heavens.6
  It
  is said to be “low” (hīna) because the beings there are dependent on the physical senses and the mind.
The “middling” form realm (rūpa,dhātu) [§2] is the realm of blissful dhyanic existence of radiant
  fine-materiality,7 whose beings still have the faculties of seeing and hearing, but which along with the
  other physical senses are temporarily suspended in the four dhyanas.8 The beings of such realms are called
  brahmas (brahmā), or “high gods,” who normally have almost nothing to do with the sense world,
  since they are absorbed in their celestial dhyanic bliss. When they do appear in the sense-world, they
  apparently have to emerge from their dhyanic state.9
The “subtle” formless realm (arūpa,dhātu) [§3] comprises of beings of pure energy, that is, without
  any physical form whatsoever.10 They exist only as varying refined states of the four mental aggregates
  (feeling, perception, formations and consciousness). These beings have no contact with the sense-world
  whatsoever.11

There is just one part of your answer I don't quite grasp. (This comment is very long so I have to post it over two comments) I understand birth/rebirth in two contexts: 1. Rebirth after physical death where we may be reborn in a different realm, 2. Moment-to-moment rebirth which is related to the birth stage of dependant origination. Some traditions equate the two and say that one can change realms every moment, however I don't think you're assuming that.

The sources you gave cover rebirth after physical death and what form/formless/sense becoming means in that context but I'm not sure how this corresponds to moment-to-moment birth/becoming. Considering what Dharmafarer's document says: "if we habitually behave as an animal, then we are likely to be reborn as an animal" can the meaning of sense/form/formless becoming be extended to moment-to-moment birth by saying that through dependant origination formless becoming leads to a state of mind in our current realm where we are more likely to act like a being in a formless realm?

The little I've learned includes that various people don't quite always agree with each other on whether it's "rebirth" or whether it's "just birth", whether it's "after death" or "moment to moment", etc. If I recall correctly, other doctrine about the formless realm is a) Beings are born there because of their accumulated merit b) Being formless they cannot even listen to the Dhamma, and while they're there they cannot accumulate any more good merit c) Their time in the formless realm is therefore inevitably finite and (when their accumulated merit is used up) they're reborn in a lower realm.

Thanks for your answers Chris, I think you've explained the differences between the types of becoming. I might have taken the question too far to try to understand part of rebirth unrelated to the question, sorry for that!

The Pali does not state "sense-realm". 'Kama bhava' is 'sensual becoming'. For example, the senses still operate in arahants that are free from becoming: "his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element" Iti 44: The Nibbana-element http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044

@Dhammadhatu I think DN15 is saying that "from sensual becoming" comes "birth (in one of the sense realms)".

@ChrisW Where does DN 15 say this? Note: Both Bkikkhu Bodhi & Piya Tan erroneously translate 'kama-bhava' is the same way.

@Dhammadhatu You said, 'Kama bhava' is 'sensual becoming'. The ATI translation of DN 15 says, "From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth" and lists 3 types of becoming (including sensual becoming). The previous paragraph had listed birth into many/various realms, so I inferred that from the three types of becoming comes birth into the three types of realm. In what way do Bkikkhu Bodhi & Piya Tan translate "kama-bhava" erroneously and in the same way? Bkikkhu Bodhi's translation of it in DN 15 is "sensual becoming" and Piya Tan's is "sensual existence".

@Hugh. Personally, I highly doubt the Buddha actually spoke the Mahanidana Sutta. It is part of a set of suttas in the DN which a few Buddhists (example Bhikkhu Sujato) have suggested was composed for the purpose of converting Brahmans to Buddhism. For example, the definition of 'nama-rupa' is the Vedic defintion. Since you are aware of the  moment-to-moment version of D.O., it would be obvious the Mahanidana Sutta cannot conform with this. Also, the word 'jati' exclusively means 'birth'. it does not mean 'rebirth'. The Pali words translated at 'rebirth' are different.

@Dhammadhatu I agree with your assertion, because the description of the three realms exactly corresponds to what I was taught of three realms in a yogic lineage: physical world, astral realm, causal realm. This seems designed to appeal to Hindus, and I have not seen any other Buddhist description so closely aligned.

I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different.
The different forms of 'becoming' are 'sensual', 'material' & 'immaterial' becoming.
Sensual becoming is when there is 'self-identity' in relation to sensuality. For example, the mind thinks: "I love this delicious food, this is now my favourite good, I am going to visit this restaurant every week". Or: "I love this (sexy & beautiful) woman, she is my wife, I am her husband".
Material becoming is 'self-identity' in relation to a material object or in relation to one of the four rupa jhanas. For example: "I am rich, I have lots of money, this is my big house (which make me feel materially secure rather than give me sensual pleasure); I am now a meditation master because I have attained the 1st jhana".
Immaterial becoming is 'self-identity' in relation to an immaterial object or in relation to one of the four arupa jhanas. For example: "I am famous, I am loved; I have a good reputation; I am important; I am now a meditation master because I have attained arupa jhana".
The scriptures explain:

The craving resulting in new becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving to be, craving not-to-be: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination/arising of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One.
MN 44

Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming.
The scriptures certainly define 'becoming'; just as the scriptures define the word 'being' or 'satta', as follows:

The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. AN 3.76

~~~

‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’? Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form,
  feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness Radha: when
  one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a
  being'. SN 23.2

Thus both 'becoming' & the 'birth' of 'being' appear to be forms of or extensions of 'attachment'.

The Mahanidana Sutta is different to the many other stock suttas (such as SN 12.2 & MN 9) on Dependent Origination. For example, the Mahanidana Sutta does not define 'aging-&-death'; defines 'birth' differently; ignores the six sense spheres; defines nama-rupa & consciousness differently; ignores sankhara & ignores ignorance.
It is rather unusual that DN 15 is called 'The Great' sutta about causation when a number of causes (nidana) are missing or undefined.
Contrary to DN 15, the other stock suttas appear to define 'birth' as the production of the ignorant 'view' of 'beings' ('satta'):

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various beings in this or that group
  of beings based on the manifestation ('play') the aggregates & taking
  possession of sense spheres/sense objects, that is called birth. SN
  12.2

~~~

In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation….For name
  & clan are assigned, originating in conventions…Whoever makes his
  living among men by agriculture is called a ‘farmer’…Whoever makes his
  living among men by merchandise  is called a ‘merchant’…that is how
  the wise truly see…seers of dependent origination. MN 98

~~~

Angulimala [the former mass-murderer], say to that woman: “Sister, since I was born with a noble birth [as a monk], I do not recall that I have ever intentionally deprived a
  living being of life”. MN 86

~~~

There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness to be a ‘self’. That
  assumption is a mental formation. 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 mental formation of ‘self’ is born from that. And that mental
  formation is impermanent, fabricated, dependently arisen. That
  craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is impermanent,
  fabricated, dependently arisen. SN 22.81

~~~

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.’ SN 5.10

Your description of the types of becoming as an extension of the object of self-view (or clinging- the previous step in the nidanas) makes a lot of sense. Since the type of self-view leads to a type of becoming then I'm curious if the types of becoming lead to types of birth. If we are talking about moment-to-moment birth then does it make sense to talk about sense-birth, form-birth, or formless-birth while someone is in the human realm? In other words does formless becoming lead to birth with a state of mind similar to a being in a formless realm?

'Birth' (jati) is not always physical birth. In India today, the word 'jati' does refer to physical birth. 'Birth' is the full maturation of self-identity. 'Becoming' is the formation process of self-identity. Clinging is when the mind first grasps onto an experience with an "I" reference. Therefore, if the mind attaches to a formless meditation or attaches to fame, status, etc, & develops a solid 'self-identity' in relation to these experiences, this is 'birth'. Then when the fame, status, etc. is lost, this is aging-&-death of this 'self-identity', which results in suffering.

At this link is one of these Brahmanistic suttas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.123.than.html But if it is read carefully, it states when an unenlightened mind enters into one of the meditative jhanas, it believes it is a god. But when a disciple of the Buddha enters into jhana, they are 'unbound' within, thus do not believe they are a god.