I thought you would say this. So, you think Buddha is a liar and a manipulator. Okay, cool. Whatever floats your boat.
If you have trouble with accepting Buddha was denying "the Self of the common mortal", and think he was a mereological nihilist, that's fine. I disagree, but it's your choice.
I didn't say Buddha was a liar. This sutra probably has nothing to do with the historical Buddha. Even so, all of the dharma consists merely of methodologies. Of course it's manipulation, but the basis is compassion not some selfish ill will.
Why do you think that no-self is nihilistic? I never denied awareness. I said before that Buddhanature is defined as the union of luminosity and emptiness. Luminosity is another word for awareness.
"When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.' Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman]."
.
I realize how confusing this sutra can be if you do not see it in context. But honestly, Nirvana Sutra is not better or deeper than other sutras.. and frankly in my experience with many Buddhists and scholars, it has caused
a lot of unnecessary confusion. There are much better sutras to study IMO. No sutra is definitive, superceding the rest of the dharma. No matter what any teacher may say. Venerable Yin-shun says this very same thing in his preface to Way to Buddhahood.
I really do think that if there is a certain sutra which contradicts the rest, it is not something deep and profound but a misunderstanding of some sort on your part, and I do not mean that to be an insult. Human existence is full of countless misunderstandings, and no one is immune to that.
Who am I most likely to believe? The ones who have instructed me (who are several) who are ordained, or a few laypeople on the internet who claim to be wiser and more enlightened than the ones who have taught me?
I think you are relying on authority a bit too much and not using your own discernment. Ordained does not mean enlightened, and there are several ordained teachers who have taught contradicting views. You should use your discernment.
Also, my mentor
is from a Tibetan school.
A Tibetan who teaches true self? Strange. Well, even Tibetans are human too. For the most part though, Tibetan teachers are very clear, like HH Dalai Lama, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, etc. These are recognized masters, and if you study their teachings carefully, you will not find any contradictory views. I guess I should reiterate - Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelugpa Tibetans are very clear in view.