user-1: I am outraged that this question was immediately closed
Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self?
The decision is obviously merely ideologically motivated, and stackexchange is no place for any such thing

user254: Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Lanka closed it with the comment,


"The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self"

Such a claim needs precise elaboration, references and quotes to back that up.

There are two sutras (or suttas) with that title, and the one in the Pali canon -- the Mahāparinibbānasutta (DN 16)  -- doesn't say ("there is a self").

It is useful generally though, when you ask a question about a text, if you'd reference and quote from that text.
Some questions involve a misunderstanding, or a difficulty in the translation -- a quote helps people be sure of what you're asking about.

By the way I didn't know how to answer the actual question, i.e. ...

"Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?"

I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything, let alone that!
I know more-or-less how Mathematicians prove things; and Physicists ...
I see that existing answers don't seem to try to answer the question as-asked but instead try to explain what the sutta means or why the author might have written it.
Anyway the question was reopened after you added quotes. I hope that wasn't too difficult.
Also Lanka wrote in a comment exactly what he wanted you to do, i.e. "add precise elaboration, references and quotes to back that up", so it's not as if the question was closed with no way for you to get it reopened.

Thank you for asking it, by the way.

-1: <p>I am outraged that this question was immediately closed</p>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31245/are-there-any-attempts-to-prove-the-eternal-blissful-etc-self?noredirect=1#comment53886_31245">Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self?</a></p>

<p>The decision is obviously merely ideologically motivated, and stackexchange is no place for any such thing</p>
 254: <p>Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Lanka closed it with the comment,</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Such a claim needs precise elaboration, references and quotes to back that up.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are two sutras (or suttas) with that title, and the one in the Pali canon -- the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahāparinibbānasutta (DN 16)</a>  -- doesn't say (&quot;there is a self&quot;).</p>
<hr />
<p>It is useful generally though, when you ask a question about a text, if you'd reference and quote from that text.</p>
<p>Some questions involve a misunderstanding, or a difficulty in the translation -- a quote helps people be sure of what you're asking about.</p>
<hr />
<p>By the way I didn't know how to answer the actual question, i.e. ...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything, let alone that!</p>
<p>I know more-or-less how Mathematicians prove things; and Physicists ...</p>
<p>I see that existing answers don't seem to try to answer the question as-asked but instead try to explain what the sutta means or why the author might have written it.</p>
<p>Anyway the question was reopened after you added quotes. I hope that wasn't too difficult.</p>
<p>Also Lanka wrote in a comment exactly what he wanted you to do, i.e. &quot;add precise elaboration, references and quotes to back that up&quot;, so it's not as if the question was closed with no way for you to get it reopened.</p>
<hr />
<p>Thank you for asking it, by the way.</p>
