Since Christianity is used by the priest class to control the masses and use the concept of sin as a way to get people...

>Lololololol if you believe in God, it means you're retarded.
I'm not having this discussion again.

>tfw licking a girl's feet

feels good lads

You’re making the brainlet mistake of assuming that because you want morality, in the metaphysical way you mean, to exist, it must. And since it must, it must have a source. But it doesn’t.
There are biological compulsions to behave in a way that’s socially acceptable which we evolved. That’s it. And they can be as easily overcome or disregarded as stagefright. And in some races the compulsion is weaker than others (mobile.twitter.com/vdare/status/1154508807109636096) which is why their societies are worse. And doing so, while dramatic from our perspective, has no meaningful cosmic effect. Because the universe doesn’t mean in and of itself. It is because it is, and that’s it. Believing anything more is cope.

This is literature of course.

Attached: leGZ.jpg (1280x720, 69K)

it's hard to accept you're a retard, isn't it?

Literally just any redpill literature, as well as evolutionary psych which redpill shit is heavily steeped in. Just make a thread asking for the best redpilled shit.
Long story short is that these principles are best for the governing of humankind and the stability of a large society working together towards common goals and they came before the various religions that support them, not the reverse.

>tfw i dont know this feel

Attached: 1547017383898.webm (1280x720, 1.81M)

I'm monist and believe in God, just not your God.

>society

i dont care about society.

Kek alright edgelord, thanks for sharing

That's some asian-tier feet

Attached: 1549037920635.jpg (4032x2688, 658K)

enlightenment is personal to me, better?

>Evolutionary psychology
>Race realism
>Scientificism
>Twitter
>Nihilism

This is retard thinking he is smart at its finest.

Just because magical thinking is evolved doesn't mean it's not real, and doesn't serve a purpose.

That's all and dandy, but do you *truly* believe the dogma when you speak this way? You sound as a mere gnostic. But for religious zeal to serve its intended purpose, you must be thoroughly deluded, it's like tulpa, voluntary but drastic autopsychosis. Truly religious people bible thump and have slippery logic blind spots because that's essential to how magic thinking works.

?? What the fuck are you talking about, retard? First of all, it’s not magical, it’s biological, this was explicit. Second, nobody was contending it wasn’t real. Third, yes, it does serve a purpose, a biological purpose. I’m sure you interpret all this as magic though, being a fucking retard.

Stay on topic

This should be illegal. It's public nudity.

Being in a shit society will inevitably affect you negatively. Everything is linked, especially in today's structure. Unless you're some dumb grug living in some isolated cave in the Amazon, your interests are bound up in the greater superstructure of human organization. And honestly even if you are that hermit they still are. There really is no escape. Your own life was conditioned by society from the moment you were born.
The recent surge of mass shootings, the continual decrease of quality in the human gene pool leading to things like decreasing intelligence and fitness, the horrible state of most world governments, rampant social injustice, a growing lack of trust and community between individuals - all these things are a result of societies and individuals who refuse to live by the obvious principles of nature. Your life is worse in a myriad of ways already because the people behind you didn't listen.

So If your biology compels You to be Faithful to pass your DNA more easily, Why are you being an atheists?
Shouldn't you just pretend to be (say) muslim and obtain the best of both words?
People who don't think their opinions through make me mad

It's impossible to form an atheist argument for the creation of reality.

i am a hermit, i have no interest in what you have to say about society. i only ask this question for my own clarity. again, i do not care what society is doing, it has nothing to do with spirituality for me so i don't care
non-christian does not mean 'atheist'.

>Since Christianity is used by the priest class to control the masses and use the concept of sin as a way to get people to be x, y, z.

yeah, you have completely misunderstood the christian message. it is an active opposition to that kind of moralism.

good joke

>i am a hermit, i have no interest in what you have to say about society. i only ask this question for my own clarity. again, i do not care what society is doing, it has nothing to do with spirituality for me so i don't care
I explained to you quite clearly why you should care. In a statement: the conditions of your own life are inseparable from and indeed are determined by the greater world you exist in. You say you're a hermit so clearly a normal life doesn't have much allure for you or even hurt you in some way. Go ahead and contradict me, I won't believe you lmao. The reason why is all the shit you're currently trying to ignore. There is no such thing as a true individual, everything always affects everything else.
At this point continuing to argue is probably a waste of time for both of us. Read more and contemplate more.

Absolute state of this board.

how about you learn to think outside your insect collective identity and see enlightenment as personal?

Nobody said magical thinking is magic.

this is either bait thread made to trigger christians of this board or absolute embarrasement on part of fedoras who unironically buy into enlightenment memes
my bet is the former but this board has gone to such shit I'm not really sure anymore

>personal
>sex

Are you pretending to be retarded? Sex itself is intertwined with another, you cannot talk about sex while keeping your “enlightenment” personal you fucking pseud. To have sex you have to participate in society. The only world in which you’re getting laid while simultaneously rejecting society is one where you also aren’t on the internet seeking answers to why you are already acting this way. I would tell you exactly which sources discuss this, but you clearly need to fuck off instead

Imagine not wanting to be monogamous.

>Since Christianity is used by the priest class to control the masses
What century are you living on? The priest class has been the media class for nearly a century by now. They pick the Scientist oracles they like and share the gospel to the masses, play the wardrums and tell people how to sit, how to behave...

you obviously have no understanding of buddhism, perrenial wisdom traditions, hinduism and neoplatonism if you think that enlightenment is not personal. i'm not here to decide what my sexual partner feels and think, only myself. if you have some wisdom to pass, why not share it? a truthseeker loves to be proven wrong. i see you are angry, probably because i insulted society, stop being an insect.

i agree with you but there are many factions...

Yea Forums is unironically dead. I’ve been Daily lurking/shitposting here 7 years and it’s seldom sunk to this steady a level of shit.

>Some ways of living are better than others but I axiomatically refuse to draw any conclusions from this!

t. retard

you cant answer the question, you are sinking the board

Christianity has dwindelling membership and very little control of people's lives. certainly little control in the political sphere.

say 50-60% of American is Christian in name only. how many go to church regularly and actually know a priest. 20-30%?

how many of those would actually do what a priest said, even if it conflicted with their personal views. 2-6%?

the real priestly class is something like professorship. they take a voe of poverty that lets them be neets. they have authority to teach young people. they command what is true or false and influence public policy

>what are some books that explain why lust, pornography and sex in general is wrong from a non-christian pov?
First off, you're implying that sex in general is wrong from a Christian perspective. This is wrong. The prudes are an occasional feature in our cyclical history, and they likely had more sex than the current generation - being monogamous and limiting the outlets to the other partner has its perks. Porn makes one artificially self-sufficient (you still need institutions of porn distribution) in terms of sexuality, but it removes the other person from ones sex life. /r9k/ should learn this by now; if you remove other people from your sex life, they won't be there.
To the point, however; you may try Schopenhauer for the actually respectable atheist perspective, Buddhist teachings for eastern ones or any anti-addiction empowerment messages. Even Jordan Peterson (not Christian) argues against porn, and he's as pro-establishment as it gets.

i don't disagree with you, but christianity in the past few hundred years has been completely controlled, even in ancient times they use the concept of marrriage to control

>even in ancient times they use the concept of marriage to control
Monogamy was a thing all over European cultures prior to Christianity. It can be argued that Christianity allows monogamy (as Luther pointed out), but it ended up being a monogamous one due to older traditions.
As for the control, what are you aiming at?

Even de Sade realized porn is a way to make a person blind and guided by his passions.

It's the opposite tho.

Plato sympusion.

you don't like christianity, ok, but you will find arguments against sex, in most major religions.

>We are just animals
Nah I don't subscribe to nihilistic world view.

blessed and breadpilled

Can you give me one?

Christianity is on the way up and JAS been for many years. A third of the world population is christian. Largest religion in the world.

take Buddhism for instance.
>your ego enslaves you
>the cause of suffering is desire
> no more desire = no more suffering.
> so stop desiring sex.

About the ego, (your idea of self importance), think about sex. Is not just about penis+vagina. Actually sex is not the right word IMO, is erotism. Where pleasure cames from? is not from rubbing your genital. There is always some kind of erotic fantasy where your ego is involved.

What is life without desire?

Blissful pure black and nothingness. This is what buddhists worship as “nirvana”; being beyond ever existing. “It’s all nothing, bro!”

Have you felt that before?

Good for you user
Absolute brainlet teenage angst response

>showing your feet like this in public
Whore.

>Christianity has dwindelling membership and very little control of people's lives.
Dwindling from a billion and a half people and from absolute control of culture.
Not mentioning the fact that You're wrong. It's going to stage a comeback as it always does.

does that mean good or bad

>It's going to stage a comeback as it always does.
It’s going to be so beautiful.

Attached: F6CB89CF-59CE-4D0B-96F6-BC9B28943B8F.jpg (1725x1253, 569K)

Before that there is going to be a big ass battle in the sky.

Is going to be more awsome than any of these modern superheroes movies.

You will only find utilitarian responses, the thing is christianity is crypto-utilitarian, whatever keeps the system running smothly is good, thats why lust, phornography and sex works well with our current economical/cultural system

>vintage lens, vintage body
based girl

Attached: apusnap.jpg (800x546, 45K)

>Christianity is used by the priest class to control the masses and use the concept of sin as a way to get people to be monogamous
you haven't proven this.

and the books you're asking about are anthropology/sociology textbooks and too difficult for you.

"Lust for a woman mostly comes
From thinking that her body is clean,
But there is nothing clean
In a woman's body in fact.
The mouth is a vessel of foul saliva
And scum between the teeth,
The nose a vessel of snot, slime, and mucus,
The eyes are vessels of tears and other excretions.
The abdomen and chest is a vessel
Of feces, urine, lungs, liver, and so forth.
Those who through obscuration do not see
A woman this way, lust for her body.
Just as some fools desire
An ornamented pot filled with what is unclean,
So ignorant, obscured
Worldly beings desire women.
If the world is greatly attached
Even to this ever-so-smelly body
Which should cause loss of attachment,
How can it be led to freedom from desire?
Just as pigs are greatly attached
To a site of excrement, urine, and vomit,
So some lustful ones desire
A site of excrement, urine, and vomit.
This city of a body with protruding holes
From which impurities emerge
Is called an object of pleasure
By beings who are stupid.
Once you yourself have seen the impurities
Of excrement, urine, and so forth,
How could you be attracted
To a body composed of those?
Why should you lust desirously for this
While recognizing it as an unclean form
Produced by a seed whose essence is impure,
A mixture of blood and semen?
One who lies on this impure mass
Covered by skin moistened
With those fluids, merely lies
On top of a woman's bladder.
If whether beautiful or ugly,
Whether old or young,
all female bodies are unclean,
From what attribute does your lust arise?
Just as it is not fit to desire
Filth although it has a good color,
Is very fresh, and has a nice shape,
So is it with a woman's body.
How could the nature of this putrid corpse,
A rotten mass covered outside by skin,
Not be seen when it looks
So very horrible?'
The skin is not foul,
It is like a garment.'
Like a hide over a mass of impurities
How could it be clean?
A pot though beautiful outside,
Is reviled when filled with impurities.
Why is the body, filled with impurities
And foul by nature, not reviled?
If you revile against impurities,
Why not against this body
Which befouls clean scents,
Garlands, food, and drink?
Just as one's own or others'
Impurities are reviled,
Why not revile against one's own
And others' unclean bodies?
Since your own body is
As unclean as a woman's,
Is it not suitable to part
From desire for self and other?
If you yourself wash this body
Dripping from the nine wounds
And still do not think it unclean,
What use is instruction for you?
Whoever composes poetry
With metaphors elevating this body—
O how shameless! O how stupid!
How embarrassing before wise beings!
Moreover, these sentient beings—
Obscured by the darkness of ignorance—
Quarrel more over what they desire,
Like dogs for the sake of some dirty thing."
- Ratnāvalī

Attached: precious-500x500.jpg (500x500, 54K)

saved for nofap folder, good lookin out fren.

the gross misreprensentation of eastern religions by Christposters and especially materialists on this board is a travesty

If there is no self (anatta), what experiences nirvana?

Christian church authority lasted from the destruction of Rome until the Renaissance. We now have to deal the even more retarded offspring such as liberalism, communism, and post-modernism

So you don't actually believe in God?

>focussing the feet instead of the ass
some people are seriously fucked up

Attached: dude mowgli.jpg (291x235, 21K)

/thread

dont listen to christcucks and idiots. economic reason as well as social ones exist. male motivator is availability of pussy to spend cash on. kids to work for. productivity stability. economy is good. society doesnt collapse as fast. monogamy is enforced and was never natural but naturally polygamous hierarchies dont fly to space exactly for that reason but they fuck each other no problem. think chimps as example where females are promiscuous and not selective at all and its also a matriarchy. thus men dont have to get better cos they get pussy anyway. now that is all fine but human females since last few decades do same but still select for better option rather than any option. but i suspect desperation will drive them to any mate at which point it will be something of an african tier economies of the west. what ends up happening is chads fuck all the pussy. pussy which gives to any chad and betas that get no pussy and none of those women give to any of them. promiscuity or anti monogamy ruins economic growth and family bond the more it is prevalent. where plenty of men dont participate in the economy aka neets weebs incels mgtow because why bother if chad gets all the pussy and you have to work tripple to get same. chad stopped enforcing monogamy so betas stopped too. women were never monogamous. only social structure prevents them from or allows... see islamic nations of up to 4 wives. technically chadslam. then economic downturns as teenagers are less motivated cos all the schoolgirls since early slut brainwash wish to be independent but then realise how hard it is to have a pair because all men quit dating game and thus quit game of life becoming inert bags of wasted potential and then these women off themselves from desperation cos they cant find a man to settle with after all the years of independence by the age of 30 or cut themselves before reaching puberty as a prep for what is coming next. see jonathan haidt and media harm. wyltkm? honk?

Attached: 1565131349803.jpg (636x605, 40K)

The West has inherited some moral values from Judeo-Christian tradition, one other example is the Life as the Highest Good.

let go of your tiny-mind distinctions, my pupil. you have a rabbit hole to wander down.

youtu.be/rH5Rgk5Xp0E

>gets quads
>doesn't answer question
>posts youtube instead
Truly wasted

:33

Depends on what you want from life.

You conclude there's a God so you decide to listen to a bunch of desert dwelling primitives who believes in literal magic about it?
Why not Spinoza or something serious? Why go back to your childhood fairy tales?

Because you’re coping and too low IQ to have the capacity for self-reflection to see it. You believe what feels good instead of what’s true.

lmfao listen to yourself, infantile brainlet

hello 2006 le epic atheist department

Attached: e3fe06b7c66b0979685d9086df6aa87bedb230e958a38d9fa302a23c8bbea667.jpg (509x552, 51K)

Your understanding that there is something to be understood is a misunderstanding. No question, no answer.

that description is in the book of revelations, you ignorant fuck.

So nothing experiences nirvana

>polemic against urbanist jew larpers (aka christians) in rome ((new) Babylon) is an actual prophecy and not just strong words from a disgruntled cave jew

?? I’m perfectly aware of that you irredeemable retard, you’re being mocked for believing it, not for referencing it. God you’re embarrassing.

>You’re making the brainlet mistake of assuming that because you want morality, in the metaphysical way you mean, to exist, it must. And since it must, it must have a source. But it doesn’t.
>There are biological compulsions to behave in a way that’s socially acceptable which we evolved. That’s it.
if morality comes from evolution it means that morality is evolving. it means that morality can change. it can change for the good or bad. If there's no higher standard above this changes to judge them as good or evil how are you able to make any judgement ?

you're talking with someone baiting as a pseudo "Zen" character. I doubt he's being genuine here.
I'll try to help a bit:
The subject-object idea itself is flawed.
>Seeing, hearing, smelling,
>Tasting, touching, and mind
>Are the six sense faculties.
>Their spheres are the visible objects, etc...

>That very seeing does not see
>Itself at all
>How can something that cannot see itself
>See another?

Yeah, I realize he's joking or misguided. At the same time, the concept of anatta seems sketchy. Then again, I haven't read any Buddhist literature. The way Ken Wheeler explains it is that it means "not the self" when pointed at things like the body, mind, etc.; it serves as a negation. I've read the first parts of Patanjali's yoga philosophy and understand "self" to be something like his Purusa or pure awareness. It itself never experiences anything but is aware of whatever it is aware of experiences. Hope I'm clear enough but I'm phoneposting on the go

you talk too much heretic boi, I hope we face each other in the final battle.

You are correct that anatta translates to not-self and not no-self, since it was only ever mentioned in relation to whatever specific aspect of experience the Buddha was pointing out as not-self. However this doesn't mean he was saying there IS a self, it is a bit more nuanced than that. The Buddha never categorically said "there is/isn't a self," since that would be objectification which he was opposed to. He talked a lot about how deluded beings conceive of things in terms of "existence" or "non-existence" based on false perceptions and premises, not seeing the Middle Way in which such objectification is not possible. This is the basis for sunyata and pretty much the core of Nagarjuna's philosophy (which he just took from the suttas).
I would also be careful about trusting Ken Wheeler's interpretations of the Buddhist suttas, since he tends to be very selective, ignoring passages which outright contradict his views (such as the "eternal citta" view and so on). I think he went into Buddhism with a neo-platonist viewpoint, essentially aiming to just find passages he could use to reinforce his view while ignoring any that contradict it.
>What we have here is just a self-created problem. We discussed how existence is a perversion. The arising of dhammas is also the arising of dukkha. Not realizing this, some go looking for the truth among ‘things’. The search goes on because of delusion, and it is fruitless because they are chasing illusions. Dhammas, things, are all fabricated. They are all relative. They are all results of maññanā (ideation). Just as those who were entrenched in self-view saw the Buddha as a nihilist, those who are entrenched in materialism can not grasp the Buddhist philosophy which puts the mind first.

The reason for foot fetishism is a busy mother during early toddler/baby years. Basically the emotional attachment forms on her feet, as her breasts, face, hands etc. are so high they are unseen, and she is only kicking the baby off of her, or playing with him lazily.

and what's the reason for dollar book freud? busy schoolteachers?

I’m into feet and my mother was very coddling. So no.

Thanks for the reply. I only mentioned Ken because he's the deepest I've got into Buddhism, and only because he's an interesting guy I was watching for other reasons. I'd never debate with the little knowledge I have and wouldn't take him as an orthodox authority either.
Anyway, I just brought up the anatta thing because if nirvana is an experience there has to be something to experience it. If it's not an experience then it's a different story. Again, not here to debate it but am willing to learn more. Unfortunately Buddhist literature is pretty far down on my list but they have neat ideas. It's just hard to get at them because the vast majority of summaries in the West are by reddit-tier materialists that aren't satisfying at all.
Thanks again

You can’t. This is only an intellectual quandary for moralfags. There is no objective good or evil. There is only the incidental “morality” that humans evolved for the sake of civilization, and beyond that nothing but the cold universe.
People like you are like the protagonist in To Build A Fire, you think things are weighted in human favor and somehow cosmically inclined to benefit us. And if you believe in the Abrahamic God, then you indulge in the feelgood delusion of his direct providence. Then mother nature slaps the soul out of you, but on accident, without even noticing. And you’re subsumed into an oblivion that doesn’t know what you sort of life you lived. That’s how it is. There’s no gold at the end of the rainbow. Grow up.

Imagine putting your cock (american vernacular for penis) between these feets.

>american vernacular
I believe the official term for that is EBONICS, and in some regions, SPANISH.

actually i think they just speak a variant of english

>Since Christianity is used by the priest class to control the masses
The 1960s called, they want their worldly conceptions back

it is often said that Nirvana is moreso a fundamental change in perspective/perception than an object of experience itself. Hence the "Nirvana is when Samsara is seen as it truly is" quotes from lots of Mahayana figures.

Yet another example of the Buddhist's intellectual weakness. Even though I agree with both premises, simply claiming that one must follow from the other because the alternatives are hard to conceive is intellectually bankrupt.

What are you referring to?

>what are some books that explain why lust, pornography and sex in general is wrong from a non-christian pov?
Start with the Greeks...
That said, sex is not wrong. You need to have sex to reproduce. The problem is desiring too much sex and believing it to be a good.

>Spinoza
>something serious
lmao dude

people were monogamous long before the priesthood was established you mongoloid.

>what are some books that explain why lust, pornography and sex in general is wrong from a non-christian pov

science discovers the physiological value of continence

Attached: 1562429772911.png (952x1344, 264K)

WHY?! WHY MUST YOU TORMENT ME SO WITH THESE JEZEBELS? My one single wish is to be left to my own asexual devices, free from the thorned grip of perverse tempation, unclouded or swayed in my noble search for intellectual playthings of the mind, yet by your hand I am endlessly titillated by these vixens with their prodigious hips and provocative figures. Can I never satiate this thirst, will I ever know the touch of a woman and enter between her loins? Will these hands ever feel a woman's swaying weight in their open palms? Will I ever know a plump, ruby pair of lips perched betwixt my shoulder and my ear, whispering "I want you, I want you now" in that chocolatey croon I know so well from dreamtime? Will my seed ever drip from her moistened hole, indicating the completed unity of our unhinged sexual impulses?

>atheist thread
>claims the church was abusing the people and the human society would evolve into an healthier society, free of vices, without it.
>asks for explanations of why lust and derivates are objectively bad from an non-christian POV.
>rapidly devolves into shit flinging contest about carnal relations with other people's feet.
Every. Fucking. Time. What is the next step of your master plan? butterfly showing up and cringing the thread to death?

that's not how statistics work, you can't just make them up on the spot

i disagree
if god is a personification of the selfless virtue man is capable of, and morality is the product of evolution and also exists in monkeys, god doesn't have to exist in order for there to be morality and moral feelings
i'd like to read hume's book on natural religion though
(am christian btw)

morality is not only certain behaviour, its the higher principles of right or wrong, it can be applied to behaviour but sayng it comes form evolution is completely pointless since evolution does not acknowledge the existence of such principals.
>ist about survival
then its not morality

butthurt faggot christian without an argument
it's not-self, not no self idiot
ken wheeler is right, good post
ken wheeler knows more about buddhism than you

u got discord or a throwaway email?

what is good?

not everything is atheist-chrisitan

I am aware that Ken Wheeler loves to interpret passages about the Citta (mind) as being some sort of eternal aspect of a being synonymous with the Nous/spirit/will, since it is not listed as an aggregate like viññāṇa (consciousness) is. The problem is, there are various passages that contradict such an interpretation, such as:

>Nāmarūpa-samudayā cittassa samudayo. Nāmarūpa-nirodhā cittassa atthagamo.
>From the origination of name-and-form is the origination of the mind.
>From the cessation of name-and-form is the cessation of the citta (mind).
- SN 47.42
And
>“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind(citta)’ and ‘mentality(mano)’ and ‘consciousness(viññāṇa)’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it."
>Just as a monkey, brethren,
>faring through the woods,
>through the great forest
>catches hold of a bough,
>letting it go
>seizes another,
>even so that which we call mentality (mano),
>that we call mind (citta),
>that we call consciousness (viññāṇa),
>that arises as one thing,
>ceases as another,
>both by night and by day.
- SN 12.61

I don’t think any sort of eternal essence of a being would be able to cease as if codependent on name-and-form, and I don’t think the Buddha would have told his followers to become revolted and dispassionate towards it as with consciousness and mentality. He wouldn’t have told them that it arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. That second passage also seems to indicate that Citta is indeed a general term for ‘mind’ in the same sort of category as viññāṇa while encompassing a bit more than it (such as mental activity/cognition). This fits the standard interpretation by revered and authoritative scholars such as those from the Pali Text Society (which Wheeler seems to have a fair degree of respect for himself, often mentioning C.A.F Davids in a very positive light, the publication’s president for some 20+ years). It is safe to assume that any other interpretation of the word is fringe and highly inconsistent with its usage throughout the early Pali texts.

I am also aware that Wheeler likes to cite SN 22.43 (and other similar suttas referring to the Atta as refuge) as proof of the Buddha teaching that the Atta (which he arbitrarily equates to the Atman) should be one’s refuge and pathway to salvation. There can be two interpretations here of what the Buddha means by the word ‘Atta’ (self).
There is my interpretation (which is the more common one) that in this passage the Buddha was merely telling his followers that insight into the Dhamma is ultimately achieved by them alone, and not by their teachers or anyone else, therefore they should rely on themselves in achieving their salvation:
>Attadīpā bhikkhave, viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.||
>Dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.|
>'Do ye abide, brethren,
>islands unto yourselves,
>refuges unto yourselves:
>taking refuge in none other;
>islanded by the Dhamma,
>taking refuge in the Dhamma,
>seeking refuge in none other.
- SN 22.43

In this case, the term Atta (self) is merely the conventional ‘self’ that one uses in common conversation, (myself, I, me, you, yourself). The Buddha was not against using conventional language when dealing with conventional matters (ie not Nirvana), as evidenced here:
>‘That monk still might use such words as “I,”
>Still perchance might say: “They call this mine.”
>Well aware of common worldly speech,
>He would speak conforming to such use.’‘
- SN 1.25
(1/2)

Now let’s say that you think this interpretation is bogus, and that Buddha truly is referring to an ultimate Atman, capital S Self, when he uses the word Atta or Attan. That would not be consistent with this passage:
>He recognises Nibbāna as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.

>What is the reason for this?

>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1

Assuming that the Buddha was referring to the Atman whenever he said ‘Atta’ or ‘Self’ and union with the True Self that is Brahman, this would make Nirvana equivalent to Brahman and thus the True Self that is the same as Atman. However, here he makes it clear that there is no Atta (Self) in relation to Nirvana, and Nirvana is not the Self. You can interpret this passage by saying he was only referring to the conventional/small false self and not the true Atman Self, but then to remain consistent you would not be able to argue that in the other Suttas (such as SN 22.43) where the Buddha tells his followers to let their selves be their refuge, he was speaking about the True Self either. To decide that in one passage Atta means “Atman” and in the other it means ‘conventional/false self,’ would be completely arbitrary and inconsistent, but it is especially absurd when in the one where you might propose he is speaking about the True Self: it is a casual/conventional topic where he is rousing his followers to remain self-sufficient in their practice, to do the work themselves, while in a discussion on Ultimate Reality (Nirvana) you might say he is only talking about the small conventional lower-case 's' 'self' and not the Atman.