All of the various displays of selves that are comprised of gross material or super subtle material elements, are just temporary displays which will dissolve sooner or later, after seconds or aeons. This is so due to their inherent IMPERMANENCE..
In this statement Buddhism contradicts itself because if these various displays of self are JUST temporary, then why are they declaring eight noble truths in which one has to behave in a certain way using these displays of self, why does it matter what one does or does not do. That is a contradiction. Either these displays are something or they are nothing and it is not required to do anything nor to reform anything or have any stipulated behaviors.
However, based on my own meditation experiences so far, I don't feel that the core self or the "deathless," is permanently fused to a sense of identity.
Yes, for the purpose of inSelf Yoga, it is not possible for the limited self to divest itself of the sense of identity. That is impossible. It does not have that power. While in Buddhism everyone can be buddha or can be like buddha, inSelf Yoga says, no, others who are limited coreSelves cannot be like Buddha. The limited selves cannot divest themselves of the sense of identity but what they can do is restrict the involvement between the sense of identity and the intellect. And even to do that the yogi has to make tons of effort because that is unnatural. There can be detachment from and isolation from the influence of the sense of identity but that sense cannot be eliminated by the coreSelf.
In inselfyoga, the core did not create itself and thus it has no power to de-create itself. It may study itself and its adjuncts and then it can see what it can do and how to do what it is capable of doing. Everything it dreams up is not possible for it, only some things are.
Periodic experiences in meditation where there is absence of the sense of identity in no way shows that it is nonexistent. Many features and mystic objects which do not show in a meditation are in existence except that the meditator has no means of perceiving the invisible imperceptible objects while in those meditative states because the means of perception are absent during such experiences.
But the big event in this is the reappearance of the adjuncts after a meditation session. Why do they reappear if they were actually non-existent? And why do they reappear with their same qualities and functions. At least if I go into a state where my computer disappears, then if again another computer appears it should not have memories, functions, actions which are exactly the same as the one which disappeared.
Why does the adjunct appear again?
And if the reply is that it does so because the meditator was not liberated, or did not attain nirvana, that is a cop-out. Even if the meditator becomes liberated even then what is the proof that he or she may not involuntarily assume all or some of the adjuncts again. And why does it have to be that at death this total disappearance happens and it does not do so during life. Buddha got nirvana at the time of enlightenment and still he kept his adjuncts, used his intellect in arguments with others and so on.
And why the need to get rid of the adjuncts. What is causing that need???????
Why not keep the adjuncts and work to keep them in the least harmful way because the evidence that they cannot be eliminated is so pressing because of the way the manifestation is configured by nature.