user17219: No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined in any meaningful way.
You can point to it so that others can see it and you can even photograph it.
If a rainbow was a mind created phenomenon, then a camera, which has no mind or consciousness, would not be able to photograph it.
Yet, if you got into a helicopter and traveled into the rainbow, all you would find would be atmosphere, moisture and sunlight, i.e. the elements of the rainbow. You would no longer perceive the rainbow itself.
Yet, someone further away would see both the rainbow and the helicopter you were in, so even though you no longer perceived the rainbow because of your proximity at such close scale it would not mean that the rainbow ceased to exist or that it was never existent in the first place.
Similarly, a meditator might perceive a dissolution of the self into its constituent elements and thus conclude that the self does not truly exist, yet it wouldn't mean that it actually did not exist, only that the meditator's awareness of it had ceased.
As a comparison, if one is asleep and dreaming, one loses awareness of the body and the external world, yet both still exist for others, one of whom could wake up a sleeping person and return them to the world and body they had become unaware of.
Thus, only awareness would have ceased, not the objects of awareness.
Is the affirmation of a self somehow analogical to the affirmation of a rainbow ,is it just as real and not-real in that sense?

user-1: 
Is the self like a rainbow and is it just as real?

A rainbow is not real. It is a concept. What is really going on is the process of seeing, i.e. visible forms come into contact with the eye faculty whereafter eye-consciousness arises and passes away. After that arises a mind-door process wherein the object just seen is being cognized. If one is not mindful before that point, conceptual proliferation will take place.
The self doesn't exist. It is a concept as well. It's an idea that belongs to the 4th aggregate of mental formations. A self cannot (nor anything pertaining to a self) be found inside the 5 aggregates of clinging.

user13375: 
OP: "No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined
in any meaningful way."

In fact, I can define 'real' as follows:
real (adjective): actually existing in just the same way it appears to exist

In this sense, then neither the self nor the rainbow can be considered real. In the case of the rainbow, it appears to exist as a shimmering/solid object in the sky. It actually exists as an interplay of reflection/refraction of light with water moisture in the sky. Thus, a rainbow is not real.
Similarly, it can be said that the 'self' is not real as it appears to truly exist in a substantial and independent way, but it utterly does not. Thus, the self is not real.
This definition can be found in the "Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers" by Pur-bu-chok and is the definition used in the the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition of Buddhism.

OP: "Is the Buddhist conception of a self similar to that of a rainbow or
not?"

It can be said given the above definition that both are not real. However, the same can be said of (nearly) all things. That is, phenomenal things in this world appear to have true existence, but they utterly do not.
This is why it is said in the Diamond Cutter sutra:

“As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an
illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all
the compounded like that.”

And as it says in the Lump of Foam sutta:

“Form is like a lump of foam; feeling is like a bubble; perception
seems like a mirage; choices like a banana tree; and consciousness
like a magic trick: so taught the Kinsman of the Sun."


user19480: Excellent question, and the analogy is very appropriate in a Buddhist context. I would point to instructions that one receives for meditation practices, to meditate on the meditator (in different ways). The objective is to see the ‘self’ that we habitually cling to, as you have described seeing a rainbow up close. When we, as you say, fly up to it in a helicopter (meditation practice ☺️) we can no longer see it. And yet, until we reach a certain stage in our meditation practice, that self causes all sorts of mayhem. You can see what I mean exhibited all around us, even here.
So is the self as real as a rainbow? Hearing your intent in asking your question, rather than focusing on word definitions and imposing idiosyncratic or otherwise scholarly meanings on them, I would say, yes, the self is as real as a rainbow. And I would add that while a rainbow is real, flying into one won’t kill you, whereas, getting hit by a bus will.
And yet, both the rainbow and the bus, when analyzed, lack a permanent and intrinsic self existence. Emaho ☺️

17219: <p>No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined in any meaningful way.</p>
<p>You can point to it so that others can see it and you can even photograph it.</p>
<p>If a rainbow was a mind created phenomenon, then a camera, which has no mind or consciousness, would not be able to photograph it.</p>
<p>Yet, if you got into a helicopter and traveled into the rainbow, all you would find would be atmosphere, moisture and sunlight, i.e. the elements of the rainbow. You would no longer perceive the rainbow itself.</p>
<p>Yet, someone further away would see both the rainbow and the helicopter you were in, so even though you no longer perceived the rainbow because of your proximity at such close scale it would not mean that the rainbow ceased to exist or that it was never existent in the first place.</p>
<p>Similarly, a meditator might perceive a dissolution of the self into its constituent elements and thus conclude that the self does not truly exist, yet it wouldn't mean that it actually did not exist, only that the meditator's awareness of it had ceased.</p>
<p>As a comparison, if one is asleep and dreaming, one loses awareness of the body and the external world, yet both still exist for others, one of whom could wake up a sleeping person and return them to the world and body they had become unaware of.</p>
<p>Thus, only awareness would have ceased, not the objects of awareness.</p>
<p>Is the affirmation of a self somehow analogical to the affirmation of a rainbow ,is it just as real and not-real in that sense?</p>
 -1: <blockquote>
<p>Is the self like a rainbow and is it just as real?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A rainbow is not real. It is a concept. What is really going on is the <em>process of seeing</em>, i.e. visible forms come into contact with the eye faculty whereafter eye-consciousness arises and passes away. After that arises a mind-door process wherein the object just seen is being cognized. If one is not mindful before that point, conceptual proliferation will take place.</p>
<p>The self doesn't exist. It is a concept as well. It's an idea that belongs to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha#In_Theravada_Abhidhamma" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>4th aggregate of mental formations</em></a>. A self cannot (nor anything pertaining to a self) be found inside the 5 aggregates of clinging.</p>
 13375: <blockquote>
<p>OP: &quot;No one can deny that a rainbow is as real as the term can be defined
in any meaningful way.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In fact, I can define 'real' as follows:</p>
<pre><code>real (adjective): actually existing in just the same way it appears to exist
</code></pre>
<p>In this sense, then neither the self nor the rainbow can be considered real. In the case of the rainbow, it appears to exist as a shimmering/solid object in the sky. It actually exists as an interplay of reflection/refraction of light with water moisture in the sky. Thus, a rainbow is not real.</p>
<p>Similarly, it can be said that the 'self' is not real as it appears to truly exist in a substantial and independent way, but it utterly does not. Thus, the self is not real.</p>
<p>This definition can be found in the &quot;Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers&quot; by Pur-bu-chok and is the definition used in the the Tibetan Gelugpa tradition of Buddhism.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>OP: &quot;Is the Buddhist conception of a self similar to that of a rainbow or
not?&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It can be said given the above definition that both are not real. However, the same can be said of (nearly) all things. That is, phenomenal things in this world appear to have true existence, but they utterly do not.</p>
<p>This is why it is said in <a href="https://fpmt.org/wp-content/uploads/sutras/vajra_cutter_sutra_c5.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Diamond Cutter sutra:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an
illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all
the compounded like that.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And as it says in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Lump of Foam sutta:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Form is like a lump of foam; feeling is like a bubble; perception
seems like a mirage; choices like a banana tree; and consciousness
like a magic trick: so taught the Kinsman of the Sun.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
 19480: <p>Excellent question, and the analogy is very appropriate in a Buddhist context. I would point to instructions that one receives for meditation practices, to meditate on the meditator (in different ways). The objective is to see the ‘self’ that we habitually cling to, as you have described seeing a rainbow up close. When we, as you say, fly up to it in a helicopter (meditation practice ☺️) we can no longer see it. And yet, until we reach a certain stage in our meditation practice, that self causes all sorts of mayhem. You can see what I mean exhibited all around us, even here.</p>
<p>So is the self as real as a rainbow? Hearing your intent in asking your question, rather than focusing on word definitions and imposing idiosyncratic or otherwise scholarly meanings on them, I would say, yes, the self is as real as a rainbow. And I would add that while a rainbow is real, flying into one won’t kill you, whereas, getting hit by a bus will.</p>
<p>And yet, both the rainbow and the bus, when analyzed, lack a permanent and intrinsic self existence. Emaho ☺️<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/MPXAp.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/MPXAp.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
