I don’t think it’s quite as straightforward as this. While the Upanishadic tradition is most commonly characterized by a positive attitude, working by the method of affirmation, they also knew a negative method, and this is especially developed in the teachings of Yajnavalkya.
One of his most famous saying is neti, neti, “not that, not that!” What this refers to is his approach to the topic of the atman. He would go through a list of all the things that one might consider as self or be attached to, and deny that it was in fact the self. Eventually he would end up with “the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the unknown knower”, i.e. the sheer mass of consciousness (vijnanaghanameva). Only that is worthy of being considered as the true atman.
So the idea of not-self as a method is already very highly developed. In fact, everything that is regarded as a self in other schools and philosophies is dismissed as being not self. But this is only in service of the ultimate revelation of the true self.
The Buddha took the next step and dismissed even that exalted and purified consciousness as the true self. So the difference is not that not-self as an idea and method did not exist, but that it was not fully applied to all things.
This is why, I think, the Buddha first wanted to teach his former teachers, who had probably been part of that Upanishadic tradition. Not only were they versed in samadhi, they had a philosophical background that had lead them to the very gates of awakening.
Could you kindly comment on the term ‘natthitañca’ and provide some examples of the kinds of views it may have been referring to in SN 12.15?
SN 12.15 gives the impression ‘natthitañca’ was a common view or doctrine therefore what exactly might have been referred to here since it is difficult to imagine explicit common views about ‘nothing exists’ (‘sabba natthi’; apart from arupa jhana, which would not be common). I get the impression ‘natthitañca’ might be more about the view that things, including a ‘self’, will ‘cease to exist’ rather than nothing inherently exists; however the later term ‘sabba natthi’ does not support my impression.
MN 117 gives some examples of ‘wrong views’ about certain things not existing. Could these also be ‘natthitañca’?
SN 12.15 begins with the statement:
This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence.
As SN 12.44 states, the term ‘the world’ refers to ‘suffering’ arising from dependent origination so can ‘natthitañca’ refer to certain self-views of annihilation?
I always thought the net of views (brahmjala) were derived partly analytically (and partly from actually held views). There are also personal viewpoints in that spectrum. I thought this meant that the entire spectrum would need to be captured analytically and refuted. While it seems unlikely did anyone hold a view that nothing at all existed?
[quote=“Deeele, post:12, topic:4990, full:true”][quote=“cjmacie, post:10, topic:4990”]
A good source that looks into those matters is Alexander Wynne’s “The Origin of Buddhist Meditation.”
[/quote]
I trust if this book provided an easy answer, as you seem to suggest, you would have simply posted the answer. [/quote]
Suggested is simply a source, from a respected scholar, which goes into the evidence for the Buddha’s training, the given belief systems of the time, and his teachings in relation to them. It’s all by no means simple to answer.
I browsed the book quickly. My impression was Wynne was inconclusive on the matter but speculated the Buddha’s two teachers were of the warrior caste given one had the name Kalama.
It’s basically the same thing from the Indic perspective, but yes, it certainly doesn’t mean simple non-existence. I will revisit my translation of this passage after my more recent reflections, as in the following posts.
Thank you. I have always found the translations of SN 12.15 difficult to discern/follow since they appear to make a discordant leap from the topic of ‘existence’ & ‘non-existence’ to the topic of not clinging & creating ‘self-views’.
I recall reading somewhere in a dictionary the term ‘atthi’ is related to the term ‘asmi’ (‘I am’) but could not relocate this.
For example, if SN 12.15 read as: ‘This world depends on a duality, that of I exist & I don’t/won’t exist’ and if it then moved on the topic of: “the one of right view does not create views about self”, it would flow more logically to me. But then the part about “all exists” and “all does not exist” would still remain difficult.
