Sorry for kicking an old topic. But I just stumbled upon it googling.
Bodhi wrote:
In SN22.86 the point is rather that there is no Tathagata (i.e. no Self) before death so the four phrases on the Tathagata after death also don’t apply. The annihilists, though, think there is a Self that does get destroyed at death. And that is what the Buddha is deying. So both instances of this often misunderstood phrase “I declare only suffering and the cessation of suffering” are the Buddha denying a Self to cease at death.
What the Buddha says here, then, is that there is only suffering, no Self. And when suffering ceases, all that ceases is suffering, not a Self. As taught in the Kaccanagotta sutta (SN12.15): “He does not assume to have a self. He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering, what ceases is only suffering.” (Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī) Same word ‘only.’
The Buddha replies to the annihilationists. He affirms only the existence of suffering and the cessation of suffering, not a Self. That’s the point. So the word ‘only’ is proper to be included in the translation, I would say. It’s the translation ‘teaches’ that is the problem. Because it’s not about what he teaches, but about what he declares to exist. The verb paññapeti (@Dhammanando I have to disagree) does not mean to teach, but to make a statement, an affirmation. At least here.
The declaration stands in direct opposition to the declarations of other religions, which declare “a Tathagata (soul/Self) still exists after death,” “no longer exists after death,” etc.
Edit: I noticed Bhikkhu Bodhi actually says effectively the same thing in his footnote to MN22 and I wonder why he didn’t explain it as clearly in the Tricycle article. This is the footnote:
The import of this statement is deeper than appears on the
surface. In the context of the false accusations of §37, the
Buddha is stating that he teaches that a living being is not
a self but a mere conglomeration of factors, material and
mental events, linked together in a process that is inherently dukkha, and that Nibb›na, the cessation of suffering,
is not the annihilation of a being but the termination of
that same unsatisfactory process. This statement should
be read in conjunction with SN 12:15/ii.17, where the
Buddha says that one with right view, who has discarded
all doctrines of a self, sees that whatever arises is only
dukkha arising, and whatever ceases is only dukkha ceasing.