Going Out Like Fire Quenched

[Meggers]

Hi,

Here’s what @sujato refers to when he talks about self/not-self …

@sujato

Thanissaro uses the word “mind” in his title, representing the Pali citta or viññāṇa. He wants to establish that the state of an arahant after death is also a kind of “mind”. This is a huge leap, as the conditioned nature of the mind is fundamental to the Buddha’s teachings, as well as any kind of experience. How does he make this leap?

@sujato

I have noted that Thanissaro’s unbound consciousness or Ajahn Maha Bua’s “original mind” bear a marked resemblance to the teachings of the Upaniṣads.

@sujato

So it seems to me that while there are indeed differences between Thanissaro and the Upaniṣads, when it comes to the question of whether the state of liberation is to be equated with a form of liberated consciousness, they are similar. Moreover, it is precisely this idea that the Buddha was rejecting when he said that consciousness is not self.

So, Thanissaro has reduced self to “mind” …

@Sunyo provided a useful reference to assist understanding … The Negation of Self in Indian Buddhist Philosophy

I propose a third alternative: this premise is provided explicitly in another discourse from the same collection called the Samanupassana Sutta (SN III, 46). It occurs just a few pages previous to the Anattālakkhaṇa Sutta, both discourses being part of the Khandha-Saṃyutta.
The relevant passage is the sutta’s opening line which says the following: “Bhikkhus, indeed whatever recluses or brahmans (who) regard the self in different ways, in so regarding, they all regard the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one of these” (see Bodhi 2017, 33).20 This passage is attempting an exhaustiveness claim; any recluse who has any view of the self will actually be mistaking the self for one or more of the aggregates.

I think it’s pretty straight forward, what @sujato said.