SuttaCentral
Namo Buddhaya!
Did the Buddha not show that a being can’t be pinned down as a truth & reality?
- Hence the Ancients said:
There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right. - Visuddhimagga
I think he said this:
“But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: “Not actually found” renders saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne. “Attani ca, bhikkhave, attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne, yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ
MN 22
However, unlike Buddhaghosa, who says in his quote that the Buddha said, “There is no doer of a deed” → I cannot actually find such a quote. I fear the Teacher may have been misrepresented with that quote. 
He did show that a being can’t be pinned down as a truth & reality by cross questioning, eg with Anuradha
The quote is fine and it’s not attributed to the Buddha.
The vajira sutta
Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
By sutta method kamma is cetana and cetana is sankhara
A heap of sankhara can be said to be a heap of kamma but no doer would be found there because the doer is ‘a being’.
Whether attributed to Vajira or the Teacher I cannot find such a quote. Perhaps Buddhagosa was referring to someone other than Vajira or the Teacher. Perhaps he was paraphrasing something he believed came from Vajira or the Teacher or mistook coming from them. In the absence of some quote or paraphrase where no distinction can be made, I think it best not to attribute this to the Teacher or Vajira for fear they will be misrepresented.
I didn’t say it’s attributed to either.
However the expression is essentially a paraphrase of vajira verse and that is canon.
To my mind it is a poor paraphrase, because an important distinction can be made. That paraphrase also seems to be in quite some tension with one of the last things the Teacher said:
For a long time, Ānanda, you’ve treated the Realized One with deeds of body, speech, and mind that are loving, beneficial, pleasant, undivided, and limitless. The phrase “undivided and limitless” (advayena appamāṇena) normally describes kasiṇa meditation (AN 10.25:1.3); here it is also found in the Sanskrit: ānanda maitreṇa kāyakarmaṇā hitena sukhenādvayenāpramāṇena. Dīgharattaṁ kho te, ānanda, tathāgato paccupaṭṭhito mettena kāyakammena hitena sukhena advayena appamāṇena, mettena vacīkammena hitena sukhena advayena appamāṇena, mettena manokammena hitena sukhena advayena appamāṇena. You have done good deeds, Ānanda. Devote yourself to meditation, and you will soon be free of defilements.” On the eve of the First Council—in about six months time—Ānanda devoted himself to meditation and achieved arahantship. Katapuññosi tvaṁ, ānanda, padhānamanuyuñja, khippaṁ hohisi anāsavo”ti.
DN 16
Here the Teacher is referring to Ananda as a doer of deeds, “You have done good deeds, Ānanda.” It also says that Ananda achieved the result of those deeds, “Ānanda devoted himself to meditation and achieved arahantship.”
So we cannot find the quote or even a close paraphrase, but we can find the Teacher saying something quite the opposite. Given this I think that quote or paraphrase should not be attributed to Vajira or the Teacher by Buddhagosa.
I already explained to you that suttas explicitly define kamma as cetana and cetana as sankhara.
Therefore
A heap of construction is a heap of deeds
And there no being is found.
So from where a doer?
In my experience, if I look with analysis as the Teacher instructed I can find no doer as saccato thetato. But concluding that I can find no such doer when looking is quite a different thing from concluding, “there is no doer.” To my mind, there is a very big and very important distinction between the two and assuming the latter based on the former has large consequences. It is my hypothesis that the Teacher did not intend or wish for sentient beings to carry the burden of those large consequences. I read the Teacher as saying assuming the latter based on the former is to take up a view and shackle myself to it. It also puts me in tension with the ordinary language of the world. It leads me into a thicket of views and is not beneficial for myself or anyone else. I don’t wish to carry this burden or become entangled in such a thicket so I try and follow the Teachers instructions as I read them and try hard not to assume what I don’t actually know.
It is an extreme thing to say that there is no doer of deeds. As I read the suttas, the Teacher has warned me against adopting such extreme views again and again especially when I don’t actually know them to be true. The Teacher has admonished me not to take the word of anyone, but to try and actually verify directly what has been said. As instructed, I’ve looked with my limited analysis and come up empty when trying to find a self in the khandas. However, I’ve never seen any sutta where he tells me I should therefore conclude there is no doer of deeds and no one who reaps the deed’s result. Not seeing any such sutta, why would I assume such an extreme conclusion?
So you think there is a doer but nobody can find him?
I also try not to assume that “nobody can find him,” but I can confidently say that I’ve yet to find a doer when looking with analysis. But I can perceive doers, persons, beings all over the place when I don’t analyse. That’s why I use words like “I” and “you” and “me” and so on. Not being able to find them with analysis though definitely changes my tendencies towards assuming certain things about doers, persons, and beings. It seems to loosen the grip on some heavy assumptions for sure.
However, I don’t assume that just because I can’t find persons with analysis that this means that “doers do not exist”, “persons do not exist”, “beings do not exist” as that would be in quite marked conflict with my everyday experience. That would be quite a heavy burden for me to be carrying around. That would be quite an extreme view for me to defend. I don’t see any benefit at all for me to be carrying around such a heavy view; not for myself and not for others.
All things are not a being. Having examined everyhing one should conclude that all things are not a being.
I haven’t been able to examine everything yet 
Then you should take it on faith.
Tell me, what do you experience when you apply analysis to finding the Nile river as saccato thetato?
Do you regard the water molecules of the Nile river as permanent or impermanent?
Do you regard the dirt molecules of the banks as permanent or impermanent?
Do you regard any molecules or atoms that are in any relationship with the Nile river permanent or impermanent?
When you look at each and every molecule or atom:
Do you regard it as the Nile river?
Do you regard the Nile river as in it?
Do you regard the Nile river as apart from it?
Do you regard all of them taken together as the Nile river?
Do you regard the Nile river as without molecules or atoms?
But if you cannot find the Nile river as saccato thetato, then is it fitting to conclude that the Nile river does not exist?
If you conclude that the Nile river does not exist, do you think this will necessarily prevent you from drowning in it?
It’s not a question to be answered categorically.
Communication requires finding the referent for the words used.
When you talk about a river, i only need to know what it is that you are trying to communicate.
If i can’t pin a word as a truth & reality, does it mean that the word means nothing? No, because the meaning is derived from the intended referent of communication and my ability to find the referent.
To ask whether things are truth & reality you must have a frame of reference for what is a truth & reality and the epistemological basis for asserting it.
If you have a basis for what is truth & reality then you can see whether the referent of the word river is included or not.
If something is not included among things truth & reality, does it mean that it doesn’t exist?
This question may be based on the assertion that truth & reality exists and other things do not exist.
If you make that assertion then you have extended the epistemology of the words ‘truth & reality’ to the word ‘exist’, and therefore the question is redundant.
If you don’t make that assertion then you need a frame of reference as to what exactly you mean by ‘exist’. When you have that then you can see whether the referent of this or that word is included therein.
Until then the question is meaningless as you have no operation by which one can answer it.
I’m not sure what question you are referring to here. FWIW, here are the answers I’ve come up with: Impermanent, Impermanent, Impermanent, No, No, No, No, No, No, It’ll still drown you.
May you find the answers you seek.
The question being whether the river exists or not.
If you can’t pin something down as a truth & reality then it is not fitting to ask whether it exists or not.
You are asking improper questions.
If it was proper to ask whether that which can’t be pinned down as a truth & reality exists or doesn’t exist, then it’d be proper to ask whether i assert that it exists or doesn’t exist.
Speak like this to those who are seeking answers.
If you look carefully, I think you’ll find that I never asked that question.
Again, I never asked that question.
If you’ll look carefully, I think you’ll find that you are misrepresenting my questions. I did not ask if the river exists or not. I asked, “is it fitting to conclude that the river does not exist?”
It would seem that your answer is that it is not in fact fitting to conclude that the river does not exist. In other words, you are not asserting that the river does not exist. If I have this wrong and you are asserting that the river does not exist, please let me know.
In the same way, are you now saying that it is not fitting to conclude that the self does not exist just because you fail to find it using the same analysis that you used for the river? We agree that it is not fitting to conclude that the self does not exist based upon such analysis? We agree that neither we nor the Teacher think it fitting to conclude that the self does not exist based upon such an analysis?
Afaik to conclude means to arrive at a judgement or opinion by reasoning after investigation.
How can you conclude whether something exists or doesn’t exist if you don’t ask the question?
I don’t assert it either way because the question doesn’t apply.
I don’t conclude that it exist, nor that it doesn’t exist, nor that it both exist & doesn’t exist, nor that it neither exist nor doesn’t exist. The question doesn’t apply and i don’t undertake any investigation as to arrive at either of these conclusions.
It’s not a fitting question to ask whether the self exists or not because it can’t be pinned down as a truth & reality.
That depends on whether or not you agree that the question doesn’t apply.
I conclude that the question doesn’t apply. I do not arrive at some conclusion having asked the question. There is a difference here…
Either way i still maintain that it is proper to say that all truth & reality is not self and that no self is to be found among these things.
That is because there is demonstrable truth & reality upon which sane people can agree. And in regards to the aggregate of these things, there is no self.
Just a reminder, this was the spark for this conversation; an explicit conclusion that a doer does not exist.
Yes.
One could do so erroneously or based upon a non-sequitur?
The doer of a deed - like the Nile river - can’t be found as saccato thetato. I think it sounds like we are in agreement. It sounds like we are also now in agreement that based upon this it is not fitting to conclude, “there is no doer of a deed”; just like it isn’t proper to conclude, “there is no Nile river” and that erroneously concluding such things will not prevent a person from being killed by a doer of deeds or from drowning in the Nile river. I rejoice that we’ve found agreement!