SuttaCentral
As i see it, this is why the Vsm verse says “phenomena alone flow on and there is no doer”, meaning among these phenomena there is no doer.
And why Vajira said “This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found.” Meaning there are no beings among the formations.
Hence it is said that all dhammas (what can be known with mind) is not self.
Therefore in regards to whether or not ‘all things are not a being’ it is wrong for you to assert that there might be a self among everything
The verses essentially say ‘among things which can be pinned down as truth & reality there is no self’.
Does this mean that self doesn’t exist in a general sense? This question doesn’t apply.
You are taking the bolded part out of context by asserting that the verse takes a position regarding the question which doesn’t apply.
As i see it, esentially you constructed a strawman argument by taking something out of context.
Which truth and reality are you speaking of that all sane people can agree on? Which truth and reality have you discerned and directly known?
Ahh, but that’s the distinction isn’t it! A distinction can be made between saying the Nile river cannot be found and saying there is no Nile river. An important distinction that prevents people from drowning I’d say 
I’ve certainly yet to find such a dhamma!
If you go back and look carefully, I think you’ll find that I have not asserted this.
We are in agreement that is not what they literally say though, right? You are glossing your own meaning on top of what they literally say?
What have you discerned that which can be pinned down as a truth and reality? Have you known anything yourself that can be so pinned down? Given the Teacher himself couldn’t be so pinned down I’m very surprised you’ve found some thing that can be so pinned down!
Speaking for myself, I haven’t been able to pin any such truth and reality down. If you have been able, please share.
Demonstrable truth.
For example ‘feeling’, everybody can agree that feeling is as real as real gets.
If there was no feeling then we wouldn’t be talking about these things.
Of course. I think i got the meaning correctly. The literal wording is there for all to see.
Oh? You’ve managed to pin down feeling as real as real gets? I cannot pin down feeling in such a way. That’s remarkable. How did you pin it down? Where did you find feeling as saccato thetato?
I don’t think even the Teacher was able to pin down feeling in this way!
In the same way, a mendicant sees and contemplates any kind of feeling at all … examining it carefully. And it appears to them as completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. For what substance could there be in feeling?
Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yā kāci vedanā atītānāgatapaccuppannā …pe… yā dūre santike vā taṁ bhikkhu passati nijjhāyati yoniso upaparikkhati. Tassa taṁ passato nijjhāyato yoniso upaparikkhato rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyati. Kiñhi siyā, bhikkhave, vedanāya sāro?…
“Form is like a lump of foam;
“Pheṇapiṇḍūpamaṁ rūpaṁ,
feeling is like a bubble;
perception seems like a mirage;
Marīcikūpamā saññā,
choices like a banana tree;
saṅkhārā kadalūpamā;
and consciousness like a magic trick:
Māyūpamañca viññāṇaṁ,
so taught the kinsman of the Sun.
desitādiccabandhunā.SN 22.95
I have not been able to pin down feeling as you have.
‘Where?’ doesn’t apply.
I told you how i pinned it as truth & reality.
If there was no feeling you wouldn’t be able to ask the question.
Whether it is like a bubble or not it still is a demonstrable truth & reality.
How did you pin it down then? Does that question apply? You’ve told me that you have in fact pinned it down, but you haven’t said how to my knowledge. This truth and reality you pinned down… did it appear completely void, hollow and insubstantial to you? I imagine you examined it very carefully so was it true what the Teacher said; that it appears completely void, hollow and insubstantial? Could you discern any substance to this thing you deem worthy to be called a “truth and reality?”
You are ignoring what i am saying.
In as far as thinking goes that is as far as thinking about truth & reality goes.
That which one thinks about may or may not be as real & true as thinking itself.
If there was no feeling then the thought ‘truth & reality’ doesn’t occur. Therefore feeling is also real, whereas ‘thinker’ can’t be established as real in this way.
I don’t think I am, but you don’t seem to want to answer these questions so I’ll drop it. May you have a good new year.
As i understand it,
You have some strange ideas about what it means to pin something as truth & reality.
If i was to ask you what it is you wouldn’t be able to give me an example because according you it can’t be done.
From your view it follows that there is no way to assert that there is a truth & reality because nothing can be pinned down as such.
I don’t think I do. All I mean is something that can withstand the sort of analysis that the Teacher employed to show Anuradha, “the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life.” That’s the translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi, but Bhikkhu Sujato has:
“In that case, Anurādha, since you don’t actually find the Realized One in the present life, is it appropriate to declare:
“Ettha ca te, anurādha, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:SN 22.86
Something that can withstand that sort of analysis would be worthy of being called a truth and reality (saccato thetato) in my opinion. The self cannot withstand that sort of analysis. The Nile river cannot withstand that sort of analysis. The doer of deeds cannot withstand it. The Tathagata himself cannot withstand it. I have not been able to pin down or find anything that can withstand it. Certainly not form, feeling, or any of the aggregates which are declared by the Teacher as void, hollow and insubstantial.
In response to my question about what you can discern as being capable of being pinned down as a truth and reality you said, “For example ‘feeling’, everybody can agree that feeling is as real as real gets.”
This is not evident to me. I do not agree that feeling is as real as real gets. I asked how you’ve pinned down feeling in such a way as it would seem the Teacher himself was not able. The Teacher declared feeling to be void, hollow and insubstantial. You declare that feeling is as real as real gets. I asked you questions about this and you decline to answer. That’s fine. We can leave it at that.
Obviously ‘feeling’ would withstand that analysis
Let’s see
“What do you think: Do you regard form as the feeling?”
“No, lord.”
“Do you regard feeling as the feeling?”
“Yes, lord.”
What does this have to do with it?
We are not talking about establishing things as substantial and not void.
You won’t find anything suggesting that things regarded as truth & reality must be substantial.
Nor will you find any reference to a self being described in those terms as hollow & insubstantial.
Also you assert that in having Anuradha attempt to pin down the Tathagata, the Buddha arrived at the conclusion by cross referencing that which can’t be pinned down as truth & reality with other things which are not truth & reality. It makes absolutely no sense me.
A much more reasonable reading is that Buddha cross referenced with all things true & real and when Anuradha couldn’t pin Tathagata down as any of that he concluded that he couldn’t pin it as truth & reality.
When I conduct that analysis on feeling I find that it does not withstand it at all. In my experience feeling is void, hollow and insubstantial and in no way capable of withstanding that type of analysis.
You are using words in a way that I do not understand. It would seem for you things that are “void, hollow, and insubstantial” are “as real as real gets” and are to be regarded as “truth and reality.” At this point, probably best that we just agree to disagree or at the least agree that we use words differently. Have a happy new year.
It doesn’t follow that feeling does’t constitute truth & reality because it is void. Rather it follows that truth & reality is to be regarded as insubstantial.
As i see it, feeling is obviously real & true, there are three types, six classes, and it is one of the aggregates pertaining to the first noble truth…
Anyway it’s enough LLM data for one day
just on this bit, saccato thetato i s a pretty rare phrase in the canon, it occurs at MN2, MN22, SN22.85, SN22.86, SN44.2, and AN3.61 and a further 11 times in the Abhidhamma.
All the SN occurrences are the same sutta repeated.
When they apply the mind irrationally in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact.
Tassa evaṁ ayoniso manasikaroto channaṁ diṭṭhīnaṁ aññatarā diṭṭhi uppajjati.
The view: ‘My self survives.’
‘Atthi me attā’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati;
The view: ‘My self does not survive.’
‘natthi me attā’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati;
The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’
‘attanāva attānaṁ sañjānāmī’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati;
The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’
‘attanāva anattānaṁ sañjānāmī’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati;
The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’
‘anattanāva attānaṁ sañjānāmī’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati;
MN2
“But since a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found, is not the following a totally foolish teaching:
“Attani ca, bhikkhave, attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamāne, yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ:
‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”
‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti—
nanāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kevalo paripūro bāladhammo”ti?
MN22
“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t actually find the Realized One in the present life, is it appropriate to declare:
“Ettha ca te, āvuso yamaka, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne, kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:
‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi, yathā khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā’”ti?
SN22.85 SN22.86 SN44.2
Those who believe that past deeds are the most important thing have no enthusiasm or effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done.
Pubbekataṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, sārato paccāgacchataṁ na hoti chando vā vāyāmo vā idaṁ vā karaṇīyaṁ idaṁ vā akaraṇīyanti.
Since they don’t actually find that there are things that should and should not be done, they’re unmindful and careless, and can’t rightly be called ascetics.
Iti karaṇīyākaraṇīye kho pana saccato thetato anupalabbhiyamāne muṭṭhassatīnaṁ anārakkhānaṁ viharataṁ na hoti paccattaṁ sahadhammiko samaṇavādo.
AN3.61
So that’s the complete translation context for saccato thetato.
It is also the complete translation context for theta.
whittling down to thet gives one more context;
‘The ascetic Gotama has given up lying. He speaks the truth and sticks to the truth. He’s honest and trustworthy, and doesn’t trick the world with his words.’
‘Musāvādaṁ pahāya musāvādā paṭivirato samaṇo gotamo saccavādī saccasandho theto paccayiko avisaṁvādako lokassā’ti—
Such is an ordinary person’s praise of the Realized One.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, puthujjano tathāgatassa vaṇṇaṁ vadamāno vadeyya.
DN1 and thereafter.
Theta (adj.) [Sk. from tiṭṭhita, Müller P. Gr. 7=sthātṛ] firm, reliable, trustworthy, true D i.4 (DA i.73: theto ti thiro; ṭhita – katho ti attho); M i.179; S iv.384 A ii.209=Pug 57; Nd2 623. – abl. thetato in truth S iii.112. – attheta J iv.57 (=athira).
Sacca (adj.) [cp. Sk. satya] real, true D i.182; M ii.169; iii.207; Dh 408; nt. saccaṃ truly, verily, certainly Miln 120; saccaṃ kira is it really true? D i.113; Vin i.45, 60 J i.107; saccato truly S iii.112. – (nt. as noun) saccaṃ the truth A ii.25, 115 (parama˚); Dh 393; also: a solemn asseveration Mhvs 25, 18. Sacce patiṭṭhāya keeping to fact, M i.376.
finally
Upalabhati [upa + labh] to receive, get, obtain to find, make out Miln 124 (kāraṇaṃ); usually in Pass. upalabbhati to be found or got, to be known; to exist M i.138 (an˚); S i.135; iv.384; Sn 858; Pv ii.111 (= paccanubhavīyati PvA 146); Kvu 1, 2; Miln 25; PvA 87.
words containing upalab occur very rarely in the 4 principle nikayas, and vastly more commonly in the late books.
People who defend the orthodox Theravadin sectarian commentarial interpretation of the ebt rely very, very heavily on a tiny number of suttas, a very disproportionate number of which contain these rare terms.
take it for what its worth.
lol! I am not sure what you mean by “this type of analysis” @yeshe.tenley and I am not a complier for hire so to speak, so by all means check out https://www.digitalpalireader.online/ and start researching!
We should get to the bottom of this.
As you proclaim that no thing can be pinned down as truth & reality. Answer this set
Is there a truth & reality?
Is there no truth & reality?
Is there both is & isn’t a truth & reality?
Is there neither is nor isn’t a truth & reality?
Does everything exist?
Does everything not exist?
Do some things exist and other things not exist?
Why does the Buddha tell us to contemplate the aggregates as impermanent but not to contemplate ‘self’ as impermanent, if neither is a truth & reality?’
Do you think it is proper to contemplate self as impermanent?
What is the difference between contemplating feeling as impermanent and contemplating self as impermanent?
I fear we may be unable to at this time and in this context. Instead, I will work on building up enough merit so that in the future we might be able to. Have a good new year.