SN 22.81 and the distinctly buddhist teachings found in it

[Dhabba]

So here is SN 22.81

First the Buddha describes that anyone who regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self is:

”An unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen true persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the true persons.”

This teaching of NOT regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self is distincly buddhist, right?

So EVERYONE following the buddhist teachings agrees 100% with the statement above. No other sect or school promoting this type of teaching, right?

Good.

But then the Buddha goes on to say:

”Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Still, they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ But that eternalist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? … That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.”

Here things get a little tricky, these buddhists do adhere 100% to NOT regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self and remember this teaching is ONLY found in buddhism yet the Buddha continues despite this with saying: Still, they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’

We can therefore call this wrong view the disctinctly buddhist and nothing but buddhist wrong view: Nibbāna is eternalism

Some other buddhists of course refute this wrong view of ”eternalism Nibbāna” by pointing out that ”form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness are not-self”.
Hence ”the khandhas were selfless from the get go, there never was an ”I” or self to begin with”. And other statements of similar reasoning.
It’s quite natural they raise this issue, but please keep in mind that both the eternalist-buddhists and these other buddhists in the sutta still adhere to form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as not-self. Something only found in buddhism.

The difference between their views is only found in: ”The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’”

And then the Buddha goes on by saying:

”Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. ”

So now we have yet another view, we can call this disctinctly buddhist and nothing but buddhist wrong view: Nibbāna is annihilation

So even if these buddhists with this specific view were right in refuting the ”eternalists” they do it only based on their own misconception of Nibbāna. Namely that since the ”khandas are selfless” Nibbāna must equal total annihilation.

It is obvious the whole sutta only has to do with buddhists who already adhere to form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as not-self and is therefore about the wrong views that ONLY buddhists can have…

”I will not be, and it will not be mine.” is the wrong view of the annihilation-buddhists and to those with this wrong view how could Nibbāna even be anything at all or let alone experienced when the ”khandhas are selfless” and ”there is nothing more”. Making Nibbāna into a permanent annihilation resulting in 100% unconscioussness cessation. Yet the Buddha obviously refutes their view as wrong in the sutta in question.

Among all those mentioned the only thing they have in common is that all adhere to not regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Yet they do quarrel about eternalism versus annihilationism from their own respective wrong views.

Then the Buddha highlights the next group who also rejects annihilationism:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Nor do they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ Still, they have doubts and uncertainties. They’re undecided about the true teaching. That doubt and uncertainty, the indecision about the true teaching, is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? When an unlearned ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That conditioned phenomenon is born from that. So that conditioned phenomenon is impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated. And that craving, that feeling, that contact, and that ignorance are also impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated. That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.”

Need I remind everybody one more time that this sutta is NOT about refuting ”brahmanical” or other eternalist views found among other ascetics nor is it a refutation of the annihilationism found among materialists worldview or the ascetics who make it as far as the dimension of nothingness…OK?

NO, this sutta ONLY has to do with the wrong views a buddhist can have and none other than a buddhist, but by using the same phrasing and formulas.

How could otherwise ALL those with wrong views mentioned in the sutta STILL adhere to NOT regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self which is DISTINCTLY buddhist?

If anyone disagrees I would love to know your thoughts as to why and help me see exactly how ”my” understanding of the message in the sutta is completely wrong.

The main underlying theme of this whole sutta is:
‘How do you know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life?’

Ending the defilements leads to???

[Emptiness]

Obviously, one is still seeking for the truth.

Per your extracts, these texts are about views:
The extreme views of self and no self…… with the last one via the middle-way …… which is transcendent (the right way by avoiding the extremes)!

@Dhabba

How do you know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life?

……by direct experience to realise the 4NT.

@Dhabba

Ending the defilements leads to???

Just like the ocean……the taste of salt.
Nibbana……the taste of Freedom.

[Dhabba]

Hello @Sunyo! I’m really grateful and glad we can continue the discussion.

I choose to respond to you in this thread of my mine instead. That way the line of reasoning becomes even clearer, not only for you but maybe also for others reading it.

@Sunyo

Anyway, I came back to give a further source I just stumbled upon, just for reference. Analayo wrote in The Signless and the Deathless:

“It might not be, and it might not be for me.

It will not be, and it will not be for me!”

[…] The dictum given in the above form apparently presents a reformulation of an aspiration employed by some ancient Indian practitioners who […] seem to pertain to the category of annihilationists […]. The decisive difference, compared to the dictum in the above instruction, is that the annihilationist version reads “I might not be” and “I will not be.” From a Buddhist perspective, there is no self in the first place that needs to be annihilated, therefore what should be annihilated is much rather clinging to self-notions. The successful completion of such annihilation with full awakening also does not require waiting for the time of one’s death. Hence, in the Buddhist version of the dictum, the “I” is dropped and the aspiration becomes simply “it might not be” and “it will not be,” […].

Context is everything, when the Buddha uses the altered annihilationism formula in SN22.55 and changes the
”I to ”It” - “‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’
this is solely for teaching how to NOT regard the five aggregates as self, right? Other wrong views are still bound to show up even when adhering to this 100%, which is very evident in SN 22.81

The Buddha even praises outsiders with the same type of ”annihilationism” formula in AN 10.29 (This time with I and not It) just like in SN 22.81:

”This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.

But when adressing those already on the buddhist path in SN 22.81 who already do not regard the five aggreagates as self the Buddha is using the same annihilationism formula once again as in AN 10.29 but in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT context and how this type of reasoning, given the context, it is actually a wrong view that needs to be given up.

@Sunyo

Either way we interpret SN22.81 (and on further thought I prefer the second), it doesn’t support your reading of it. The view called ‘annihilationism’ just isn’t described as the cessation of the self-less, I-less aggregates: it’s described as the cessation of an ‘I’ in “I will not be”. If annihilationism instead meant the cessation of mere aggregates and not of an ‘I’, it should say something like “consciousness will not be” or “it will not be”.

You do actually understand the context/interpretation of SN 22.81 perfectly, eventhough you say my reading of it is has no support when it comes to annihilationism
but your answer is in reality ”my” view too!

Because you wrote the following yourself when replying:

@Sunyo

So some eternalists do not regard the five aggregates as a self but still imagine an eternal self in something else. Similarly, some annihilationists see an annihilated “I” or self in something else than the five aggregates:

Since you yourself do not regard the five aggregates as self, in your view the ”I” or self can only cease to be thanks to something else than the five aggregates….
Nibbāna?

The difference between the eternalists in SN 22.81 and your current view is the following: They do not regard the five aggregates as self but still imagine an eternal self in something else (Nibbāna), just like them you also do not regard the five aggregates as self and see an already non-existent “I” or self finally coming to a permanent end in something else than the five aggregates - Nibbāna.

Given the context of SN 22.81, isn’t this EXACTLY your point of view that the Buddha describes? A view the Buddha says one should give up by saying:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.

@Sunyo

This point is actually addressed in the Yamaka Sutta (SN22.85), which is relevant because it is all about the wrong view of annihilationism. It asks Yamaka if he thinks there is actually an annihilated “Tathagata” (referring to a self) outside of the five aggregates. Yamaka says no and in the end rightly concludes that what happens at the death of an arahant is the just cessation of the five aggregates.

Why would Yamaka even have his harmful misconceptions in the first place if it weren’t for the fact that we, even to this day, have eternalism-buddhists, annihilationist-buddhists and plently of other wrong views being formulated as the absolute truth?
These various views are bound to spring up in the mind for ANY buddhist practioner, right?
We can’t really blame anyone irrespective of which wrong view it happens to be. So one should really be very humble and careful in explaining what Nibbāna is and is not, instead of thinking the current view one might have on the path is actually the one and only true one.

I would now like to ask the following regarding the already mentioned Yamakasutta SN 22.85:

And after hearing this teaching by Venerable Sāriputta, my mind is freed from the defilements by not grasping.”
Idañca pana me āyasmato sāriputtassa dhammadesanaṁ sutvā anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimuttan”ti.

Is cittaṁ the same and identical to viññāṇaṁ?

Where is cittaṁ when you let go of saññā/viññāṇaṁ/saṅkhārā/vedanā?

[Sunyo]

Hiya,

Well, you said most of this before in different words, but I still think you’re reading the sutta incorrectly. Let me explain in more detail, then.

The pronoun “they” refers to the unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, etc. throughout the entire sutta. In Pali there isn’t even a pronoun at all, and the repeated verb “regard” (samanupassati) refers back to the unlearned ordinary person (assutavā puthujjano) the entire time. This is hard to explain if you don’t know Pali, but if you do, have a look. The na eva construction also indicates that these statements form a continuum and there’s no separation between Buddhist and non-Buddhists. Again, Pali students will understand what I’m saying.

It also becomes clear when we expand the elipses (the triple dot, where stuff has been omitted for sake of brevity):

Perhaps they [i.e. the unlearned ordinary person] don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Still, they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ But that eternalist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? When the UNLEARNED ORDINARY PERSON is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That conditioned phenomenon is born from that.

We can do the same for the annihilationist view, but you get the point.

Now, this unlearned person could be a Buddhist or not. Whatever religion they follow is not important. The point is that they views are all equally wrong views, and both Buddhists and non-Buddhists can have wrong views. There’s no distinctly Buddhist-only views here.

Since you yourself do not regard the five aggregates as self, in your view the ”I” or self can only cease to be thanks to something else than the five aggregates….
Nibbāna?

I would appreciate it if you don’t try to tell me what my view is, because it’s not this. You seem to misunderstand something here. I don’t think there is a real “I” or self at all, so it can’t cease either.

You’re addressing the view of the annihilationists instead. And you seem to assume there are just the five aggregates and nibbāna, nothing else. Fair enough. But that is not the assumption of the eternalists and annihilationists make in this sutta. Not necessarily being Buddhists, they probably don’t even believe in nibbāna in the first place. But more importantly, some of them think there is still a self or “I” outside of the aggregates—that’s the point I perceive is being made here. That self or “I” could for example be the incorrectly perceived owner or experiencer of the aggregates. Eternalists think this continues forever after death; annihilationists think it is destroyed at death. But since such a thing doesn’t exist in the first place, both views are wrong.

@Dhabba

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’
this is solely for teaching how to NOT regard the five aggregates as self, right?

It’s never said what “it” here refers to, actually. Since it’s in the singular and the aggregates are always referred to in the plural, it likely doesn’t refer to the five aggregates specifically. Although they are in some sense included, of course, the “it” seems to me to refer to “the all” or existence in general. Not all suttas are analytically separating everything into the five aggregates.

[har1ndu15]

Materialists think that no aggregates (matter specially) can become a self. Thus there is no you,me or anyone else. Buddha said it is a foolish view.

Why is it a foolish view?

If there is no person, who is suffering? who is freed from suffering? You might be tempted say it is the view that there is a person that generates suffering and that view is liberated. If there is no person can we kill/steal/rape because there is person who is doing the deed or the person being harmed. There will be only two groups of aggregates interacting. Suffering is generated when these groups assign values to the interaction an fundamentally there is no right or wrong.
One would also assume that a group of aggregates without wrong view(liberated) are the same as any other group of aggregates except they do not assign values to the interactions.

Thus one may arrive at the conclusion samsara is the same as nibbana.

Existence/Non existence

Buddha has repeatedly said that he doesn’t teach about existence/non-existence of universe/self/Tathagata(Enlightened one)/etc. That all views concerning these are wrong views.
It is my opinion that it is similar to a 2D person looking at a 3D object. He would see it if it appears on the same plane and it would disappear if it leaves the plane. It would be valid but foolish to consider that objects only live in the 2D world and there disappearance is the ending or destruction of the object.

Similarly our universe is considered to be 4D by scientists but it also exhibits principles that violate causality. We know so little about the universe that any view we hold about it may be a wrong view.

Since it is not possible to know about existence/non-existence of self/cosmos/etc we should keep them aside and become enlightened first to find out about the questions we have.

[Dhabba]

But contextually ”They” in this sutta still adhere to the strictly buddhist teaching of not regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.

That is why I asked in my first post in this thread if there was any other contemporary sect during the Buddha’s time that also teaches, just like the Buddha, to not regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self?

@Sunyo

Now, this unlearned person could be a Buddhist or not. Whatever religion they follow is not important. The point is that they views are all equally wrong views, and both Buddhists and non-Buddhists can have wrong views. There’s no distinctly Buddhist-only views here.

And which outsider sect adheres to this teaching on the aggregates as not-self but also at the same time embraces eternalism?

And which outsider sect adheres to the aggregates as not-self and dismiss eternalism but instead embraces annihilationism?

And which sect…? You get the point.

Here in AN 10.29 the Buddha praises outsiders using exactly the same phrase and formula as in SN 22.81:

”This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence. Some sentient beings have such a view. But even the sentient beings who have views like this decay and perish.”

Like I wrote in the other thread:

@Dhabba

This is applicable to various ascetic practices by others that are very painful to the body but due to the deep concentration attained leads one to the formless realm of nothingness. These meditators don’t care about a future ”existence” of any sort in rupa loka and kama-loka and couldn’t care less about ”ceasing to exist” as they have come to know existence (kama-loka & rupa-loka): since the formless realm of nothingness is seen as the highest type of ”cessation” in their dhamma.

Yet in SN 22.81 everyone is encouraged to completely give up every notion of ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

In AN 10.29 the reason for the Buddha’s praise is:

When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.

But this reason for praise seems not to be applicable anymore in SN 22.81 and is instead considered a wrong view that has to be given up in the pursuit of ending the defilements in this present life.

Any clue as to why?

@Sunyo

I would appreciate it if you don’t try to tell me what my view is, because it’s not this. You seem to misunderstand something here. I don’t think there is a real “I” or self at all, so it can’t cease either.

So this not-real ”I” or self can’t even cease by attaning Nibbāna?

In the sutta in question they already do not regard the five aggregates as self and see the already non-existent “I” or self finally coming to a permanent end in something else than the five aggregates - Nibbāna.

What is the difference?

@Sunyo

You’re addressing the view of the annihilationists instead. And you seem to assume there are just the five aggregates and nibbāna, nothing else. Fair enough. But that is not the assumption of the eternalists and annihilationists make in this sutta.

Well to some degree they are on the buddhist path because they both DO have the view that the 5 aggregates are not-self, even according to the Buddha himself in the sutta. Their assumptions are more about what Nibbāna (ending the defilements in this present life) will result in. One group believe it will result in eternalism, the other in annihilation.

@Sunyo

Not necessarily being Buddhists, they probably don’t even believe in nibbāna in the first place. But more importantly, some of them think there is still a self or “I” outside of the aggregates—that’s the point I perceive is being made here. That self or “I” could for example be the incorrectly perceived owner or experiencer of the aggregates. Eternalists think this continues forever after death; annihilationists think it is destroyed at death. But since such a thing doesn’t exist in the first place, both views are wrong.

@Sunyo

The point is that they views are all equally wrong views, and both Buddhists and non-Buddhists can have wrong views. There’s no distinctly Buddhist-only views here.

Well their wrong views are only the result of not regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. This view is not wrong in itself but it can still lead to other wrong views, namely regarding Nibbāna.

That is my whole point.

How, from where and why did Yamaka get his wrong views?

Due to anything specifically in the Buddha’s teaching or was it maybe due to something taught by outsiders in their dhamma?

Is there is any other teaching out there also saying that form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness is not-self? I’d love to study it.

But it has to be a teaching prior to or contemporary to the Buddha, I wouldn’t want to waste my time on the copycats who showed up later on, AFTER the Buddha…

[Green]

@Sunyo

I would appreciate it if you don’t try to tell me what my view is, because it’s not this. You seem to misunderstand something here. I don’t think there is a real “I” or self at all, so it can’t cease either.

How does this relate to:

“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, etc. (MN2, Bodhi)

By the way only bhikkhu Sujato tranlates these sentences very differently. All others (Bodhi, Horner, Suddhaso Bhikkhu, Thannisaro Bhikkhu, Peter van Loosbroek (Dutch translator) are quit consistently in translating the same content of the Pali sentences: One can develop this wrong view that there is no self for me, or just the wrong view ‘I do not have a self’ and see that as truth.

Sujato translates here: The view: ‘My self survives.’ The view: ‘My self does not survive.’

Apart from Sujato’s translation, in those other translations there is nothing even mentioned about a surviving or not surving self. Is there really said something in Pali here about a surviving or not surviving self? What do you read as Pali expert? Or is this just an interpretation of what is being said here?

If a see the note, it looks like Sujato chooces to interprete what is said but does he really translate what is said in Pali? I believe: As translator one must translate just what is said and in commentaries or in seperate notes one can interprete. Otherwise it becomes a mess and the translator does not even translate anymore what is being said in Pali but how it must be understood (according him) what is said. That is, i feel, wrong. This is not the task of a translator. This is more something to adress in commentaries on the sutta’s.

We can study the sutta’s with the translations in hand but if such huge differences in content appear, and translators starts to interpret what is being said, in stead of translating what is said, i feel we are lost.

Maybe next year, or sooner or later, again a translators starts to do all over again, translating what he/she feels is meant in stead of just translating the sentences. This way, studying sutta’s becomes almost impossible, because one is in fact studying the mind of the translator. I have myself also translated sutta’s from English into Dutch, for myself and some friends. I know it is not easy but i feel one must stick to the words, what is being said, and not what it all means for you as translator. As translator one wants to avoid that. Maybe not as teacher but as translator one does.

Anyway, the whole idea of this part of MN2 is, for me, that the idea there is no self which you see as true, is also just an involvement in conceiving and wrong. It is just as wrong as ‘there is a self’. It is just an attachement to views. Nothing more. It has also nothing to do with seeing the anatta aspect of all that can be known.

[Dhabba]

When they attend improperly in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact.

(1) The view: ‘My self exists in an absolute sense.’

(2) The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’

(3) The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’

(4) The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’

(5) The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’

(6) Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’

[Aidan]

@Dhabba

And which outsider sect adheres to this teaching on the aggregates as not-self but also at the same time embraces eternalism?

Jumping in here maybe “Neti, Neti”? The sect of Upanishadic followers who negate everything that isn’t the absolute, eternal, Brahman.

A modern day materialist can in a way adhere to a type of non self believing the body just to be elements and you die at it’s just lights out at death.

[Dhabba]

Thank you!
But the Upanishads are late vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit texts that “document the transition from the archaic ritualism of the Veda into new religious ideas and institutions”.

The Buddha also only mention 3 vedas in the suttas so the 4th veda wasn’t even around during his time while the Upanishads are late vedic and post-Vedic:

He recites and remembers the hymns, and has mastered the three Vedas AN 3.59

[Sunyo]

Hi again,

@Dhabba

But contextually ”They” in this sutta still adhere to the strictly buddhist teaching of not regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.

“Adhering to strictly Buddhist teachings” implies having right view. The unlearned ordinary people in this sutta all have wrong view.

The uniquely Buddhist view is not just that the aggregates are not self; it’s also that there also is no self outside of the aggregates. (sabbe dhamma anatta = all phenomena are without a self) The part about “outside the aggregates” is what the eternalists and annihilationists are missing in this specific sutta, hence despite what you’re saying, they aren’t adhering to strict Buddhist teachings. They have wrong views specifically said to come from ignorance.

@Dhabba

That is why I asked in my first post in this thread if there was any other contemporary sect during the Buddha’s time that also teaches, just like the Buddha, to not regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self?

As I implied, it’s not about specific sects, it is about views. Both Buddhists and non-Buddhists can have wrong views.

@Dhabba

But this reason for praise seems not to be applicable anymore in SN 22.81 and is instead considered a wrong view that has to be given up in the pursuit of ending the defilements in this present life.

It is the exact same quote, so the view he praises elsewhere is in essence still the same. He praises it as “the best of outsiders”, which means it is still a wrong view. But as far as wrong views go, it’s the best, because, as he says, it is closest to cessation.

@Dhabba

So this not-real ”I” or self can’t even cease by attaning Nibbāna?

How can something that is not real cease to exist?

It seems you have difficulty separating the annihilationist position from the Buddha’s as I understand it. I’ll try to explain once more. The annihilationist imagines a self, or “I”, or “me”, whether inside or outside of the aggregates. Such a thing doesn’t really exist, but they think that it does. As annihilationists they think it is destroyed at death. The Buddha saw reality as it is and realized there is no self or “I” or “me” at all. So it can’t be destroyed at death either.

If you still can’t see the difference, even if just from an intellectual point of view which you may of course disagree with, I’m afraid this discussion isn’t going anywhere.

@Green

How does this relate to:

“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’

The “me” is the problem here. They think there is a “me” who has no self, but in reality there is no “me”. As the standard reflection says: “not me, not mine, not a self”.

@Green

Is there really said something in Pali here about a surviving or not surviving self? What do you read as Pali expert?

It could be read in that way, although I’m not convinced. I think it means “I have no self” (i.e. there is no self for me) Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the “me/my” still is the wrong perception, not the “no self” part.

@Green

Anyway, the whole idea of this part of MN2 is, for me, that the idea there is no self which you see as true, is also just an involvement in conceiving and wrong.

That’s not what it says, though. It’s ‘natthi me attā’t, not natthi atta.

@Dhabba

(1) The view: ‘My self exists in an absolute sense.’

(2) The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’

(3) The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’

(4) The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’

(5) The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’

(6) Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’

These are all views of “my” or “self”.

Throughout the entire canon “there is no self” is never said to be a wrong view. The Chinese canon a number of times explicitly says it to be right, and the Pali canon also points at this, most notably in MN22.

a self and what belongs to a self are not actually found

This means a self and what belongs to a self don’t actually exist.

[Dhabba]

@Sunyo

“Adhering to strictly Buddhist teachings” implies having right view. The unlearned ordinary people in this sutta all have wrong view.

I wonder why the Buddha has to bring up ordinary people and their respective wrong views in a sutta that is spoken to monks about ending all the defilements in this present life?

It would have been better to bring up all the wrong views buddhists are prone to have while on the path. But apparently buddhists can’t have wrong views…unless of course they happen to be some eternalist, then they are basically some ”brahmanical” mystic who got it all wrong.

But god forbid a buddhist leaning towards annihilationism should be wrong in their views, despite plenty of people showing that there are many flaws in that view too…

The only response to this seems to be:

That we don’t understand Pali or buddhist insights properly and if a sutta happens to contradict the annihilationist standpoint it is either deliberately translated in a way to fit this standpoint or there are several essays posted in hope of disproving the things in numrerous suttas that contradict the annihilationist standpoint.

@Sunyo

The uniquely Buddhist view is not just that the aggregates are not self; it’s also that there also is no self outside of the aggregates. (sabbe dhamma anatta = all phenomena are without a self) The part about “outside the aggregates” is what the eternalists and annihilationists are missing in this specific sutta, hence despite what you’re saying, they aren’t adhering to strict Buddhist teachings. They have wrong views specifically said to come from ignorance.

I just take a more realistic approach to these things:

Like not jumping straight to the highest insights and applying them to all phenomena while simultaneously lacking the actual experience that gives rise to these insights. This prevents one from mixing up the truth with wrong views to the point that the wrong views becomes the truth.

If it wasn’t for the Buddha none of us would have ever known about the three characteristics in the first place. Anatta being the last in the trio.

That is why I don’t take his amazing and unique insights for granted or as something very obvious and apparent. Only Nibbāna can result in saying: ”sabbe dhamma anatta = all phenomena are without a self”. Nothing else.

Since the Buddha was kind enough to map out and describe all planes of existence and the diverse nature of these from the various hells to the highest formless dimensions with all their inhibabitants; he has given us a priceless teaching that can lead others to the ultimate goal in the spiritual life and not get stuck elsewhere, no matter how blissful it might seem to be.

To read the word FEAR will not result in feeling fear.
Likewise the insights into the true nature of phenomena can only be experienced, not thought about.
But you are already actively claiming what this goal/experience happens to be:

A state much like dreamless unconconscious sleep that just happens to also be permanent…that to me is annihilationism.

I don’t see how this type of ”cessation” you are promoting will ever result in getting the real insights into:

1. Impermanence - that realms that continue for countless millions of years will come to an end.
2. That the incredible bliss that can be enjoyed in these higher realms are in fact unsatisfactory, since they are conditional and only really unsatisfactory because of this conditionality.
3. That the experiencer of all these various realms and who has had countless existences should not be regarded as oneself, or an I or me/myself/mine.

And to make things even worse, since you already say that Nibbāna is permanent unconsciousses one can’t make any assements regarding phenomena with that specific attainment - since one is unconscious.

So the ONLY way to classify all conditional phenomena and fully understand the three characteristics one has to investigate conditionality while being conscious again in Samsara to see and know if the three characteristics are actually true.

While also NOT falling into to any of these wrong views during the investigation.

(1) The view: ‘My self exists in an absolute sense.’

(2) The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’

(3) The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’

(4) The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’

(5) The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’

(6) Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’

If you refuse to see the flaws in your current view that is perfectly fine, but what about others who might come in contact with buddhism for the first time thanks to Suttacentral?

That is why I agree with Green that the translators should have comments/sidenotes with their own views instead of altering the texts so they fit their specific view.

So while you say that there are no unique wrong views exclusively found buddhism there also happen to be several essays written just to prove that there are indeed ”wrong” views in buddhism(???), solely based on some suttas not adhering to a very specific view you and your peers happen to have, this to me is quite frankly a great disservice to buddhism.

[Dhabba]

There is a raft and this raft will be carried around everywhere on the other shore.

There is a raft, but since this raft is a conditioned phenomena one might as well drown together with the raft since drowning is pretty much the same as making it to the other shore.

[har1ndu15]

If there is no self would that imply either people are deterministic or they are probabilistic(random) or a combination.

If people are deterministic, why would Buddha urge you to practice and change your behavior? Nothing in the doctrine implies that you should do nothing and enlightenment will come to you.

If people are random(chaotic/probabilistic), Buddha would not urge you to practice dhamma either. Since you would not be able to practice dhamma if your actions are random. Similarly it implies that whether you achieve enlightenment is random. This is not the buddhist view.

[Green]

Hoi @Sunyo

I just feel the need to put things in perspective. I think that this describes the best how i see things. An attempt:

What the Buddha realised is that there is a longstanding tendency in the mind to incline towards what is felt, seen, heard, sensed and known with a vision of :'this is me (conceit), this is mine (desire) and this is my self (view). In a general sense this describes how the mind lands upon something and gets attached or how it gets involved.

Most people just see this as how things really are. A kind of law of nature.
Buddha discovered that this is not the case. It is not some fixed fact of life.
But the way the mind inclines towards things arises dependend on causes and conditions and can also end. He realised the end of it. He discovered this is an enormous freedom of mind. This detachment, this non-involvement is peaceful, unburdened and ones real home. The home he sought for himself.

If the mind does not incline towards what is sensed anymore in that unvoluntairy habitual way, due to asava’s, it is stable, very open, sensitive, peaceful, unburdened. It does not unvoluntairy grasp anything during this life and also not at death. It is tamed. In this life it has made an end to becoming. This way the Buddha found the home that he sought. He called it Nibbana.

He realised that the strong tendency of the mind to incline towards what it senses with a vision of me, mine, my self, must be remedied to guide his pupils to the same realisation. So he taught that everything must be seen as not me, not mine, not my self. Just to remedy that longstanding way of inclining towards things. Like he also remedies extreme greed with perceptions of ugliness etc.

The Dhamma is about using such skillful means to enter a stream that will go in a direction of letting go, relinquishment, detachment, the end of unvoluntairy conceiving, the tamed mind. It is not about becoming philosophical about self and not self, right?

If one does this, then at a certain point one starts to see what Buddha’s aim really is. Not really to see all as not me, not mine, not my self, ofcourse, but just as it is. Rupa as rupa, vedana as vedana, sanna as sanna, sankhara as just sankhara, Nibbana as just Nibbana. Because that is where Buddha has arrived at. No conceiving of the khandha’s, but direct knowledge of it. Unvoluntairy conceiving is due to tanha.

With instructions like…“this is not mine, me, my self, and anicca and dukkha”, he guides us to a point that in the seen is merely the seen, in the sensed merely the sensed etc. Meaning, not ideas , also not those of ‘this i am not, this is not mine, not my self’. That would mean a constant involvement in conceiving and that is surely not the goal.

In fact if you see this, he only wants to guide us to the nature of mind freed from all adventitious defilements. To a situation in which mind not habitually projects all kinds of extra’s upon what it senses and does not get involved anymore. That is the real goal, i believe. And we use skillful means to arrive there.

One must not use or see ‘this is not me, not mine, not my self’ as a statement of Buddha’s philosophical doctrine, but just as means to break a longstanding habit. Most of all it is not meant to alienate from what is sensed, or to distance oneself from it, or to become constantly involved in thinking and conceiving, but in the end it is exactly the opposite. It is an invitation to experience rupa as mere rupa, vedana as mere vedana…Nibbana as Nibbana, all just as it is.

I think sharing this perspectieve is probably better then to react on your statements one for one. I hope so.

[Sunyo]

Sorry, Dhabba, but I think this is not a discussion about suttas anymore, nor a search for truth or mutual understanding. I feel it’s tending towards the kind of speech of “You don’t understand this teaching and training. Your doctrine has been refuted.” I don’t want to argue who here, quote, “refuse[s] to see the flaws in your current view” and who is doing “a great disservice to Buddhism” and who isn’t. So I’ll leave it at what I said and let other people make up their mind. I hope I’ve at least I clarified how I think annihilationism and cessation are different things. We can disagree on that, but for me there’s no need to make it personal.

@Green

I think sharing this perspectieve is probably better then to react on your statements one for one. I hope so.

In a sense it is, but I could also write a similar post in response and it won’t really be an exchange anymore based on the suttas. So that’s why I’ll leave it at this. Anyway, I hope you see how “I have no self”/“there is no self for me” is a different perspective from “there is no self”.

[Dhabba]

The sole intention for even mentioning this is so that readers of the suttas can read everything in an undistorded way where the personal views of the translators find no footing.

But I hear you and I don’t think there is much more to add to the discussion.

[Green]

@Sunyo

In a sense it is, but I could also write a similar post in response and it won’t really be an exchange anymore based on the suttas. So that’s why I’ll leave it at this.

I thought i did a good gesture but apparantly not.
Strange, because i feel we never have an exchange about the sutta’s only. You also exchange how you see and understand the sutta’s. I also. That is the exchange. What is there to exchange about the suttas’?

@Sunyo

I hope you see how “I have no self”/“there is no self for me” is a different perspective from “there is no self”.

Yes

You do not believe there is a real self nor a real I. But what does this really mean for you in a practical way? For example, do you really feel there is not something like being not yourself?
Do you accept something like being authentic and not? If there is no self at all, can we have a sense of purity, of authenticity, or being unfabricated?

[AdrianMagno]

Hi there,

If someone chooses to retire from a discussion, please have the courtesy to respect their wish and cease from continuing to press them for further discussion.

Let’s all remember to show some courtesy and respect to our fellow community members.

Thanks in advance,
Adrian (on behalf of the moderation team)

[thomaslaw]

Self (attā), being not real, arises by causal condition (nidāna); having arisen it ceases completely by causal condition. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (anatta).

Cf. SA 335:
Pages 95-6 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (155.3 KB)