The ineffable goal of the Upasīva Sutta

[Sunyo]

Hi all,

I was hoping for a different discussion. But I hope people are benefiting from this regardless.

Just a quick reply:

@yeshe.tenley

Venerable Sunyo above states that the aggregates are in some sense more real than the conventional self

Just to clarify, I didn’t say that. I said the inherent self (i.e. an entity that “I” really am) is less real than the aggregates as temporary phenomena (i.e. “conventional” aggregates, if you want to call it that). I was specifically talking about this inherent self, that you agree doesn’t exist.

And that’s what the word atta refers to in philosophical contexts of the early texts. For example, in eternalism and annihilationism, it’s not just a conventional self that people suppose gets perpetuated or annihilated.

In contrast, the words ‘aggregates’ or ‘form’ etc. in the early texts are by default used conventionally.

@yeshe.tenley

we agree there is no such thing as an inherent self. It doesn’t exist.

Then would you say the “conventional” aggregates also don’t exist, just like the inherent self doesn’t exist? If so, I’d say that is problematic, as others pointed out. You need to be conscious to be able to say this in the first place, for example.

And if you say these aggregates do in some sense exist, then that proves my point. The aggregates, as non-inherent phenomena, are different from the inherent self. The latter doesn’t exist. But the former, in some sense do.

Again, I’m not talking about the conventional self here. We can indeed say that it is just as “real” as the conventional aggregates. I’d have no problems with that. Both are just labels, ultimately. (This is still not exactly how the early texts talk about it, but at least it doesn’t contradict them.)

All I’m saying is, I don’t put the inherent self and “conventional” aggregates (or self) on the same level. If you do, then fine, but what’s the difference between “inherent” and “conventional”, then?

To get back to the texts instead of personal opinion:

‘I had such form in the past.’ Recollecting thus, it’s only form that they recollect. (sn22.79)

I take this to mean there is only form, not an inherent I. The I is added on top of form. It doesn’t exist as anything more than a delusion.

The Buddha continually referred to the aggregates as “existing”, but he never says this about the self. Apart from the quote Ajahn Brahmali repeated, there is also:

“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ (atthi) applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’ (SN22.62)

I’ll leave it at this, because,

@Dogen

it’s drifting from Bhante’s original essay quite a bit

So returning to the Upasiva Sutta… my thinking is that for Upasiva the term ‘sage’ has connotations of an essence, connotations of a self (meaning an inherent self, to be clear). That’s why Upasiva’s questions about eternalism and annihilationism of a sage are ill put. No such sage gets annihilated nor perpetuated. No inherent sage “can be identified”, as the Buddha says.

There is only a “conventional” sage, if you want to call it that.

That’s how we can interpret the Upasiva Sutta: to share a message that the Buddha spoke a great many times elsewhere. He’s just using slightly different terms.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Sunyo

Just to clarify, I didn’t say that. I said the inherent self (i.e. an entity that “I” really am) is less real than the aggregates as temporary phenomena (i.e. “conventional” aggregates, if you want to call it that). I was specifically talking about this inherent self, that you agree doesn’t exist.

I stand corrected. Thank you for the discussion Venerable.

[Dogen]

@Sunyo

I was hoping for a different discussion.

Just to get thread back on track: I think it’d be a good time to ask you what kind of discussion that would be, Bhante? Where if any potential alternative readings.do you se

[Brahmali]

Great essay! I found your discussion of ineffability particularly illuminating.

Sorry about the derailing of the discussion; I just didn’t have much to say about the main content. The only thing that wasn’t quite clear to me was the following:

@Sunyo

In another discourse of the Pārāyana he further explains that the imperturbable state of nothingness can be abandoned by realizing that rebirth in the realm of nothingness is still conditioned, still being a form of consciousness.

With the phrase “still being a form of consciousness”, you are presumably suggesting that the state of nothingness is conditioned because it is state of consciousness. You use the word “explains” to show that this was the Buddha’s argument to the brahmin student Posāla. Yet this cannot be a persuasive argument to a brahmin who believes that consciousness can be permanent. Perhaps you need to rephrase this a bit.

[Sunyo]

@yeshe.tenley

I stand corrected. Thank you for the discussion Venerable.

You too! You know, it is so easy to get confused about this inherent/conventional kind of speech. That’s probably a reason why we find it so rarely in the suttas. And that’s why I think there is no such thing as conventional versus inherent aggregates in the suttas.

@Dogen

Just to get thread back on track: I think it’d be a good time to ask you what kind of discussion that would be, Bhante?

I was hoping people would challenge the connection with the Middle Teaching of Dependent Arising. Also, some more on the verses on expressions, some of which use near-identical phrasing as the Upasiva Sutta. Yet, they are often left unconsidered when interpreting the sutta. Or on the phrase sankham gacchati/upeti, which we find in this sutta but also elsewhere—notably in connection with letting of conceit, conceiving, etc.

@Brahmali

Perhaps you need to rephrase this a bit.

I think I do. That sentence was actually the last I added to the essay, as a bit of an afterthought. But the comment by Wynne (that there is no relevant rebirth cosmology in the Parayana) will probably make me give this phrase some more attention in a future version.

Despite most of the discussion being not very on-topic, I did already learn better ways of expressing my ideas about the discourse from everybody.

So thanks all!