Why did the Buddha speak in these ways?

[travlingwonderer]

Hello everyone. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

I have read some of Bhikkhu Thanissaro’s writings, including his pamphlet The Mind Like Fire Unbound, and I must say that I like his position. However, I am also aware that certain of his stances are not without criticism.

Something that I notice him doing is “reading between the lines”, you might say. I am here to ask about if the Buddha meant to leave such openings in his teaching and if so, why.

Here are some examples of what I mean:

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.

SN 35.23
To say that someone will be frustrated in their attempts to describe something besides ‘the all’ seems different than saying there simply isn’t anything else besides ‘the all’.

The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.

AN 4.173
To say that proliferation stops and stills with the fading of the six fields of contact seems different than saying nothing remains after the fading of the six fields of contact.

Indeed, it seems there is something after they fade:

So you should understand that dimension where the eye ceases and perception of sights fades away. You should understand that dimension where the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind ceases and perception of ideas fades away.

SN 35.117
How can it be undertood if proliferation has ceased?

So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Any kind of feeling at all …

Any kind of perception at all …

Any kind of choices at all …

You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

[SN 22.59]
To say that the 5 aggregates are not ours, not ourselves, and not what we are seems different than saying there is no self.

Indeed, if there is no self then what is the use of teaching people the aggregates are not self. They are precisely what we are and there is nothing else for us to be!

What do you think, mendicants? Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them. Would you think, ‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”

“No, sir. Why is that? Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self.”

“In the same way, mendicants, give up what isn’t yours. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your lasting welfare and happiness.

MN 22

“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a realized one might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.

Any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness by which a realized one might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”

MN 72
If all we are is the aggregates, wouldn’t it be simple enough to say that a Tathagata is not reborn, since the aggregates cease at their death? Furthermore, if all we are is the aggregates, then how can the Tathagatha be deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom?

It seems that if the Buddha wanted to communicate that there is no self and that we cease with the ceasing of the aggregates, then why did he speak in these ways? It appears that he spoke in very roundabout ways and left open the possibility of interpreting his words in exactly the opposite way that he intended.

However, one could equally ask, if there was a self that continued on after the ceasing of the aggregates, then why didn’t the Buddha explicitly state this? The answer is in the citations above. The Buddha couldn’t state this explicitly because it’s something beyond logic (MN 72) and the grasping of the mind (AN 4.173). To simply assert that there is a self that is separate from the aggregates and continues on after their ceasing would only bring someone frustration (SN 35.23).

Furthermore, if there were not a self beyond the aggregates, we would not be able to let go of them (MN 22) and since there is a self beyond ‘the all’, it is immeasurable and hard to fathom (MN 72).

I’ve said all this not to argue but to get feedback. I want to understand why this position is possible and yet, may be wrong. I have not read all the suttas (some of which may directly contradict these interpretations) and the ones that I have, I have only read languages besides Pali.

Thank you for your responses!

[DonatorProponent]

I really think the fire metaphor is key here.

Imagine a completely ignorant child saw me extinguish a flame. They ask, “where is the fire?” If I answered “the fire is not to my right” they might think the fire still has a location, it’s just to my left. If I said “the fire is not to my left” they night think the fire had gone to my right. If I said “the fire has gone out” they might speculate wildly that the fire had gone to either the left or right, somewhere “out”. If I say, “the category of location no longer applies to the referrant ‘the fire’” they’d be totally confused. Even though all those statements are true, they’re not useful until one has developed the mental capacity to understand that things can cease to be defined by the whole category of location.

Now, the tricky bit is that for the fate of the Tathagata after death, “left” is existence and “right” is non-existence. The category that no longer applies isn’t the left/right spectrum, but the is/is-not spectrum.

This is a quagmire. Most of the things you can say about it are wrong, and most of the things the Buddha could have said about it would have lead people to say more incorrect things. One of the major genres on this forum is “If I, a non-expert, take something a well regarded expert said on this topic and run with it, I quickly end up at full-blown eternalism / annihilationism”. That’s not because all those experts are full blown extremists or bad at articulating themselves- it’s because this really is a quagmire.

Going back to the child confused by how the fire can no longer be described in terms of location, if they really don’t get it, the best advice might not be any sort of explanation. It might just be “brush you teeth, eat well, listen to your parents.” Because they just need to let their mind develop.

If you believe there was a Tathagata at all, you probably also believe there were disciples who became triple-knowledge arahants by following the teachings on other topics, developing their mind, and then -woah! Maybe they understood the fate of the Tathagata and all sorts of other things. But there’s no sound pedagogy in encouraging people to try and cram the Tathagata into either the “exists” or “doesn’t exist” box.

[sujato]

Hi, thanks for the question

@travlingwonderer

I have read some of Bhikkhu Thanissaro’s writings, including his pamphlet The Mind Like Fire Unbound, and I must say that I like his position. However, I am also aware that certain of his stances are not without criticism.

If you’re interested, I wrote a substantial critique of his position here. I agree, there’s a lot of “reading between the lines”.

Going Out Like Fire Quenched

One of my first inspirations in the suttas was the short book by Venerable Thanissaro, Mind Like Fire Unbound, which came out when I was a young monk in the early 90s. I read it while staying at the little hermitage on Poo Jorm Gorm in northeast Thailand. The book had an elegant and moving quality to it; something in the Venerable’s presence in the written word conveyed a sense of depth and assurance that left an impression that has lasted to this day. I read it when it came out, and to me at …

I welcome the discussion, and I won’t attempt to answer the specifics you raise here, but if it is okay I’d like to make just one observation.

Long ago, Ven Nyanaponika advised Ajahn Brahm to avoid trying to make a theory on Buddhism based on obscure or uncertain passages, and instead focus on the fundamental teachings that are unambiguously repeated throughout the canon.

Unfortunately, most scholarship avoids this good advice, perhaps under the impression that the common teachings are well-understood and hence uninteresting.

As an experiment, try asking the same question, but start with the four noble truths and dependent origination. Then see how these more obscure teachings illuminate them.