Wrong views due the khandhas being impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self

[Sunyo]

@Dhabba

So how should one go about representing the texts accurately if the texts themselves contradict each other?

I’m sorry, I should have clarified that I’m not saying all suttas are misrepresented here. I was referring specifically to MN2.

“Misrepresent” also was too strong a word choice, for which I apologize as well.

@Dhabba

What do you consider are the wrong views of the Sarvāstivāda?

I quoted a Sarvastastivada text to show “there is no self” is the interpretation of anattā not just of the Theravada but of other early schools as well. I don’t think I have to agree with all the Sarvastivada has to say in order for that to be the case. There are flaws in the Chines canons as well as the Pali, but the common elements point us at the understanding of the early community.

I don’t want to discuss the interpretation of anatta further here, but for those interested, this topic is of relevance: Bodhi vs Ṭhānissaro debate

@Dhabba

Regarding the view that ‘when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, ‘nothing else exists’, = ”final Nibbāna is nothing apart from the cessation of the khandhas” is completely denied in the suttas. And it is denied on the basis of the Tetralemma.

Here is the most striking example: AN 4.174

I think “nothing” is a mistranslation. Venerable Sujato still hasn’t updated his translation of AN4.174, unfortunately. AN3.173 is updated, however:

Then Venerable Mahākoṭṭhita went up to Venerable Sāriputta, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, Mahākoṭṭhita sat down to one side, and said to Sāriputta:

“Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else still exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else both still exist and no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

“Does something else neither still exist nor no longer exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”

The statement “something else no longer exists” assumes something existed outside of the six senses, that now also ceases. Like a self, for example. This is different from “nothing else exists.”

In the sutta, Sariputta says all four statements proliferate beyond the scope of proliferation, which is the six senses. To say “there is nothing”, however, doesn’t proliferate beyond the six senses, exactly because it assumes they are all that there is. That’s another indication that this translation misses the point. “Something else no longer exists”, however, does proliferate beyond the scope of the six senses, because it assumes “something else” beyond them, even if it’s impermanent.

When interpreted like this, which is grammatically more acceptable as well, the sutta actually confirms that the six senses are all there is. That agrees with SN35.28, where the six senses (and experiences through them) are “the all” or “everything”. To say there is another “all”, i.e. to say there is something beyond the six senses, “They’d have no grounds for [saying] that”.

Either way, the old translation you quoted also says that “there is something else” is equally wrong, so according to this the view that something remains after parinibbana is incorrect as well.

All in all, I wonder whether all these recent discussions on this topic are going in a productive direction. Apparently it’s a hot topic. But at least we can accept the other’s perspective, hopefully, even if we don’t agree with it. There’s no need to call each other’s views “nothing more than just a conditioned phenomena”, even if we believe that to be the case.