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

[Dhabba]

@Erika_ODonnell

Who interprets anatta the way you describe as the no self view?

Make what you will out of the following regarding the no self view:

@Sunyo

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.

@Sunyo

@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.