MN 109/SN 22.82 Maha-punnama Sutta:The Great Full-moon Night

Each week we study and discuss a different sutta or Dhamma text

Moderator: mikenz66

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: MN 109/SN 22.8 Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night

Post by beeblebrox » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:35 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
MN 109: Then, in the mind of a certain Bhikku this thought arose: "So, it seems, material form is not self, feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness is not self. What self, then will actions done by the not-self affect?"

SN 22.82: .. what self, then, will deeds done by what is nonself affect?

BB MN: It seems that this bhikkhu had difficulty how kamma can produce results without a self to receive them.

BB SN: I prefer the reading of the parallel MN. [Some technical Pali discussion.] Spk is silent, but MA explains that this monk has slipped into an eternalist view.
I think it's interesting that MA says this is an eternalist view... it also could imply nihilism (no self that is affected by the aggregates), which is also a wrong view.

:anjali:

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16470
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: MN 109/SN 22.8 Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:27 pm

beeblebrox wrote: I think it's interesting that MA says this is an eternalist view... it also could imply nihilism (no self that is affected by the aggregates), which is also a wrong view.
Perhaps the bhikkhu is using the argument that the Buddha has declared that the aggregates are nonself, but has not explicitly said that there is no self anywhere, so there could be some eternal self outside of the aggregates.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: MN 109/SN 22.8 Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night

Post by beeblebrox » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:34 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
beeblebrox wrote: I think it's interesting that MA says this is an eternalist view... it also could imply nihilism (no self that is affected by the aggregates), which is also a wrong view.
Perhaps the bhikkhu is using the argument that the Buddha has declared that the aggregates are nonself, but has not explicitly said that there is no self anywhere, so there could be some eternal self outside of the aggregates.
Yes, I see that too. It wasn't the first thing that occurred to my mind, though... I think it's also important to keep in mind that the problem here wasn't that there was "no self" to begin with, per se, but it's trying to view with the idea of a "self" in the first place. This encompasses both eternalism and annihilationism, along with nihilism.

:anjali:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests