On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Goofaholix »

vinasp wrote: Where does the Buddha say this?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by vinasp »

Hi Goofaholix,

SN 44.10 is misunderstood by many. The eternalist view and the anihilationist
view are both views about a self.

These views are always rejected. Also the no-self teaching was, at the time,
probably not given to "outsiders".

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by ancientbuddhism »

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

The following quotation is from - No-Self or Not-Self? - by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside."

I believe that this is a serious misunderstanding of the teachings of the Sutta
pitaka, and should be challenged.

Where does the Buddha say this?

Regards, Vincent.
This is simply a misrepresentation of the Ānanda Sutta. Because this thread has become rather circular I will try not to add to it by repeating myself here, but I have commented on this in the OP here (and locations in the embedded link in that post) that was split off from the original thread. I can go into more detail on why this is misguided if these comments still raise questions.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Cittasanto »

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

The following quotation is from - No-Self or Not-Self? - by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside."

I believe that this is a serious misunderstanding of the teachings of the Sutta
pitaka, and should be challenged.

Where does the Buddha say this?

Regards, Vincent.
I believe it is .... (edit no I am wrong) reference has already been given.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Cittasanto »

I have been looking at the responces to Vincents quote, and feel it should be noted that many of SN44 has this question, it is even an aspect of two of the ten questions (all of which were put aside).

although in the reference given gives a reason not the same as the other instances, so a context is differing there, it still shows the Buddha putting the question aside, due to its lack of benefit for the ending of Dukkha.
one layer of its context.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

OK, lets take a close look at SN 44.10 - Ananda.

I will use the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, page 1393.
My comments will be in brackets [ .... ]

"Then the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One ...
and said to him:
"How is it now, Master Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then, Master Gotama, is there no self?"
A second time the Blessed One was silent.
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and
departed. Then, not long after the wanderer Vacchagotta
had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One:
" Why is it, venerable sir, that when the Blessed One
was questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta, he did not
answer?"

"If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta
"Is there a self?" I had answered, "There is a self", this
would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins
who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him
"Is there no self?" I had answered, "There is no self", this
would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who
are annihilationists."

[ The Buddha's explanation of his silence is in two parts and
this is the first part. It assumes that Vacchagotta believes
that there is a real, unchanging self. And that he is asking
whether this self is eternal, or is destroyed when the body
dies, in accordance with the two main theories of the time.
Both of these are theories of a real, unchanging self, and
these theories are always rejected by the Buddha. So if
Vacchagotta was asking his questions from the standpoint of
these two theories, then the Buddha will not wish to confirm
either of them.]

My comments on the second part of the Buddha's explanation will
follow shortly.

Regards, vincent.
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Goofaholix »

vinasp wrote:The Buddha's explanation of his silence is in two parts and
this is the first part. It assumes that Vacchagotta believes
that there is a real, unchanging self. And that he is asking
whether this self is eternal, or is destroyed when the body
dies, in accordance with the two main theories of the time.
Both of these are theories of a real, unchanging self, and
these theories are always rejected by the Buddha. So if
Vacchagotta was asking his questions from the standpoint of
these two theories, then the Buddha will not wish to confirm
either of them.
Interesting Thanissaros translation has extra info in brackets "annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]". I'm not sure whether this is his commentary or whether he has captured shades of meaning the Bhikkhu Bodhi missed.

Annihilation of consciousness is not the same as annihilation of self I'd have thought.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by vinasp »

Hi Goofaholix,

The main explanations and descriptions of eternalist and annihilationist
views is found in DN.1 The Brahmajala Sutta.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

To continue with SN 44.10

"If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta,
"Is there a self?" I had answered, "There is a self", would
this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the
knowledge that "all phenomena are nonself?"
"No, venerable sir."

[ This is the start of the second part of the Buddha's explanation
and seems to assume that Vacchagotta's questions may have been
about a real, present self and whether it exists or not. The
Buddha seems to me to be saying that had he said "There is a self"
this would not be consistent with the knowledge which arose at the
time of his enlightenment.]

"And if, when I was asked by him, "Is there no self?" I had answered
"There is no self", the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused,
would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, "It seems
that the self I formerly had does not exist now." { End of Sutta}

[ The only reason given for not saying, "There is no self", is that
Vacchagotta is confused and such an answer would not be helpful for
him at that time. One should not conclude from this that the view
"There is no self" is a wrong view.]

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Here are the descriptions of eternalism and annihilationism from DN.1
The Brahmajala Sutta, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Eternalism (Sassatavāda): Views 1–4

30. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be eternal. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

4. Annihilationism (Ucchedavāda): Views 51–57

84. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

85. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Zom »

Both Ucchedavāda and Sassatavāda posit "a self". In the first case it is annihilated, in the second - it lives forever.
Buddha's apporach is less complex ,) - since there is no self at all ,)
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Vinasp
vinasp wrote:[ The Buddha's explanation of his silence is in two parts and
this is the first part. It assumes that Vacchagotta believes
that there is a real, unchanging self. And that he is asking
whether this self is eternal, or is destroyed when the body
dies, in accordance with the two main theories of the time.
Both of these are theories of a real, unchanging self, and
these theories are always rejected by the Buddha. So if
Vacchagotta was asking his questions from the standpoint of
these two theories, then the Buddha will not wish to confirm
either of them.]
I see no evidence that it is assumed that Vacchagotta believes that there is a real, unchanging self! the evidence suggests to me more that he was confused as to the theories being expounded at the time.
but...
only 2 theories???
DN15 wrote:"To what extent, Ānanda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'
firstly there were more than two theories which fell within the two extremes.
and calling the two extremes 'theories' is inaccurate to the thicket of views regarding self or lack thereof, and their spectrum.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Bodhi’s footnote to the Ānanda Sutta (SN.44.10):
  • "Probably this means that Vacchagotta would have interpreted the Buddha’s denial as a rejection of his empirical personality, which (on account of his inclination towards views of self) he would have been identifying as a self. We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare, “There is no self”: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self."
This suggests the obvious, that silence to these questions was provisional to Vacchagotta’s inclinations.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Although we know that the Buddha did not ‘teach with a closed fist’ (ācariyamuṭṭhi), he did express concern for Vacchagotta’s state of mind:
  • “And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.” (SN.44.10, Bodhi translation)
With reference to this, consider the section on Agitation in MN.22 (Bodhi):
  • “Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is nonexistent internally?”

    “There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone has the view: ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbāna. He thinks thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! I shall be no more!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent internally.”
This indicates an individual who is not fit to hear the hard-line teachings of anattā, causal processes and release. Whereas a suitable audience is the noble adherent who is mature in the teachings and practice:
  • “Venerable sir, can there be no agitation about what is non-existent internally?”

    “There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone does not have the view: ‘That which is the self is the world … I shall endure as long as eternity.’ He hears the Tathāgata or a disciple of the Tathāgata teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all standpoints, decisions, obsessions, adherences, and underlying tendencies, for the stilling of all formations, for the relinquishing of all attachments, for the destruction of craving, for dispassion, for cessation, for Nibbāna. He does not think thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So I shall be no more!’ Then he does not sorrow, grieve, and lament, he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. That is how there is no agitation about what is non-existent internally."
Vacchagotta had approached the Buddha and senior disciples before with questions of existence and non-existence, and for this underlying confusion the Buddha is silent. However, this does not preclude teaching anattā where a through examination of it can be made for the suitable audience.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The passage about the "six wrong views" in MN 2 the Sabbasava Sutta
has also contributed to these misunderstandings.

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self...
[ Thanissaro Bhikkhu ]

19. "In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self'[16] arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly...
[ Burma Pitaka Association ]

"When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him.
The view "self exists for me" arises in him as true and established;
or the view "no self exists for me" arises in him as true and
established; ... [ Bhikkhu Bodhi MN.2 ]

I will focus here on the first two of these six views. It is the second
view which causes the confusion.

The whole section is about an "untaught ordinary person". But the view
"I have no self" is very easy to misunderstand.

Those on the higher stages of the path, such as non-returners, may no
longer see any self, but still have the conceit "I am". See, for example
SN 22.89 Khemaka Sutta. So they might say something like; "I have no self".
But this should not be confused with the passage in MN. 2.

How then should the MN 2 passage be understood? The problem arises from
the translation of "atta" as self. For most of us, the word "self" has no
implication of something which is eternal. We did believe in an immortal
soul in the past, but our word for this eternal thing was "soul" and not
"self".

At the time of the Buddha many people believed that "atman" was eternal,
In Pali "atman" is "atta". But "atta" is also employed just like "self"
in English. So it has a wide range of meanings including something like
an eternal self/soul.

Now see what happens if we substitute soul for self in these first two
views. We get the view "I have an (eternal) soul" or the view "I have
no (eternal) soul". This is why the commentators often identify views
such as these, as being the "eternalist" or "annihilationist" views.

But these are views about the future state of the self, not views
about a present self, they both accept the existence of a present
self.

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply