In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by DooDoot »

SilaSamadhi wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:53 pmThis sutta states the world is "empty of self".
Yes.
Also, various other conditioned phenomena, such as the eye, eye-consciousness, and the intellect - are all empty of self.
These phenomena appear to be included within the term "the world". They do not appear to be "other" phenomena.
This supports the view that the self cannot and should not be identified with any of these conditioned phenomena.
This sounds like a view of Vachagotta, which is probably why your mind is empathizing with Vachagotta. The above sentence appears to contain an inherent belief there is a self (that should not by identified with), similar to Vachagotta believing there is a self (that might not exist).
For example, considering your intellect as pertaining to your self is wrong view.
"Your" is merely a convention for communication. But, yes, the intellect is not a self. It is merely the intellect, like a CPU in a computer.
This position is consistent with the position in the sutta I have quoted in OP.
Yes consistent with the wrong view of Vachagotta, it appears.
As there so here, nowhere in this sutta does the Buddha positively state that the self does not exist.
The Buddha kept silent. :roll:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
SilaSamadhi
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:58 pm

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by SilaSamadhi »

DooDoot wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:12 am The Buddha kept silent.
He kept silent when Vacchagotta asked him questions. When Ananda later asked him related questions, he spoke quite eloquently.

Contrary to your claim, my goal here is not to affirm any preconceived view. Rather, I am trying to understand what the Buddha is teaching.

So far I haven't seen any sutta quote that clearly supports a position that the self does not exist.

The two suttas we've quoted above - Ananda Sutta and Suñña Sutta - both make only two clear claims:
  • Both the view that the self exists, and its opposite (that the self does not exist), are wrong.
  • All conditioned phenomena are not self.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by DooDoot »

SilaSamadhi wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:25 amHe kept silent when Vacchagotta asked him questions. When Ananda later asked him related questions, he spoke quite eloquently.
Not true, since you have shown on this thread not comprehending what the Buddha spoke. How could it be "eloquent" if you can't understand it?
Contrary to your claim, my goal here is not to affirm any preconceived view. Rather, I am trying to understand what the Buddha is teaching.
I tried to explain what the Buddha teaching is. Vachagotta asked:

(1) Does my self exist (atthattā)?, which the Buddha told Ananda is an "eternalist" doctrine.

(2) Does my self not exist (natthattā)? which the Buddha told Ananda is an "annihilist" view doctrine.

Similar to your view, Vachagotta always had the view of "myself" in both of his questions.
So far I haven't seen any sutta quote that clearly supports a position that the self does not exist.
A sutta was posted.
The two suttas we've quoted above - Ananda Sutta and Suñña Sutta - both make only two clear claims:
  • Both the view that the self exists, and its opposite (that the self does not exist), are wrong.
  • All conditioned phenomena are not self.
Suñña Sutta says the world is empty or void of self. This cannot be said anymore clearly than that. :roll:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings DooDoot,
DooDoot wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:42 am Suñña Sutta says the world is empty or void of self. This cannot be said anymore clearly than that. :roll:
Yes, and as is explained by the sutta, "the world" in this context refers to the six sense bases and their objects. It is the same definition of "the world" which is used for "the all" in the Sabba Sutta.

In the Sabba Sutta, the Buddha says...
Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Thus, categorical statements about "atman", other than that the six senses and their objects are devoid of it, are beyond range...

Statements which are beyond range, would be ontological propositions which pertain to existence or non-existence.
SN 12.15 wrote:"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
This, I believe, is the reason that the Buddha did not respond to Vacchagotta's ontological theorizing in the kind of categorical manner which was amenable to the wanderer in question.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by DooDoot »

DooDoot wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:42 amVachagotta asked:

(1) Does my self exist (atthattā)?, which the Buddha told Ananda is an "eternalist" doctrine.

(2) Does my self not exist (natthattā)? which the Buddha told Ananda is an "annihilist" view doctrine.
SN 12.15 states:
Dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca

This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence.

atthi
as + a + ti
to be; to exist.

natthi
indeclinable
it is not; there is not.
Vachagotta's questions fall into the two wrong views above. This is what is clear. As for the translations of atthi & natthi, we are not exactly clear. But what is clear is the Buddha told Ananda that Vacchagotta's two questions were both wrong views.

An example of a 'annihilistic view' is found in Iti 49. Notice how the view still contains the view of self. It is annihilistic because it believes in a self that will be annihilated at death; similar to how Vacchagotta believed in a self that may not exist & similar to believing there is a self that should not be identified with.
How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

https://suttacentral.net/en/iti49
In Buddhism, the "assumption" or "disease" or "suffering" called "self" is something dependently originated & fabricated from ignorance. It is not real.
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
This world is burning.
Afflicted by contact,
it calls disease/sickness a 'self.'
rogaṃ vadati attato

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

roga
masculine
disease; illness.
...he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.15
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by Circle5 »

Have people simply missed Buddha response in that sutta ? "IF I were to answer that there is no self, that wanderer would have got more bewildered and said - Does this self of mine that used to exist, now not exist ?"

This is of course consisted with the other 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka: Buddha position is that there never was a self to begin with. If he was to answer in that case, the wanderer would have understood that there used to be a self that now is no more.

For those that claim there might be a self, then please tell me what is this self made of ? If a computer does not have a self, but you have a self, then what is this self made out ? How do I know it is not an imaginary thing like the spaggete monster ? How would you feel if I kept writing on the forum that "there is this spaggete monster" but never say anything about him or try to make my point in any way ?

Imagine there is a bushman seeing a car for the first time. He will naturally believe it is pushed by a spirit. Maybe it is an elephant spirit, or maybe it is a tiger spirit since the car is fast, etc. Then, a mechanic will show him that there actually is no spirit, that there is just the engine and that is all there is. Just the car and that's it, no spirit that he supposed existed.

Things work the same with nonexistence of a self. You need to show how the being works, how the aggregates work, etc. untill one understands, just like the bushman, that this is all there is, no mysterious self behind it.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by DooDoot »

Circle5 wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:13 am Have people simply missed Buddha response in that sutta ? "IF I were to answer that there is no self, that wanderer would have got more bewildered and said - Does this self of mine that used to exist, now not exist ?"

This is of course consistent with the other 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka: Buddha position is that there never was a self to begin with. If he was to answer in that case, the wanderer would have understood that there used to be a self that now is no more.
:bow:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

When (ignorantly) recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.

Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.79
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:50 am
DooDoot wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:42 am Suñña Sutta says the world is empty or void of self. This cannot be said anymore clearly than that. :roll:
Yes, and as is explained by the sutta, "the world" in this context refers to the six sense bases and their objects. It is the same definition of "the world" which is used for "the all" in the Sabba Sutta.
:thumbsup:

Looking at the Sabba and Sunna suttas together, it is very difficult to argue for the existence of a self in "the all".

PS Is Nibbana included in "the all"?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:41 am PS Is Nibbana included in "the all"?
Thanissaro gives an explanation of this matter at the end of his translation at Access To Insight.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by cappuccino »

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1

MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:13 am Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:41 am PS Is Nibbana included in "the all"?
Thanissaro gives an explanation of this matter at the end of his translation at Access To Insight.
I remember it as being rather inconclusive.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by Spiny Norman »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:18 pm Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1

MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media.
Interesting, but I don't see any support here for the idea that viññanam anidassanam is a self, or for the idea that Nibbana is a self. And of course there is "sabbe dhamma anatta".
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by Zom »

Nirvana isn't a self, nor is it annihilation.
nor is it annihilation [of self]. 8-)
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: In Ananda Sutta, the Buddha seems to state that both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are Wrong Views.

Post by cappuccino »

Nirvana is described as everlasting.

Also the truth is very subtle and difficult.
Post Reply