the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread

[culaavuso]

Didn't the Buddha also say there is not a self, and there is a permanent unchanging self, are both wrong views and the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle???

Where is an assertion of an existing "permanent unchanging self" attributed to the Buddha?

"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

[lyndon taylor]

The Buddha stated that a permanent unchanging self was a wrong view, but didn't he also state that the idea of there being no self was a wrong view also? The Buddha equates no self with annihilationism and there is a self with eternalism in this sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[culaavuso]

The Buddha stated that a permanent unchanging self was a wrong view, but didn't he also state that the idea of there being no self was a wrong view also?

There is a statement in MN 2 that it is wrong view to think "no self exists for me", which from its phrasing shows that self view is still present. This same part of MN 2 discusses ideas of an unchanging self as well, but a phrase such as "there is ultimately no self" is conspicuously absent from the list.

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; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

The Buddha stated that all ways of regarding anything as self are based on the five aggregates:

Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What five?

Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

Further it is stated that none of these five aggregates are a self:

Bhikkhus, form is nonself …
Feeling is nonself …
Perception is nonself …
Volitional formations are nonself …
Consciousness is nonself …

It is also stated that self is not something apart from these five aggregates:

Friends, I do not speak of form as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from form. I do not speak of feeling as ‘I am’ … nor of perception as ‘I am’ … nor of volitional formations as ‘I am’ … nor of consciousness as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from consciousness.

It is said that "I am" is a conceiving, yet this conceiving itself appears to be not self. It is described as a disease to be overcome.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace.

[Kasina]

The Buddha stated that a permanent unchanging self was a wrong view, but didn't he also state that the idea of there being no self was a wrong view also? The Buddha equates no self with annihilationism and there is a self with eternalism in this sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I don't see the belief that the self is a falsehood as being nihilistic at all. It can be downright life affirming in some cases.

[Dhammanando]

I think the application of ‘oblivion’ in this thread is incorrect. None of the dictionary senses would correspond to uccheda (annihilation, cutting off). What ‘oblivion’ annihilates is memory, not a being or a person. As Bartholomew Yong has it:

Minds change from that they wont to bee,
Obliuions doe reuiue againe.
(from his translation of Jorge de Montemayor’s Diana. 1598)


A correct example of ‘oblivion’ (albeit temporary) in the Buddhist texts would be rebirth among the impercipient devas.

• From the Oxford English Dictionary:
  
  oblivion, n. (əˈblɪvɪən)
  
  [a. OF. oblivion (c 1245 in Godef.), ad. L. oblīviōn-em forgetfulness, state of being forgotten, f. vb.-stem oblīv-, found in inceptive deponent oblīv-iscī to forget; f. ob- (ob- 1 b) + *līv-: cf. līvēre to be black and blue, līvid-us black and blue, dark.]
  
  1. a.1.a The state or fact of forgetting or having forgotten; forgetfulness.
  
  b.1.b Forgetfulness as resulting from inattention or carelessness; heedlessness, disregard.
  
  c.1.c Intentional overlooking, esp. of political offences. Act or Bill of Oblivion, an act or bill granting a general pardon for political offences.
     In Eng. Hist. the term is specifically applied to the Acts of 1660 and 1690, exempting those who had taken arms or acted against Charles II and William III respectively from the penal consequences of their former deeds.
  
  2. a.2.a The state or condition of being forgotten. (Hence many phrases and fig. expressions.)
  
  †b.2.b transf. A thing forgotten. Obs.
  
  3.3 attrib., as oblivion point, oblivion power.
  
  Hence †oˈblivion v. Obs., to put into oblivion; oˈblivionist, one who holds a theory of, or favours, oblivion.

[lyndon taylor]

While the Buddha spoke extensively on the topic of what is not self, the skhandas, etc, I don't think he ever explicitly stated that there is no self of any kind whatsoever, Its quite possible to have a self that is not part of the skhandas, the Mahayana concept of Buddha nature is one example of this type of self, once again, as I have said before, before you can have any real insight into self/no self you have to have a concise definition of what it is you mean by self, for instance if we simply define self as a living body, then we all have selves, If we define self as a functioning active mind, then (most of us?) have selves, it all has to do with how we define self, the Buddha taught what is not self, the implication is, upon meditating upon all the things that are not self maybe we will realize what our true nature is, obviously its something, call it self or not self, its up to you!!

[SarathW]

If it is a functioning mind it should be called a functioning mind.
It is not the self.

[Mkoll]

While the Buddha spoke extensively on the topic of what is not self, the skhandas, etc, I don't think he ever explicitly stated that there is no self of any kind whatsoever, Its quite possible to have a self that is not part of the skhandas, the Mahayana concept of Buddha nature is one example of this type of self, once again, as I have said before, before you can have any real insight into self/no self you have to have a concise definition of what it is you mean by self, for instance if we simply define self as a living body, then we all have selves, If we define self as a functioning active mind, then (most of us?) have selves, it all has to do with how we define self, the Buddha taught what is not self, the implication is, upon meditating upon all the things that are not self maybe we will realize what our true nature is, obviously its something, call it self or not self, its up to you!!

How do you define self?

[Sylvester]

While the Buddha spoke extensively on the topic of what is not self, the skhandas, etc, I don't think he ever explicitly stated that there is no self of any kind whatsoever,

Hmm, I was wondering then what the Buddha meant by this reply to the monks -

Siyā nu kho, bhante, ajjhattaṃ asati paritassanā”ti? “Siyā, bhikkhū”ti– bhagavā avoca. “Idha, bhikkhu, ekaccassa evaṃ diṭṭhi hoti: ‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avi­pari­ṇāma­dhammo, sassatisamaṃ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti. So suṇāti tathāgatassa vā tathā­gata­sāvakassa vā sabbesaṃ diṭṭhiṭ­ṭhānā­dhiṭṭhā­na­pari­yuṭ­ṭhā­nā­bhini­ve­sā­nusa­yā­naṃ samugghātāya sabba­saṅ­khā­ra­sama­thāya sab­bū­pa­dhi­paṭi­nissag­gāya taṇhākkhayāya virāgāya nirodhāya nibbānāya dhammaṃ desentassa. Tassa evaṃ hoti: ‘ucchijjissāmi nāmassu, vinassissāmi nāmassu, nassu nāma bhavissāmī’ti. So socati kilamatikilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohaṃ āpajjati. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, ajjhattaṃ asati paritassanā hotī”ti.

Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent 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 theTathāgata 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 thinks thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So 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.”

MN 22, per BB

What do you think the Buddha was referring to, when He said asati (about what does not exist)?

[Kasina]

While the Buddha spoke extensively on the topic of what is not self, the skhandas, etc, I don't think he ever explicitly stated that there is no self of any kind whatsoever,

Hmm, I was wondering then what the Buddha meant by this reply to the monks -

Siyā nu kho, bhante, ajjhattaṃ asati paritassanā”ti? “Siyā, bhikkhū”ti– bhagavā avoca. “Idha, bhikkhu, ekaccassa evaṃ diṭṭhi hoti: ‘so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avi­pari­ṇāma­dhammo, sassatisamaṃ tatheva ṭhassāmī’ti. So suṇāti tathāgatassa vā tathā­gata­sāvakassa vā sabbesaṃ diṭṭhiṭ­ṭhānā­dhiṭṭhā­na­pari­yuṭ­ṭhā­nā­bhini­ve­sā­nusa­yā­naṃ samugghātāya sabba­saṅ­khā­ra­sama­thāya sab­bū­pa­dhi­paṭi­nissag­gāya taṇhākkhayāya virāgāya nirodhāya nibbānāya dhammaṃ desentassa. Tassa evaṃ hoti: ‘ucchijjissāmi nāmassu, vinassissāmi nāmassu, nassu nāma bhavissāmī’ti. So socati kilamatikilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohaṃ āpajjati. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, ajjhattaṃ asati paritassanā hotī”ti.

Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent 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 theTathāgata 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 thinks thus: ‘So I shall be annihilated! So I shall perish! So 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.”

MN 22, per BB

What do you think the Buddha was referring to, when He said asati (about what does not exist)?

He's got you there, Lyndon.

[lyndon taylor]

Like I said it all depends on how you define self, personally I would think true self is that part that goes on from one life to the next etc etc. Quite possibly by the Buddha's own definition of self it does not exist, but do we really have any firm idea of what the Buddha's definition of self was at all. The Buddha seemed to describe self as something permanent and unchanging that goes on unaltered for eternity, and quite right he was to deny that as being a true self, but that is not how I define self, reading a english translation of a lost language, Pali, and assuming the word in English has the same meaning we usually apply to it today, back in 500BC is a bit of a stretch, so perhaps accepting a little more mystery and a lot less assureadness is a more appropriate way to deal with some of these concepts.

PS that quote doesn't say anything about self not existing, unless you read a lot into it, and that's what a lot of people seem to be doing on this subject, do you ever consider there may be more than one way of interpreting some of these statements in the scriptures. Once you've got your mind made up, it seems like everything agrees with you, so to speak.

[lyndon taylor]

Here are two definitions of self from the Oxford Dictionary, which one was the buddha denying, or was he denying a completely different 500BC Indian definition of self??


Definition of self in English:
noun (plural selves /selvz/)
1A person’s essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action: our alienation from our true selves [in singular]: guilt can be turned against the self language is an aspect of a person’s sense of self
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 [with adjective] A person’s particular nature or personality; the qualities that make a person individual or unique: by the end of the round he was back to his old self Paula seemed to be her usual cheerful self
More example sentences
1.2One’s own interests or pleasure: to love in an unpossessive way implies the total surrender of self

Clearly even enlightened monks don't seem to loose the second definition of self(1.1)

[culaavuso]

Here are two definitions of self from the Oxford Dictionary, which one was the buddha denying, or was he denying a completely different 500BC Indian definition of self??


Definition of self in English:
noun (plural selves /selvz/)
1A person’s essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action: our alienation from our true selves [in singular]: guilt can be turned against the self language is an aspect of a person’s sense of self
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 [with adjective] A person’s particular nature or personality; the qualities that make a person individual or unique: by the end of the round he was back to his old self Paula seemed to be her usual cheerful self
More example sentences
1.2One’s own interests or pleasure: to love in an unpossessive way implies the total surrender of self

Clearly even enlightened monks don't seem to loose the second definition of self(1.1)

Individuality as puggala is not denied as it is possible in the suttas to describe the differences between various arahants such as Sariputta and Moggalana (MN 141). This is not an ultimately existing entity, however, as explained in the chariot analogy of SN 5.10. It is a conventional description dependent upon the aggregates.

Self-identity view in terms of the self as an existing entity which is equivalent to, possessing, in, or containing one or a combination of the five aggregates, or existing apart from the five aggregates, is denied as sakkāya-diṭṭhi. This is the misunderstanding that stream entrants are stated to have overcome. This includes the idea "This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity" (MN 2) or that the self is "This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions" (MN 38).

The conceit "I am" is also mistaken and is described as asmi māna. This is the error that arahants are stated to have overcome.

[Sylvester]

Like I said it all depends on how you define self, personally I would think true self is that part that goes on from one life to the next etc etc. Quite possibly by the Buddha's own definition of self it does not exist, but do we really have any firm idea of what the Buddha's definition of self was at all.

I think if you take a comprehensive survey of the types of Self-hood postulated by the Indians of the Buddha's time, you will get the DN 1 litany of the types of "self"/"Self" that the Buddha denies.

The Buddha seemed to describe self as something permanent and unchanging that goes on unaltered for eternity,

This is not correct, as the Buddha also described the theories of the annihilationists who described a self/Self that is destroyed with death. See the listings #51 to 57 in DN 1 for these varieties of self that are destroyed.

PS that quote doesn't say anything about self not existing, unless you read a lot into it, and that's what a lot of people seem to be doing on this subject, do you ever consider there may be more than one way of interpreting some of these statements in the scriptures. Once you've got your mind made up, it seems like everything agrees with you, so to speak.

Well, to me the sutta is crystal clear. The proposition that is being criticised is couched in these terms -

so loko so attā

That which is the self is the world

If you invest a little time in reading the pre-Buddhist Upanisads, you will have no difficulty understanding what this loka means - it is the World, it is the All, it is Brahman. And the Upanisads are very explicit in identifying the self with Brahman.

The agitation that is then criticised is now couched in these terms -

ucchijjissāmi , vinassissāmi , bhavissāmī

What is destroyed, if not the very 1st proposition about the Self that was postulated by the Eternalist? Perhaps I work with a method of reading suttas that is different from yours, but the Buddha having introduced an Upanisadic view of Selfhood for examination, then concludes that something does not exist, what else could that non-existent thing be but the subject of the discussion?

[lyndon taylor]

respectfully disagree....