Nihilists views

[Zom]

Bhikkhu Santi wrote:

The Buddhist teaching of anatta and the nature of is very close to annhilationism, that's why you can find so much praise for the annhilationists in the Suttas, the Buddha called them the holders of 'the foremost of outside viewpoints' because: "they already have revulsion towards existence and non revulsion towards the cessation of existence, so when the Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of existence they do not recoil from it".

In the suttas I found two similar assertions:

1) One is that those ascetics, who enter the 8th jhana and teach their Dhamma are the outsiders with a maximum possible (for outsiders) spiritual purity (e.g. Udakka Ramaputta)
2) The closest to the Right View is the view of those who think thus: "it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me" (nihilist view?)

BUT I've never seen such an assertion as Ven. Santi gave: "they already have revulsion towards existence and non revulsion towards the cessation of existence, so when the Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of existence they do not recoil from it"

Does anybody know where this phrase can be found in the suttas?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

See the Dīghanakha Sutta

As he was standing there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, I am of the view, of the opinion, that 'All is not pleasing to me.'"

"But even this view of yours, Aggivessana — 'All is not pleasing to me' — is even that not pleasing to you?'"
...
"With regard to those brahmans & contemplatives who are of the view, of the opinion, that 'All is pleasing to me': That view of theirs is close to being impassioned, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging. With regard to those brahmans & contemplatives who are of the view, of the opinion, that 'All is not pleasing to me': That view of theirs is close to not being impassioned, close to non-bondage, close to not-delighting, close to not-holding, close to not-clinging."

[cooran]

Hello Zom,

Noticed the phrase here:

EXCERPT:
2. No c’assa no ca me siyā, na bhavissati na me bhavissatî ti
The most difficult sentence in the sutta clearly is this: No c’assa no ca me siyā, na bhavissati na me
bhavissatî ti [§2], an important statement found in a number of other suttas (see below). This statement is
found in the Suttas in two forms.4
(1) ANNIHILATIONISM. The annihilationist (uccheda,dihi) version—no c’assa no ca me siyā, na
bhavissāmi na me bhavissatî ti5 (“the no c’assa passage”)—is found in the Pahama Kosala Sutta (A
10.29), the Buddha declares it to be “the foremost of outside speculative views” (etad-agga bāhirakāna
 dihi,gatāna), the reason being that one who accepts such a view would neither be attracted to
existence nor be averse to the ending of cessation.6 In this connection, Bodhi notes:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf

with metta
Chris

[Zom]

Dear Venerable,
Dear Cooran,

Thank you very much - both links are very helpful ,)

[Gena1480]

very useful
metta

[pegembara]

The supreme view-point external [to the Dhamma] is this: 'I should not be; it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.' Of one with this view it may be expected that '[the perception of] unloathsomeness of becoming will not occur to him, and [the perception of] loathsomeness of the cessation of becoming will not occur to him.' And there are beings who have this view. Yet even in the beings who have this view there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.

Kosala Sutta


"He discerns, as it actually is, that 'form will stop being' ... 'feeling will stop being' ... 'perception will stop being' ... 'fabrications will stop being' ... 'consciousness will stop being.'

"From the stopping of form, from the stopping of feeling ... of perception ... of fabrications ... of consciousness, a monk set on this — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me' — would break the [five] lower fetters."

"Lord, a monk set on this would break the [five] lower fetters. But for one knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there the immediate ending of fermentations?"

"There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.'



Udana Sutta SN 22.55

[Zom]

Cool Thanks

[Zom]

Take a look at the comment on this sutta by Ven. Bodhi :

http://theravada.ru/Pattern/comm.gif

[manas]

Far be it for me to contradict all the informed offerings here. Just wanted to, once again, share something that needs to be said here: Let's remember that the Buddha rejected nihilism, as well as annihilationism. Personally, I've gained just enough conviction, I feel, to deal with an implication being made that he was in some ways 'close' to their views. A newcomer to this site (or to Buddhism) might be put off, however...so thank goodness we have the Snake-Simile Sutta, too:

The Arahant [35]

"...This monk is called one who has removed the crossbar, has filled the moat, has broken the pillar, has unbolted (his mind); a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.

31. "And how, monks, is that monk one who has removed the cross-bar? Herein the monk has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus has he removed the cross-bar.

32. "And how, monks, is that monk one who has filled the moat? Herein the monk has abandoned the round of rebirths, leading to renewed existence; he has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.

33. "And how has he broken the pillar? He has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.

34. "And how has he unbolted (his mind)? He has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root, removed them from their soil like a palmyra tree, brought them to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.

35. "And how is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.

36. "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.[37]

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering...

Let us be very specific then, about the OP: the sutta excerpts state that nihilists are easier to teach (in some respects) because they do not recoil from the idea of non-existence. But that is not the same as saying that the Buddha was either close to or sympathetic with their views. Please take note of the words "baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused" ... does that sound like he was sympathetic to nihilism? Really?

metta,

m.

[Zom]

Let us be very specific then, about the OP: the sutta excerpts state that nihilists are easier to teach (in some respects) because they do not recoil from the idea of non-existence. But that is not the same as saying that the Buddha was either close to or sympathetic with their views. Please take note of the words "baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused" ... does that sound like he was sympathetic to nihilism? Really?

Of course "falsely and wrongly" - because the Blessed One didn't say that there IS A SELF that will be destroyed ,)
If he would adopt nihilist views - then he would need to say that there is a self that will be destroyed. But he doesn't say this, and that is why he is wrongly accused (read Ven. Bodhi's commentary)

[manas]

Let us be very specific then, about the OP: the sutta excerpts state that nihilists are easier to teach (in some respects) because they do not recoil from the idea of non-existence. But that is not the same as saying that the Buddha was either close to or sympathetic with their views. Please take note of the words "baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused" ... does that sound like he was sympathetic to nihilism? Really?

Of course "falsely and wrongly" - because the Blessed One didn't say that there IS A SELF that will be destroyed ,)
If he would adopt nihilist views - then he would need to say that there is a self that will be destroyed. But he doesn't say this, and that is why he is wrongly accused (read Ven. Bodhi's commentary)

Gday Zom,
I am hesitant to venture into disputation, as I really don't enjoy it. So please take this in the spirit of mutual understanding and friendship.

But I feel that many in the Buddhist world misunderstand the doctine regarding anatta. In the texts the Buddha is pretty clear that the five khandhas are not-self - and even if only on an intellectual level, we can perceive this (even if we still emotionally make identifications with them). Fair enough. And yet, that's still not the same thing as making the statement,"There is no self!" I can recall what Thanissaro Bhikkhu says in this regard:

"One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. 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. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers..."

Here is the entire artlcle: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html

, m.

[Zom]

I do know about this his statement, however, I still don't agree.

It is true that Buddha avoided telling that there is "no self". But not because there is some self in reality (as Ven. Thanissaro thinks).
From MN 2 we see why he avoid telling directly that there is no self - that is - simply because people would not understand it correctly
and will fall into "thicket of views" such as "There is no self FOR ME" or "By Not-Me I see My Self". What they do - is rejecting self on the base of self!
That is why Buddha don't use this strategy.

However, in MN 22 we see, that Buddha says that ordinary people are worried about something that doesn't exist (!) internally. That is - about "their self".
So Buddha speaks about "no self" not directly, but by implication.

[manas]

It is true that Buddha avoided telling that there is "no self". But not because there is some self in reality (as Ven. Thanissaro thinks).

Ven. Thanissaro isn't saying that there 'is some self in reality'. Do you really think he would think or say such a thing?...please read the entire article carefully...

Zom my friend, I don't know about you, but I am getting to the stage where I will have to let go of this discussion, with goodwill towards yourself - please understand that - but I might have to just let you have the last word and get out of this topic, so I don't incur the dukkha of contention, and what's more, two non-arahants talking about something of which they have no direct experience (I'm talking about you and me, of course). This kind of thing makes we feel like literally running away into the forest, where I can be away from the internet, and the temptation to answer contentious posts. (Alas I'm in Melbourne, and...it's cold and rainy, surprise surprise).

with metta - m.

[Zom]

Ven. Thanissaro isn't saying that there 'is some self in reality'. Do you really think he would think or say such a thing?

He always points on that with his "eternal consciousness" theory ,)
(I guess you've read about it elsewhere on this forum)
And you can also take a look on this message here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=986&start=0#p12365

Zom my friend, I don't know about you, but I am getting to the stage where I will have to let go of this discussion, with goodwill towards yourself - please understand that - but I might have to just let you have the last word and get out of this topic, so I don't incur the dukkha of contention, and what's more, two non-arahants talking about something of which they have no direct experience (I'm talking about you and me, of course). This kind of thing makes we feel like literally running away into the forest, where I can be away from the internet, and the temptation to answer contentious posts. (Alas I'm in Melbourne, and...it's cold and rainy, surprise surprise).

I do understand ,)
However, I don't think that this discussion is worthless, because it is actually very important, since there are your ditthi, views, and they should be Right, not Wrong. Buddha kept insisting on that his students should rectify their views. That is what we do here..


If you have some ideas about "self" - these, as I see it - are Wrong Views. If you have some idea about eternal consciousness - these are also, as I see it - Wrong Views. But ideas about "No Self" I don't see to be Wrong Views. There is only one statement is whole canon, where Buddha says that "there is no self" in nihilist (wrong) view. However, as many people noticed, this passage is really strange, possibly corrupted, because everywhere in canon nihilists are said to have directly opposite views! - views that "there is a self".

[manas]

If you have some ideas about "self" - these, as I see it - are Wrong Views. If you have some idea about eternal consciousness - these are also, as I see it - Wrong Views.

If you could kindly find even one place in this entire forum where I said that there *is* a self in actuality, please post my direct quote. Otherwise, please refrain from misrepresenting me. Thank you

Off to meditate,

[Zom]

What I'm trying to say is that there can't be a middle between "there is self" or "there is no self". If we take it impartially.
You can, of course, avoid saying such phrases, but in reality there must be a view that either a self does exist, or it does not.

[manas]

What I'm trying to say is that there can't be a middle between "there is self" or "there is no self". If we take it impartially.
You can, of course, avoid saying such phrases, but in reality there must be a view that either a self does exist, or it does not.

Yes, there are two such views, and as far as I know, they both miss the point.

We are supposed to be contemplating unsatisfactoriness, it's cause, it's cessation, and the path leading to it's cessation. That's the point.

I think Ven. Thanissaro is saying as much in the article I posted. Our lifespan is limited. Let's use our energy wisely.

The reason I take issue with the implication of the OP that Buddha was sympathetic with nihilist views, is that this could mislead newcomers to Buddhism, and potentially put them off the practice. Please remember, he objected to being called a nihilist. That's because he wasn't one. It's really that simple, and that's the only reason I got involved in this post. Once again, if Nihilists find it easier to accept the self-less nature of phenomena, great. But the Buddha wasn't a Nihilist, rather, his focus was to 'Nullify' dukkha...I'm sorry if I have made any doctrinal errors. I stress that while my faith isn't shaken by the OP, I just worry about others who might find it disturbing...just recollecting how difficult it was for me in the early days...

with metta,

m.

[Gena1480]

The Buddha after his enlightenment
in the first night recollected his previous lives
no matter how far he got
there was no begging point evident
thus he discovered not self
if the point of begging was evident
then there would be self
but there was no begging point evident
thus the Buddha discovered not self
the five aggregates are not self
no begging point evident for five aggregates
when one goes to nibbana there is no point evident
thus nibbana is not self
this eliminate view of Nihilists view
this elimination the Eternal view
metta

[Zom]

Yes, there are two such views, and as far as I know, they both miss the point.

Actually no. Because there either IS or there is NONE.
For example. There can't be a situation in reality, when there is, let's say, a New York, and at the same time there is no New York. Because this is just nonsense.
Same with "the self".

In some suttas Buddha say, that you can't find a self as a truth or reality.
If I can't find a New York as a truth or reality, would it be proper for me to say: "There is New York"? Would it be proper for me to say: "There is NO New York"? Which answer will be correct? If I can find a New York, which answer will be correct?

[chris98e]

If Anatta means no self as no self which can be sustained for a long perior of time I think that it is just being repetitive with impermanance. But if Anatta means no self but a group of connected selves then that makes sense to me.