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.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.
MN 109/SN 22.82 Maha-punnama Sutta:The Great Full-moon Night
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: MN 109/SN 22.8 Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night
Re: MN 109/SN 22.8 Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night
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.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.
Mike
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: MN 109/SN 22.8 Maha-punnama Sutta: The Great Full-moon Night
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.mikenz66 wrote: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.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.