Nihilists views

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Post by 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. :juggling:
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Post by manas »

Zom wrote: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. :juggling:
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. :namaste:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Nihilists views

Post by 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
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Post by 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
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Nihilists views

Post by 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. :buddha1:
chris98e
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Nihilists views

Post by chris98e »

I a monk said to me before that there is no such thing as a single soul. He either meant two things that we don't exist or that we are all connected. I believe he meant the latter instead of the former. :buddha1:
chris98e
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Nihilists views

Post by chris98e »

The fact of the matter is that the assertion of no self is either two things. No existence of the self which of course is not true. We exist and don't exist at the same time. or the fact that we are all connected to every living being in existence. I believe in the latter instead of the former. :heart:
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Nihilists views

Post by Kenshou »

As long as anything is taken to be "I, me, mine, myself", suffering and stress will follow. So the teaching aims at the ending of those cognitive habits. The thing that you are positing here kind of misses the point.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Post by cooran »

Hello chris98e, Kenshou, all,

Please read. I would be very interested in your comments:

No inner core – Anatta Sayadaw U Silananda
[1] Introduction
[2] Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul
[3] Direct Experience of Anatta
[4] Analysis of the Discourse on the Characteristic of No-Soul
[5] Understanding Anatta
[6] Misunderstanding Anatta
[7] Questions and Answers
[8] Anattalakkhana Sutta
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha215.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Nihilists views

Post by beeblebrox »

Hi, I think it might be helpful to look at what the differences are in between annihilationism and nihilism, and the reason why the Buddha discredited both of them (or at least in the way that I understand it):

Annihilationism: If we get rid of the self, then we won't suffer anymore... (i.e., if we only could kill the self, then we'll be OK!)
Nihilism: There is no self that would suffer anyway, so we're already OK! (i.e., no need to practice anything.)

Neither of the above would lead to the cure of dukkha. Why?

It's because both of them are based on the idea of a "self"... which is illusory. (Even "no self" is still using the idea of "self.") When you try to base your own practice on any kind of illusion, it will lead you to nowhere (at best)... or at worst, to an endless spiral of illusions...

Zom, your "New York" example is actually interesting... because there is no "New York". It's only land, trees, mountains, rivers, buildings, people, animals, etc. But even then... saying that there is no "New York" still won't do us any good, because there are still land, trees, people, animals, etc. for us to deal with. (Sorry if this seems a bit Zen, but it's true!)

:anjali:
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Post by manas »

Nihilism described here as 'wrong view' by the Buddha (from the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta):
MN 117 wrote:"And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view."
(please see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for more).

metta
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Post by Zom »

But even then... saying that there is no "New York" still won't do us any good, because there are still land, trees, people, animals, etc. for us to deal with.
If you don't confuse conventional level of explanation with ultimate - there won't be such a perplexity ,)
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Nihilists views

Post by Polar Bear »

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

hold no view on self and you will never worry (dukkha) about it. that's what i got from it.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Post Reply