ancientbuddhism wrote: Rasko wrote:
..."Miraculous Transformation and Personal Identity: A note on the First anatman Teaching of the Second Sermon", Alexander Wynne, Thai International Journal of Buddhist Studies (2009)
That the first an anātman teaching of the Second Sermon is a peculiarity
requiring explanation is support by the fact that it is found in only two other
canonical Pāli texts: the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta and the Cūḷasaccaka Sutta.7
Since the former is a verbatim repetition of the Second Sermon preserved in
the Vinaya Mahāvagga, it means that the Pāli canon records only two instances
when this teaching was given by the Buddha.
The anattā doctrine was not limited to the pericope in Anattalakkhaṇa S., just as the ātmavāda of the Upaniṣadic and contemporary thinkers of the Tathāgata were known by its various epithets. And this is what we find with the anattā doctrine taught by the Tathāgata; epithets which were reflections of an anattā doctrine - polemic to Vedic, Upaniṣadic or contemporary trends - found throughout the Nikāyas.
That Wynne article has another part, http://www.ocbs.org/images/stories/awynne2009atijbs.pdf
, and it begins like this:
The Second Sermon of the Buddha, preserved in the various Vinaya texts
of different Buddhsit sects and as a separate discourse in the Pāli canon (the
Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta), contains two important anātman teachings. The first of
these anātman teachings is found in only one other text: the Cūḷasaccaka Sutta
of the Majjhima Nikāya (no. 35). The second and variants of it are, however,
much more widely distributed throughout the early Buddhist discourses,
particularly those preserved in Pāli.
This is "the second anātman teaching":
‘What do you think, bhikkhus: is form permanent or impermanent?’
‘Is that which is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?’
‘And is it suitable to regard that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory
and subject to change as “This is mine, I am this, this is my attā”?’
and this quote is about "the first anātman teaching" in the awynne2009b part:
1. In the first anātman teaching of the Second Sermon the Buddha states that
various psycho-physical phenomena (the five aggregates) are ‘not ātman/attā’
(anātman/anattā) since they are beyond a person’s command. Collins has thus
described this teaching as an ‘argument from lack of control’.1 The Mahāvagga
of the Pāli Vinaya reports this teaching as follows:
‘Form, bhikkhus, is not attā. For if form were attā it would not incline
towards affliction, and with regard to it one would succeed with the
thoughts ‘let my form be thus’ or ‘let not my form be thus’. Since form
is not attā, bhikkhus, it inclines towards affliction and with regard to it
one does not succeed with the thought ‘let my form be thus’ or ‘let not
my form be thus’.
Feeling is not attā, for if feeling were attā, bhikkhus... ’.
The first article mentioned in this thread, "Rethinking Non-self" by Kuan, does say that
"The faulty argument for non-self in the first two versions (sutta 35 of the Majjhima Nikāya and sūtra 110 of the Saṃyukta Āgama) is also found at many other places in the Buddhist scriptures.22
but the note 22 only lists: "E.g. S 22.59 (III 66-67), SᾹ 318 (T II, 91a), T XXIV, 128b." S 22.59 is Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta and MN 35 is Cūḷasaccaka Sutta.
So just to clarify this, is "the first anātman teaching", the one using the ‘argument from lack of control’, also found in many other places in the Pali Nikayas?