Buddhism and What it Offers

[allergies]

Is that a contradiction with Buddha saying that annihilationism is wrong, or is that just a misunderstanding? Some people say that because there is no self to begin with, that it doesn't contradict Buddha saying annihilationism is wrong, because there was nothing to annihilate in the first place. However that feels like a game of semantics in order to fit within Buddhas unwillingness to say one way or the other.

[DooDoot]

Is that a contradiction with Buddha saying that annihilationism is wrong, or is that just a misunderstanding? Some people say that because there is no self to begin with, that it doesn't contradict Buddha saying annihilationism is wrong, because there was nothing to annihilate in the first place. However that feels like a game of semantics in order to fit within Buddhas unwillingness to say one way or the other.

It is actually the post above that is a "contradiction" & a "game of semantics". If we intend to scrutinize the Teachings, before developing faith, as the Buddha recommended, we should first at least learn the Teachings accurately rather than believe "folk religion" or "internet philosophy" is the Teachings.

"Annihilationism" is defined in the Pali suttas as the view that a "self" or "existent being" is annihilated at death. "Existent being" ("satta"), according to SN 23.2, appears to be just another "self-view'. "Annihilationism" ("ucchedavādā") appears not related to the common folk religion idea that it means the ending of consciousness or a denial of reincarnation. The suttas define "Annihilationism" as follows:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. They assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being on seven grounds.

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi.

‘This self is physical, made up of the four primary elements, and produced by mother and father. Since it’s annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’

‘yato kho, bho, ayaṃ attā rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṃ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṃ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti.

That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.

Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti.

https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato#dn1:1.27.7

Therefore, when there is no "self-view", there is no view of "annihilationism" when the aggregates end at the termination of life. This appears explained, for example, in SN 22.85, where Yamaka had the wrong view that a Buddha or Arahant is "annihilated at death".

Now at that time a mendicant called Yamaka had the following harmful misconception:

Tena kho pana samayena yamakassa nāma bhikkhuno evarūpaṃ pāpakaṃ diṭṭhigataṃ uppannaṃ hoti:

“As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.”

“tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi, yathā khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṃ maraṇā”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/sujato

[ToVincent]

Is that a contradiction with Buddha saying that annihilationism is wrong, or is that just a misunderstanding? Some people say that because there is no self to begin with, that it doesn't contradict Buddha saying annihilationism is wrong, because there was nothing to annihilate in the first place. However that feels like a game of semantics in order to fit within Buddhas unwillingness to say one way or the other.

Again the annihilationist view is:

The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another.
SN 12.46
"I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me".
SN 22.81

If you had listen to what was said before, you would not be engaging in "let's play nonsense merry-go-round" with some of the people on this forum.

Read SN 12.46 ! - It has two perfect parallels in SA & SF.
Read SN 12.15 ! - It has two perfect parallels in SA & SF.

Learn what's the difference between eternalists' & annihilationists' views of a self, and Buddha's view of a self.

Eternalists & annihilationists see the khandhas as self (or self in khandhas, etc.). Viz "I am" (SN 22.47 - https://justpaste.it/vyhx)
This triggers the descent of the indriyā (energies) (indriyāna avakkanti) of the internal āyatanani (internal fields of sensory experiences). Of which the mano is part.

As SN 22.47 and its parallels say: "There is the mano , there are mental phenomena (dhamma), there is the element of ignorance (avijjādhātu).

This triggers the" mine". An both the Eternalists and Annihilationists (and the others) stop at that.
That is to say, (what SA 63 adds): "proclaims existence, proclaims non-existence, proclaims existence-and-non-existence, proclaims neither-existence-nor-non-existence".

However Buddha explains his Teaching on the Dhamma by the middle by : "With ignorance as condition, co-actions come to be; with coactions as condition, consciousness…".

Buddha does not stop at "existence, non-existence, or neither-existence-nor-non-existence" - but to the ensuing process of the dhamma (above mentioned).
Ignorance triggers a coaction (saṅkhāra) with the mano, called manosañcetana.
The rest is explained in the visual aid: https://justpaste.it/1695d
That is maintenance and passage in the viññāṇa nidāna (infinite consciousness) Which makes it "not yours" (anicca) and breaks the continuity (santāno) = impermanent (anicca) >> establishing and descent of the now nidassana (manifested/visible) consciousness in the khandhas (SN 12.59) >> and of these "saṅkhārized" khandhas that are served as a new dhamma (that is not "yours") to satta.
A "vicious circle".

I am not sure that all this will stop you from playing "nonsense merry-go-round", but it might help others to understand.
.

[cappuccino]

Some people say that because there is no self to begin with, that it doesn't contradict Buddha saying annihilationism is wrong, because there was nothing to annihilate in the first place.

Buddha never says there is no self.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

He carefully explains why he wouldn't say.

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].

Ananda Sutta

[ToVincent]

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness.
Thanissaro

[the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]"

?!?!?!©
This is exactly why I say that you (and Thanissaro in this added remark) does not understand what the annihilationist view is all about).
It is not about consciouness, but about existence (of a self) .
Read SN 22.47 and its parallels, for Buddha's sake - https://justpaste.it/vyhx)
And just equate it two the two views that Buddha expose (as shown in my previous post.
Particularly about:

"I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me".
SN 22.81

Isn't that what we find again in SN 22.47?

‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’ (‘ayamahamasmī’tipissa hoti) occurs to him; ‘I will be’ (‘bhavissan’tipissa hoti) and ‘I will not be, (‘na bhavissan’tipissa hoti)’ and ‘I will consist of form’ (‘rūpī bhavissan’tipissa hoti) and ‘I will be formless,’ (‘arūpī bhavissan’tipissa hoti) and ‘I will be percipient’ (‘saññī bhavissan’tipissa hoti) and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ (‘asaññī bhavissan’tipissa hoti) and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ (‘nevasaññī­nāsaññī bhavissan’tipissa hoti)

Where do you see "consciousness" into that?

See also SN 22.94 - Its not about the existence of the khandhas (of which consciousness is a co-acted part in a dhamma) - it is about its impermanence as in "not yours" (as in unchageable) .

Buddha never spoke of the view of the annihilationist as: "[the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]", as Thanissaro (and ostensibly you,) are stating it. Even if it's true.

Anyway, when Buddha says that" consciousness is not yours", and that "consciousness viewed as self, is a coaction (the sankarizing of consciousness and perception in Namarupa nidāna), He certainly means that at death, there is no annhiliation of (infinite) consciousness. But He certainly means also, that there is no self involved in that.

You're mixing up everything. And making things much more complicated than they are with your short haïkus.



Note:
As far as consciousness is concerned, you can add that to my previous post:

I will not cling to mano-consciousness, and my consciousness will not be dependent on mano-consciousness.’ Thus you should train.
na manoviññāṇaṃ upādiyissāmi, na ca me manoviññāṇanissitaṃ viññāṇaṃ bhavissatī’ti. Evañhi te, gahapati, sikkhitabbaṃ.
MN 143
.
.

[cappuccino]

You're mixing up everything. And making things much more complicated than they are with your short haïkus.

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.

you say there is no self

[cappuccino]

And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'

even more bewildered

[ToVincent]

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.

you say there is no self

Holly cow!
I repeat for the third time:
Buddha view of a self is not the annihilationist view of a self.

So, if Buddha had answered: "there is no self", Vachagotta would have thought that Buddha was telling him: "there is no EXISTENCE of a self" - (what they (the annihilationist) stop at in SN 22.47).
But what Buddha would have meant was: "there is no CONTINUITY (santāno) of a self.
So Vachagotta would have been even more confused - So Buddha remained silent.

You'll get it one day, you'll see.

There is no self in the Buddhist" world" (to make it simply: as a continuous "I" or "Mine",) as stated before. That's what Buddha says.

Is there a self beyond? - prove it with suttas extracts.
One thing to ask ourselves is: "are the khandhas above the namarupa nidāna concerned with" not self"?

If there a Self called Ajo (https://justpaste.it/19m0u), apart from paṭiccasamuppāda - maybe!?

Both the latter are irrelevant with the escape, says Buddha.

So no, I am not saying "there is no self" .
Buddha is saying it, in the limit in which He applies His remarks.
.
.

[cappuccino]

So no, I am not saying "there is no self"
Buddha is saying it

Buddha was silent.

[ToVincent]

So no, I am not saying "there is no self"
Buddha is saying it

Buddha was silent.

Oh, darn - I thought you had just written:
"Buddha was silent not to imply that there was no self".

You changed your mind for a shorter, more potent haïku, I suppose.
Ouch!
.

[cappuccino]

I'm a writer, I refine my words

(it's difficult)

[allergies]

None of these words matter. Either experience continues or it does not.

[cappuccino]

either there is annihilation or not, in other words

Buddha was careful to not imply annihilation

[ToVincent]

Either experience continues or it does not.

Be more precise on what you ask.

This is an old note on asavas.
It certainly has to be reviewed and canvassed again (as far as // and lexicography are concerned):
https://justpaste.it/q4ki

Once you've read it, go for these suttas
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn22.85
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn44.2
Read the parallels to have an idea of the commonalities. And remember that this is adressed to those who have eradicated the āsavā.
The other "experiences" (as you call them) - the "diversity"in taints - are covered in AN 6.63.
.