Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Loop7
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 5:01 am

Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Loop7 »

Can someone please reconcile the two following ideas for me:

"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... self2.html

and....

"Anatta is a central doctrine of Buddhism. ... According to the anatta doctrine of Buddhism, at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is no "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman""

I found that googling something.

These two things seem extremely contradictory, if someone can reconcile them please explain it to me

thanks
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Lucas Oliveira »

IMO
Loop7 wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:32 pm
"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... self2.html

thanks
this is nibbana.

something indescribable in terms of existence and non-existence.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

— Ud 8.3
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... bbana.html
Loop7 wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:32 pm
"Anatta is a central doctrine of Buddhism. ... According to the anatta doctrine of Buddhism, at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is no "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman""

thanks
and these are the 5 aggregates.

that has the 3 marks of existence
SN 22.59: Anatta-lakkhana Sutta/Pañcavaggi Sutta — The Discourse on the Not-self

The Buddha's second discourse, in which he discusses the principle of anatta (not-self) with the group of five ascetics. By means of a question-and-answer dialogue with his audience, the Buddha demonstrates that there can be no abiding self in any of the five aggregates that we tend to identify as "self."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
ti-lakkhaṇa:
Three characteristics inherent in all conditioned phenomena — being inconstant (anicca), stressful (dukkha), and not-self (anattā).
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#t

:anjali:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 18097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by mikenz66 »

There is a detailed discussion of Ven Thanissaro's argument here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... gies/11836

:heart:
Mike
pegembara
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by pegembara »

Loop7 and pegembara are two clearly distinct "individuals" or "selves" with different world-views. Yet they are just faceless entities who happened to be posting on this website. They are just convenient labels.

One cannot point to Loop7 or pegembara and definitively say that is who they really are. Their views change as do their physical forms. Because of this constant change from birth to death, one cannot pin down that the person Loop7 truly exist. At best you have different versions at various times eg. Loop 1, 2,3,...7....etc. Two distinct "selves" and yet without any inner core or essence.
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

William Shakepseare
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
santa100
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by santa100 »

Loop7 wrote:"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer."

at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is no "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman.

These two things seem extremely contradictory
From a pure logic standpoint, there's no contradiction between those 2 statements. Notice the 2nd statement clearly defines the scope of where there is no self: at the core of human beings (ie. the Five Aggregates). Had it been a blanket statement such as: there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time, etc. then that would make it contrary to the 1st statement. And this subtle point proved how skillful the Buddha was in His knowledge and His method of Dhamma propagation. By clearly defining the scope of non-self (ie. in this Five Aggregates), the practitioner would have a clearer idea of what, how, and where s/he should start working on. It also prevents one from falling into the two extremes of Eternalism (things exist) and Nihilism (things do not exist).
SN 12.15 wrote:"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Mr. Seek »

Hey. I'll explain it in brief: Buddhism is 2500 years old. The oldest texts of Buddhism, the five nikayas, have over time become heterogenous, e.g. they now contain many contradicting statements. Everyone thinks they know what Buddhism is about, but very few people actually do--and those that do are intelligent enough to admit that even they themselves don't know for sure. Mass media is the last place you want to go to for studying Buddhism, as it's populated by various Buddhist sects and schools, all of which base their practices on exegesis. Most of these schools have similar concepts in them but their overall practices and beliefs are radically different, to the point where they all consider each other inferior, wrong, and or downright heretical.

Ultimately, if you want to know what real Buddhism is about, you'll have to study a whole lot. It's a great soteriological doctrine, don't let the interpretors make you believe otherwise.

As for the anatta, i.e. not-self teaching... It's not much, just a raft, an idea, that can make you let go of craving and clinging to phenomena. Basically, look around yourself. Do you see any phenomena (forms, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, consciousness) around you that are permanent, not changing, everlasting? Likely no. Do you think that something which is impermanent, always changing, never lasting, is pleasing or stressful? Likely stressful. Do you think it's wise to crave for and cling to something that is impermanent, always changing, never lasting, and stressful? Likely no. Do you think it's wise to assume that what is impermanent, always changing, never lasting, and stressful, is 'mine', 'me', 'I', 'my self', 'their self', etc.? Likely no. This is just one aspect of anatta, i.e. the not-self teaching, but there are many more.

Trying to reconcile the two statements you brought up would be... meh. The second statement is a metaphysical assertion, and the five nikayas speak against such. Remember what I said earlier, the hypothesis that all phenomena are stressful, not worthy of craving and clinging? Same thing applies to thoughts, concepts, ideas about metaphysics, what is ultimately true or false, etc. Anything you come up with, or come across, assume to be and hold onto as metaphysical truth will likely create for you stress and suffering in one way or another, it will condition your experience. That second statement of yours I think comes from Wikipedia, no? Note what I said earlier about mass media and Buddhism.
Last edited by Mr. Seek on Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:21 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Snp 5.11—"Having nothing, free of clinging: That is the island, there is no other."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:42 am
It also prevents one from falling into the two extremes of Eternalism (things exist) and Nihilism (things do not exist).
That is not what the sutta is saying. It’s criticising the Upanishadic concept of Sarvām asti not notions of existence or non-existence in relation to the dhammas.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
santa100
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by santa100 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:06 pm
santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:42 am
It also prevents one from falling into the two extremes of Eternalism (things exist) and Nihilism (things do not exist).
That is not what the sutta is saying. It’s criticising the Upanishadic concept of Sarvām asti not notions of existence or non-existence in relation to the dhammas.
The relevant point that addresses the OP's inquiry is that there's nowhere in the suttas where there's an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. Feel free to provide any exact quotes to the disprove that so you can directly address the OP's inquiry.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:57 pm
The relevant point that addresses the OP's inquiry is that there's nowhere in the suttas where there's an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. Feel free to provide any exact quotes to the disprove that so you can directly address the OP's inquiry.
Ok:
Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”
https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi

As SN 22.47 shows, any sense of idea of self is simply the result of clinging to one or more of the aggregates. Any idea of self is simply due to ignorance based contact leading to craving and clinging:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard self in various ways all regard the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What five?

“Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

“Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’ occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these occur to him.

“The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, ‘I am’ does not occur to him; ‘I am this’ does not occur to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these do not occur to him.”
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
santa100
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by santa100 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:09 pm
santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:57 pm
The relevant point that addresses the OP's inquiry is that there's nowhere in the suttas where there's an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. Feel free to provide any exact quotes to the disprove that so you can directly address the OP's inquiry.
Ok:
Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”
https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi

As SN 22.47 shows, any sense of idea of self is simply the result of clinging to one or more of the aggregates. Any idea of self is simply due to ignorance based contact leading to craving and clinging:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What five?

“Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.

“Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’ occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these occur to him.

“The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, ‘I am’ does not occur to him; ‘I am this’ does not occur to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these do not occur to him.”
You're simply proving my original point: non-self is clearly scoped for the Five Aggregates. So, I have to repeat,you''ll need to provide any exact quote that provides an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. By the way, you have not explicitly addressed the OP's inquiry.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:12 pm
You're simply proving my original point: non-self is clearly scoped for the Five Aggregates. So, I have to repeat,you''ll need to provide any exact quote that provides an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. By the way, you have not explicitly addressed the OP's inquiry.
I would have thought pointing out that any idea of self is merely an error in thought due to craving and clinging, but if you insist:
Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self.

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.85/en/bodhi

All dhammas are not self.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
santa100
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by santa100 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:23 pm
santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:12 pm
You're simply proving my original point: non-self is clearly scoped for the Five Aggregates. So, I have to repeat,you''ll need to provide any exact quote that provides an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. By the way, you have not explicitly addressed the OP's inquiry.
I would have thought pointing out that any idea of self is merely an error in thought due to craving and clinging, but if you insist:
Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self.

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.85/en/bodhi

All dhammas are not self.
You keep consistently backing up my point about the Five Aggregates being empty of self (as the context about "the world" in SN 35.85). But you'll still need to address the OP's inquiry directly. Simply saying any idea of self is error does not address it.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:38 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:23 pm
santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:12 pm
You're simply proving my original point: non-self is clearly scoped for the Five Aggregates. So, I have to repeat,you''ll need to provide any exact quote that provides an explicit blanket statement saying there is absolutely no self whatsoever, in whatever way, shape, or form, at anywhere, any place, any entity, any time. By the way, you have not explicitly addressed the OP's inquiry.
I would have thought pointing out that any idea of self is merely an error in thought due to craving and clinging, but if you insist:
Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self.

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.85/en/bodhi

All dhammas are not self.
You keep consistently backing up my point about the Five Aggregates being empty of self (as the context about "the world" in SN 35.85). But you'll still need to address the OP's inquiry directly. Simply saying any idea of self is error does not address it.
I think you are missing the point. The All is the Totality of what can be known, and it’s all empty of self.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
santa100
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by santa100 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:41 pm I think you are missing the point. The All is the Totality of what can be known, and it’s all empty of self.
I think your mistaken the narrower context of "The All" for its broader one. Ven. Bodhi's citing Comy's explanation to address this exact point in "Connected Discourses":
Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold: (i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba ), i.e., everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha’s knowledge of omniscience; (ii) the all of the sense bases (aatanasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the four planes; (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkyasabba ), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and (iv) the partial all (padesasabba), i.e., the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended.
So, again, you keep reenforcing my original point about the Five Aggregates as being empty of Self.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Can someone reconcile these two Buddhist concepts of self for me please

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:53 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:41 pm I think you are missing the point. The All is the Totality of what can be known, and it’s all empty of self.
I think your mistaken the narrower context of "The All" for its broader one. Ven. Bodhi's citing Comy's explanation to address this exact point in "Connected Discourses":
Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold: (i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba ), i.e., everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha’s knowledge of omniscience; (ii) the all of the sense bases (aatanasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the four planes; (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkyasabba ), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and (iv) the partial all (padesasabba), i.e., the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended.
So, again, you keep reenforcing my original point about the Five Aggregates as being empty of Self.
What? That actually supports what I said.
Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya, saccamanurakkheyya, cāgamanubrūheyya, santimeva so sikkheyyā’ti
“One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, cultivate relinquishment and train for peace.”

Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta
Post Reply