What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

[Ceisiwr]

ToVincent

There is no blissful and continuous Self/self (atta) - like Ka - in the salayatana nidana and below.
Is that hard to understand.
I don't care about what the "materialists" thought. That's your problem.

Actually, it’s your problem.

Now learn about Self/self in the Veda. Maybe you'll find that Buddha didn't deny a Self/self, or a Self outside that range - or maybe not.

I’m aware of how the Vedas imagine self. I’m also aware that the Buddha didn’t grow up in a Vedic culture and didn’t exclusively teach in a Vedic culture, and that other soul theories were around (such as the Jains, Ājīvikas and the materialists). Regardless, the Buddha seemed to be critical of any self theory be it divine or not, in any way it’s conceived, in any world or context. Why? Because any view of a self comes from craving and clinging. That isn’t a denial of course, in terms of a view. It’s not “verily there is no Self/self”. It’s an abandoning of self views through seeing their origination.

I am too much of an amateur to help you on that matter.

I’m glad you are able to see your own shortcomings. This is good.

Metta

[ToVincent]

ToVincent

There is no blissful and continuous Self/self (atta) - like Ka - in the salayatana nidana and below.
Is that hard to understand.
I don't care about what the "materialists" thought. That's your problem.

Actually, it’s your problem.

Now learn about Self/self in the Veda. Maybe you'll find that Buddha didn't deny a Self/self, or a Self outside that range - or maybe not.

I’m aware of how the Vedas imagine self. I’m also aware that the Buddha didn’t grow up in a Vedic culture and didn’t exclusively teach in a Vedic culture, and that other soul theories were around (such as the Jains, Ājīvikas and the materialists). Regardless, the Buddha seemed to be critical of any self theory be it divine or not, in any way it’s conceived, in any world or context . Why? Because any view of a self comes from craving and clinging. That isn’t a denial of course, in terms of a view. It’s not “verily there is no Self/self”. It’s an abandoning of self views through seeing their origination.

I am too much of an amateur to help you on that matter.

I’m glad you are able to see your own shortcomings. This is good.

Ah ok !
.
.

[confusedlayman]

...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20

What is being quoted?

that is what ven. Nagarjuna also said. so both are same tradition i.e theraveda

[mikenz66]

...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20

What is being quoted?

that is what ven. Nagarjuna also said. so both are same tradition i.e theraveda

It's more likely to be something from the ancient commentaries that Buddhghosa translated into Pali.


Mike

[Srilankaputra]

What the ancients said might become more clearer if another thing they said is considered. Paññatti & Paramattha or concept & reality.

Just a fun experiment. Look in to a mirror, is there a person in the mirror or just an image. Now go to a person, we see a woman our sister perhaps, look closer, can we really determine a person there or is it just, eye and colors and mind.

[Srilankaputra]

In case anyone is wondering, the mirror simile is an ancient simile going back to the time of Blessed One. It was actually the simile given by Ven Maha Puṇṇa Mantāniputta to Ven Ananda.

Seyyathāpi, āvuso ānanda, itthī vā puriso vā daharo yuvā maṇḍanakajātiko ādāse vā parisuddhe pariyodāte acche vā udakapatte sakaṃ mukhanimittaṃ paccavekkhamāno upādāya passeyya, no anupādāya; evameva kho, āvuso ānanda, rūpaṃ upādāya asmīti hoti, no anupādāya. Vedanaṃ … saññaṃ … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṃ upādāya asmīti hoti, no anupādāya


Suppose, friend Ānanda, a young woman—or a man—youthful and fond of ornaments, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: she would look at it with clinging, not without clinging. So too, it is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.83/en/bodhi

Above 'upādāya' has been translated as clinging, but it can also have the meaning of cause,reason of, dependence(depending on something). In my own words, would the image occur without water or does it occur due to/depending on water. Similarly would 'I am' occur without the aggregates or does it occur due to there being the aggregates.

The image is like 'concept' and water is like what is 'real'. Please don't misconstrue this and lose faith in the ancients. What they are saying is not that there is nothing. Feelings, mind etc are real. But they are dependently originated, Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta. Ariyas understand what is real and what is concept and can no longer be driven astray by them. They certainly would pass the salt when asked. (as I understand or misunderstand, investigate for your selves)

[zan]

It seems Venerable Buddhaghosa, or the ancients he was quoting, may have been paraphrasing this sutta or similar:

saṃyutta nikāya 5

connected discourses with bhikkhunis

10. Vajira
At Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajira dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men’s Grove for the day’s abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men’s Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day’s abiding.

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

“By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?”

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: “Now who is this that recited the verse—a human being or a nonhuman being?” Then it occurred to her: “This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration.”

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” replied to him in verses:

“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.”

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, “The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me,” sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
-SN 5.10

[DooDoot]

It seems Venerable Buddhaghosa, or the ancients he was quoting, may have been paraphrasing this sutta or similar:

“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.”

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, “The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me,” sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.

-SN 5.10

Maybe not. The above appears to say when the idea of "a being" arises; it is suffering arising; when the idea of "a being" ceases, it is suffering ceasing. Therefore the above does not appear to say there can be suffering without the idea of a "sufferer".

[confusedlayman]

idea of being in somebody is imagination by thought

when beingness thought arises, stress arises

when beingness thought cease, stress cease

when ur dog dies u cry because u assume a entity dog inside dog body suffers pain and die

but when u see ur dog 5 aggregates (non living thing if seen properly) disintegrate u won't see pain but a natural process so we all suffer because we see being in humans that's why compassion is needed.. for one who see just 5 aggregates as non living thing and works how a cloud produce water due to cause and condition he won't feel sad when bones or tissues decay because there is no one in that bone or tissue..

so beingness oriented thought gives rise to further thoughts that has suffering related stuff as object of conciousness and we suffer due to resultant feeling...

u can completely let go of beingness in daily experience only when u reach arhantship ... however before arhantship u can intellectually and confirmedly know this fact

[StrivingforMonkhood]

idea of being in somebody is imagination by thought

when beingness thought arises, stress arises

when beingness thought cease, stress cease

when ur dog dies u cry because u assume a entity dog inside dog body suffers pain and die

but when u see ur dog 5 aggregates (non living thing if seen properly) disintegrate u won't see pain but a natural process so we all suffer because we see being in humans that's why compassion is needed.. for one who see just 5 aggregates as non living thing and works how a cloud produce water due to cause and condition he won't feel sad when bones or tissues decay because there is no one in that bone or tissue..

so beingness oriented thought gives rise to further thoughts that has suffering related stuff as object of conciousness and we suffer due to resultant feeling...

u can completely let go of beingness in daily experience only when u reach arhantship ... however before arhantship u can intellectually and confirmedly know this fact

That is so beautiful. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.