In which sutta does the Buddha explain what no self means?

[sunnat]

from the six sets of six sutta : ""If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self."

With practice it is understood that all composed things decompose. They rise and pass away as soon as they arise. They are anicca and not amenable to control. Thus they are not self.

[dhammacoustic]

'Natthattā' ti? (no self?)

Natthattā may literally translate as "no self" but I sense the meaning includes an explicit belief in self, as explained in the Buddha's final comment (...)

it includes that as well, but the buddha also states that he'd be siding with the ucchedavadin if he were to declare natthatta.

the buddha's "silence" is understandable, since the question is coming from an unawakened person, who -in his ignorance- thinks he is the atta, or
that he has an atta /possesses the atta , etc..

[DooDoot]

the buddha also states that he'd be siding with the ucchedavadin if he were to declare natthatta.

yes, ucchedavadin believes in a self, as follows:

‘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

[dhammacoustic]

yes, ucchedavadin believes in a self, (...)

ucchedavadin doesn't "believe" in a self, they think that the four great elements alone create one's experience , ie, they're metaphysical materialists..

when they say "atta", they're basically talking about their bodily sensations, and thoughts, which they're intellectually (or emotionally) identified with..naturally [with such a vinnana / not seeing anatta] they have no other option but to regard the khandhas as me/ mine..

[robertk]

yes, ucchedavadin believes in a self, (...)

ucchedavadin doesn't "believe" in a self, they think that the four great elements alone create one's experience , ie, they're metaphysical materialists..

when they say "atta", they're basically talking about their bodily sensations, and thoughts, which they're intellectually (or emotionally) identified with..naturally [with such a vinnana / not seeing anatta] they have no other option but to regard the khandhas as me/ mine..

So in short, they believe in a self, a material one. Still a common view and sometimes called the scientific picture of the world.

[DooDoot]

ucchedavadin doesn't "believe" in a self,

It appears the message of the sutta i quoted is ucchedavadin believes a 'self' ends at 'death'. Regards

[Dhammanando]

ucchedavadin doesn't "believe" in a self, they think that the four great elements alone create one's experience , ie, they're metaphysical materialists..

The materialist is only one kind of ucchedavādin. The Brahmajālasutta describes six others. As ucchedavādins they all agree that there's a self that gets zapped at death, but disagree about its nature before it gets zapped.

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/dn1

[dhammacoustic]

ven. dhammanando, right , thanks..

So in short, they believe in a self, a material one. Still a common view and sometimes called the scientific picture of the world.

is there really a need to call it a "belief"?? self-denial is simply impossible, naturally all humans tend to identify themselves in some way.

It appears the message of the sutta i quoted is ucchedavadin believes a 'self' ends at 'death'. Regards

i reckon we all intellectually know that our being ends in death, so why call it a belief?

[robertk]

ven. dhammanando, right , thanks..

So in short, they believe in a self, a material one. Still a common view and sometimes called the scientific picture of the world.

is there really a need to call it a "belief"?? self-denial is simply impossible, naturally all humans tend to identify themselves in some way.

It appears the message of the sutta i quoted is ucchedavadin believes a 'self' ends at 'death'. Regards

i reckon we all intellectually know that our being ends in death, so why call it a belief?

It depends The man in the street might not give much thought to questions of existence. But if they do, and if they have been influenced by 'scientific' ideas about life ending at death or whatnot, inevitably they fall into a materialist based wrong view.

[ToVincent]

the buddha also states that he'd be siding with the ucchedavadin if he were to declare natthatta.

yes, ucchedavadin believes in a self, as follows:

‘.....

YES, ucchedavadin believes in a self.
NO, Buddha NEVER stated that he'd be siding with the ucchedavadin.

Nice move Doodoot!

[confusedlayman]

ucchedavadin doesn't "believe" in a self, they think that the four great elements alone create one's experience , ie, they're metaphysical materialists..

The materialist is only one kind of ucchedavādin. The Brahmajālasutta describes six others. As ucchedavādins they all agree that there's a self that gets zapped at death, but disagree about its nature before it gets zapped.

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/dn1

so arhants are ucchedavadin?

[Dhammanando]

so arhants are ucchedavadin?

Being free of both personality view and the 'I am' conceit arahants don't hold to even the subtlest conception of 'self'. That being so, they would be neither of the view that there's a self that's perishable nor that there's a self that's eternal.

[confusedlayman]

so arhants are ucchedavadin?

Being free of both personality view and the 'I am' conceit arahants don't hold to even the subtlest conception of 'self'. That being so, they would be neither of the view that there's a self that's perishable nor that there's a self that's eternal.

but they think or know tat after breakup of body, there is no expereince?

[Dhammanando]

but they think or know tat after breakup of body, there is no expereince?

It would seem so. If you read how the arahant monks and nuns of the Theragāthā and Therīgāthā speak of their impending death, the commonest refrain is "I delight not in death, I delight not in life," which is then followed either by, "I await my time like a hireling his wages" or "I await my time clearly comprehending and mindful." None of them voice even the slightest anticipation of anything after that in the way that Christian saints, Islamic martyrs and suchlike usually do.

[Lost1984]

I just made a thread about this.

This is my interpretation.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35962