No-self in the Agama and its Mahavastu Parallel.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
arkaprava
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:13 pm

Re: No-self in the Agama and its Mahavastu Parallel.

Post by arkaprava »

He said nothing to Vacchagotta and gave Ananda four reasons to not answer them.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: No-self in the Agama and its Mahavastu Parallel.

Post by Ceisiwr »

We briefly discussed the parallels to that sutta here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39992&hilit=Vacchagotta&start=75
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: No-self in the Agama and its Mahavastu Parallel.

Post by thomaslaw »

arkaprava wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:17 am He said nothing to Vacchagotta and gave Ananda four reasons to not answer them.
I do not see any issues at all regarding his responding 'nothing' to Vacchagotta (SN 44.10 = SA 961).
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: No-self in the Agama and its Mahavastu Parallel.

Post by nirodh27 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:37 pm While he is correct in what he says about "canonical Chinese," I would not take his advice here vis-à-vis the āgama material not meaning that there is "no self." There either is a self or there isn't one. This IMO isn't a matter with a middle way of "half-self" that reconciles the two opposing stances. When the Buddha identifies "no self" as a wrong view, it is the annihilationist version of "no self," which is actually a subtle form of self-view.
Hi Coëmgenu,

The Buddha define the six senses as "the all" and never goes outside his domain, asking us to never go outside our domain too. And we have the Anattalakkana sutta, a sutta of the outmost importance togheter with the Dhammachakkapavattana, in which no-self is explained fully with the "nothing worthy" (aka the value judgement) statement.
There either is a self or there isn't one

If we take those two premises seriously, we will never say "there is a self" or "there's no self" as an ontological statement, a statement about what there is or there is not. We will not use that method. But we can say "the world (aka experience, your domain, another way to say the six senses) is empty of self. That is the "correct" method of inquiry that can take us to the end of suffering.

Buddha carefully searched for a self worth to be called self and he didn't see, didn't found it (see also MN22). If you try you are very likely ( :roll: ) to see the same, with the inductive method. But the ontological, absolute statement is carefully avoided. There's no deductive argument that will convince someone that it is not humble enough to accept the premise that the six senses are "the all"/Sabbe and that doesn't want to accept the inevitable inductive conclusion. But we can rightly call those people proponents of a foolish teaching (again MN22), teaching others what they can't possibly know (the parable of the one that goes around saying that there's the most beautiful woman without having seen her) and with them being unable to justify the method behind their knowledge (SN 35.23).
“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”
This is consistent between the Nikayas and the quoted agama:
[all this] is empty of a self and empty of anything that belongs to a self. When phenomena arise, they arise; when phenomena cease, they cease.
but there's no reason to go beyond "the all" and we are very lucky that this subtlety, this scrupolousness of the Buddha that seems just a quibble arrived to us in the suttas because it is crucial to have a teachings that allows you to not quarrel with anyone in the world. So:
There either is a self or there isn't one


is precisely to ask to choose between two ontological statement and only a deductive argument can do that. You can't have it. Many tried.

What you can do consistently instead is observe the six senses and search until exhaustion that the six senses are empty of anything that is worth to be called self, nothing is worth of acquisition because selves can be seen as acquisitions of something inside the six senses after all. Of course you can take the body to be a self, but that will cause Dukkha. There's no doctrine of self (there is no self is a doctrine about the self just to be clear) that is seen from the Buddha not to cause Dukkha and distress.

Choose between that dichotomy will also be contrary to the sutta that says that the world is trapped between notions of existence and non-existence. Acquisitions and views that happens in the six senses are dependently arisen.

Hope you find something of value here :smile: .

Since it seems that you are really good with Chinese, I ask you: there are parallels of the Anattalakkana out there? That would be very interesting read! If in the agamas this distinction worth to be called/is not found, Doctor William Chu will have a less strong argument.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: No-self in the Agama and its Mahavastu Parallel.

Post by Coëmgenu »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:42 pm
There either is a self or there isn't one
If we take those two premises seriously, we will never say "there is a self" or "there's no self" as an ontological statement, a statement about what there is or there is not. We will not use that method. But we can say "the world (aka experience, your domain, another way to say the six senses) is empty of self. That is the "correct" method of inquiry that can take us to the end of suffering.
If you don't mind me asking, what, to you, is the difference between these two statements? Keep in mind that either can be construed as ontological or not ontological.

1) "The All" is empty of the self.
2) There is no self in "The All."
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 4:42 pm[are there] parallels of the Anattalakkana out there?
There are several. I don't know if SuttaCentral has translations or not.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply