Do you really exist over time?

[cappuccino]

Okay thanks Cappuccino, so your view is that of the five aggregates being ‘not self’, and you do not think in terms of a ‘Self’ or of ‘No Self’, or put another way in terms of ‘Eternalism’, or ‘Annihilationism’?, ie how you read the Ananda Sutta.

Right

[tharpa]

There is no ‘Self’

Sorry… this implies annihilation

No. The Wrong View of annihilation implies that there is (present tense) a self which is destroyed at death.

[Ceisiwr]

There is no ‘Self’

Sorry… this implies annihilation

No. The Wrong View of annihilation implies that there is (present tense) a self which is destroyed at death.

As a heads up he's been told this many times over the years. He won't accept it.

[tharpa]

The Wrong View of annihilation implies that there is (present tense) a self which is destroyed at death.

As a heads up he's been told this many times over the years. He won't accept it.

Thanks. But I do give him credit that he pointed out a sentence in the Andanda Sutta which I had previously glossed over which does show that the Buddha explicitly did not say that there is no self.

[Ceisiwr]

The Wrong View of annihilation implies that there is (present tense) a self which is destroyed at death.

As a heads up he's been told this many times over the years. He won't accept it.

Thanks. But I do give him credit that he pointed out a sentence in the Andanda Sutta which I had previously glossed over which does show that the Buddha explicitly did not say that there is no self.

In that sutta the Buddha says the reason why he didn't say there is no self is because Vacchagotta would have misunderstood it in terms of a self that did exist but now does not. In other words, if Vacchagotta wasn't so confused he would have said there is no self. The parallels to the sutta make that even more clear. The Eternalists and Annihilationists are both mistaken because their views still involve a self, either one that always exists or one that will cease to exist. In comparison the Buddha taught there never was a self to begin with.

[auto]

Be it annihilated at the end of the life or just coming to the conclusion that the self doesn't exist, after thinking about it. No difference at the end, both views same for me: annihilation.

Ajita Kesakambalin:
..
The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’

[Ceisiwr]

Be it annihilated at the end of the life or just coming to the conclusion that the self doesn't exist, after thinking about it. No difference at the end, both views same for me: annihilation.

The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’

How can something that doesn't exist be annihilated?

[auto]

Be it annihilated at the end of the life or just coming to the conclusion that the self doesn't exist, after thinking about it. No difference at the end, both views same for me: annihilation.

The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’

How can something that doesn't exist be annihilated?

by coming into conclusion after investigating. You thought consciousness is self at some point, after investigating you realize it is not.

also annihiliationism is wrong, so you could ask the same damn question from them. Anāthapiṇḍika after he died, became deva. Buddha confirmed to Ananda its the same Anāthapiṇḍika.

[Ceisiwr]

Be it annihilated at the end of the life or just coming to the conclusion that the self doesn't exist, after thinking about it. No difference at the end, both views same for me: annihilation.

How can something that doesn't exist be annihilated?

by coming into conclusion after investigating. You thought consciousness is self at some point, after investigating you realize it is not.

That didn't answer my question. If someone thinks there is a self and then at some point it ceases then yes, that is annihilationism. If someone doesn't think there is a self to being with then that isn't annihilationism, since something which doesn't exist can't be annihilated. Unicorns for example don't live forever and neither are they annihilated. They are just an idea.

[tharpa]

In that sutta the Buddha says the reason why he didn't say there is no self is because Vacchagotta would have misunderstood it in terms of a self that did exist but now does not. In other words, if Vacchagotta wasn't so confused he would have said there is no self. The parallels to the sutta make that even more clear. The Eternalists and Annihilationists are both mistaken because their views still involve a self, either one that always exists or one that will cease to exist. In comparison the Buddha taught there never was a self to begin with.

Maybe. But I see room for ambiguity in the interpretation. At least in this sutta. Maybe the other suttas you're referring to make it clear which interpretation is correct.

"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..."

[Ceisiwr]

In that sutta the Buddha says the reason why he didn't say there is no self is because Vacchagotta would have misunderstood it in terms of a self that did exist but now does not. In other words, if Vacchagotta wasn't so confused he would have said there is no self. The parallels to the sutta make that even more clear. The Eternalists and Annihilationists are both mistaken because their views still involve a self, either one that always exists or one that will cease to exist. In comparison the Buddha taught there never was a self to begin with.

Maybe. But I see room for ambiguity in the interpretation. At least in this sutta. Maybe the other suttas you're referring to make it clear which interpretation is correct.

"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..."

I think it's best to look at the whole sutta

"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Vacchagotta askes is there a self or not. The Buddha remains quiet. Venerable Ananda is confused by this. The Buddha explains why he was quite.

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism. 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 Buddha explains that if he said there was a self, that would be siding with eternalism. If he had said there is no self, that would have been siding with annihilationists. The Buddha then further expands on why this is.

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

He didn't say there is a self, because that is Eternalism yet all dhammas are not-self.

"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?'"

He didn't say there is no self, because Vacchagotta would have interpreted it in terms of annihilationism. That is why the Buddha didn't answer him, because if he did say there is no self Vacchagotta would have taken it as annihilationism and would have fallen into the net of views. For the Buddha, and those who can understand the Dhamma, there is no self.

Mendicants, were a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘Belonging to my self’?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Were what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘My self’?”

“Yes, sir.”

“But self and what belongs to a self are not acknowledged as a genuine fact. This being so, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”

“What else could it be, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”

- MN 22

A part translation of the parallels (not mine)

( if 答言 I answered saying 無我 (there is) no self, 彼 that 先 earlier 癡 confusion 惑 vexes (him).

言 He says, 先 formerly 有 I had 我 a self, 從 it follows that 今 today 斷滅 it was annihilated.

[auto]

How can something that doesn't exist be annihilated?

by coming into conclusion after investigating. You thought consciousness is self at some point, after investigating you realize it is not.

That didn't answer my question. If someone thinks there is a self and then at some point it ceases then yes, that is annihilationism. If someone doesn't think there is a self to being with then that isn't annihilationism, since something which doesn't exist can't be annihilated. Unicorns for example don't live forever and neither are they annihilated. They are just an idea.

hmm, when you don't realize that there is no self to begin with, then one is reborn and also others recognize that reborn being who that were before death?

When this was said, Venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One, “Bhante, that young deva was definitely Anāthapiṇḍika. Bhante, the householder Anāthapiṇḍika had deep faith in Venerable Sāriputta.”

When you know that there is no self to begin with, then how Buddha knows??

“Excellent, excellent, Ānanda! Ānanda, you have attained what can be attained by thought. Ānanda, that young deva was Anāthapiṇḍika.”

btw ananada didn't have to see Anāthapiṇḍika by himself, just by thought knew, based on what buddha said and buddha confirmed it.

and you made in your post logical error, which i don't bother to point out.

[Ceisiwr]

hmm, when you don't realize that there is no self to begin with, then one is reborn and also others recognize that reborn being who that were before death?

Ultimately no one is reborn, no one dies, no one awakens and no one practices Dhamma.

Becoming’s Wheel reveals no known beginning;
No maker, no experiencer there;
Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere
It ever halts; forever it is spinning.


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.


The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.


Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

- Visuddhimagga

When you know that there is no self to begin with, then how Buddha knows??

From the Buddha's point of view, you don't need a self to explain why there are such things as knowledge, feeling and so on.

[auto]

hmm, when you don't realize that there is no self to begin with, then one is reborn and also others recognize that reborn being who that were before death?

Ultimately no one is reborn, no one dies, no one awakens and no one practices Dhamma.

..

- Visuddhimagga

When you know that there is no self to begin with, then how Buddha knows??

From the Buddha's point of view, you don't need a self to explain why there are such things as knowledge, feeling and so on.

The visuddhimagga quote is about sakkaya(clinging aggregates)
dependent origination ref,

Void with a twelvefold voidness

And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
Paṭiccasamuppannā kho panime yadidaṁ pañcupādānakkhandhā.

Thanks for posting. Per visuddhimagga dependent origination never stops, halts.
I agree you won't find self there.

[Spiny Norman]

https://rychappell.substack.com/p/do-yo ... -over-time

Though the author (Chappell) at the link above isn't Buddhist, I suspect that modern academic philosophy was influenced by Buddhism. I believe that the Buddha was the first or one of the first major "philosophers" to assert that the self isn't real. I don't necessarily agree with all of Chappell's assertions, but he raises some interesting questions.

"Parfit argues that we do not endure, or exist through time, in quite the way that we ordinarily suppose. "

Based on close observation of a relative with dementia, I concluded that memory is a significant component of identity. Though this observation doesn't negate the existence of an identity.