- Sanjaya Belatthputta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaya_Belatthaputta)'If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not. If you asked me if there isn't another world... both is and isn't... neither is nor isn't... if there are beings who transmigrate... if there aren't... both are and aren't... neither are nor aren't... if the Tathagata exists after death... doesn't... both... neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.'
In what way does this view differ from the Buddha's view?In the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1), Sanjaya's views are deemed to be amaravikkhepavad, "a theory of eel-wrigglers."
I am struggling to understand how this is not the same as abandoning the concept of self.
As far as I am aware, the Buddha encouraged suspension of judgement until sufficient insight is developed. It seems that Sanjaya suspends his judgement as well, is it not the case?
Where does the Buddha refute such agnosticism?
Thanks very much for any information.