Ontheway wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 3:52 am
Whoever still believe that there is a "Self" or "Soul" did not abandon "Sakkaya-Ditthi" yet.
A so-called being is made up of five aggregates affected by Clinging as taught by the Buddha in many Suttas.
(1) Rupa
(2) Vedanā
(3) Sañña
(4) Saṅkhāra
(5) Viññāṇa
All these five aggregates, the Buddha said:
Rupa...... Vedanā...... Sañña......Saṅkhāra......
Viññāṇa is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’
Seeing this, these aggregates are nonself and we couldn't even put a notion of "Self" anywhere in these five aggregates.
If we forcefully do so, saying the aggregates are "Self", part of "Self", product of "Self", subset of "Self", then this is not only contradictory to Pāli scriptures but also to our common sense.
I saw people here attributed "Self" to either "stream of consciousness" or "Patisandhi citta" or "Gandhabba", this is absurd.
- First, none of the Pāli Tipitaka scriptures said so.
- Second, none of the commentaries aka Atthakathas said so.
- Third, the nature of consciousness is arising and ceasing continuosly, after one consciousness ceases there comes another consciousness into the picture. There is no permanency in such phenomena as it is operating under Conditional Relations as described in Paṭṭhāna.
Next, to say "There is no self" is wrong as indicated by many people's posts here is illogical too. As Bhikkhu Bodhi said:
it is not proper to support one’ s argument by identifying the position of the modern interpreters with the annihilationist doctrine found in the Nikáyas and then point to the Buddha’ s rejection of the annihilationist view as ipso facto implying rejection of the other.
-
Investigating the Dhamma
These people don't even understand the difference of two tenets.
The Buddha said "Pancakhandha" is not to be regarded as "Self", as taught clearly in Suttas such as Anattalakkhana Sutta and Cūḷasaccakasutta. Now since five aggregates are not "Self", the notion of "Self" isn't found in these five aggregates, this is to say: "There is no Self."
This is entirely different from what Annihilationists believed "There is no Self". These people believe that there is a Self
originally, but it is waiting to be annihilated after death.
And it was clearly mentioned in this scripture:
17. Who are other three teachers?
Here a certain teacher sets out soul as something real and permanent in the present life as well as in the future life.
Again, another teacher sets out soul as something real and permanent as far as this world is concerned but does not say so with regard to any future existence.
Lastly, a certain teacher does not set out soul as a real and permanent entity, either in regard to the present or to the future life.
Here the teacher of the first order is to be understood as a teacher who upholds the doctrine of Eternalism.
Again, the teacher of the second order is to be understood as a teacher who upholds the doctrine of Annihilationism.
Lastly, the teacher of the third order is to be understood as the teacher who is Sammāsambuddho (perfectly enlightened).
These are the other three teachers.
- Puggalapaññatti (Niddesa - 3. Tikapuggalapaññatti)
This is the difference.
And people said the The Buddha refused to answer to both "There is a Self" and "There is no Self" to Vacchagotta (and please remember that Lord Buddha is not an "eel-wriggling" teacher), therefore "There is no Self" is wrong. But they don't see the whole picture of this scenario.
Here is the crucial point of why Lord Buddha didn't answer Vacchagotta's question.
"When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: 'It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’"
- Ananda Sutta (SN44.10)
Here the Buddha rejected the Annihilationism as indicated in the texts of Puggalapaññatti. What Lord Buddha wanted to teach is the "Anattā" idea, the lacking of the notion of "Self" for Five Aggregates.
No wonder Bhikkhu Bodhi said this:
The purport of the two is altogether different, and to identify them while aware of the difference seems to be a disingenuous move.
-
Investigating the Dhamma
"Anattā" is not endorsing or negating of "Attā". Because either "to endorse" or "to negate", it will directly or indirectly approve the view of having an "Attā". "Anattā" supposed to be revealing the nature of five aggregates, to shows the reality of these five aggregates is indeed without a permanent entity or concept called "Attā".