Perceiving not-self with not-self

[zoz]

Hello dhammawheel community

I have a question:

“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established;...

https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/bodhi?r ... ight=false

Following the sutta MN2 how would "perceiving not-self with not-self" be classified? Isn't that also an unwise view?

Thanks

[cappuccino]

Following the sutta MN2 how would "perceiving not-self with not-self" be classified? Isn't that also an unwise view?

you're supposed to think in terms of not self


at least if you want to

[Alino]

As the only option left...

As all dhammas are anatta we can only perceiving a non self with a non self... thats why it is so liberating to discover anatta... because there is nobody suffering... nobody dies... there is only suffering and only death, thats all...

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Hello dhammawheel community

I have a question:

... ‘self exists for me’ ...
... ‘no self exists for me’ ...
...‘I perceive self with self’ ...
...‘I perceive not-self with self’ ...
... ‘I perceive self with not-self’ ...

how would "perceiving not-self with not-self" be classified? Isn't that also an unwise view?

No. It isn't an unwise view.

Following the pattern in the sutta, and using your perspective, the unwise view would be: "I perceive not-self with not-self"; of course, that sentence is meaningless, let alone unwise.

The essential point to be an unwise view around the part of sutta you quoted is the inclusion of I-me-mine and/or self. Your wording of "perceiving not-self with not-self" lacks both I-me-mine and self.

Instead, I would venture saying that "perceiving not-self with not-self" is actually a wise view to hold on to, at least up to some significant extent on the path, imo.

[cappuccino]

because there is nobody suffering… nobody dies…

nobody is the realm of nothingness

[santa100]

Following the sutta MN2 how would "perceiving not-self with not-self" be classified? Isn't that also an unwise view?

It depends on what specific context that phrase above is referring to. Does it meet the wise attention criteria the Buddha mentioned right after talking about those 6 wrong views in the preceding paragraphs?

“Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, understands what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention. Since that is so, he does not attend to those things unfit for attention and he attends to those things fit for attention.

“What are the things unfit for attention that he does not attend to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him…as §6…and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he does not attend to. And what are the things fit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire does not arise in him…as §6…and the arisen taint of ignorance is abandoned. These are the things fit for attention that he attends to. By not attending to things unfit for attention and by attending to things fit for attention, unarisen taints do not arise in him and arisen taints are abandoned.

“He attends wisely: ‘This is suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ When he attends wisely in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: personality view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by seeing.

[pegembara]

Hello dhammawheel community

I have a question:

“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established;...

https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/bodhi?r ... ight=false

Following the sutta MN2 how would "perceiving not-self with not-self" be classified? Isn't that also an unwise view?

Thanks

All forms of self-view (sakkayaditthi) are considered inappropriate. Conversely any view that does not involve this is appropriate.
You are NOT THAT.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to.

[zoz]

I have as you all said taken out of context the perception of something without the addition of "I". Sorry about that. Somehow I just wanted to be on the safe side, whether this corresponds without "I" to the understanding of Anatta. Thank you, you helped me quite a bit already. : )

[Spiny Norman]

Hello dhammawheel community

I have a question:

“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established;...

https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/bodhi?r ... ight=false

Following the sutta MN2 how would "perceiving not-self with not-self" be classified? Isn't that also an unwise view?

Thanks

Perceiving not-self with not-self sounds like right view.
Perception is an aggregate, and therefore it is not-self.

[confusedlayman]

Only aggregates create suffering and only aggregates suffer