Existence, Annihilation and the Self

[cappuccino]

…

No Self… Leads to… Annihilationism

[SarathW]

…

No Self… Leads to… Annihilationism

Is this your personal view?
When you make your personal observation please mention it in your posts.

Please provide Sutta support for this.

[cappuccino]

Please provide Sutta support for this.

On Self, No Self, and Not-self
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda

[SarathW]

Please provide Sutta support for this.

On Self, No Self, and Not-self
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda

It appears you have misunderstood the message of this sutta hence misrepresent it in your previous post.

[cappuccino]

It appears you have misunderstood the message of this sutta hence misrepresent it in your previous post.

Speak for yourself

[skandha]

of the various aggregates, a self which we use conveniently as a reference point.

Do you think there is no self?


No self would lead one to think of annihilation

Eterlanlist believes in a continuation of a permanent self.
Annihilation believes that there is no continuation of the self. (they believe there is a self but do not continue)
What Buddha saying is the continuation of the clinging-aggregate. (beings subject to Samsara)
Living Buddhas have only the not clinging-aggregates.

Cappuccino, I agree with what SarathW replied above.

I think there is a self, in terms of a nominal reference point for the aggregates, but more importantly in terms of self responsibility for the suffering and the cessation of suffering that is experienced. There is a whole chapter on the Dhammapada on the self, Attavaga, which talks about this self responsibility. For instance in Dhammapada verse 160, "One is one’s own protector, how could another protect you?; One who has trained oneself well, has acquired a protector that is truly hard to acquire."

I think there is no self, in this whole "being" of aggregated constituents, because of my inability to maintain it in a state of permanent satisfaction, thus nothing within this whole mass of being can I consider a self, "I" am totally subjected to it's laws and workings. In numerous suttas and also the sutra quoted in the OP, the formula used is, that which is impermanent is suffering and cannot be considered the self.

[skandha]

…

No Self… Leads to… Annihilationism

So you disagree with the sutra quoted on the original post, "The third teacher who does not have the view that in the present world there truly is a self, and who also does not have the view that in the afterlife there [truly] is a self ― this is the Tathāgata...".

You think the Tathāgata's view mentioned above is annihilation? If so, what is it annihilating as there wasn't a self for it to annihilate right from the start?

[SarathW]

It is incorrect to say that there is a self.
It is correct to say there is self-view hence there is a life continuum.
When the self-view is eliminated life continuum stopped and attains Nibbana within seven lives.

[cappuccino]

You think the Tathāgata's view mentioned above is annihilation? If so, what is it annihilating as there wasn't a self for it to annihilate right from the start?

I agree with the Tathāgata


I disagree there wasn’t a self (No self)


Not there is a self… either

[Ceisiwr]

You think the Tathāgata's view mentioned above is annihilation? If so, what is it annihilating as there wasn't a self for it to annihilate right from the start?

I agree with the Tathāgata


I disagree there wasn’t a self (No self)


Not there is a self… either

You think nibbana is a changing consciousness. You just don’t want to use the word “self” because that’s a no no in Buddhism. You do though believe in a true self, and denying that is either due to extreme lack of self awareness or just outright lying.

[cappuccino]

Not there is a self… either

You think nibbana is a changing consciousness. You just don’t want to use the word “self” … You do though believe in a true self, and denying that is either due to extreme lack of self awareness or just outright lying.

Nirvana is the absence of stress


You want to say I am for self… I am not against it, I am not for it


Self and no self do not apply

[skandha]

Not there is a self… either

You think nibbana is a changing consciousness. You just don’t want to use the word “self” … You do though believe in a true self, and denying that is either due to extreme lack of self awareness or just outright lying.

Nirvana is the absence of stress


You want to say I am for self… I am not against it, I am not for it


Self and no self do not apply

I agree. I have not come across any suttas that say Nibbana is self or not self. Anatta, no self, is usually used to describe the characteristics of that which is impermanent and unsatisfactory. Anatta is a strategical term used by the Buddha to point to the futility of craving and delight. The emphasis is the pragmatic solution to suffering rather than a description of an existential truth. I think from the Buddha's perspective whether Nibbana is self or no self is not even a relevant concern, but whether it is happiness, peace, is of vital concern. Thus we see descriptions like "Nibbana is the ultimate happiness - Nibbana paramam sukkham" but we don't see descriptions like "Nibbana is no self".

However the context of the sutra is that which is conditioned, not the unconditioned Nibbana. Thus the sutra says the Tathāgata view our current lives and the thereafter to be without a self.