YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Nihilists views - Dhamma Wheel

Nihilists views

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:32 am

Bhikkhu Santi wrote:

The Buddhist teaching of anatta and the nature of is very close to annhilationism, that's why you can find so much praise for the annhilationists in the Suttas, the Buddha called them the holders of 'the foremost of outside viewpoints' because: "they already have revulsion towards existence and non revulsion towards the cessation of existence, so when the Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of existence they do not recoil from it".

In the suttas I found two similar assertions:

1) One is that those ascetics, who enter the 8th jhana and teach their Dhamma are the outsiders with a maximum possible (for outsiders) spiritual purity (e.g. Udakka Ramaputta)
2) The closest to the Right View is the view of those who think thus: "it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me" (nihilist view?)

BUT I've never seen such an assertion as Ven. Santi gave: "they already have revulsion towards existence and non revulsion towards the cessation of existence, so when the Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of existence they do not recoil from it" :reading:

Does anybody know where this phrase can be found in the suttas? :popcorn:

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Bhikkhu Pesala » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:24 am

• • • • (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8502
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Postby cooran » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:34 am

Hello Zom,

Noticed the phrase here:

EXCERPT:
2. No c’assa no ca me siyā, na bhavissati na me bhavissatî ti
The most difficult sentence in the sutta clearly is this: No c’assa no ca me siyā, na bhavissati na me
bhavissatî ti [§2], an important statement found in a number of other suttas (see below). This statement is
found in the Suttas in two forms.4
(1) ANNIHILATIONISM. The annihilationist (uccheda,dihi) version—no c’assa no ca me siyā, na
bhavissāmi na me bhavissatî ti5 (“the no c’assa passage”)—is found in the Pahama Kosala Sutta (A
10.29), the Buddha declares it to be “the foremost of outside speculative views” (etad-agga bāhirakāna
 dihi,gatāna),
the reason being that one who accepts such a view would neither be attracted to
existence nor be averse to the ending of cessation.6 In this connection, Bodhi notes:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:00 pm

Dear Venerable,
Dear Cooran,

Thank you very much - both links are very helpful :reading: :clap: :thanks: ,)

Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Gena1480 » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:17 am

very useful
metta

pegembara
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Nihilists views

Postby pegembara » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:40 pm

The supreme view-point external [to the Dhamma] is this: 'I should not be; it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.' Of one with this view it may be expected that '[the perception of] unloathsomeness of becoming will not occur to him, and [the perception of] loathsomeness of the cessation of becoming will not occur to him.' And there are beings who have this view. Yet even in the beings who have this view there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.

Kosala Sutta


"He discerns, as it actually is, that 'form will stop being' ... 'feeling will stop being' ... 'perception will stop being' ... 'fabrications will stop being' ... 'consciousness will stop being.'

"From the stopping of form, from the stopping of feeling ... of perception ... of fabrications ... of consciousness, a monk set on this — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me' — would break the [five] lower fetters."

"Lord, a monk set on this would break the [five] lower fetters. But for one knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there the immediate ending of fermentations?"

"There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.'



Udana Sutta SN 22.55
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:05 pm

Cool 8-) Thanks 8-)
Last edited by Zom on Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:20 pm

Take a look at the comment on this sutta by Ven. Bodhi :

http://theravada.ru/Pattern/comm.gif :clap:

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Postby manas » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:22 pm

Far be it for me to contradict all the informed offerings here. Just wanted to, once again, share something that needs to be said here: Let's remember that the Buddha rejected nihilism, as well as annihilationism. Personally, I've gained just enough conviction, I feel, to deal with an implication being made that he was in some ways 'close' to their views. A newcomer to this site (or to Buddhism) might be put off, however...so thank goodness we have the Snake-Simile Sutta, too:

The Arahant [35]

"...This monk is called one who has removed the crossbar, has filled the moat, has broken the pillar, has unbolted (his mind); a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.

31. "And how, monks, is that monk one who has removed the cross-bar? Herein the monk has abandoned ignorance, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus has he removed the cross-bar.

32. "And how, monks, is that monk one who has filled the moat? Herein the monk has abandoned the round of rebirths, leading to renewed existence; he has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.

33. "And how has he broken the pillar? He has abandoned craving, has cut it off at the root, removed it from its soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.

34. "And how has he unbolted (his mind)? He has abandoned the five lower fetters, has cut them off at the root, removed them from their soil like a palmyra tree, brought them to utter extinction, incapable of arising again.

35. "And how is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.

36. "When a monk's mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find[36] on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based. Why is that? One who has thus gone is no longer traceable here and now, so I say.[37]

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering...

Let us be very specific then, about the OP: the sutta excerpts state that nihilists are easier to teach (in some respects) because they do not recoil from the idea of non-existence. But that is not the same as saying that the Buddha was either close to or sympathetic with their views. Please take note of the words "baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused" ... does that sound like he was sympathetic to nihilism? Really?

metta,

m. :namaste:
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:38 pm


User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Postby manas » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:15 pm

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:34 pm

I do know about this his statement, however, I still don't agree.

It is true that Buddha avoided telling that there is "no self". But not because there is some self in reality (as Ven. Thanissaro thinks).
From MN 2 we see why he avoid telling directly that there is no self - that is - simply because people would not understand it correctly
and will fall into "thicket of views" such as "There is no self FOR ME" or "By Not-Me I see My Self". What they do - is rejecting self on the base of self!
That is why Buddha don't use this strategy.

However, in MN 22 we see, that Buddha says that ordinary people are worried about something that doesn't exist (!) internally. That is - about "their self".
So Buddha speaks about "no self" not directly, but by implication.

8-)

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Postby manas » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:12 pm

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:08 am


User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Postby manas » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:43 pm

Last edited by manas on Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:18 pm

What I'm trying to say is that there can't be a middle between "there is self" or "there is no self". If we take it impartially.
You can, of course, avoid saying such phrases, but in reality there must be a view that either a self does exist, or it does not. :juggling:

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nihilists views

Postby manas » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:57 pm

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Gena1480 » Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:45 am

The Buddha after his enlightenment
in the first night recollected his previous lives
no matter how far he got
there was no begging point evident
thus he discovered not self
if the point of begging was evident
then there would be self
but there was no begging point evident
thus the Buddha discovered not self
the five aggregates are not self
no begging point evident for five aggregates
when one goes to nibbana there is no point evident
thus nibbana is not self
this eliminate view of Nihilists view
this elimination the Eternal view
metta

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1645
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nihilists views

Postby Zom » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:39 am


chris98e
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Nihilists views

Postby chris98e » Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:10 pm

If Anatta means no self as no self which can be sustained for a long perior of time I think that it is just being repetitive with impermanance. But if Anatta means no self but a group of connected selves then that makes sense to me. :buddha1:


Return to “Classical Theravāda”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine