21.2.12.3 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #21. Buddhism, post #13.3: CONTINUATION OF My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.

Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #18. Buddhism, post #13.3 (21.2.12.3):

The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=90 ):

by samsarictravelling » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:07 am

Dhammanando wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:50 am

samsarictravelling wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:15 am

So, you read the note from one of Bhikkhu Bodhi's Nikayas-translated-into-English books, like I did? And/or you heard Bhikkhu Bodhi say this also (that anatta as a strategy is heresy) somewhere else?

I think he would be more likely to call it an untenable interpretation rather than using a confrontational term like "heresy". His actual words in an endnote to the sutta in question:

...

All according to Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Vacchagotta incident:

or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)

So the Buddha does not declare “There is no self” not because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)...but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self.

What this means (to me) is the "Not-self strategy" as taught by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is rejected by the Buddha, because the Buddha did not teach anatta as a strategy of perception devoid of ontological implications.

Also:

The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.

So the Buddha (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi in the above quote) does say there is no self anywhere, both in the conditioned (samsara) and unconditioned (nibbana). Again: The unconditioned -- nibbana is the one and only unconditioned thing -- also should not be regarded as self (I would capitalize it, and say the unconditioned is not to be regarded as Self).

In contrast, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says the Buddha never said there was a self, nor no self. The Buddha (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi in the above quote) does say there is no self anywhere, so Thanissaro Bhikkhu is wrong with his anatta doctrine.

But to keep things in line with truth, I would say: Because I myself do not know for sure (and also I am not enlightened), Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta doctrine and Bhikkhu Bodhi's annatta doctrine can co-exist if one group says to the other group "I believe" when they do not know for sure, not "It is exactly as I say, and I know it to be so" when they themselves really do not know for sure.

This may or may not have been the note I read in the past! Thank you, for either case (may or may not have been the note).

samsarictravelling