Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #24. Buddhism, post #17 (24.2.16):
The original location where I posted this writing of mine:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33628
by samsarictravelling » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:40 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta, Bhikkhu Dhammanando, Cappuccino, Aloka, DNS (David N. Snyder), retrofuturist, DooDoot, and everyone else:
Before I get to my writing, here are three different translations of the Ananda Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10 (SN 44.10)):
Bhikkhu Bodhi: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/bodhi
Bhikkhu Sujato: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato
Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN44_10.html
Now, my writing:
I was just pondering over my ideas of the Ananda Sutta, and I think I might have figured out what the Ananda Sutta means. But if what I found is not really the case with the Ananda Sutta, this posting would be just an interesting fallacy. I don't know which one it is.
I had to go back on the computer right now to share it, because what if no one else ever published this idea, and then suddenly someone thought up of this same idea at around this same time I thought it up, but because I never went to the computer and shared it with the whole world, but they did, they would get the credit. LOL. So I had to right away type it on Dhamma Wheel message board to seal my possible credit of finding this.
Here it is:
If we break the sutta into four propositions, with two propositions labelled 1 and 2, and the other 2 propositions labelled A and B, they are:
1) Transmigration from one life to the next.
2) No transmigration from one life to the next.
A) There is an atman (soul).
B) There is no atman (soul).
If we pair all the possibilities:
1A,1B,2A,2B.
They are written out as, and explained by me:
1A) Transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul): This is the definition of Eternalism, the the Hindu belief of reincarnation, whereby there is a atman that transmigrates from one life to the next. I know, I am uneducated, so maybe instead of saying 'Hindu belief', I should say Brahmanic belief, or Vedic belief??! I'm not sure, so I'll just use 'Hindu belief'. If any one corrects me on my terminology (using 'Hindu belief'), please give a understandable explanation.
1B) Transmigration from one life to the next, and there is no atman (soul). This is the definition for the Theravada Buddhism belief of rebirth, whereby there is no atman (soul) involved in the transmigration from one life to the next. This transmigration from one life to the next is due to the workings of Dependent Origination (the 12 links of Dependent Origination).
2A) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul). This would be the definition of what Vacchagotta would have experienced if the Buddha replied 'Yes' to his question 'Is there no self?'; Vacchagotta believed he had an atman (soul), and if Buddha had answered 'Yes' to his question of 'Is there no self?', Vacchagotta would have become confused thinking something like: 'I thought I had an atman (soul), but now, because the Buddha said I do not have an atman (soul), I am instead just going to die and nothing else will happen; I don't know which is true'.
2B) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is no atman (soul). This would be the definition of Annihilationism, the belief there is only one life, and no atman (soul). When we die, that's all there is to it. We were just a physical body and mind, with no abiding atman (soul) inside, and nothing else happens when our physical body dies. We have no more consciousness of anything when we die.
You see what makes my explanation of the Ananda Sutta here possibly remarkable, is that I broke things into all the possible components, and then arranged them in all the possible combinations; there are four possible components (1,2,A,B), and four possible arrangements (1A,1B,2A,2B); this is the analytical way of Theravada Buddhism, right?
And the other point to why this is remarkable: these four possible propositions (1A,1B,2A,2B) give a 'rule' as to what Vacchagotta's confusion -- if the Buddha answered 'Yes' to his question 'Is there no self?' -- could be explained as: 2A) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul). It gives a 'rule', because do you think Theravada Buddhists like to analyze things into all possible combinations? I just tried to interpret what one of the combinations (2A) could mean ('could mean', because just my own words; not saying it is the truth of what the Ananda Sutta is saying).
That's all. What do you all think?
samsarictravelling
No comments:
Post a Comment