OpenAI’s o1 model translation of Bahiya Sutta from Pali original.

Udāna 1.10

Bāhiyasutta

Thus have I heard: On one occasion, the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.

At that time, Bāhiya Dārucīriya was living by the seashore at Suppāraka. He was honored, respected, revered, esteemed, and received the requisites of robes, alms food, lodgings, and medicines. While he was alone in seclusion, a thought arose in his mind: “Whoever in this world are Arahants or have entered the path to Arahantship, I am one of them.”

Then, a certain ancient relative deity of Bāhiya Dārucīriya, who felt compassion for him and wished him well, knowing the reflection arising in his mind, approached him and said: “Bāhiya, you are neither an Arahant nor one who has entered the path to Arahantship. Furthermore, the practice by which you might become an Arahant or enter upon that path does not exist in you.”

Hearing this, Bāhiya Dārucīriya asked: “In that case, who in this world—together with the devas—are Arahants or have entered the path to Arahantship?”

The deity replied: “There is, Bāhiya, in the northern lands, a city called Sāvatthī. There, the Blessed One now dwells—he who is the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One. Indeed, Bāhiya, the Blessed One teaches the Dhamma for the attainment of Arahantship.”

Stirred by the deity’s words, Bāhiya Dārucīriya departed at once from Suppāraka and traveled with single-night stops until he reached Sāvatthī and arrived at Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park.

At that time, several monks were walking in the open air. Approaching them, Bāhiya Dārucīriya asked: “Venerable sirs, where is the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Enlightened One? I have come desiring to see him.”

The monks replied: “Bāhiya, the Blessed One has gone into the town for alms.”

Then Bāhiya, hurrying, left Jeta’s Grove and entered Sāvatthī. There he saw the Blessed One walking for alms—graceful, inspiring confidence, calm in faculties and mind, supremely tamed and tranquil, disciplined, guarded, with well-restrained senses, like a noble elephant.

Seeing the Blessed One, Bāhiya approached, placed his head at the Blessed One’s feet, and said: “Teach me the Dhamma, venerable sir! Teach me the Dhamma, Fortunate One, for my long-term benefit and happiness.”

The Blessed One replied: “This is not the right time, Bāhiya. We have entered the dwelling-houses seeking alms.”

A second time, Bāhiya entreated the Blessed One: “It is uncertain, venerable sir, how long the Blessed One will live or how long I will live. Teach me the Dhamma, Fortunate One, for my long-term benefit and happiness.”

The Blessed One again said: “This is not the right time, Bāhiya. We have entered the dwelling-houses seeking alms.”

A third time, Bāhiya pleaded: “It is uncertain, venerable sir, how long the Blessed One will live or how long I will live. Teach me the Dhamma, Fortunate One, for my long-term benefit and happiness.”

Then the Blessed One said: “Therefore, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: ‘In what is seen, let there be only the seen. In what is heard, only the heard. In what is sensed, only the sensed. In what is cognized, only the cognized.’ Thus, Bāhiya, should you train yourself.

“When for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there is only the seen, in what is heard only the heard, in what is sensed only the sensed, and in what is cognized only the cognized, then, Bāhiya, you will not be ‘by that.’ When you are not ‘by that,’ you will not be ‘therein.’ When you are not ‘therein,’ you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between. This itself is the end of suffering.”

Through this concise teaching of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, Bāhiya Dārucīriya’s mind was immediately freed from the taints without any grasping remaining.

After giving this brief instruction, the Blessed One departed.

Not long after the Blessed One had left, a cow protecting her young calf attacked Bāhiya Dārucīriya and killed him.

Later, after collecting alms in Sāvatthī and returning from his meal, the Blessed One, together with several monks, left the city and saw that Bāhiya Dārucīriya had passed away. Seeing this, he addressed the monks: “Take the body of Bāhiya Dārucīriya, monks. Carry it on a bier, cremate it, and build a memorial. Your fellow practitioner has died.”

“Very well, venerable sir,” the monks answered. They carried out the Blessed One’s instructions—placing Bāhiya’s body on a bier, taking it out, cremating it, and building a memorial. Then they returned to the Blessed One, paid homage, and sat to one side. They asked him: “Venerable sir, Bāhiya Dārucīriya’s body has been cremated and a memorial built. Where has he been reborn? What is his destiny?”

The Blessed One replied: “Monks, Bāhiya Dārucīriya was wise. He practiced in accordance with the Dhamma and did not trouble me over matters of Dhamma. Bāhiya Dārucīriya has attained final Nibbāna.”

Knowing the meaning of this, at that time the Blessed One uttered this inspired utterance:

“Where neither water nor earth

Nor fire nor air finds footing,

There neither the stars shine,

Nor does the sun give light;

There the moon does not appear,

And darkness is not found.

When the sage experiences this

Through his own wisdom—

That silent Brahmin—

Then from form and formless realms,

From pleasure and pain, he is freed.”

This is the tenth discourse.

Thus the Blessed One spoke, and so I have heard.

End of the Bodhivagga (First Section)

Summary Verse:

“Three Bodhī, the grunt (‘humhumka’),

The Brahman and one with Kassapa;

A goat, a battle, a matted-hair ascetic,

And Bāhiya—these make the ten.”

https://youtu.be/-QRFeZngTuY

Curious what you think of this guy. He criticises pretty much all

current Buddhist schools, even most Theravada and claims they’re on

false paths. In other videos he mentions Daniel Ingram, Angelo, Delson

Armstrong and Frank Yang by name and calls them deluded. He advocates

following the early suttas and nothing else, saying we can’t deviate

from the Buddha’s words etc. He has another channel where he reads from

the suttas.

Daniel responded and wants to have an interview with him



Soh replied:

many of those who criticise daniel ingram and frank yang and angelo dont understand the anatta insight in the first place

im not sure about what insight delson has

and most teachers, even well known vipassana and theravada teachers lack the anatta insight as explained in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/vipassana-must-go-with-luminous.html

and this is key insight to entering the noble path, ending of self view and the first three fetters, and the key insight for liberation

but i agree that arahantship is a delusional claim. it is at most stream entry

explained very nicely in https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20

and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/08/insight-buddhism-reconsideration-of.html

john tan and i likes that article very much. john even added it into his AtR AI bot

as for not going against suttas, i agree one should not go against suttas

don't invent stuff

but i'm also not a sectarian theravadin that is fundamentalist about only

following suttas and disregarding anything 'mahayana' and 'vajrayana'

in fact i would say i very much appreciate the mahayana and vajrayana teachings

and follow their teachings

also, as thich nhat hanh said, the point about mahayana and nagarjuna is not to go against the suttas, in fact nagarjuna never quoted mahayana sutras. he only quoted pali canon. his aim was to correct erroneous views people developed that deviated from the suttas. -- this is in the newly published book that yin ling shared on Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka by Thich Nhat Hanh: https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Walnut-Understanding-Dialectics-Nagarjuna/dp/1952692466/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KL7T3NQJAXJ4&keywords=cracking+the+walnut&qid=1704538940&sprefix=crac%2Caps%2C1461&sr=8-1

likewise, kyle dixon also said before, the purpose of mahayana teachings is a corrective to the wrong views of the hinayana sects that misunderstood the teachings of buddha in the suttas

i am not a fundamentalist sutta follower but i also believe sutta, mahayana sutras, vajrayana tantras and so forth, they can all be integrated in one's understanding and there is no need to 'choose' the suttas over the other teachings

but i do not believe in reinventing teachings and terms by the buddha, on what liberation, stream entry, arahantship and so on mean

also see this writing by John Tan: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2016/07/what-is-authentic-buddhist-teaching.html - What is an Authentic Buddhist Teaching?

as for first bhumi (aka Mahayana stream entry), Kyle Dixon recently shared a quote:

Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche:

Then, at the time of the supreme quality on the path of joining, one realizes that since the perceived does not exist, neither does the perceiver. Right after this, the truth of suchness, which is free from dualistic fixation, is directly realized. This is said to be the attainment of the first bhūmi.

---

Mr. C: "What I find interesting is that many of these so called fundamentalists don’t agree that nagarjuna has right view. They outright reject that he’s in line with the suttas whereas Mahayana states they’re compatible

I see people stating for example that the Buddha didn’t discuss emptiness, just that all phenomena are not-self, but not even claiming outright that there is no self

Of course I disagree with those kind of claims

Soh:

kyle dixon has quoted many suttas talking about the emptiness of all dharmas and their illusory nature

its clear to me that the pali sutta is completely consistent with mahayana emptiness, and inconsistent with the 'little atmans' of dharmas that late abhidhamma commentators introduced into the teachings

i recommend going through part 1 to 4 of all kyle dixon's compilations that i made

has many very clear writings

in fact john tan find his dharmawheel writings to be the best among all he trained the atr AI bot with

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/11/a-compilation-of-some-of-kyle-dixons.html

as for those that say buddha taught not self but not no self, i already explained why that is wrong in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

and kyle dixon also painstakingly explained so many times throughout reddit

because so many people are infected with this thanissaro ideology

it is a novel, but wrong idea of what buddha meant with anatman

ok one of my messages above was removed

because the facebook AI dumbly thought my anatta: not-self or no self was about porn and sexual stuff

i was saying i explained why this whole anatman is only not self but not no self wrong ideology has infected so many people online via thanissaro's novel ideology

it is also very wrong

and very misleading

in fact recently i posted another post, i dont think i should post more links here now lest facebook remove it again

but you can search on google or my blog:

Thanissaro, Consciousness without Surface, No Self vs Not-Self https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/12/thanissaro-consciousness-without.html

it's a post made in december 2023

many of those who claims this also happen to fall into eternalist views about awareness

it's not surprising and their practice of turning anatman into a strategy of not-self becomes a means of dissociating from phenomena in order to rest in some unperturbed awareness

no different from brahman even if they do not call it by that name

this is 180 degrees different from buddhist insights into anatman, dependent origination and emptiness in some sense

a very common tendency in the thai forest tradition - see atr article "Seven Stages and Theravada (and other Buddhist traditions)?"" https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/09/seven-stages-and-theravada.html

...

yes and also check out my other article "Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?", a separate article, different from the one on thanissaro http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

"Review complete

Jan 6, 2024

We restored your message

Hi Soh

We found that our technology made a mistake taking your post down.

Thank you for taking the time to request a review and helping us improve our systems. Our priority is keeping the community safe and respectful, so sometimes we have to take precautions.

You sent this in Awakening to Reality Chat

as for those that say buddha taught not self but not no self, i already explained why that is wrong in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html

Jan 6, 2024"

great its restored

Someone wrote to me (Soh) in Hardwarezone forum (Singaporean forum): "What i meant by the source here refers to what was experienced when one has reached a certain state of absorptions where nothing is left only this knowing.

Whether this is that, which is stable, permanent and solid, i don't really have an answer to that but all i can observe is "this knowing seems to be always be there".

....

No offend, but i don't think no-self is correct here. Buddha only said the 5 aggregates are not-self, he didn't say there is no-self.

If we look at the commentary from Thanissaro Bhikkhu, there is a termed called "Conciousness without surface" that hinted on "something" other than the 6 vijnanas that are arising due to causes and conditions but whatever it is i don't think that's all that important. The knowledge of what the 5 aggregates are is more than enough to allow for dispassion to set in.

In a note to MN 49 (source text has links to references), Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu writes the following:

Consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12:64:

“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”

“On the western wall, lord.”

“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”

“On the ground, lord.”

“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”

“On the water, lord.”

“And if there is no water, where does it land?”

“It doesn’t land, lord.”

“In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food… contact… intellectual intention… consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.”

In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a “surface” against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the “all.” For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. And, as SN 35:23 notes, the word “all” in the Buddha’s teaching covers only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space—in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1:10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8:1)—means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbāna, on the grounds that nibbāna is nowhere else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant’s consciousness of nibbāna in meditative experience, and not nibbāna itself. This argument, however, contains a flaw: If nibbāna is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. There are passages in the Canon (such as AN 9:36) that describe meditators experiencing nibbāna as a dhamma, but these passages seem to indicate that this description applies up through the level of non-returning. Other passages, however, describe nibbāna as the ending of all dhammas. For instance, Sn 5:6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all dhammas. Sn 4:6 and Sn 4:10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest dhamma. Thus, for the arahant, nibbāna is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two.

Also, given that this consciousness is independent of the six senses, and that at the death of the arahant the six senses simply grow cold (Iti 44), then such an event should have no effect on it."

Soh's reply:

"Thanks again for sharing. What you are pointing at is more of the I AM. It is an important initial realization of pristine awareness and serves as a foundation for further breakthroughs in my path. However, Buddha's aim is not to teach us the I AM. There are further insights that are crucial and more important for liberation.

Have you read the links I sent earlier: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html ? I think it clarifies a lot.

Also, as John Tan/Thusness also pointed out before,

“The Pristine awareness is often mistaken as the 'Self'. It is especially difficult for one that has intuitively experience the 'Self' to accept 'No-Self'. As I have told you many times that there will come a time when you will intuitively perceive the 'I' -- the pure sense of Existence but you must be strong enough to go beyond this experience until the true meaning of Emptiness becomes clear and thorough. The Pristine Awareness is the so-called True-Self' but why we do not call it a 'Self' and why Buddhism has placed so much emphasis on the Emptiness nature? This then is the true essence of Buddhism. It is needless to stress anything about 'Self' in Buddhism; there are enough of 'Logies' of the 'I" in Indian Philosophies. If one wants to know about the experience of 'I AM', go for the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. We will not know what Buddha truly taught 2500 years ago if we buried ourselves in words. Have no doubt that The Dharma Seal is authentic and not to be confused.

When you have experienced the 'Self' and know that its nature is empty, you will know why to include this idea of a 'Self' into Buddha-Nature is truly unnecessary and meaningless. True Buddhism is not about eliminating the 'small Self' but cleansing this so called 'True Self' (Atman) with the wisdom of Emptiness.” - John Tan, 2005

“Buddhism is nothing but replacing the 'Self' in Hinduism with Condition Arising. Keep the clarity, the presence, the luminosity and eliminate the ultimate 'Self', the controller, the supreme. Still you must taste, sense, eat, hear and see Pure Awareness in every authentication. And every authentication is Bliss.” - John Tan, 2004

"What you are suggesting is already found in Samkhya system. I.e. the twenty four tattvas are not the self aka purusha. Since this system was well known to the Buddha, if that's all his insight was, then his insight is pretty trivial. But Buddha's teachings were novel. Why where they novel? They were novel in the fifth century BCE because of his teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. The refutation of an ultimate self is just collateral damage." - Lopon Malcolm

-- excerpts from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/10/buddha-nature-vs-brahman.html

With due respect to Ven. Thanissaro, I do not agree with his views. I have written my views on this matter in https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self_1.html at length and cited many scriptures.

As for consciousness without surface, I shared my views before: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/01/what-is-consciousness-without-feature.html

Excerpts from

Myriad Objects

Anurag Jain

It is worth mentioning that Thanissaro is reputed to have a subtle eternalist bias in his thinking on Nibbāna and Viññāna Anidassanam.

His ideas on Viññāna anidassanam are absolutely NOT the same as those of someone like Ven. Ñānananda

some quotes from dhammawheel forum:

Buckwheat wrote:

I'm genuinely interested in knowing any weaknesses in Thanissaro's approach

Nyana wrote:

Ṭhānissaro has taken a small number of suttas and forced his interpretation on them to fit with his preconceived thesis about nibbāna, while completely disregarding every credible tradition of Buddhist commentary in the process.

Buckwheat wrote:

Is there another explanation for the following passage besides a consciousness beyond the all (the six sense bases)?

Nyana wrote:

Let me ask you: How can there be a consciousness beyond the six sense bases? Moreover, how could nibbāna ever be known except through the mind (manas)?

Buckwheat wrote:

(1) The term viññanam anidassanam also occurs in DN 11, where it is described as where name & form are brought to an end: surely a synonym for nibbana.

Nyana wrote:

This doesn't support his thesis in any way.

also

Nyana wrote:

In the endnotes to MN 49 he also asserts that nibbāna is a form of consciousness:

“Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is no where else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself.”

No Indian Buddhist author -- whether Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mādhyamaka, or Yogācāra -- ever made this assertion that nibbāna is a type of consciousness. And in the Introduction to his translation of the same sutta he also asserts that this consciousness is not known by means of any of the six senses at all:

“The Buddha describes his awakened knowledge in a variety of ways ... by describing an awakened consciousness that is not known by means of any of the six senses at all.... Some of these assertions — in particular, the assertion of a consciousness not mediated by any of the six senses — are extremely important dhamma lessons....”

And in the endnotes to MN 38 he asserts that this consciousness is not included in the consciousness aggregate:

“The Buddha, knowing that there are two types of consciousness — the consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha), which is experienced in conjunction with the six sense media, and consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), which is experienced independently of the six sense media....”

Again, no Indian Buddhist author -- whether Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mādhyamaka, or Yogācāra -- ever made any of these assertions. So apparently we are to believe that Ṭhānissaro has re-discovered the correct understanding of nibbāna as a form of consciousness which can only be experienced independently of the six sense media, that somehow eluded all of the best and brightest minds of Buddhist India!

His interpretation of nibbāna is very novel. It's also nonsense.

also

Nyana wrote:

Ṭhānissaro also thinks that his assertion of a post-mortem "unadulterated experience" of "absolute freedom from all constraints of time, space, and being" should somehow exempt him from getting entangled in wrong views. Well, it doesn't.

1

 ·

Reply

 · 29m

 ·

Edited

Myriad Objects

So for someone like Ven. Ñānananda, viññāna anidassanam is merely when ignorance ceases and the Arahant no longer reifies a self or objectifies a world - the Venerable likes to use the terminology “seeing THROUGH the object” - seeing the essencelessness of appearances through wisdom - but the appearances are still there, just understood properly through wisdom & there is no “independent transcendent consciousness” apart from the appearances.

For Thanissaro, viññāna anidassanam is some kind of completely independent consciousness experienced outside of space and time, it is literally considered to be like an “element” existing on its own where there is no coming or going, no sun and moon...etc.

He also states that this special consciousness is the ‘unadulterated experience of an Arahant after death.’

He argues that this consciousness is completely equivalent with Nibbāna itself.

The latter view is eternalist and has no precedent in the history of Buddhist tradition.

1

 ·

Reply

 · 11m

 ·

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon

Author

Myriad Objects

I will need to post this to AtR blog for future reference.

Let me know if there are any other things I should post to the blog.

 ·

Reply

 ·

Myriad Objects

Anurag Jain

These quotations are well-explained in detail by Venerable Ñānananda without any need to resort to jumping to wrong conclusions that:

- There is some “independent transcendent consciousness apart from the six sense bases”

- That this viññāna anidassanam can even be equated with nibbāna at all

- That this refers to anything but the mind when it stops ignorantly bifurcating appearances into a reified “Self vs World”

 ·

Reply

 · 7m

 ·

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon

Author

Thanissaro is an eternalist, like many (most) Thai forest monks, I believe.

1

 ·

Reply

 · 11m

 ·

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon

Author

*most

 ·

Reply

 · 9m

Soh Wei Yu

badge icon

Author

All Thai forest teachers that I know of are eternalists stuck at I AM and one mind with the exception of:

Ajahn Buddhadhasa

Phra Kovit Khemananda (Ajahn Buddhadhasa's student)

Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero

Ajahn Brahmavamso

---

I also think Krodha/Kyle Dixon said it well on the topic of Thanissaro and anatta:

Krodha/Kyle Dixon:

"The point is that anātman is not intended to be a sort of apophatic exercise as Thanissaro suggests. Rather it is the lack of a svabhāva or inherent self in the mind. The prevailing issue with Thanissaro’s approach is that you have people who wrongly assert that the Buddha never said there is no self, which is an absurd misconception. The Buddha clearly and routinely says there is no self to be found in any phenomena anywhere.

Now, does this negate the action of “taking out the trash” as you mention, no, because that is a conventional action performed by a conventional self. We as Buddhists, do not negate the validity of conventional activities and entities as these things appear, we simply state that all conventional designations are ultimately only nominal in nature. Nominal, meaning inferential in the sense that the associated imputation suggests the validity of an entity, however if we investigate the basis of said imputation, the entity cannot actually be found because it is merely an abstraction. A useful abstraction, but not actually established or real.

In this way you can be a conventional individual who takes out the trash and performs many activities, but like an image of a tiger in a dream, there is no actual tiger present. The same goes for the appearance of you as a conventional individual taking the trash out, there is not actually an individual there when the imputed self is keenly scrutinized."

I also like what Kyle Dixon said before,

“I genuinely feel that while Thanissaro Bikkhu’s contributions to dharma are great in terms of his translations, that he does a great disservice to people trying to understand this profound dharma by promulgating this “not-self” apophatic misinterpretation of anātman. The parroting of this view is so prevalent nowadays, I do indeed feel it is necessary to object when I see it expressed. Especially in the lazy way it is usually demonstrated in brief tag line comments with no unpacking of the alleged logic behind the claim, such as, “the Buddha never said there is no self,” or “anatta doesn’t mean no self.”

To me this is an expression of this degenerate yūga and is a poisoning of buddhadharma. So while sure, I can be more gentle and polite about it if we are concerned about the tone, I very much take issue with these views, and while I am being assertive rather then hostile, I’ll concede and find a better way to communicate my utter disagreement with said views if that is deemed necessary.”

Actually Anatman realization does not negate the knowingness, the "poo roo", only that its nature is revealed to be nondual and empty of inherent existence.

"'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to  convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating  the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or  knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the  sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are  merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place  [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle Dixon, 2014

If you read the Amness link https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html above you will have seen relevant quotes on this subject:

2007:

(4:20 PM) Thusness:    buddhism stresses more on direct experience.

(4:20 PM) Thusness:    there is no-self apart from the arising and ceasing

(4:20 PM) AEN:    icic..

(4:20 PM) Thusness:    and from arising and ceasing one sees the emptiness nature of 'Self'

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    There is Witnessing.

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    Witnessing is the manifestation.

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    there is no witness witnessing manifestation.

(4:21 PM) Thusness:    that is buddhism.

2007:

(11:42 PM) Thusness:    i have always said it is not the denial of eternal witness.

(11:42 PM) Thusness:    but what exactly is that eternal witness?

(11:42 PM) Thusness:    it is the real understanding of eternal witness.

(11:43 PM) AEN:    yeah i tot so

(11:43 PM) AEN:    so its something like david carse right

(11:43 PM) Thusness:    without the 'seeing' and 'veil' of momentum, of reacting to propensities.

(11:43 PM) AEN:    emptiness, yet luminous

(11:43 PM) AEN:    icic

(11:43 PM) Thusness:    however when one quote what buddha said, does he understand first of all.

(11:43 PM) Thusness:    is he seeing eternal witness as in the advaita?

(11:44 PM) AEN:    he's probably confused

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    or is he seeing free from propensities.

(11:44 PM) AEN:    he never explicitly mention but i believe his understanding is something like that la

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    so there is no point quoting if it is not seen.

(11:44 PM) AEN:    icic

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    otherwise it is just saying the atman view again.

(11:44 PM) Thusness:    so u should be very clear by now...and not to be confused.

(11:44 PM) AEN:    icic

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    what have i told u?

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    u have also written in ur blog.

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    what is eternal witness?

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    it is the manifestation...moment to moment of arising

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    does one see with the propensities and what is really it?

(11:45 PM) Thusness:    that is more important.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    i have said so many times that the experience is correct but the understanding is wrong.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    wrong view.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    and how perception influence experience and wrong understanding.

(11:46 PM) Thusness:    so don't quote here and there with just a snap shot...

(11:47 PM) Thusness:    be very very clear and know with wisdom so that u will know what is right and wrong view.

(11:47 PM) Thusness:    otherwise u will be reading this and get confused with that.

2007:

(3:55 PM) Thusness:    it is not to deny the existence of the luminosity

(3:55 PM) Thusness:    the knowingness

(3:55 PM) Thusness:    but rather to have the correct view of what consciousness is.

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    like non-dual

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    i said there is no witness apart from the manifestation, the witness is really the manifestation

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    this is the first part

(3:56 PM) Thusness:    since the witness is the manifestation, how is it so?

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    how is the one is really the many?

(3:57 PM) AEN:    conditions?

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    saying that the one is the many is already wrong.

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    this is using conventional way of expression.

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    for in reality, there is no such thing of the 'one'

(3:57 PM) Thusness:    and the many

(3:58 PM) Thusness:    there is only arising and ceasing due to emptiness nature

(3:58 PM) Thusness:    and the arising and ceasing itself is the clarity.

(3:58 PM) Thusness:    there is no clarity apart from the phenomena

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    if we experience non-dual like ken wilber and talk about the atman.

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    though the experience is true, the understanding is wrong.

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    this is similar to "I AM".

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    except that it is higher form of experience.

(4:00 PM) Thusness:    it is non-dual.

Session Start: Sunday, October 19, 2008

(1:01 PM) Thusness: Yes

(1:01 PM) Thusness: Actually practice is not to deny this 'Jue' (awareness)

(6:11 PM) Thusness: the way u explained as if 'there is no Awareness'.

(6:11 PM) Thusness: People at times mistaken what u r trying to convey.but to correctly understand this 'jue' so that it can be experienced from all moments effortlessly.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: But when a practitioner heard that it is not 'IT', they immediately began to worry because it is their most precious state.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: All the phases written is about this 'Jue' or Awareness.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: However what Awareness really is isn't correctly experienced.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: Because it isn't correctly experienced, we say that 'Awareness that u try to keep' does not exist in such a way.

(1:01 PM) Thusness: It does not mean there is no Awareness.

2010:

(12:02 AM) Thusness: it is not that there is no awareness

(12:02 AM) Thusness: it is understanding awareness not from a subject/object view

(12:02 AM) Thusness: not from an inherent view

(12:03 AM) Thusness: that is dissolving subject/object understanding into events, action, karma

(12:04 AM) Thusness: then we gradually understand that the 'feeling' of someone there is really just a 'sensation' of an inherent view

(12:04 AM) Thusness: means a 'sensation', a 'thought'

of

an

inherent view

:p

(12:06 AM) Thusness: how this lead to liberation requires the direct experience

(12:06 AM) Thusness: so liberation it is not freedom from 'self' but freedom from 'inherent view'

(12:07 AM) AEN: icic..

(12:07 AM) Thusness: get it?

(12:07 AM) Thusness: but it is important to experience luminosity

Session Start: Saturday, 27 March, 2010

(9:54 PM) Thusness: Not bad for self-enquiry

(9:55 PM) AEN: icic..

btw what do u think lucky and chandrakirti is trying to convey

(9:56 PM) Thusness: those quotes weren't really well translated in my opinion.

(9:57 PM) Thusness: what needs be understood is 'No I' is not to deny Witnessing consciousness.

(9:58 PM) Thusness: and 'No Phenomena' is not to deny Phenomena

(9:59 PM) Thusness: It is just for the purpose of 'de-constructing' the mental constructs.

(10:00 PM) AEN: oic..

(10:01 PM) Thusness: when u hear sound, u cannot deny it...can u?

(10:01 PM) AEN: ya

(10:01 PM) Thusness: so what r u denying?

(10:02 PM) Thusness: when u experience the Witness as u described in ur thread 'certainty of being', how can u deny this realization?

(10:03 PM) Thusness: so what is does 'no I' and 'no phenomena' mean?

(10:03 PM) AEN: like u said its only mental constructs that are false... but consciousness cant be denied ?

(10:03 PM) Thusness: no...i am not saying that

Buddha never deny the aggregates

(10:04 PM) Thusness: just the selfhood

(10:04 PM) Thusness: the problem is what is meant by 'non-inherent', empty nature, of phenomena and 'I'

[continued in link, too long to paste] https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html"

-----

p.s. my earlier posts to him:

I saw your post where you said something like you realised the source. Can you describe how was it like for you experientially? And can you also relate with the links i sent above?

What you wrote sounds like non doership.. my article clarifies the distinctions. There are two citadels of self as Ajahn Brahmavamso puts it.

I wrote last year to someone,

“

However, if someone claims to have awakened in the Buddhist sense, but then they say their subject object sense is still strong or present, I would say this person hasn't really attained true Buddhist awakening. Even if they claim to realise no self, it is not the true Buddhist no self insight, but only halfway there.

Like Ajahn Brahmavamso said those who practice meditation and jhanas can first overcome self by seeing through and dissolving the doer. Only later, at a more mature phase, the "last citadel of self" -- the knower -- is seen through. How can you say for example that the self is truly seen through but still hold oneself to be a knower behind the known (subject and object)? So that cannot be, obviously.

The true Buddhist insight of anatta is not only seeing through doer, but also agent, knower, perceiver, seer, hearer, be-er, being, etc etc. Total deconstruction of all self/Self. Then that I consider true insight.. and Yin Ling and Sim Pern Chong fortunately has that deep penetrative insight.”

Also here is another excerpt of something I wrote, from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/09/seven-stages-and-theravada.html

• 
  
  • 
    
• 
  
• 
  
  
• Soh Wei YuYin Ling
  
  Thai forest emphasizes going through I AM at least initially but maybe not burmese and other forms of theravada.
  
  For example ajahn brahmavamso described anatta insight but went through I AM first.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  • Reply
  • 1d
  • 
    
• 
  
  
• Soh Wei YuAjahn brahmavamso on I AM:
  
  “When the Body Disappears.
  
  Remember "con men," "con women" as well. These con

(Long text snipped, refer to link above for full text)

• 
  
  • 1d
  • 
    
• 
  
  
• Soh Wei YuAjahn brahmavamso on anatta insight:
  
  Excerpt from
  
  https://www.dhammatalks.net/.../Ajahn_Brahm_BAHIYA_S...
  
  The Final Part of Bāhiya's Teaching
  
  "Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: in the seen will be merely what is seen, ... in the cognized will merely be what is cognized. Practising in this way, Bāhiya, you will not be 'because of that'. When you are not 'because of that', you will not be 'in that'. And when you are not 'in that', you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
  
  What does it mean "you will not be 'because of that'"? The Pāli is na tena. Tena is the instrumental of the word for 'that'. Na is the negative. It means, literally, "not because of that, not through that, not by that". It means in essence, you will not assume that there is a self, a soul, a me; because of, through, or by; the seen or the heard or the sensed or the cognized. The Buddha is saying that once you have penetrated the truth of sensory experience, by suppressing the Hindrances through Jhāna, you will see that there is no 'doer', nor a 'knower', behind sensory experience. No longer will you be able to use sensory experience as evidence for a self. Descartes' famous "I am because I think" is refuted. You will not be because of thinking, nor because of seeing, hearing or sensing. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be because of that (any sensory experience)".
  
  When the sensory processes are discarded as tenable evidence for a self, a soul or a me, then you are no longer located in the sensory experience. In the Buddha's words, "You will not be 'in that'". You no longer view, perceive or even think that there is a 'me' involved in life. In the words of the doctor in the original series of Star Trek, "It is life, Jim, but not as we know it"! There is no longer any sense of self, or soul, at the centre of experience. You are no more 'in that'.
  
  Just to close off the loophole that you might think you can escape non-existence of a self or soul by identifying with a transcendental state of being beyond what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized, the Buddha thunders, "and you will be neither here (with the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor beyond (outside of the seen, heard, sensed or cognized) nor in between the two (neither of the world nor beyond the world). The last phrase comprehensively confounded the sophists!
  
  In summary, the Buddha advised both Bāhiya and Venerable Mālunkyaputta to experience the Jhānas to suppress the Five Hindrances. Thereby one will discern with certainty the absence of a self or a soul behind the sensory process. Consequently, sensory experience will never again be taken as evidence of a 'knower' or a 'doer': such that you will never imagine a self or a soul at the centre of experience, nor beyond, nor anywhere else. Bāhiya's Teaching put in a nutshell the way to the realization of No-Self, Anattā. "Just this", concluded the Buddha "is the end of suffering".
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  DHAMMATALKS.NET
  Ajahn Brahmavamso - BĀHIYA'S TEACHING
  
  Ajahn Brahmavamso - BĀHIYA'S TEACHING
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  1
  
  
  
  
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview

More posts by Kyle Dixon in 2024:

You are citing an excerpt that is cautioning against intellectual identification with a “view,” meaning a conceptual conclusion divorced from experiential realization. Akin to merely identifying with the idea that sugar is “sweet” and attaching to that mere view without having actually tasted sugar experientially.
This is not a rejection that there ultimately is no self. It is obvious from the Buddha’s teachings on the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus that there is no self as a core entity within that nexus. Further, the Buddha is very clear that there is no self in any conditioned or unconditioned phenomena, which exhausts the gamut of possibilities in which a self could reside.
“Non self” and “no self” are identical views. u/optimistically_eyed (since you’re involved in this discussion).
To add, I think monkey_sage’s comments about “no self” damaging the presentation of the Buddha’s teaching in the West are absurd and frankly abhorrent.
The definition of anātman is very clear, the Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā:



——

Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature (svabhāva). The non-existence of that is selflessness (anātman).



——


The entire “no self” versus “not self” thing is total nonsense, they are identical in meaning. There is only one domain of anātman, and it is the absence of a self as a core essence that is the owner of characteristics or an agent of actions.


—-


Here’s an old post I made:

There is a group of individuals who interpret anatta in an apophatic way based on SN 44:10, and Thanissaro Bikkhu’s insistence on “not self,” but the conclusion drawn is illogical, given that the consequence of “not self” would still be absence of a self. They assert there is no outright negation of a self, even though the Pāli suttas state sabbe dhamma anatta repeatedly, these individuals sometimes even believe the prospect of some sort of self that is exempt from “all dhammas” is somehow plausible.

This idea from Thanissaro is not an official position given that other Theravadins like Bhante Sujato disagree. Bhante Sujato says this idea that the Buddha refused to answer is false and that Thanissaro’s assertion to that end is flawed or incomplete. Sujato cites Bikkhu Bodhi for clarification, and explains that the silence in that one particular instance was to keep Vacchagotta from adopting a view of annihilationism where a self currently exists and then ceases to exist.

But Thanissaro is very popular so people consider his view authoritative. Arguably, as I’ve witnessed, adopting this “not-self” view as a process that does not make an ultimate claim regarding the impossibility of a substantial self results in an indifferent, indiscriminate no-man’s land of a position on anatta that injures the import and intention of the view.

The real meaning of anātman is selflessness, lack of self, without self, no self, absence of self and so on. The realization of anātman, which is the absence of the background substrate which the self or entity is imputed onto is the insight that brings about the species of awakening that the buddhadharma champions.

If the consequence of “not self” is not “no self,” as in an absence of a substantial selfhood, then “not-self” as a gloss and principle is an inadequate exercise in apophatic theology which will not go the distance. Still, the logical consequence of “not-self” is the same if the import of anātman in both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas is properly understood. Thus even if not-self is the exercise one chooses, then all phenomena and non-phenomena should be understood to be “not self” and then there is then no self to be found anywhere, and the same consequence is made apparent.

A lack of an inherent self is not annihilation, but the doorway to actualizing our true modality of cognition as gnosis [jñāna]. As Śākyamuni Buddha states in the Śatasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra:

If it asked what is the samadhi known as the lamp of gnosis [jñāna], abiding in that samadhi is clearly explained as the absence of self in phenomena and persons.