Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Dear Lance,

On 8 May 2012 16:16, L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...> wrote:

> I am not convinced that there is any idea of creating a self in a
>
> negative sense in ancient Buddhism. This seems to be a product of the
>
introduction of ideas from modern psychotherapy, etc. Rather because of
> wrong thinking and distorted notions we construct ideas about a supposed
> permanent self, which are delusory and the product of defilements, etc.
> and similarly we construct ideas about our future.
>
> So I think the main point is to reject non-Buddhist claims that Self is
> known as a matter of direct experience (=pratyakṣa).
>
I didn't think that Bryan intended such a notion, and I certainly didn't
intend any such notion.  My reference to "attapaccakkhāni in the
'conventional', 'idiomatic' sense" was merely to the 'ordinary, idiomatic'
meaning of attapaccakkha - as Cone puts it, "seen by oneself, with one's
own eyes".  Of course, such an expression no more entails a nominal Self -
let alone a 'negative Self', whatever that might be - than does a sutta
locution such as "bhikkhunā attanāva attānaṃ evaṃ paccavekkhitabbaṃ".

Rather, I took the sense of " na attapaccakkhāni" to be that these (wrong)
views of Self are in fact not founded on any direct, personal experience of
such a Self.  In that sense, "na attapaccakkhāni" might perhaps even be
taken as somewhat playfully ironic.

On the other hand, while I would agree with you that there can be no doubt
that a 'permanent Self' is categorically ruled out in early Buddhadhamma
(EB), and I take anattā to be virtually axiomatic in EB, I think that the
function and importance of 'subjectivity' - which *does not *entail *either
*a 'Self' *or *a 'Subject' - and, correlatively, of 'agency', is
fundamental to EB.  I see no contradiction between 'subjectivity' and
'agency' and anattā, so long as 'subjectivity' and 'agency' are not
"reified" into entities/objects, etc.

But this would lead on to a quite different discussion.

Metta,
Khristos


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]