<p>I think that the &quot;Eternalism&quot; that's described as wrong view in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 1</a> is like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... and this sutta isn't teaching that &quot;The self and the world are eternal&quot; so it's not teaching eternalism.</p>
<p>You emphasize the word &quot;you&quot; (as the subject of this question). I think there are other topics on this site, about how names and pronouns can be used &quot;conventionally&quot; without presupposing an <em>atta</em> -- that's also the subject of the &quot;simile of the chariot&quot; (in the Milinda Pañha).</p>
<p>Conversely, although there's no permanent &quot;self&quot;, there are tears, suffering, in that <em>dukkha</em> is said to be an inherent characteristic.</p>
<p>I think it's important to read things in context, and not take things out of context -- the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Water-Snake Simile</a> is an example of someone (Arittha) taking an element of doctrine out-of-context:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here I think the context is to point out that though the world and time are vast, so are the corresponding tears -- and seeing that ought to turn the audience toward dispassion.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-14T13:44:47.183Z
this answer appears a reasonable attempt however the following appears wrong: 'although there's no permanent "self", there are tears, suffering, in that dukkha is said to be an inherent characteristic." It appears obvious tears & suffering are not an inherent characteristic. The inherent characteristic called "dukkha" appears not about emotions but about all compounded things being not a source of lasting happiness. For example a rock is dukkha because it cannot bring lasting happiness. A rock is not dukkha because it has tears.  Regards
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-14T13:50:05.370Z
eternalism is also described differently in SN 12.17 & SN 44.10
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-14T14:33:10.173Z
Some versions of the doctrine ("dhamma seals" rather than "characteristics") say that dukkha isn't an inherent characteristic but is instead a human/unenlightened projection onto the rock.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-14T23:19:18.117Z
sorry the above comment is heretical . thanjks
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-15T01:27:35.027Z
I think Thich Nhat Hanh said something like, that dukkha is a human experience -- and not experienced by the Enlightened.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-11T18:27:33.443Z
2022-04-11T18:27:33.443Z
ChrisW
<p>The quoted passage is similar in nature to the following.</p>
<p>&quot;I&quot;, &quot;you&quot; and a view of a continuously existing self are used to generate the path, using this contemplation. Therefore, it's skillful means. It's typically targeted at those with self view.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.<br />
<a href="https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.57</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-14T13:42:23.833Z
strange sutta given MN 117 says kamma is not noble right view. very strange
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-12T01:57:44.720Z
2022-04-12T02:07:49.833Z
2022-04-12T02:07:49.833Z
ruben2020
<p>Why is Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?</p>
<p>Key Pali words in Chapter 15 are saṁsāro, sandhāvataṁ &amp; saṁsarataṁ. SN 22.99 shows these words do not necessarily refer &quot;transmigration&quot; or &quot;reincarnation&quot;, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, this saṁsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.</p>
<p>Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a strong post or pillar: it would just keep on running and revolving around that same post or pillar. So too, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self … feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self…. He just keeps running and revolving around form, around feeling, around perception, around volitional formations, around consciousness. As he keeps on running and revolving around them, he is not freed from form, not freed from feeling, not freed from perception, not freed from volitional formations, not freed from consciousness. He is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.99/en/bodhi?reference=pts&highlight=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhikkhu Bodhi translation</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Worse, in MN 38, a bhikkhu named Sati was rebuked for saying a &quot;same consciousness&quot; roams &amp; wanders, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now on that occasion a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Sāti, son of a fisherman, thus:</p>
<p>“tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṁ viññāṇaṁ sandhāvati saṁsarati anaññan”ti.</p>
<p>“As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another.”</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi?reference=pts&highlight=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhikkhu Bodhi translated; &quot;rebirth&quot; embellishment removed</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As for the Pali word &quot;sattānaṁ&quot; (&quot;beings&quot;; plural), SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define &quot;satta&quot; (&quot;a being&quot;; singular) as merely strong attachment and a view, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
be 'a being'?</p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'</p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...</p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'</p>
<p>&quot;Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4]
as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst,
fever, &amp; craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they
have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel
possessive of them.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 23.2</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” replied to him in verses:</p>
<p>“Why now do you assume ‘a being’? Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found.</p>
<p>“Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So,
when the aggregates exist, There is the convention ‘a being.’</p>
<p>“It’s only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering
ceases.”</p>
<p>SN 5.10</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, SN 12.2 defines &quot;jati&quot; (&quot;birth&quot;) &amp; &quot;marana&quot; (&quot;death&quot;) as applying to a &quot;class/category&quot; (&quot;nikaya&quot;) of &quot;beings&quot;. &quot;Mother&quot;, &quot;father&quot;, &quot;sister&quot;, &quot;son&quot;, etc, appear to be examples of classes of beings mentally created from attachment at &quot;birth&quot;; which are also subject to &quot;death&quot;. MN 26 &amp; SN 12.66 calls such things &quot;acquisitions&quot;, which are subject to &quot;birth&quot; &amp; &quot;death&quot; because they are &quot;acquisitions&quot; (&quot;upadhi&quot;) the mind is bound to via &quot;attachment&quot; (&quot;upadana&quot;).</p>
<p>Therefore, the above suttas appear to show 'saṁsāra' does not refer to 'transmigration' or 'reincarnation'.</p>
<p>As for the phrase: &quot;<em>The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and wandering is indeed more than the water in the four oceans</em>&quot;... literally it sounds ridiculous.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-14T23:55:05.360Z
2022-04-14T23:55:05.360Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Saṁyutta Nikāya (SN) 15.3 when translated by Ven. Sujato says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is
found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time <strong>you</strong> have
undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why are suttas similar to the above in Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?</p>

<pali-canon><sutras>
Why is Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?
# Why is Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-10)

Saṁyutta Nikāya (SN) 15.3 when translated by Ven. Sujato says:

> Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is
> found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
> ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time **you** have
> undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
> This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
> and freed regarding all conditions.

Why are suttas similar to the above in Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?

**Tags:** pali-canon, sutras


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-04-11. Score: 2

I think that the "Eternalism" that's described as wrong view in [DN 1](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html) is like this:

> The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.

... and this sutta isn't teaching that "The self and the world are eternal" so it's not teaching eternalism.

You emphasize the word "you" (as the subject of this question). I think there are other topics on this site, about how names and pronouns can be used "conventionally" without presupposing an *atta* -- that's also the subject of the "simile of the chariot" (in the Milinda Pañha).

Conversely, although there's no permanent "self", there are tears, suffering, in that *dukkha* is said to be an inherent characteristic.

I think it's important to read things in context, and not take things out of context -- the [The Water-Snake Simile](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html) is an example of someone (Arittha) taking an element of doctrine out-of-context:

> Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.

Here I think the context is to point out that though the world and time are vast, so are the corresponding tears -- and seeing that ought to turn the audience toward dispassion.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: this answer appears a reasonable attempt however the following appears wrong: 'although there's no permanent "self", there are tears, suffering, in that dukkha is said to be an inherent characteristic." It appears obvious tears & suffering are not an inherent characteristic. The inherent characteristic called "dukkha" appears not about emotions but about all compounded things being not a source of lasting happiness. For example a rock is dukkha because it cannot bring lasting happiness. A rock is not dukkha because it has tears.  Regards  
> **username_0**: eternalism is also described differently in SN 12.17 & SN 44.10  
> **username_1**: Some versions of the doctrine ("dhamma seals" rather than "characteristics") say that dukkha isn't an inherent characteristic but is instead a human/unenlightened projection onto the rock.  
> **username_0**: sorry the above comment is heretical . thanjks  
> **username_1**: I think Thich Nhat Hanh said something like, that dukkha is a human experience -- and not experienced by the Enlightened.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-04-12. Score: 0

The quoted passage is similar in nature to the following.

"I", "you" and a view of a continuously existing self are used to generate the path, using this contemplation. Therefore, it's skillful means. It's typically targeted at those with self view.

> “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
> owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
> origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
> the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
> that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
> their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
> kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
> whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
> this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
> and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
> and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.  
> [AN 5.57](https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: strange sutta given MN 117 says kamma is not noble right view. very strange  

---

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-04-14. Score: -1

Why is Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?

Key Pali words in Chapter 15 are saṁsāro, sandhāvataṁ & saṁsarataṁ. SN 22.99 shows these words do not necessarily refer "transmigration" or "reincarnation", as follows:

> At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, this saṁsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
>
> Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a strong post or pillar: it would just keep on running and revolving around that same post or pillar. So too, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self … feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self…. He just keeps running and revolving around form, around feeling, around perception, around volitional formations, around consciousness. As he keeps on running and revolving around them, he is not freed from form, not freed from feeling, not freed from perception, not freed from volitional formations, not freed from consciousness. He is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.
>
> [Bhikkhu Bodhi translation](https://suttacentral.net/sn22.99/en/bodhi?reference=pts&highlight=true)

Worse, in MN 38, a bhikkhu named Sati was rebuked for saying a "same consciousness" roams & wanders, as follows:

> Now on that occasion a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Sāti, son of a fisherman, thus:
>
> “tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṁ viññāṇaṁ sandhāvati saṁsarati anaññan”ti.
>
> “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another.”
>
> [Bhikkhu Bodhi translated; "rebirth" embellishment removed](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi?reference=pts&highlight=true)

As for the Pali word "sattānaṁ" ("beings"; plural), SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "satta" ("a being"; singular) as merely strong attachment and a view, as follows:

> 'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
> be 'a being'?
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
> caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
> fabrications...
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
> when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
> being.'
>
> "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4]
> as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst,
> fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they
> have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel
> possessive of them.
>
> [SN 23.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html)

> Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, “This is Mara the Evil One,” replied to him in verses:
>
> “Why now do you assume ‘a being’? Mara, is that your speculative view?
> This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found.
>
> “Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So,
> when the aggregates exist, There is the convention ‘a being.’
>
> “It’s only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
> away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering
> ceases.”
>
> SN 5.10

In addition, SN 12.2 defines "jati" ("birth") & "marana" ("death") as applying to a "class/category" ("nikaya") of "beings". "Mother", "father", "sister", "son", etc, appear to be examples of classes of beings mentally created from attachment at "birth"; which are also subject to "death". MN 26 & SN 12.66 calls such things "acquisitions", which are subject to "birth" & "death" because they are "acquisitions" ("upadhi") the mind is bound to via "attachment" ("upadana").

Therefore, the above suttas appear to show 'saṁsāra' does not refer to 'transmigration' or 'reincarnation'.

As for the phrase: "*The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and wandering is indeed more than the water in the four oceans*"... literally it sounds ridiculous.


---

