What the Buddha Didn't Say

Philosophy of Religion
1

The Buddha's Noble Silence
The Buddha's Noble Silence800×436 35.5 KB

Unlike the Christian faith, Buddhism does not begin with the creation of the world. Instead, it begins with the fact of suffering and the question of how it may be brought to an end.

The first thing many of us learn about Buddhism is that the Buddha teaches ‘there is no self’. However, if we study the Buddhist texts carefully, we will learn that this is not quite right. But we will also learn that the Buddha didn’t teach that ‘there is a self’.

In fact, when asked whether there is a self or not, the Buddha declined to answer. Why he did so is key to understanding a central Buddhist principle.

The ‘sutta’ (discourse) in which this exchange is recorded is brief. Preserved in Pali — the canonical language of Theravāda Buddhism — it recounts a dialogue between the Buddha and a wandering seeker. Like nearly all the early discourses, it takes the form of a question-and-answer exchange — except that in this case, the question receives no answer.

Let’s see why.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Master Gotama, is there a self?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

“Then is there no self?”

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.¹

The Ānanda Sutta retrieved 23rd Feb 2026

When later asked by his attendant Ānanda why he had remained silent, the Buddha explained that affirming a self (‘Yes’) would align him with eternalists, who teach that there is an unchanging soul that endures forever. But denying the self (‘No’) would place him among annihilationists, who hold that the self is utterly destroyed at death with no consequences of actions done in this life.²

Later Buddhist tradition refers to these as ‘the two extreme views’.

Finally, the Buddha adds, such a denial would only deepen Vacchagotta’s confusion, causing him to wonder what had become of the self he thought he was or had.

The Parable of the Poison Arrow

There are other such questions that the Buddha declined to answer. The same ‘wanderer Vachagotta’ was a character in the Buddhist texts who was prone to putting questions to the Buddha that we would nowadays call philosophical.

Does the world have a beginning in time, or not? Does the Buddha live on after death, or not? Are the soul and the body identical, or not?³

Each of these questions is met with a ‘noble silence’. Why? Because in each case, the question does not lead to the cessation of suffering. Furthermore, attempting to answer them becomes a distraction from the real task at hand: understanding the cause of suffering and the path to its cessation.

This was the subject of one of the Buddha’s most famous and often–quoted similes: that of the poison arrow.

Imagine a man is struck by a poisoned arrow. His friends and family rush to fetch a surgeon. But the wounded man refuses treatment until he knows who shot the arrow. Was he a noble or a commoner? Tall or short? From which village? What wood was used for the shaft? What feathers fletched it? What poison tipped its head?⁴

Before these questions are answered, the Buddha says, the man would die.

The point is not that such philosophical questions are meaningless. It is that they are misdirected. They do not address the urgent condition the man finds himself in. The task is not to complete an inventory of the situation, but to remove the arrow, post haste.

(Image generated by author using GoogleFX. Remainder of this essay can be accessed on Medium.)

2 Likes
2

Interesting thread. A question came to mind:

How would Buddhism handle uncomfortable truths? It never struck me as the type of philosophy/religion to shy away from those, just to avoid suffering.

The thought crossed my mind that the reason Buddha doesn’t answer the questions is because the answers to them are unknowable.

What are your thoughts?

3

That’s true, in a way, but it can be a trite answer - like a shrug. In pracrtice the list of ‘undetermined questions’ is quite precisely formulated:

(1) Is the universe eternal?

(2) Is the universe not eternal?

(3) Is the universe finite?

(4) Is the universe infinite?

(5) Are the soul and the body the same?

(6) Are the soul and the body not the same?

(7) Will the enlightened one be reborn after death?

(8) Will the enlightened one not be reborn after death?

(9) Will the enlightened one both be reborn and not be reborn after death?

(10) Will the enlightened one neither be reborn nor not be reborn after death?

The point of the essay is that these kinds of questions generate huge controversy in Western culture. I go on to say, consider the first words of the Bible, ‘God created the Earth’. Everything afterwards flows from that, meaning that many questions of ethics and culture depend on the answer. But I say that, in contrast, the Buddhist teaching focusses on the ‘cause of suffering and its end’, without necessarily tackling metaphysical questions of those kinds.

1 Like
4

I am intrigued by the term ‘noble silence’ as a response to the ‘wandering seeker’.
Why the adjective ‘noble’? Should I not even be asking such questions or pondering the nature of humans? Questions in and of themselves do not necessarily lead to ‘suffering’. And what if they do?
Amongst other things humans are curious.
I understand and appreciate the importance of silence and spiritual practice to harmonise mind, body and spirit.
The human self is more than inner reflection. The awareness is also of inter-relationships in the world. Not just religious but secular. Different kinds of wisdom. Personal and practical.
Unsure about Buddha’s either/or in the following quote:

It seems wisdom seekers are told not to ask such questions.
‘Noble silence’ reminds me of Plato’s ‘noble lie’ in the Republic. As I understand it, the myth of metals - different ones for different souls or citizens - to justify social hierarchy. The issue relates to the morality of deception for the greater good. Can this kind of ‘nobility’ be likened to the justification for a morality of silence?
Who is to say what we should or should not question, especially about religion and social structure? Power and control of the individual seems pervasive, even paternalistic?

This shows the difference between an acute and a chronic situation; human trauma or illness.
An acutely, physically wounded person (sufferer) is unlikely to spend time pondering such questions. However, life experienced humans with essential knowledge can prepare for best outcomes. (Stoicism or CBT - visualisation or ‘Know thyself’?).
If suffering is mental rather than physical, then self-knowledge is vital. What does that involve in a spiritual sense? Philosophically?
There will always be some kind of pain/pleasure balance, won’t there?
Are aspects of human experience not to be questioned?
This ‘noble silence’ seems to emanate from a higher power. For some, it may well be the right remedy for their ailments.

5

By the way, congratulations on the image and article. Great work! :slight_smile:

6

Perhaps to indicate an attitude of forbearance rather than impatience or indifference.

We are of course perfectly free to ponder any questions we like, as is amply illustrated by the many diverse conversations on this very forum.

But the Buddha had something very specific to convey. What that is, is not the subject of this essay. The point of this essay is simply that Buddhism deals with the ultimate questions of life and death. without having to ask such questions as ‘how did the world begin?’ It really starts with the question as to the origin of suffering (although that is a translation of a Buddhist term, ‘dukkha’, which is variously translated as suffering or stress or sorrow.)

Another curious point that scholars have noticed is the similarity between the kinds of questions that the Buddha declined to answer, and Kant’s antinomies of reason. Kant also said it is a peculiarity of human reason to ask questions for which no answer is possible. At least some of Kant’s antinomies are the same as the Buddha’s unanswered questions, which points to a similar insight, even though they are separated by millenia and great cultural differences.

Well, that’s back to the positive character of Buddhist philosophy. I’m afraid I’m not able to describe that in detail in a forum post. But some general observaitons can be made. The first link in the chain that leads to suffering is ignorance, although that has a different meaning in Indian philosophy than in everyday life. It could be compared to spiritual blindness or not-seeing. It leads to attachment and craving, but in the deep sense of craving for continued existence and attachment to our sense of personal identity.

On a more day-to-day level, there’s the practice of ‘mindfulness’ which is a gift of Buddhism to Western cuture. That is an exercise in directed attention, noticing the way that thoughts arise and fall, that feelings begin and end - noticing and paying attention. It’s surprising how much can be learned about the workings of the monkey mind, just by watching.

And thanks!

7

We are indeed most fortunate the philosophy forum is administered by @Jamal, not by Buddha. (perhaps he would argue otherwise re ‘perfectly free’ :slightly_smiling_face:)
I understand your point that this ‘essay is simply that Buddhism deals with the ultimate questions of life and death.’
My initial focus was on:

The discussion title is: ‘What the Buddha Didn’t Say’. A great hook inspiring questions of which I posed a few.
Thanks for your response.

Let’s reflect on that… :innocent:

1 Like
8

Over many years of living in eternity I too have questioned like Wayfarer’s ‘Wandering Seeker’ asking useless questions not sensing the end was closer than I could ever imagine. So Buddha was silent and what can this silence mean. Assuming that Buddha’s silence was coupled with love, why the silence? Many possibilities. If Buddha had answered, the Wandering Seeker would have been no better off, finding within him/herself more useless questions. By not answering maybe our Seeker would have asked him or herself why no answer from the Buddha. Then maybe our Seeker, might have wondered where to next, and so doing may have, even dimly sensed, that getting on with his/her own release was what the unsaid words led to.
We are all on the road. Whether-or-not we desire it or know it, we are all on a pilgrimage. Salvation is both easy and hard and I am a full error being, but love myself enough to keep going, and to increasingly enjoy the journey. I love all of you too, as much as I can love people I’ve never met.
Simply put the Buddha’s silence might have been a call to … ‘Wake up Seeker, more important matters are at hand.’

PS This is my first post. Just joined. For a few years I’ve followed you all, and enjoyed your posts even as you disagreed. This, of course, was on the old platform. Thank you to you all.

2 Likes
9

Welcome to participating in TPF!

I am not sure the questions asked were useless. If nothing else, their function is to show the Buddha’s views. The wonderer is a character in Buddhist texts:

Vacchagotta first asks the Buddha whether he holds particular views on the extent of the cosmos, the relationship between mind and body, and the nature of a Tathagata’s existence after death. To all the questions, Gautama Buddha simply replies he does not hold such views. Vacchagotta expresses confusion at this answer and asks why the Buddha takes no position regarding his questions.

The Buddha explains that each question leads to an unresolvable thicket of views which will cause suffering and distress if investigated. Because such investigation cannot lead to enlightened understanding and nirvana, the Buddha takes no position on these subjects.

I would like to understand what you mean by ‘Salvation’ and ‘full error being’.
Good to know that love and enjoyment persists in your life. Even if it is up and down; a complex mix of pain and pleasure. Drama and comedy…as expressed in writings, art, music, philosophy…

1 Like
10

Welcome aboard. Nicely said. :heart:

11

I recall a few lines of the convo between Vacchagota and the Buddha. Here they are:

Vaccha(gota), it is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views

Whether the universe is limited or unlimited, finite or infinite, the problem of your liberation remains the same

These mesh quite nicely with the OP

12

While I enjoyed your presentation, I believe that the problem with this depiction of the Buddha is that unless one does agree with him about what is urgent, the Buddha’s points are questionable.

For instance as per your point:

One needs to understand what is ‘urgent condition’ and while, of course, ‘suffering’ is an experience we all make it is questionable that how the Buddha understood ‘suffering’ is the same as how we understand normally it. Letting aside the ‘revisionist interpretations’ that want to assert that the Buddha never taught rebirth, it is hard to make sense of the Buddha’s solution to the problem of suffering without the acceptance of his broader worldview of samsara as a potentially endless meaningless cycle of deaths and rebirths. Given how rare is said to be ‘awakening’ and how ascetic the Buddhist practices can be, one who doesn’t see enough evidence to agree with that broader framework is hardly convinced by the Buddha’s approach.

So, I don’t agree that the Buddhist approach is as neutral as it seems by this presentation. That said, I don’t think that any approach is ‘neutral’. Even, say, the Skeptical Pyrrhonist’s suspension of judgment about metaphysical question is still a way to engage them and reject other alternatives.

13

How so? The format given in the OP is compressed for readability - as is typical with the Pali texts, the actual texts are much more detailed and each variation is given.

I believe the first passage you refer to is from the Aggi-Vachagotta Sutta (MN72) however I can’t identify the source of the second.

I wouldn’t suggest otherwise. The ‘eternalists’ were those who believed that through religious observances and practices, the subject will be reborn in favourable conditions in perpetuity. Also those who believed there was an unchanging essence which remained the same while all else was subject to change.

But I don’t think the point is ‘neutrality’. There are many discourses of the Buddha where an answer is provided, and the dialogue ends conclusively. But the question ‘does the self exist’ and other questions of a similar ilk are not amenable to a yes or no answer.

14

First, thanks for reformatting the original text for easier readability.

Buddha was trying to distance Buddhism from both Pakudah Kaccayana’s eternalism and Ajita Kesakamabali’s annihilationism. These were competing schools during his time. AFAIK Buddhism had to demonstrate its superiority as a philosophy and so had to address the teachings of the 6 heretical teachers. I believe the Vachagotta dialog is meant to do just that.

15

Quite right. Hence Vachagotta’s profile as the ‘philosophical protagonist’ type. But as you will recall, at the very end of the Aggi-Vachagotta Sutta (already cited) Vachagotta decides to take refuge.

16

I see. All’s well that ends well I suppose.

I wish more of the teachings of the 6 heretical teachers had survived. Was it systematic suppression, like the kind you see with the Catholic Church, or did the Buddhists successfully disabuse the people of such false beliefs in fair combat?

I’m no historian but I find India’s rich philosophical traditions to be atypical for the time and place; contrast it with Greek philosophy, vibrant city states, in close proximity, burgeoning trade, etc.

17

One of the reasons Buddhism was successful was its rhetorical excellence. Any fair reading of the Pali texts reveal a considerable eloquence and verbal sophistication. The Buddha’s successors likewise had to hold their own against all and any, including their Brahmin antagonists, and the Brahmins were the educated elite of the culture. (Which is why, incidentally, Buddhism eventually became encoded in Sanskrit rather than in the vernacular, as Sanskrit was the lingua franca of the priestly classes.)

There is a particular text, The Brahmajala Sutta, the longest in the Pali texts, describing all the various permutations of ‘eternalist’ and ‘nihilist’ views. But I don’t see any kind of suppression involved or implied in these dialogues, in particular. The culture was that of respectful dialogue, which will generally start with a questioner approaching the Buddha and ‘exchanging courteous greetings’ before ‘sitting to one side’ whereafter the dialogue continues. The Buddha rarely expresses anger, although he does do so, particularly in respect of any monk who he thought was mis-representing the Buddha’s teaching. He would also be indignant towards those who refused to understand. But throughout the early Buddhist dialogues, there is never any suggestion of coercion or imposed conformity.

I did a seminar paper once on the contrast between the ‘centrifugal’ organisation of the Catholic church, in distinction from the ‘centripedal’ and networked structure of the Buddhist sangha. In the former, all power gravitated towards the centre, and the hierarchy was strictly enforced through Papal dogmas and bulls. The Buddhist sangha was much more a networked model, where insights were communicated teacher to student, who then graduated to being teachers themselves. Not that Buddhism didn’t ultimately develop priestly hierarchies in e.g. Tibet. But there never has been nor could be a ‘Buddhist Pope’ (H.H. The Dalai Lama is not the ‘leader of all Buddhists’ but spiritual head of the Gelug school which until the Chinese invasion provided the political leadership of Tibet.)

1 Like
18

The Catholic Church, if memory serves, entangled itself with the ruling class to the point where the latter’s legitimacy required some form of endorsement from the Vatican. Buddhism never achieved such status though it did manage to convert kings like Harsha and Ashoka. Their patronage was crucial I suppose, insofar as it could bankroll the sangha and missionaries to other lands.

I digress. Notice how Buddhists are never involved in what passes for modern religious debates, an internet phenomenon a decade ago. The Buddha simply refused to engage in Vacchagotta-type conversations, which these were/are.

19

That’s right! Which is basically the point of the essay, the second part of which (not presented here but linked) elaborates on the distinction.

1 Like
20

Yes, I agree. But my point is that the Buddha isn’t more ‘pragmatic’ than other religious/philosophical figures. Indeed, questioning the existence of the self is already a massive philosophical move. However, so perhaps the lesson than we should learn from the Buddha (wether we agree with him or not) is to become more focused in our philosophical inquiry and dedicate more time to what is truly important.