Multiple Selves Sutta reference?

Question

Wondering if anyone knows the sutta where the Buddha talks about the aggregates and multiple selves. As in there is a changing group of khandas, and in one moment there is a self, (which could be called a self though it is fleeting) and another moment another self. (But its so fleeting it can hardly be called a Higher Self or Soul ect, as its only momentary).

Its been about 6 years since I read the sutta, but I did find it, I am not explaining very well. It is quite short and direct.

This is not talking about just the body as a self, its talking about the fleeting moment of the four or five aggregates (khandas).

I know the simile that will likely be quoted but this was a more obscure reference. Some groups use this reference to refer to the "billions of selves". I am sure it exists in one place probably the Connected Discourses.

Blessings in the Buddha Dhamma

Answer 1

Similar likely quote:

But what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another branch. -SN 12.61

I have three other quotes that claim or suggest there's no real continuity between moments, and it's like watching a film where your vision doesn't work fast enough to see they're just still pictures moving past, but not from the suttas. One says it's talked about in the Abhidhamma but doesn't say where.

Answer 2

Unfortunately this may not answer your question.

in one moment there is a self, and another moment another self

From the little I've heard, "moments" is an important theme in the Abhidhamma. I've seen references to that in posts on this site, for example this, but never studied the Abhidhamma myself:

How do we sense the flow of time?

According to the Abhidhamma, at each given instant there is a consciousness that arises and ceases completely before the next consciousness arises. Each consciousness is only aware of the present moment (just an instant and only that instant) and therefore cannot know about previous instants.

I've seen this in particular in posts by Ven. Yuttadhammo (who no longer posts here), for example:

To repeat, according to early Buddhism, rebirth never happens. In this life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment. Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again.

The Venerable taught the Abidhamma -- so doctrines he posted may have been informed by that.

If I search for his posts where he mentions the words "self" and "moment" ...

• https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=user%3A18+self+moment

... finds e.g. this -- where the conclusion seems to answer your question, but the sutta references do not closely match:

Being empty of self is different from not existing; it simply means that, from the point of view of experience, that which comes into existence does so from non-existence, and subsequently returns to non-existence; it has no existence outside of the single moment:

“aniccā vata saṅkhārā, uppādavayadhammino. uppajjitvā nirujjhanti, tesaṃ vūpasamo sukho”ti.

"Impermanent indeed are formations, of a nature to arise and fall. Having arisen, they cease, their tranquillizing is happiness."

-- DN 16

“yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti.

"Whatever is of a nature to arise, all of that is of a nature to cease."

-- DN 3

yasmā ca kho, ānanda, suññaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā tasmā suñño lokoti vuccati.

Because it is, Ananda, empty by way of self or what belongs to self, therefore 'the world is empty' is said.

--SN 35.68

The doctrine which you paraphrased as, "could hardly be called a Higher Self", sounds like e.g. the very second or third sutta -- Anatta-lakkhana (SN 22.59).

Answer 3

The word 'jati' ('birth') in Dependent Origination actually means a 'self identification', of either 'oneself' or 'others'. For example, about the social identification of a 'bhikkhu', MN 86 says about Aṅgulimāla, the reformed mass murderer:

‘yatohaṁ, bhagini, ariyāya jātiyā jāto, nābhijānāmi sañcicca pāṇaṁ jīvitā voropetā, tena saccena sotthi te hotu, sotthi gabbhassā’”ti

Ever since I was born in the noble birth, sister, I don’t recall having intentionally taken the life of a living creature. By this truth, may both you and your baby be safe.’

MN 86

SN 12.2 defines 'jati' as a 'category of beings (sattanikāye)'. It says:

What is birth?

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?

Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.

Whatever this & that beings in this & that category/class of beings; their birth, their co-generation, their emergence, their mental production, the manifestion/expression of their aggregates, the acquisition/appropriation of their sense (activity) objects.

SN 12.2 DD translation

Note: 'āyatanā' (sense spheres) above is not 'salāyatanā' (six sense spheres)

For clarification, both SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define the term 'a being' ('satta') as 'strong attachment' and as 'a conceptual view':

'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.

SN 23.2

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's 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

The passage in SN 5.10 about 'a being' arising as suffering is found in SN 12.15 about the wrong view of 'my self' arising as suffering:

Does not grasp at it, does not affirm: 'This is my self.' He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.

SN 12.15

In DN 1, the words 'existent being' and 'self' are used synonymously:

Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction and extermination of an existent being.

DN 1

In Pali, the term 'pubbenivasa' does not mean 'past lives'. It literally means 'past homes; past dwellings; past abodes'. SN 22.79 is the only sutta that unambiguously explains the meaning of 'pubbenivasa', which Bhikkhu Bodhi wisely decided to literally & accurately translate, which also makes it clear a 'pubbenivasa' is when the mind, in the past, ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as 'self'. SN 22.79 says:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.

Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.

“And what is it that he dismantles and does not build up? He dismantles form and does not build it up. He dismantles feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not build it up.

“And what is it that he abandons and does not cling to? He abandons form and does not cling to it. He abandons feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not cling to it.

“And what is it that he scatters and does not amass? He scatters form and does not amass it. He scatters feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not amass it.

“And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? He extinguishes form and does not kindle it. He extinguishes feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not kindle it.

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

SN 22.79

Therefore, while the translations are clunky due to the Pali using the 1st person pronoun, the stock phrase about the First Knowledge found in MN 4 is about what is explained above, namely, billions of 'jatiya' (as found in MN 86) and billions of 'pubbenivasa self views of a being or beings' (as found in SN 22.79). The stock phrase says:

So evaṁ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya cittaṁ abhininnāmesiṁ. So anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi,

When my mind was concentrated like this — purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady and imperturbable — I directed it toward recollection of past abodes. I recollected many various past abodes.

seyyathidaṁ — ekampi jātiṁ dvepi jātiyo tissopi jātiyo catassopi jātiyo pañcapi jātiyo dasapi jātiyo vīsampi jātiyo tiṁsampi jātiyo cattālīsampi jātiyo paññāsampi jātiyo jātisatampi jātisahassampi jātisatasahassampi anekepi saṁvaṭṭakappe anekepi vivaṭṭakappe anekepi saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭakappe: ‘amutrāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṁ; tatrāpāsiṁ evaṁnāmo evaṅgotto evaṁvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṁsukhadukkhappaṭisaṁvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno’ti. Iti sākāraṁ sauddesaṁ anekavihitaṁ pubbenivāsaṁ anussarāmi.

That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand births; many time spans of a world contracting, many time spans of a world expanding, many time spans of a world contracting and expanding. I remembered: ‘There, this was the name and clan I had, this was the appearance/expression I had, and that was the nutriment I had [craved]. This was the pleasure and pain I felt, and that was how a lifeforce (life exertion) i had concluded/reached its limit. When I fell away from that state I originated again. There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, my appearance was like this, and that was my nutriment. This was the pleasure and pain I felt, and that was how a life force [i exerted] concluded/reached its limit/climax. When I fell away from that place I was originated again.’ And so I recollected my [former ignorant mind's] various past abodes [adherences], with their features and details.

Ayaṁ kho me, brāhmaṇa, rattiyā paṭhame yāme paṭhamā vijjā adhigatā,

This was the first knowledge, which I achieved in the first watch of the night.

avijjā vihatā vijjā uppannā, tamo vihato āloko uppanno, yathā taṁ appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato.

Ignorance was destroyed and knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed and light arose, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute.

MN 4 DD translation

Note: SN 12.44 & the end of AN 4.45 explain 'a world' is the arising of a craving becoming.

Answer 4

Note sure it is it but another one that is close:

AN 1:48 - Wisdom Pub. BB. Copyright - for study purposes

“Bhikkhus, I do not see even one other thing that changes so quickly as the mind. It is not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes.”

MN 148 (also slightly related)

“If anyone says, ‘The body is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the body are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The body is self.’ Thus the body is not self...

“If anyone says, ‘The mind is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the mind are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The mind is self.’ Thus the mind is not self.

Also unrelated, but interesting

... [MN 152] “Again, Ānanda, when a bhikkhu cognizes a mind-object with the mind, there arises in him what is agreeable, there arises what is disagreeable, there arises what is both agreeable and disagreeable. He understands thus:…and equanimity is established. Just as if a man were to let two or three drops of water fall onto an iron plate heated for a whole day, the falling of the drops might be slow but they would quickly vaporise and vanish, so too concerning anything at all, the agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease just as quickly, just as rapidly, just as easily, and equanimity is established. This is called in the Noble One’s Discipline the supreme development of the faculties regarding ideas cognizable by the mind.

Copyright wisdom publication for study purposes only