Similar phrasing doesn’t make for similar meaning? I can give many examples where similar phrasing is utilized to deliver the same meaning or otherwise.
The statement in iti44
What has nothing left over pertains to what follows this life,
Anupādisesā pana samparāyikā,
where all states of existence cease.
Yamhi nirujjhanti bhavāni sabbaso.
Meanining here is like this
All states of existence denote dukkha
Anupadisesā describes sukkha
Sukkha follows dukkha
Sukkha is dukkhanirodha
Even tho Sariputta had not attained final extinguishment he has seen how it’ll be without dukkha, this not through pondering or cognizing wth intellect but by knowing what has not been experienced through the allness of the all as it is.
Suppose you see a flame and this flame goes out shortly before a wind gust makes the flame blaze up again before finally becoming fully extinguished.
Here two cases to wit
One where the flame goes out but blazes up again
Another where the flame goes out and doesn’t blaze up again
Another example is if you have a gas lighter. It’s not burning is the same whether there is gas left or not. The principle of not-burning is the same thing only differing in how it’s contextualized.
In this simile the flame represents dukkha/bhava and there being no flame denotes a state without dukkha.
In both cases an absence of flame is discerned and there is no difference other than in how it is approached and as to there being fuel for consequent burning or not.
In the same way ariyans attained to seeing with discernment have realized an absence of dukkha as dukkhanirodha and this same extinguishment principle will come into play in as far as they can’t transcend feeling states whilst alive and at final extinguishment.
1 Like
Well, no sutta says that while the mind becomes progressively empty of all conditioned arising formations (vinnana’s/perceptions/feelings, cannot be seperated, MN43) that mind suddenly ceases to exist. There is no need at all to assume that mind stops to exist in this descent into emptiness but vinnana/perceptions/feelings do.
There is no sutta that talks about jhana, arupa jhana, sannavedayitaniroddha as black-out, as absence, as mindless states.
Yes, there is no mental vinnana arising to.
Yes, i agree. AN10.7 is about a very special state which is not any jhana and also does not have some normal perception of the world or another world. Still there is perceiving.
Well, i feel, it makes no sense at all to talk about a state that no one knows, no one perceives, a state that fundamentally cannot be known…as ultimate happiness. Why would one do that?
I feel such is not in line with Dhamma at all. One does not speak this way of something that cannot even be known. This way Dhamma becomes a metaphysical doctrine.
Consider this
Suppose a person hears thus
Existence is an illness, a tumour, a thorn. Those who advocate nonperception are foolish. Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception
Having heard about this he becomes inspired to seek seclusion and contemplates inclining his mind to the ayatana of neither-perception-nor-nonperception. He trains like this
‘Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable; perceptions of the dimension of nothingness: all are perceptions. Where they cease without remainder: that is peaceful, that is exquisite, that is the ayatana of neither perception nor non-perception.’
In regards to samadhi based on form, lights, perceptions of ‘space is infinite’, ‘consciousness is infinite’ and ‘there is nothing’ he develops the perception of drawbacks and resolves ’ ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’
When there is an opening, do you think his mind will turn to the pinnacle of perception or not?
If he is steady in that then he will attain that equanimity of percipience and he will relish this pinnacle of feeling states.
Then suppose this man hears of a cessation attainment transcending the pinnacle of feeling and undertakes the training to surmount it. He contemplates the drawbacks of that equanimity, he considers it alien, impermanent, a tumor, a disease, a killer, a calamity and in regards to it he resolves: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up even this pinnacle of feeling and i will not approve, welcome, or keep clinging to that equanimity.
Do you think he will win training like this? If done properly his mind will turn away from feeling states and towards bhavanirodha. When it does he will discern it as it is and he will say 'indeed it is as they said. This is peaceful, this is subtle, namely the cessation of perception & feeling. Thos who advocate for pinnacle of feeling states are foolish. And his taints will be removed by that seeing with wisdom.
How else would they be removed.
When he attains cessation his samadhi will be based neither on form or the formless ayatanas and to him Gods and Brahma pay homage from afar for they don’t know in dependence on what he is concentrated in samadhi. And it is certainly not some contemplation exercise for this is not experienced through allness of the all.
If this wasn’t so then nobody would ever be able to know & see that cessation & parinibbana is possible & a worthwhile pursuit.
In the example i gave, the person would have been better off having resolved on cessation from start because one doesn’t need the formless attainments to surpass them but if one hold wrong views this is a good way to dismantle it.
“Ānanda, take a mendicant who practices like this: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’ In this way they gain equanimity. They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to that equanimity. Their consciousness relies on that and grasps it. A mendicant with grasping does not become extinguished.”
“But sir, what is that mendicant grasping?”
“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
Take a mendicant who practices like this: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’ In this way they gain equanimity. They don’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging to that equanimity. So their consciousness doesn’t rely on that and grasp it. A mendicant free of grasping becomes extinguished.”
And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.
Here if the person sees first jhana as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self but he has some interest for other jhana, kasina or impertubable feeling states then his mind will turn to that rather than to surmounting feeling states altogether.
And if he misapprehends the surmounting due to wrong views then his mind will incline to whatever is it’s effective inclination. He will surmount something but he mind attain something or experience something and mistake it for nibbana.
Cessation of perception and feeling is only accesible after the formless attainments, all 4 of them. It’s a gradual letting go and disappearing of things.
For arahants and non returners who do not attain to the formless, they do not have access to this samadhi.
Greetings Bhante,
I am aware that there exist those commentary interpretations and there are numerous problems that arise if one was to assert it.
What is the basis for assertion that only anagami can attain cessation of perception & feelinng? Afaik it is the statement that
Sotapanna has perfected sila
Anagami has perfected samadhi
Arahant has perfected wisdom
The commentator simply asserted that attaiment of cessation requires two things
- Perfected samadhi, all anagami have this but not all anagami have formless attainments
- Formless attainments
Thus they assert that cessation of perception & feeling is only accessible to anagamis who are also a bodily-witness or arahants released in both ways.
They divorce seeing with wisdom which removes taints from the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling. They in that take the cessation attainment from the pannavimutti arahants. For apparently they have a different seeing with wisdom by which taints were destroyed.
Therefore they essentially come up with an alternative removal of taints other than by surmounting feeling states.
The commentator asserts that pannavimutti arahants don’t have it as if it was proclaimed to Susima but it’s never proclaimed.
There is not much supporting these ideas.
As it actually is the attainment of cessation does not require perfected samadhi but a modicum samadhi coupled with modicum discernment. All sotapannas have this and therefore they are sotapannas for having attained that seeing with wisdom by which some of their taints are removed.
The formless attainments are a sidequest and one doesn’t have to do them one by one, but cessation of perception & feeling is required for the destruction of taints.
There is a twist in how suttas speak about things like perfected samadhi and how people generally tend to think about it.
For example one might think that an ordinary person who can easily at will attain the kasina and formless attainments has greater samadhi than anagami who doesn’t attain formless jhana but this is not so. The anagami has perfected samadhi whereas the ordinary person doesn’t.
Do you think a non-ariya yogi with mastery over form element & formless perceptions has better samadhi than a sotapanna who can’t easily do kasina and has never seen the formless deliverance?
If commentators were correct then it’d be difficult to argue how exactly a sotapannas samadhi faculty is not inferior to that of a skilled outsider.
However because they are not correct it is easy to show that sotapannas are greater because they have a samadhi attainment surpassing those feeling states and even if they attained it only one time, their modicum samadhi faculty is superior for it is founded on the superior, he is the one to whom Brahma pay homage from afar, he has the crown jewel of samadhi attainments and is the greater of the two. Also their minds are generally stronger if a yakkha or a Mara was to try finding an opening, it’s a war Mara can’t win against a sotapanna whereas the outsider is relatively easy.
Consider this Bhante.
Would you say pannavimutti arahants have attained the dhamma in a definitive sense or in a qualified sense?
If we say in a definitive sense they have attained the dhamma, then they must have cessation of perception & feeling attainment because it is said
“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is apparent in the present life in a qualified sense. …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha said that extinguishment is apparent in the present life in a definitive sense.”
This series explain that the definitive attainment is of this samadhi & purification by it.
Note that destruction of taints is not listed apart from the samadhi attainment. It is not listed like this
1st jhana - qualified
2nd jhana - qualified
3rd jhana - qualified
4th jhana - qualified
Infinite space - qualified
Infinite consciousness - qualified
Nothingness - qualified
Neither perception nor non perception - qualified
Cessation of perception & feeling - qualified
Destruction of taints - definitive
This is not so
Cessation of perception & feeling coupled with Destruction of taints is the definitive attainment.
Attaining dhamma & nibbana in a definitive sense requires the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling until all defilement is removed.
Therefore even stream enterers have had this samadhi, have seen with wisdom and some of their taints are removed
"And what is the individual attained to view? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, but — having seen with discernment — some of his fermentations are ended Kitagiri Sutta: At Kitagiri
Can you find a sutta which says that they attained the dhamma in a definite sense?
Anyway, I think it might be a bit much to assume that even stream winners have access to cessation of perception and feeling.
It’s only attainable after the formless attainments, and stream winners are not required to even perfect samadhi, and even wisdom liberated arahants don’t have it.
" The cessation of existence is Nibbana"…
This can be directly perceived (AN10.7)
What does this mean? I tend to see it like this that the cessation of existence (sometimes translated as the cessation of being, or sometimes as the cessation of becoming) refers to a situation in which there is no sense of me, mine, my self at all. Not even asmi mana, the notion “I am”. There is no clinging at all.
There are only perceptions arising and ceasing. Or like the sutta says:
“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’”
A situation without any attachment is perceived as the end of suffering. Nibbana. That is how i see it.
It does, i think, not refer to a literal cessation of existence, like all vanishes.
It probably refers to the cessation of personal existence or deluded existence which is the sphere of the total of samsara.
In all realms of existence (apart from that without sanna) being experience themselves as beings, as a personal existence. The notion I am is not uprooted. There is no end to clinging yet. And the notion I am arises from clinging to the khandha’s (SN22.83)
When there is no clinging, there is just no notion “'I am” arising anymore. But this is not literally an cessation of existence, i believe. I believe it refers to cessation of personal existence, the impression that one is a being that experiences this and that. It is Nibbana, the end of mind being burdened, or just the end of agitation, of all affliction due to delusion.
I think that this peace of Nibbana is not included in the meaning of the word bhava, often translated as existence. The cessation of existence is not the cessation of the peace of Nibbana.
I think bhava is more like personal existence or deluded existence.
Namo Buddhaya!
No.
The definition is like this
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the teaching apparent in the present life in a definitive sense. SuttaCentral
I think it is fair to assume that pannavimutti arahants have done attained this because it is said
"And what is the individual released through discernment? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, but — having seen with discernment — his fermentations are ended. This is called an individual who is released through discernment.
Note here that their defilement is removed by a seeing with wisdom and this excerpt, having mentioned formless attainments leaves out any mention of a cessation attainment, nor of the signless, undirected, emptiness samadhi.
If one misses that these are a reference to the same samadhi then one runs into all kinds of difficulties.
“When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.”
As i read it this means that the attainment is thus apprehended.
As far as i can tell It’s the only coherent interpretation based on the sutta.
This is an opinion tho. The texts say it trascends or surmounts the preceeding attainment but nowhere does it said that It’s only attainable after the formless attainments.
It’s really a statement of faith and there is no mechanism by which you could explain that it ought to be so. Do you think the mind is restricted from turning to cessation by not having felt neither perception nor non-perception? It is like saying that a virgin is restricted from renunciation due to not having experienced the pleasure of intercourse.
People have a weird idea of what mastery of samadhi means. It’s a matter of inclining the mind to cessation, away from feeling states, to try attaining the formless let alone in order, can be counter productive and it’s therefore not listed as right concentration. And cessation of perception & feeling is not listed as right concentration because it is the goal of the path.
This is not a popular interpretation because people are confused by commentary. Only dry insight movement has preserved this but it is there diluted with other fringe interpretations.
Therefore this is not an unheard of interpretation which is “too much”, it’s not new but the dry insight method of explaining has it’s own issues as it is reconciled with whatnot.
You might want to read Bhante Aggacitta’s lastest book on this. Could it be that you’re mixing up magga apparent cessation with true cessation of perception and feeling?
I don’t think that i am mixing up anything. If you think i’ve made a mistake i hope you show it based on logic or scripture. I don’t care for commentary if it’s not found or drawn out from the texts.
I don’t want to read works of disciples, it’s a cause for decline, but i don’t mind discussing texts which are worth mastering, and further explaining what i’ve long understood to show how well this is substantiated and how much it clears up.
We can ask.
Is it possible that one can be a sotapanna without this attainment? Let’s think
Suppose we let that cessation of perception & feeling is apprehended as signless samadhi and accessible to stream enterer, this doesn’t equate seeing with wisdom to either nor that all stream enterers have it.
Suppose seeing with wisdom is s mere intellectual understanding and the cessation attainment is optional but possible for a stream enterer.
This is very cringe for many reasons. Eg
The texts differentiate between ariya with formless attainments and those without but never as to cessation of perception & feeling and without cessation of perception & feeling.
This is a big deal because one would expect there to be these thre classes of arahant
- no arupa no cessation
- arupa no cessation
- arupa cessation
This is nowhere found in the canon, nevermind other implications.
The only noteworthy relevant distiction between ariya types is in the 7fold classification as to ariya with seeing with wisdom and those without (nussari pair). Therefore equating cessation based samadhi with seeing with wisdom is a very reasonable assumption to make.
I think that probably a lot of oeople don’t like this because it sets the bar for stream-entry way higher. If i am right then one can hardly find a single stream-enterer but it shouldn’t be surprising because having divorced removal of fetters from nirodhasamadhi people are not expected to train correctly.
Could be that generally arahants who has arupa would just enjoy the cessation as it is the highest happiness as implied in MN 59
Namo Buddhaya!
Take a faith-follower, rid of pernicious wrong views, has merely faith in the general instruction but yet not a modicum of understanding.
Suppose he can’t attain cessation, that for some unknown reason it us so that the arupa states need to be done in order, that none can be skipped over, and having felt them is an attunement to transcending the feeling states as to experience the most extreme pleasure of cessation.
Suppose he hears something like this
Existence is an illness, a tumour, a thorn. Those who advocate attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception are foolish. Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the cessation of perception & feeling.
And being full of confidence he restrains himself in terms of patimokkha he attains seclusion.
He trains like this
Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable; perceptions of the dimension of nothingness; the feeling of neither perception nor non-perception; all are feelings. Their cessation, surmounting & transcendence that is peaceful, that is exquisite, cessation of form, consciousness, and of perception & feeling, is the stilling of all sankhara, nibbana, bliss’.
In regards to all feeling states he is firmly resolved ‘It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon’
Should he experience any extraordinary attainment, pleasure, lights, visions or formless percipience in course of training he does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, does not resolve on it and does not cling to it, regarding these things as dukkha and asserts that surmounting them is the requisite seeing with wisdom for removal of fetters.
Now suppose for some reason he is not attuned to nirodhasamadhi, what do you think will happen if he keeps training like this where his resolve is not the arupasanna, he cares for it no more than the pannavimutti arahant, but he also wants to transcend all feeling states because for him whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self.
What do you think will happen to this person if he trains like this? Where is he deficient?
If really rid of wrong views then he would just progressively surmount the bases before attaining cessation.
Even if not rid of wrong views, if training like his he would progressively surmount the bases, before attaining cessation. And his taints would be destroyed by seeing with wisdom.
If i am right then this is exactly how those attained to view, those liberated by faith and those pannavimutti arahants train. And it is not necessary to go through all the attainments in order.
In general what i proposed, if wrong, would be a rather bening assertion.
If i am right then the counter proposition has much more pernicious implications.
Having divorced removal of fetters from cessation attainment for not being the seeing with wisdom destroying the taints, one attains neither this nor that. For one then wants something else entirely albeit phrased in common terms.
The precarious circumstance is in that the person would be very prone to overestimation and not resolved on attaining what ought be attained. He would be resolved on learning, studying and not pushing to surmount all feeling states anytime soon lest he wanted to do all one by one to get cessation, which hardly anyone does.
Sorry, I generally am not very invested in this topic. I don’t see the point and it’s not easy for me to get your logic for lack of interest currently. Maybe someone else might be interested. Or me some time later in the future.