Almost all annihilationists believe in rebirth (all annihilationists believe in a Self)

Discussion
1

Of the seven different types of annihilationists mentioned in DN 1 only one type denies rebirth, while the other six types of annihilationists clearly believe in rebirth.

  • Two of these six types strive for rebirth in Kama Loka or Rupa Loka.

  • The remaining four types of annihilationists strive for rebirth in Arupa Loka.

So it’s easy for six types of annihilationists to see the practioner on the path as one self that will be completely annihilated, and the one getting the result and taking rebirth after the death of the physical body (be it in heaven, Rupa Loka or Arupa Loka) as another self.

“Suppose that the person who does the deed experiences the result. Then for one who has existed since the beginning, suffering is made by oneself. This statement leans toward eternalism.

Suppose that one person does the deed and another experiences the result. Then for one stricken by feeling, suffering is made by another. This statement leans toward annihilationism.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.

  • Dependent Origination is the middle way.
  • Whoever sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma.
  • Dependent Origination is very deep.
  • There is no other way than the middle way. :wink:

The seven types of Annihilationists from DN 1:

  1. Materialist/Physicalist:

This self has form, made up of the four primary elements, and produced by mother and father. Since it’s annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’

  1. Kama Loka:

But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that is divine, having form, sensual, consuming solid food. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’

  1. Rupa Loka:

But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that is divine, having form, mind-made, whole in its major and minor limbs, not deficient in any faculty. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.

4.-7. Arupa Loka:

But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self which has gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, it’s reborn in the dimension of infinite space. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.

But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self which has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that “consciousness is infinite”, it’s reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.

But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that “there is nothing at all”, it’s been reborn in the dimension of nothingness. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.

But someone else says to them: ‘That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it. But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated. There is another self that has gone totally beyond the dimension of nothingness. Aware that “this is peaceful, this is sublime”, it’s been reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. You don’t know or see that. But I know it and see it. Since this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how this self becomes rightly annihilated.’ That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.

These are the seven grounds on which those ascetics and brahmins assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being. Any ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being do so on one or other of these seven grounds. Outside of this there is none. The Realized One understands this … And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.

:pray:

1 Like
2

I take it to mean we all have those 7 kinds of mind-body in us now and they all break up after death. Rebirth reconstructs them all.

I understand you to say that each one thinks that they are the highest and need to end existence or rebirth of that realm to be considered annihilation. eg. god body means after human death, goes and reborn as a god, then at the death of a god body, that’s the end.

Is that right?

3

Hello Venerable, :pray:

Impossible.

If one has never meditated how could they bypass all realms of existence at the moment of death and somehow have all these ”7 types of mind-body in them”?

If someone has no clue about Rupa Loka, they can never end up there in any possible way when they die. Same with Arupa Loka.

There are 7 distinctly different types, not one type that has all 7 in them.

No the sutta says the exact opposite of this.

The current existence is considered low by annihilationists and might as well be annihilated so one can experience the higher better self in the heavens, Rupa Loka or Arupa Loka.

Death as a brahma god would take countless of billions of years before it happens.

Please keep in mind that no being in the host of Brahma realm knew they are mortals and that such a plane of existence is impermanent until The Buddha showed up.

I’ve said it a million times: anicca, dukkha & anatta are far from as evident and obvious as some make them to be.

  • Almost all annihilationists believe in rebirth, and all of them believe in a self.

  • Only the physicalist/materialist annihilationists imagine there is some type of ’ultimate annihilation.”

4

But 5 of those annihilation views is about the death of Brahma Gods.

So for no. 2-7, they believe in rebirth, and that at the end of each rebirth, the respective bodies of the god realms get destroyed. So to reach liberation must get to the highest and then get annihilated?

I take it that no. 1 says die and human no rebirth, the end.

no. 2 says, no, after human death there’s sensual god realm, die there then end.

no. 3 says, no. After sensual god realms, one can be reborn into brahma realm and only the death there it is the end.

Or you’re saying that annihilationists doesn’t look forward to the end, eternal nothingness, but to look forward to ever increasing higher realms, which at the last one also said it will end? Oh, only the 1st type imagines that there is an ultimate end, so the rest is just reincarnation basically, rebirth plus view of self.

Good, then there cannot be objection to nothing after parinibbāna, because the ariyas from stream winner onwards are without view of self, thus their view of nothing after parinibbāna is not wrong view of annihilationism. Thus cannot use the argument of annihilationism to reject nothing after parinibbāna.

5

No, you are totally missing the obvious point of the descriptions of annihilationists in DN 1:

That self of which you speak does exist, I don’t deny it.
But that’s not how this self becomes rightly annihilated.
There is another self…

It goes on and on like this based on which type it is and how it corresponds to the various realms of existence.

You also have to take this that I posted into consideration:

I’m not saying anything,

The Buddha is describing all these various annihilationists.

For example:
The annihilationists that The Buddha praises: those who are reborn in the the dimension of nothingness & the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception

    • where is the physical body and form these beings had prior to death of the body?

Not in Arupa Loka, that’s for sure.

This is the view of eternalism: same self through all lives.

This is the view of annihilationists: ”What is annihilated is not the same as what is reborn”

That is the difference between eternalism and annihilationism

Annihilationists reborn in Arupa Loka have no clue they are actually mortal and will die (!) - ONLY THE BUDDHA TEACHES THIS. Annihilationists find those formless dimensions to be blissful, peaceful and sublime.

First of all, lust for the Rupa Loka and Arupa Loka realms are two of the five higher fetters.

Second of all, If you want to believe that what the physicalists/materialists imagine death is - some type of ’ultimate annihilation.” - is also the highest spiritual attainment, that’s totally up to you.

But please keep this in mind then:

Any ascetics and brahmins who assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being do so on one or other of these seven grounds. Outside of this there is none.

6

I would argue against that, Bhante. Parinibbāna is the end of proliferation: saying “Something exists” (like the eternal / pure citta) or “Nothing else exists” (your position here) are both refuted in the suttas.

An4.173 An4.174 Snp5.7

“There is nothing after parinibbāna” is repeatedly refuted in the suttas, Buddha never uses that phrasing, in each and every case he says “There’s the end of suffering, end of proliferation”. We should be cautious of claiming things Buddha and Sariputta repeatedly tells is not appropriate to suggest.

The phrasing “There’s nothing after parinibbāna” is logically incorrect (so nothing has a presence?); “When everything has been removed” is a phrasing that is employed (Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu; “All things are destroyed” potentially)

The difference might seem pedantic but one of them inspires people, is the linguistically correct way to explain; the other one scares people, and is linguistically problematic. Saying “nothing exists” creates a singular frozen prison in which nothingness is for all times; in saying “Everything has been removed”, there’s no longer a reference to even nothingness (which is in fact one of the cruder ayatanas - the base of nothingness, this is important), there’s no longer a concept of time and passing or arising, there is just the end of suffering.

Even if they’re close in meaning, my brain calculates one of those things as a prison and the other as freedom.

2 Likes
7

Yes, how can there BE nothing? How can nothingness BE if nothingness is the opposite of being?

How can we say “there IS not-being”? It’s a contradiction.

Non-existence cannot exist. Only existence can exist. Non-existence can only NON-exist. Existence can be in existence; nothingness can only not-be in non-existence.

Since nothingness can never exist but can only non-exist, we can only say “Nothingness does not exist” or “There is not nothingness” or “Nothingness is not.”

We can say “There IS existence” or “there IS being.” We can’t say “Things ARE non-existing” or “Being is not.” Because things or being can only exist; existence cannot non-exist. That would be non-existence, and non-existence can only non-exist.

So we can’t say “nothingness IS” or “there IS nothingness.” Since nothingness can only not exist, then it isn’t real. Only things which exist are real. Since nothingness is not real, to say that there is nothingness after parinibbāna is to claim that something which is unreal and does not exist actually does exist and is real.

And, given our limits, to say “Nothingness is non-existent” or “There is not nothingness” is to say, well, nothing at all really! To speak of nothingness is to say precisely nothing. Because nothing can be said about nothing.

:joy:

1 Like
8

image
image1200×900 47.5 KB

This is the best things I’ve ever heard in a while. :joy:

1 Like
9

Whatever, as long as the meaning is understood.

I just asked people I trust the question of whether there’s something or nothing after parinibbāna, and the ones with right view (that I trust) replied nothing.

This is just a more brute force way to address the issue, or else it seems that people had misunderstood it from saying that parinibbāna is ineffable means there can be something after parinibbāna, be it unestablished consciousness, pure mind, Buddha nature, nibbāna itself (as a positive ontological thing), etc.

10

Bhante, this is not a “Whatever” matter to Buddha in the suttas. It is not right to have such a dismissive attitude.

11

I think it does more harm nowadays to not outright say nothing after parinibbāna given the proliferation of wrong views of something after parinibbāna, vs being pedantic on this relatively minor issue. Which of course, due to that sutta, you’re right that it’s going to be important at some point.

People who strongly oppose it vs lightly oppose (like you) it but get what I mean would have very different standpoints on the truth. And those who have right view are more tolerant towards the statement of nothing after parinibbāna rather than something.

No mind, no matter, no soul, no 5 aggregates, no 6 sense bases. Conventionally speaking, really the closest concept is nothing.

2 Likes
12

Your view only accepts khandha’s as real. And while they all cease at death of the arahant, you conclude…so there can be nothing left…

This means, you do not accept Nibbana as real. Maybe, in your view Nibbana is also mere some conditioned state, temporary, liable to cease, or even a concept? But nor sutta, nor Abhdidhamma teaches such.

Abhidhamma teaches Nibbana as timeless. Ideas as ‘eternal’ are not really appropriate, nor ideas like existent.

It is normal, here, to frame no-mere-cessationalist, as those with most strong attachment to life and self, but one can also say…they just protect Dhamma, and have strong feelings that there is something fundamentally wrong with this idea of a mere cessation.

What is wrong…it denies Nibbana, or turns Nibbana into something that is also liable to cease (sankhata).

1 Like
13

Whatever your idea of nibbāna is, just as it’s wrong to say “There’s nothing after parinibbāna”, it’s equally wrong to say “There’s something after parinibbāna”.

“Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else still exist?”

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.” An 4.173

So, we should not objectify Nibbāna as a state where something exists, or that Nibbāna exists. Because that idea is equally refuted, repeatedly. Nibbāna is beyond such proliferations. It’s “Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu” “All things are removed”. Snp5.7

1 Like
14

I agree, one cannot talk about Nibbana as something that still exist. Because asankhata cannot said to be existing.

Bodhi says it like this:

“Nibbana is a single undifferientiated ultimate reality. It is exclusively supramundane, and has one intrinsic nature (sabhava), which is being the unconditioned deathless element totally transcendent to the conditioned world.

Sayadaw U Silananda says: “Nibbāna is definitely unconditioned. There is no condition for Nibbāna. We cannot say Nibbāna exists because if we say Nibbāna exists we are saying it has a beginning and it must have an end. It is said that Nibbāna has no beginning and no end. Nibbāna is unconditioned and Nibbāna is not composed of any component parts”

I think that whatever we conceive as Nibbana that automatically distorts. Because what we conceive we see as something.

In the end it is not trivial, i feel. I believe…a Buddha, an arahant knows that with the cessation of khandha’s only suffering ceases… but they do not see this as mere cessation, because that would denie Nibbana.

1 Like
15

For once we agree, I’m glad. :slight_smile:

1 Like
16

I am glad that you stood up, and said:

So, is it. For me this is voice of reason.

17

The attitude really does border to being nothing but arrogance! :sweat_smile:

Proliferate the unproliferated? Why not! Just a minor detail. :wink:

Whatever…

Atakkāvacara = beyond reasoning and logic.

The view of mere cessationists is in essence a combination of the very lowest type of materialist/physicalist annihilation:

No other of the 6 types of annihilationists agrees with
”mere cessationists”.

And nevermind that this very lowest materialist view of death is actually a complete fiction and untrue. These delusional physicalists/materialists are still on to something! :face_with_monocle:

Now combine this very non-spiritual materialist wrong view with those states of unconscioussness that all beings in the universe has already experienced, even sleeping animals - deep dreamless sleep - This is the precursor to Nibbāna! :smiling_face:

Nibbāna is like: eternal dreamless sleep of unconscioussness. :sleeping:

Who cares if this very common state is not Atakkāvacara (beyond reasoning and logic) at all and that all beings already has experience of this very thing.

Whatever…

Since this unconscious state has no dukkha, it must be just like what Nibbāna is like!

Billions of beings already know exactly what Nibbāna is! :partying_face:

What a great time to be alive! :face_with_hand_over_mouth: (pun intended)

1 Like
18

This is not nothingness. Dreamless sleep is still having bhavaṅga mind.

Ok, fine, below is me addressing the issue from AN4.173.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1awbf40/misconception_theres_something_after_parinibbāna/?share_id=7VazGqBTjobXZruycY5dN&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

I think it’s a nothingness which is so nothing, that to say nothing to it is to add a concept to it and it’s an insult to it. So if anything, it’s beyond the concept of nothing to even further nothing. Level 9 nothingness. To be fair, to describe level 9 nothingness still uses concept, but level 8 throws out concepts already. @Dhabba seeing the youtube video of 9 levels of nothingness would help you to get a better sense of why dreamless sleep is still full of somethings.

19

Bhante, I think a simple way to understand how this is not just a minor problem is with a familiar concept from physics.

Do you think that something can arise out of nothing? What we call ‘ex nihilo.’ That out of sheer nothingness, all of a sudden, something existent can arise? That things have a beginning point out of nothing.

If you don’t think that’s possible, how can you think it’s possible for something to turn into nothing? Something can only change into something else. It can’t turn into nothingness , just like nothingness can’t change into something. It works both ways. This would be like a ‘beginning point’ of nothingness from being. If there is no ‘beginning point’ out of nothingness, it doesn’t make sense to claim a ‘beginning point’ out of somethingness.

To hold that before there is something, and then after there is nothing, is annihilationism. That’s a wrong view in DN 1. To hold that before there was nothing, and after there arose something, is a wrong view in DN 1. To hold that there is something that never arose and will never cease, but always is, is a wrong view in DN 1. To hold that there is sheer nothingness and nothing ever arose is clearly not true based on our experience; we are having this conversation. This isn’t just true for matter or form. In DN 1, it also includes the arising of the mind out of nothingness which is rejected. A first beginning of consciousness is rejected by the Buddha. Eternal consciousness is rejected by the Buddha. This means consciousness also cannot go from being real to being destroyed; annihilation of mental stuff is also rejected by the Buddha.

It’s the belief that existence turns into non-existence which is the problem. “After there is nothing” is just impossible. Something that exists can’t turn into nothingness. Nothingness can’t turn into something that exists.

I hope this is helpful :pray: If this makes you feel like “Oh no, how is enlightenment and freedom from rebirth possible?” and you feel like this is a dichotomy which cannot be escaped, maybe it will help to know that this is precisely the problem that emptiness or dependent arising solves. It’s not just Mahāyāna mumbo-jumbo. I think if you’re honest you will see there is a genuine philosophical problem in believing nothingness or being can transform into one another, and yet this doesn’t necessitate that Buddhism is wrong.

This is the ‘middle way’ between eternalism and annihilationism that is found in SN 12.15 and which Ven. Nāgārjuna was pointing out to other Buddhists. The Buddha himself clearly rejected both of these well before Ven. Nāgārjuna. But Buddhists thought their theories were immune to wrong view, which they simply aren’t.

(Tagging Ven. @Sunyo , @yeshe.tenley , and @Ceisiwr as I think this is relevant, but somewhat off topic, to the other thread on SN 12.15).

1 Like
20

Let me rephrase this in philosophical terms listed down. Without any dhamma, logically it is possible that.

  1. Nothing → nothing. Rejected by direct experience of something.
  2. Nothing → something. Rejected for violating causation, there being a first cause, instead of the Buddhist version of undiscoverable beginning to wandering on.
  3. Something → something. That’s just endless rebirth.
  4. Something → nothing. This is what I claim to be the goal of the path, nibbāna, the end of rebirth.

Why no. 4 is not logically impossible is because of the asymmetry between past and future.

Dependent origination describes no. 3, of how rebirth happens. As long as the causes for rebirth is there, it continues to roll on. The flip side of dependent origination is dependent cessation. Where the cessation of the causes for further arising, makes it so that future rebirth is impossible to happen. It happens in 2 parts for the arahant. At arahanthood, the causes ceases, no more craving, clinging, ignorance, (and the doing part of becoming, the kamma part of volitional formations) at death, when all of the 6 sense bases are ceased, the remaining all links also ceases.

When they all ceases, it’s not the case that there is further arising as there’s no more causes for arising to happen. The ceasing process is finite, not infinite, as there’s no infinite amount of things to cease. Therefore, dependent cessation describes how something can turn into nothing, and it doesn’t violate causation, but it is a logical result of causation. When there’s a cause for arising, there can also be removed for cessation.

Really, I think it is becoming not relevant as long as people can understand the simple version as presented above. Afterall, if the Buddha required that we know the very sophisticated emptiness as presented by nāgārjuna to be enlightened, he should put it in the pāli canon already. Talks about substantiality really just complicates a simple picture above.

1 Like