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

Discussion
21

I understand that the whole Madhyamaka conversation can be complicated and confusing, while the Buddha stuck to more plain principles. And I agree that the Buddha wasn’t demanding us to be PhD students in philosophy.

But as I pointed out, this is all present in DN 1, SN 12, and many other places in the canon. It’s not that we need to study Nāgārjuna. It’s that the Buddha is pointing us to something which Nāgārjuna tried to put into detailed philosophical arguments. I think the Buddha left it more for each individual to practice. He focused on all the wrong views and taught about practicing for right view. If we pretend the wrong views don’t exist, though, that would be a problem.

Like I said, while dismissing it as overcomplicated is understandable, we should remember not to throw out the message here. Annihilationism and eternalism are both rejected by the Buddha. The belief that somethingness turns into nothingness is annihilation. The idea that somethingness must always exist is eternalism. Partial eternalism, partial annihilationism, etc. are all rejected. You don’t need to trust the Buddha on this blindly. You can just contemplate if it make sense for nothing → something or something → nothing. Non-Buddhists realized this is a problem as well long ago.

“There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. They assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being on seven grounds.”
DN 1

“Vaccha, the wanderers of other religions regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.”
SN 44.8

If ‘form’ is somethingness and becomes nothingness, it is the same as saying ‘form is self’ and the self is annihilated. Even if you think there are other selves which arise after each annihilated self, as some of the annihilationists at DN 1 believed. It is still an existing being → nothingness. I assume you accept the conservation laws which clearly show that matter (something) cannot turn into nothingness. But you reject this is true for the mind. But that would be substance dualism, and it would still assume the mind exists. So this may be some kind of partial annihilationism: matter is eternal (something → something forever), mind is annihilated (something → nothing).

If that is your view, I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m just trying to show you that the Buddha denied this kind of idea, and that other Buddhists have also shown that we can’t rely on it. This doesn’t mean there is something after parinibbāna. That is eternalism which is also clearly wrong. And it doesn’t deny basic Buddhism. It just means the Buddha’s teaching is deep and doesn’t fall back or rely on the dual notions of eternalism or annihilationism like most of the world. Trying to simplify it and fit it into one of these (‘either it’s eternal or it’s annihilated’) doesn’t help solve wrong views. It just perpetuates the two extremes which the Buddha claimed to avoid.

1 Like
22

What are your opinions on the following?

The five spiritual faculties:
faith energy awareness samadhi wisdom

The three knowledges.

Do you think a perfected one would have spiritual faculties and three knowledges only while alive?

In Bible, there are many verses of mentioning: ‘your faith’.

your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.
Mark 5:34

23

Yes. Only while alive. Even knowledge is impermanent. After parinibbāna, there’s no mind, no mind base, no mind objects how can have these things?

24

This is a sinister trap.

How does one understand dependent cessation then if not something to nothingness without anymore future arising?

As mentioned by Ven. @Sunyo and many others, annihilationism needs the non-belief of rebirth. Or that it requires believe in self.

This does not logically follow.

As from my point of view, it’s possible and the right view to regard form as not self and yet internal form (I am careful to use your terminology) ceases without remainder at parinibbāna. The external perception of others on form is just the corpse. Internally, without 5 physical senses, there’s no more perception of form.

1 Like
25

But if that would be the case, what about the parable of two shores and the raft: once one has crossed over to the far shores - he lays the raft (teaching) and goes where he wills. How would he do that if he was non existent (not even a spirit)? How would the far shore be a secure safe place? Wouldn’t it then be an execution place for his spirit?

But is there a need for mind, mind objects and such for spiritual faculties to function?

26

That there truly is something which is then destroyed is annihilationism. Dependent arising instead looks at arising and cessation. Cessation doesn’t mean something is truly destroyed. Cessation is just the concept we use when conditions have changed.

Dhammas arise and cease, but they come from nowhere and go nowhere. This view is shared amongst all the early schools, Theravada and Mahayana too.

3 Likes
27

Venerable @NgXinZhao ,

Via inference, which mental state or experience is then the closest to ”mere cessation”?

You can probably only reply:
Unconscioussness and/or dreamless sleep.

If you really want to spice things up you could say:

  • Asaññasattāvāso - which is a state in rupa loka where one only has a form but no mind at all.

But I guess that is also considered ”still having bhavaṅga mind.”? :joy:

But I just want to know how and from where you draw your conclusions then?

You can’t experience this nothingness prior to experiencing the nothingness in question, and even if you did experience this nothingness you would not be aware during the phase of this nothingness.

So when you later regain conscioussness how can you distinguish which type of nothingness you actually experienced?

  • Was it unconscioussness, was it dreamless sleep, was it Asaññasattāvāso or was it ”mere cessation”?

I mean if we take into consideration that the physicalist annihilationists are 100% completely wrong and and how the rest of the 6 types of annihilationists actually disagree with ”mere cessation” - from what experiences or how can one truly know this eternal nothingness?

Or will you maybe say that the formless dimensions are the closest to Nibbāna?

But I’m pretty sure it has been said on this forum that the formless attainments are not needed… So if these attainments are the closest to Nibbāna, strange how they are at the same time not needed at all…

Please just point at something one can initially grasp at and then let go off, because right now I don’t see from where or how this inference is being made in the first place.
:pray:

28

Look at it like this.

In this context, ‘self’ means something which is independent, right? Or a substance or thing which exists. If ‘form’ is a substance or thing which exists, it is a self. If that substance is destroyed, it’s the same as an ‘existent being,’ i.e. a true self, being destroyed.

As Buddhists we are trained to say “not self! not self!” So it may be difficult to imagine. But believing that any of the aggregates are things which turn into nothingness is annihilationism. It’s believing that the aggregates are the self, or at least some of them are. Believing that they are real behind our perspectives or “out-there” in the world means they have some kind of independence. So that is ‘somethingness,’ or ‘existent being,’ and it is either eternal or destroyed.

You’re saying that perception of form ceases but actual form does not. That is what I mentioned above—a kind of partial annihilationism. “Perception of form” is real and turns into nothingness (mental annihilationism). “Form” is real and must be conserved because it cannot be destroyed (material eternalism). This is like trying to find “the end of the world” in external things. External substances like form or perception of form.

It’s a difficult concept, and that’s okay! :smile: That’s why we walk the gradual path. We learn as we practice. We don’t need to have everything sorted out into the categories and labels of the world to make sense of it as soon as possible. We’re allowed to take time. :pray:

1 Like
29

One way to see it is that the far shore is still when the arahant is alive. The arahants are not attached to any home and freely wanders. It’s a safe place form mental suffering and also future physical and mental suffering.

To see it negatively means one still views very much the mind and/or body as self and one wishes for the self to enjoy nibbāna forever.

the 5 faculties are mental states, so need mind to exist.

I think this is where just adding the truly can really distort the meaning of the dhamma.

Let’s just use appearance as I find is an acceptable way to avoid getting into unnecessarily discussion when talking on mahāyāna emptiness.

Before parinibbāna, 6 sense bases doesn’t truly exist, but exist dependently and vivid appearance of the sense objects happens. After parinibbāna, there’s no more vivid appearance of sense objects because there’s dependent cessation, by which the senses no longer function and no longer arise.

To posit that

Is to just go into the something → something view, but eternally, by just dropping concepts, making it sound deep and also because concepts are frown upon, makes it very hard to argue against. I see it as Mara using play of words and concepts to get people into keeping on running in saṁsāra.

Dhamma can rise and cease. No issue. Main thing here is to acknowledge that it can cease without arising again. And not just the concept of the thing ceases, really not just concept of table ceases, but table is gone. No appearance to the 6 sense bases. Without 6 sense bases, one cannot verify if there’s something left or nothing left or both or neither. This links back to AN4.173.

1 Like
30

When the conditions are there the concept “grass fire” is used. When those conditions cease “extinguished” is used. To those immersed in sakkayaditthi the fire really was there and now is destroyed. To those free of it there was no fire to speak of. It was just a convention for certain conditions. The same for saying it’s “extinguished”. When Arahants and Buddhas are around the concept “The Buddha” can be applied. When they die the concept “extinguished” is used. That’s all that can be said. To say though they no longer exist and so nibbana is total nothingness is to make the same mistake as with the grass fire. The same if someone says the grass fire still is after being extinguished.

2 Likes
31

There’s a few steps.

First get right view of Nibbāna,

Then it is the direct seeing of nibbāna, which is described here: Dissolution and Cessation – How to See Nibbāna — Advanced Vipassana It is the insight of a stream winner. Seeing that nibbāna is the cessation of all conditioned phenomena and it’s causes without arising again, one gets the right idea about parinibbāna. It’s an inference knowledge. Seeing Nibbāna, there’s still perception to see the unconditioned.

Optional, to get into cessation of perception and feeling. This is different from dreamless sleep, but it’s best described by those who have experience of it. Even Burgs, the author from above doesn’t know anyone who can enter into this. Anyway, closest approximation is to know how one enters and exit as there’s no experience in between. The Abhidhamma says the exit has either non returner fruition moment or arahant fruition moment, depending on the attainment level of the person.

Cessation of perception and feeling is the closest to Parinibbāna, only differs in having a living body and thus the cessation attainment is temporary.

32

I think it’s just talking past each other. And why I really don’t think it’s fruitful to bring in these concepts. You’re just reading into my usage of something, exist etc as existing with a self, essence, eternal something there.

whereas I am using it as in your acceptable language usage of appearance, dependently arisen, dependent existing.

As long as you can agree that cessation can be without arising forever into the future, we have no disagreement with regards to cessation. But I think you read this as truly ceasing and say it is impossible, and thus I think you got wrong view that there must always be arising after any cessation.

Just stick back to operational, instrumental language is better than using truly, substantial etc.

33

It’s not agnosticism. It’s that none of these answers can be correct. There can’t be something, nothing, both, or neither. Because if there were something, it would be eternalism. If there were nothing, it would be annihilationism. If there were both, it would be a partial eternalism/annihilationism. If there were neither, it would be ineffable, random, or another irrelevant category. The Buddha claimed knowledge, not agnosticism; but he did not declare knowledge within the realm of the four extremes. All of those are conceptualizations, misconceptions, or reifications based within the senses.

This still assumes the senses are real. That the senses go from somethingness to nothingness. Because it assumes that somethingness/nothingness are valid realities that just cannot be verified. It assumes the ‘end of the world’ is to be found by travelling to a realm of nothingness. It assumes that this self, namely the senses, are destroyed (ucchedavāda); but that self (the world) is unknowable (flip-flopping; amarāvikkhepavāda). These are denied at DN 1.

34

Do you mean citta in this case? Also do you know if there is a sutta that supports this statement. I do not think I read this yet, thou I have only read some suttas.

Also regarding this topic I’ve read MN72

“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a realized one might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.

Any feeling … perception … choices … vinnana by which a realized one might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A realized one is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”

From MN72 it is clear that a Realized One is free from reckoning in terms of form, feeling, perception, sankhara and vinnana. However, I have not yet found a sutta that states the Realized One to be free from reckoning in terms of citta or faith, energy, awareness, samadhi and wisdom.

If the question is about rebirth - which is defined as the collection of the five aggregates - it seems the freedom from the five aggregates is sufficient for no more rebirth.

MN72 also states:

They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean.

1 Like
35

Now that I think about it, in simile of heartwood, it is stated that immersion is compared to bark, knowledge and vision to softwood.

However heartwood - the goal of spiritual life is defined as unshakable freedom of heart.

And so, mendicants, this spiritual life is not lived for the sake of possessions, honor, and popularity, or for accomplishment in ethics, or for accomplishment in immersion, or for knowledge and vision. Rather, the goal, heartwood, and final end of the spiritual life is the unshakable freedom of heart.

So it seems the citta/ceto is what is freed and is according to MN29

36

It could be talking past each other. I acknowledge that.

OTOH, it could be the case that the mind’s of some on this forum are inclined one way and the mind’s of others on this forum are inclined another way. For me there is the appearance that you believe in substantial cessation aka annihilation of a truly existing thing. For me there is the appearance that @Vaddha and @Ceisiwr are also sharing in observing this appearance of your belief in a substantial cessation aka annihilation of a truly existing thing.

The fact that you can so easily acknowledge that the self of persons doesn’t truly exist before death, so there is no talk of true cessation of the self of persons at death, is one thing, but then you push back when it is pointed out that what is true of the self of persons is also true of the aggregates and so on.

There is the appearance that you wish to confine your lack of essence to the lack of a self of persons, but not the lack of a self of phenomena. You seem to say that the self of persons does not truly exist to begin with, but the self of phenomena does exist in a more substantial way than the self of persons and that this more substantial self of phenomena ceases in a more substantial way at the death.

My guess is that we’re not talking past each other, but actual disagreements are being relayed.

:pray:

37

How about the heart release through love or emptiness, nothingness, signless.
Would this rightly be called temporary freedom?
And unshakable heart release would be permanent freedom?

In AN10.219

The heart’s release by love developed in this way leads to non-return for a wise mendicant here who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

It is interesting that in this sutta the heart release developed in this way is stated to lead to non-return. Although there is additional instruction in this sutta. Maybe that is the reason?

38

But if this ”right view” of Nibbāna is actually proliferating the unproliferated, why should one even bother?

I have no clue who Burgs who you linked to with his advanced vipassana is, but this alone tells me a great deal:

“In-demand teacher Guy Burgs [is] now recognised as one of the country’s leading experts in meditation… The classes were a revelation, like sitting down to a TED talk twice a day – a compelling mixture of psychology, science, philosophy, spiritual teachings and even stand-up comedy.”

Don’t take this the wrong way but personally I’m not the slightest interested in some new age, pay me £130 (OR 4x £35) for my Level 2: Healing Meditation 15 Lesson Online Course and get healed, self-appointed spiritual guru and his ”direct seeing of nibbāna.”
:man_mage: :hearts: :moneybag:

I see Burgs has three or more fancy retreats out in nature that cost £1000 per person.

”this spiritual life is not lived for the sake of possessions, honor, and popularity” - MN 29

“Nāgita, may I never become famous. May fame not come to me. There are those who can’t get the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of awakening when they want, without trouble or difficulty like I can. Let them enjoy the filthy, lazy pleasure of possessions, honor, and popularity.” - AN 5.30

39

Hello @am7 :slight_smile: We recently discussed this:

They meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

I think this is a way too extreme view of anicca, dukkha & anatta…

1 Like
40

I think ontological views of one kind or another are virtually unavoidable in this topic, and every flavour of Buddhist school struggles to break this. A quote from SN 12.64 comes to mind:

Suppose there was a bungalow or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, or eastern side. When the sun rises and a ray of light enters through a window, where would it land?”

“On the western wall, sir.”

“If there was no western wall, where would it land?”

“On the ground, sir.”

“If there was no ground, where would it land?”

“In water, sir.”

“If there was no water, where would it land?”

“It wouldn’t land, sir.”

“In the same way, if there is no desire, relishing, and craving for solid food, consciousness does not become established there and doesn’t grow. …

If there is no desire, relishing, and craving for contact as fuel … If there is no desire, relishing, and craving for mental intention as fuel … If there is no desire, relishing, and craving for consciousness as fuel, consciousness doesn’t become established there and doesn’t grow.

There is no longer anything against which consciousness can be measured or evaluated. Our thoughts naturally run along causal linear time, looking for a before and an after, a something or a nothing, a self and other.
When nama-rupa & consciousness resolve into themselves what is to be found, and who would find it?