Right. So according to your view it is not even correct to say that dukkha has lessened with nibbana realized in life as every experience of the six sense contacts and every thing in the All and the five aggregates themselves is literal dukkha. The first noble truth of dukkha has not been resolved at all according to your view with nibbana realized in life. How could it when the All is literal dukkha?
Metta is dukkha.
Morality is dukkha.
Kindness is dukkha.
Equanimity is dukkha.
Wholesome mental states are dukkha.
Any kind of happiness realized in life is dukkha.
Any kind of knowledge realized in life is dukkha.
Any kind of experience realized in life is dukkha.
That is Right view according to you, Right (pun intended)?
How can be be correct to say dukkha has not lessened?
As I pointed out mental suffering is gone and it’s the majority of the suffering we experience. What remains is physical suffering and other very subtle kind of thing like having to eat and go to toilet, cannot have blissful meditation all the time etc.
You might be too hung up on the word dukkha/suffering to mean gross mental suffering, unpleasant feeling only. Whereas seeing the 3 kinds of suffering, even subtle unsatisfactoriness is a form of dukkha.
There is the dukkha of pain and change, but the dukkha of formations has gone (grief, anger etc). Bhante is right to say the aggregates are dukkha regardless, but mental suffering doesn’t occur for the awakened.
I should probably take a step back and remind myself here that we’re discussing your view which I have not acquired yet. As such, of course I’m just trying to properly understand your view and your view is yours to describe how you wish. I just have to try and make sense of it. I’m trying to make sense of it because you’ve said your view is necessary to reaching stream entry. I certainly don’t consider myself to have reached stream entry, but I do consider reaching stream entry a good thing and something I’d like to reach! That’s the context.
Now, as I’ve said I’m trying to make sense of a seeming contradiction I see in my view of your view Namely, you say that the mind is literally dukkha incarnate and yet you say that it is possible to put an end to all mental dukkha in this very life. I don’t get how it is possible to reconcile these two statements as they seem to be straightforward contradictory.
Further, if it is asserted that the aggregates, the six sense contacts, the All is literally dukkha incarnate, then I don’t see how it can meaningfully be said that dukkha has at all lessened in life no matter what attainment is reached. I suppose it can be said that gross dukkha can be exchanged for subtle dukkha, but even this seems problematic. Before we get into why I view that as problematic can you verify that this is what you mean? When you say that dukkha is lessened in this very life are you intending that gross dukkha has been exchanged for subtle dukkha? Are you meaning that some dukkha incarnate has literally disappeared from the universe in this very life with some attainment?
Yes, you’ve pointed this out and to be clear I acknowledge you have pointed it out. I just don’t understand on what basis you say this and still insist that the mind is dukkha incarnate. How can it be that mental suffering is gone while the mind exists if you believe the mind is literally dukkha? Do you just intend to mean that gross mental dukkha is gone, but that subtle mental dukkha remains?
But the mind is also remains and you say it is dukkha incarnate. Please address how it is possible that you say only physical suffering remains while the mind - literally dukkha incarnate - is active? Is the mental sense contact not dukkha? Are the objects of the mental sense contact not dukkha after one has attained Nibbana in life?
Yes, but don’t you believe that even blissful meditation is dukkha incarnate since the mind is dukkha incarnate?
Right. So how can it be that mental suffering is gone when the mind remains? Are you just intending to say that it is gross mental suffering that is gone with Nibbana in life? If that’s what you intend can you be precise and say exactly what part of the 3 kinds of suffering go and when? Thanks.
If the aggregates are literal dukkha and the mind is thus literal dukkha how can it be that the mind exists with contact but mental dukkha has ceased? Do you see the contradiction I see?
He did. But now I will ask you the same question that I asked NgXinZhao: Is there a place in the Theravada canon where views about Nirvana are classified as right or wrong view? As far as I can tell, I’ve answered the question myself since he could not, but are you aware of some other place where the topic is addressed? I am curious about where these very certain attitudes are coming from exactly. (I haven’t read this thread, so excuse me if it’s been discussed already.)
The trouble is that Nirvana is an unconditioned dharma. Thinking about it is akin to thinking about the inside of a black hole. People have lots of theories and equations and ideas about black holes, and they present them as facts, and they’re very certain about it. People being people, they would rather feel certain than uncertain. But there is no observing the inside of a black hole. There’s no experimental method of discerning what it is. Trying to understand it goes beyond the ordinary experience of life. So even if someone were omniscient and tried to describe it for us, the language wouldn’t be very accurate. They would be forced to use some approximate metaphors and leave it at that.
Which is what the Buddha did regarding Nirvana. He left it somewhat indistinct and gave his disciples some inspirational metaphors. So, you’ll have to forgive me if I’m very doubtful about people who think they can decide who’s on the right path or not when it comes to this topic. They’ll have to do better than “The Buddha was tough on people with wrong views, so we get to judge others how we like.”
This seems wise to my limited mind. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a fully realized Buddha is their unique ability to know the minds of others and discern the exact words/actions best suited to lead others to the dhamma. Not even arahants can match this unparalleled ability. So even if arahants on this board - to be clear I have no discernable attainments whatsoever so if their are such arahants on this board I certainly can’t identify them - communicate Right view wrt Nibbana, they wouldn’t have the ability to communicate dhamma as error free as the Teacher who himself was very careful when speaking of Nibbana. Which is to say unless their is a Buddha on this board I’d suspect that all communications are less than perfect, right?
But even if you can’t answer I hope you agree that there are buddhists who don’t regard the khandhas as self but who are eternalists? (Otherwise this thread would not exist in the first place)
Why I’m bringing this up is because the annihilationists in the sutta do not regard the khandhas as self and they also reject eternalism. Just like cessationists do.
So the views are identical, no distinction can be made between these buddhist annihilationists in the sutta and cessationists.
The problem is of course that cessationists assume that all buddhists who reject their view must therefore be ”eternalists”.
So while it is good to refute the eternalist views that some buddhists (who do not regard the khandhas as self) might have; in the case of the cessationists this refuting of eternalism is being done from an equally wrong view where they:
Do not regard the khandhas as self
Reject eternalism
But still hold on to the annihilationist view that The Buddha says one should give up.
Remember that The Buddha praises this same view in AN 10.29
This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
When someone has such a view, you can expect
that they will be repulsed by continued existence,
and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.
But when speaking to buddhists who want to end the defilements in this very life there is no praise at all for this view. One is told to give it up.
The Buddha praised the view as the best conviction among outsiders. But a conviction is only a belief or opinion, nothing more.
Cessationists try to refute annihilationism by saying that annihilationists have a view of self and cessationists do not. But in this sutta those annihilationists talked about don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. So they must be on the buddhist path.
Just like how the eternalists in the sutta don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self are on the buddhist path.
As to The Buddha using a stock phrase formula of the annihilationist view and repeating the view in first person with words like ”I” & ”Mine” has nothing to do with it.
The eternalist view in the sutta also uses a first person stock formula phrase, but when ”I” or ”mine” is used for refuting the annihilationist view, cessationists try to make a case of somehow being different than the annihilationists in the sutta who, just like the cessationists, don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self
So while you make a case that there are ”eternalist-buddhists” who are on the wrong path with wrong views, when it comes to ”annihilationist-buddhists” you have no proper way of refuting their wrong views since they, just like cessationists share the same sentiments and therefore come to the same conclusions.
So I hope you understand why I can’t see any difference at all between cessationists who do not regard the khandhas as self and who reject eternalism and the annihilationists in the sutta who does the very same thing?
—————-
To all this I would like to say that MN1 says that puthujjanas can delight in and identify with Nibbāna as ”me” and ”mine”. So the immersion into Nibbāna mentioned where one would still perceive is not only accessible by the arahants.
Is your usage of the words of enlightened and unenlightened only metaphorical?
Or is the path to enlightenment a gradual process where the mind does indeed go through more refined types of luminosity?
The reason I ask is because: there no star does shine, nor does the sun shed its light; there the moon glows not, - yet no darkness is found.
I only bring up the Paccekabuddhas to further emphasize what is being said in MN1 about puthujjanas delighting in Nibbāna.
The idea that final Nibbāna is nothing apart from the cessation of the khandhas
might seem bleak. If it seems bleak, it is only due to the false sense of having
a permanent self, or more precisely, because of the view of personal identity,
sakkāya-diṭṭhi.
The sense that one has a permanent core — a distortion of perception that is unavoidable for all puthujjanas — makes cessation appear like annihilation and the successful practice of the path like a form of suicide. If cessation
seems undesirable, it is only due to this distorted outlook. - Ven. Ajahn Brahmali
And despite this, MN1 says that puthujjanas can and will delight in Nibbāna:
“Perceiving Nibbāna as Nibbāna, one perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. One perceives Nibbāna in Nibbāna. One perceives Nibbāna from Nibbāna. One perceives ‘Nibbāna is mine.’ One delights in Nibbāna.”
You often quote this sutta. The ‘might’ in this quote implies that the conviction is a conviction of doubt. It isn’t the case that this conviction of outsiders is, “I am not, it is not mine” hence these outsiders have some doubt. They harbor doubt that the self currently exists, but they do not have a firm conviction that the self does not currently exist. It ‘might’ be important to keep this in mind (pun intended).
While we are on the subject of doubt…
SN 22.81 specifically says:
Don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.
Don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self & give up all eternalist views.
Don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self, give up all eternalist views & give up all annihilationist views
Doing all of the above leads to the following:
Still, they have doubts and uncertainties. They’re undecided about the true teaching. That doubt and uncertainty, the indecision about the true teaching, is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Not really. They feel pain for example but they don’t then go on to fabricate anger or upset because of that. That pain is dukkha, but no emotional dukkha is generated. The same with the dukkha of change, which refers to pleasant sensations and equanimity. When they fall away, there is no emotional turmoil because of that. When the mind changes, there is no emotional disturbance because of that either. The mind is mano, the heart is citta. When mano changes the citta remains in equanimity.
the different wrong views exists inside the Suttas, mostly because the interchange with other ascetics.
There are lists like in example the 62 wrong views and similar, although there addressed more to oneself in other terms. I doubt there is an specific list with all the possible wrong views about nibbana because it could be endless. Nibbana is the leaving of all views. However, one can detect the same wrong views kept by ascetics in Buddha times, sometimes appearing like a new combination of different things. Some things can remember the Charvakas while others the Ajnana philosophy and so on.
In example, in this case with a new nibbana-nothingness, there is a clear kidnapping of the sphere of nothingness, a well described -self delusion ambit. And also how it goes in company of an underlying materialism denying the power of the Buddha teaching to transcend the Reality until the death arrives.
One can read in example “The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism” Paul fuller, or “Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrine” Maha Thera Nyanatiloka
you are right. All views are defective because the only right position is anatta and nibbana with the eradication of views. However, the same Buddha used the notion of wrong view because some ideas and mind images can be obstacles for the goal, while the right views can clarify the path.
Nibbana should be observed like a result. The ideas and images we kept logically can impede the arising of that result when these are contradicting the nature of nibbana. If somebody believes the nibbana is a nothingness, panna (wisdom) will not arise for nibbana, and that’s fully logical.
However, if somebody believes this is not an annihilation ambit, then panna can arise, despite no idea of what exactly it can be.
If we need additional ideas to pacify our reason then we can use the Buddha descriptions: the more important is that nibbana is happiness. Because the inner joy due to the simple fact of the rare opportunity to keep Dhamma is a requested factor for enlightenment.
Emptiness (anatta), equanimity and other issues also are useful to be focused like the nature of nibbana. And despite none of them can catch their exact nature in nibbana, the person is pointing in the right way to nibbana.
If one points to an ambit of annihilation obviously the mind is going in a different road.
yes, this is due to the assumption about the -self will be annihilated in nibbana. This is not in that way and from here the insistence of the Buddha to avoid the extremes of “-self exists” or “-self doesn’t exist”. What is eradicated is the clinging to -self, to atta. And this is not the same thing.
This is a similar problem regarding what happens with the defense of that nothingness like the Cease of the aggregates while there is an oblivion of the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates as previously pointed.
I have read in this board “in nibbana you will not enjoy of nibbana”. This can sound intellectually right but this is wrong in real terms. Because in nibbana it is not only impossible to claim that one was there but also that one was not there.
the goal of the dependent origination teaching is to end dukkha and birth, and this was taught to be realized in life.
After that point the birth is ended and there is no more dukkha. The kamma to be exhausted including the arising consciousness due to the sense activity it lacks of relevance. Just it happens that you understand the “Cease of Consciousness” like the annihilation of knowledge and then it becomes relevant for your own notion.
again the difference is in the meaning of “Cease”. That Cease doesn’t mean annihilation.
What you explain seems a kidnapping of the sphere of nothingness to be a new nibbana. We find this issue in example in MN.106:
> “Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers 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: all are perceptions. Where they cease without remainder: that is peaceful, that is exquisite, i.e., the dimension of nothingness.’ Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it’s possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the first practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.”
while the true nibbana is explained by the Buddha at the end:
*> “There is the case, Ananda, where a disciple of the noble ones considers 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; perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception: that is an identity, to the extent that there is an identity. This is deathless: the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.’”
and then we find this paradox: what you identifies like the definitive nibbana (parinibbana) it is the description of the -self delusion ambit of a nothingness. While for the arhant who still is not complete in his goal according your view, we find the nibbana like the freedom of the clinging/sustenance without the annihilation of Reality as it was taught by the Buddha.
From here there is a simple choosing at least in practical terms: at the moment of death one could aspire to that nothingness or also to the freedom from clinging/sustenance. And the consequences are obvious: from the roots in an aspiration to a nothingness, a nothingness could arise. While from the roots in the freedom from the clinging/sustenance, a freedom from the clinging/sustenance could arise.
And the issue is when logically, to sustain a nothingness only a blank or unconsciousness ambit is requested. While to sustain the freedom from the clinging/sustenance, an annihilation is not possible to give sense to that freedom.
IMHO the discovery of the Buddha was not a place to go named nibbana but the way to escape from the Wheel. And this is rooted in the freedom of clinging instead the annihilation of Reality. Therefore, this is not about what could be the “final truth” because such thing doesn’t exist. There is the way to escape from birth and dukkha or no. A nothingness can become a destiny as also the freedom from the clinging to any Reality.
Each person will discern what’s better according understanding and goals or maybe the kamma.
I leave here because the difference in that notion is enough clarified at least to me
This is not new, classical Theravada has been preserving this for thousands of years.
We are repeating things by now, since you didn’t want to read all the past post.
Sphere of nothingness still has perception. Then go further perception is mostly gone for neither perception nor non perception, then go further is ending of perception and feeling.
That cessation of perception and feeling is temporary samadhi for arahants and non returner while alive and in that, there is no mind. But after the arahants die, it’s no longer temporary.
There’s 9 levels of nothingness, so just using the term nothingness can be inaccurate philosophically speaking, unless one is clear about which level it is. Parinibbāna is the highest level.
Namely, you say that the mind is literally dukkha incarnate and yet you say that it is possible to put an end to all mental dukkha in this very life. I don’t get how it is possible to reconcile these two statements as they seem to be straightforward contradictory.
)
