Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna

[Jasudho]

@Green

I do not understand why people do ignore that Nibbana is being described in EBT as the sublime state of supreme peace (imperishable (Snp1.11) one arrives at when all those defilements are uprooted and there is no clinging. This is something that does not refer to some total extinguishment of oneself,

A main point of debate about this issue is not whether nibbāna is described as peaceful when all defilements are uprooted.
Rather, it’s conflating nibbāna while an arahant is alive, and while the senses and aggregates are still present and operating, with final nibbāna at death, without rebirth.

In your post, there appears to be a blending of these aspects, as you speak of peace and then deny that extinguishment cannot be reconciled with this.
But the extinguishment of nibbāna while alive is the extinguishment of the defilements – experienced as peace and freedom from craving/ignorance. This can certainly be experienced as the aggegates and senses remain.
As you wrote:

@Green

This bliss is not the bliss of absence, non-existence, cessation of all.

Agree – while the arahant is alive (while the aggregates and senses are present).

With final nibbāna, there is agreement that all the senses and aggregates are extinguished without remainder.
At this point, for those who speak of full cessation, speaking of anything else remaining is papañca, as in AN4.173:
"The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”

[Notez]

@Green

I do not understand why people do ignore that Nibbana is being described in EBT as the sublime state of supreme peace (imperishable (Snp1.11) one arrives at when all those defilements are uprooted and there is no clinging.

You are making it sound like arahantship is the parisukha. If being an arahant was a requisite for experiencing the highest peace then the arahant would be reborn endlessly as an arahant in some dimension.

This would be eternalism because one then described the asankhata as an aspect of the mind which would persist eternally after parinibbana because only made aspects one says are extinguished.

It then doesn’t matter if one thinks this aspect keeps reconnecting as human, a god, or in some stable formless percipience. It would be eternalism all the same.

[Green]

Hi,

One can never say that being an arahant is a requisite for tasting the peace of Nibbana…i believe. The only requisite for tasting Nibbana is a heart that is freed from all what oppresses it…freed from the defilements and its effects.

If in sutta’s is describes how mind must be purified this does not at all mean for me that the 6th mind-consciousness or mental consciousness must or becomes purified. But the heart. It is a much deeper level. It is not the mind-consciousness that chooses to react with lobha, dosa and moha on a sense-object but this happens on a subconscious level. And when this choice is made by the mind or heart,
mind-consciousness becomes aware of the choices that are made on this subconscious level.

For example, if i see something and i become mindful that dislike has arisen, i know this choice is made on a subconscious level. It was not really my conscious decision.

Purifying mind means that we purify the ground of our personal existence, as it were. The tendencies (anusaya), habits, wrong views etc that are with us as our personal picked up bagage. But certainly we do not purify mind-consciousness or mental consciousness. Mental consciousness is a means to purify because it has the mindfullness to notice the arising defilements and the wisdom not to feed them. That way we purify, as it were, the ground of our personal existence, which goes much deeper then what happens and is noticed in the head.

The requisite for tasting the peace of Nibbana is that whatever we have collected of anusaya, ditthi, avijja, lobha, dosa, moha, asava is now nullified, uprooted and cannot rule our thinking, speaking and acting anymore. It is a deep purification. It is not at all the same as purifying the mental consciousness but it goes much deeper. A nice way to talk about this is purifying the heart.

When there is no clinging and no engagement anymore via lobha, dosa and moha, perceptions still arise and cease. But because they do not become eye-ear…mind catching anymore, those vinnana’s do not establish or land anymore. This knowledge gives one the certaintly in this very life that rebirth is ended, i believe. Because when all is uprooted for vinnana to establish, land and grow, how can that happen in a next life?

The nature of this purified heart, which is the quality of our existence, is just that it is peaceful, cooled, at ease, unburdened.

There is no arahant, ofcourse, who experiences this or that, like there is also never a worldling who experiences this or that. Such are only conventional ways to talk about things. But there has never ever been a worldling who experiences things nor an arahant. It is always only the knowing element in our lifes that does in all cases, in all beings, in all phases.

Yes, i believe asankhata refers to the empty, peaceful, open, signless, desireless, uninclined nature of the purified heart. The heart is not really intrinsically passionate. No, all defilements are adventitious.

One can see formations arising, passions, feelings, memories, tendencies, plans, moments of smell, sound, visual etc (vinnana’s) but there is no person in the entire world who has ever seen the empty, desireless, open, uninclined nature of a purified heart arising. Who does?

Ofcourse there is something stable, constant and Buddha teaches exactly a Path to the constant, stable, not-desintegrating (SN43) Does stable mean the same as eternal? I do not believe so. What is not seen arising, ceasing and changing is beyond expression in terms of time and space and existence. One cannot even say it exist or that is a continuum. Mental proliferation comes to an end. It fails.

Why is the peaceful, empty, open nature of the pure mind called not-desintegrating and unmade? I believe, because is not at all a result of constructing. The peace of jhana is constructed, the peace after a satisfying meal is constructed, the peace after having succesfuly ended some project is constructed etc. But this peace of Nibbana is not constructed at all. How can what is not constructed desintegrate?

This is also the meaning of Ud8.3 and many other sutta’s for me. Buddha-Dhamma distinguishes the made and unmade, the constructed and unconstructed, the produced and not produced, the conditioned and unconditioned. And we all know the made, the produced etc.

But the Path of the Buddha is about seeing the unmade, the unproduced, the unconditioned, unconstructed because only that can be called safe, protection, refuge. Something that is liable to arise and cease, like jhana, Buddha immediately understood as unreliable, no refuge, and not what he searched for. Why would one take refuge in something that ceases? That is what all beings do. That is just the normal worldy wat to deal with suffering, but not the stream the Buddha entered. He sought what is not conditioned and is not liable to cease.

[Green]

@Jasudho

A main point of debate about this issue is not whether nibbāna is described as peaceful when all defilements are uprooted.
Rather, it’s conflating nibbāna while an arahant is alive, and while the senses and aggregates are still present and operating, with final nibbāna at death, without rebirth.

You choose to believe that there is not an unborn, unproduced, unbecome despite of what Ud8.3 and Iti43 says. This happens all the time. If sutta’s do not really align with a mere cessation idea, then long essays are written about why this word is translated wrongly, or why what is being said in the sutta’s, is not really being said. I find this tiresome @Jasudho. In all honesty i doubt the objectivity of all these readings.

You choose to believe that Buddha taught there are only temporary formations and states and nothing else. And the only way to escape the inherent suffering of what is impermanent, is…it must all not be fed, not be fueled, then at a last death all ceases for oneself. One goes out like a flame. And finally one does not feel nor perceive anything anymore and be free of suffering for ever. Like one erases oneself from life. As lifestream. Vanishes.

This is your choice. I believe this is a wrong choice because in Buddha Dhamma there is really taught the unmade, unbecome, asankhata.

I feel, we can endlessly discuss and debate your choice, but i think we must become more straightforward and grasp the bull by the horns. I feel we must discuss the fact why you are so resistant to acknowledge EBT speak about an unborn, unmade, the stable, the constant, the not-deintegrating etc. Why are so unwilling to see this as something real and so willing to see only what is made, produced etc as real?

Why ?

[Jasudho]

@Green

You choose to believe that there is not an unborn, unproduced, unbecome despite of what Ud8.3

Not true. I’ve never said this. It’s the interpretation of this teaching in which there is disagreement.

The line you cited in Ud8.3 can be understood to point to cessation. After all, all the descriptive words are all negations, not somethings: “without birth” or “freedom from birth”, as examples.
This is not to say that this proves cessation; rather, it shows how cessation is a legitimate interpretation of the text.

The use of the word atthi also does not prove that final nibbāna is a “something” since it can be understood as saying “There is nothing born, nothing made, etc.” That is, full cessation, in which nothing is,or can be, born.

If you take the line as applying to an arahant – of course there are still the senses and aggregates which, although not identified with, will come to an end, meaning death.

@Green

And the only way to escape the inherent suffering of what is impermanent, is…it must all not be fed, not be fueled, then at a last death all ceases for oneself.

Not for oneself – there is no identification with anything and no inherent self. What ceases is only dukkha. What’s wrong with that?

@Green

I feel we must discuss the fact why you are so resistant to acknowledge EBT speak about an unborn, unmade, the stable, the constant, the not-deintegrating etc. Why are so unwilling to see this as something real and so willing to see only what is made, produced etc as real?

See above.
We could ask why you and others believe in, and hold so strongly to, a nibbāna that is “something.”

I agree that discussions on this topic do tend to go around in circles. But consideration and reflection of other viewpoints and the teachings in the suttas can sometimes alter one’s understanding. I used to be in the “eternalist” nibbāna-is-something group.
Then my understanding changed.
I know you’ll be thrilled about that!

What doesn’t help is when beliefs are ascribed to others that they do not hold. As in your opening sentence.

Be well.

[Green]

@Jasudho

The use of the word atthi also does not prove that final nibbāna is a “something” since it can be understood as saying “There is nothing born, nothing made, etc.” That is, full cessation, in which nothing is,or can be, born.

Sorry @Jasudho , All these translation issues are, i feel, boring, and only used as excuses. I cannot take them seriously anymore, because in my opinion they are not unbiased. Once one thinks parinibbana is a mere cessation , and loves that view, is socalled sure about it, it is very clear, for me, that comments, essays, even translation choices are coloured by this.

I just do not believe anymore that it is unbiased investigation, reading, study.

@Jasudho

Not for oneself – there is no identification with anything and no inherent self. What ceases is only dukkha. What’s wrong with that?

Seriously, do you really experience all as suffering? Any talk, any walk, any visual, any perception, feeling etc?

@Jasudho

We could ask why you and others believe in, and hold so strongly to, a nibbāna that is “something.”

What do you mean by something?

Please try to read this in an unbiased way:

What’s reborn, produced, and arisen,
made, conditioned, not lasting,
wrapped in old age and death,
frail, a nest of disease,

generated by food and the conduit to rebirth:
that’s not fit to delight in.
The escape from that is peaceful,
beyond the scope of logic, everlasting,

where nothing is reborn or arisen,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of all painful things,
the stilling of conditions, bliss.” Iti43

What is here called everlasting?

@Jasudho

I agree that discussions on this topic do tend to go around in circles. But consideration and reflection of other viewpoints and the teachings in the suttas can sometimes alter one’s understanding

Yes, but for better or worse?

@Jasudho

I used to be in the “eternalist” nibbāna-is-something group.

Snp1.11 realy states that Nibbana is an imperishable state. But to see it as something, as some object of the senses is not oke.

@Jasudho

Then my understanding changed.
I know you’ll be thrilled about that!

I am more worried about people who think they have a heart-wish to cease for ever without anything remaining. People who just delight in finally not feeling, sensing, perceiving anything anymore and see this as the goal of their life. All in me says…wrong. I cannot help it.

I also do not really doubt the heart does not wish to cease. It cannot have this wish.

@Jasudho

What doesn’t help is when beliefs are ascribed to others that they do not hold. As in your opening sentence.

You always show to be a mere cessationalist. And mere cessationlist do believe there are only temporary formations and states. There is in the end nothing stable and constant. Not even samsara, not even PS, not even the peace of Nibbana. All can cease. This ignores asankhata.

By the way, no sutta’s says that all ceases. They say at best…all grows cool which is something very different.

In the end there is no sutta that even suggest that parinibbana is a mere cessation but still people love it. I believe this is something personal and not something about Dhamma.

[Jasudho]

@Green

where nothing is reborn or arisen,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of all painful things,
the stilling of conditions, bliss.” Iti43

What is here called everlasting?

Nothing! That’s the point.

When people claim a “timeless citta” or an “awareness or knowing” beyond all conditions they are claiming a “something” that is everlasting and unchanging.
The Buddha refuted various views like this in DN1.

@Green

I am more worried about people who think they have a heart-wish to cease for ever without anything remaining. People who just delight in finally not feeling, sensing, perceiving anything anymore and see this as the goal of their life.

When all conditions are known as fundamentally dukkha, nibbidā (disenchantment, weariness with the conditional world) and virāga (dispassion) arise and deepen, since the mind inclines away from dukkha.
Clearly, there are pleasurable sensations, feelings, and conditions. But the Buddha teaches that they are all aniccā, dukkha, anattā. Yes?
Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkha. Dhp278
SN12.15: "Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī.
“What arises is only suffering arising; what ceases is just suffering ceasing.”

In this sense, whether one agrees or not, the cessation of all conditions without remainder – being the final extinguishment of all dukkha – is not a wish for a self to cease or a loss of anything except: dukkha.

@Green

In the end there is no sutta that even suggest that parinibbana is a mere cessation

Not quite true.
And, there is no sutta that clearly teaches that parinibbāna is an everlasting asankhāta-“something.”

This, again, is where interpretations and understandings vary.

[HinMarkPeng]

Buddhadhamma by Somdet Buddhaghosa

Nibbāna is beyond everything known by ordinary people – beyond their sphere and range – surpassing cognition influenced by ignorance, craving and clinging. It is a state arrived at directly with the abandonment of defilements, like sliding back a screen and seeing the sky. Nibbāna has no properties similar to things known by ordinary people. But claiming Nibbāna does not exist is incorrect.

and

Etymologically, Nibbāna derives from the prefix ni- (’out’, ’without’, ’finished’, or ’ended’), and vāna , (’to blow’, ’to go’, ’to move’, or in another sense a ’restraint’). It can be used in relation to fire or burning, meaning extinguishing, quenching, cooling, or coolness – but not extinction. In reference to the mind, it means peaceful, refreshed, and happy: an absence of agitation and anxiety.5 Similarly, it refers to the end of defilements: of greed, hatred and delusion. The commentaries and subcommentaries usually define Nibbāna as the end of or escape from craving, which binds people to repeated existence.

and

Westerners with an inadequate study on the subject of Nibbāna tend to conclude that Nibbāna is self-extinction, which is an annihilationist perspective.

[Green]

@Jasudho

@Green

where nothing is reborn or arisen,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of all painful things,
the stilling of conditions, bliss.” Iti43

What is here called everlasting?

Nothing! That’s the point.

After all my time study, reflecting, discussing, practicing i have no doubt that the Buddha would never ever talk about a mere cessation of a flame or lifestream with nothing left over, as: ‘a sorrowless stainless state’ , beyond the scope of logic, everlasting. To talk this way about nothing left, is irrational, unreasonable.

What you do is that YOU treat and speak about nothing after a last death as if it is still something! That is fact. It is wrong Jasudho.

@Jasudho

When people claim a “timeless citta” or an “awareness or knowing” beyond all conditions they are claiming a “something” that is everlasting and unchanging.

I always say that if you would try to seek the mind without clinging you are really unable to find it as something! Please take note of this. You will not find its boundaries, not its shape, colour, location, structure. Therefor, it is inappropriate to call it something. Please consider this for a while before you immediately reject it.
And also, you cannot say that mind without clinging is nothing and does not exist. Also that is inappropriate.

So, the situation is that when the mind is purified, and does not instinctively engage anymore with sense-objects because all conditions for that are gone, this mind cannot be described in terms of nothing and something. See for yourself, because also your situation is not that there is always clinging.

@Jasudho

When there’s attachment and identification with the aggregates and senses, this is an emotionally understandable view.

I know, this has become the standard frame of these discussions here: If one does not see parinibbana as mere cessation and one does not delight in it, then one is emotional, defiled, mistaken, deluded, a beginner…but when one ripens, becomes wiser, penetrates deeper into Dhamma then one 1. knows for sure parinibbana is a mere cessation, 2. one delights in going like a flame without anything remaining, 3. one would know that only suffering ceases…

This frame is set up by @Brahmali, i believe. Well, i think it is not truthful to discuss things this way.
It creates a setting that is not fruitful, not open, and that does not help meeting eachother. It creates a judgemental sphere.

I feel it is not a nice way of framing these discussions.

@Jasudho

@Green

In the end there is no sutta that even suggest that parinibbana is a mere cessation

Not quite true.
And, there is no sutta that clearly suggests that parinibbāna is an everlasting asankhāta./“something.”

This again, is where interpretations and understandings vary.

You believe the end of rebirth in the sutta’s is described as a mere cessation?..never…it is just not true. No sutta does this. It is merely an idea, an interpretation of what the end of rebirth actually means.

Please do not speak about asankhata as something nor as nothing. See above.

I cannot understand that rational people think that it is normal to talk about nothing after a last death as peace, as bliss, as beyond the scope of logic, a stainless state. It is absurd for me. For me it is even more absurd to believe a Buddha searches for the socalled bliss and peace of non-existence.

If you are not willing to absorb and reflect upon what i shared, i see no use in continuing this discussion.

[Jasudho]

@HinMarkPeng

Westerners with an inadequate study on the subject of Nibbāna tend to conclude that Nibbāna is self-extinction, which is an annihilationist perspective.

Except that’s not what is being expressed by those who understand the teachings to refer to full cessation.

This happens a lot, including on this forum – that the annhiliationist view is equated with cessation.
But the view of uccheda involves the assumption of an existing self, or soul, or essence that will be annihilated at death.
Clearly, the Buddha refuted this view, as in DN1: “or they assert the annihilation of an existing being on seven grounds …”

When all conditions are seen and known as selfless processes – despite appearing in unique and differentiated ways – and when they are further understood to be dukkha, as in SN12.15, then cessation is only the loss and final ending of all dukkha. It is not the annihilation of any kind of self or inherent essence.

We agree that final nibbāna cannot be pinned down by thoughts and wordy descriptions. The issue is that one side sees it as an unchanging, everlasting, ineffable awareness or knowing or “something indescribable” while others understand the ending of dukkha to be the cessation of all dukkha when the aggregates and senses (which are dukkha) cease without remainder at the final death without rebirth.

Not being an arahant, imho, it’s best to not be utterly certain about this, as it can be a form of clinging. If righteousness and agitation arise in these discussions, it’s a clear sign that greed, anger, and ignorance are active.

For myself, it’s more about an understanding that fits with the overall teachings. If this is wrong, then the there will be no way to go any further than “timeless knowing” nibbāna, as you and some others see it.Fine!
But if cessation is what the Buddha taught, then one could get caught in some ineffable “knowing” and remain there without letting go. Not so fine…

[HinMarkPeng]

@Jasudho

while others understand the ending of dukkha to be the cessation of all dukkha when the aggregates and senses cease without remainder at the final death without rebirth.

I can only speak for myself, but I think that everyone contributing here would agree with this statement. The real point of differentiation and misunderstanding is NOT whether this statement is correct but rather to what does it apply. The cessation of Dukkha, or more importantly, its causes refers to the cessation of attachment to conditioned phenomena (Sankhara). It does not mean the cessation of unconditioned phenomena (Asankhata). I mean, that would be absurd. If something can be terminated, then it does not fit a definition of unconditioned. So, the final death cannot cause the cessation of Asankhata phenomena. It is this Asankhata Dhamma that the Thai forest tradition teachers are talking about, not some “thing”, not a self.

Unless one denies the existence of Asankhata Dhamma, then I cannot see how cessation as you describe it can be anything other than the terminus of the path (Nirodha) and not the final destination (Nibbana). (The final bus stop in Bangkok is not Bangkok)

PS
I realise that sometimes Nirodha and Nibbana are used as synonyms and that is because one’s realisation of Nibbana is only possible through Nirodha. In the case I make above, they are not the same. Ask yourself is Nirodha a conditioned phenomena, dependent on the Eightfld Path, or is it unconditioned like Nibbana.

[Jasudho]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

You offer a good point here.
Again, I think it comes down to a different understanding and interpretation of the teachings.

For example, asaṅkhāta can be understood to describe arahantship or possibly parinibbāna, but that doesn’t mean it’s an ineffable "something’ and not cessation.
You may wish to see the the discussion at:

Does “all Dhammas” include Nibbāna?

So, you do not see arahantship as something that is arising and ceasing? Because that are the characteristics of asankhata.

This, in turn, also comes down to the interpretations of words like dhatu and āyatana, which have many connotations and meanings. Some people cite these words when used in the context of the “unconditioned”/ nibbāna to point to an everlasting “knowing” or “indescribable something.”
Others understand these terms within the overall teachings and contexts as not inconsistent with full cessation.

In AN3.47, one might understand "“The unconditioned has these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of the unconditioned” as being an everlasting “something” or as full cessation, which would of course be free of all characteristics – and yet also not be a “something.”

Also, just for consideration, in AN10.29 the Buddha says the view of the annihilationists 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.’
Again, this is certainly a wrong view, but why would the Buddha call it “the best” wrong view if final nibbāna is an everlasting “something”?
AFAIK, there are no suttas in which the Buddha said the same for any eternalist views – of anything.

This doesn’t prove the point. But it does indirectly point to cessation – without the self/soul stuff.

[Dhabba]

Hello @Jasudho!

@Jasudho

I used to be in the “eternalist” nibbāna-is-something group.

Then my understanding changed.

And when you were in this “eternalist” nibbāna-is-something group, your view was the following:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Still, they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’

When your understanding changed and you rightfully rejected eternalism your view became the following:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

@Jasudho

Except that’s not what is being expressed by those who understand the teachings to refer to full cessation.

This happens a lot, including on this forum – that the annhiliationist view is equated with cessation.

But the view of uccheda involves the assumption of an existing self, or soul, or essence that will be annihilated at death.

But in The Buddha’s teaching among both buddhist eternalists and buddhist annihilationists both adhere to: ”they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.”

So the following you wrote below does not apply in a buddhist context:

@Jasudho

But the view of uccheda involves the assumption of an existing self, or soul, or essence that will be annihilated at death.

So now it ought to very clear that there is no difference at all between cessationists and the buddhist annihilationists mentioned in SN 22.81.

Both adhere to the khandhas being selfless and both reject eternalism.

No difference, none whatsoever.

@Jasudho

Also, just for consideration, in AN10.29 the Buddha says the view of the annihilationists 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.’

Again, this is certainly a wrong view, but why would the Buddha call it “the best” wrong view if final nibbāna is an everlasting “something”?

And as you see the very same ”best conviction of outsiders” is the very same view one is told to give up in SN 22.81 - a sutta about ”How to end the defilements in this very life?” (Nibbāna), the question was asked by a monk and the sutta is spoken to monks.

Just because The Buddha uses a stock formula spoken in first person regarding the annihilationist view and it happens to have the words ”I” and ”Mine” doesn’t take away the fact that those he is referring to in SN 22.81, are already regarding the khandhas as selfless - something which only buddhists do since no other teacher except The Buddha teaches to not regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.

That being said, just like how you prior had eternalist beliefs that you rightfully rejected, The Buddha is saying that you, as a buddhist, should also drop that ”best conviction of the outsiders”.

If you truly do so, since you hopefully can see that there is in reality no difference at all between the buddhist annihilationists who regard the khandhas as selfless and who rejects eternalism in SN 22.81 and ”Cessationists”, the sutta explains that this rejection of both eternalism and ”mere cessation” 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.

I sincerly hope you take the next step in the buddhist path and reject ”mere cessation” and after that, that you transition smoothly through the ”doubts and uncertainties” you might have after rejecting both these views.

[Notez]

@Jasudho

Buddha says the view of the annihilationists 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.’
Again, this is certainly a wrong view, but why would the Buddha call it “the best” wrong view if final nibbāna is an everlasting “something”?

As i understand it,

It’s best because such outsider does not hold, meaning they don’t come to think like an eternalist

• I will be
• It is mine
• It will be mine

In course of giving inappropriate attention

This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’

When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views.
SuttaCentral

And being annihilationist he is repelled by existence and it’s cessation is agreeable to him

”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.”https://theemptyrobot.com/texts/tipitaka/sutta-pitaka/anguttara-nikaya/AN10/29-pathamakosalasutta/

This annihilationist is such that doesn’t regard the aggregates as self, as i understand it, this the is the foremost outsider

“He may not regard form as self … or hold such an eternalist view, but he holds such a view as this: ‘I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me.’ That annihilationist view is a formation. SuttaCentral

It’s a formation he relishes.

[Notez]

The proper way to think is like this

If one were to have mindfulness always established, continually immersed in the body, (thinking,) “It should not be, it should not be mine; it will not be, it will not be mine”[1]

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: “There is the case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — ‘It should not be, it should not occur to me;[2] it will not be, it will not occur to me.[3] What is, what has come to be, that I abandon’ — obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?”

"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.’

“What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another might not?”

“There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) ‘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’ — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound.”

“Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?”

“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”

“Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance.”

“Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — ‘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’ — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound.” Aneñja-sappaya Sutta: Conducive to the Imperturbable

[Cordeaux]

All of these discussions about Nibbāna’s ontological status or lack thereof are a graphic illustration of the dangers of papañca. We would all be better served practicing in line with Dhamma to see for ourselves.

[Notez]

To sum up

It is wrong to train like this

‘I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me.’

It is proper to train like this

“It should not be, it should not be mine; it will not be, it will not be mine”

And one shouldn’t think

I perceive self with not-self’
‘no self exists for me’

[Jasudho]

Hi Dhabba,

When your understanding changed and you rightfully rejected eternalism your view became the following:

@Dhabba

When your understanding changed and you rightfully rejected eternalism your view became the following:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

Not quite.
Note the presence of “I” and “mine” in the quote. This puts it in terms of assuming a self and the subsequent wondering about its fate. Different than cessation without a self before or after.

@Dhabba

But in The Buddha’s teaching among both buddhist eternalists and buddhist annihilationists both adhere to: ”they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.”

Right, but they till have a view of self or it wouldn’t be in the teaching! → " Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

@Dhabba

So the following you wrote below does not apply in a buddhist context:

@Jasudho

But the view of uccheda involves the assumption of an existing self, or soul, or essence that will be annihilated at death.

Please see DN1. (I posted a short quote from it in a prior post on this thread).

@Dhabba

So now it ought to very clear that there is no difference at all between cessationists and the buddhist annihilationists mentioned in SN 22.81.

Both adhere to the khandhas being selfless and both reject eternalism.

No difference, none whatsoever.

We disagree on this even with respect to the sutta you quoted, which has “I and mine” in it as part of the view.
See SN2281 and DN2, among other examples.

We can contrast this with a different teaching on annihilationism in AN8.12:
" And what’s the sense in which you could rightly say thatI believe in annihilationism, I teach annihilation, and I guide my disciples in that way? I teach the annihilation of greed, hate, and delusion, and the many kinds of unskillful things. In this sense you could rightly say that I teach annihilationism."
This is in line with those who understand the teachings to point to full cessation – notice no “I, me, mine” anywhere – just processes, in this case greed, anger, and ignorance, ceasing. That’s all.

@Dhabba

I sincerly hope you take the next step in the buddhist path and reject ”mere cessation” and after that, that you transition smoothly through the ”doubts and uncertainties” you might have after rejecting both these views.

Thank you for your kind wishes.
One could kindly say the same back to you in terms of what you believe.

[Notez]

@Notez

It is wrong to train like this

‘I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me.’

It is proper to train like this

“It should not be, it should not be mine; it will not be, it will not be mine”

• I might not be is repaced by It should not be. The referent of It here is surely sankharādukkhatā whereas the referent of I is a convention used in the presence of sankharādukkhatā.
• it might not be for me is replaced with it should not be mine. If we assume that the referent of it here is consistent, then in all the cases It and It denote sankharādukkhatā, and it reads

sankharādukkhatā might not be for me

Replaced with

sankharādukkhatā should not be mine

The rest breaks down similarly.

[Notez]

@Jasudho

@Dhabba

difference at all between cessationists and the buddhist annihilationists mentioned in SN 22.81.

Both adhere to the khandhas being selfless and both reject eternalism.

No difference, none whatsoever.

We disagree on this even with respect to the sutta you quoted, which has “I and mine” in it as part of the view

It does have two seemingly contradicting statements where he does not regard the aggregates as self but trains thinking in those terms.

Now i think it is important remind ourselves what is the lower fetter of sakkayaditthi, exactly

an untaught ordinary person […], abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by identity view, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity view; and when that identity view has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter

Now apparently the identity view arises for the annihilationist due to inappropriate giving of attention regardless of whether he is convinced that the aggregates are self or not.

Nobody can go beyond doubt about these things without a direct realization of nirodha.