One can also note that these positions are reflected here
I wasn’t the all, I wasn’t in the all, I wasn’t coming forth from the all, I wasn’t “The all is mine.” I didn’t affirm the all.
Here Buddha talks about cessation of the discernment of the all as something not experienced through the allness of the all.
This describes the goal of the training and the texts can be cross referenced. For example
One should train like this
“The All should not be, The All should not be mine; it will not be, it will not be mine”
Rather than
‘I might not be, and The All might not be for me; I will not be, and The All will not be for me.’
Because when the training is successful then one should see and proclaim that on that occasion ‘I wasn’t the all, I wasn’t in the all, I wasn’t coming forth from the all, I wasn’t “The all is mine.” I didn’t affirm the all’.
Essentially one is training like this for a direct realization the cessation of the all as something not experienced through the allness of the all
To wit two irreducble categories of reality, sankhata and asankhata, no self in either.
Did you even read what I wrote regarding the whole ”I” & ”Mine”?
By the looks of it you didn’t (I already knew you were going to bring up the ”I” and ”Mine” from the annihilationist stock formula said in first
person) - Best conviction among outsiders yes, but for buddhists who regard the khandhas as not-self and who reject eternalism, the thought of ”mere cessation” has to also be given up.
Please understand the context of SN 22.81 - it is spoken to monks about ending the defilements in this very life and the ”best conviction of outsiders” is rejected by The Buddha since the view is now put in a buddhist context - not in an outsider sect context.
Well if I don’t regard the khandhas as self and have already rejected both eternalism &
”mere cessation” and have given up doubts and uncertainties regarding the teaching due to rejecting both I am two steps ahead of you on the path.
Thanks to you regarding the khandhas as not-self and rejecting eternalism you have no other option than to believe in ”mere cessation” - I fully understand your view, your view is right there in SN 22.81.
That is why you still brand me and others as ”eternalists” - but we are not.
But since we fully reject ”mere cessation” you and the others in that ”mere cessation” camp can’t understand where we are coming from and you are forced to call us or brand us as eternalists.
I’m not “branding” you or anyone. The word “eternalist” can have many meanings in different contexts. Here it’s just shorthand for believing “something” continues after the death of an arahant.
This has been labeled as “timeless citta”, “pure knowing”, etc.
Whatever one calls it, it indicates “something” that is unending, and it is this sense, that “eternalist” is used here.
The Buddha could have easily said parinibbāna is “endless knowing” or something like that – I mean, it’s quite clear in some of the Upanishads. The Buddha certainly could have made this very clear too.
Meanwhile, I don’t see how one can get around the “not believing in a self” and yet pondering what may or may not happen to “I, me, mine.”
One can still have a self-sense/identification while claiming the aggregates are free of a self.
The fact that there is on-going debate indicates that the Buddha’s teachings may indeed point to something else…
Because in SN22.81 the Buddha describes a form of annihilation-view as:
" 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.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
If I’m understanding your point correctly, you’re dismissing the “I” pondering as a stock phrase. But whether it’s a stock phrase or not, what has this to do with its veracity?
So my point is that humans can be very “clever” in saying and thinking they are free of sakkyāditthi, but can still be attached to it in subtle ways.
Since views of eternalist and annihilationist views in the suttas are always related to a self-sense, in whatever form, I’m saying these suttas and teachings don’t apply to those who see the final cessation of the All (SN35.23), including the aggregates, as cessation of dukkha with nothing remaining.
Do you adhere to a belief that "something " remains after the death of an arahant?
Yes the annihilationist view found among buddhists, you forgot to add the beginning of the text:
The ”don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.” is distinctly buddhist and the sutta is about ending the defilements in this very life spoken to monks.
So how do cessationists differ from these buddhists in the sutta who do not see the khandhas as self and who reject eternalism?
The annihilationist’s error is in that he identifies all possible reality as being dependent on a self coming to know it.
So when people say that having attained sannavedaniyanirodha as dukkhanirodha, one comes to know a reality wthout dukkha, and that parinibbana is made possible because there is an alternative reality. This is incomrehensible to the annihilationist because to him there is only one category of reality, the one that he knows & thinks about.
He is perplexed, how he could discern a reality when his discernment faculty is of another reality?
Here again he is stuck thinking about affirmation of reality as something only done by mentality of a person.
To him extinguishment, having to do with sannavedaniyanirodha and parinibbana, is just extinguishment that occurs in the world.
He says ‘nothing is left after parinibbana’ and by this he means only that nothing of the aggregates remains and that we can’t speak about the person’s faculties anymore, the narrative is ended. He will still maintain that the world where this extinguishment occured remains after parinibbana.
And so to him parinibbana of the aggegates is just a change occuring in the world which he perceives.
He thinks that if his percipience was to be extinguished then there is no more to affirmation of any reality and that this extinguishment of reality is not some other reality but merely a change in the world that he thinks about.
Seems like we’re talking past each other. I’m not sure I can explain any better than in my last post.
Whether Buddhist or not, any pondering of what may or may not happen to “I/me/mine” involves wrong view.
Those who speak of final cessation know that all self-views and self-attachment have been eliminated with Awakening.
So at the final death, with the cessation of all the senses and aggregates, there is final: cessation.
That’s all.
Nothing more is “added” in terms of “timeless knowing” of anything else, in this understanding of the teachings.
Clearly, others have a different view of final nibbāna, as a “timeless knowing or something.” This is where the debating takes place on this aspect of the teachings.
All we can do is understand the teachings as best we can and keep practicing until Awakening.
He will still maintain that the world where this extinguishment occured remains after parinibbana and he delights in this extinguishment as the world becoming without his faculties.
He is essentially delighting in a definitive non-existence, which logically isn’t anything and doesn’t exist as a possibility or reality.
Apart from delineation on account of what ends, logically parinibbana of a fire and parinibbana of the aggregates are exactly the same to them . The world goes on without what ceased.
Like the end of a movie and the end of a season, are basically no different in principle, and so to the annihilationist parinibbana is likewise no different in principal. There is nothing unmade here, merely a change in the constructed being described, and people imagining what non-existence is like.
Yes because there is no need for you to bring up the annihilationist stock phrase formula, that is only used when The Buddha says what those who don’t regard the khandhas as self and reject eternalism should give up.
So nevermind the stock phrase for a moment, how do cessationists and those buddhists in the quote below differ?
You tell me!
undefiled, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the very hard to see, the freedom from old age, the constant, the not falling apart, that in which nothing appears, the unproliferated, the peaceful, the freedom from death, the sublime, the state of grace, the sanctuary, the ending of craving, the incredible the amazing, the untroubled, the not liable to trouble, extinguishment, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, not clinging, the island, the protection, the shelter & the refuge
These are descriptions of Nibbāna while alive, with the aggregates and senses being present and functional.
If the senses and aggregates have fully ceased how could one know “amazing”, dispassion, “the island” , “the sanctuary” etc. ?
Why do you think it takes someone or a knowing for there to be something real?
The words ‘a person’ and ‘knowing’ are conventions used when the constructed reality is present in describing one whose faculties are not scattered.
Why do you not allow the cessation of this reality be something real in it’s own rite, to be directly experienced and completely divorced & delineated from what ceased?
The narrative & faculties would then likewise end completely and there is nothing further to any faculty but you would add that this cessation is possible because there is another irreducible category of reality other than the constructed.
The world likewise can be said to go on but this world that goes on is affirmed when the aggregates are present for someone else and so this is a different world to what was affirmed based on the aggregates which ceased based on the asankhata.
The asankhata being a categorically different reality is not a continuation of what ceased either way.
But ”that in which nothing appears” (Anidassanañca) is also there
Anidassanaṁ is a synonym for Nibbāna and the entire path, not a description of boundless conscioussness (the second formless realm).
If we take The invisible (Anidassanañca) …,
that in which nothing appears … Anidassanañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi anidassanagāmiñca maggaṁ.
Taṁ suṇātha. Katamañca, bhikkhave, anidassanaṁ …pe….
and put it in its proper full context
We get the following:
“Mendicants, I will teach you the invisible and the path that leads to the invisible. Listen … And what is the invisible?
The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called the invisible. And what is the path that leads to the invisible?
Serenity. This is called the path that leads to the invisible. And what is the path that leads to the invisible?
Immersion with placing the mind and keeping it connected. … Immersion without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. … Immersion without placing the mind or keeping it connected. … Emptiness immersion. … Signless immersion. … Undirected immersion. … A mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of covetousness and displeasure for the world. … A mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of feelings … A mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the mind … A mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of principles … A mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise. … A mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that bad, unskillful qualities are given up. … A mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that skillful qualities arise. … A mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development. … A mendicant develops the basis of psychic power that has immersion due to enthusiasm, and active effort. … A mendicant develops the basis of psychic power that has immersion due to energy … immersion due to mental development … immersion due to inquiry, and active effort. … A mendicant develops the faculty of faith, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops the faculty of energy … mindfulness … immersion … wisdom, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops the power of faith … energy … mindfulness … immersion … wisdom, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops the awakening factor of mindfulness … investigation of principles … energy … rapture … tranquility … immersion … equanimity, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops right view … right thought … right speech … right action … right livelihood … right effort … right mindfulness … right immersion, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. This is called the path that leads to the invisible. So, mendicants, I’ve taught you the invisible and the path that leads to the invisible. Out of compassion, I’ve done what a teacher should do who wants what’s best for their disciples. Here are these roots of trees, and here are these empty huts. Practice absorption, mendicants! Don’t be negligent! Don’t regret it later! This is my instruction to you.”
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.’
Well, that’s the nub of the debate isn’t it? You speak of it like it’s a reality and others say that there’s no way to substantiate this in the teachings.
In other words, it comes across as speculative. The senses are gone, the aggregates are gone, and yet there’s the claiming that there is still a kind of knowing that is beyond all this. Maybe. Maybe not.
It’s a metaphysical assertion, and I know of no teachings in which the Buddha categorically states this as being true.
What I see are descriptors that apply readily to nibbana while alive followed by a metaphysical assertion that these descriptors still apply after the death of an arahant.
Again, maybe this is true and maybe it’s not. It’s the nub of the debate and folks will see things as they will until they change their mind or stay with their view. That’s up to each of us.
When we say that there is some dscernment or direct experience it is for lack of a better word.
Suppose we had no language then we couldn’t describe anything let alone how this reality or any is or isn’t.
Now we have a language where on one side we have a myriad of real terms referring to real things that we use to make sense of what changes as it persists. And some person developed so much understanding that one reality ceased in dependence on another. If you talk to him he says he wasn’t the constructed reality, he wasn’t in the constructed reality, he wasn’t coming forth from the constructed reality, he wasn’t “the constructed reality is mine” and that he didn’t affirm the constructed reality.
He talks about how he for lack of better terms now knows two categories of reality, one made and another unmade, one discerned conventionally and another in it’s own rite.
And he says that when parinibbana the constructed reality will end completely for him and in that again he won’t be the constructed reality, or in the constructed reality, he won’t be coming forth from the constructed reality, he won’t be “the constructed reality is mine” and he won’t affirm the constructed reality. There is no more narrative about his faculties beyond this point he says.
And so now we have a language where on one side there are many conventions describing that which changes as it persists and on the other side a single element which is otherwise.
