Does an arahant have a full knowledge of freedom, totally detached from 5 kandhas (rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana) now or do they need to wait for the body to die to know? Also, will they ever say, “MY” body is dying if the conceit has totally eradicated with wisdom?
If one has totally detached from bhava and vibhava now (all fetters), do you still say they are dying in human body (aka in suffering) or Do you just say the body is death, but the arahant/Buddha (an awakened one) never die due to the wisdom of freedom?
If an arahant is free from all fetters, do you put the fetters back to say an arahant is still attach or take interest to the human body including all the khandhas?
Anyway, this is difficult to know for one, unless one has totally cooled the body and mind by fully developed n8fp and mind totally anchor on 4SP, that is Fully free from all sufferings (birth, sick, old age and death) as an arahant. That is No more ignorance, ill will, greed.
Quote from MN 140, but there are many. Like above.
…
They neither make a formation nor form an intention to continue existence or to end existence.
Because of this, they don’t hold at anythingin the world.
Not holding on, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.
They understand: ‘Birth has ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
…
This is referring to attainment of arahanthood. Which is the end of mental suffering and already guarenteed end of physical suffering at death.
Even for stream winners, since they are already guarenteed to become arahants can be said to attained the deathless, even if they have 7 more lives and death to go. Reference: when Sariputta first became a stream enterer and was asked if he attained the deathless, he said yes.
When they die, there’s no more mind to know things. Ending of suffering is known while alive.
They can refer to their body with conventional usage of self without misunderstanding it.
Conventionally, arahants die. Ultimately, there’s no self, so we cannot point to an arahant or buddha even when they are conventionally still alive. Therefore the Buddha couldn’t answer the 4 questions of whether he would be exist or not or both or neither because the concept is wrong.
After death, we cannot even conventionally point to any 5 aggregates to refer to arahant. Not counting corpse.
There’s never a self, even the delusion of self is not a self, but the delusion of self is the one which keeps the 5 aggregates going on rebirth. Once the delusion of self is gone, aggregates becomes unclung to, the experience of physical pain is still possible for a conventional arahant.
In 3 suttas, I think one arahant in each sutta used the knife due to severe chronic bodily sickness. Arahants are also shown to take an interest to heal their body when sick as the 7 factors of enlightenment are chanted for the 3 monks, including Buddha, and healing happens. Buddha avoided the touch of the needle skin yakkha.
Having a body is still dukkha, physical dukkha, even when there’s no mental dukkha.
I understand this is your interpretation, but I think it is important to note that this is not what the sutta literally says. Rather, it says “just this is the end of suffering”; not the further elaboration, “just this is the end of suffering except for physical suffering which you’ve now guaranteed will end later with your death.”
Even if all planes of existence are, according to the Buddha, impermanent there is still an actual duration to all conditional beings which can vary from 80 years to millions of years.
This duration is something one can’t ignore:
When impermanence is known via suffering and one finally is forced to take rebirth one can say not-self of that whole entire conditional experience that has ended.
That is one of the reasons why the no self view is considered wrong in MN 2:
When they apply the mind irrationally in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact:
‘Atthi me attā’ti vā assa saccato thetato diṭṭhi uppajjati;
"When the conviction 'I lack a self' emerges from the clarity of truth and understanding..."
"From the bedrock of truth and genuine insight springs the perspective: 'There is no self for me.'"
"In the light of truth and clear discernment, the belief 'There is no self for me' takes root."
"Truth and deep understanding give rise to the perspective: 'There exists no self for me.'"
"With the foundation of truth and genuine perception, the notion 'I have no self' comes into being."
“With truth and settled conviction, the belief ‘there is no self for me’ arises.”
Explanation: This translation underscores the presence of truth and a firm conviction, leading to the belief in the absence of self.
I have no clue how Ven. Sujato managed to translate it as:
”The view: ‘My self does not survive.’”
My point is:
”There is mother, there is father” is right view and the Buddha said we can never pay back what our parents have done for us.
So even if we say all is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self - while conditions remain there is still a being, who is the offspring of two beings.
Attakārīsutta - The Self-Doer AN 6.38
Brahmin? Is there a principle of departure?.. of arrival?.. of staying?.. of establishment?.. of progress?’ ‘Yes, sir.’
'When there is a principle of progress, progressing beings are discerned. Brahmin, the beings discerned through the principle of progress are those that progress through self-effort and the effort of others. I have never encountered or heard of such a belief or view. How could someone, while entering and leaving through self-initiation and initiation by others, claim: “There is no self-effort, there is no effort for others?”’
When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.”
Here the Teacher is referencing the end of suffering while the six sense contacts remain intact.
This is not the only way to read this sutta as not being in this world, or beyond or between can also refer to the cessation of existence - one life ceasing, the next not beginning nor there being any existence in between the two. Anyway, this is a poetic enigmatic text. This reading also makes more sense since it aligns in meaning with more clearer straightforward texts where the “end of this mass of suffering” comes when things like old age, death, sickness etc cease, which I have quoted to you before as well. In these texts like for example SN 12.1, death literally means physical death i.e the aggregates breaking up.
When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
The not identifying with the six senses refers to enlightenment. But the sutta continues to say: “When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.””
This means, when you don’t identify, you won’t be reborn in any world whatsoever (with “in between” meaning a state between one life and the next). If you’re not reborn anywhere, in any realm, then just that is the end of suffering. So it does refer to the after death situation.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that nāma rūpa, viññāna, and the sense fields are no longer present while an arahant is alive?
The body becomes ill and dies for arahants, even as there is no identification or attachment with any of the senses or aggregates.
In this sense there is not full cessation of all illness, old age and death until the final death of an arahant without rebirth.,
SN12.19:
"The astute person has completed the spiritual journey for the complete ending of suffering. Therefore, when their body breaks up, the astute person is not reborn in another body. Not being reborn in another body, they’re freed from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. They’re freed from suffering, I say. "
Nibbana exist
MN107
“So too, brahmin, Nibbāna exists and the path leading to Nibbāna exists and I am present as the guide. Yet when my disciples have been thus advised and instructed by me, some of them attain Nibbāna, the ultimate goal, and some do not attain it. What can I do about that, brahmin? The Tathāgata is one who shows the way.”1028
Nibbana is Dhamma and since all Dhamma are not self. Nibbana is also not self. It is not nothing, it is just empty of a self or anything pertaining to a self.
AN4.34
(3) "To whatever extent there are phenomena (here phenomena is dhamma) conditioned or unconditioned,691 dispassion is declared the foremost among them, that is, the crushing of pride, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the termination of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbana.
Nibbana is not a consciousness since consciousness is conditioned. Thus all five aggregates ceased in Nibbana
AN3.47 (7) Conditioned
“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned.405 What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”
Hello Venerable! The sutta does not talk about death. It is referring to the present tense with the senses intact and saying not identifying is itself the end of suffering. Why do you feel the need to bring death into your interpretation of the sutta?
I agree that the sutta should not be interpreted literally, but the sutta does literally say what it says and literally does not say what it doesn’t say. Death is not brought up here and I see no reason to add this to the interpretation.
The six sense contacts are explicitly described by the Teacher as void, hollow and completely insubstantial. They cannot be found when searched for with analysis in just the same way as the self cannot be found. The manner in which they exist is the same way in which the self exists; they exist in a completely void, hollow and insubstantial way that cannot be found when searched for.
The self cannot be found when looked for just like the chariot cannot be found when looked for when searched for among its parts. However, that doesn’t mean that chariots utterly don’t exist. They exist by being named as a ‘chariot’ via common agreement when a valid basis exists. That is the same manner in which we can say a self exists; by common agreement when a valid basis exists. However, neither a chariot nor a person can be found when looked for with analysis.
Yes, I mean the same thing. A chariot, a person, the aggregates, the six sense contacts; none of these things can be found when we look for them with analysis. Still, they exist by being correctly named through common agreement depending upon a valid basis. They exist, but in a completely insubstantial, void, and hollow fashion.
Yes, eye contact, form, the aggregates, the self, the Tathagata, the person, a chariot; all of these exist. How? In a completely void, hollow and insubstantial fashion. None of them can be found when looked for with analysis. That does not mean they are utterly and totally non-existent.
I have not been denying this. I agree that nibbana is cessation, but where we seem to disagree is the cessation of what? You seem to believe the self is utterly non-existent (thus can’t be said to cease), but somehow is made of real substantial parts that do exist; and hence it is these real substantial parts that cease. I think this is illogical and contradictory. At least, I cannot make sense of it. The self, the aggregates, the person, a chariot, the six sense contacts; yes, all of these are dependently existent and arise and cease as conditions do. I do not deny this.
You seem to believe that the aggregates exist in a substantial way in which the self does not. And you seem to believe the path is all about some trick that unwinds these real aggregates by denying any existence of a self whatsoever to achieve a real and final death.
It is as if you believe one can make the very real parts of a chariot utterly disappear from existence once and for all by somehow denying that any chariot at all exists. So I remain baffled at how this is supposed to work.
As long as you believe that the aggregates are real and exist in a way that the self does not I don’t see how you’re going to come off this view that focuses so much on death.
Rather than debating over definitions of abstract terms like real and unreal. void, insubstantial and substantial, etc., I think we agree that everything experienced by, and including, the six sense fields is anicca, hence dukkha.
SN22.85:
"What’s impermanent is suffering. Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
What’s suffering has ceased and ended. yaṁ dukkhaṁ taṁ niruddhaṁ tadatthaṅgataṁ.
Selfless processes and impermanent conditions are essentially synonyms for dukkha.
As in SN12.15:
"what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing.‘Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī.
SN22.30:
"“Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of form [and the other aggregates] is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death.
“The cessation, settling, and ending of form [and the other aggregates] is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death.” Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpassa nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, dukkhasseso nirodho rogānaṁ vūpasamo jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo.
Conditional experience is dukkha.
Nibbāna is the ending of it.
This is just obscuring the disagreement, not illuminating it to my mind. From past conversation it seems you are using dukkha as a euphemism to mean the real parts of a non-existent self ending at death.
Rather, just getting to the core of the 4NTs and DO. Which are about dukkha and its cessation. Yes?
What’s obscuring imo, very often, are abstract debates about abstract terms and definitions.
The sutta citations offered above (and many others) simplify things in this sense.
Experiences in all manifestations – whatever labels are given to them – are dukkha.
That’s what the suttas above literally say.
End that and dukkha ends. Is this not what the core of the teachings are about?
Yes, but I think you understand I have no contention with the statement that dukkha ends nor those suttas you cite. The terms I use are the ones the Teacher used according to the translations. Still, we disagree that the 4NTs are about the demise of truly existing parts of a non-existent self ending at death.
