Can someone help me to understand the Yamaka Sutta (SN 22:85)?

And that is exactly my position. :grin: The parts are processes too… if one keeps analyzing all that can be found is the process of codependent arising with Emptiness at the core. All ‘things’ are but a temporary homeostasis of underlying inconstant phenomena (processes).

(This may be Nagarjuna’s position too, from my limited reading).

1 Like

The purpose of Buddhism is to be happy and free of suffering here and now. Whatever happens in the future is irrelevant.

Getting bogged down in concepts of what happens after death or if there is a self or whatever is just an obstacle to happiness.

One attains happiness by letting go of things that stress out the mind, and concepts of self is one of those things. Afterlife too.

Worrying if there is an afterlife to determine if you should be happy now is rather foolish. There’s really only 2 ways to be happy now: material gratification or sublime gratification. The dhamma sacrifices the former to attain the latter, and then it sacrifices any unnecessary ego baggage to attain further gratification.

Identity view must be given up because one needs to be disassociated from the processes of the mind in order to change and eliminate them. If you believe a process is you and cannot be changed (i.e. permanent) then you cannot get rid of it.

Whatever is impermanent (i.e. changeable) is stressful and is not yourself and therefore can be stopped (i.e. not activated again/reborn) by no longer feeding into the process with your attention and intention guided by wisdom, which results in further wisdom and liberation.

1 Like

For the OP.

Rather than get bogged down with the Yamaka sutta and its finer philosophical points, perhaps you could try the Buddha’s Guaranteed teaching (MN60) ? :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

I note that the Wikipedia page for Pascals Wager Pascal's wager - Wikipedia egregiously omits this sutta from its list of “Variations and other wager arguments”, perhaps @Javier (I think I remember you are a Wikipedia person?) could add it? It seems ridiculous that by far the most explicit and earliest version of this philosophical argument should not be mentioned on the Wikipedia page about it.

1 Like

Yes. That’s correct. What is (has been) annihilated is greed hatred and delusion.

The aggregates are constantly falling away (and arising) which is why there was never a ‘being’ in the first place. There is only a ‘coming to be’ and ‘ceasing to be’. That we think that there is a ‘being’ (to be annihilated) is part of the delusion that is annihilated. (SN 12.15 for example)

1 Like

I think you may be conflating no-self with no being.

There is a being, that being is the active processes of greed, hatred, and delusion. It’s only when those processes are stilled that there is no longer a being.

See the satta sutta.

Quite the opposite, it’s actually by seeing fully how things are that you let go of them. You fully see the drawbacks (cons, impermanence, dukkha), gratification (pros, temporarily ceasing misery and dukkha), and the escape (path).

In other words, everything you’re doing now is to stop suffering, it’s just that your method is ignorant and inefficient via sensual pleasure, and that the Buddha’s method is better and eventually everlasting as the fetters are given up.

You don’t know better (ignorant), so you deal with suffering the only way you know how (sensual pleasures, conceit, etc…).

I don’t deny that this is true. A lot of suffering can be avoided if we practice detachment. But detachment from life itself? Buddhists are basically saying that there is nothing after the death of an enlightened being and that’s the ultimate goal.

In Atheistic terms, that’s basically like saying I could obtain the most happiness by offing myself. Can you see how that isn’t very inspiring?

I can agree that our existence will be unsatisfactory if we cling to the wrong kinds of pleasure, but I’d rather find a way to exist with the right kinds of pleasure – not abandon existence altogether.

No they’re not. They’re saying suffering is present here and now, how do we deal with suffering here and now. What happens after suffering has been permanently eliminated is outside the scope of the dhamma and irrelevant. It’s like asking the Doctor after he has removed the tumour what to do now, not relevant, he did his job.

No it’s not, suicide is not the escape from dukkha, which is a mental problem, and not a physical problem. One can live happily without dukkha.

Nowhere did I say you should abandon “existence all together”, which I don’t even know means in this particular case.

All there is to know, is that when you wake up in the morning, there is experience. You can have experience with stress or without stress. The Dhamma deals with experience, and what kind of experience you want to have, and it advocates for an experience without craving since craving is stressful.

The Buddha said that suffering is (among other things) being separated from what is pleasant, right? And as you yourself said (and I agree with you):

I do not wish to be separated from a pleasurable existence so contemplating what happens to an enlightened being after their death is natural. But the idea that there is nothing after their death is stressful and Buddhists just don’t have any comforting response. They just say, “don’t think about it”. Thats my frustration.

What’s so wrong with believing in an eternal self? It would ease the anxiety of personal extinction and allow me to really practice the Dhamma, knowing that I’m not working towards the eventual end of my existence?

The Buddha also said that there’s higher pleasures that are sublime and subtle.

Do you agree that there’s different levels of pleasure? And one who knows better quality pleasures usually does not go back to lower quality pleasures. In other words, the only reason you like lower quality pleasures is because you don’t know better.

The root cause of your pleasure hunting is dukkha and misery, when those are removed, all that remains is sublime pleasure.

Sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.

Reverend Gotama, pleasure is not gained through pleasure; pleasure is gained through pain. For if pleasure were to be gained through pleasure, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Māgadha would gain pleasure, since he lives in greater pleasure than Venerable Gotama.’

‘Clearly the venerables have spoken rashly, without reflection. Rather, I’m the one who should be asked about who lives in greater pleasure, King Bimbisāra or Venerable Gotama?’

‘Clearly we spoke rashly and without reflection. But forget about that. Now we ask Venerable Gotama: “Who lives in greater pleasure, King Bimbisāra or Venerable Gotama?”’

‘Well then, reverends, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, reverends? Is King Bimbisāra capable of experiencing perfect happiness for seven days and nights without moving his body or speaking?’

‘No he is not, reverend.’

‘What do you think, reverends? Is King Bimbisāra capable of experiencing perfect happiness for six days … five days … four days … three days … two days … one day?’

‘No he is not, reverend.’

‘But I am capable of experiencing perfect happiness for one day and night without moving my body or speaking. I am capable of experiencing perfect happiness for two days … three days … four days … five days … six days … seven days. What do you think, reverends? This being so, who lives in greater pleasure, King Bimbisāra or I?’

‘This being so, Venerable Gotama lives in greater pleasure than King Bimbisāra.’”

It’s because Buddhism deals with what is knowable, and what is knowable is known through experience, thus it is a phenomological ideology. It doesn’t matter how hard or much you speculate about what happens after death, you’ll never truly know. To know something is to experience it directly, and you can’t experience death directly and come back to talk about it, as far as I know.

So let me try and get my head around this. You would agree that there is no ‘being’ to be found once one is an “enlightened being”? That is there is no being there without delusion?

But you also suggest that there really is a being while there is still delusion? Is that your position?

It sounds like what you are looking for in a religion or philosophy is essentially comfort. That’s fine, but I have come round to thinking that you are right, Buddhism, at least the kind that is talked about on this forum is probably not for you, if your criteria is that the religion comfort you as you currently are then I just don’t see what you might hope to get here.

As for “what’s wrong with believing in an eternal self” well, the EBT’s (what this forum is here to discuss) spend A LOT of time explaining what they think is wrong with that, honestly, have you looked into Vedanta? its pretty similar to Buddhism in a lot of ways, but it lets you keep your comforting belief in an eternal self, and not only that but your eternal self is God so it’s even better than Christianity! :slight_smile:

Good luck with your journey, as I have come to suspect that you might be being slightly… shall we say disingenuous ? with regards to your motivation for being here, I will not be responding further in this thread.

Metta

This is not unreasonable and luckily Buddhism offers you just that and much more. :slight_smile: If you read the suttas on gradual training (just as MN27) it shows how just fulfilling the precepts gives rise to blameless happiness and practicing sense restraint leads to unsullied bliss. One of the best descriptions of this is in MN129 where it describes a person who lives their life according to the teachings of the Buddha. You just sit there and all of the good things you have done (and bad things you have restrained from) envelop you like the shadow of a mountain. No wonder the Buddha told not to fear good deeds. You might also be interested in suttas such as AN 11.1 that show how practicing this path actually feels like. It is about the right kind of pleasure all the way to seeing things as they truly are which propels you towards highest happiness.

Of course the questions still remains: is it possible to view cessation as the highest bliss and is the Buddhist view different from materialistic position of annihilationism? The answers are: yes and very much so. With cessation the process is again gradual and leads to deeper and deeper happiness that even surpasses the joy that arises when you live a good life and practice restraint. Actually living kindly leads to cessation already because the bad stuff in your mind starts to gradually disappear. You have to let go of coarser suffering first.

Having practiced the precepts and kindness in many other ways for a substantial period of time you sit down to meditate and observe that this cessation can go even further. If you reflect wisely you notice that when you let things fade away and cease it is very peaceful. Meditation is what happens when you let go of more and more of your experience aka the five khandas. And as suttas such as AN9.32 show this ends with a beautiful coolness of cessation. But the way to that cessation doesn’t happen through metaphysical pondering or spiritual depression but through happiness that is directly experienced by oneself little by little. And it is a natural process, once it gets going your mind just can’t resist the happiness and it starts to leap towards cessation of suffering. Even if you don’t like the idea of cessation you just have to grind your teeth and enjoy the process, lol. But again, this takes long-term training and lot of it has to do with developing your perceptions to appreciate the idea of cessation. I think here theory and practice meet beautifully.

So having faith in cessation is not just useless metaphysical view you subscribe to, it actually takes you further down on the path until you see the truth for yourself. If you don’t train your mind to understand why cessation is so beautiful it will always remain a mystery. And one part of that training is keeping your mind at least open to teachings you may find at the moment hard to accept.

Needless to say, the happiness and practice outlined here is something alien to materialists who want to enjoy the pleasures of the world and get out of existence at the same time.It would be nice if there was a free pass out of suffering as materialists hope but as a Buddhist you don’t get that. Instead you get a path that takes commitment, perseverance and also faith but gives you more and more happiness and fulfilment as time goes by. What more do you want?

I hope this answers at least some of you questions, at least indirectly.

Lots of metta.

1 Like

Thank you to everyone who responded! I really appreciate the time and energy you spent to help me understand a difficult topic. I’m sorry if I came off as combative at times… it’s a subject I care very much about and was hoping to receive a particular response. When that didn’t happen, I got frustrated. Please forgive me.

I wish you all the best and much progress in your practice!

With metta.

2 Likes

@stu

I thought my response was pretty clear. I’m saying that as long as there’s the 3 poisons there’s a being, and when there’s no longer 3 poisons there’s no longer a being.

Here the Buddha doesn’t say “there is no being”

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be ‘a being.’[3]

  • Satta sutta

It’s only when ignorance is fully destroyed that there is no longer bhava and one is no longer a being.

“When asked, ‘Are you a deva?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a deva.’ When asked, ‘Are you a gandhabba?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.’ When asked, ‘Are you a yakkha?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.’ When asked, ‘Are you a human being?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a human being.’ Then what sort of being are you?”

"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba… a yakkha… a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

  • Dona sutta

Here the Buddha is saying if he still had fermentations he would be a being.

To say there is no being when craving is still present would be to claim one is an Arahant when they’re not.

1 Like

Ah yes. I think I see your problem with my statement. I was actually just responding to this quote, which I shall quote again here:

So the OP (and what I was responding to) was talking about an ‘Enlightened Being’. Would you agree that this is an oxymoron from a sutta perspective? My suggestion is simply, that because delusion has already been destroyed (i.e. we are talking about an arahant) there is already no ‘being’ to be annihilated , “at the death of an enlightened being”.

2 Likes

Correct “Enlightened being” is an oxymoron from the sutta perspective.

2 Likes

I’d like to give you another response to my previous response, which was a little short.

What’s wrong with believing an eternal self is that it priortizes what is future and non-evident (potential imaginary happiness) over what is present and evident (dukkha).

It is therefore a delusion, no different than someone fantasizing about being a billionaire when they don’t even have a job and are living on the street.

Or another metaphor: someone is covered in shit, and instead of taking a shower and being clean here and now, they fantasize about a future of being a fashion model celebrity.

So they are caught up in a dream in their head (aka identity view) rather than facing reality and pursuing what can actually be attained.

There’s a similar sutta about this topic, where mara says monks are fools for forfeiting pleasure now for a future nibbana, but the monks respond with something like they are actually giving up a future desire (sensual pleasures) for what is attainable here (peace and lack of desire).

So chasing eternalism is prioritizing what is not possible over what is possible here and now. It’s delusion.

You’ve gone forth while young, reverends. You’re black-haired, blessed with youth, in the prime of life, and you’ve never flirted with sensual pleasures. Enjoy human sensual pleasures. Don’t give up what is visible in the present to chase after what takes effect over time.”

“Brahmin, that’s not what we’re doing. We’re giving up what takes effect over time to chase after what is visible in the present. For the Buddha says that sensual pleasures take effect over time; they give much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks. But this teaching is visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.”

  • SN 4.21

don’t try to eat the whole three course meal at once. just eat enough now to fill your belly. if you want dessert after dinner, then choose so to do at that time. for now salve your hunger.

the purpose of the buddha’s teachings is the ending of your own suffering here and now - just do that much - only what happens here and now. leave what happens at the higher level of practice to what happens then - that’s another you’s problem.

the only purpose of the buddha’s teaching is to end your suffering. if you focus on that there is reason to practice it. that’s the only reason to practice it.