SuttaCentral
The Effluents are still there, the 5 aggregates are the effluents, they are suffering, they are not self, it’s only in parinibbana they cease to exist
That’s really a phenomenal insight for me, am I wrong to regard self as grasping or do you think it’s only craving ?
I think grasping and craving (as self-attachment) are closely connected, if following the teaching of conditioned arising.
Pages 165-7 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (190.9 KB)
I think, according to the SN/SA suttas, one does not have to be “only in parinibbana” for the cessation of dukkha. See below information.
Page 53 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000-2.pdf (87.8 KB)
Rather than stating that the ‘5 aggregates are the effluents,’ I would say that attaching to the 5 aggregates (with ignorance) gives rise to effluents. Note that in an arahant (when one is still living without effluents), the five aggregates still happen. For example in the Indriya-bhavana Sutta (MN 152), it is described that an arahant (‘noble one with developed faculties’) also hears sounds, sees things, has feelings, etc. (i.e., the aggregates manifest) but arahants are no longer clinging to the aggregates. Yes, in an arahant at parinibbana, aggregates cease to exist.
Do you mean the Effluents are craving not aggregates ?
So what’s the difference between nibbana with effluents and nibbana without effluents ?
There cannot be ‘nibbana with effluents,’ because effluents happen due to greed, hatred and ignorance – nibbana is about complete wisdom and achieving liberation.
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: “Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property. Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining. itivuttaka 44
It seems no such a teaching found in the core teachings of SN/SA suttas.
Why should it be sn suttas in the first place ? I think let alone suttas even the elders opinions like ledi/mahasi sayadaw books, meditation experiences in reddit or even quran and visuddhimagga can be used if we can prove it by experiences
The two types of nirvana are: sopadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana with a remainder), and anupadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder, or final nirvana). When someone reaches arahanthood, with the aggregates intact in this life, they still experience the world (feelings, perceptions, etc.) and their aggregates manifest in accordance with their past conditioning, etc (fuel). (For example, if an arahant sees a food item that one used to like, they would experience a pleasant feelings, etc., but without craving happening, because they have seen all things with wisdom.) - this situation is sopadhishesa-nirvana. On the other hand, anupadhishesa-nirvana is what happens when an arahant passes away (parinirvana) – then the manifestation of aggregates in samsara is over – they wouldn’t manifest again.
So, aggregates manifesting in sopadhishesa-nirvana are NOT due to ‘effluents,’ but due to ‘fuel’ accumulated in the past that continues until parinirvana.
I didn’t make time read all replies. But I find that Self-Mastery and Self-realization is used in suttas. We all have a Higher Self. Meaning it’s the best version of us. In Buddhist term, mind is originally pure but it’s defiled. Self-Mastery is reason Buddha was bodhisattva. The mind is so powerful to know future and past that’s why the Mind has a Higher Version of our Self.
People who have an issue with saying there is no Self may consider that the Self is Empty, which is accurate, but there also is no Self, this is an accurate description of an Empty Self. Follow the Buddhist Dhamma that will lead you to Enlightenment, for behind the Philosophy of Buddhism is the Buddha, and the things that the Buddha has factually said in the Pali Suttas. You need a Healthy Faith in the Buddha’s Teachings in order to reach Enlightenment. Open your mind and believe the Buddha’s words in His Teachings.
As I see it, you are clinging to the concept (i.e., perception) of “a Higher Version of a Self” – any kind of clinging causes us to suffer. Note that the terms “self-Mastery” and “self-realization” are conventional descriptions. When considering ultimate realities – there is no self in any of the aggregates – they all arise and cease due to causes and conditions. This understanding is what leads to peace.
True. Faith is listed as one of five powers that are conducive to awakening. But even without a great deal of faith, if one studies the dhamma carefully (and sees it within oneself) – then it is possible to understand how much sense the teachings make.
Very good my friend. Your making that a view also. Calm down. Understand the point my friend. I’m not saying there is a Self with capital S. As reaching Nibbana the mind-body experience the best mind state, but it was there already. Because it was the mind that didn’t see things as they are. Empty already. Nibbāna can be experienced temporarily because everything is already empty. That’s why the Higher Self is same as black implies white. Let me change it in Buddhist words for you. There is the Defiled Mind and there is the Undefiled Mind. How does a person see past life? With the power of the Undefiled Mind in Meditation. Everything work in duality in the world. “Self“ is the defiled mind who thinks in terms me and other, inferior and superior and non-self is the Undefiled Mind which doesn’t think in terms of me and other, doesn’t think in duality. You can speak with a pure mind or with a dirty mind. Everyone speak as if Buddha never knew things are “infinite”. He just used empty as the correct meaning for it. In Jhana state he says Infinite Consciousness. Drop a stone in a hole that reaches far down the earth and there is no sound to listen. Time to just understand the point of these spiritual terms. While your living on this earth, there is Dhamma to guide you. It’s your opened Dhamma eye that makes you be able to make good choices. The Dhamma of the wise never dies. Before or after Buddha there will always be enlightenment. That’s why there is private Buddhas.
Could you define what higher self is ?
In my own words. It’s what can see what you cant see. So it’s obviously non-self. I use pendulum to ask who will win election. And the answer that came out happened. Why is that possible? Because the Pure Mind(Higher Self) can see past and future. Higher Self just means what is connected to you and everything. That’s why Buddha says Nibbāna is Oneness without attachment. Everything in the world is connected up to the ancestors that is the “gods”. That’s why there is feeling of oneness. But your not that feeling. Seeing things as they are is the ability of your Higher Mind. As the brain has left and right. You have the sense of “I” for survival purpose. Without this underlying feeling the mind is already pure. This is a part of your brain that turn the feeling of mine, on and off.
Just a reminder to please stick to the EBT’s (Early Buddhist Texts) when giving replies. One of the purposes of this forum is to discuss what the Buddha actually taught, in order to get clarity and be able to separate out other beliefs and interpretations that have crept in and corrupted the teachings 
To suggest we know better than pali commentators is a bad idea imo we don’t know pali like them we don’t know the context of medieval time like them
I honestly want to know how medieval monks do meditation obviously their lineage could still be traced to Buddha pretending that we know meditation better than them is a bad idea
Furthermore the sutta doesn’t cover every buddha words of 40 years of his dhamma, it’s possible that some of his instruction is preserved in commentaries and further in sub commentaries due to very implicit nature of dhamma otherwise the commentator would not be able to explain it that details to make it more explicit
The commentators have better reasons to accuse us of using conjecture to understand suttas Since even if they use conjectures, their conjecture is much more accurate than our conjecture
So the only argument left is the commentators use bad faith when composing the commentaries but it’s not good that we argue like this since we even don’t know whether they are arahants or not
It’s not good to us to assume that the commentators don’t want to preserve the original teaching, since we can’t generalize all commentators like that it’s possible that some commentators have more faith than us to the buddha and dhamma, it’s possible that some commentators want to preserve the Original teaching more than us wanting preserve the original teaching
Since we too are actually commentators so honestly I want to know why our assumption is better than earlier assumptions by earlier commentators, what makes it different if not due to our lack of context ?
What do we have that we have better authority to make the sutta more explicit than earlier commentators ?
The next argument is our logic is better than earlier commentators but I don’t find evidence that it’s the case
Since suttas are very implicit and dense then someone must make it more explicit so future generations can understand it like current generation understand it that’s why the commentaries were written I don’t think that we are better than earlier pali commentators regarding this very problem,I don’t think our English commentaries in this forum is better than earlier pali commentaries regarding confirmity with original teaching either
Thanks
Dear @Ratana, there is no argument here about what is ‘best’ or ‘good’, or what choices people make with regards to the teachings they prefer to follow, it is simply a fact that THIS forum is set up to discuss the EBTs. Please see the forum guidelines and FAQ’s.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/frequently-asked-questions-faq/24/16