[quote=“DaoYaoTao, post:183, topic:5468”]
Those words describe your own state of mind.
[/quote]I think what is actually happening is lay psychology. It seems that have assumed that DKervick has made some kind of Freudian slip, and has actually been arguing his own idiosyncratic ideas that are only related to his own mindset and moods rather than an interpretation of Dharma.
1 Like
This forum isn’t really for exploring personal practice matters and in instances where such strands of conversation may have relevance to a broader topic, real care should be taken to make sure that messages are not confronting or abrasive.
Thank you.
4 Likes
That is just projecting a ‘buddhist’ view onto everything.
[quote=“DaoYaoTao, post:186, topic:5468, full:true”]
That is just projecting a ‘buddhist’ view onto everything.
[/quote]How would it be that?
It is a description of one’s own view of things. A mental attitude, a state of mind, a way of seeing things that is based on one’s own personal assumptions and beliefs.
I feel that there has been some kind of miscommunication.
You said, to DKervick: Those words describe your own state of mind.
I said: I think what is actually happening is lay psychology. It seems that have assumed that DKervick has made some kind of Freudian slip, and has actually been arguing his own idiosyncratic ideas that are only related to his own mindset and moods rather than an interpretation of Dharma.
And then you said: That is just projecting a ‘buddhist’ view onto everything.
I asked for clarification as to how what you quoted from me was “projecting a ‘buddhist’ view”, and I don’t understand your responce.
You description of what a “Buddhist view” is seems rather dour and negative. If you think these things about Buddhism what attracts you to it?
Incidentally, do I know you from DhammaWheel? You post a lot like someone I know from there.
Okay, friends, really this has strayed off-topic and as I said above this isn’t the place to get into personal approaches to practice.
Flagrantly ignoring my post above isn’t really in keeping with the spirit of the community guidelines, please don’t do it again, and if you want to pursue this line take it to a PM.
Again, my thanks. 
3 Likes
I have not expressed a view. I simply quoted DKervick’s view. So I don’t see how I am being dour and negative.
[quote=“DaoYaoTao, post:191, topic:5468”]
I have not expressed a view. I simply quoted DKervick’s view. So I don’t see how I am being dour and negative.
[/quote]We will continue this in PM if you desire as the moderators would like this subdiscussion to cease, I believe.
2 Likes
It would certainly seem that, according to some views, the ultimate aim of Buddhism is non-existence, annihilation. Otherwise we need to posit some type of final place/state/realm that the arahant goes to. A final place is too much like Vedanta as @Brahmali has pointed out. So, yes, it seems like a strong argument to say the ultimate aim of Buddhism is the end of rebirth and the end of existence. So in that sense, there is no difference between the ultimate end of nihilistic materialism and Buddhism.
Those words describe the state of mind of every being who has not achieved the destruction of all the asavas, and the complete end of suffering. In other words, they describe the state of mind of every being who has not attained the supreme liberation of nibbana. Respectfully, I suspect that includes everyone who comments here.
Honestly, I am surprised that my previous remark is seen as in any way controversial. Everyone who is diligently following the path to the end of suffering, and who doesn’t believe they have already attained to end of suffering, understands the many varieties of suffering that afflict their unenlightened existence. The meditation practices and disciplines gradually reduce that suffering by addressing its causes. But, manifestly, suffering remains for all by the perfectly liberated saint.
Sorry, I replied to this before seeing the moderator’s comment. I have reached to goal of the path to the end of this discussion. 
1 Like
1 Like
Having thought about this topic a bit more recently, it seems like there’s a very delicate balancing act going on in the teachings between eternalism and annihilationism, threading a kind of “middle way” between both of these poles. The core expression/balance point of this seems to me to be the so-called “fourfold negation” : neither “the Tathagata exists / doesn’t exist / both / neither nor” etc.
I can’t say I really understand what this fourfold negation means (presumably I’d be enlightened if I did! 
) This balancing act seems to me to be one of principal unique features of Buddhism. Most of the other somewhat positive and somewhat negative statements on the nature of Nibbana and anatta seem to have a certain overall coherence to me if I take this fourfold negation as my basic starting point on this subject.
It seems to me that the idea that an arahant ceases to exist after death because he/she really don’t exist in life is simply a round-about expression of the “Tathagatha doesn’t exist” statement, actually running counter to one part of this fourfold negation. Similarly, other more positive interpretations run counter to it in a more Vedanta/theistic direction.
Furthermore, I guess if one identifies an arahant after death in some sense with Nibbana, it’s arguable one could similarly take the view that Nibbana neither “exists/not exists/both exists and not exists/neither exists nor not exists”! 
Maybe why we have statements on the existence of a Nibbana state in the canon trending in seemingly somewhat contradictory positive/negative directions.
It most certainly is, at least based on the literature we have. Yet, sometimes people see connections to a text in the latest part of the Rigveda about the ‘time’ before creation, RV 10.129:
- The nonexistent did not exist, nor did the existent exist at that time. There existed neither the airy space nor heaven beyond. What moved back and forth? From where and in whose protection? Did water exist, a deep depth?
- Death did not exist nor deathlessness then. There existed no sign of night nor of day. That One breathed without wind by its independent will. There existed nothing else beyond that.
- Darkness existed, hidden by darkness, in the beginning. All this was a signless (aprakreta, not animitta) ocean. What existed as a thing coming into being, concealed by emptiness (tucchya) —that One was born by the power of heat.
- Then, in the beginning, from thought there evolved desire, which existed as the primal semen.
2 Likes
In a way the first occurrence of this logical tetralemma can be found not in Buddhist sources but in copies of the teachings of the Greek Pyrrho who supposedly came in contact with Buddhism around 330 BCE when he traveled with Alexander to parts of India. We don’t have direct writings of his, but his disciple Timon had writings and was referenced e.g. at Eusebius thus:
The things themselves then, [Timos] professes to show, are equally indifferent, and unstable, and indeterminate, and therefore neither our senses nor our opinions are either true or false. For this reason then we must not trust them, but be without opinions, and without bias, and without wavering, saying of every single thing that it no more is than is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not. To those indeed who are thus disposed the result, Timon says, will be first speechlessness, and then imperturbability, but Aenesidemus says pleasure. (from Beckwith (2015): Greek Buddha)
Not only do we have here the tetralemma applied to all phenomena, which would be a Nagarjuna-like expansion of the catuṣkoṭi. We also have an alternative formulation of the tilakkhana. Instead of anicca-dukkha-anatta we have “undifferentiated, and unstable, and unfixed”. Here are the Greek terms:
- adiaphora ‘undifferentiated by a logical differentia’
- astathmēta ‘unstable, unbalanced, not measurable’
- anepikrita ‘unjudged, unfixed, undecidable’
Finally the results of this supposedly are speechlessness (rather Jain, or a muni?) and imperturbability (again, who knows if that corresponds to the pali ānejja)
Short as these references are, what is fascinating about them is the window in time and a glimpse of an outsider to Buddhism a mere 70 years after the Buddha’s passing. The Pali canon was written down probably in the first century CE…
3 Likes
Very cool! The Ancient Greeks would, I suspect, quickly latch onto any philosophical ideas encountered on their travels, and almost certainly would ferret out any interesting ideas on logic! This whole “catuṣkoṭi” construct seems, at least for me anyway, a satisfactory conceptual answer to the death/nihilism/anatta issue. Though, given there’s probably not much I can actually do with it in practical terms from here on in, maybe I should call it a satisfactory non-answer? Or, to be more complete, a non-answering answer or an answering non-answer. Sorry, couldn’t resist! 
Dear friends,
This problem of annatta, nihilism, and death is subtle, but it is actually easy to understand. Please read these words carefully, and consider whether they are in keeping with the Buddha’s teaching.
When asked: “What is Nibbana?”, the Buddha replied: “It is unshakeable freedom of mind.”
In what way is the mind free? It is free of attachment, free of craving, free of defilements, free of delusion.
Now to understand this, one needs only consider the problems of addiction. Think of a man who is addicted to alcohol. For that man, enjoyment in life comes from spending his time in a bar (or pub, if you prefer). There he has his ‘close’ friends. Every night they get drunk. They sing and they dance, and have a wild time revelling in blurred vision and thoughts.
Now if a man of perfectly sober habits were to come along, a man of clear vision and higher mind, he would proclaim: “This habit of drinking alcohol is an addiction, a filth. It leads to wild craving and delusion. It is a state of dependence that leads ultimately to madness, and great sorrow in the end.”
Now amongst the alcoholic and his friends, there would be many who would protest at this idea of renunciation. They would argue: "What enjoyment could there be without alcohol? What type of existence would that be? Here we dance and sing and are merry. Here we have close friends. How depressing to suggest that we give up everything that makes up our very lives. "
But amongst them there will be one or two who will be beginning to see the dangers of the life they lead. They will be beginning to see that they have acted regrettably, done things in a stupor that they wished they never had done, that they are caught in a web of craving, that they are losing control, losing their jobs, their wives, their homes, their peace of mind. For these people there will be a recognition of suffering. For these people, there will be a craving for release.
Now, if those people who recognised the dangers of alcohol were to ask of the sober-minded person: “What is it like to live without alcohol?”, that man could do little more than to say: “It is a state of health, of clarity, of blissful freedom of mind. It is a state free from anxiety and craving. Indeed, it is a state of freedom of mind.”
Now the Buddha’s realisation is this: That which we ordinarily call happiness in this life is a delusion, much like the drunkard’s conception of happiness with strong drink. In our craving that which is impermanent, we are deluded. We crave that which we never should want. We are dizzy with seeking out a state of ill-health.
And what is it that is impermanent and that we crave? It is all forms. It is all feelings. It is all states of mind. It is consciousness itself.
When we cease craving these things, when we cease desiring and clinging to all that is impermanent, then there is a state of perfect clarity; it is a state free from delusion. It is a state free of all defilements. It is a state of clear-seeing, in which one recognises that: previously I thought I was ‘this’, but now I know that ‘that’ I am not.
In short, it is “unshakeable freedom of mind”.
From this perspective, all other questions become irrelevant. It is not a matter of “where do we go?” or “what will I become?” or “is this life eternal?” or “will all things be brought to an end?”. These questions are based on delusion. They are based on us thinking that existence is a certain thing, which it is not.
The state of Nibbana is an end of delusion. It is an end of suffering. It is a state of perfect health to be known by each of us for ourselves. It is a freedom and clarity of mind in which one awakens to the knowledge of all things just as they are.
5 Likes
Good post!
This is not what I understand when I read Sutta a safe bet.