SuttaCentral
Fair enough.
My point was that when Thanissaro uses it here he is employing a specific rhetorical strategy, one that is familiar in modernist Buddhism, of leaning on the authority of science to buttress his views. He doesn’t say so explicitly, but by saying “physics” he sets up a certain expectation in modern readers, who would not associate it with ancient Greek theories.
I think the Buddha implicitly identifies his audiences below.
I stumbled upon an interesting Dīrgha Āgama passage which has a fire metaphor that specifically describes the death of an enlightened being. Referencing his parinibbāna, the Buddha says:
Buddhas, pratyeka buddhas, and [enlightened] disciples
All return to that same cessation.
They have no choice but be impermanent;
They’re like mountain forests on fire. (DA2, translation Patton)
This verse has no direct parallel in the Pali, but it shows how early Buddhist thought about fires. They believed them to be impermanent and to cease, also in context of parinibbāna. This understanding directly reflects MN28, mentioned in the essay, where wildfires are said to be impermanent.
MN146 likewise directly states that flames of oil lamps are impermanent, as a metaphor for the cessation of feelings. SN12.52 & 53 use the metaphor of the extinguished fire for the cessation of suffering. MN140 uses it for the cessations of feelings at parinibbāna, AN3.90 for the cessation of consciousness. In MN38 fires are said to burn in dependence on fuel. The Buddha then asks: “Do you see that if that fuel ceases, what has come to be is also bound to cease?” This is a simile for the cessation of consciousness.
The latter also illuminates Vacchagotta’s reply in MN72: “The fire burned in dependence on its fuel of grass and sticks. When that is used up, if it does not get any more fuel, being without fuel, it is reckoned as extinguished [i.e. as ceased].”
Not early, but for Buddhist doctrine still a better source than the Vedas, the Milindapañha says:
The king [Milinda] asked: “Venerable Nāgasena, is extinguishment cessation?”
“Yes, Your Majesty, extinguishment is cessation.” (Mil 3.4.8)
This is supported by the early suttas. For example, in AN10.60 the contemplation on nibbāna is called the perception of cessation.
Given the consistent use of the fire metaphor throughout the discourses, we can also conclude the Upasīva Sutta is about the “sage” ceasing and disappearing. (Aside from the clarity of the sutta itself, when translated properly.) Otherwise the Buddha wouldn’t have used this metaphor there, or he would very likely be misunderstood.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that cessation is not necessary for Nibbana. Afterall, isn’t Nirodha cessation? The question is, cessation of what? We can all agree that it means the cessation of ignorance, defilement and the cessation of the cause of Dukkha. The Heart is forerunner of all Dhamma, just like a generator is the forerunner of electricity. When I turn off the generator the electricity ceases but the generator remains, silent and still. Not my generator. Not anyone’s generator.
The contentious point is whether or not the generator remains. On this point, the Lord Buddha refused to answer - Does the Buddha exist, not-exist, etc. after death. So here we all are debating while the shot by the arrow. If the Lord Buddha cannot articulate the answer to this matter, what chance have we got?
Thank you Ajahn
really interesting. I’m translating it in italian (about this thing, I’ve also sent you a private message).
mahābodhi
It is the cessation of the five aggregates. It is not nihilist because Nibbana does exist. The cessation of the five aggregates does not means complete destruction of all existence. It means the destruction of the five aggregates existence.
A greater issue is why he refused to answer.
That reason is “it is not condusive to the goal”
and “contention” is harmful.