So we have 4 common permutations
1a. Nothing after death of the arahant, no samadhi attainment required
1b. Nothing after death of the arahant, samadhi attainment required
2a. Something after death of the arahant, no samadhi attainment required
2b. Something after death of the arahant, samadhi attainment required
The ‘samadhi attainment required’ is linked in these permutations with whether there is ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ after death whereas I think the people advocating for ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ are not always congruent to the people who believe ‘samadhi attainment required’ versus ‘no samadhi attainment required’.
Why not list them this way?
Something after death
Nothing after death
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 and 2
1 - 4 are inappropriate and should be let go of
Samadhi attainment required
No samadhi attainment required
Both 6-7
Neither 6-7
6 - 9 are inappropriate and should be let go of
Of course, you’re free to list the controversies as you wish, but perhaps the above is more encompassing? I’m trying to let go of 5 and 10 myself, but man they seem like doozies
#5 is most important, as i see it, misapprehending this is a grave wrong view.
#10 i think is a trifle if one trains correcrly because
A) If one asserts that there is a meditative attainment but as it actually is there isn’t a meditative attainment then one will not go past understanding the general instruction and will become an arahant by this understanding alone albeit not as expected.
B) If one asserts that there isn’t a meditative attainment and as it is there isn’t a meditative attainment then one becomes an arahant as expected.
C) If one asserts that there is a meditative attainment and there is a meditative attainment then one is expected to attain arahantship as expected
D) If one asserts that there is no meditative attainment but there is a meditative attainment then he will probably attain it whether he wants to or not if trainibg correctly
In either case one can realize the unexpected if training correctly & rid of wrong views #1-4
Even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — ‘O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!’ — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path.
"Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn’t cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her — ‘O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!’ — still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — ‘O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!’ — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path. Nava Sutta: The Ship
Of course it’s best to gain conviction in the correct position as to whether there is or isn’t so effort is less so misdirected.
I think 5 is a statement of fact and not a view for one who understands the subtle points as buddha denied proclaiming 1-4 and if one sees why he denied then one should maintain this as truth.
It remains a view in as far as one has not come to definitive conclusion and it is not by mere pondering, examination or coming to agreement. The texts are particular here saying the qualifier is ‘realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment’.
"If a person likes something… holds an unbroken tradition… has something reasoned through analogy… has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, ‘This is what I agree to, having pondered views,’ safeguards the truth. But he doesn’t yet come to the definite conclusion that ‘Only this is true; anything else is worthless.’ To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: “weighs,” “compares”). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.
"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.
I hear ya. When I say ‘let go of’ I’m winking at the tendency that I see within myself - that it is possible to get ‘attached’ even to right view which thus transforms it into wrong view. When we argue endlessly with others trying to point out wrong view it can also strengthen the habit of attachment in ourselves. At least I note this seems to happen in my own mind. Maybe when I’ve completely eliminated the propensity for this habit, then I’ll be able to state #5 with no attachment and thus have right view, but I’m not there; far far far far far far from it. In the meantime, I’m just play acting like I know something when I state #5 so I try and remind myself that I don’t actually know anything lest I fool myself into wrong view. In a sense, 1-10 is just conceptual proliferation which my mind regurgitates; I really oughta kick that habit some day.
I don’t think that it transforms to wrong view. For example suppose you zealously or otherwise hold that all constructed things are impermanent. How would you delineate attachment therein? The conceit that might be born of the sense of righteousness & superiority of one’s brand, sure, but how wrong view?
Forgets that ‘constructed things’ is a conceptual idea
Believes (deep deep down) that it can find some ‘constructed thing’ if it just looked hard enough
Forgets that ‘impermanence’ is a conceptual idea
Believes (deep deep down) that it can find some ‘impermanence’ if it just looked hard enough
Forgetting all this and then becoming attached to the illusion-like appearance of constructed things and illusion-like appearance of impermanence
Basically, when my mind develops passion for the idea that, “all constructed things are impermanent” that tells me the passion comes from some wrong view and that dependent upon that very passion, suffering will arise.
Oke, yes, that i do not do. Asankhata is characterizesd as this:
“The unconditioned has these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of the unconditioned.” (AN3.47)
And also: in terms of the defilements it is described as:
" And what is the unconditioned? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called the unconditioned".
So taking these together…the ending of lobha, dosa and moha refers to the sublime supreme peace of Nibbana which is not seen arising, ceasing and changing.
This peace is called everlasting or permenant in the sutta’s and also an imperishable state.
Is this all an expression of eternalism? Have the sutta’s an eternalist view on peace?
Or is eternalism only something about atta? Believing in an eternal atta that survives death.
Oke, thanks. I think it often comes down to what people see as mind. In the work @NgXinZhao refers to above, it is said that
“*The Abhidhamma says that as long as one is alive, mind and matter are arising and passing away all the time; and if there is mind, there must be consciousness and the object which it is conscious * of—so can anyone (yogi or non-yogi) really be unconscious?”
I believe this happens all the time, this juggling with words like mind and consciousness and in some way or the other immediately making the conclusion that if there is mind., there must be consciousness too and vice versa. But why?
Buddha more or less talked about vinnana as what senses and feels, and knows in that respect.
But he did not say that this sensing is the same as intelligence. Intelligence is really another way of knowing then mere sensing and feeling. Sensing and feeling is more like detecting. It makes things aware. But to claim, like many do, that only vinnana knows or that there is only the knowing of vinnana, that makes no sense, i feel. That is not said.
Consciousness is a complicated subject. For example, if a plant, organism is able to detect certain things in the outside world, for example light, heat, other organism, salt levels, and also clearly shows behaviour or reactions based upon that…does this mean it is conscious ? Is a plant conscious of light? Is an amoebe conscious of the surrounding? Is detecting and reacting upon what is detected the same as being conscious?
I think the six sense vinnana’s are like detecting, they make things aware. But mind is different. Mind consists also of intelligence, strategies, goals.
Fwiw I think this is correct way to go about it having learned the texts one is restricted from entertainibg harmful lines of speculative reasonibg by that mere knowing & seeing to the extent of recitation.
FWIW, I think ‘death’, ‘nibbana’, ‘aggregates’, ‘samadhi’, ‘controversies’, ‘mind’, ‘I’, ‘mine’, are also mere conceptual ideas my mind can’t actually find when I look for them no matter how hard I try. Sometimes I forget this, but it seems to help lessen the passion for any/all of these when I’m not forgetful.
No it looks to be agreeable in as far as expression goes but, again, when meaning is not drawn out it remains universal enough to be loosely used by eternalists.
Eternalism is essentially a continuation of the narrative pertaining to the arahant’s existence where something of the arahant remains post final extinguishment.
It is essentially asserting that existence will cease being unstable and will become otherwise, rather eternally settled & calm.
I believe, in this you are a bit unpractical and to analytical oriented.
A constructed house is really not an conceptual idea. A conceptual idea does not keep you dry and you cannot sleep in it. It really consists of bricks, door, roof etc and it will, indeed tend to desintegrate.
Can one talk about something that is not seen arising, ceasing and changing in terms of eternal existence? For something to exist it must first arise, right? Or not?
But if it is not seen arising, can one say about this that it exist eternally?
You are not giving him credit for not being stupid. Nobody would argue that the conceptual idea of a house is a suitable shelter nor would anyone here conflate the two in course of communication. You are mistepresenting what is being asserted and are making ‘a strawman argument’.
You can talk in whatever terms & language you want as long as you define the terminology correctly. It is oossible to say disaggreable things whilst getting the meaning correctly and vice versa.
Hi @Green, I think you misunderstand me. You believe I’m denying the existence of the basis of conceptual ideas, but I am not nor did I intend to. Sorry that my words were unclear.
Maybe I can make it clear what I’m intending with a simile.
The Nile river is a conceptual idea based on an existing thing. No matter how hard I look I cannot find this existing thing when I analyze it. Despite my attempts to find this existing thing with penetrative analysis I come up empty. I can’t find the Nile river in atoms of water nor in atoms of the dirt banks. I can’t find it as a group of atoms of water and dirt banks. I can’t find it as distinct from atoms of water and dirt banks. Not matter how hard I try - and to any level of analysis - I again and again fail when I try and find this Nile river. There is no essence or core of Nile river that I can find. This inability to find the Nile river does considerably lessen my attachment to the Nile river.
Despite all of this, I have no doubt that my inability to find the Nile river will not prevent me from drowning in it if my kamma should ripen in this way
Here one describes him in terms of ‘is’ after parinibbana.
Annihilationism, the other hand, is narrative about a persistence of a world, essentially a persistence of what was conceived & perceived by the arahant, as remaining post final extinguishment parinibbana albeit now without the arahant’s aggregated feelings & percipience.
This is incorrect because there is no such thing as an eternal world where existences & percipiences go out like a flame. Rather the texts explain that cessation of percipience is a cessation of the world and further talk of a world is only warranted in colloquial terms in reference to other people’s conception & perception, this is not the same world conceived & perceived by the arahant and the arahant’s percipience was not extinguished in the percipience of another.
Those seem unnecessarily specific to my mind. I’d offer these:
Eternalism is the belief that a thing can be found to truly exist or is assumed to truly exist and thus impossible for it to truly cease.
Annihilationism is the belief that a thing can be found to truly exist or is assumed to truly exist and that it is possible for it to truly cease.
Take for instance nibbana…
An eternalist view of nibbana is thinking it truly exists and can be attained and this truly existing thing is permanent.
An annihilationist view of nibbana is thinking that a truly existing thing can cease and this true cessation is permanent.
The truth is nibbana can’t be found when looked for with penetrative analysis and so it can’t be said that nibbana truly exists nor that it truly ceases nor that it is truly permanent. Understanding that nibbana doesn’t truly exist and does not truly cease and is not truly permanent is the path to freedom.
