Non-existence is impermanent, suffering and not-self

The Watercooler
21

Is this what you are asserting? When you say ‘cessation’ here do you mean ‘true non-existence’? Are you saying that ‘true non-existence’ occurs in dependence on the ‘not-constructed’ aka ‘nibbana’? Or are you saying that nibbana is true non-existence? What exactly are you saying, because from this side it isn’t clear at all?

I take it that you wish to rebut the OP by asserting true non-existence in contrast to mere non-existence that is said to be impermanent? Is this correct? I think I’m asking fairly basic and straightforward questions here; do you disagree? You seem for whatever reason not wanting to answer, but rather to elaborate with more prose instead. Can you say why you don’t want to answer? Are they ill constructed questions? Is there something wrong with them? If you’d like me to stop asking let me know and I will refrain, but I fear not being able to understand the point you wish to make and you do seem to wish others to understand.

:pray:

22

Both are correct.

The logic is the same here as if describing awakening from a dream
Dreaming is A
Not dreaming is B

One can say that not-dreaming is discerned due to being awake; being awake is discerned as the end of a dream; cessation of the dream is discerned in dependence on being awake; being awake is true not dreaming.

Likewise if
A is constructed/existence/dukkha
B as ‘not a’/unconstructed/cessation of existence/sukkha

true non-existence’ occurs in dependence on the ‘not-constructed’; cessation of existence is true non-existence/cessation of existence occurs in dependence on the unconstructed/the unconstructed is the end of dukkha

23

That is a tautology to my mind. You use the term ‘something’ to describe … something? What is it you are getting at here?

You wish ‘true non-existence’ to be discerned. You’ve stated that it cannot be discerned in one particular fashion. So can you please attend to how you posit that it can be discerned? On the basis of what can ‘true non-existence’ be discerned?

:pray:

24

If you say ‘true non-existence’ occurs in dependence upon the ‘not-constructed’, then it follows that the ‘non-constructed’ is not the same as ‘true non-existence’ for which I think the OP will agree? Are you then agreeing that it is correct to say that nibbana is not the same as true non-existence? I think @Dhabba and @Notez are of the same view then?

If you say that ‘true non-existence’ is the ‘not-constructed’, then we’re back to the original question: in dependence upon what is ‘true non-existence’ aka the ‘not-constructed’ discerned?

Are you saying that it cannot be discerned? Are you saying that you don’t know how it can be discerned?

Yeah, but being awake is a something isn’t it? It is a positive existent not a true non-existent is it? Being awake is discerned based upon a positive existent of the one who is awake having actual positive knowledge of being awake, right?

These do not seem remotely akin. You are trying to discern a ‘true non-existence’ and again I ask based upon what can you discern a ‘true non-existence’?

:pray:

1 Like
25

Not to rebut op, rather to propose a different way of talking about it. His essential premise is generally agreeable in that the states of unconsciousness are impremanent.

You are asking many questions and many get at the same issue and i try to answer in a way that gets at the main point.

I am sorry that my answers aren’t satisfying you and i won’t answer anymore questions as not to burden you with “prose”.

1 Like
26

Two of the 5 higher fetters are rūparāgo & arūparāgo:
”Lust for form, lust for the formless”

Luminous form realms:

Three kinds of pleasant rebirth: There are sentient beings who, having repeatedly given rise to it, dwell in pleasure. Namely, the gods of Brahmā’s Host. This is the first pleasant rebirth. There are sentient beings who are drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with pleasure. Every so often they feel inspired to exclaim: ‘Oh, what bliss! Oh, what bliss!’ Namely, the gods of streaming radiance. This is the second pleasant rebirth. There are sentient beings who are drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with pleasure. Since they’re truly content, they experience pleasure. Namely, the gods replete with glory. This is the third pleasant rebirth.

Formless realms:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who advocate the ultimate purity of the spirit. This is the best of the advocates of the ultimate purity of the spirit, that is, when someone, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They teach Dhamma in order to directly know and realize this. Some sentient beings have such a doctrine. But even the sentient beings who have such a doctrine decay and perish.

The reason I bring this up is because if there is no suffering/pain/sorrow/ whatsoever in both the luminous form and formless realms, lust for these pain-free, sorrowless realms is something we can understand that anyone would crave for: ”Sentient beings who are drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with pleasure.”

So it is clear why rūparāgo & arūparāgo belong to the higher fetters.

It is the Buddha’s unique insight that these realms are impermanent that even make them unsatisfactory.
The actual experience and extremely long duration of being in these realms involves zero suffering. It is because they will eventually come to an end that they are considered suffering. Since the sentient beings there decay and perish they are forced to take rebirth, and it is because of rebirth we can say not-self about the experience that ended.

Since all non-buddhist meditators can reach these realms, could those of the non-existence ”termination view” please enlighten all of these meditators as to why they should convert to buddhism and eternally terminate themselves 100% in these realms where they are: ”drenched, steeped, filled, and soaked with pleasure.”?

Maybe termination could be craved for if there was some actual pain/sorrow/stress while in these realms…but there is no such thing in these realms according to the Buddha. The suffering the Buddha pointed out is only due to the experience eventually coming to an end, no suffering at all during its phase though.

Proponents of eternal termination non-existence say:

The idea that final Nibbāna is nothing apart from the cessation of the khandhas might seem bleak. If it seems bleak, it is only due to the false sense of having a permanent self, or more precisely, because of the view of personal identity, sakkāya-diṭṭhi. The sense that one has a permanent core — a distortion of perception that is unavoidable for all puthujjanas — makes cessation appear like annihilation and the successful practice of the path like a form of suicide. If cessation seems undesirable, it is only due to this distorted outlook. - Ajahn Brahmali

So the distorted outlook of ”I”, ”Me”, ”Mine” & ”Self” and a sense of ”a permanent core” is why no one wants to be eternally terminated, ok….

But according to AN 10.13 Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is one of the five lower fetters.
We can see the five lower fetters: Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (substantialist view), vicikicchā (doubt) sīlabbataparāmāso (misapprehension of precepts and observances), kāmacchando (sensual desire) and byāpādo (ill will) as having to do with kama loka and nothing but kama loka.

On the other hand Conceit (Māno) contrary to Sakkāyadiṭṭhi happens to be one of the 5 higher fetters along with Rūparāgo, arūparāgo, uddhaccaṁ, avijjā…

So there is obviously still a notion of ”Self” ”I” ”Me” ”Mine” in rupa loka and arupa loka.

If a meditator is asked to convert to buddhism to terminate oneself based on the realms in question being impermanent and there will be suffering in the future and one ought to escape that future suffering; how can any meditator verify for themselves that these realms are in fact impermanent and this will happen?

It becomes really hard, near impossible, to know and see the three characteristics as true and factual if the ending of the defilements and cessation of the khandhas result in a unconscious non-existence dreamless sleep type of thing.

There is no indication how such a state could ever give true insight into impermanence, suffering and not-self and applying this to all of existence.

Since there are no indications how to know and see the three characteristics as being true in such a state it is even harder to give up the conceit (māno) of ”Self” in such realms as the luminous form and formless. One would just be in a state of temporary ”extermination”, emerge from it and ponder about it as a ”self”.

I don’t understand because basically anyone, even non-meditators, already know what being unconscious is like and what it implies - no insights into the true nature of any realm of existence is discovered that way.

To say it is a pleasant escape is just a personal preference, try saying the same thing to the beings beyond kama loka who’s suffering will come……

602×1016 173 KB

…in only some, give or take, thousands of mahakappas in the very distant future… :wink:

Sure one could rely on pure faith in the Buddha, but with this faith one wouldn’t make any claims at all, like what Nibbāna actually implies and is, right?

There are just too many contradictions in the view.

Honestly, is there no middle ground here? :smiling_face:
As in just cooling down and not relishing until nothing is felt? Which means to really get rid of greed in all its shapes and forms + ”non-shapes and formlessnesses” :wink:
thus knowing and seeing the realms true nature?

All beings know what non-existence is and implies, some crave for it, while others crave for existence - both are samsaric.

Surely our great teacher pointed to something beyond non-existence and existence?
I would really hope so. :pray:

27

It follows that A, being in dependence on B, that A and B are not the same. It follows that ‘true non-existence’ is not the same as the ‘not-constructed’.

It follows that ‘cessation of existence’, occurring in dependence on the unconstructed, that ‘cessation of existence’ and ‘the unconstructed’ are not the same. It follows that ‘cessation of existence’ is not the same as nibbana.

Again, I think @Dhabba and @Notez are in agreement on this so what exactly is being debated or rebutted here?

:pray:

1 Like
28

Ah, but you did answer one of my questions! Thank you, thank you, thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

:pray:

1 Like
29

I took offense with your expressing dismay and i don’t really care to explain things. It takes a lot of time and it’s burdensome when people don’t understand it.

1 Like
30

Ah, I’m sorry you took offense and sorry for my failure to understand. I’ll stop asking you questions here. It can be difficult when we have a point of view and others question us. My intent here was not to frustrate you, but to understand your point of view for which I’ve failed. I understand your frustration in my failure and apologize. :pray:

1 Like
31

(edited for the sake of harmony)

1 Like
32

Thank you for trying to correct me in matters of semantics & logic.

To say that ‘consciousness has not actually ceased when becoming unconscious’ is akin to saying that a person said to ‘have lost his mind’ is not actually without mind.

Better luck next time.

I didn’t read the rest of your post and so i won’t say anything.

33

(edited for the sake of harmony)

1 Like
34

There is no difference. The ordinary man doesn’t understand what is consciousness and is using the term ‘unconsciousness’ colloquially.

Whereas when Buddha talks about the cessation of consciousness, that is something else entirely unlike a puthujjana’s conception of ‘unconsciousness’.

35

(edited for the sake of harmony)

1 Like
36

You are wrong. That is what i think according to you. Don’t misrepresent me.

You are ignoring what i’ve said. I said the colloquial use of ‘unconsciousness’ is essentially idiomatic and doesn’t imply a cessation of consciousness as described by the Buddha.

The fact that consciousness is not understood by the confused putthujjana and that it is something to be comprehended - is canonical.

1 Like
37

To my mind this conversation has veered into an unproductive place where - to my mind - harsh words are being leveled and little constructive communication is being had. Kindness please. :pray:

1 Like
38

I think he did. The unborn, the unmade, the unconditioned.

Admittedly, I can’t follow your argument exactly. IMHO there’s too much intertwining of “existence” vs. “Non-existence” in the dialogue. Can’t keep track of the mental gymnastics.

When the Buddha mentioned non-existence he was referring to the desire for annihilation. Not, IMO, a sleep state necessarily. Ie. some kind of state where one does not have to exist.

AN 10.7 explains the unconditioned.

Truly, one is cooled, unhungering in the unconditioned. All craving has come to an end.

This is fundamentally different than existent or non-existent because it points to the end of rebirth.

That is - rebirth in the realm of infinite Consciousness or the realm of Nothingness.

1 Like
39

:smile: Yes my thoughts might be all over the place but here is a short summary:

•Non-buddhist meditators can access all the luminous form and formless realms.

•The suffering in these realms is solely that the pleasant pain-free existence there will eventually come to an end. Nothing else.

•Why should non-buddhist meditators convert to buddhism and exterminate themselves based on avoiding suffering that is only due countless of billions of years from now?

•If Nibbāna equals extermination the insights regarding the three characteristics is not discovered thanks to ending the defilements/cessation of the khandhas.

•So if it is extermination how can then a non-buddhist meditator verify that anicca/dukkha/anatta is actually true regarding the luminous form and formless realms?

•Even if these meditators somehow find out it is true - why would they want to ”exterminate” themselves as the only alternative to a very distant future, involving minimal suffering?

•Even if these meditators die in rupa loka and arupa loka, they might experience thousands of years of both pleasure/pain but sooner or later reach once again to these realms and live there again for billions of years in pure bliss & happines

•By not greedily relishing in the blissful feelings and perceptions in the formless realms one is truly getting rid of ALL the defilements, greed and ignorance made like palm stumps.

•This cooling down and rejection of all Samsaric activities is something ONLY a Buddha teaches and takes one to ultimate peace and stillness. Ignorance is destroyed, the true nature regarding Samsara is fully seen and understood.

To say to non-buddhist meditators that they should essentially just exterminate themselves is something they would reject, not based on Sakkāyaditthi, but on actually NOT experiencing any suffering whatsoever in the luminous form and formless realms + not getting proper guidance as to how to discover that anicca/dukkha/anatta applies to these realms in question.

Buddhism is supernatural/religious/spiritual/meditative.

To make buddhism into a scentific/atheist/materialist/scholarly path might appeal to some people, but certainly not to any meditators.

And if any meditator choose to reject buddhism because they get a certain impression about what Nibbāna implies, that is really a great loss not only for that meditator but also for buddhism which is the only path to complete liberation; yet some of these meditators will unfortunately never know this…

A meditator could, with just faith in the Buddha, or to verify what the Buddha said was true, think like this:

This will come to an end, since it will come to an end there will be suffering, since the whole experience, no matter how blissful, will come to an end - nothing in this experience can truly be said to be ”Me” or ”Mine” - better to cool down and not greedily relish in this bliss…

Easy task? No, still very hard to do.

A dream can be more pleasant than any type life on earth.

Heaven is more pleasant than any type of dream.

Rupa Loka is more pleasant than any heaven.

Arupa Loka is more pleasant than any luminous form realm.

But if a meditator gets the impression that complete extermination is the real goal of the path they will never even take the time and effort to fully reject Samsara.

Yamaka thought extermination was the case, so I’m not saying the view can’t show up among those on the path. Despite the monks telling him he was wrong and that the view was clearly a hindrance for Yamaka (and anyone else for that matter). It was only when realising he couldn’t pin down the Tathāgata as the khandhas that Yamaka himself could let go off the khandhas.

That is a major difference from very bluntly saying:
”Extermination with nothing more to it.”
And trying to make a case of it if as this was somehow true, while bypassing how the insight regarding anicca/dukkha/anatta is even discovered in the first place and applied to all of existence(!)

40
  1. To understand the first noble truth is crucial here. Even though the formless realms can last thousands of universe cycles, it is still impermanent, when beings fall away from there, there’s no guarantee how long later they can climb back up. And who knows how long beings also spend in hell, maybe longer given the rarity of beings reborn into humans to be able to meditate to get to formless realms.

Infinity, which we get from beginning cannot be found, dwarfs any lifespan. If we compress the beauty of the formless and other higher realms into the sleeping/eating/ pleasure seeking cycle of a human and the hell and other lower realms into the working/suffering/sickness/depression part of human life, then it’s just up and downs. If one wishes to experience the ups, one has to bear the downs. Worse, every second or so, that human forgets the previous moment (simulating memory loss from rebirth). Making it worse than sorrowful for not being able to learn the true danger due to not being able to remember much.

For those who trusts the Buddha especially on SN 15.1-20 suttas, there can be enough to generate disillusionment, dispassion towards all parts of samsara, the beauty and the ugly.

  1. There’s 2 types of nibbāna. Nibbāna with remainder and without remainder. With remainder refers to arahants who are still alive after attainment. Since there’s the 5 aggregates, there is knowledge that they are enlightened and knowledge of the 3 universal characteristics and so on. Nibbāna without remainder is after the parinibbāna of the arahant. No more rebirth, nothing remains.

  2. Indeed, I have heard teachers say that if people really know what nibbāna is, I wonder if they would be still so eager to strive for it? Anyway, regardless, it’s part of the stream winners’ right view to know: nibbāna is the cessation of existence. To be deluded otherwise, I don’t think that qualifies as a stream winner.

  3. I believe if one can understand intellectually at least, properly that all are not self, there’s only suffering which arises and suffering ceases, there’s no reason to sorrow at the discovery that nibbāna is the cessation of existence. It’s all not self anyway. Like a phone got smashed. If it’s not our phone, there’s no sorrow. Only if someone by whatver small silver of attachment regard anything of the phone as self, might suffer due to the cessation of the phone. Can apply it to all the world as well. People fear non-existence due to craving for existence, which depends on delusion of self.

  4. The 4 unanswered questions of whether the Buddha exist or not or both or neither after death is unanswered because the questioner assumes a self concept in asking the question, making the question invalid. Asking questions like if there’s something or nothing after parinibbāna is one way to skirt around this issue.

1 Like