On early Buddhism

[Dhabba]

Thank you!

I still hope you can understand why Nibbāna can’t be the type of cessation as meaning an unconscious state and why I and others question this view?

I will now bring up several arguments as to why this view is wrong.

@Sunyo

The point of the sutta you quoted is that the view of a self exists on a more intellectual level, let’s say, than the sense of “I”. You can claim not to believe in a self but still have this sense of “I”, hence have the view of annihilationism.

In what context would one even claim NOT to believe in a self at all, but still, for some odd reason, hold on to a view of annihilationism?

In the context of trying to attain Nibbāna under the guidance of the Buddha one would hold on to that view!

@Sunyo

The view that avoids annihilationism is that there is no self nor an “I” yet still cessation.

But to even have the insight to begin with that there is no self nor an “I” one has to attain Nibbāna just like the Buddha did. Same goes for the insights regarding unsatisfactoriness and impermanence, only fully understood thanks to Nibbāna - no other possible way.

But if Nibbāna equals becoming 100% unconscious; how can the Buddha or an arahant in this ”unconscious state” realize and be so certain about the three characteristics anicca, dukkha & anatta?
Even going so far as to applying these three characteristics, that are near impossible to see otherwise and that only a Buddha discovers, to the formless arupa planes of existence that keep going on for countless of billions of years…?

We have to REALLY understand in what context things are being said in the suttas. The Buddha even praises the same type of ”annihilationism” formula in AN 10.29.

”This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence. Some sentient beings have such a view. But even the sentient beings who have views like this decay and perish.”

This is applicable to various ascetic practices by others that are very painful to the body but due to the deep concentration attained leads one to the formless realm of nothingness. These meditators don’t care about a future ”existence” of any sort in rupa loka and kama-loka and couldn’t care less about ”ceasing to exist” as they have come to know existence (kama-loka & rupa-loka): since the formless realm of nothingness is seen as the highest type of ”cessation” in their dhamma.

”The best of these four perceptions is when a person, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, perceives the dimension of nothingness. Some sentient beings perceive like this. But even the sentient beings who perceive like this decay and perish.”

So you see in AN 10.29 the Buddha praises this view held by outsiders as the best among non-buddhists but in SN 22.81 he refutes this view among buddhist monastics using the same formula:
”I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.”

SN 22.81 has VERY MUCH to do with attaining Nibbāna since the whole reason for the sutta is: ‘How do you know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life?’

The ordained are taught how to attain Nibbāna and the Buddha tells them the best methods for doing this in the sutta and the obstacles that can show up. Otherwise why would ordained under the guidance of the Buddha himself during this time even get the idea that one is annihilated in Nibbāna in the first place? Well if the khandhas cease to exist and there is nothing more then the khandhas some students clearly make that logical assumption.

Yet the Buddha refutes this idea/view of annihilation that buddhists have had in the past and still have to this day in SN 22.81 quite clearly by mentioning the following:

”Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? … That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.”

That very first sentence in the SN 22.81 quote above is ONLY taught in buddhism, this is clearly about adressing issues that can show up for buddhists on the path and for NO ONE else. Same with refuting eternalism in the next sentences - only found in the Buddha’s teaching and up to this point the buddhists in question do follow the instructions. BUT lastly the third sentence is refuting the annihilationist Nibbāna view that some buddhists mistakenly have while on the path - this is where you and others sharing the same view are currently at, in the practice of the path.
This is crystal clear for anyone reading the sutta.

I wanted to bring up the tetralemma: Since ”The Tathagata does not exist after death” is rejected by The Buddha himself - but saw that you claim that this rejection by the Buddha is due to an ”over-literal translation”…
I must say, with no offense intended: this line of reasoning really leaves me speechless…

Anyhow, if Nibbāna is really a 100 % complete unconscious non-existence as you and others claim why is then Nibbāna classified as atakkāvacara?

Nibbāna is atakkāvacara, “beyond logical reasoning”. It is difficult to comprehend with logic or reason, since it is not a concrete “thing.” It cannot be explained with logic or reason to someone who has not attained it by themselves.

I do understand your logical reasoning regarding the selfless khandhas ceasing and then concluding: ”how could there possibly be anything left?”
BUT by the very same logic I can claim that hundreds of millions enter Nibbāna on a daily basis via dreamless sleep - no real difference between the highest spiritual state Nibbāna and having 100% unconscious dreamless sleep. Or is there? How so?

But if Nibbāna truly is atakkāvacara, “beyond logical reasoning”. And it is truly difficult to comprehend with logic or reason and it cannot be explained with logic or reason to someone who has not attained it by themselves; it is IMPOSSIBLE it is even remotely anything like unconscious dreamless sleep in any shape or form:
Since we all, and billions of others humans, have already experienced what it is like being unconscious!

On the contrary what would really be ”beyond logical reasoning” atakkāvacara is that one can still somehow be ”AWARE” of a unconditional state despite the nature of selfless khandhas…

I will also lastly bring up that if the Buddha said Nibbāna is bliss and Nibbāna equals unconscious non-existence - That means one can only experience the bliss of Nibbāna while in Samsara…Right?