On early Buddhism

Discussion
21

Hi,

But in AN9.34, which is the sutta I think you’re referring to, Sariputta is speaking about final nibbāna. Not that he had died yet(!), but having experienced the temporary cessation of conditional phenomena, including consciousness, and seeing fully into their nature to arise and cease, Sariputta is pointing to final nibbāna as the bliss of the final extinguishment of all dukkha.

"At one time Venerable Sāriputta was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.
There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, extinguishment is bliss! Extinguishment is bliss!”

"When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”

Ven. Udāyi’s question is about when the khandhas and senses have fully ceased in final nibbāna, (since the khandhas, including vedanā, are still present and active while an arahant is alive).

Also, later in the sutta:
“Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end.”

The cessation of perception and feeling is also the (temporary) cessation of consciousness, since consciousness, feeling, and perception are inseparable, (MN43).
In this sense, cessation – not annihilation, which in the suttas refers to a doctrine of the annihilation of any kind of self – is the bliss of the final ending of all dukkha.

Admittedly, we associate “bliss” with strong physical-psychological-emotional states. But, here the sutta points to the gradual letting go of subtler and subtler forms of conditions and grasping as leading to deeper and deeper bliss until the bliss of the absence of experiences, meaning the absence of any kind of dukkha.
This appears to be the context of the sutta.

We agree nibbāna is not ultimately describable by analytic thought, concepts, notions, etc.
So imo the use of abstract nouns like being, non-being are best used with caution. They’re like ink-blot tests where it’s easy for us to read into them whatever we want or are biased to see.

Ok. But there’s the sense you aren’t inclined to final cessation either, so anything “left over” however described, however ineffable, is a kind of “something” even if it can’t be captured in words.

Anyway, if we’re not arahants we don’t directly and fully know yet. So whatever I’m offering is what I understand at this point in practice and incline to, and is not coming from a place of table-pounding certainty. :smiley:

All best

1 Like
22

No im not. You are. (Thanks for takimg.the time to respond tho!)

23

First of all, I dont think there is a “higher” teaching in the ebt, second, I am not saying that the part you qoute is “the teaching” just that nothing in the teaching contradicts the commom meaning of all those sentences.

Basically, MN72 does NOT say that “the fire was never really there” it says the real fire depended on real fuel, and when the fuel really ran out the fire really went out.

24

Thank you for your reply! :slightly_smiling_face:

But why should I be inclined towards ”final cessation” when the Buddha refutes it in SN 22.81? I asked about your opinions regarding it.

As you can see clearly both eternalism and annihilation are refuted:

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.

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.’ Nor do 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.’ Still, they have doubts and uncertainties. They’re undecided about the true teaching. That doubt and uncertainty, the indecision about the true teaching, is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? When an unlearned ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That conditioned phenomenon is born from that. So that conditioned phenomenon is impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated. And that craving, that feeling, that contact, and that ignorance are also impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated. That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.”

1 Like
25

According Thanissaro bhikkhu this is not said there. He translates: “This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant.” Bodhi prefers to say, Nibbana is bliss".

‘Extinguishment’ is a personal choice for translating Nibbana. But what does it even mean here?
Even when i look into a dictionary i do not understand what extinguishment in this statement means. Extinguishment of what?

In Belgium there is also a Pali expert, Guy Eugene Dubois, and he translates Nibbana with self-realisation:-) I like that one, but it is also somehow funny and absurd, i feel, that such different choices would all be based upon Pali expertise.

I do not know how the Dutch Pali experts translated Nibbana. Do you @Sunyo?

I think it is not that bad to keep Nibbana untranslated, like also samsara.

1 Like
26

At one time Venerable Sāriputta was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.

There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, cooling down is bliss! Cooling down is bliss!”

When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”

“The fact that nothing from the feverish fires of greed/hatred/delusion are felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.

:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like
27

Hi again,

Thanks for your response.

In the suttas eternalism is about the persistence of any “something” without change, as we might expect from the word.
In part, this was a refutation of the Brahmanical teachings of an eternal Atman (Self) that ultimately would be liberated into an eternal Absolute. These teachings are presented in both the Brihadranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads which were written around 200 years before the Buddha. It’s likely the Buddha was aware of these teachings, which is one of the reasons why his Dhamma teachings on anicca and anatta were so new, especially to the Brahmins who came to see him.

So in the sutta you cited, this is the kind of eternalism the Buddha is refuting.
And, as mentioned previously, annihilationism points to the destruction of any kind of self, as in the sutta:

“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.”

Notice all the “I”'s in those statements, (self views).

Cessation, as we may hopefully see, is different than either of these views. It just means cessation of conditional processes, called the khandhas. That’s all.
And conditional processes, as per numerous prior citations, are impermanent and dukkha. So their cessation is the “bliss” of no more dukkha. Ever.

Hope this is helpful.

All best

28

There is no specific Pāli word “unbinding.” This is Ven. Thanissaro’s version, which appears to support his view that there is “a consciousness outside time and space.” Sorry, I can’t recall the book or essay of this quote right now.

No. That’s what nibbāna means in Pāli. In fact, in the suttas it often points more to the fact of extinguishment, rather than a kind of post-Awakening “Nibbāna-something.”
Like when a flame is extinguished, “extinguished” points to the flame going out, not to some sort of post-extinguishment “something.”
However, admittedly, in common usage and some citations, nibbāna often refers to whatever comes after full liberation, so to speak.
But this is kinda getting into the weeds a bit and words are so context-dependent, so I’ll leave it there.

29

this is exactly right and shows how nibanna is simply the extinguishment of the asavas, as is clearly stated about a million times from DN1 and DN2 throughout the entirety of the 4 principle NIkayas, unless you socus on SN, which has edited the asavas practically out of existence.

now, the buddha extinguished lust hatred and delusion when he was 30 odd? THATS when the fire was extinguished, not when his body died, and those who claim otherwise do so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the ebt.

2 Likes
30

@Jasudho Thank you but I will have to disagree that these statements in the sutta are somehow refutations of the brahmanical eternalist views and materialist view of annihilation.

Read carefully:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.

**There is no other teacher than the Buddha teaching this this in the first place, like your quotes about the selfless nature of khandhas etc.

BUT THEN THE BUDDHA ADDS THE FOLLOWING:

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.

This teaching is clearly intended for buddhists and only buddhists and is not a refutation of other sects ideas or views of eternalism/annihilation.

Do you see it now? :pray:
This mix of views of the selfless khandhas, rejection of eternalism resulting in ”final cessation” being accurate is actually a description of your views as buddhist.

It must be quite normal to have this view otherwise the Buddha wouldn’t have brought it up. But I also hope you see it clearly that is not the correct view according to the Buddha himself.

31

Thanks.

I’d say it’s both.
While alive the Buddha realized the extinguishment of the defilements/āsavas/kilesas. That is, niibbāna with residue.
After death, with the irrevocable dissolution of all conditions, Iti44, as we know, speaks of nibbāna without residue, (i.e. the khandhas).

Also in SN36.7:
"Suppose an oil lamp depended on oil and a wick to burn.
As the oil and the wick are used up, it would be extinguished due to lack of fuel.
tasseva telassa ca vaṭṭiyā ca pariyādānā anāhāro nibbāyeyya;
In the same way, feeling the end of the body approaching, a mendicant understands: ‘I feel the end of the body approaching.’ Feeling the end of life approaching, a mendicant understands: ‘I feel the end of life approaching.’
They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life is over, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here.’”
‘Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṁ jīvitapariyādānā idheva sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sītībhavissantī’ti pajānātī”ti.

The context here is extinguishment of the body (khandhas), not just the defilements.

And in AN10.7:
"Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease.
In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’
evamevaṁ kho, āvuso, ‘bhavanirodho nibbānaṁ bhavanirodho nibbānan’ti aññāva saññā uppajjati aññāva saññā nirujjhati.
At that time I perceived that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.”
‘Bhavanirodho nibbānan’ti saññī ca panāhaṁ, āvuso, tasmiṁ samaye ahosin”ti.

Again, nibbāna here is in the context here of the cessation of existence, not just the defilements.

From DO in DN15, we know that bhava points to conditional existence, say in the human realm. So while an arahant is alive the khandhas/bhava are still present, (although one cannot define an arahant in terms of the tetralemma and there is no “mental” dukkha, so to speak).

But as conditional processes (senses/khandhas) have not yet been extinguished while an arahant is alive, there is still, in this sense, bhava, since all the factors of DO only fully cease at death – I mean, there was still illness, old age, and death for the khandhas “of” the Buddha. Not that there was any identification or attachment to them.

Thanks for the exchanges.

32

It may be for Buddhists or for others. As far as I can see, it doesn’t matter because the teachung stands on its own in either case. The citation clearly reveals the different views that people can be attached to: being a “something for ever” or “I’m a something now that will be annihilated.”

Sorry, but I don’t really understand your point given the prior citations and points offered.

That’s fine, folks have different views on this forum, including this who see final nibbāna as a kind of “something” and those who see it not as annihilation, but cessation.
The words and teachings about cessation and extinguishment pervade the suttas.
But folks can interpret these teachings differently and I respect that.

All best

33

@Jasudho To make it fully clear:

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. <——
You say yourself that the khandhas are selfless = you 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.’ You also, just like described in the quote above, reject all notions of permanence & eternalism.

Yet despite regarding the khandhas as selfless and not having an eternalist view you come to the following conclusion: ’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 this is the reason why you see Nibbāna as final cessation/annihilation/non-existence.

:pray:

34

Sorry, but this is not my view or conclusion.

Again, as mentioned previously, the boldened print in your quote is full of I, me mine, self views.
And that is related to the annihilationist view. Which is not what cessation of selfless processes are about.

Fortunately, this is not true.
The latter two terms have nothing to do with final cessation as I’ve tried to describe.
My apologies of I haven’t been clear about distinguishing these aspects.

35

But having the view of ”selfless processes” is already there in the first sentence = Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.

What is ”cessation of selfless processes” about? The khandhas, right?

You also reject eternalism just like mentioned in the sutta.

Just because I is used in the generalization of annihilists views - ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ it is said in the context of claiming that Nibbāna is ”cessation leading to 100% unconscioussness”.

You did claim that Nibbāna is an unconscious state in the other thread. This is what the Buddha refuted.

You bring up in your defence the khandhas = (first sentence from the sutta) Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. and you also reject ”brahmanical ideas” just like in the sutta: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’

36

I think you’re picking out lines and separating them from their context.

is immediately followed by their holding views involving I, me, mine which the Buddha rejects as forms of annihilationism.

Sorry, but no.

Cessation points to the ceasing of all the khandhas and senses, which includes the consciousness khandha. This is different than something or some entity being unconscious.

You’ve said that you don’t adhere to an eternal sort of nibbāna, like a timeless citta or ineffable being-ness, but your comments also seem to suggest that cessation isn’t your understanding either.
It’s not clear to me what your position is. Which is fine, but leaves the basis for the discussion unclear.
The conversation seems to be going in circles at this point. :slightly_smiling_face:

I’ve enjoyed the convo but maybe it’s best to leave things here.

Santi

37

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.

As you can clearly see I’m not picking out any sentence from their context.

You assume this just because the Buddha refutes the annihilationist view of reasoning in the following way:

”‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’”.

So now your main gripe is the usage of the word I when the Buddha is explaining certain practioners reasons for their views in a generalized way…
We are just playing around with the usage of words at this point.

Your view of Nibbāna only differs from those mentioned in the sutta in a very shallow way: You don’t regard ”form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self” & you don’t think that ”‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ These two views you have 100% in common with the practioners in the sutta.

It is going in circles because you jump straight back to
”they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.” as your explanation.

You said it yourself:

You do in reality have the view ”I will not be” just like those practioners in the sutta but you choose to instead say that the khandhas have always been selfless from the get go when they finally cease.
That is the only difference between you and those practioners.

My position is the Tetralemma. :wink:

1 Like
38

This unequivocally the position of the ebt, including SN, and it is only possible to maintain the “a fictional self permenently cease when the aggregates cease and there is therfore a difference bwtween nibanna and parinibanna” fallacy by selectivly ignoring the tetralemma.

“My person is an illusion and there are only aggregates that arise and cease” is wrong view.

“Aggregates are an illusion and there is a real person” is wrong view.

“There are both aggregates and persons” is wrong view.

“There are niether aggregates nor persons” is wrong view.

What is right view?

While there is still greed, hatred, and delusion there is still a person

Having uprooted greed hatred and delusion, that person cannot be understood in terms of life or death, existence or non existence, etc etc. “they are freed I say”

For the basic rundown of the argument see

DN1 DN2 DN9 MN72 and my other thread

Note especially the SN suttas about kamma and the undeclared for an example of how the reasoning is used and note especially that by implication in those suttas if people are not real then niether is suffering.

2 Likes
39

Again, not really.
Your assertions about what you believe I’m saying don’t match up with what I’ve been saying.
For one example,

Fortunately, this is not true.
There is no “I will not be” in cessation. But I’m choosing not to restate prior points.

Regarding the tetralemma, there are many interpretations.
If you haven’t read these posts yet, you may find them interesting.

40

One can conventionally say “person” or" being" regarding an assemblage of conditional aggregates. Hence, no “everything is illusion or a dream” kind of mysticism.
But I think we’re in agreement there is no permanent essence or atta in all this.

So in the EBTs the teaching is directly expressed as " While there is greed, anger, and delusion, there is dukkha."
“With the ending of greed, anger, and delusion, there is awakening and no rebirth.”
“With no rebirth and the cessation of all senses and khandhas at physical death, there is no possibility of dukkha.”

BTW the 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas emphasized by the Buddha don’t include, as I’m sure you know, the tetralemma.
Not saying it has no relevance. Just that it’s not included in the 4NTs. Or DO. Or the 37. Or in the first three sermons, (whether they were really the first or not, they express foundational aspects of the teachings).