I stop participating. I feel the sphere here is that a real buddhist, one who understands Dhamma, one who understands PS, one who understand not-self, etc. etc. will delight in going out like a flame with nothing remaining at death. It is the only escape of suffering.
It makes me sad. I feel it makes no sense to discuss this anymore because it only leads to hardering. I notice that my ideas about this are not appreciated or liked here.
It is also just not my heartwish to go out like a flame with nothing remaining.
Some academics believe that the fixation on the extinction of consciousness was a later “contribution“ from converts from Jainism. The Buddha in arguably the oldest suttas didn’t state a position on what happens at death. That is why the Buddha’s consolations the Kalama sutta are conditional and why the Buddha did not answer questions regarding this and other worlds. He seems to have been more concerned about people meditating and experiencing the “end of the world” of the senses so as to come to accept whatever awaits us.
Rather, a real Buddhist will rejoice in fearlessness, equanimity and salvation from samsara. The taste of nibbana is enchanting.
I’m sorry that you didn’t feel it. Maybe you weren’t looking from a different angle.
I have found many here who hold your view. And the audience communicates very correctly. But this view is not in line with the teachings of the Buddha. I am telling you this after about 10 years of studying the Dhamma.
The Buddha taught to look at nibbana only from an impersonal point of view. Thus he compares the aggregates with branches and sticks that are thrown into the fire. We cannot say that we are burned and thrown into the fire when sticks and leaves are thrown. We don’t come up with that. After all, sticks and leaves are empty, futile, unimportant, they are not us, they have nothing to do with us, and they are of no value to us. Exactly the same attitude must be developed in you towards the aggregates in order to at least theoretically understand the essence of nibbana. Otherwise you will fall into one of the extreme views. either you think that the “I” is preserved in nibbana or that the “I” is destroyed in it, but in fact only leaves and sticks are burned, nothing else.
We think we exist as a whole. in fact, the moment of chitta arises and immediately dies. Nothing is transferred from one chitta to another. A new citta is born similar to the previous one, just as a seal impression is similar to a seal. Every moment the complex of cittas is renewed and that “I”, which was now in a moment has already gone out and the next “I” is completely new. In general, in this case, we can no longer speak of any “I”, since the idea of "I" requires a duration, a length of existence. And so in an hour, a minute, a year or 100 years, you will not be. even now your body is not you, your mind is not you. And in the past it wasn’t you. The feeling of I-am is a cunning illusion. Therefore, you cannot be destroyed in a hypothetical nibbana, since you will not survive the next moment as an entity.
Craving makes things important. It is craving that makes you adore life, sensible objects and ideas. She gives meaning to everything. But craving has a downside - anger, fear, mental suffering. Craving makes us dance in a frying pan, run, fuss. It creates a tense fist inside, in the very heart. Imagine how good it would be to unclench this fist, to calm down. When you have no craving, many things will lose their meaning, you will look at many things differently. for example, nibbana will be seen for you as a rest, salvation, refuge, a safe haven. and the cessation of perception as the highest pleasure. For that, you need to know well the truth of suffering.
You may not be ready to get into nibbana yet. this also happens. But you must not bend the Dhamma to suit your unwillingness - this is an unskillful act. You just have to admit that you are not ready and practice for the sake of wisdom and purification of the mind. Accumulate merit through metta, dana, strength and bhavana with this intent. The Buddha taught not only Arahantship, but also the fruit of anagamin. Anagamin is born in the realm of the pure lands, where the brahmas contemplate nibbana and abide in bliss for innumerable myriads of years. This period is enough to be disappointed in aggregates and get fed up with everything. Wisdom and satiety will naturally change your point of view. Many have been taught by the Buddha to achieve divine realms or a happy life in the here and now. Nibbana is not for everyone. But you can’t adjust nibbana for yourself, you just need to understand your inclination.
I don’t mean to be rude, but it is a Western commonplace to view Buddhism as pessimistic, nihilist, quietest, etc. You have not discovered something that has been looked over … anywhere. There is a very well known scholar of Buddhist studies who so many people are indebted to because of one of his books. He “converted” back to Catholicism about a decade ago, because he decided, after all that, Buddhism offers no hope. If I recall, he was warmed by the idea of joining his wife after death, and in the end that’s what he decided to found his faith upon.
Well, then you are apparantly absolutely sure that this view of parinibbana as a mere cessation is what the Buddha really taught? If not, maybe this view is a distortion of Dhamma, and how can that not enhance ignorance? Are we sure it is not a distortion?
I do not tend to this view of a mere cessation, but i also cannot say i am sure the Buddha did not teach that parinibbana is a mere cessation.
I feel it is hard to say when one only bases oneself upon the EBT texts. One can hammer out this Dhamma and it might seem logic and consistent, appealing to intellect, but i feel in this proces of reasoning one can also make other chooses and come to other conclusions.
Anyway, i do not think it is wise to rely on reasoning and logic only.
But i feel it is also quit awkward to take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha while not knowing where this Path leads. To a mere cessation?
I also hope, like venerable @mudita said in the mentioned serie of posts, that this issue will be solved once and for all.
No, just as we may assume you’re not “absolutely” sure either!
The point was simply to express the sincerity of practitioners who have a different view than you.
The practitioners who have the view of cessation are not just relying “on reasoning and logic.” as you seem to imply. They’re practicing the Path, contemplating the teachings in the suttas, and cultivating samadhi and wisdom.
May we and all beings be happy and at ease.
Does it help your practice and peace of mind to get so caught up in how others are practicing, since you wrote that you’re not sure either?
You may wish to consider easing up a bit, enjoying and deepening your practice, seeing where it leads…
Well, with respect, it may be your view that’s mistaken!
And since you admit to not being absolutely sure, and since only arahants “know for sure”, the gentle suggestion was to consider lightening up so your mind can relax – setting up conditions for deeper ease, tranquility, clarity, and wisdom.
But that’s up to you, āvuso, it’s your choice.
Remember, in MN 1 the Buddha gave a deep, beautiful teaching and, in the end, the listeners got up and left, not liking what they heard.
Did the Buddha frantically try to convince them because they had wrong view or no view? No. The sutta doesn’t say so.
Does the sutta say he lost sleep about this or became agitated and worked up? No.
Did this mean he was uncaring? No.
He taught, as others have come to know, that being agitated by the views of others is unskillful and is a form of dukkha. Teaching and caring, yes. Agitation and over-concern, no.
Is your mind at ease when you press on about this issue? Or is it affected by agitation and anxiety?
Either way, what you do about this in your life-practice is up to you.
And the same for everyone else on the Way.
The Buddha met many beings who disbelieved his teachings and even some who mocked him, yet he continued to teach, care, and help while being happy and at ease.
A wonderful and inspiring example for us all – if we choose to follow it.
Just noticed this, and want to point out the so called nikaya collections EBT never directly deny the existence of Self, it’s the translation, interpretation and inference based on personal knowledge that stretches to the wrong conclusion. on the contrary, from my personal readings, everywhere in the EBT seems to confirm the existence of Self, which enters nibbana of course. That’s why I always retranslate as I read along. FYI.
[… ]
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants: “Come now, mendicants, I say to you all: ‘Conditions fall apart. Persist with diligence.’”
These were the Realized One’s last words.
Then the Buddha entered the first absorption. Emerging from that, he entered the second absorption. Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the third absorption, the fourth absorption, the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, and the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Then he entered the cessation of perception and feeling.
Then he emerged from the cessation of perception and feeling and entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the dimension of nothingness, the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of infinite space, the fourth absorption, the third absorption, the second absorption, and the first absorption. Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the second absorption and the third absorption. Then he entered the fourth absorption. Emerging from that the Buddha immediately became fully extinguished.
[…] SN 6.15
It may or may not be that people base themselves on the texts, but generally people leave out personal preferences or ideas because… well, it’s called SUTTAcentral discourse for a reason.
We are interested in discussing early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day. If you’re interested in more general Buddhist discussion, there are plenty of other great forums out there.
As you’ve probably noticed, once we start reverting back to personal opinions, the discussion quickly becomes unmoored, because then almost anything goes. But when we focus on the texts we have a common and objective ground that we can base a discussion on.
Some people may find that limiting. If so… well, as the community guidelines say, there are other forums out there.
On a Dutch forum, some time ago, participants said i relied to much on the EBT texts. I studied them to much, and refered to them to much. I was seen as a exegeet. Quit funny that people here believe i rely to little on the texts. For myself i know this is not true. I can also explain my choices and relate them to EBT. I have did this many times.
The point is: it is not like we all come to the same understanding of Buddha-Dhamma when we read the same texts. Even translators and teachers do not. But you can also see it here with the participants.
It is very hard for us, that’s all i believe, to respect a different understanding or to open oneself in a such a vulnerable way that one might be wrong in how one understands Dhamma.
The idea that parinibbana is a mere cessation is, for me, also based upon personal preference and ideas. I have seen the reasoning and logic people use for this position. I have seen that it is subjective. One can really make other choices, use other reasoning. And i have done so. I am not going to repeat it anymore.
But i notice this is unwelcome. Apparantly we must all agree on parinibbana as a mere cessation. Or we must agree that it is not pessimistic to strive for a mere cessation.
By cessation, I take it you mean cessation of consciousness?
Cessation of consciousness was not the goal in the Atthakavagga. Cessation of sensory perception was. Suffering was caused by contact and clinging to the world. Cessation of sensory perception was the cure.
Cessation of consciousness emerges as the goal in the Parayanavagga. Suffering was caused by a notion of self. Cessation of consciousness was the cure. This seems to have been a major schism in early Buddhism. Atthakavaggan Buddhism was agnostic toward or independent of metaphysical views.
Snp 4.3
There is not in the world such a purified person
who continues in these views about existential states,
Parayanavaggan Buddhism definitely had metaphysical views that pushed it toward the goal of cessation of consciousness.
So wisdom it is and mindfulness!
Now, sir, I ask you, tell me this:
the namer-mind, the bodily form—
where does it cease to be?
Buddha
That question asked by you
I tell about it now,
the namer-mind and bodily form
where they cease to be: by cessation of the consciousness, they wholly cease to be.
This move to an adherence of a metaphysical views and the goal of cessation was mentioned and NOT endorsed by the Buddha in the Atthakavagga. After stating that the goal is cessation of perception, the sutta continues:
Snp 4.11.
Question
Whatever we’ve asked of you, to us you’ve explained,
another query we’d ask, please speak upon this,
those reckoned as wise here, do they say that
“purity of soul is just for this (life)”
or do some of them state there’s another beyond?
Buddha
Here some reckoned as wise do certainly say:
“Purity of soul is just for this life”;
but others who claim to be clever aver
that there is an occasion
for what has nothing leftover.
And Knowing that these are dependent on views,
having Known their dependence, the investigative Sage
since Liberated Knows, so no longer disputes,
the wise one goes not from being to being.
Clearly, views carried the day in Theravada Buddhism, but that was not the case is the proto-Buddhism of the Atthakavagga.
In that case I misunderstood your point, sorry. I thought you sort of meant to say there was little value in sharing textual references.
Anyway, to get back on topic a bit. MN60 says if one is unsure whether there is a complete cessation of existence or not, the best bet is to assume there is. Because it leads to less attachment.
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is definitely no cessation of being.’
“Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There definitely is a cessation of being.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
“About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there is definitely no cessation of being,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me. Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is possible that I might here and now attain final Nibbāna. The view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being” is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging; but the view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is cessation of being” is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.’ After reflecting thus, he practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being.
Edit: “there definitely is a cessation of being” I think is better translated as “there is a complete cessation of being” (or of existence).
You are looking at the problem from a textological point of view, trying to distinguish earlier layers of texts and later ones. And in this field, you can’t have hard evidence. In reality, one way or another, the texts were written down much later than the dormition of the Buddha. The schools conveyed the basic ideas of the Buddha in the form of stories. Some did it better, some worse. One can learn something about the teachings of the Buddha only by studying the canon as a whole and finding logical relationships in his teachings. Now, the teaching of dependent arising really permeates the entire Buddha Dhamma. This teaching is the essence of his philosophy. There is no reason to believe that this doctrine was developed later. After all, it forms the basis of the doctrine of the three characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) and the four noble truths, and the path of practice. This teaching is not trivial, original, answers many questions. In particular, it describes how the cessation of craving (the subject of the second noble truth) leads to the cessation of the five aggregates (the subject of the first noble truth). And this fits into the logic of the Buddha’s teachings. Consciousness (as a phenomenon) cannot be causeless, otherwise we will come to absurd conclusions. Because of the cause it arises, because of the cause it ceases. Nothing arises just like that and does not stop just like that. And of course the chain of causes can be traced back to a key cause. The Buddha traces this cause to lust and ignorance. Therefore it is very strange of you to say that the Buddha did not teach the cessation of consciousness. If he taught the impermanence, conditionality, suffering of consciousness, if he taught the four noble truths, if he taught dependent arising, then he also taught the cessation of consciousness (through the cessation of will-formers). And if he didn’t teach it, then what did he teach at all? if you throw away all these models, then you will have nothing left. You will emasculate the entire Dhamma to zero.
Other than having the same text literally carved in stone, what evidence would you want?
They were most likely written over a long period of time. What makes the oldest texts distinct is that they are not stories, but archaic verse discussing the teachings.
Before you can assume the canon as a whole is consistent and coherent, you must assume it is not. Only after you have looked at it and determined it is, in fact, consistent and coherent can you assert it is. The problem is that the texts do not present a consistent and coherent picture of the Dharma. The differences between the Atthakavagga and the Parayanavagga are evidence of that. They have different goals and means, let alone completely different takes on metaphysical theories of worlds and realms.
Yes there is. There are many different lists of links of dependent arising in the texts with different numbers of links. The lists evolved as the doctrine evolved. The 12 links make no sense and apologists have jumped through hoops trying to make sense of them. Some even speculating that they represent three lifetimes. In any case, it is completely contrary to the no views approach of the Atthakavagga.
Impermanence and not-self do not appear in the Atthakavagga and they are not explicitly mentioned in the Parayanavagga.
Consciousness does not even appear in the Atthakavagga. There is no need to discuss it since the goal is to stop perception. The cause of suffering in the Atthakavagga is attachment to the world, not an unchanging Atman.
The beauty of the Atthakavagga is that it is an elegant, concise, complete, and coherent practice and framework. It does not need to fill a book case.
The emphasis was on practice, that is, meditation. It only needed to say enough to put it in context.
The issue that later Buddhist probably had was that it was not helpful to a large institution that needed material for a large lay population and government to support it. Lay people want stories and governments like a soteriology that says the wicked will, in no uncertain terms, be punished. A soteriology with merit provided donations to fund large monasteries.
PS added later. Some people think the atthakavagga was from before Buddhism and incorporated into it later. Perhaps, it is. In any event, it speaks to me and might to others. You should stick with your convictions whatever they are.
This is the point of this passage tho isn’t it @Sunyo ? And it is consistent with other passages from the suttas, that is, that the truth value of the proposition is not determined, rather the motivation for the belief and the consequences of the belief are analysed with relation to their fruits.
Once again, if the Buddha had wanted, they could have simply said “nibanna is the ceasing of a really exisiting thing” but instead they repeatedly deny this view and repeatedly critique the possibility of having coherent views of the form “nibanna “is A”, is “not A”, “both” “neither” and repeatedly explain that such views are motivated by craving, lead to conflict and exceed the limitations of language and wisdom.
As I have said on this forum before, it genuinely baffles me how this is controversial. My current theory is that a peculiar historical accident of the Therevada community maintaining the Pali Tripitaka and a western community in a phase deeply hostile to Christianity meeting at just the moment that the wrong-headed Therevadan substantialist dhamma-mind-moments metaphysics would find the most fertile support in the No-god-no-soul-just-science (but can we still have a “spirituality” please) crowd in the west, aided and abetted by natural tendancies of the mind to reject ambiguity and nuance in favour of reification and simplicity has given us this weird (and philosophically incoherent) “Buddhism as mere cessation” we have today.
There is another idea - that rhymed lines appeared later than prose, and the archaism of the language is associated with the peculiarities of versification. In the same way, versification imposes its own restrictions on the choice of terms that would fit into a given rhythm and meter. In the suttas, perception and consciousness are often used as synonyms, so there is no problem with this. After all, both consciousness and perception and wisdom (knowledge) have one morphological root. You say that the basis of the teachings in this body of texts is meditation. Jhana meditation? jhana existed even before the Buddha, and this practice did not give rise to Buddhism, nor did it give rise to a special ideal of an arahant. what is the subject of insights if not impermanence, impersonality, emptiness, etc.? You are trying to build your theories on vague criticism of texts when there is a modern living tradition that practices vipassana in the key of contemplating the arising & cessation of phenomena and achieves the results described by the Buddha. Whom to believe more, practitioners who read the description of a certain mechanism or experiment in the text and proved it for themselves personally, or trust a linguist who doubts everything, who only brings confusion, without offering anything constructive? Think about it.
You are changing concepts. The Buddha really directly said what nibbana is - the cessation of thirst (one that leads to a new bhava - the existence of 5 aggregates in three worlds). And the choice of the term - the extinction of the fire - is the most accurate one that can ever be. He did not deny - “nibbana is A, nibbana is B.” He denied questions about the true existence of an enlightened being after physical death. This is a completely different question. The true existence (atthi) of a being is a question directly related to the Indian thought of those times, which elevated the spiritual search to the search for true being, that is, atman.
