May I inquire upon what conditions sota viññana (as in stream of consciousness, not hearing-consciosness), depends in the absence of sañña and vedana? Or are these subtly present after the physical death of a non-arahant?
Or it could just be, (and I’m going to be a little controversial here, so sorry in advance, but) like, you know, the Buddha just hadn’t experienced it, so didn’t have much to say on the matter?
For those who want the answer to that one, I guess that they should find a post-pari-nibbānna arahant and ask them? But, of course, that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? All suffering for them (including people asking them questions) has ceased 
Luckily, what a living arahant can know is that they have cut off the causes for rebirth into any realm of suffering, into any ‘state’ at all.
1 Like
But we do have an expert opinion from someone who knows these things! We have the word of the Buddha. We can never have 100% certainty in what someone in our times has to say. There have been many monks and nuns who inspire a lot of confidence in their supporters, and then turn around and abuse someone or whatever.
And of course, it’s hard to make sense of these things when different teachers interpret the word of the Buddha differently. But there are tools to make educated guesses on who is closer to the truth.
For example, how does a teacher explain their position? Are they merely relying on their personal opinion? Or do they have a better reason, such as drawing parallels from across the canon? Does the practice prescribed by a teacher align with what appears again and again in the suttas? Or does a teacher make mountains out of a rare term only found in a couple of suttas? (such as the asankhata element)
Personally, I find it helpful to also interpret the EBTs only in reference to concepts found within them. For example, you asked:
But bare awareness isn’t a concept found in the suttas. It’s a term popularized by teachers in the last century. So of course it’s difficult to interpret a sutta through that lens. You can assign whatever meaning you like to “bare awareness” and argue that the suttas were right or wrong in whatever way you like. Then you can go on to convince yourself of quite literally anything, meanwhile the meaning of the suttas doesn’t become clearer.
Couldn’t it be self view that’s feeding the fear? The Buddha taught that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that can be called a self. There’s no-one home at all in any way. So if our self view is 110% a lie then freedom from it can only be a good thing. There is no self to be had, only delusion of a self. So Nibbana isn’t deletion of a self because there is nothing there to delete to begin with. Not because you continue to exist in some way after you die as an arahant. Isn’t that beautiful?
Nibbana as cessation is only pessimistic to the extent that one has doubt in the depth of anatta. One who really understands not-self could not find delight in any kind of existence because they know there is nobody there to enjoy it. Self view and the desire to exist in whatever subtle way always go hand in hand.
In the end, we all need to find a useful way of relating to the suttas. All the information we could ever need is at our finger tips. We don’t need more information, we need to find a way to navigate it.
5 Likes
Some people, i had this in the beginning, become anxious when thoughts cease. This is very normal.
And what happens when the perception of a body would cease for you? Or, even the perception of a world you are so used to?
My experience is, one must have developed wisdom to a high degree to be not very alarmed when this happens. This is all because we are so identified with those formations and have an internal scheme “i sense this and that, so i exist, and i exist because i sense this and that”.
This is why, i believe, Buddha introduced his pupils in the wisdom to see all that we experience as not me and mine. To develop that wisdom gradually. Because if one keeps identifying with formations, keeps going on with the habit of me and mine-making, one keeps fearing the stilling of all those formations. That is the clue.
We fear stilling because of a long standing habit of me and mine making.
But dukha already perishes in the 1st and 2nd jhana, sukha perished in the 3rd and 4th jhana
Please explain: Why would the Buddha talk about “that what does not have the characteristics to arise, cease and change”… if there is really nothing like that? If there are only khandha’s? If there are only temporary formations?
We need experiential knowledge, not scriptural knowledge because it will always be uncertain without it.
Bare awareness is questionable indeed, but i find this at least an attempt to explain the perception of the stilling of all formations (AN10.6). I also see great meditation masters express themselves this way.
One cannot say that because there is no self, nothing really vanishes or ceases at the death of an arahant. I do not see what is beautiful in going out like a flame or vanishing like a particle in Earth atmosphere at death, but what i see as beautiful …to see, discover, find the asankhata element, the truth, the unbon, the deathless.
For me, it is very farfetched to think that vanishing at death is the same as realising the deathless and unborn, unbecome. It makes no sense at all for me. But i notice others think it makes sense.
I must make them wiser 
Yes, and also the desire not to exist! The desire to cease to exist must not be encouraged, i feel.
I still feel, we need an expert opinion on the nature of sannavedayitanirodha, someone who knows this state and does not need to fall back on scriptural knowledge. That would be great
The sangha is divided and confused. Oke i am
1 Like
I do not think it is a refusal, but more like it cannot really be expressed.
But if one would just go out like a flame, or vanish like a particle entering the Earth atmosphere at death, ofcourse the only possible outcomes is…not exist anymore.
Think this way, you already did this (went out like a flame) many times in the past, it seems like you have had no problem with it. Assumed that before this life, you were Mr.X, your wife were Mrs. X, your children were A, B, C… When you came to this life, all of those were vanished without a trace. Is that a bliss or a problem now?
Mr. X and all of his possessions were gone, no trace left. Why do you have no problem with that now? It seems like you do not have any consciousness about Mr. X or you do not have any left-over consciousness of Mr. X. Now you no longer need to worry about Mr. X’s problems. Is this a bliss or a problem?
Now you are Mr. X2; by ignorance, you are unconsciously building up again all of the problems that Mr. X did in the past again and again. What if you do not do so? What if there will be no Mr. X2, X3…?
When Mr. X2 exists, by ignorance, Mr. X2 will continue all the underline tendency of Mr. X unconsciously. Mr. X2 will again build up all the problems that Mr. X did in the past even though Mr. X2 has no idea who was Mr. X. Is this a bliss or a problem?
You have no problem now when Mr. X went out like a flame. Do you think that you will have problem if Mr. X2 or X3 will go out like a flame again? Do you really need the existence of Mr. X so you can be happy or exist now?
When you no longer be identified with anything, there will be no Mr. X, X2, X3, X4… All the problems are vanished. No more consciousness about what we called “I, me, my” in the past, present or future. Is that a bliss or a problem? Mr. X, X2, X3, X4 is nothing but “I, me, my.”
When there is no consciousness about what we called “I, me, my”, there is also no such thing as not “I, me, my.” If we can understand this then we will have no more problem if there is no consciousness about them, or we will not worry about if “I, me, my” will exist or “I, me, my” will not exist or what I will be conscious about.
That’s how I see it.
1 Like
The late Sayadaw U Pandita said the same thing in the simile of the “sleeping millionaire” which was what I alluded to when quoting Mark Twain - I’ve been dead for aeons before I was born and had not been in the least inconvenienced by it.
Let us imagine that there is a multimillionaire or millionairesse who has available to him or her all the imaginable sense pleasures. One day this person is having a nice, sound sleep. While he or she is sleeping, the chef has been at work, cooking an array of delicious food and arranging it on the table. Everything is quite in order in the full splendor of the millionaire’s mansion.
When this millionaire is in a deep, sound sleep, he or she is blissfully oblivious to the surroundings. No matter how beautiful the bedroom, he or she does not see it. No matter how beautiful the music that is piped throughout the house, he or she is deaf to it. Fine fragrance may waft through the air, but he or she is oblivious to it. He or she is not eating, that is clear. And no matter how comfortable and luxurious the bed may be, he or she is completely unaware of the sensation of lying upon it.
You can see that there is a certain happiness in sound sleep which is not connected with sensate objects. Anyone, rich or poor, may wake up from sound sleep and feel wonderful. One may gather, then, that some sort of happiness exists in that sleep. Though it is difficult to describe, it cannot be denied. In the same way, the noble ones who have touched fulfillment of Dhamma know of a kind of happiness that can neither be denied nor fully described, but which we know by deductive reasoning actually exists.
Supposing it were possible to have deep, sound sleep forever. Would you want it? If one does not like the kind of happiness that comes with sound sleep, it may be difficult to have a preference for nibbāna. If one does not want the happiness of nonexperience, one is still attached to the pleasure of the senses. This attachment is due to craving. It is said that craving actually is the root cause of sense objects
Sayadaw U Pandita In This Very Life
2 Likes
Yes, but does that mean that there is only one way to navigate through the texts…leading to the same understanding you have? Is this a free navigation or does it force your understanding of Dhamma in a certain direction?
You can also notice that we all navigate in a different way. We make different choices. What we desire, understand intuively, need, wish, comes into play. This navigation is not objective at all.
For example, you believe one can make a mountain of such a rare term as asankhata dhatu…that is also a choice to navigate through the texts, to ignore things, to put things aside which do not match your own understanding and desires. Things which would lead to cognitive dissonance are put aside. That’s how we almost all navigate.
Example 2, there is until now no one here who comments on AN10.6 which indicaties that the stilling of formations is perceived as peaceful. Why ignore this? Because it is also a rare issue or would lead to cognitive dissonance when one must admit that it says that there is in some way perception?
I look into the choice others make, i weight it, i see if it makes sense to me.
2 Likes
I think there is something strange about sleep. I think there must be some subtle experience or registering during deep sleep, because how can we otherwise judge or know that this sleep is nice, unburdensome, in some way happiness? How can we ever come to that conclusion if we do not perceive this in some way?
I also believe that science teaches that while asleep there is still registering going on, and one can wake up when a sense-object makes enough impact on the mind. I believe there are clues that there is a much deeper way of knowing and registering things, than via vinnana, a conscious sense moment.
What happens during sleep is interesting. It seems like consciousness is in “standby mode”.
One way to deal with the idea of Spectacular Cessation is to focus on the optimistic, brighter sides.
One massively optimistic, bright side is that we are no longer subject to injuring any other beings through our thoughts, deeds or words as we blunder around the remnants of (our) samsara(ing).
In the story of the first verse of the Dhammapada we find the story of the blind Arahant Cakkupala.
On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects. When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, “Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no intention of killing and so was quite innocent.” On being asked why Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told the following story:
Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later existences.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, ‘dukkha’ follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
1 Like
I think it does not mean ‘existing nomore’. What it is actually is known by only that person who is arhat/anagami/sakrutagami/sotapanna. For us it is equivalent to non-existence. But I don’t think it is same for the person who has achieved that. I don’t think we can comprehend it perfectly, but I am confident that it cannot be non-existence as it seems to us.
I think it like this -
We are like an ‘eye’ made of 5 aggregates which is watching and experiencing everything. We all are eyes existing and experiencing everything. So one of such ‘eyes’ beside us attains parinibbana. So that particular ‘eye’ just disappeared in front of us…so for us it seems that…that ‘eye’ is not-existing. But what that ‘eye’ is seeing or experiencing is something which only that ‘eye’ which disappeared himself can know…it can be formless/emptiness or beyond it, but Reality for us is that we actually cannot understand it or comprehend it, it is literally impossible to comprehend that in a state we are in because we are existing as eye made up of 5 aggregates! We all are ‘eye’ which can see everything around us but we cannot see ourselves(our true nature/reality) unlike that ‘eye’ in front of us which attained parinibbana by being empty of itself.
This is the idea we fail to understand. This is incapability to understand that conceptually. This inability/incapability of our ‘formless mind trying to understand everything in the context of form(concept)’ is what makes us create idea of ‘non-existing’. We need to accept that we are actually lacking and incapable to comprehend this in a state we are in.
If we don’t accept our incapacity then it leads to believing that after parinibbana everything just gets annihilated or stops existing. On the contrary if we accept our incapability to comprehend then we don’t need to cling to impression (that everything becomes non-existence) this parinibbana gives to us.
I have proof… somewhere in suttas when particular person attains arhatship, he/she says what has to be done had been done, holy life lived and there is no more for this state of existence.
“There is no-more for this state of existence”…this phrase actually disproves that everything is annihilated or everything becomes non-existent after parinibbana. Now after this it is possible to reach another only remaining conclusion…that “there is another state of existence after parinibbana”. Well this another conclusion actually contradicts all of theoretical explanation of nibbana. So it is appropriate to discard both of these conclusions.
And in the context of ongoing thread this proves that there is no annihilation or non-existence after parinibbana. As sleep is like a temporary death and death is like a temporary sleep. Nothing lasts forever hence everything is possible hence I think ‘non-existence’ might be just a concept made up by incapable mind trying to understand the incomprehensible or it can be a concept made up by all-comprehending mind in order to teach minds which are trying to understand the incomprehensible.
To summarize a little bit: I do not think there is really scriptural ‘evidence’ that the Dhamma is a Path to become non-existent after death or vanish like a particle entering Earths atmosphere. There is no evidence that this is the real goal of becoming enlightend, and purifying the mind.
There is a lot of evidence that the noble Path is to end continued existence, to end rebirth, and the suffering inherent to any birth. EBT do not say that the end of rebirth is the same as becoming non-existent or to vanish like a particle entering Earths atmosphere.
Rather the texts cleary want to counter this idea of becoming non-existent or vanishing after death. They also do not support nor promote the desire to become non-existent (vibhava tanha).
I think in the end the view that parinibbana is a mere cessation is, i believe, based upon the idea that the only thing for us to see and discover has the nature of sankhata . That there are only formations with a nature to arise, cease and change. That there is nothing stable, nothing that has not the characteristic to arise and cease. I do not see support for this in EBT.
I also do not see support for the view that vanishing at death like a particle entering Earths atmosphere is the same as realising the deathless, unconditioned or asankhata. Also this is nowhere in the EBT texts. I personally believe it is a mistake.
There are especially no clues in EBT that the only thing for us to know, learn and discover are formations that arise, cease and change (sankhata).
1 Like
This conclusion i do not understand. Can you give more explanation?
By the way, the simile of the eye is sometimes used to illustrate the difference between what the mind experiences (or its content), and the nature of mind. The eye does not see itself, it sees only visuals. It has, as it were, an external orientation. It does not look within.
Some say, likewise the mind does not see itself, its own nature, but sees only it’s content; ideas, smells, sounds or whatever it’s aware of. It’s own nature is, as it were, not seen, unknown, while this is more close to us than its changing content.
Sometimes one also uses the simile of the mirror to explain this difference. Mind is like a mirror, but it has only attention for the images in the mirror and not for its own nature.
There are explanations which say that in sannavedayitanirodha, this pure awareness reveals itself, this nature of mind. It reveals itself not as a self, soul, nor thing, nor as nothing.
Some believe that this is also the meaning of:
AN1.51
"Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind,(or, radiant in the translation of Sujato) but it is defiled by adventitious defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is; therefore I say that for the uninstructed worldling there is no development of the mind." (AN, Bodhi)
Some suggest this clarity or luminosity refers to the nature of mind, it’s pure awareness aspect.
It would be great to hear an expert meditation master talk about sannavedayitanirodha, a person who knows this state and can share reliable information, not based on tradition, view, reasoning. This will also give us more understanding of parinibbana and if this is really like vanishing as a particle entering Earths atmosphere.
“There is no more for this state of existence”… Here in this phrase it is not said that ‘there is no more for (all or any kind /state of) existence’. It specifically says, “…for this state of existence…”. Hence I think that existence is not destroyed. It can never be. It is either created existence or uncreated existence. Uncreated existence is something which can be said to be closest to nibbana(maybe) but when it is uncreated it cannot be characterized by existence so this concept contradicts itself…hence it’s hard to understand it(atleast for me). Created existence is either pure or impure, pure existence(or pure essence/awareness more correctly) is characterized by lack of suffering and happiness which maybe only arhat the highest noble being only able to understand exactly, and impure existence is characterized by suffering…which we all experience at some level or other and ‘non-existence’ is just a derived concept. It’s like darkness…darkness is not something which exists(itself), it is actually absence of light. There is either presence of light or absence of light. All of this is speculation and reasoning. I don’t know if I am correct here…but it is certainly not hopeless(to me) thinking like this. But I am sure that attaining that(stream-entry, the nearest to it) will be like perfect happiness which cannot be expressed/understood in concepts/words.
Yes exactly…and when that eye sees itself it is witnessing emptiness.
When mind’s true nature is seen by mind itself then this I believe is a kind of enlightenment.
It may seem like that to us but I don’t think it is like for the one who is experiencing it. It’s like when some one is going away from us…for us only it looks as if he/she is leaving but from his perspective he might be returning to his original place. Vanishing is for us only…he might be actually appearing to ultimate reality… exactly opposite to what it seems to us. It is like when small child is going in the direction of fire out of amazement, his mother stops him using violence and at that moment child thinks mother is his enemy, this is child’s point of view…which is right for him with his limited understanding…but ultimately it’s wrong view. When some one says parinibbana is complete annihilation then he is like child thinking mother is his enemy. That’s how I see it. I don’t see any contradiction in thinking like this.
I also think that there is difference between cessation and annihilation. Annihilation is always temporary…because which dies is again reborn. There is no rebirth for arhats(noble being) hence… parinibbana cannot be annihilation. Cessation is nor annihilation nor going into non-existence. Cessation is like returning to ultimate reality. For us it seems like ending but it cannot be, because if it were ending then again there would be starting…which is not the characteristic of cessation… hence… as far as I can think returning to ultimate reality best defines cessation.
1 Like
Hi There, Bodhi translates this fragment as: "Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
any state of being refers, i believe, to the 31 realms in which one can be reborn.
I believe it just a way to describe that the arahant has made an end to rebirth in whatever existence there is.
Yes, i agree.
Some say Nibbana is eternal but i do not believe this can be said too. Designation as exist and not exist etc, and of time (eternal, temporary) and space (here or there) do not apply.
Yes, masters say the combination of emptiness and awareness. There is also an element of knowing. It s not just a blanc and death emptiness.
Nice simile. I like the idea of returning to original place.
But, in the end, i think that ‘returning to ultimate reality’ is also only a metaphoric truth, it is imagery, just like saying that a tree lets go of it leaves, or the sun is shining. There is not such thing happening.
What is there to return to ultimate reality for an arahant and Tathagata, when the khandha’s cease?
Some say that parinibbana is like becoming one with ultimate reality, to unify with it, but what is there to join with, to unify with when khandha’s cease? It is all just imagery, conceiving.
I believe, in the end an arahant knows that what can cease will cease at death, and what cannot cease does also not cease. He/she knows all as it is, sankhata as well as asankhata. To know that as-it-is means, not as conception or imagery, not as a conceiving, but as it really is, direct. And this is his/her full enlightment.
Yes, what I said above is not contradictory to this as well.
When I said that, "…there is no more for this state of existence…‘’ one thing is proven…that there is no annihilation. That was the only purpose. But immediately it can imply another conclusion that if there is no annihilation then there must be different existence…then that would be wrong. We should stop when it is proven that it is not annihilation…if we go further and grasp another immediate conclusion then we would be wrong. What I am trying to say is something in middle which cannot be explained in words or concepts. What I am trying to say is only that there in no annihilation. That was the only purpose.
Also,
Coming to any state of being = existence
But we cannot say that ‘uncreated existence’ = a kind of existence…it will be wrong conclusion, a beautiful contradiction…here we cannot understand it in concepts. So for me I stop there only. But to talk about that which is implied when we say ‘uncreated existence’, we actually need to use this word, ‘uncreated existence’ metaphorically.
I think better substitute would be ‘being uncreated’ instead of ‘uncreated existence’.
Hence it can be said that, ‘being uncreated’ does not mean existence, because it is uncreated (existence=created) and also it does not mean non-existence, because it is being and not ‘not-being’.
I also believe same sir.
But I think that is the exact definition of eternal. Nibbana is called eternal because time, space, exist, not-exist, eternal, non-eternal all of these do not apply. Hence I don’t think it is wrong if we say it is eternal for the sake of discussion only .
Yes exactly there is no such thing happening, but it is necessary to roam around this metaphoric truth in order to not get confused. This is also kind of grasping. But If we don’t hold to this metaphoric truth then we will keep on wondering…and then only experience will save us. It is same as proliferating the unproliferated. But still it is necessary to mention it that way. It is important to understand it’s impossible to reach conclusion here…its like person X is trying to find the shape of shapeless…and someone(person Y) said that shape of shapeless is shapeless then X is saying that I am trying to find the shape and you are saying there is no shape!? Reality is that shape of that shapeless is shapeless…and this is also metaphorical truth…but it is 1000 times better to metaphorically believe that shape of shapeless is shapeless…the phrase ‘returning to ultimate reality’ is also metaphorical but it is necessary to avoid confusion. And if we still want to find the conclusion then we will have to experience it, then only way is to experience it. If we go by that analogy, the only solution for Person X is to experience shapeless in order to understand it.
I think what you are inquiring is like searching for the shape of shapeless, it’s like attaining the state of stateless. Atleast I think like this. (I may be wrong as well)
But inspite of that direct answer to your question can be emptiness, but if it will imply non-existence then it will be wrong answer, and if it doesn’t imply non-existence then only it will be right answer.
Yes sir exactly…because arhat has known it experientially, unlike many of us…I hope everyone will know it someday.
Also many monks or teachers talk about nibbana in negative terms. But even they are not wrong. It is like I have exam in next month, so my teacher is telling me to study hard knowing that I will fail otherwise. But I want to believe that I will not fail & will pass this exam. So the chance of me being successful in clearing this exam is highest when I believe in my teachers words that I will fail if I don’t study. But if I believe in my own words that I will pass this exam in any case, it will lower my chances of studying hard to clear this exam. So till I clear this exam, it’s better that I stay aware about failure, the negative aspect. Negativity is what will drive me more than positivity…well there are exceptions also but generally many of those who succeed actually fear failure and to avoid it study harder. I think those who talk about nibbana in negative terms are like teacher in this simile…who is negatively positive…in order to fasten the process of awakening it is said that it is vanishing like fire.
Also it is a fact that the thing which is not real cannot be destroyed. Only the real things can be destroyed. So it is same with this ‘self’ of ours. This ‘I’ is neither created nor destroyed, because in reality it simply is not there! Anatta/no-self is just realizing this experientially.(I am not sure if I am correct but I try to understand it this way because it solves my confusion)
1 Like
I feel you have a nice creative way to illustrate your ideas. I like it
I only have some personal trouble with people’s motive to practice Dhamma to vanish after death like a particle entering Earths atmosphere without anything remaining, a mere cessation as the goal of the holy life. (I believe i will never ever forget this imagery of @stu of the spectacular vanishing particle).
Maybe you are right and can it be inspiring for people to think they will vanish at death but personally i cannot ignore that i am not comfortable with it at all when people practice Dhammafor this purpose. To be honest, i find it depressing, it makes me feel sad. Really. That people really believe that Dhamma is about vanishing at death. Maybe i am totally stupid, lack any wisdom, but i am sad about this.