On the inherent pessimism of parinibbana as mere cessation

[Raftafarian]

@Green

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.

Snp 5.2

Ajita

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.

[Sunyo]

@Green

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.

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).

[Nikolas]

@Raftafarian

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.

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.

[Raftafarian]

@Nikolas

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.

Other than having the same text literally carved in stone, what evidence would you want?

@Nikolas

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.

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.

@Nikolas

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.

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.

@Nikolas

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.

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.

@Nikolas

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.

Impermanence and not-self do not appear in the Atthakavagga and they are not explicitly mentioned in the Parayanavagga.

@Nikolas

Consciousness (as a phenomenon) cannot be causeless, otherwise we will come to absurd conclusions.

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.

@Nikolas

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.

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.

[josephzizys]

@Sunyo

Because it leads to less attachment.

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.

Oh well, to each their own I guess.

Metta

[Nikolas]

@Raftafarian

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.

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.

[Nikolas]

@josephzizys

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

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.

[josephzizys]

@Nikolas

He denied questions about the true existence of an enlightened being after physical death.

This is exactly the same question.

[Nikolas]

@josephzizys

This is exactly the same question

No. And you know this very well, you just substitute concepts intentionally for the sake of your preferences. The Buddha changes the incorrect formulation of the question, which includes the post-mortem state of the person or soul, to an impersonal description of dukkha (phenomena) and the cessation of dukkha (phenomena). Instead of a snake, he proposes to see a rope, instead of a personality - an accumulation of elements: five khandhas, six ayatans, 18 dhatus. And regarding their termination, he expressed himself very clearly. And you also know this very well.

[Nikolas]

Does the snake exist after death, does not the snake exist after death; both, or neither?
The Buddha only teaches the rope (empty from the snake) and the cessation of the rope (empty from the snake).
Is a rope and a snake the same thing? - No. A rope is one and a snake is another? - No. Is the rope a snake? - No. Is the snake in the rope? - No. Is the rope in the snake? - No. Does the snake own the rope? - No. The rope is empty of the snake and everything that belongs to the snake.
Seeing thus, the noble disciple becomes disillusioned, becomes dispassionate to the rope, being dispassionate he is liberated, he knows that an end has been put to the arising of empty things and illusions.

[josephzizys]

Umm no. If you review my post history you will see that I absolutely reject your interpretation of this issue. I am at work at the minute but will get back to you with a more detailed outlining of my understanding later.

[josephzizys]

Also a rope and a snake are of course two different things.

[Nikolas]

In this context, the rope is perceived as a snake, impersonal elements are perceived as a person or soul. The most correct thing would be to say about the emptiness of the elements from the Self and everything that belongs to the Self. My interpretation is not mine, but the unambiguous teaching of the suttas.

[josephzizys]

Sorry but I think your interpretation is incoherent.
A rope is not a snake and a snake is not a rope.
I was going to write up my usual spiel about the tetralemma and it’s relation to the EBT conception of nibanna and self identity and all that but I have decided not to bother.
May you be happy and well.

[Raftafarian]

@Nikolas

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.

Archaic meter is only part of it. It lends support to early composition, but there is more. There is evidence in the canon outside the Atthakavagga of “no views”. The questions the Buddha will not answer in MN63 and the conditional consolations in AN3.65.

The nucleus of the Atthakavagga (Snp 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5) shows no evidence of Brahmanic influence. They do show evidence of Jain influence. The stories of the Buddha as emaciated also indicate him being a Jain, not a Brahman. Some academics (Bronkhorst)point out that Brahmanism was still migrating east and were not influential yet in the region the Buddha lived. The Jains were there. That is where the Jains started.

@Nikolas

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.

They were not used as synonyms. Perception is the parsing and integration of sense data and consciousness is the experiential awareness of that. That experiential awareness can outrun the actual senses. The “divine sights and sounds”, and “super powers” are hallucinations caused by sensory deprivation.

The Attakavagga and even some suttas outside it speak of an awareness of the absence of sense data, that is what references to the end of the world are about.

@Nikolas

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.

The canon is full of reference to the jhanas and they are the definition of Right Concentration so I do not see how you can say the practice did not give rise to Buddhism.

@Nikolas

what is the subject of insights if not impermanence, impersonality, emptiness, etc.?

The emphasis changed from the coming and going of the world through the cessation of perception to the coming and going of the Atman through the coming and going of consciousness. Atman was a distinctly Brahman concept. It came later. The Jains were in the region the Buddha lived long before the Brahmans.

Anatta had to do with the transience of consciousness, not the absence of personality. While I think that states of consciousness without the presence of personality or personhood are enlightening, the portions of the canon that discuss anatta don’t mention them.

The insights are about worldly existence and non-existence.

@Nikolas

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.

I have not mentioned this even once nor do I give a thought to modern movements. I have also presented other evidence beside meter here.

@Nikolas

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.

I have given it an inordinate amount of thought. I find the Atthakavagga to be constructive. The confusion is caused by the larger canon that is so full of contradictions. I am in awe of the fact that so many people even in this forum mistake contradiction and cognitive dissonance for profundity.

I find it humorous that when someone presents a quote that says “A” and someone thinks they have disproved it by finding a quote that says “not-A” that neither realizes that the canon contradicts itself and that that should be a matter of concern.

[Viveka]

I’m glad that your practice is going well with your preferred approach.

But I don’t know how helpful the kind of statement below is for anyone else (ref Right Speech - how can it be for the benefit of others or even yourself) ?

@Raftafarian

The confusion is caused by the larger canon that is so full of contradictions. I am in awe of the fact that so many people even in this forum mistake contradiction and cognitive dissonance for profundity.

Perception is a tricky thing…

Personally, I don’t see any contradictions in the Buddhas teachings (EBTs) as a body of work, and in your statement you are then also dismissing scores of accomplished monastics teachers and practitioners … Have they all got it so terribly wrong - for 2600 years? Has the Path not worked?
It has and it does

Sure there are a tiny number of outlying statements that have crept into the Canon, but these are easily identifiable and explained through textual analysis, and to focus only on this tiny percentage - what 0.0001% or less, and use it to discredit the entirety would be called Ayoniso Manasikara. Indeed it is one of the most amazing things, how the Buddha was able to deliver such a consistent and clear message (pointing to the mechanics of delusion), over the entire body of the EBTs and from so many angles… truly a spiritual genius
This is why we take refuge in the Triple Gem.

Thanks to the work of so many, and of Sutta Central and this forum for making the EBTs available for all those who wish to put the Noble 8 Fold Path into practice, and train according to how the historical Buddha Gotama Buddha taught

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu!

[Raftafarian]

@Viveka

I’m glad that your practice is going well with your preferred approach.

But I don’t know how helpful the kind of statement below is for anyone else (ref Right Speech - how can it be for the benefit of others or even yourself) ?

If you provided even an attempt at a refutation of the points I made, I would consider it, but until I see one, I stand by what I said.

@Viveka

Perception is a tricky thing…

An ellipsis is not an argument. This is the kind of think I mean when I say you are not even attempting a refutation. If you have an argument, present it. Otherwise, it looks like you have no counter.

@Viveka

and in your statement you are then also dismissing scores of accomplished monastics teachers and practitioners … Have they all got it so terribly wrong - for 2600 years? Has the Path not worked?

Scolding is not an argument either. If I am so wrong, It should easy to dismantle what I said.

@Viveka

Sure there are a tiny number of outlying statements that have crept into the Canon, but these are easily identifiable and explained through textual analysis, and to focus only on this tiny percentage - what 0.0001% or less, and use it to discredit the entirety would be called Ayoniso Manasikara.

The contradiction of the Buddha subscribing to no views and views is of paramount importance. Ninety percent of the canon is at stake here. It simply cannot be dismissed without an argument.

[Viveka]

You’re right. I’m not arguing.

Nor scolding. Just highlighting a few points to facilitate reflection for all who may be reading this, especially those who are new and just silently reading.

If you want to talk about the suttas where the Buddha teaches about Right View and views, that could be a good topic for a new thread

[Sunyo]

@josephzizys

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.

Hey,

This is the point of THIS passage indeed. However, if you read the entire sutta you’ll see that the views that are encouraged for those in doubt are always right view. Of course there are also other suttas that directly mention nibbana being the cessation of existence, and the cessation of existence is mentioned a thousand times or so elsewhere. Nibbana is just a metaphor after all, we shouldn’t forget. So although the main point here is that aiming for the cessation of existence leads to less attachment, the cessation of existence also the real goal.

The Buddha never said those things about nibbana being A, not A, and so forth. Parinibbana is the cessation of existence, so it’s a “not A” kind of statement. He said what happens to a being after death shouldn’t be described as such in ultimate reality, because there is no “being”, only the suffering of the five aggregates, as Nikolas explained. Although the Buddha himself is not even consistent with this. Once he said to Vacchagotta in MN72 that you shouldn’t say “an enlightened being does not get reborn”, but in MN12 he says exactly that, that an enlightened monk does not get reborn anywhere. In the second case he is just assuming people understand that “enlightened being” refers just to the five aggregates, which are processes empty of a self.

[josephzizys]

Hi @Sunyo ONce again we just have to disagree, your explanation makes no sense, as if it was " what happens to a being after death shouldn’t be described as such in ultimate reality, because there is no “being”, only the suffering of the five aggregates" then it would apply to anyone, enlightened or not, so this is clearly not the explanation here.

Thank you for your reply, but as I said to @Nikolas I think I will not bother to write up anything like a comprehensive response here, as I have of late really lost my “mojo” with regard to rehearsing these arguments with Therevada practitioners, I get nowhere, and recently I am not even getting much by way of clarity about the Terevada position, it’s just a repetition of the same arguments that didn’t make sense the first time.

Metta