To ask such a question already assumes a soul there.
Where does a fire go after it is extinguished? North, south, east or west.
Question doesn’t apply due to wrong concept of a fire-soul.
I’m not asking that question, I’m asking if you are making the statement that a Tathagata does not exist after death, because it sure seems like that is the statement you are making 
Is there something greater than the 5 aggregates?
That’s because of you still unable to go beyond self view, intellectually at least.
There’s nothing after parinibbāna is a very clear statement. Or more subtly, how can we say anything about after parinibbāna when all 6 senses and their causes ceases without remainder? No mind base to sense anything or to know anything to report back what’s after parinibbāna.
My teacher in EBT does not agree that 5 aggregates is the all, but anyway, we can use 6 sense bases/contacts to substitute and that’s the all. Parinibbāna is where the all ceases, without remainder, including their causes, so no more arising.
I don’t believe in the soul either. But I certainly believe it is an observable phenomena, i.e. the Jiva, and I believe it is transcendental to the body, the aggregates as well, but even in the highest realms, those of no form and higher, we are still left with some of the aggregates. The “all” as Buddha describes it is quite a powerful method. But the reason why I don’t believe in the soul while mentioning it is because I believe in something infinitely greater, even beyond cessation, beyond Nibbana, and even beyond Buddhahood. The best way for me to describe that aptitude is that it is God. But, believing that only God exists and nothing else is kind of my understanding of all other things. God for me is outside of all phenomena, that’s why all is Empty, Sunyata. And He is not a mere Deva or demigod. Me finding who I am is identifying my Metta with God, however I believe God to be independent from Metta, and even me. However, I do not feel myself separate from God. So that is how I use Buddhism to supplicate in my understanding of my Higher Power, and in the EBT’s I am able to find connections to my communion. Namaste.
Sounds like you are quite sure. Also sounds like you are declaring that you are beyond self view, intellectually at least, otherwise how would you know? Have you been able to go beyond self view then?
Sounds very much like, “the Tathagata does not exist after death.”
You stated that with paranibbana a person ceases. This is equivalent in my mind to the statement that a person does not exist after death seeing as you equate paranibbana with a final death. You say I’m in error, but how do you distinguish these two statements?
- Do you view a person as form?
- Do you view a person as feeling?
- Do you view a person as perception?
- Do you view a person as choices?
- Do you view a person as consciousness?
- Do you view a person as in form?
- Do you view a person as distinct from form?
- Do you view a person as in feeling?
- Do you view a person as distinct from feeling?
- Do you view a person as in perception?
- Do you view a person as distinct from perception?
- Do you view a person as in choices?
- Do you view a person as distinct from choices?
- Do you view a person as in consciousness?
- Do you view a person as distinct from consciousness?
- Do you view a person as possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?
- Do you view a person as one without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?
- Do you view a person as the sum of the parts of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?
If you can’t find a person in any of these ways in this very life, then tell me is it appropriate to declare, “a person who has ceased in parinibbāna” where you equate parinibbāna with the death of a Realized One?
1 Like
Hello Venerable @NgXinZhao!
“Reverend, when these six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does anything else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Does nothing else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Do both something else and nothing else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Do neither something else nor nothing else exist?”
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“If you say that ‘when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.* - AN 4.174
Self/Soul is not mentioned at all in this sutta, but you will still claim that Ānanda is asking the questions from a
”self view”:
But this is only an assumption.
In reality you are in fact proliferating the unproliferated:
The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact. The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”
Cessationists add the ‘nothing else exists’, and by doing so are 100% proliferating the unproliferated, no matter how we look at it, self view or no self view - proliferation has not stopped and is not stilled since you always add the ‘nothing else exists’, to ”When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over…
1 Like
Not in regard to ‘everything’, but only to what is you and what is yours:
Here is the answer from Ven. Nanavira:
SAṄKHĀRA
A full discussion of this key word is given in A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA. It is there maintained that the word sankhāra, in all contexts, means ‘something that something else depends on’, that is to say a determination (determinant). It might be thought that this introduces an unnecessary complication into such passages as Vayadhammā sankhārā appamādena sampādetha (‘To disappear is the nature of determinations; strive unremittingly’) and Aniccā vata sankhārā uppādavayadhammino (‘Impermanent indeed are determinations; to arise (appear) and disappear is their nature’) (Dīgha ii,3 <D.ii,156&7>). Why, instead of telling us that things (dhammā) are impermanent and bound to disappear, should the Buddha take us out of our way to let us know that things that things depend on are impermanent and bound to disappear? The answer is that the Dhamma does not set out to explain, but to lead—it is opanayika. This means that the Dhamma is not seeking disinterested intellectual approval, but to provoke an effort of comprehension or insight leading to the abandonment of attavāda and eventually of asmimāna. Its method is therefore necessarily indirect: we can only stop regarding this as ‘self’ if we see that what this depends on is impermanent (see DHAMMA for more detail). Consider, for example, the Mahāsudassanasuttanta (Dīgha ii,4 <D.ii,169-99>), where the Buddha describes in detail the rich endowments and possessions of King Mahāsudassana, and then finishes: Pass’Ānanda sabbe te sankhārā atītā niruddhā viparinatā. Evam aniccā kho Ānanda sankhārā, evam addhuvā kho Ānanda sankhārā, yāvañ c’idam Ānanda alam eva sabbasankhāresu nibbinditum, alam virajjitum, alam vimuccitum. (‘See, Ānanda, how all those determinations have passed, have ceased, have altered. So impermanent, Ānanda, are determinations, so unlasting, Ānanda, are determinations, that this, Ānanda, is enough for weariness of all determinations, enough for dispassion, enough for release.’) This is not a simple statement that all those things, being impermanent by nature, are now no more; it is a lever to prize the notion of ‘selfhood’ out of its firm socket. Those things were sankhārā: they were things on which King Mahāsudassana depended for his very identity; they determined his person as ‘King Mahāsudassana’, and with their cessation the thought ‘I am King Mahāsudassana’ came to an end. More formally, those sankhārā were nāmarúpa, the condition for phassa (Dīgha ii,2 <D.ii,62>[9]), upon which sakkāyaditthi depends (cf. Dīgha i,1 <D.i,42-3> together with Citta Samy. 3 <S.iv,287>).
… In itself, as a dhamma regarded as attā, its impermanence is not manifest (for it is pleasant to consider it as permanent); but when it is seen to be dependent upon other dhammā not considered to be permanent, its impermanence does then become manifest. To see impermanence in what is regarded as attā, one must emerge from the confines of the individual dhamma itself and see that it depends on what is impermanent. Thus sabbe sankhārā (not dhammā) aniccā is said, meaning ‘All things that things (dhammā) depend on are impermanent’. A given dhamma, as a dhamma regarded as attā, is, on account of being so regarded, considered to be pleasant; but when it is seen to be dependent upon some other dhamma that, not being regarded as attā, is manifestly unpleasurable (owing to the invariable false perception of permanence, of super-stability, in one not free from asmimāna), then its own unpleasurableness becomes manifest. Thus sabbe sankhārā (not dhammā) dukkhā is said. When this is seen—i.e. when perception of permanence and pleasure is understood to be false --, the notion ‘This dhamma is my attā’ comes to an end, and is replaced by sabbe dhammā anattā.
I do not know what is on your mind Yeshe. I compare this with water. Water is susceptible. It can receive a stone. Dependend on the impact that causes a small or huge wave. I believe it is something similar to mind. Minds basic function is susceptibility. It has an ability to detect. That is not yet the same as perceive! Mind can give rise to sense vinnana’s. In practise, then we experience a certain smell, sound, tactile sensation, plan, emotion etc. These vinnana’s do not refer to minds susceptibility but arise because of minds susceptibility. The daily stream of vinnana’s/perceptions/feeling are like the expressions of the mind. The waves in the sea. One must not see this stream as mind.
Maybe you can comment on this first and then we can continue?
You had said that the mind’s basic function was bare awareness. You’ve equated this bare awareness with asankhata. You’ve also said that it provides a “safe space” or a place of refuge. I’m attempting to inquire about this.
Let’s take your water analogy: the mind as the basic receptivity with which water can receive a stone. You agree that any stone is not asankhata, yes? Further, that no stones exist in Nibbana, right? If so I’m asking, how is it possible for this basic receptivity to act as a refuge or a “safe place.” Its only function is to receive the stone and if no stone is present, then it is useless. It receives nothing and performs no function. If that is the case, then how can something which performs no function act as a “safe space” or refuge?
Let’s say you are right and there is such a thing as a mind that does not arise or cease and performs the function of bare awareness and this mind is the asankhata that the Teacher described. I do not find this conception to be comforting or particularly compelling. It does not seem fitting as a place of refuge. I take it that it does comfort you and provide you with a place for refuge. I’m really asking how this is the case. In what way would this asankhata mind of bare awareness provide a refuge or a safe space? How does it provide comfort?
there is no sutta that supports the idea that there is such a vinnana. Vinnana cannot be seperated from perceptions and feelings according the sutta’s… So it makes no sense to talk about vinnana in a context of being unconscious and not perceiving and feeling anything.
Buddha says that vinnana arises with a sense object as condition.
Those are all theories. In practice one can see there are formations arising but not all is seen as formations arising. That is NO theory.
One way to think about this is that mind in its basic function of receptivity and susceptibility is like a mirror. Many things might arise in this mirror of the mind but nothing can affect the mirror. Whatever arises that is also not the mirror. But mind is inclined to see the reflections as me, mine, my self.
This causes that the mirror starts chasing her own reflections. Mind chasing her own projections.
Vinnana are these projections of mind and are not mind. They are more like the expressions of the mind. I feel it is beneficial if one understands it this way.
Yes, i believe it is most likely that the Buddha talked about asankhata as what is here and now not seen arising, ceasing and changing. And when i would try to give words to this, i would call this an element of dispassion, emptiness, openess, stilling, peace in my life. It cannot be grasped at all and if one would trace it, one cannot find it.
I have never ever seen stilling, peace, emptiness seen arising and ceasing. I cannot say that when i fall asleep, i now see that this element of peace, stilling, emptiness has ceased. No, i am not aware of it now, but i cannot say it has ceased to exist.
I have faith in those teachers that this element or aspect of emptiness, stilling, is also not only empty but also susceptible and sensitive.
Yes, this is another analogy, but it does not answer my questions. What about this is appealing to you as a source of refuge? Let’s say the mirror-like mind exists just as you describe. If the mirror does not reflect anything, then it is useless, right? If it has no function, no purpose and doesn’t do anything, then it might as well not exist, right? If Nibbana is just a mirror-like mind with nothing to reflect and nothing to do, then how is this comforting to you and how do you find it a “safe space” or suitable for refuge?
Intellectual is not realization for stream entry.
It’s not too hard to understand not self intellectually.
Well, I used language a bit sloppily. When I said person there, it’s conventional language, so substitute with 5 aggregates or 6 sense bases. Not soul.
Perhaps this is a thing which is emphasized, nothing leftover at parinibbāna. To deny this means having another 7th sense, or something of the 6th sense left over.
Anyway, yes, in general it can be seen as sloppy language, so that’s why I clarified the more subtle version. But people generally understand.
PS. just like materalist conception of death. All senses gone. No more rebirth. The end.
Bhavaṅga sense object is the death consciousness sense object of last life. Same with feeling, perception of it. It’s just not known by the modern usage of consciousness.
Talk to Pa Auk teachers. Best is lay teachers, so they can reveal their personal realization freely to you.
My teachers have advised that understanding not self even with just mere conception is an amazing achievement and not at all easy; that it is outside the range of nearly all sentient beings especially in these degenerate times. Even to just have an inkling of the concept is an incredible feat or so they have said.
I’m doubtful it is possible to know one has understood not self conceptually without also knowing not self non-conceptually and directly. If one doesn’t know it directly and non-conceptually, then how could one be sure they know it conceptually in the correct manner; that the conceptual and non-conceptual align?
Wow.
There can be experiences of no self, where one’s thinking process doesn’t create a sense of self in the phenomena, where the seeing is just the seeing and so on.
Those few moments of no self experience doesn’t constitute stream entry. But it does give a taste of what’s the meaning of no self doctrine.
The 6 senses still function, the 5 aggregates are there. But the self we feel, imagine is merely a construction by the mind. Like a company is consisting of CEO, building, staff, business model, financial flow etc, but there’s no independent company which exist apart from all these and the company is not within any of these components individually. It’s just a label. Even when we use the company’s name and say this company is going green, what we mean is certain action by certain people makes it that the business operations emits less CO2.
A company is a fiction. So too is the self.
Yes, that does seem fairly easy to understand to my limited mind. Of course what you describe is a fiction made of fictions isn’t it. CEO, building, staff, business model, financial flow; all fictions; just labels.
1 Like
I believe it is just important for practice to see and understand one does not create purity, dispassion, peace, stilling. What we can do is remove all those conditions that cause the mind to become impure, passionate, restless.
The natural result of this removal is purity, Nibbana. If you look at this, you can see and understand that Nibbana is not created but peace, dispassion, ease is just the nature of mind without defilements. Like water is just clear, tasty, healthy without defilements. One does not have to create those qualities. Likewise, mind is peaceful, at ease, dispassionate of itself. One must not think that one must create those qualities. The only thing we can do is to focus on defilements, not feed them, remove them.
That will reveal the natural quality of mind as peaceful, open, extremely subtle, unburdened, not tracable etc.
I believe this is how Buddha talked about asankhata. This element or aspect of dispassion, peace, ease, is in fact never absent because it is the nature of mind. But when defilements rule, one does not see this. When defilements set the mind on fire, beings start to seek relief externally. They just cannot really connect with the peaceful unburdened nature of mind. I do not see how one can even practice buddhism if one is not connected to that. Or, at least has faith in it. If one even starts to believe there is no refuge in mind, what are we doing???
If you turn of your radio have you now created stillness? If you walk in nature and all is still are you creating that stillness? I believe, an element of stilling is never absent.
For example…if one would make a descent into emptiness like described in MN121, one would experience the progressive cessation of certain formations, and mind, as it were becomes progressively empty, BUT one does not see that emptiness, which is also a stilling, arising. One does not see this is made, created, formed! No. Does not.
I believe Buddha refers to this as asankhata. An aspect or element in our lives that is not seen arising, ceasing and changing. Also something that cannot be considered as formation. Asankhata is here and now. It does refer to a mere cessation after a last death. That is my view.
For myself i see worth in all this. I believe it is very important to see and understand one does not have to create, make, produce, construct peace, stilling, ease. It is allready there. it is just the nature of mind.
It is not made, constructed. It is not a result of conditioning. We can change conditionings but cannnot change inner peace, stilling, Nibbana, ease.
I believe it is better to speak of the fundamental or basic ability of mind to detect. Minds basic awareness, which precedes any sense-vinnana. Minds basic awareness is more subtle. Mind precedes all phenomena, says dhp1. I believe this is true. Mind also precedes sense-vinnana’s. Sense-vinnana’s are a result of processing raw sense data.
Mind detects things that do not give rise to a sense-vinnana and we do not consciously experience (vinnana). But still this influences us. It is not that vinnana rules. Mind rules. Mind is not a stream of vinnana moments.
I see no escape. If i sleep and am not aware of the body, it does not mean that the body does not exist anymore. To think like that would only lead to more confusion. It is not a right way to think.
In the same way, one will never be able to proof that mind is impermanent. A state of being unconscious does not proof it because mind is not the same as consciousness.
I would not be able to trust a teacher who says that he knows mind is impermanent. It cannot be established as true.
Then you already made up your mind to equate mind= nibbāna. (which of course I and orthodox Theravada would say is wrong) Or else you don’t trust the Buddha.
Anyway, from the point of view of Abhidhamma, the impermanence is from the difference types of consciousness there are in bhavaṅga mind and in normal mind processes. Even for many moments of the same mind process, there’s arising and ceasing to be discerned by those with Jhānas. This is part of right view stated by the Buddha that there are sages who by supernomal powers can see things which are unseen by normal beings.
It’s because mind is impermanent, it is unsatisfactory, no matter how sublime it can get in meditation. There’s no resolution in the mind. One turns away from conditioned phenomena (including the mind) to see Nibbāna. Cessation.