You already can answer this for yourself. EBT people who are on your side of this issue will not recognize a teacher who says something after parinibbāna. Whereas you and the people on your side wouldn’t recognize teachers who say nothing after parinibbāna. Ajahn Brahm is in this camp, would you change your mind out of respect for Ajahn Brahm? I doubt so. Recognize as in admitting or believing that they are arahants or at least stream winners. If there can be universally recognized ariya, by logic we should listen to them, but people judge the ariyas by their views. And of course, our currently held views is the correct one, even if we had held different views in the past and thought that we were correct then too.
Why do you think this is not seen as a problem? It’s troublesome for me to debate with you and so many others here and elsewhere. It’s a problem in this way.
I read that Ajahn Chah was his teacher. Was Ajahn Chah also of the opinion of nothing after last death?
Do you have a reference? And his teachers? Have all those teachers taught mere cessation?
I cannot help to feel it is worrying that people seek refuge in Buddha-Dhamma delighting in the prospect of finally vanishing, ceasing, nothing remaining. The prospect of finally becoming non-existent after a last death.
I cannot help to think: What has become of us, that we grasp at Dhamma to finally cease without remainder? Seriously. How can such be the goal of a holy life?
This whole issue is really heartbreaking for me. Dhamma is such a light in the world, but if i see this mere cessation, it is almost as if people want to reject this light, this wisdom, this Dhamma that opens the heart, that frees, that makes us able to find the truth and relief our hearts from stress, burden, anxieties, fears, in a way that is deep, subtle, not based upon any grasping.
In deepest sense we all wish to be fully alive and not to cease. I am convinced of that. The heart wishes freedom, being open, limitless. The heart is a servant of the Truth. The heart does not wish to cease. There is no such a goal in the heart but the brain, the thinker can grasp such goals, not the heart.
For myself i have seen this. The heart is empty and has not such wishes as cessation. I feel the heart only wants to serve the Truth.
There’s a lot of youtube videos of Ajahn Brahm. It’s not easy to find them. Here’s a common story, Ajahn Chah asked Ajahn Brahm why after he saw that Ajahn brahm just came out of a deep meditation. Ajahn Brahm said, “I dunno”. Ajahn Chah said, “because there is nothing. You understand?”
Ajahn Brahm said yes. “No you don’t” said Ajahn Chah. Then Ajahn Brahm asks the audience, “Do you understand?” If anyone said yes, he will reply, “No you don’t”.
I haven’t read enough of Ajahn Chah to conclude that. But based on the story above, it seems yes.
That’s the self delusion there then. Recognise it by the resistance it gives when you contemplate this place where it cannot follow.
even the dhamma is to be let go of, what’s more not dhamma?
MN22
Mendicants, I will teach you a simile of the teaching as a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on. Listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.”
“Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“Suppose there was a person traveling along the road. They’d see a large deluge, whose near shore was dubious and perilous, while the far shore was a sanctuary free of peril. But there was no ferryboat or bridge for crossing over. They’d think, ‘Why don’t I gather grass, sticks, branches, and leaves and make a raft? Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I can safely reach the far shore.’ And so they’d do exactly that. And when they’d crossed over to the far shore, they’d think, ‘This raft has been very helpful to me. Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I have safely crossed over to the far shore. Why don’t I hoist it on my head or pick it up on my shoulder and go wherever I want?’
What do you think, mendicants? Would that person be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No, sir.”
“And what, mendicants, should that person do with the raft? When they’d crossed over they should think, ‘This raft has been very helpful to me. … Why don’t I beach it on dry land or set it adrift on the water and go wherever I want?’ That’s what that person should do with the raft.
In the same way, I have taught a simile of the teaching as a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on. By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.
the rest of the sutta is also very good and relevant to you, you just mentally created another thing beyond the 5 aggregates for the self to cling to as eternal heaven type of thing and you think that’s nibbāna.
“But can there be anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally?”
“There can, mendicant,” said the Buddha. “It’s when someone has such a view: ‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ They hear the Realized One or their disciple teaching Dhamma for the uprooting of all grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistences, and underlying tendencies regarding views; for the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. They think, ‘Whoa, I’m going to be annihilated and destroyed! I won’t even exist any more!’ They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. That’s how there is anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally.”
“But can there be no anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally?”
“There can,” said the Buddha. “It’s when someone doesn’t have such a view: ‘The cosmos and the self are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’ They hear the Realized One or their disciple teaching Dhamma for the uprooting of all grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistences, and underlying tendencies regarding views; for the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. They don’t think, ‘Whoa, I’m going to be annihilated and destroyed! I won’t even exist any more!’ They don’t sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. That’s how there is no anxiety about what doesn’t exist internally.
Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such possession.
It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. But do you see any such doctrine of self?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such doctrine of self.
Note, don’t misread the sutta to say that this is denying the cessation view. There’s a clear self in the “I am going to be annihilated”. Since you also show this revulsion, it’s clear that there’s a strong sense of self there.
In terms of the sutta, I would say the mapping of cosmos is whatever you think of as the asankhata. You just long to be with it forever after enlightenment, or that it’s already our true nature, the ultimate nature of self etc. This sutta also just rips this fantasy to pieces.
Notice also “something that’s permanent, everlasting” etc… This would apply if anyone thinks of Nibbāna as something. The sutta clearly says there’s no such possession. Thus the thinking of Nibbāna as something is wrong view.
Nibbāna exists, just means it’s possible to end rebirth and this is the end. No more arising.
If you really understand and accept that all are empty of self, there would be no objection and fear of complete cessation. After all, what do we care about leaves that people gather and dispose of in a public park? They are not ours. Same too apply to everything, all dhamma are not self.
It is because you still harbour thoughts of self, likely in this positive ontology of Nibbāna, that you fear even it being taken away.
But did Ajahn Chah teach mere cessation? Such a story makes no sense to me.
That there is literally nothing can, ofcourse, never be known. But ‘there is nothing’ can be an object of the mano-vinnana’s. But also then there is, ofcouse not nothing. Even blacking out one can never say there is nothing.
Yes, this is something you always say. But you have not seen me saying that the heart longs for continuing existence! The heart has no desire for existence nor the end of existence. And that is the Truth.
No, i just acknowledge asankhata. You do not. You do not acknowledge what is not liabe to cease.
Lets be real…the whole prospect of ceasing at a final death is ultimate ego-centric. It is not selfless at all. People with almost no sense of self will never ever give rise to such goals. People who aim at mere cessation have the most strongest sense of self there is. They have an extreme strong sense of a suffering self that must finally be released from all this mess. See further
It is the other way around, really. If people would really understand that all is empty of self there is no possibility that a desire to cease can arise. Mere impersonal processes cannot give rise to such desires to cease. This is Truth. People who not desire a mere cessation are much closer to the Truth than those who do. They have a less stronger sense of self. Mere cessationalist have the strongest of a self who suffers and must be released, like the Buddha also had when he started his search.
Arahants don’t need to aim for nibbāna since they have arrived. But desire or not, there’s no avoiding total cessation as all causes for arising have been cut off, eradicated without remainder. Without ignorance, there’s nothing else to arise.
Just by contrasting with total cessation it can be seen that your heart longs for continuing existence in this asankata you are so fond of.
Why do you ask me when I said I haven’t read enough to confidently say that? How about you read everything that is published about Ajahn Chah and then you tell me.
This is why it’s an approximation, for without 6 sense bases, including mind, parinibbāna is beyond concepts and words, but the closest conception we can use is nothing. Seeing nibbāna properly, one should understand the nature of parinibbāna, for those who have wrong views of parinibbāna, it is clear that they have not seen nibbāna, even intellectually. So whatever thing you think of as asankata is not nibbāna, even intellectually, much less experientially.
Parinibbāna is not liable to cease. It is unborn, it doesn’t end, etc. Basically, all that describes nibbāna is able to describe complete cessation without remainder. To conceive a positive ontological version of it as something falls into conflict with the sutta cited above.
I gave you an out, whatever you personally experience and in contact of which you call asankata, that is Dhammakāya, it’s actually a very profound state, but it’s not nibbāna. I suggest you to study this teaching by Burgs properly and thoroughly. So there’s nothing which needs to contradict your personal experiences to arrive at the right view of the nature of parinibbāna as the end of rebirth.
It’s just amazing that this is mirrored on both sides.
Everyone (many people) are looking for a singular answer. One type of extinction, cessation, one type of Nibbana, one religion, one Vehicle that is correct, and one Sangha to take refuge in. Because usually we understand we are merely one person. One, one, one. However, there is a multiplicity of viewpoints, and many of them may be correct at the same time. I find I generally tend to make more Spiritual Progress if I don’t throw away the things I don’t understand or things that I disagree with, in Suttas, in dialogue, and in Meditation. Instead, sticking with what has worked for people, I find Higher truths, not just the ones everyone is accustomed to, because I find something unique in combing elements, as I inch closer to Enlightenment.
For example, I tend to believe there are multiple types of extinctions and types of Nibbana available, and this has deepened my practice. Also, I believe that there are multiple ways that lead to Enlightenment in the Pali Canon, and that some terms can be used interchangeably. In this understanding, I have been able to let go of mere conveniences and find something higher and unique in understanding.
Imagine a star in space. Now imagine a star with a mind, a mind so much bigger than ours that it encompasses the entirety of that star’s size! What a type of being that would be, in able to comprehend the Dhamma much more powerfully than we can. Maybe the handful of leaves isn’t the all in all, yet Buddha still has something to Teach even that star, because the mind of a Buddha is infinite, beyond size, beyond the spectrum of ordinary things.
“Mendicants, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path that leads to the unconditioned. Listen
“Asaṅkhatañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi asaṅkhatagāmiñca maggaṁ. Taṁ suṇātha. (SN43.12)
So, i do not see it as a problem that i am fond of asankhata. I have had the same life- experience as the Buddha. Who not? Confronted with suffering i also was sad, confused, seeking meaning, doubting life, feeling unsafe, unprotected. For me this is the real deal. This existential crises the Buddha experienced. Many people run away from it. Ignore it. Life must go on. But is touched Buddha’s heart and mine too. Life will never be the same anymore as before. Many long for that, and many see it as something good when life continues as before. I not. This for me impossible.
This is where i can relate to. Dhamma is for me not some philosophy but i can see how Buddha re-gained faith in life, security, stability, safety. From deeply in crises he gradually re-covered.
He came home in dispassion, in detachment. I understand this. Dhamma is a Path towards home. Not the home of amere cessation. That was never on Buddha;'s mind, but finding home was. That is what i see and that also corresponds to the sutta’s. His confrontation with how life really is, his awakening to the truth of suffering, his search fo safety, Truth, that is what i connect to. No moment to mere cessation. There is also no reason to believe, i feel, that mere cessation was on Buddha’s mind.
I hoped someone here could tell me
So, you do not believe in Parinibbana as mere cessation?
So you feel that when a fire ceases due to lack of fuel that situation can be characterised as unborn, does not end? I feel this is really irrational. The fire has just become not-existent. It is gone. And one does not describe that as unborn, not arising, not ceasing.
There’s no refuge in the world. To have a notion of home means there’s a self which wants to belong. When there’s no self is realized, anywhere is home. For there’s no longing for belonging.
The Buddha said even a little faeces is smelly, so too a little existence is not recommended by him. Faith in life is more of a thing you use on suicidal people who doesn’t believe in rebirth. Not those who are on the way out of rebirth.
There’s a lot of subtle phrasing here. As An4.173 makes the case of not proliferating the unproliferated. But often I have to use nothing after parinibbāna if nothing else it is to combat the eternalist tendency to read something after parinibbāna.
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Mā hevaṁ, āvuso”.
But see this too:
“Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else still exist?”
“Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthaññaṁ kiñcī”ti?
“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Mā hevaṁ, āvuso”.
And what is the element of extinguishment with nothing left over?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, anupādisesā nibbānadhātu?
It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṁ hoti khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojano sammadaññāvimutto.
For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here.
Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sīti bhavissanti.
This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over.
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, anupādisesā nibbānadhātu.
And so, in a sense, it’s also perfectly valid to just say nothing leftover after parinibbāna.
Snp5.7
“Mindfully contemplating nothingness,”
“Ākiñcaññaṁ pekkhamāno satimā,
replied the Buddha,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
depending on the perception ‘there is nothing’, cross the flood.
Natthīti nissāya tarassu oghaṁ;
Giving up sensual pleasures, refraining from chatter,
Kāme pahāya virato kathāhi,
watch day and night for the ending of craving.”
Taṇhakkhayaṁ nattamahābhipassa”.
Nibbāna as nothingness (cessation of all conditioned phenomenon) is here. Same as the Ajahn Chah’s teaching to Ajahn Brahm: there is nothing.
“As a flame tossed by a gust of wind,”
“Accī yathā vātavegena khittā,
replied the Buddha,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
“comes to an end and cannot be reckoned;
Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ;
so too, a sage freed from the set of mental phenomena
Evaṁ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
comes to an end and cannot be reckoned.”
Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”.
“One who has come to an end—do they not exist?
“Atthaṅgato so uda vā so natthi,
Or are they free from disease for eternity?
Udāhu ve sassatiyā arogo;
Please, sage, answer me clearly,
Taṁ me munī sādhu viyākarohi,
for truly you understand this matter.”
Tathā hi te vidito esa dhammo”.
“One who has come to an end cannot be defined,”
“Atthaṅgatassa na pamāṇamatthi,
replied the Buddha.
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
“They have nothing by which others might describe them.
Yena naṁ vajjuṁ taṁ tassa natthi;
When all things have been eradicated,
Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu,
eradicated, too, are all ways of speech.”
Samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbe”ti.
The Buddha is willing to describe comes to an end, but not not exist, because comes to an end is already clear and there being nothing which can be described as existing or not after they come to an end. Notice also all things are eradicated.
So these are supporting evidences of ok to use nothing after parinibbāna, but just don’t let people misunderstand non-existence of a soul after parinibbāna (soul is a wrong concept in the first place).
Tell that to the Buddha.
When all conditions for arising are ceased without remainder, there are not any conditions, how can anything arise/be born? Without arising, there is no ceasing. Without birth, it is called unborn.
We can describe nothingness in many ways, so in a sense, it’s also not completely beyond language.
Yes, so true home is being homeless, or, in other words, nothing making ones fixed home. That is what the Buddha discovered. Being not attached to anything. Making nothing ones fixed home in this very life. That he discovered as safety, protection, no reliance, no attachment, freedom, no conflicts. Supramundane.
It is not like a Buddha has made dispassion or peace his fixed home.
No, he has removed all clinging, all home-making patterns from his mind, and so he arrived at a peace that cannot desintegrate because it is not constructed.
Dispassion cannot be made, produced.
Faith in Life is not the same as Faith in Existence. I never use it like that.
Faith in Life is more like Faith in the Heart. The heart is reliable. There is something reliable.
Trustworthy.
I feel we must really look into the line i made bold.
I believe it is a mistake to think about asankhata as something eternal.
Because what is not arising, ceasing and changing that cannot be considered as an eternal thing.
And for something to be called existend…it must first arise or come into existence. But asankhata has not the characteristic to arise. So, also such designations as exist and not exist, eternal and impermanent, do not really apply to asankhata. It escapes such logic, reasoning, mental proliferation.
This mistake is constant made here, i believe. People think about emptiness (asankhata) as something eternal. I believe that is not really appropriate. Asankhata cannot be grasped.
Why? Sutta never mention a mere cessation…at best they say that everything grows cool which is not the same as everything ceases.
What i see is that sutta’s clearly point into a direction that one must NOT think about parinibbana as mere cessation, nothing left over…such things are literally said! One must not make that mistake.
What they point to is…there is still asankhata…but that cannot be described in terms of existence, time, and space. So, believing in asankhata after death is not the same as eternalist view!
I do not see what one can learn from blacking out.
I see in all those sutta’s no support for mere cessation. But what i see is a clear warning that one must not think about the goal as a mere cessation.
All those sutta’s you refered to, point into the direction: never think…nothing exist anymore…nothing left over…
I believe emptiness is asankhata,a sankhata points to emptiness. It has no charateristics to arise, cease and change. It cannot be grasped. And knowing is an integral part of this emptiness. An ability that cannot be seperated from this emptiness. I believe all bhava, all existences also rely on this. Without this rebirth is impossible.
So you’re attached to knowledge? The arahant sees nibbāna with supramundane mind and thus have knowledge afterwards.
But after death of arahant at latest, even that knowledge is gone.
Are you equating asankhata to nibbāna to heart?
Do you know the unconditioned? Is there still knowledge of unconditioned after death of arahant according to you? If there is, how can it happen without mind base? Without perception? Consciousness? If there’s no knowledge after death, what difference can you claim to my stance?
So the sentence nothing exists after parinibbana is apt, by this logic. Because things that can exist all disappear. There’s nothing we can talk over, this is the end of language.
I don’t understand why you insist on saying this is somehow a different thing than the orthodox theravāda point of view.
And knowing is an integral part of this emptiness.
Knowing is such a gross part of existence. It’s a shame to apply such existential concepts to the wonders of asakhanta. It is beyond the need or necessity to know. We’re (as does Buddha) trying to point out this fact - that there is something beyond knowledge. It’s an insult to asakhanta by saying it has the defilement of knowing. It doesn’t need to know.
Knowledge relies on ignorance. Without ignorance, there’s no need to know. Uprooting ignorance removes the requirements to know, along with all gross mental properties.
It is tricky. Because people understand this as:…there is nothing left after a last death of the arahant.…and that is not true because asankhata cannot cease. But it can also not be said to exist.
I tried to explain this.
Knowing is not a defilement. Knowing is intrinsic aspect of life and cannot be seperated from emptiness. It is very subtle and that Dhamma is hard to see.
Knowing is not a defilement. Knowing is intrinsic aspect of life.
So is ignorance and unskillful actions are an intrinsic part of life - doesn’t make them valuable.
Knowing is a medicine. You don’t keep taking medicine after you’re better. Knowing disrupts non-movement. There’s a transcendence beyond knowing that I hope you can experience and see for yourself. Once you touch nothingness, there’s no reason to know anymore.
It cognizes; that’s why it’s called ‘consciousness’.
Knowing is the function of consciousness. You’re just elevation a very sublime part of consciousness and take that as Nibbāna without remainder. See the 2nd discourse. No matter how sublime the consciousness is, superior, etc, they are also impermanent, suffering, not self.
I have no idea where this relates too. There is no sutta that even suggest that Nibbana is not directly known. Those ideas about …afterwards knowledge of jhana…afterwards knowledge of Nibbana…all such ideas are absent in the sutta’s and totally groundless. The sutta’s are very clear that while in jhana there is perception and also one can direcly know Nibbana. I am not gonna debate this because for me it is sure that those ideas about blindness in jhana and Nibbana are absurd. That such ideas have developed, i feel, is shocking. How can one think about jhana and Nibbana as absence???
I am not attached to knowledge.
The ability to know cannot cease. That is what Maha Boowa has seen and i have seen this message to with many other buddhist teachers. But one must not think about this ability as something personal and local
I believe there is the unconditioned and i do not say anything more
The complete fragment about the kind of knowing of vinnana is…it knows painful, it knows pleasure, it knows sour, sweet etc…This means, we must think about vinnana as sensing things, sensing this or that. If you look into the mind, and also follow Abhidhamma, you can and will see that mind is not always in a state of feeling and sensing.
