While I appreciate being critical of texts for corruptions and all, saying “It’s from Ven. Sariputta and not The Buddha” is still a weak argument. After all, Sariputta was his chief dhamma disciple. It follows that Buddha and Sariputta saw eye to eye on the most important issues - and clearly, having feelings or not in nibbāna would be a matter of utmost importance, if not the most important.
In any case, we have a base of cessation of feeling and perception which is the closest thing to nibbāna as we live. I would say there’s ample evidence in the suttas that one of the steps to nibbāna is cessation of feelings altogether.
I can argue that for a plant to grow, it needs sun and water. Cutting off water and sun, I can suppose that a seed is never going to sprout. This doesn’t suppose a deterministic universe, merely a causal universe.
This is the same thing with fetters and rebirth. If you cut off the sources of nourishment for rebirths, there can be no mo rebirths by definition.
Though I do have an issue with “Seven lifetimes”, which does in fact sound oddly specific. But we have the number seven repeated in realising Nibbāna, which says that a disciple, working diligently, can become enlightened in seven years, six, five… a month, two weeks, seven days.
So, perhaps Sotapanna was meant to say “No more animal/hell/ghost realms” rebirth originally, and in any number of rebirths, nibbāna was to be achieved.
But for example, Once-Returners are kind of like a plant whose water is cut off, but not the sun, so it can only live for so long without one of the vital conditions.
Having a perspective like this is useful, I think, not so much on being caught up on specific number of rebirths left like calculating the off-days you’re allowed in school.
As far as i know they teach that here and now there is something beyond the world, beyond space, time, beyond any bhava. An element, an aspect not of this world. A Buddha is in the world but has arisen above the world. As a lotus that arises above water. This is possible because there is this element or aspect beyond the world.
It is ofcourse NO speculation that Buddha taught asankhata and taught that we must know both what has this characteristics to arise, cease and change but also that what has opposite characteristics.
This is NO idionsyncratich interpretation. But that there is only sankhata, IS. That is surely not what the EBT teach. If people teach….there is only change…that cannot be Buddha- Dhamma. We do not have to discuss this because the sutta’s are clear about this.
And would a Budda ever talk about nothing remaining after a last death as…what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing? Ofcourse not. One does not speak about nothing. It is foolish to describe nothing as not changing.
Exactly, mere cessationalist see nothing as something…
And that fragment of Saripatta saying that it is blissfull to be without feelings does exactly say that. He knew this state directly and knew it as bliss.
I agree, and I think this started out as a set of milestones for someone to assess where they are on the path. And perhaps along the way the stages were … somewhat elaborated.
However, a different perspective is The Buddha also said realisation is achievable in this lifetime, provided one was diligent enough and was able to understand his teachings. Thousands of people achieved it during his lifetime, and I believe this is still possible.
So, maybe one should focus on achieving realisation in this lifetime, then no need to worry about how many more lives to go and counting down. If one doesn’t believe that is possible, maybe it’s time to have more faith and belief in oneself.
Yes, and the wrong view is that one must, or even can, make the sublime state of supreme peace called Nibbana…one can only remove defilements and that all. The view that one can make dispassion, peace is wrong view…
Of course what this comes down to is the famous problem of Sein/Nichts (Being/Nothing) of Western Philosophy proposed by Hegel an Heidegger.
A prime Being in order to “contain” everything else would by nature have to be devoid of any characteristics, because such would result in necessarily having a counterpart and therefore no longer being prime. Therefore Being equals Nothing.
Maybe the unconditioned element similarly “is” nothing compared to the conditioned.
Like in that song by the Who, Nothing is everything, everything is, nothing is.
Not sure. One of them quotes seems to speak on extinguishment rather than Nibbana.
Where would you put this in the philosophy of Hegel and Heidegger?
“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Ud8.1)
Do you believe this refers to …nothing remaining after a last death?
I believe it is for a reason that the Buddha teaches that the peace or happiness of detachment is greater then any happiness and peace born from attachment. He just knows this.
In the same way, is is for a reason that Sariputta says that Nibbana is bliss (Nibbana is here translated as extinguishment). Sariputta was able to experience the bliss of parinibbana in this very life. There is nothing felt or perceived. Ultimate emptiness.
Heidegger avoids the verb “is” with Being to indicate that Being does not exist in a way similar to existing things (Seiendes as opposed to Sein). He uses das Sein west instead, which is almost impossible to translate, the closest thing I can think of is saying “Being happens” instead of “Being is” but that’s not even close. I believe you are Dutch, maybe you can understand this German.
But yes, both of them would say that while Being is Nothing, it “is” still there somehow.
Unfortunately this does not mean anything, because the general epistemological question of realism vs phenomenalism is not solved (and probably never will never be). If phenomenalism is true, this basically means that how we perceive things, and our thinking categories (like singular and plural, here and there, cause and effect etc.) say absolutely nothing about the reality underlying our perceptions.
I personally believe that in your quote the talk is about a permanent divine “One” or Pleroma from which impermanent dependent origination is created or emanates. But this does not mean that our consciousness element necessarily must reunite with it after final death. Dissolution is also possible. So in short: Ignoramus (et Ignorabimus)
Fortunately, there is a way out of this dilemma, and it is in fact the way the Buddha taught.
I believe that if one has not gained realisation yet, then any theory, viewpoint, belief, position, interpretation that one holds MUST be wrong, and false. If it was true, then one would already be enlightened. The journey along the path involves considering alternative interpretations until one obtains the liberating insight.
When that moment comes, everything the Buddha has taught will suddenly make complete sense, and one will directly experience what the Buddha taught. All the pieces will come together like a jigsaw puzzle, and one will finally see and experience things as they truly are. One can read any sutra and immediately determine that it is in fact true, because one has directly experienced it, or corrupted, in which case one can probably determine the nature of the corruption. There will be “supreme, ultimate peace” that comes from the cessation of the khandhas and the extinguishment of dukkha. One will be confident that this is the last lifetime, there will be no more rebirths, it is the ultimate freedom.
I am not making any of this up, I am just paraphrasing the words of the Buddha from various suttas.
Occasionally check with conscience and reason if tbey are in line with your heavy reliance upon the ideas of an ancient scripture canon translated from an extinct language wbose historical origins are more or less shrouded in mystery.
A similar view was defended by M. Falk, who held that the nirvanic element, as an “essence” or pure consciousness, is immanent within samsara.[73] M. Falk argues that the early Buddhist view of nirvana is that it is an “abode” or “place” of prajña, which is gained by the enlightened.[note 6][73][note 7] This nirvanic element, as an “essence” or pure consciousness, is immanent within samsara.[73][note 8
