SN 5.10 says that a being (satta) is just a convention, or a view.
Does this mean that ultimately beings don’t exist?
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
1 Like
We exist but not in the way we think we exist.
3 Likes
The view that beings exist is eternalism, the view that beings don’t exist is annihilationism, seeing the danger in both extremes the Buddha teaches the middle way between extremes.
1 Like
Saying being exists does not imply eternalism.
Yes it does, at least that’s what I take from the EBT’s. The position that there can be a real existant that is then destroyed is incoherent so the only option is a real existant that is not destroyed I.e eternalism or the assertion that there is no real existant which Is annihilationism in the EBT’s.
2 Likes
I belief that beings exist but what the texts seem to imply is that one cannot speak of a being when there is no me and mine making anymore in the mind. If there is no identification with body and mind.
Bases upon form/body i am called ‘a human being’. But if there is a state of total detachment can i be called human being based on the body? The texts seem to imply ‘no’. In a situation of total detachment one cannot be reckoned anymore in terms of body and mind.
Maybe this is true but it is also only true when there is really not me and mine-making.
You can also reason this way: If a being would only be a view, a concept, a convention, a name, than we would kill a concept, convention, name if we kill a being. How can killing a name, concept, be dark kamma?
We can phantasize about being no human being, but if we get as task we proove to be a human being with all the limitations of a human being. But if we arise above the limitation of a human being, such as a Buddha, than, i feel, it starts to make sense.
No, being can be gone, if someobody says being is eternal it means eternalism not just being. Even Buddha says about getting old, suffering, struggling and obviously it’s being who is affected by sansara and by any means there is suggestion about eternality.
Are you thinking here of dependent origination as the middle way between the extremes of existence and non-existence, as described in SN 12.15?
So in this case, neither existence nor non-existence apply to a being (satta). Rather a being is a “pile of conditions” (SN 5.10), or a collection of aggregates?
4 Likes
I think both eternalism and annihilationism are based in the assumption of an existing being.
In the first case it’s assumed that a being is an eternal entity, in the second case it’s assumed that a being is destroyed at death.
4 Likes
Is not it a concluding factor that the sutta explicitly said that?
Certainly beings exist as an ‘empirical reality’.
The person I’m speaking with ‘exists’ for me in a certain sense.
Just like ‘pain exists for me’, etc.
All sorts of conundrums can arise when thinking about the word ‘exist’.
I think the poster above put it very well with the statement,
“We exist but not in the way we think we exist.”
A being is a mental construct, a fabrication. The aggregates exist, a being is just the configuration of those aggregates. Just like a car is composed of different components. It’s not enough to know this, conditioning such as the latent tendencies must be fully uprooted for this fabricating activity to stop.
1 Like
You might find SN 23.2 relevant
1 Like
I think this is exactly wrong. It’s not that the being is fake and the aggregates are real. The aggregates don’t exist or not exist either. Conditionality applies to all phenomena beings, aggregates, matter, mind, you name it.
SN 5.10 uses the chariot simile. I think it’s correct to say that the aggregates are also dependent arising, and outside the polarities of existence and non-existence. Also subject to anatta.
1 Like
So in SN23.2, a “being” is a fabrication resulting from clinging and craving?
1 Like
It’s also in other suttas as well.
For example the Buddha is no longer a being
“When asked, ‘Are you a deva?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a deva.’ When asked, ‘Are you a gandhabba?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.’ When asked, ‘Are you a yakkha?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.’ When asked, ‘Are you a human being?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a human being.’ Then what sort of being are you?”
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba… a yakkha… a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
And a puthujana is ignorant of Dependent Origination, they assume a self and therefore fabricate a being. You can’t believe in dependent origination and a self at the same time, they’re mutually exclusive beliefs.
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.
"Or he doesn’t assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form… form as in the self… self as in form… or feeling to be the self… the self as possessing feeling… feeling as in the self… self as in feeling… or perception to be the self… the self as possessing perception… perception as in the self… self as in perception… or fabrications to be the self… the self as possessing fabrications… fabrications as in the self… self as in fabrications… or consciousness to be the self… the self as possessing consciousness… consciousness as in the self… self as in consciousness.
"Now that assumption is a fabrication. What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by the feeling born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.
Yes, it seems that the assumption of a “being” is closely related to the assumption of a “self”, and therefore related to the teachings on anatta.
1 Like
Have you heard of Ven Bodhesako? He had a lot of great essays on this, influenced from Ven Nanavira.
What they call “structural principal” of a concept helps see things clearly. So for example the principal fundamental structure of a chair is the seat. It doesn’t matter how many legs a chair has, it’s still a chair. If you remove the backrest it’s still a chair. If you remove the seat, it’s no longer a chair.
You can apply this to any concept. Is it still a car if it has 2 tires instead of 4, a bed instead of a chair, a handle instead of a wheel. The fundamental structure of a car is self-propulsion.
The fundamental structure of a being is craving and the fundamental structure of craving is ignorance. That’s what Dependent Origination does, it reveals the fundamental structure.
Although it’s much harder to see the fundamental structure of suffering because it’s recursive.
These 2 essays by him are pretty good, and they are easier to digest than Nanaviras writings.
also an intro to Nanavira https://pathpress.org/introduction-to-nanavira-thera-and-his-approach-to-buddhist-practice/
1 Like
Is “fundamental structure” basically the purpose of something?