SN 5.10 revisited. Do beings really exist?

Discussion
41

As I said above, there are 2 ways to look at it.

Conventional reality exist/ not exist is different from ultimate reality exist not exist.

It’s only problematic if one mix up one for the other.

Example: VR reality. Matrix, etc. Plug one into the experience machine, people might want to wake up from the dream of VR, thinking that it’s not real, it’s not really existing. The flesh and blood world is existing. This is the conventional reality view. You’re stuck in seeing in this view, beings doesn’t exist. That falls into the wrong view of: the other religions, say of Pakudha Kaccāyana: DN 2: Sāmaññaphalasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

He said: ‘Great king, these seven substances are not made, not derived, not created, without a creator, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They don’t move or deteriorate or obstruct each other. They’re unable to cause pleasure, pain, or neutral feeling to each other. What seven? The substances of earth, water, fire, air; pleasure, pain, and the soul is the seventh. These seven substances are not made, not derived, not created, without a creator, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. They don’t move or deteriorate or obstruct each other. They’re unable to cause pleasure, pain, or neutral feeling to each other. And here there is no-one who kills or who makes others kill; no-one who learns or who educates others; no-one who understands or who helps others understand. If you chop off someone’s head with a sharp sword, you don’t take anyone’s life. The sword simply passes through the gap between the seven substances.’

Ultimate reality view is being posited in the SN5.10 sutta. Where one sees dependent origination, not clinging to the extremes of existence vs non-existence. One can abandon attachments to self, because the delusion of self is abandoned, yet there’s the ability to act in accordance to the conventional reality, kamma, etc. There’s just the senses. Like Bahiya sutta, in the seen, there’s only the seen. No you in here or there. The you is a mental construct, imposed onto experiences.

42

So conventionally speaking, “beings” exist, but ultimately speaking, they don’t.
Is that what you mean?

43

Ultimately, the duality of exist vs not exist is abandoned. Negation of existing doesn’t mean not exist. It’s just appearances, the middle way between the extremes. Which is the dependent origination.

44

Actually I think these teachings alI relate to anatta and dependent origination, but the approach is different.

SN5.10 shows that “beings” and “chariots” are just collections of parts. This is to counter the assumption that beings and chariots exist independently.

The suttas on dependent origination show that the parts only arise in dependence on conditions. This is to counter the assumption that the parts themselves exist independently.

45

I think a notion of self arises in a being, i.e. in a temporary combination of rupa and nama. A being can function with a notion of self and without it . The end of the notion of self is not the end of the being.

Do beings really exist? As this unique combination of rupa and nama, i belief so. They are not hallucinated. They arise, exist and cease dependend on their own conditions, independend of me. I am not a creator of beings, God. If a kill a deer i do not kill a concept, or idea.

The self is part of the nama aspect of the being. It can be removed as self-view and as self-conceit.

46

I see what you mean, though SN5.10 seems to say that the notion of a self is what makes a “being”. So when self-view ceases, so does the notion of a being.
In other words, a being (satta) is not a biological organism, it’s a view.

47

What I mean here, being here is not speculative knowledge and one will realize that as one drops craving as there will be no being as he thought he knows. So yes, beings really exist but they have a lot of assumptions about their existence depends on views

48

I feel Buddha has seen that it is all dependend on perspective. With ignorance, craving and identification (me and mine-making) as condition one will see oneself as a human being, born on a certain moment, son of this and that parent, maybe parent of this and that child etc.
Identified with rupa, vinnana etc. Ofourse that is also a kind of true.

Apparantly, without me and mine-making of rupa…----vinnana, the perspective of being a living being also disappears.

1 Like
49

That’s my understanding. It is to be viewed from the perspective of ‘the all’ as in SN35.12

And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called the all.

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”

There’s my version of you and there’s your version of you. In one version you might be a being, in the other you might be a internet bot or an Arahant!

1 Like
50

Practically speaking, a lot of this identification, craving and suffering seems tied up with the assumption of “my body”.

1 Like
51

In Pāli the word satta, usually translated as “being,” also means attachment. There’s an important clue here. “Beings”, in this sense, are: attachment to inconstant combinations of conditions. Lose the attachments completely and, as the Buddha said, in effect, one can not define or locate the Tathagata here and now, so how much less so after death?

Sn 5.10 points to anattā, as does Dependent Origination and the Four NTs. The problem, I think, is when we get caught up in abstract words and try to put them into conceptual frameworks that often don’t match up with the fundamental purpose of the teachings – the final ending dukkha, as we all know.

So if we want to say clouds “exist” with the understanding that words are being used to label a set of changing conditions with particular features, ok. But if we go further and papañca-ize “exist” and “reality” and assume some permanent essence or soul in these sets of conditions, we’re into dukkha-izing. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
52

If to exist is to be marked by the 3 marks of existence- the tillakhana of Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, then yes, beings exist.

If to be Real means to be permanent, enduring and unchanging, to be fully under the control of the Self, never producing dukkha, then no, Beings are not Real.

IMO, a Being should be considered as a Process, produced by the process of clinging to the underlying processes of the 5 aggregates which are themselves constantly changing and flowing (aka a Whirlpool). Hence though a Being can be spoken of as arising and passing away, that is ultimately just a view based on craving, its simply Suffering that arises and ceases.