The other way to final Nibbāna according to the suttas

Discussion
61

The question remains:

Why does the Buddha say to monks who already do not regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self and who even reject all forms of eternalism and who want to end all the defilements in this very life that they should also give up ALL annihilationist views???

I mean if that is the end goal why not instead encourage the view?

Why does the Buddha say that it is a wrong view to those that already do NOT regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self and who also REJECTS all forms of eternalism?

Please remember:

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
”When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.”

Why is this no longer a good view for someone who already do not regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self and rejects eternalism???

Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? … That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.

:pray:

62

If everything ceases how can any defilements be present?

It’s actually what appears to be supported in many suttas. This also arises from practice, though we’re not going to get into that. The only time the clearly Buddha speaks about something “eternal” is when it’s presented as wrong view, as in DN1.
Other verses and citations regarding “something” that remains after final nibbāna are open to interpretation, or are in verses which are more inspirational than doctrinal, or which may have been misinterpreted. such as:

I mean, certainly there continues to be debate about nibbāna and other issues like this amongst learned and experienced practitioners.

No offense taken. I just don’t know how you reached this conclusion since I know I’ve never expressed anything like “knowing it all.”
If anything, I recall many times on this forum when I’ve expressed that there are different interpretations of the suttas and that we’re all free to choose.
When in a discussion, naturally each side presents their understanding and, hopefully, citations from the Buddha’s teachings in the EBTs. He is the supreme Teacher, yes?

1 Like
63

Seeing discussions like this makes me wonder if it would be a good thing to develop a formal analytic debate forum. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, analytic debates forms a core part of practice along with meditation. The goal is not to argue for arguments sake, but rather to defeat one’s own misconceptions, to establish one’s own understanding, and to clear away one’s own objections to that understanding and to develop confidence and faith.

To help prevent it turning into an ego-building exercise of attachment and aversion, the debates are held according to rules and rituals that go back to ancient India Buddhist centers of learning like Nalanda. Before one can even begin one has to study the formal logical system that is used and the debate takes place between two individuals: the challenger (who gets to ask all the questions) and the defender (who has to answer them and defend an understanding) … the challenger uses strategic questions to elicit contradictions in the defender by way of logic, common sense or sutta. The challenger is motivated not to try and defend their own position, but to help the defender establish their own with confidence.

Please note in the video the huge smiles on both of these monks faces as they debate with each other. The challenger is essentially asking the defender whether he has properly gone for refuge in the three jewels and using logic and sutta to argue that neither of them has. The purpose here isn’t to win the debate, but to help clarify the doubts that still exist in the mind so as to clear them up.

I wish there was such a system on discourse. :pray:

2 Likes
64

Thank you.
Whether such a system is adopted or not

is an assumption I hope we are all trying to follow here.

2 Likes
65

I highly suggest you read this Dhamma Wheel thread where a user who goes by the name Suddh, who seems to be very knowledgable in Pali has MANY interesting points regarding Viññāṇa anidassana. I wish we could see such excellence as Suddh’s writing on this forum.

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=45955&start=75

1 Like
66

If everything ceases in sannavedaytinirodha, how does sensing and sense-vinnana’s re-arise again?

No, that makes no sense because other teachers claim that this does not at all arise from practice.

What transcends space and time cannot be expressed in term related to space and time.
For example Buddha describes this dimension:
“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 that here a mere cessation is described? I not at all. And i also do not think that this dimension can really be called eternal.

I also feel that something that is unestablished cannot be said to exist, but also not to exist etc. Strange that a reality is described that is unsupported. Because all we know is supported.
Can one call this ‘something’?

I have never sensed it like this that inspirational verses are in some way inferior or more besides the point. It is expressed in a language that is of the heart not of the head, which is, i feel great. Those verses express Dhamma in a very nice way.

I am not going to discuss that vinnana adinassanam thing

No, i have read such sutta’s many times. I do not have to read them over and over.
For me, sutta’s have only one means, that is to guide us to the supra mundane Path that is not in books.
Dhamma is not really in books.

i tend to see Buddha as the supreme teacher when it comes down to knowledge of the nature of mind, not when it comes down baking bread or AI or quantum physics.

I think it is amazing that Buddha re-discovered the original state of mind, what is mind without any defilements. I also feel Buddha is really great because he was really a teacher and no preacher.
But i am not without doubts on certain points.

1 Like
67

Thanks for sharing and thanks for the link. I appreciate reading alternative views.

Suddh brings up several points that have been discussed and contested on this forum before,
such as in the above reference by Ven. Sunyo (definitely recommended in case you haven’t read it yet), as well as in related topics that can be accessed with the Search function.

Meanwhile, for just one example, the quote from Suddh adds what is not in the actual verse regarding the cessation of consciousness, writing (or quoting from another source):

“With the cessation of (the activity of) consciousness each is here brought to an end.’””
But “activity of” is not in the Pāli, which is simply : viññāṇassa nirodhena, the cessation of consciousness. No other qualifiers are used. No mention of the persistence of consciousness or of anything else.

Anyway, a lot of these and related points have been expressed already on this forum by a number of people, so I won’t re-state them.

1 Like
68

I’m just saying Suddh’s reply shows how the theory regarding it being two different questions and answers is impossible, this is based on his knowledge of Pali and how this reading would make the Buddha an incompetent teacher, he shows this in perfect detail and plenty of other things. :+1:

Well worth a read.

1 Like
69

No suttas go against the idea of the ending of the defilements being a conscious experience.

“When he knows and sees thus, his mind is liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’

But to the buddhists in SN 22.81 and their annihilation/cessation-interpretation some suttas do go against their wrong view.

Instead of being forced to listen to the crickets in arupa loka, :sweat_smile:

I would just like to know why the view: I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

Which leads to the following:
When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.

And yet despite it leading to this quote above, one is asked by the Buddha to get rid of this wrong view if one wants to end the defilements (!).
In a sutta about Nibbāna, spoken to monks…

Remember, he is saying this about people who do not regard the khandhas as self and who also reject eternalism (!).

Since plenty of you on this forum do not regard the khandhas as self and reject eternalism I would love it if you could please explain exactly how you differ from the group in the sutta?

Why are we told to by the Buddha to give up this view which makes one ”repulsed by continued existence, and not repulsed by the cessation of continued existence”?

1 Like
70

But the logic of this progression suggests that with the gradual refinement of the object and the calming of consciousness, the moment of cessation of any object and the cessation of the activity of consciousness must occur. In the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, there is almost no perception anymore; there are only residual formations. In Nirodha this process is completed. If you assume a certain knowing ability that does not stop, then the process of tranquility in this case is simply not completed and there must be a level of concentration where this knowing ability calms down and its objects of knowledge are discarded in order to ultimately achieve real nirodha-samapati.

The existence of such a cessation of perception is logical. I will simply throw away objects until the mind is empty of all objects. When there are no objects, there is no awareness, even the most subtle and non-dual, since consciousness always cognizes something. If there is no object of awareness, there is no process of awareness, which is cessation.

1 Like
71

This sutta does not speak about nirodha-samapati, but about the contemplation of nibbana, which can happen after 1 jhana and insight into the three characteristics.

And what, Ānanda, is the path and the practice for giving up the five lower fetters? It’s when a mendicant—due to the seclusion from attachments, the giving up of unskillful qualities, and the complete settling of physical discomfort—quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless element: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ MN64

And

Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:

“Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this? They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.”

“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.”

“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

AN 10.6 (Also AN 11.18, AN 11.19, AN 11.20, AN 11.21; AN 11.7, AN 11.8, AN 3. 32)

Especially AN 9.36!

“Mendicants, I say that the first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements. The second absorption is also a basis for ending the defilements. The third absorption is also a basis for ending the defilements. The fourth absorption is also a basis for ending the defilements. The dimension of infinite space is also a basis for ending the defilements. The dimension of infinite consciousness is also a basis for ending the defilements. The dimension of nothingness is also a basis for ending the defilements. The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is also a basis for ending the defilements. The cessation of perception and feeling is also a basis for ending the defilements.

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world. …
… ‘The dimension of nothingness is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ …

… And so, mendicants, penetration to enlightenment extends as far as attainments with perception. But the two dimensions that depend on these—the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and feeling—are properly explained by mendicants who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.”

And so, we see that

  1. Buddha is not talking about some transcendental “knowing ability”, but about “perception”, in this case the perception of nibbana-dhamma (and non-perception of the rest of the conditioned world, phenomena). As we know, in nirodha perception stops precisely.
  2. We see that the achievement of the perception of nibbana occurs from the first to the seventh jhana, and not the eighth and nirodha achievement.
  3. Finally it is explained that 8 attainment and nirodha are attainments without perception and are included separately. On their basis, insight is not practiced, therefore, on their basis the perception of Nibbana Dhamma is not achieved.

Achieving nirodh is achieving WITHOUT perception.

There is no perception of Nibbana Dhamma, there are no perceptions there.
That is, this is another entrance to the same door of liberation.

1 Like
72

There is a sphere… Each meditative achievement corresponds to its own sphere of existence, the sphere of rebirth. For example, the second arupa-jhana corresponds to the sphere of boundless consciousness. It can be assumed that there is such a sphere for nirodha-samapati and this is the sphere of nibbana, cessation.

But it is unusual.
If in the Arupa-spheres only half of them are born, because half of the formations, the coarsest ones, have been discarded, then in the Nirodha-sphere they are not born at all, because all the formations have been discarded!

Therefore, it is said about this sphere: “here there is no coming, staying, leaving, no birth, no movement.”

This is a sphere in which people are not born!

The second meaning of the concept “Sphere” is here the sphere of perception, the area of ​​perception. And indeed, if 2 arupa can become a sphere of meditative perception, then the sphere of nirodha-nibbana can become a sphere or area of ​​meditative perception, which is what the Buddha talks about when he describes the meditative perception of nibbana-dhamma.

And it is perceived exactly as it is described - there is no emergence, stay, disappearance in it, no one is born in it. And this is exactly how this sphere is perceived, 100% empty of formations, and not 50% as in the Arupa spheres.

1 Like
73

Hi,

Perhaps you can specify the sutta(s) you’re referencing here, because all this is not in SN22.81 in which the Buddha rejects both eternalism and annihilationism due to both being views which retain the “I.”
"‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’
‘so attā so loko, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo’ti.
But that eternalist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.

"… they have such a view:
Api ca kho evaṁdiṭṭhi hoti:
‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṁ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṁ na me bhavissatī’ti.
But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, ucchedadiṭṭhi saṅkhāro so.

2 Likes
74

For example, the sutta below you are referencing , SN 22.81, is a great example of how the self is just an illusion. The Buddha explains that all views related to a self are born from ignorance. They are just conditioned phenomena. Something we “add on” to our view of experience which isn’t warranted. In reality, there is just the five khandas.

Because all views caught up with and related to a self are wrong view. Such as “I exist” or “I don’t exist” or “I have a self” or “I don’t have a self”.

The view

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

Is wrong view because it’s still tied up with identifying.
It’s different from right view: “This is suffering”. I.e. seeing in accordance with reality. Annihilation view comes about when one thinks they have a self and it’s going to be destroyed.

3 Likes
75

If you want to rely on such analyses it, that’s oke with me. Teachers describe something different. Not from analyses but from what they have seen, experienced. Not only Maha Boowa. If you feel that they are deluded, it is impossible what they describe, or give it another turn, i rest my case.That is all not new for me. It becomes useless, for me, to debate about this over and over again.

76

I do not accept that sanna means perception. Sanna is the mental ability which can distinguish the specific characteristics of what is sensed. It makes a sign or label of it. Then next time sanna can recognise it.

Sanna is the big deluder because there is not really something like…'.i sense or experience the same thing, the same feeling, the same person, the same world, the same bird, the same… This nicca sanna is the big delusion. Sanna is extremely distorting the total subjective world.

If sanna finds no support in an extremly subtle state in which there are no characteristics of sense-objects to distinguish, does this means that there can be knowing at all? I believe there is a knowing but it is not a sensing, nor feeling. It is pure knowing. A knowing that stands on its own.
This is what buddhist teachers teach. I trust them.

77

I believe…this sphere is never absent. It is here and now

I believe this refers to here and now. Here and now there is this sphere without movement, without coming and going.

Yes, it is the end of rebirth. This sphere is no bhava. The cessation of bhava is here and now present.
That is what i believe is Dhamma.

78

But Buddha said that it is sannya (perception) that perceives the immortal element, and not some mythical “knowing ability”.
In essence, I responded to your specific argument about certain suttas that describe the experience of a certain “perception”.

And he pointed out that this “Phala-samapati” is not the same as “Nirodha-samapati”, it is achieved from the first jhana through insight and is distinguished by the presence of perception.

1 Like
79

But the suttas describe it as empty of all conditioned things and all activity. That is, this is the logical conclusion of calming and discarding - total peace… when everything is discarded…

The words “coming and going” have context from other suttas and ancient texts and relate to the concept of rebirth.

Eliminate the atman, make your faith empty of the atman, leave only the interdependent empty aggregates, and your view will be correct

1 Like
80

But the problem is of course that it doesn’t matter what someone may think regarding the self.

When they attend improperly in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact.

(1) The view: ‘My self exists in an absolute sense.’

(2) The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’

(3) The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’

Those who already do not see the khandhas as self (‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’) and who reject eternalism just imagine this annihilation based on their wrong view. Regardless of thoughts/concepts about the self, there will not be any form of annihilation.

SN 22.81 is a great example of how annihilationism is just an illusion. The Buddha explains that all views related to a annihilationism are born from ignorance. They are just conditioned phenomena. Something we “add on” to our view of experience which isn’t warranted. In reality, there is just the ending of all defilements.

The view in question is one thing:
This view, regardless of how it is phrased (The Buddha just quotes the wrong view in first person as those who follow the wrong view, hence the ”I” in it).

What if it said: They might not be, and it might not be theirs. They will not be, and it will not be theirs.’

It really doesn’t matter because you just comment on the view and focus on the various concepts regarding self and ignore what the the result of this view is (!) Namely: When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.

Please explain why in a sutta about Nibbāna, the Buddha explicity says one should give up all such views that leads to: Repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.

This is what I want to know, so let us just drop everything that has to do with ”the self” for a moment and only focus on why the Buddha rejects annihilationism in a sutta about Nibbāna? :pray:

1 Like