The other way to final Nibbāna according to the suttas

Discussion
122

Well the best of the advocates of the ultimate purity of the spirit make it to the highest formless realm while the annihilations ”only” make it to the lowest formless realm so you can’t really say that the lowest is the best just because it is says ”the best” conviction. A conviction is just that, one is only convinced that it is true or proper.

”There are some ascetics and brahmins who advocate the ultimate purity of the spirit. This is the best of the advocates of the ultimate purity of the spirit, that is, when someone, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They teach Dhamma in order to directly know and realize this. Some sentient beings have such a doctrine. But even the sentient beings who have such a doctrine decay and perish.”

Yes various ascetics claim to have their own ultimate extinguishment as you can see in the sutta. The dimension of nothingness is ultimate extinguishment compared to rupa loka and kama loka, they are repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by the cessation of continued existence in kama loka and rupa loka and in that context they have truly reached ”ultimate extinguishment”.

Likewise the best of the advocates of the ultimate purity of the spirit make it to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception which should be seen as an even greater ultimate extinguishment than the annihilations.

The Buddha differs in advocating complete extinguishment, beyond samsara and all activities.
How could the Buddha know that the formless realms are impermanent? If Nibbāna equals being 100% unconscious, it is impossible to gain any such insights.

From the The Aṭṭha Vimokkhe (Eight Liberations) According to Sarvāstivāda:

The seventh liberation is transcending all aspects of neither perception nor non-perception and abiding in a state beyond thought and non-thought.

The eighth liberation is transcending all aspects of thought and non-thought, illuminating all worlds equally, and remaining motionless.

This on the other hand makes perfect sense:
illuminating all worlds equally, and remaining motionless = Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round.

(Now the annihilationists will try to point out that ”Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round” is arupa loka, but please don’t bother making the false claim - it is not. To read about arupa loka and forming a concept and actually experiencing arupa loka are two very different things).

This idea and concept that one is annihilated as in being unconscious is just a concept and not a reality. Yamaka realised that he couldn’t pin down the Tathāgata.

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t actually find the Realized One in the present life, is it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”

This shows clearly that ALL the various thoughts/ideas/concepts/convictions regarding the self and also eternalism/annihilation are just that, conditional concepts and never a permanent reality - since it is all within samsara. The ascetics in the dimension of nothingness and the others will eventually decay and perish (probably due to all the insects…just kidding! :sweat_smile: )

Regardless where we are in Samsara we will decay and perish, but to imagine Nibbāna truly equals ”the cessation of the khandhas and nothing more” is just a concept.

So if someone meditates and thanks to this ends up in a unconscious state they have had a glimpse of complete extinguishment? Eventhough they actually fell asleep while meditating and only had dreamless sleep? :wink:

The other ascetics were never unconscious in their version of ultimate extinguishment so why imagine one is unconscious in the Buddha’s teaching?

Becoming 100% unconscious while meditating is not an incredible feat that requires deep concentration or wisdom. Quite the opposite, sloth and torpor will get you there in no time… :wink:

123

Maybe you were interacting with many people so you lost track of who you are talking to. You also seem to not pay attention to which questions and answers that you were talking to me.

I am not in the position to defense any Ajahns or any tradition or any “annihilationist cessation” or any “eternalist citta”. I only follow the Buddha’s teaching.

The reason I spent my time to reply to you is only because what you said:

You brought the following topics up but I have never been in any discussion with you about those topic and I have never given you my answers for any of them.

This is irrelevant to current topic. You can make a new thread to discuss it. I won’t go into discussion for this side-topic because it will not bring benefit to either of us.

As my understanding, “Nibbāna equals being 100% unconscious” is NOT what the Buddha taught us.

As my understanding, “illuminating all worlds equally, and remaining motionless = Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round” is NOT what the Buddha taught us as our goal either. There is a long thread about this topic, you can read more about it to understand why I said so. The OP of that topic is currently not available for further discussion so the case is still unsettled but its current status is not so favorable for such theory about consciousness.

I have same understanding.

I have same understanding. However, I don’t criticize the “nothing more” part as you do. To my understanding, “nothing more” means “no more of building up ideas, stop making up more theories”.

I think you can try to ask directly (and nicely, politely) what Ajahn Brahmali or any other Ajahns who said so - what he really meant with “nothing more” - before you put him into the same camp of annihilationist. To me, it’s fair that we should give the man the chance to explain before you pass judgement and execution too. I don’t think he is an annihilationist and I will have to wait for him to explain himself.

No, I don’t have that understanding. Deep sleep or unconscious state is NOT the same as complete extinguishment.

I don’t have that understanding that “one is unconscious in the Buddha’s teaching” for “ultimate extinguishment”. I do NOT have either the understanding that “one is conscious in the ultimate extinguishment”. To my understanding, “ultimate extinguishment” is outside phassa. Meanwhile, any theory about “conscious” or “unconscious” is within phassa.

1 Like
124

This is the beginning of the post you made a reply to with statements, which I thought were in some sort of defense of the annihilationists point of view.

So we don’t need to go any further :pray:

I have already interacted with some who follow the Ajahns on this forum and there is no doubt they hold the view 100% unconsciouss, as in permanent dreamless sleep.

They are stuck in a feedback loop regarding the self.
They deny the self and deny eternalism just like in SN 22.81, but still hold on to annihilation.

So the cessation of the khandhas is not annihilation in their view, because there never was a self to begin with.

But to actually know and see that ”there never was a self” one has to ”attain” Nibbāna.

And if Nibbāna truly equals unconscioussness, how can they know the three characteristics Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta where Anatta is the last one in the trio, while being unconscious…?

125

Hello @Dhabba . I believe sir @Clarity has answered you in very concise and calculated way. I can in no way match his level of answer nor can I match level of answer of any other members here. Still I’ll give it a try based on logical reasoning.

My reason for answering - “I don’t want you to think that, if nobody answers your question satisfactorily you will end up hearing crickets in arupa loka.”

No nobody believes that. If anybody believed it then they would probably be advocating that either sleeping peacefully or entering coma or becoming unconscious is what constitutes attaining nibbana. Turns out that’s not the case…so nobody believes that nibbana is 100% unconsciousness like dreamless sleep.
So this is your conclusion and interpretation that they see nibbana as annihilation. (I have explained below as to why you are concluding like this)

Here you equated cessation with annihilation. But there is difference in cessation and annihilation. I’ll give an example.
See you constructed a building …that we call construction, now you destroy that building…that we call annihilation. But when you STOP constructing building…that’s what meant by cessation. Thats how it is very different than annihilation.

I believe nobody adheres to this type of annihilation. Hence I don’t think anybody would answer your question in a way which will be satisfactory to you. The reason I am trying to answer is I have given above.

Yes because my interpretation is that, one who holds such views that leads to being, Repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence, actually has danger of missing nibbana because of his wrong understanding of(direction towards) nibbana when one is practicing really and not just discussing like you and me (this is important point)

Also one has to start by repulsion of continuous existence(that’s why most of the nibbana seekers left home) …then only in the end one has to get rid of even that repulsion of continuous existence but that I believe is one of the last steps. Just as one doesn’t directly enter 4th jhana…one has to enter 1st then 2nd then 3rd and then 4th.

Because instead of giving up, holding onto view(any view including such views which lead to, “Repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence” )is a form of clinging.

I’ll give you analogy. In a dentist’s language.

While giving local anaesthesia to a nerve for lower teeth, we(dentists) insert needle into a space located inside mouth behind lower posterior teeth. Instructions say that, one has to penetrate into tissue…and continue to insert needle until that needle’s point hits the bone and after one hits the bone, one has to stop and then immediately one has to withdraw that needle 1 mm away from bone in opposite/reverse direction of insertion and then one has to again stop after reaching 1mm in that direction, only then one deposits the local anaesthetic liquid.

See one has to first insert the needle towards bone (one has to hold or take help of view which will lead one to get repulsed by continuous existence and not repulsed by cessation of continuous existence) till one hits the bone (till one goes too away from samsara towards the annihilation by passing the location of nibbana), as one went further than the location of nerve, one has to stop the insertion upon hitting the bone and withdraw/reverse the needle’s insertion for 1 mm(now let go of that view which leads one to get repulsed by continuous existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence), …now these instructions are there for a needle to reach the nerve (nerve=nibbana).

Thats the reason, buddha does not encourage but explicitly says one should give up all such views that leads to being: Repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence .

Need to first hold and then give up views is to reach nibbana exactly(just as for needle to reach the nerve exactly).
In other words by holding onto such view one actually reaches nibbana but can’t stay there and crosses it inevitably and goes further away(because one is still holding onto view)(goes further away from nibbana=holding onto that view), so in order for one to return just a little bit where nibbana was, one has to actually let go of that view as one of the final step.

This view is not supposed to give up from the start, instead it should be used as means to reach the destination and then should be let go of… in a sequential way.

I believe ajahn and most of the people whom you are accusing, are aware of this, they are just talking about the part where one has to hold on it(the most important part) and what you are talking about is the next part where one has to let go of it(next part is only important after one has progressed enough).

(Just as, in order to reach nibbana, one has to hold on to view of noble eitghtfold path but when one reaches other shore one has to actually let go of view of noble eitghtfold path to land where nibbana. Same as one has to hold on to raft till one reaches other shore but when one reaches there, one has let go of that same raft in order to finally land on that shore as final step).

Being said that, I believe this discussion has reached a point where we have hit/touched the bone(bone of need to stop). Hence I think we need to stop the discussion(stopping=cessation of this discussion) instead of both continuing (like continuous existence) and deleting the thread and discussion altogether (deleting the discussion and thread=complete annihilation).

(Although I didn’t exactly mean this but it was my another attempt to give analogy haha :sweat_smile:.)