Your clarity and compassion are uncommon regardless.
There’s a difference, there being no self (for those who realize it), there’s no thought of I might not be and so on…
There’s only the 5 aggregates, which arises from rebirth, with the ending of rebirth, the 5 aggregates arises no more in the next life, there’s no more next life. Thus total cessation.
Whatever annihilationist view I see from the sutta uses the term “self” or “I”, which is the point to note that it doesn’t apply to those who knows the doctrine well to not fall into those trap.
I don’t get what you’re trying to point at and bringing in private Buddha so frequently. Of course it’s not exclusive, certainly private Buddhas also see no self and nibbāna.
Thank you venerable @NgXinZhao 
But those in sutta SN 22.81 who strive to end the defilements in this very life ”they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.” They also reject eternalism, but still hold on to annihilation even if the Buddha says one should let it go of that wrong view.
Cessationists do not regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Cessationists obviously reject eternalism and claim one is ’annihilated” thanks to Nibbāna.
There is not a single difference. At all.
Furthermore ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ leads to ’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.”
So why is this a hindrance, according to the Buddha, that one has to give up?
Shouldn’t instead everything that strengthens this view be promoted by the Buddha if it leads to: ”repulsed by continued existence, not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.” ???
Isn’t that the whole path for cessationists?
I agree that there are many traps on the path.
Regarding ”Self” and ”I” the Buddha usually says the wrong views held by others in first-person.
Worth keeping in mind.
Just the next sutta MN 2 points out the following wrong views:
Sabbasava Sutta MN 2:
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.’
(4) The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’
(5) The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’
(6) Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
And how and where is this realized?
Given that puthujjanas can delight in Nibbāna…
Why are puthujjanas calling Nibbāna ”me” and ”mine”?
Also how is this even possible from the cessationist view?
My point is that Nibbāna is nothing……
……like what the cessationists claim it is! 
You are confusing me… if you’re on the same conclusion why are you asking the above?
Anyway, I try my best… although I haven’t actually read a lot of articles by others on this, I should…
We can see others who can agree that the 5 aggregates are not self, but still believe that there’s a self beyond these 5 aggregates, and thus that’s the difference between the annihilationists who believe that this self is destroyed at parinibbāna vs proper right view that there’s no self.
I suspect MN2, no 2 is more of denying even conventional self, which is problematic for morality observation. I am not sure, I haven’t studied into what others said about it.
Anyway, one unstated thing amongst the 6 is seeing no self with no self. That’s the Buddhist view then.
Those who think of Nibbāna as not total cessation might think of it as some form of eternal blissful heaven, thus can delight in it. For those who are suffering, absence of suffering can also be look forward to and delighted into. Like people who are suicidal (and doesn’t believe in rebirth) thinks that nothing is better than their current life.
Thank you!
Yes like the eternalists in SN 22.81 who:
Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Still, 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.’ But that eternalist 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.
The cessationist view stems from also rejecting eternalism but then holding on to a form of annihilation instead. That is the difference.
Why should one even give up the view if it leads to the goal?
Surely the same can be said about those who imagine Nibbāna as total cessation, something everyone already has experience from via dreamless sleep?
MN 1 does not say puthujjanas think and imagine about Nibbāna and that is why they delight in it, they delight thanks to the actual attainment - huge difference.
Now if it is total cessation, and puthujjanas can reach this total cessation and delight in it, then Ajahn Brahmali’s quote is wrong no matter how we look at it:
The sense that one has a permanent core — a distortion of perception that is unavoidable for all puthujjanas — makes cessation appear like annihilation and the successful practice of the path like a form of suicide. If cessation
seems undesirable, it is only due to this distorted outlook. - Ajahn Brahmali
Just like an eternalist self-doctrine can be taken to extremes so can also a no self doctrine be taken to extremes: (2) The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’
I would say it is pretty extreme if the suttas can’t even use a first person stock formula that has ”I” or ”Self” in it and that it is this trivial thing that is the difference between annihilationists and cessationists.
I see no difference at all.
I think Thannissaro and you would have a lot to talk about. As you can read in his essay on Nirvana, he sees the nature of our suffering hungry bodies just as you describe.
1 Like
It is not problematic if we take this sutta into account:
Attakārī Sutta: The Self-Doer
Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus:
“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”
“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one—moving forward by himself, moving back by himself —say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer.
“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion … is there an element of effort … is there an element of steadfastness … is there an element of persistence … is there an element of endeavoring?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one—moving forward by himself, moving back by himself—say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”
“Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: ‘Those who have eyes see forms!’ Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge.” AN 6.38
Dreamless sleep according to classical Theravada is still bhavanga consciousness, not no consciousness.
Contradiction in terms, if someone attains to nibbāna, they are not puthujjanas. I dunno what you mean by nibbāna at this point if you insist that non enlightened people can attain it.
I dunno if it’s productive to continue, you insist that annihilation view=cessation view and we disagree on this. I dunno how to debate effectively on it.
aha, there is at least one person boundlessly wise 
That’s kind of you to say. Thank you
Such, for practical purposes - may be VenThannissaro. Especially on matters corroborated by Ven Bodhi. Your questions reflect an intensity of inquiry that raises above the sport of rabbinical hair splitting popular here so, my point is that you owe it to yourself to seek an audience with Thanissaro to have them addressed with proper care.
This is the meaning of MN1 as I read it.
"Conceives as…
"Sees as
"Delights in…
These are all ways of superimposing, which leads One to mistake the “map” for the “territory”
As such, one can see this very thread as “delighting in Nibbana.” It is conceptual delight, pappanca, proliferation… not experiential knowledge.
And why?..
Because they do not fully understand it.
And why not?
So that they may fully understand it.
@AjitaKaput There is no problem in reminiscing about what nibanna is. It is necessary to contemplate in order to recognise it - you are correct with your last statement.
Maps, or conceptual abstraction is not thrown away, but now one knows its function and when it is necessary to put it down whilst no longer mistaking map (words) for the territory (what is named) in itself. Often, people live in ideas, but do not know the substance of what goes into them - so these artifacts left by the Noble One’s of Antiquity up until present are like little tails and ideally we pin them on the donkey.
Knowing the function of the prior, they see it describes the latter, knowing the suchness of both, they use the prior when is right and dwell predominantly in the latter (the territory itself).
We have no choice. From the moment we are born we are reliant on others. Our mothers care for us and feed us and without them or another surrogate we would not survive. Even the so-called self-reliant woman is totally in reliance upon others. We are entangled in this natural world and totally reliant upon it and others for our survival. Seeing this, we can and should cultivate the four immeasurables to care for and be kind towards each other.
3 Likes
Certainly I’ve held this sentiment many a time. Whenever I find discussions about nibbana on an internet forum I confess to feeling a bit incredulous. On the other hand, as long as the discussion is filled with good faith and an earnest attempt at careful understanding I think it can be more helpful than harmful. At the least it is encouraging careful dhamma study and reflection which is itself a beneficial form of meditation.
The key for me seems to be the dosage of credulity versus humility and good will in any such conversation.
1 Like
I see a practical reason.
If one’s notion of nibbana is say pure mind without the small ego, then say one day one attains to that level, one might think one is a stream winner, but then still have the view that after parinibbāna, there is something leftover. This unfabricated consciousness or whatever name it is called.
Then we can judge for sure that that person deluded herself into attainment. Wrong view leading to all the wrong path factors to wrong knowledge and wrong liberation, which is not liberated, thinking one is liberated.
Thus the view of what nibbāna is can be a factor of right view which does impact on whether one thinks one is liberated or not, or attained to stream entry or not.
Say even laying aside attainment believes, such a person might be very motivated to share their personal experience to others, and say this is what the Buddha really meant, she had truly personally experienced it. Thus spreading wrong views, although it is helpful for motivating people to meditate.
See the sheer number of lay people claiming the lower ariya stages, and see how many pitfalls there are actually along the path.
I believe mahayana had suffered this a lot, so that it’s quite mixed up so it’s not easy to find nibbāna is total cessation view in Mahayana, due to overestimation, which informs the next generation of their aim, which perpetuates this wrong view/wrong knowledge/wrong liberation.
1 Like
Hello Venerable!
The “Mahayana” is too broad a moniker to be used in this way. It is too simplistic a division and setting aside granularity issues it is also a category error.
There certainly exist aspiring bodhisatta’s who have a view of the “total cessation” of substantially existent aggregates as you describe and others have elucidated on this forum.
It is also true that other extant Mahayana traditions which espouse a view according to the third turning which I think is what you are arguing against as inferior.
Still other extant Mahayana traditions and aspiring bodhisatta’s do not adopt either of these views and instead regard nibbana as the direct realization of a non-affirming negation. It is hard to describe what this means to someone who has either of the views above, but it is very different in my mind to either. Here is one potentially important insight or distinction: those who espouse “total cessation” of the aggregates on this forum appear to believe they can directly know anatta through logic. This isn’t the case for what I am describing above. However, it is possible to establish through logic that anatta can not be directly known through logic.
But back to the point, the “Mahayana” is not a moniker used to discriminate between views of nibbana. It is also possible to find non-Mahayana Buddhists who have each of the different understandings above. That is why it is a category error.
I think what you were attempting to say is something akin to, “if we had knowledge of the minds of every extant Buddhist we would find that those who identify as Mahayana would satisfy a larger portion of the second and third.” However, I just don’t see any way to verify or know such a claim; at least I personally do not know such. Nor do I know what one could do with such a claim other than to imply extant Mahayana traditions as inferior.
The flaws pointed out regarding eternalism could easily be said about cessationism too.
The problem is of course that no cessationist can discern between who is an eternalist and one that rejects both eternalism and cessation.
If you’re not a cessationist you’re automatically an eternalist. One extreme over the other.
Let us skip what cessationists claim Nibbāna implies for a moment (but we’ll get back to it) and see their wrong views in other areas of the teaching that I’ve gathered from my sporadic interaction in various threads here.
Cessationists claim that one can only remember past lives after emerging from jhana.
The suttas paint a very different picture, the Buddha remembered past lives while in the 4th jhana.
Any sane person would prefer recollecting past lives while in jhana. Not the cessationists though, extreme as they are. They find it better to leave a state of neither pleasure and pain like the 4th jhana when going through countless of past lives that might involve many pleasurable memories or painful traumatic experiences…
We can still see and hear things without the physical senses. Where are even the 5 physical senses in dreams?
The mind is very powerful.
Just dreaming is proof of this power of the mind where exact replicas of family members, friends, places from the past, sounds, fantasies, desires and so on magically appears: - somehow all this, and so much more, appear thanks to the mind without physical senses… (no reason for anyone to mention that arahants do not dream)
So I’m not doubting one bit that those who hold on to eternalism or cessation actually do have experiences or non-experiences based on their views and desires (!) But whatever it might be that they experience, or do not experience…
…is based more on a personal preference, their mind and fixed views rather than what is in the teaching regarding many things.
There are other views in the cessation camp like these:
-
Unseen non-human beings like Yakkhas are reduced to instead being ”forest-dwelling people in India”…
-
Hell is just a self-induced mental state and the gates to leave hell are always open… (How can one even claim such a thing when MN 130 ends with - ”Now, I don’t say this because I’ve heard it from some other ascetic or brahmin. I only say it because I’ve known, seen, and realized it for myself.”)
Viññāṇa anidassana
When trying to explain away viññāṇa anidassana by either saying it is the formless realms or that it is Baka saying it the most obvious mistake is of course not paying attention to the following which makes both cessationist theories regarding viññāṇa anidassana completely wrong 100%:
But there are three other realms that you don’t know or see, but which I know and see. There is the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance. You passed away from there and were reborn here. You’ve dwelt here so long that you’ve forgotten about that, so you don’t know it or see it. But I know it and see it. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, let alone your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.
There is the realm named after the gods replete with glory … There is the realm named after the gods of abundant fruit, which you don’t know or see. But I know it and see it. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, let alone your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.
So it is very clear that Baka the Brahma doesn’t even know anything about any higher rupa loka planes of existence above him like: the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance, the realm named after the gods replete with glory … There is the realm named after the gods of abundant fruit, ”which you don’t know or see.” The Buddha tells Baka this in the sutta.
-
That being said it is impossible Baka all of a sudden knows anything at all about the formless planes of existence since he doesn’t even know about the higher luminous form realms (!)
-
And that is also the main reason these formless planes are not mentioned but are still within the ’all’.
-
And that is also why it is not Baka saying it in the first place.
-
And what is said has obviously nothing to do with any formless realm.
Speaking of the formless realms.
When a universe contracts most are heading to the luminous form realms, most but NOT ALL - like insects for instance…. The answer to this by cessationists is that these insects end up in a latent or active state in the formless. Problem solved. 
Essentially saying the formless realms are filled with insects… 
Or maybe, just maybe, these insects are truly annihilated when a universe contracts? - Which would mean that also insects reach what cessationists strive for but with no real effort, with no ethics. 
Has it never occured to cessationists that what they think is Nibbāna is actually Asaññasattāvāso (The Realm Of Unconscious Beings)?
Asaññasattāvāso is plane number 22 of the 31 planes of existence.
Had there been more cosmological consistency in what cessationists claim one would want to listen to what they say, but it turns out a lot of things in the teaching and regarding the planes of existence has to be altered, rejected and reduced for cessation to even make any sense.
Which is not a good sign.
1 Like
My conclusion to the matter (for the time being)…
Neo-Cessationists are fresh off a stint in the hell realms, and are in touch with an exquisite notion of suffering such that, yes, complete and absolute nothing is preferable to ever having to experience anything like this universe again. Neo-Eternalists are fresh fallen from the heavens and might have a bit of stardust in the eye. Finally, in all cases, the tree is to be judged by its fruit… compassion and humility.