What do you think about Ven Thanissaro’s view on Nibbāna?

You’re just setting up a straw man here. No one believes in auto cessation without developing the noble 8fold path.

May I request that you address the view rather than label people as cessationist or eternalists? It’s a subtle difference, but it does feel more respectful to just talk on the issue, not the person.

Also, throughout the whole exchange, your position is not made clear. So it’s a bit hard to engage when we dunno where you’re coming from.

The unconscious beings still has a body, and is subject to being reborn after death from that realm. After parinibbāna, there is no body or mind, and it is impossible to be reborn again.

Formless means no body, one cannot say that there are insects there, because there’s no insect body. I also don’t think it’s possible to be reborn directly from insect realms to formless realms as it requires deep meditation, which is attained by humans at the very least.

I don’t understand the whole part about baka thing, is there a first part to this which you’re replying to? Missing some context.

As I mentioned, it’s good to separate views from people.

There are people who believes in nothing after parinibbāna and lite Jhāna as well. Don’t mix in unnecessary details into the discussion here which is focused on what’s the nature of parinibbāna. If you wish to discuss if Jhāna is lite (can remember past life in Jhānas) or deep (cannot do remember past life in Jhānas), please do find the appropriate topic which has them, some of which has hundreds of replies, all the best in reading those.

Well, there’s good and bad. Bad is if say you get under a teacher who believes in pure mind never dies, it survives parinibbāna, and then teach you until you experience the same thing, your views would match theirs. And once wrong knowledge arises, it’s very hard to change the wrong views of those people. They directly can point to their direct knowledge to verify their views.

So I see this whole thing as immunity booster, immunity towards wrong views. So that even if we do one day get to experience what is being experienced as pure mind, we know, that too is impermanent, suffering and not self, one has not even glimpse nibbāna, yet until true knowledge that nibbāna is the cessation of existence arises. That state can be as beautiful as it can be, wonderful, totally perception changing, but if they do not agree with the sutta, they are not the Buddha’s enlightenment stages.

Trouble is too, that those people can read the sutta, and unconsciously modify a bit here and there, add in their own words, this is what the buddha really meant, and then never really examine if they might be wrong.

Of course, seeing people arguing over this and having not read the sutta properly and not much basis in faith in a certain teacher, it would be very confusing and doubtful to commit to any view.

Well, maybe to just add that when you do see those people who has wrong liberation, and their behavior and views are not inline with the suttas, you can get a clue. But first, it requires good knowledge of the suttas. Trouble is, those people can produce profound wisdom, and it’s very alluring to want to believe in them over the suttas.

For me it seems to come down to the question…what is pure mind? We tend to talk about mind from the perspective of defilements. From a personal perspective. From a perspective of me.

Then mind seems to be something like a stream…thinking, imagening, conceiving, sensing, mentalities, emotions, will etc. But is this really what mind is? Or is this mind described from our personal perspective of it?

I see that buddhist masters teach that this is exactly avijja. Avijja gives us a wrong impression of what mind is. Avijja means that we do not really know the qualities of the pure nature of mind. We do not know that the refuge is inside us by letting go, the escape, and because we do not see this, we seek refuge, safety, protection in an external way. Led by the combination of avijja and tanha.

But we are really able to make an island of ourselves teaches the Buddha. We are our own refuge and light. In many lives we failed to see the pure nature of mind, the stable, the island, the refuge. And because we did never find it, we kept seeking safety, refuge, protection in things that are liable to arise and cease. An endless repeating pattern.

What is this pure mind? The EBT sutta’s describe this mind as:

“Bāhuna, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives unattached, liberated, his mind free of limits. What ten? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness … rebirth … old age … death … suffering … defilements … Suppose there was a blue water lily, or a pink or white lotus. Though it sprouted and grew in the water, it would rise up above the water and stand with no water clinging to it. In the same way, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives unattached, liberated, his mind free of limits.” (AN10.81)

It is limitless, detached.

What does it even mean for those who believe in only existing khandha’s that mind can be detached and liberated from them?

What is the limitless mind? Later buddhist have worked this out as a pure empty openess with a clear nature. It can manifest anything.
I feel the EBT describe it as the unconditioned, uninclined, desirelessness, empty, signless, deathless, unborn, that what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing.

So the hopeful message of the Buddha is that there is real protection, real escape. If we see the Truth we will be assured that nothing gets lost but suffering. We will feel utmost safe, protected, at ease in an troubled world. That is what the Buddha sought. (Snp4.15 )

There is nothing for us to worry anymore. In this reading it is not that everything ceases at death but only suffering. Maha Boowa also describes this but many teachers do.

One must not think about this pure mind as an eternal atta or eternal soul or eternal consciousness, because that are merely conceiving from a personal perspective.

I see this as the best reading.

1 Like

But who can tell what is right and wrong in this context? Are only those right who believe a Buddha comes into the world to make an definitive and complete end to lifestreams without anything remaining because the only way to escape suffering is that all comes to an end?

How are you gonna secure this is really what Buddha taught? I feel, it is really impossible to establish this based upon the sutta’s. I have never seen anything convincing that supports this.

Does this mean that all those who do not believe in mere cessation read, study or practice not good. But why? In the end, i feel, that is all pretentious because there is, i believe, no person here who really knows for sure that the Dhamma leads to a mere cessation. Am i right about this or not?

There are many respected teachers who do not teach such ideas as a mere cessation. They even claim that direct and true knowledge will reveal that a mere cessation is impossible. I trust them.

I believe the ariyas, from stream winner onwards would know for sure, as a direct personal knowledge. As for whether they are here in the forum or not, cannot be revealed if they are Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni, and cannot be lied to if Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni are not there yet.

This is not to claim everyone arguing on the side of nothing after parinibbāna has attainments, it is possible to accept right views intellectually first. And have super strong faith it in.

I would copy paste what I reply to you in pm then for this.

Yes, my preceptor, who is in EBT, does teaches nothing after parinibbāna.

There was some monk(s) whom we have to convince in our internal forum. He was taken in with Ven. Thanissaro’s views of something after parinibbāna. I used the similar diagram too in our internal forum to show him the process of cessation.

In general, many Thai ajahns are indeed into this camp, whereas the classical Theravada, who knows the Abhidhamma, commentaries and so on would also affirm with nothing after parinibbāna.

In some of their viewpoints, the rejection of the abhidhamma, commentaries had lead to gross wrong views amongst the thai monks, thus they are very skeptical about EBT, as one of their many reasons.

My teacher also said (during our recent indian pilgrimage trip) that one of the good things about classical Theravada is that they wouldn’t fall into these kind of wrong view(s) about something after parinibbāna.

When wrong view is clear, even if the whole world thinks earth is flat, only the small sample of people who knows earth is not flat is still right. Numbers doesn’t count into what’s wrong or right view.

The trouble with this particular view is that it has a lot of support amongst many mahayana practitioners, and they also attained to such levels which they can personally verify that their (wrong) views are right.

Because Mahayana tends to say they are beyond Theravada, it might not occur to them that actually the no self teaching in EBT, Theravada is deeper than Mahayana. They are not yet there, but think that they are there.

It’s quite alluring to hear them, the perception from small ego is gone, a lot of bliss etc, but it’s not the final form.

As there are many factors supporting such wrong views, it’s hard to blame people who falls into such things, especially when the notion of total cessation would be repulsive to one who has strong attachment to self or a notion of a self. It’s just causes and conditions in the world and we do our best to help educate people.

Hello Venerable, actually many Mahayana practitioners take a vow not to denigrate the other vehicles such as the Theravada. Many of us also explicitly hold that the EBT’s are complete and sufficient to accomplish all of the vehicles. Certainly, the EBT’s are complete and sufficient to form a correct inferential right view of anatta, the path, and nibbana.

I see here only the opposite contention that it is Theravada that is beyond Mahayana. I don’t think either contentions are right speech as they only further division amongst students and disciples of the same Teacher.

:pray:

1 Like

I do not think this is about strong attachment to self or notion of self.

What i feel is…to believe that a Buddha comes into the world to show us the Path to a Mere Cessation is, i feel, wrong. He teaches us the Path to the Unconditioned, says the sutta’s: that what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing.

He teaches the Path to what is beyond any particular existence, beyond all the realms. That is how i see it. We have always failed to see this. Also now we are not humans but feel we are.
This is his greatness, depth, beauty, worth, for me. He teaches are real escape.

When there would be only impersonal processes why would these processes even aim to cease? Impersonal processes do not suffer, and feel no need to cease. The need to cease is ego’s need, right?
So, this is very much involved in a sense of self.

I am certain that all this stuff about suffering, and not wanting to suffer anymore, cannot arise in a pure mind. It just cannot. Impossible. This desire is always only the expression of a defiled and deluded mind. I do not mean to offend, but this is all certain for me.

Sorry, but i feel it is not really truthful to say that those who do not think about Dhamma as leading to a mere cessation, those who do not long for it, have all a strong sense of self and those others are more wise.

There’s a common view in Mahayana, that the shravaka teachings only see no self, and the mahayana goes on to see emptiness of all things. Is that not going further?

Again referring to the diagram, it’s not possible for the 5 unclung to aggregates to continue existing after the death of an arahant. For ease in discussion, we shall just regard the common sense relics of arahants as not counted towards that’s still the Arahant.

The 5 aggregates only produces new rebirth due to the other things, like ignorance, conceit, personality view, let me just group them as delusion of self for ease of reference.

But to end suffering, we have to end these delusions of self. Just so happens by dependent origination, that the 5 aggregates ceases at death without rhe delusion of self.

All these are without self, but mental suffering is there with the delusion of self. We don’t need a true self to have suffering. Physical suffering ends with the final breaking up of the 5 aggregates.

To posit the 5 (unclung to) aggregates as part of the xxxx below the diagram which is meant to represent no self, is to misread dependent origination. It would mean no cause and condition for them to exist and 5 aggregates without delusion of self are just unconditioned. Which is obviously not true as any physics experiments can show. The 5 aggregates are conditioned.

Nothing left after the death of an arahant fits in the description of unconditoned, because there’s nothing to condition, not even the possibility of things arising again.

3 Likes

No, this is not a general feature of the bodhisatta vehicle. Many in the Mahayana vehicle believe just as you do to my mind. Probably the vast majority, but I have no way of actually knowing that.

Rather, there is an alternative view among some (but not all) - including many of the Theravada - that it is not possible to have a correct cognition of non-self whilst simultaneously denying the aggregates as they are described in the EBT: completely insubstantial, void and hollow.

You appear to believe the aggregates are substantially existent and that nibbana somehow releases these substantially existent aggregates from existence. That the aggregates somehow realize nibbana and unwind themselves. But they have never substantially existed as the Teacher explicitly taught. Moreover, they do not magically go poof and wink out of substantial existence upon what you view as paranibbana. This can be verified in the here and now: have you had the experience of seeing dead corpses? Those corpses do not wink out of existence. Rather, they become fertilizer and earth and ash and are taken up into the bodies of others. The matter and energy that formed the corpse and deceased mind is reborn. It does not utterly cease.

Believing that beings are a set of substantially existent aggregates that have been migrating for a very long time and it is their burden to somehow unwind themselves from substantial existence is not a view exclusive to any tradition. This view does not belong exclusively to any one tradition at all. Many adherents of the Mahayana believe similarly. It has nothing to do with the traditions.

:pray:

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean by “substantially”. It’s an abstract term that can be interpreted in various ways and it appears to have a direct bearing on these discussions.

Also

The suttas do not mention anything about “magically” ceasing, but do describe ceasing due to the ending of conditions that propagate rebirth and the re-arising of the senses and a being.
This is not just semantics. It’s one of the foundational teachings, idappaccayatā.

Also, if the aggregates/senses/conditions can’t cease through the practice of skillful conditions that lead to the ending of greed, anger, and ignorance, then it appears one is forced into conjuring a metaphysical “something” that does it. Nothing about this is in the suttas.

But this is conflating what you surmise about the “external” world with the world the Buddha taught as the one beings can know through experience and practice with – the six sense fields, SN35.23.

You only know of corpses through your present sense-processes, not by direct experience/knowledge of the world “out there.”

When you make these kinds of points, you’re bringing in assumptions that are not aspects of the Path in the suttas.

Recall AN10.95:
" “Uttiya, I teach my disciples from my own insight in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.”

“But when Master Gotama teaches in this way, is the whole world saved, or half, or a third?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent."

"…it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole world is saved by this, or half, or a third. But the Realized One knows that whoever is saved from the world—whether in the past, the future, or the present—all have given up the five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. They have firmly established their mind in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation. And they have truly developed the seven awakening factors. That’s how they’re saved from the world, in the past, future, or present. Uttiya, you were just asking the Buddha the same question as before in a different way. That’s why he didn’t answer.”

1 Like

As mentioned elsewhere I will try and define substantial existence elsewhere to clear that up.

I have no idea what you are after when you say I am surmising stuff about the external world and not my direct experience in terms of what happens to corpses. This is just not true. It is through my own direct perception that I have seen corpses and noted that they do not just poof out of existence and disappear or vanish. I think this is the common knowledge of the world and I am quite surprised you don’t acknowledge it.

Have you seen a corpse? Have you seen it disappear where the matter and energy just vanish? Or have you seen a corpse slowly decay and the matter/energy transform and be reborn into other forms? This is just the common perception of the world. Why is it difficult to acknowledge this common understanding? If I walk out on the street I am quite sure others will verify this common understanding. I think it will be very hard to find someone who contends otherwise.

I have never seen any material thing vanish like a magicians trick. Things get broken and decay and transform/recycle into other material things, but what material thing have you ever seen just vanish out of existence?

:pray:

Can you describe the mind without grasping the aggregates?
What is this mind?

It makes much more sense, for me, that what is not seen arising, ceasing, and changing, refers to the nature of mind itself. A total empty openess. It is not true at all, that we see all arising. Oke, we see formations arising, but we do not see stillness arising, emptiness, peace. Also not in jhana.
This asankhata element or aspect in our lifes is refering to something here and now. It is just not true that we see all arising, right?

A mere cessation will also never be known because all has ceased. So if this refers to asankhata it is impossible to have direct knowledge of the asankhata. Buddha does not teach this.
We must know the asankhata element, that what is not seen arising and ceasing. In your vision we cannot know it.

We also know that that the rupa aggregate, consisting of the great elements, the body supported by food, does not at all cease without anything remaining. This rupa aggregate continues to exist.

I stop now. Thank you.

But only in your sense experience is what’s meant.
We can’t know what’s going on in external reality, so to speak, or what external reality is as taught in the suttas.

All we can do, in terms of the Dhamma, is assume or make inferences about the external world, not say that we directly know it.
This is different than some other philosophical doctrines and approaches, as I’m sure you know.

In and via my six senses.
Can you say it’s different for you?

This is not semantics and philosophical fun – if what we have to work with in the Dhamma depends on “outside” reality or" the world" as it’s commonly understood rather than the six sense fields, then the Path can’t lead to liberation.

This is different than the Mahayana view that everything, inside and out, is Buddha Nature on display and that all will be ultimately liberated.
Not saying this is your view or not, but using it as an example of a different premise than that of the suttas.

If we see a bus coming, we jump out of the way. The point is not some philosophical debate about whether or how a bus exists or not – only that whatever we know and experience as a being is how it’s known/experienced in and as the six senses and aggregates.
Everything else is inferential or an assumption, as below:

SN35.23
“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 ideas. 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 nothing here about “external” reality, not because it doesn’t exist, but because it’s not something we can know and work with for liberation.

You appear to be mixing what you infer, ascribe, and assume about the outside world with what you only directly know and experience through your six senses.
But only experience via the six senses can be used to practice the Dhamma – not whatever outside reality may be.
This is my point here.

(This teaching appears to be close to the philosophical views of some forms of Phenomenology and Idealism, but that’s another matte)r.

I haven’t once said anything about the “external” world here, you are bringing that into the conversation. So you say I can’t directly know the “external” world here, I can only directly know my six senses. Fine. I grant you this point.

I directly know with my six senses the truth that corpses do not disappear magically and go poof out of existence. I directly know with my six senses that the matter and energy encompassing the corpse rather transforms and recycles into other forms. This is manifest and others have verified the same experience. I directly know this with my six senses through hearing others speech verifying it.

So what is your point? I have granted your contention about the “external” world now what do you do with this to somehow maintain that the form aggregate consisting of physical bodies suddenly ends and ceases utterly upon paranibbana?

If I didn’t know better I would hypothesize you are drifting into solipsism to deny basic shared common facts. Since I do know better, I remain mystified what it is you are trying to convey with this talk of external worlds and so on wrt the basic fact of corpses not disappearing poof. I assume I am missing something in my ignorance.

:pray:

They do when you’re not aware of them.
(Although not magically!). :slightly_smiling_face:

If you say they still really exist “out there” then we’re back to inferences about the external world, which I understand you deny.
But whether they do or not is irrelevant to practicing the Dhamma via the six senses/aggegates. That’s all we have to work with.

Beyond responding to what I’ve written, I’m wondering if you’d offer what you think about the purpose and implications of SN35.23.

And along these lines, how you understand AN4.23:
"“Mendicants, the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he is detached from the world. The origin of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has given up the origin of the world. The cessation of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has realized the cessation of the world. The practice that leads to the cessation of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has developed the practice that leads to the cessation of the world."

And SN12.44.

Because that’s what happens when the six senses and aggregates finally cease without rebirth. What can be experienced and known is gone because the senses and aggregates are gone.
Where’s the body then?
Where’s anything at that point?
That’s the point. :slightly_smiling_face:

No, they don’t! They disappear from your awareness, but they do not disappear from existence. To believe that things disappear from existence when we are not aware of them is literally a child’s understanding. Even most animals understand that burying one’s head does not make immanent danger disappear from existence. Danger does not disappear from existence just because you are unaware of it! I’m utterly at a loss as to what you are trying to convey.

I am not making any metaphysical claims at all. You apparently are making metaphysical claims that to my mind sound very much like solipsism. Is that what you are claiming? A form of solipsism?

To be very clear, I’m not making an ontological claim at all when I say things don’t disappear from existence when we’re not aware of them. This is just the common understanding that we all share and babies are taught at a young age. Why? Because it is a skillful understanding. It is a useful shared understanding and agreement to posit that things don’t disappear from existence when we are not aware of them.

The contrary - to believe that things actually disappear from existence when we are not aware of them - is an incredibly unskillful understanding. It is also an inference. Just a much less skillful one. Moreover, - and here is where the rubber truly meets the road - to believe that things actually disappear from existence when we are not aware of them also cannot be directly known through our own six sense fields! How can anyone possibly use the six sense fields to know that things disappear from existence when they are not looking? They can’t!

Do you believe the body of the Teacher disappeared from existence after the end of life? Or perhaps you deny there ever was such a body that existed since you have never verified it with your six senses? Are you denying that the Teacher ever existed since you have never verified it with your own six senses?

Appears it is a straightforward teaching about how we use our six senses to perceive the world. I do not think the Teacher had any kind of solipsism in mind when he said this. I do not think the Buddha believed things disappear from existence when we don’t perceive them with our six senses. Again, this is a child’s understanding quite literally; a very young child/baby at that.

I cannot believe this is what you are proposing, so I must be completely foolish here or ignorant to what you’re trying to convey and so I apologize.

This is a poetic utterance that frames the giving up of ignorance; grasping the world to exist in a way that it does not; substantial, independent existence. The world exists just like the aggregates exist: void, hollow and completely insubstantial. But the world does exist. Even when you’re not looking at it! :stuck_out_tongue: Yes, I’ll have to get to you that definition of substantial existence.

What do you mean gone?! Again, are you contending that the Teacher’s body vanished from existence and Sariputta and Ananda found no corpse? Or are you contending that the Teacher’s body never existed because you have not been able to verify its existence with your own six sense fields? Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it doesn’t exist. Can you please explain what you mean by this? I’m quite mystified by what you intend.

:pray:

The relationship between feeding (craving) and Nibbana is described in the last 10 paragraphs.

I can verify that they do indeed not go poof before our eyes. I have experienced this through the six senses.

But Jasudho is not entirely incorrect as if you do not hang around the body and maintain awareness of it, it is likely to disappear. But I can also verify that this is because someone came and took it away. Of course, this isn’t always the case.

1 Like

Perhaps this is what I mean when I say mahayana claims further into seeing emptiness of all things, not just the emptiness of self.

Anyway, from my interactions with a mahayana practitioner, it seems to me that they think the change, cessation etc are all concepts of the mind imposing onto the world. And once these concepts are seen as empty, the world is not describable by any concepts, then all concepts can be dropped and one is not trapped by concepts. What remains are just the 6 sense contacts. But since the notion of arising and ceasing are gone with the concepts, they don’t regard these pure experience of 6 sense contacts as arising or ceasing, but as empty of anything conceptually imposed onto it.

Yet such a profound state still misses out on the notion that there’s still conditionality for the experience of the 6 sense contacts.

What is meant by all cease is the 6 sense contacts all cease at the breaking up of the body of an arahant. I think viewing in 6 sense contacts is easier perhaps.

Since we don’t claim the dead body of an arhant can still have the 5 physical senses functioning, it is by that it is meant that the body is gone, disappeared, ceases for the arahant. And same too, to know the mind, there must be a 6th sense contact of the mind. When it ceases, there’s no mind to be known. But the mind sense is itself made of mind, and how does it cease, but when the mind doesn’t regenerate into the next rebirth for arahants.

Since there are conditionalities for the 6 sense bases to arise, namely name and form, which is dependent on consciousness, and for the living arahant is only dependent back on name and form, no longer going to be reproduced by the earlier links (except for past unripened kamma) of ignorance.

When the arhant’s body breaks up, the name and form, breaks up and no longer is in synergy with consciousness, the mind-body died the final death, there’s no more basis for 6 sense bases and contact, no more feelings and so on. This is meant by total cessation.

What matter does, due to the laws of physics and so on is not within the concern of Buddhism. The corpse can and does exist all it wants, but it’s of no consequences to the reality of that there’s nothing left after the death of an arahant, as there’s no 6 sense contacts to know of anything left.

This is similar to the formless and cessation absorption. When going into formless absorption, the body is left behind, (for deep Jhāna, from 1st Jhāna onwards already no more physical sense), but of course, externally, the body is still there. But internally, there is nothing of the form realm, then going to the cessation, even the mind ceases. Thus that’s basically the closest to Parinibbāna for the living arahant and non returner.

I remember from ajahn brahm retreats he gave to lay people, that the Jhānas are more letting go, and going deeper, until there’s nothing left, disappear, then emerging back from it, one can reflect what’s not there, to know that whatever is not there is not self, as it there is the notion of self is permanent, always there. When everything is gone, there’s nothing to be known as the self.

Ajahn Chah also gave him the story of asking him why after ajahn brahm had a good meditation. Ajahn brahm replied, I dunno. Ajahn Chah said, because there is nothing. Do you understand? Ajahn brahm replied, yes. Ajahn chah said, no you don’t.

Then ajahn brahm likes to mess with us, do you understand? when the participants reply yes, he would say, no you don’t.

Good laugh.

It’s deep. Even some monks with years of experience still haven’t get it (referring to ajahn brahm when ajahn chah gave that teaching to young ajahn brahm). Don’t expect to accept this easily. The delusion of self would fight a lot to oppose this.

Going back to cessation absorption, that’s basically a bit different from Parinibbāna as in Parinibbāna, the corpse doesn’t cause the mind to arise again. Whereas for the living arahant in cessation absorption, the living body still brings back the mind of the arahant. In this way too, it can be seen that after Parinibbāna, there’s total cessation in that the corpse is not the same as the living body.

2 Likes

Sorry, I reply here to both @Green and @yeshe.tenley comments on the other topic. As I think we get out of the topic there on does dhamma includes nibbana? Does “all Dhammas” include Nibbāna? - #88 by yeshe.tenley

Do you mean vinnana can also refer to unconsciousness

In Buddhist usage, viññāṇa is there, except for these few situations: cessation of perception and feelings, rebirth into non perceipient beings, and after the death of an arahant. So even deep sleep, even under anesthesia, there is still the bhavaṅga mind. It is different from the normal everyday usage of being awake means being conscious.

Yes, but this sutta does not teach an absence

Referring to AN9.34

When nothing is felt how is it happiness?
Exactly when nothing is felt it is happiness. I dunno how is it not an absence. Delusion of self forcing you to read it in a different way like as below?

Can that be interpreted as including the cessation of any perception of a self in things? As including the cessation of any perception of the phenomenal world as composing any true distinctions? As including the perception of the cessation of name and form?

I think Sariputta describes here the cessation of existence as the cessation of a personal perspective of me or I who perceives. There are only perceptions arising and ceasing.

And there is also still a…in me…perceptions arose in me.

Here this “me” is referring to the conventional self, which is the 5 aggregates we point to as say, this is Ven. Sariputta. To save on words, conventional self terminology is used, without misunderstanding that any ultimate self exist. Just remember that it’s always no self doctrine in Buddhism, so any reference to me said by the enlightened ones is to be intepreted as conventional usage, not to be misunderstood as supporting any notion of self existing.

@green, you still believe in a notion of a self, even intellectually, so it’ll be almost impossible for you to accept the doctrine of nothing after the death of an arahant. I think you should work on intellectually get the right understanding of no self first, before you are emotionally capable of dealing with this topic. Or else anything say, you will just reject and it just wastes our time. Well, the silent readers here may benefit, but it’s getting too long and I doubt many people will have the patience to read so long a forum topic. Really, I see not much point in engaging with you as you are not ready now.

@yeshe.tenley from wherever you get the notion of total cessation happens at enlightenment of Arahanthood and dismiss any importance to the death of an arahant, from tradition or your teacher or just your personal understanding, that view itself is a strong thing preventing you from agreeing with the notion of nothing left after the death of an arahant. As in 6 sense contacts, to remove any controversy of the form aggregates.

I also don’t see a possibility for you to open up until you can abandon that view you currently have and it takes a lot for that to be uprooted. I am not sure if you wish for it to be uprooted also. So anyway, I might not have enough energy, knowledge or skill to do it as well.

From Bhante @sujato 's blog post on nibbāna is not consciousness, from 2011, it can be seen that this is a persistent thing passed down, as if the views are memes, with life of their own and we are just machines replicating the same old arguments. Sometimes it gets tiring, especially for the senior monks who has been at it for much longer.

There are some cases of friends I know whom transitioned from Tibetan Buddhism or Mahayana in general to Theravada and point out to me the view that Theravada no self is actually deeper than mahayana emptiness. So there are success cases, but I dunno of the causes and conditions for their adopting right view. They also told me that it’s almost impossible for me to help some of those who has wrong knowledge affirming their wrong view of liberation. So I am just trying the hard way to find out just how hard it is. It is very hard indeed. Sorry, maybe you’re not of that category, but still it’s not easy.

2 Likes