SuttaCentral
AN 10.7:
Bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ bhavanirodho nibbāna’’nti kho me, āvuso, aññāva saññā uppajjati aññāva saññā nirujjhati
“The cessation of existence is nibbāna, The cessation of existence is nibbāna”, one perception arose in me, and another perception ceased.
I’m not really taking sides on this debate, because I’m too small to answer such great questions. But I have a question. I don’t know if this was already discussed, but what would “cessasionists” say to fact that Buddha said for example in SN56.11 that craving to end existence (vibhava tanha) is a cause of suffering?
Now this is the noble truth of the origin of suffering.
It’s the craving that leads to future lives, mixed up with relishing and greed, chasing pleasure in various realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
What cessasionists describe sounds like craving to end existence, and what eternalists describe sounds like craving to continue existence.
Maybe this whole question is impossible to resolve, and the aim of practice is to let go of both kinds of cravings? This approach is in line with Buddha answer to the tetralemma of tathagatha after death, taking neither of these options.
PS: Interestingly, in polish translation of metta sutta (Snp1.8), Piotr Jagodziński translates final passage to something like:
“By not holding to any views,
but by ethical conduct one attains insight” - points to understanding, that it is conduct that leads to liberating insight, not philosophical deliberations. In other words, it cannot be resolved by intellect, only by practice.
I wonder if too much pondering nature of Nibbana could be similar to MN63 simile of the arrow, or is it kusala to ponder it so much?
yes
Also as one just sees Dependent Arising and Ceasing… (due to perception having been altered through the conditioning of practice - the N8fP) there is no-thing to let go of
Personally, I’m a fan. They point one to a goal that’s presented in a positive way. And once you get there, all questions or thoughts of self and not-self, existence and non-existence, etc. fall away. The important part, and what Thanissaro Bhikkhu continually stresses, is the path to this realization; and I find his teachings in this regard to be well laid out. Whatever happens afterwards is pure speculation. We’ll know the destination if and when we finally arrive.
The potential issue with believing, as Ven. Thanissaro does, that there is a consciousness not related to the senses or khandhas and which is outside of time and space, is that it can inform a practitioner’s approach to the practice – and potentially lead them to stop short at a state in which there is a very refined, subtle, “timeless” consciousness – and interpret that as liberation/nibbāna.
Of course, people are free to choose to practice as they wish and there are debates about this among a number of Venerables.
However, as discussed a number of times on this forum, there is no clear support for this interpretation in the Nikāyas.
And
If one assumes cessation for final nibbāna and it turns out that there is some form of ineffable awareness/being-ness as the true final goal, then one will not be able to proceed any further. No problem.
But if one assumes the goal to be an indescribable, ineffable, awareness/being-ness, then one may stop short at that kind of experience, missing the final goal: cessation.
And just to add the the prior post –
The view of final nibbāna as being an ineffable kind of awareness or unconditional beingness is essentially the same as liberation into the “Absolute” in the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanisads.
Leaving aside the terms and labels that are used, these texts describe ultimate liberation in ways quite similar to the “ineffable, indescribable, bliss/awareness” used by Dhamma practitioners who adhere to this view. Again, we can all choose for ourselves.
But
Is this what the Buddha’s teachings come down to – the Upanisads speak of an unchanging Atman and an unchanging Absolute while the Buddha taught impermanence – but otherwise, the final goal is essentially the same? If so, why choose one form of practice over the other if both have the same “end”? And what is the essential difference between the two forms of spiritual practices if both lead to the same “outcome?”
What would be the real and deep difference between the Buddha’s Dhamma teachings and the Upanisads if in the end, the end is the same? Self or not-self, both practices would lead to the same goal so pick whichever one you like.
Did the Buddha teach only to differentiate the Dhamma in terms of rituals, ethics, and anatta while knowing the final goal was essentially no different than in the Brahmanical practices?
Admittedly, none of these points prove either side of the final nibbāna debate. But it seems hard to believe the entirety of the Dhamma was taught as just another way to realize a goal that is very close to, if not identical with, the goal in the two Upanisads.
Just offered for consideration…
Which is just another atta theory without using the naughty word.
Eh. The same can be said about the belief that anupādisesā-nibbāna is phenomenologically identical to what materialists believe happens after death. After hearing this argument, a believer in this might rightfully say “Even though it is phenomenologically the same as this, it is ontologically framed differently than a mundane materialist death.” Likewise, a believer in a parinibbānic experiential reality could say something similar about their beliefs in contrast to that of the Upaniṣads. A better argument would be that there’s a lack of textual evidence for a parinibbānic consciousness.
The basis for Eternalist beliefs is that there is something existing and it always will exist. The basis for Annihilationist beliefs is that there is something existing and it will be destroyed. For the Buddha because things arise and cease they can’t be said to be truly existing or not. The middle way.
Thanks.
Agree. Since there are many posts about this issue on previous threads, I didn’t believe it was necessary to re-state them.
My above posts were not meant as logical proofs, but rather as points to consider that weigh against the “ineffable consciousness/being-ness” viewpoint.
Regarding anupādisesā-nibbāna, the difference between the cessation teachings and the materialist viewpoint is that the latter rejects rebirth – so death after a particular life according to them is final and, in this sense, is the ending of dukkha.
But that’s not what the Buddha taught in the Nikāyas where rebirth and dukkha reoccur ad infinitum until awakening.
So the fact is that the illusion of the value of something or files just gives rise to clinging. happiness is a value, permanent is a value, personality is a value, beauty is a value. And vice versa - empty, hollow, dart, tumor, abscess - this is not a value.
The Buddha taught disappointment in… and depreciation of the aggregates. Why? because that’s what they are, that’s their nature: to break down and bring problems, especially by clinging to them and trying to generate them further. The aggregates of a Buddha or an Arahant are essentially the same. The Yamaka Sutta says that in the case of an Arahant, the aggregates that are dukkha ceased and disintegrated, nothing more. The mind shining with virtues at the deep ontological level remains just as empty, hollow and futile. Just like branches and leaves in the forest. By burning them, we will not say that they are burning us in the fire, or that they are destroying some kind of value. Returning to the computer example. Let’s say you had a computer with primitive games as a child. You have grown, your interests have changed. What was important to you at the age of 5 has lost all appeal and you erase files without hesitation.
Dzien dobry!
It would make sense. At least one of the hindrances must be overcome by compassion (ie. ill will).
To quote MN 111:
"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, Sariputta entered & remained in the cessation of feeling & perception. Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘There is no further escape,’ and pursuing it there really wasn’t for him.
Thanks.
Sorry, I’m not sure I quite understand the point you’re making. But just in case…
During the state of saññavedayitanirodha, the cessation of feeling & perception, consciousness is not present, as in the above quote. So the mention of awareness rid of barriers, hindrances, does not apply to that state.
It is after that state has ceased when reflections like “There is no further escape” can occur.
The “no further escape” refers to the cessation of feeling, perception, and consciousness – during that state. This is the insight of “there’s nothing further.”
It was by inference Sariputta knows what happens when an arahant dies with release into final nibbåna, based on the utter cessation of consciousness in saññavedayitanirodha.
While an arahant is alive the khandhas are still present, so awareness is present but no longer fettered by greed, anger, or ignorance. There’s freedom from all “mental” dukkha.
But the khandhas themselves, being anicca are dukkha, which the arahant still experiences, let’s say in a sheer physical sense – although the arahant does not cling to or identify with them. After death, the khandhas finally cease without rebirth, without remainder, and…no further escape.
This is not sammā-samādhi in the noble eightfold path.
But that wasn’t my point.
I was responding to what I understood, or possibly misundersttod, the points raised in the prior post.
Cześć, friend! 
Craving to end existence is vibhava-taṇhā. The best explanation in the suttas is as follows:
Some, becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with existence, delight in ending existence (vibhava): ‘When this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death: that is peaceful, that is sublime, that is reality.’ (Iti49)
Vibhava is a term used by the annihilationists who desired to end a self or existent being: “They describe the annihilation, destruction, and extermination (vibhava) of an existing being”. (MN102) Here Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates vibhava as ‘extermination’ and Bhante Sujato as ‘annihilation’. If in the 2nd noble truth we then translate accordingly “craving for extermination/annihilation” it becomes clearer what it means.
The end goal is to have no desire, even for nibbāna. But while we’re on the path, I think it is only natural that we have some desires, and that we naturally have a desire to end suffering. That’s what keeps us practicing in the first place! So the desire to end suffering perhaps isn’t so bad; however, the desire for annihilation (vibhava-taṇhā) is based on a misunderstanding that there is a sufferer to end as well, i.e. a self.
Even if you theoretically don’t believe there is a self, if you become “horrified, repelled, and disgusted” with life and want to end it for “selfish” reasons, i.e. because “you” suffer, then that would still be based on a view of self.
That is how I see it anyway.
The irony is that arahants have complete equanimity about suffering, so they don’t desire to end existence either. But exactly that lack of desire is what makes them not reborn. 
What cessasionists describe sounds like craving to end existence
Most cessationists don’t actually desire to end existence. They just think/know/feel that the Buddha taught cessation despite what they desire.
nastempne pytanie prosha 
(inside joke)
Attaining nibbāna is essentially based on sammādiṭṭhi. It is described in terms of the series of five stages based on sammādiṭṭhi (not saññavedayitanirodha), according to SN/SA suttas (p. 53):
Pages 52-4 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000-3.pdf (226.0 KB)
No. Sannavedayitanirodha also needs to be understood. Cessation of consciousness occur even before that at nevasannanasanna.
And, Nibbana is not only occurred at final death of body. One can perceive it here and now with stilling of all sankharas (speech- vaci, breath-kaya and mind-citta) due to developed body & mind. This developed body and mind (here and now) is seen with wisdom (not at death of body). Look at AN 11.7 and many others. When the sankharas are already still, it will remain still till death of body.
Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all process activities (sankharas), the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, Nibbana.
Well, I agree nibbāna with residue is experienced here and now by arahants. I would never imply otherwise.
The final cessation of all the khandhas, including consciousness, was about final nibbāna and no rebirth.