In the view of a mere cessation, i feel this makes no sense at all:
-“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean.(MN72)
In the context of a mere cessation a Buddha and any being are just 5 khandha’s and there is no need at all the talk about them as deep, immeasurable. Not while alive not after death, because in this live they are just 5 khandha’s and after death these have ceased. Refering to a mere cessation as deep and immeasarable is nonsense.
-“One who has come to an end cannot be defined,” replied the Buddha. “They have nothing
by which one might describe them. When all things have been eradicated, eradicated, too, are all ways of speech.”
What does it mean when one is freed from vinnana, detached? What is freed from vinnana (AN10.81)
AN4.173 does not teach that the view that when the domain of the six senses cease there is nothing left. It is also does not say there is anything left. But those that claim there is nothing left do not speak according the sutta.
SN35.117 says: So you should understand that dimension where the eye ceases and perception of sights fades away. You should understand that dimension where the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind ceases and perception of ideas fades away.”
We can speculate about this endlessly but if we do not know what the cessation of sanna and vedana really means (why is it not just called the cessation of vinnana?), we also cannot judge what it means when it is said to be blissful. All we say about it, also is mere speculation. This line in the sutta can also interpretated in different ways.
I believe we have an extremely weak base if we only rely on scripture and intellectual understanding. I have a very strong opinion about this: Teachers who sell their words as Truth, as direct knowledge,
as something they really know, while they only rely on reasoning, have left the Noble Path. They are a risk for the Three Jewels.
Maybe this is even more important to acknowledge as buddhist community then all these opinions about this and that only based upon reasoning and studying.
At least we can admit to ourselves and others, openly, we do not know. This is the only sincere, upright and noble act.
There are several levels of meaning here, and they are not to be confused with one another.
What the Buddha had in mind.
What is recorded in the Pali canon in Pali and attributed to the Buddha
What the translator thinks the Pali meant.
What you (or the reader) thinks the translator meant.
In most of my discussions here, people are essentially asserting the 4th level (some are talking about the 3rd level), but think they are talking about level 1 or level 2. It is because they do not recognize the difference between level 2 and level 3, or between level 3 & level 4.
I am interested in the 2nd level rather than the 3rd or 4th level. I get the feeling you are talking about the translation, not about the source Pali. Translations by definition convey only approximate meanings. Sometimes they convey incorrect meanings.
So regarding your assertion that you were not stating your opinion, but was merely quoting the text - that is not true, you were quoting the translation, not the source text. The source text is translated in a certain way, and you think the translations say what the source says. They don’t.
For example:
Here the source says: ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti
The translation says: They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
Your interpretation of the translation : In other words…cessation.
Let us see what the source actually means:
khīṇā jāti = Birth is ended
vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ = brahmacarya is fulfilled
kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ = (what) had to be done, is done
nāparaṁ itthattāya = (there is) no further return (back) to this state (of existence).
So you can see that by blindly relying on a wrong translation, you got your own conclusions wrong. The original doesnt say “any state of existence” it explicitly says “this state of existence”. ittha / ittham means “this”, it does not mean “any”. Therefore your conclusion (that it means “cessation”) is based on a translation which doesnt represent the original accurately, but you thought it did.
The source text says “Viññāṇassa nirodhena natthi dukkhassa sambhavo.” (With the destrunction of the thinking-faculty, dukkha doesnt arise). This holds good for everyone at death, not just for those that have attained nibbāna - so viññāna-nirodha does not have to mean nibbāna, even simple death results in viññāna-nirodha - because viññāna is part of the khandas which are part of the psychophysical body, which perishes at death. So everytime a person dies, their dukkha stops at death because they dont have a body or its khandas to feel the dukkha any more. This is not unique to the permanent personal extinction that you call cessation.
What it actually means is – When (classifying things) into nāma (names) & rūpa (forms) begins, the citta (reasoning-faculty) arises as a result. When such classification into names and forms ceases - the reasoning faculty recedes.
This again has nothing to do with nibbāna, and the sutta is actually about how satipaṭṭhānāna works - not about any cessation (permanent personal extinction) that you assume it to be.
Again, you are apparently reinterpreting someone else’s translation in a way that fits your preconception. Let’s now look at the source.
The source says quite explicitly:
"Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ.
(There is, bhikkhus, an unborn, unmade…)
No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha.
(If such an unborn, unmade… didnt exist, an escape/exit from the born & the made… wouldn’t have been known)
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyatī’’ti.
(Because there exists an unborn, unmade… as a result of that, the escape/exit from the born, made… is known).
The word “ajātam” does not mean “freedom from rebirth” or “without birth”. In the phrase ajātam, abhūtam, akaṭam and asaṅkhatam are all adjectives referring to one and the same thing, not to 4 different freedoms-from-different-things, further the verb atthi is singular and cannot be referring to 4 different freedoms. So basically your reinterpretation does not make sense from a grammatical or semantic point of view.
In none of these is cessation (i.e. permanent personal extinction) even hinted about.
Suggest you read the links I offered in the last post along with those by several Venerables who explicitly stated the position and translations about this sutta that offer different understandings from your interpretations.
Actually, I was using the Pāli here. We just don’t agree on all the points. Fair enough.
For some reason, you keep attributing thoughts to me that I don’t have. And again, I don’t appreciate the use of judgmental terms like “weird” and “blindly” in discussions here.
Meanwhile, the translation I used in my prior post regarding “all existence” was by Ven. Sujato. So yes, here I’m following the translation of this highly respected scholar-monk.
I understand, and have read, other translations.
Your interpretation of Viññāṇassa …
Consider reading DN15, where it’s explicitly stated that dukkha does not end for a non-arahant because there is craving and rebirth as the stream of consciousness and nāmarūpa combine to form a new being/dukkha.
Also, all the khandhas cannot end with the death of a non-arahant, as the consciousness aggregate remains – as in DN15, for example.
And since in MN43 perception, feeling, and consciousness are utterly interdependent and cannot be separated, these khandhas must also be present.
I respect your input but the use of judgmental words, as cited above, is something I’m not appreciating so I’m going to respectfully disengage.
Apologies, didnt mean to offend. Please consider those words retracted.
It appeared to me that you were simply quoting from readymade translations mostly as the pali texts you quoted were few and far between, and you didnt appear to explain why you thought a word meant what you took them to be.
So yes, here I’m following the translation of this highly respected scholar-monk.
Highly respected by me too, but the word itthattāya is translated wrong in my opinion, and that is the word you are evidently basing your conclusion about cessation on.
In general, i can see or sense that translating Pali texts into English is not mere about Pali expertise. It seems it cannot been seen apart from how a translator personally understands Dhamma or even wants to understand it. This is not to blame or accuse anybody but the sphere but also the meaning in translations can differ quit a lot.
In any discussion there comes a moment that a Pali expert says the translation is wrong or will be better if…but better suited to his or her understanding, wishes, desires? Can one avoid such things?
For a lay person studying Dhamma, no Pali expert, it is not easy to see what makes sense.
There is so much more going on in translating then expertise of language.
Yes the translation can make or break notions of what the text is speaking about - and translators sometimes have a preconceived notion of what they are expecting to see in the text, and translate in accordance with those notions.
One needs to know enough Pali to take the translations apart and see if they actually mean what the source says. Most readers aren’t going to be able to do that, and they argue about the significance of words they see in the translations, which are themselves approximations of the source texts.
When the translation of specific key words is wrong, it diametrically alters the sense of the sutta. A critical reading of a translation is therefore essential.
Here on Suttacentral, I see several translations are actually translating from the English (or other more prominent large language) rather than from Pali, and the same mistakes are also translated into newer languages. So they become translations of translations.
Actually, I agree with you agree that itthattāya refers to a particular state of existence. But it’s in the context of no further rebirth – so imo whether it’s translated as “this state of existence” or “any state of existence” doesn’t seem to matter: the point being the final release from all conditional existence (whether “this” or “any”) and no rebirth – as would happen when a non-Arahnt dies → final liberation.
It’s in this sense that I’ve used cessation, as there’s no birth or re-bhava-ing, so to speak after the death of an arahant.
I do also incline to understanding final nibbāna as full cessation, but with all due respect, as I’ve mentioned before, to the understanding of others who see if differently – as a kind of timeless citta or ineffable “something” or “existence”.
In this sense, perhaps there would be a difference between “this” and “any.”
We appear to have different views about this which, of course, is fine.
We may agree to disagree…
It is said that those six sense vinnana always arise dependend on a sense-imput and cannot and may not be seen is something present. Even while awake vinnana arises and ceases and is not every moment present. Vinnana is not taught as a continues stream but in between moments of vinnana there is no vinnana. It is not like a river that is continuous flowing. Is is more like on and off.
If vinnana is absent, for a moment, or longer (while unconscious) are we ceased? I do not think life nor Dhamma support this. Cessation of vinnana happens all the time but is not considered to be the end of suffering. If the cessation of vinnana would be the cessation of suffering we only have to die unconsciously.
I read a mahayana teacher who taught that it is quit normal that death is such a shock that there is for a time a period of total black out, unaware of anything, no vinnana’s, but at a certain moment this starts again. This feels oke for me. Life does not depend on vinnana.
Probably this refers to kamma-vinnana or rebirth linking vinnana. Probably not sense vinnana.
There are many kinds of vinnana’s with different meanings and different role in Dhamma.
I do not know why this gets no attention at all. I also do not understand why it gets no attention that vinnana and mind cannot be the same because unconscious one is not mindless.
It is talking about a return to this state of existence (mortal existence). If it wanted to say permanent personal extinction, it would have said it. But Buddhism is in fact opposed to ucchedavāda, as you may know, so to consider nibbāna as being the same thing (ucchedavāda) under another name is not a proper view.
Well I hope we might agree that ucchedavāda refers to the annihilation of any kind of self.
What I and others are pointing to is the cessation of selfless khandhas.
Since the khandhas are anicca, they are dukkha:
SN22.15 - “Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ”. And
SN56.11 - yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman. And
SN12.125 - " Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī Ettāvatā kho, kaccāna, sammādiṭṭhi hoti.
So, if everything conditional is inherently dukkha and the teaching is about the final cessation of dukkha – I’m guessing we agree on this point – then the final cessation of all this is simply the cessation of dukkha, and not the annihilation of any kind of self.
Those who post a kind of existence after the final death of an arahant might wish to offer citations from the suttas in which the Buddha makes this clear.
Ud8.1 and Ud8.3 have been cited in support of this, but as we’ve discussed earlier (and as has been discussed extensively in other posts, some of which I’ve put into my posts here), there are quite reasonable and well-supported differences in accepting this as “proof” of final nibbāna as a kind of existence.
KR Norman, for example, also saw the negations in Ud8.3 as indicating “without birth” rather than “an unborn.” As do Venerables Sunyo, Brahmali, and Sujato.
Beyond that, what is the clear evidence in the suttas for a timeless “something” after the death of an arahant?
Again, this has been extensively on this forum.
Thanks for this! Should probably be automatically posted at the beginning of every topic. Very well said.
Some thoughts:
What the Buddha had in mind. - And he is dead (or not dead) but not talking.
What is recorded in the Pali canon in Pali and attributed to the Buddha - Pali being a dead language spoken to a long dead culture
What the translator thinks the Pali meant. - which can be a bias or also based on different forms of practice such as Ven. Kumara talks about. All translations are interpretations
What you (or the reader) thinks the translator meant. - I am reminded of Ajahn Chah’s advice to just say to ourselves ‘Not Sure’.
Edit: So maybe we can try to keep an open mind and if we find we are latching onto this or that - isn’t there going to be suffering there?
Yes. Not only an open mind but a very good understanding of Pali and Sanskrit (they are both extremely related and similar) is required for serious students of Buddhism.
Translations are there to gain a preliminary view, they are not a replacement for the original language, and should not be so used.
Even those who know Pali well can misinterpret the canonical texts (like Buddhaghosa does here and there) but on the whole the scope of misunderstanding is much reduced.
The word exist does not apply to that state (ṭhitassa aññathattaṁ na paññāyati, see below) the words ‘doesn’t exist’ also do not apply. Only conditioned things come into existence (uppāda), remain existing (ṭhito hoti) or go out of existence (vayo).
AN3.47 says:
Asaṅkhatalakkhaṇasutta
“Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, asaṅkhatassa asaṅkhatalakkhaṇāni. Katamāni tīṇi? Na uppādo paññāyati, na vayo paññāyati, na ṭhitassa aññathattaṁ paññāyati. Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi asaṅkhatassa asaṅkhatalakkhaṇānī”ti.
So something is said about the asaṅkhata (unconditioned).
I believe our debates or discussion about Nibbana and Parinibbana come down to the question:
…what is really the pure nature of mind? What IS a pure mind really, not as description (as no lobha, dosa, moha) but what is it actually?
This we have to see and discover and realise for ourselves. Do you agree with this?
My words are not based upon real understanding Dhamma but at best based upon what i intuitively feel is right. Is that really right? I do not know for sure yet.
Is the pure mind really a bhava, a composite kind of existence, liable to disintegrate, also instable and temporary? That we must see for ourselves. But my impression is that Buddha saw that what is refered to as pure mind, is no bhava. It also cannot be called human. It is also not of this world but gets involved due to avijja and tanha.
Maybe i am biased but that is the message i read in EBTs. Ofcourse i can support this with sutta’s but i feel that will not make any difference.
I also see that many Buddhist teachers from all kinds of traditions teach (and they say from experience) that the pure nature of mind, or just pure mind, is very different from how a usual defiled mind knows or experiences itself.
A defiled mind experiences itself as bound to the body, local, in time and space, as a kind of person or identity, with a sense of Me, mine, or being this or that etc. It is very much identified with body and vinnana. With what it momentary sensed. That totally clouds and determines the understanding of the defiled mind. It is said that a pure mind knows itself differently. It is not identified with body nor vinnana and does also not conceive vinnana moments to be me or mine.
That is also called avijja. That one does not know the pure mind as what it is but what mind appears to be due to the influence of asava, anusaya, tanha, kilesa. It appears human, it appears local, it appears in time etc. But is it?
This pure nature of mind is sometimes also described as boundless. The nature of Tathagata is also described that way in the EBTs. You know the sutta’s.
Maybe i am biased, maybe others are, but i feel in the end it comes down to direct knowledge of the pure nature of mind, or pure mind. What is this actually and not as description? I believe the preciousness of the human birth lies in the possibility to discover and see this.
In this intepretation the pure mind is not of this world, no bhava, no composite reality, stable, unailing, unburdened, not afflicted. Tanha is the builder but mind without tanha does not build. Tanha is like glue but a pure mind does not glue. Pure mind cannot be said to be this or that but can be known or tasted.
There lies the escape. In other words, the escape lies in seeing that the pure mind is no bhava. It is no kind of existence, and as such, that we are human is also only conventionally true (based upon identification) but not ultimately. The pure mind is no kind of bhava.
The sutta, as far as I can tell, does not necessarily point to final nibbāna and final cessation.
We both agree nibbāna with residue can be realized in this life and, as the Buddha taught while the kahdhas were still present during his life, the Tathāgata cannot be found in this life or anywhere, any time.
So the unconstructed freedom, peace, the liberation from the defilements while alive could well be described by this sutta rather than it pointing to final nibbāna.
The terseness of the sutta leaves it open to some interpretation in this respect, imo.
Until full awakening we’re probably all attached, at least to some degree, to views. However, we are not in agreement regarding " at best based upon…intuitively feel is right."
If we’re not basing our understanding, as best we can, on the teachings in the suttas then anything goes…
“Boundless” is generally applied to states of jhana and not to nibbāna.
In the suttas, the mind is never described as without bhava, existence. This applies more to teachings in the Mahayana.
The mind that is without grasping in this very life enters no temporary bhava. It does not develop the mentallity of an animal, peta, deva, hell being etc. It does not take birth that way.
Buddha saw there is a very close relationship between how the mind takes birth in this very life and after death. The more easily it takes birth in this life as an animal, for example, the greater the chance is that rebirth as an animal will take place. In other words, if one lives like an animal during this life, chance is great that rebirth as animal follows. Ofcourse there is also grasping, bhava, birth, PS in this very life too. This is very important in understanding the mechanism of rebirth.
Some people imitated the live of a dog or cow during their life as their spiritual practice. Buddha said that if you make those animal like habits, spheres, mentallity strong in this life, you will probably be reborn among dogs and cows. So there is grasping, bhava, birth in this life in the way mind develops here and now, and also after death, and both are closely related.
You can understand that a pure mind must be without bhava. It does not grasp. Because it is without bhava in this life, it will also not grasp a new bhava after death. Is that mere cessation? I believe…no…only suffering related to any bhava ceases.
Pure mind also cannot be called human, or this or that. It cannot really be described. How must one describe the mind without grasping, the mind without any involvement with the five khandha’s?
If the mind is involved with will you can call it at least a willing mind or with greed, a greedy mind, or obsessive mind, agressive mind, scattered mind, dull mind, pessimistic mind, optimistic mind etc. That shows involvement with something. But what if is not involved with anything?
Because the pure mind grasps no bhava in this life, it is also stable. Bhava can never be stable because bhava is like a home one has build instinctively for oneself. That building will disintegrate and end.
Where is the mind that is not involved?
I believe you can understand for yourself how pure mind must be without bhava if it is without grasping.
Regarding your relying on the sutta’s. There were people who only asked for one teaching, a Dhamma in Brief, and they attained enlightment. Probably they had deep intuitive understanding of what they heard. Probably those who try to figourr out Dhamma, hammering out a socalled pure understanding of Dhamma by reading, studying, reasoning, they probably become trapped in that shallow understanding. They tend to deviate from Dhamma.
I feel that it is upright when one wants to be as close as possible to what the Buddha taught but i feel it becomes a bit problematic, sectarian, if the truth is searched in scripture. Like Christians who do not accept anything that is not literally said in the Bible.
If you think that i do not rely on the sutta’s, oke, so be it. I arrived at a point that i accept that i will not be able to convince you of anything else.
