Why is the cessation of taṇhā the cessation of suffering?

Q & A
22

:+1: Let’s just acknowledge that.

However, as to the meaning of the suttas:

This quote from MN121 doesn’t say that bhava doesn’t exist anymore after enlightenment. It says that there is “no disturbances based on bhavāsava”. That’s different.

As I see it, it’s just an issue of interpretation of a single term. If we translate bhavāsava as “taint of being” then it sounds like bhava ceases at enlightenment. But that contradicts Iti44, as well as other suttas that say that enlightened beings are still in a state of bhava. For example AN5.170: "The state of existence (bhava) in which the defilements are ended without delay is the best state of existence.” Acording to this, the defilements (or ‘taints’, āsavas) can cease while there is still bhava.

Bhavāsava can also be read as “taint towards existence” instead of “taint of existence”. This so-called taint towards existence is the desire for existence, hence Ven Sujato translating bhavāsava at such. And as Bhikkhu Bodhi also notes at MN131 for bhavasamyojana, which he translates as “the fetter of being”, refers to “craving for existence”. That is, bhavasamyojana can be interpreted as “the fetter [that ties us] to being”. Similar for bhavāsava.

When we interpret these terms in this way, there are no inconsistencies with bhava still existing for the enlightened ones. Or how do you (or Ven. Ñāṇavīra) interpret Iti44 and AN5.170?

Either way, the meaning of bhava is a technicality. I don’t think it matters for the core question, because even MN121 you quoted says:

The sutta then says:

Thus he [the enlightened one] regards it [enlightenment] as void of what is not there [i.e. the “taints”], but as to what remains there [i.e. the six senses] he understands that which is present thus: ‘This is present.’

The six senses are intrinsically suffering, as said e.g. in SN35.2. And SN56.14 says the six senses are the noble truth of suffering.

So, while a big amount of suffering clearly ceases at enlightenment (at the cessation of taṇhā), not all of suffering does. The complete end of suffering happens only when the six senses completely cease, which is when the enlightened being dies. Hence @Akuppa’s question.

So you are interpreting the statement “you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two” as meaning there is no “you” even if there is a “here”. (Ud1.10)

That’s one way to interpret it, and perhaps that’s also meant. However, the “in between the two” quite clearly refers to the in-between of lives. (That’s what it refers to other suttas.) And the in-between is not something most people will have trouble with identifying as a “you”.

So I think the statement can be taken more literally. It means that after the enlightened being dies there will be no “here, hereafter, or in between” as well, on top of there being no “you”, in a sense.

23

Regarding AN 5:170 you have a point. According to my understanding, strictly speaking the word bhava should not be used in the description of arahat, and indeed I find it strange. Itv44 doesn’t make any such problems since it merely describes the difference between still living body and the dead body, so no need to interpret it that bhava ends only after the death.

Regarding MN 121 all hangs on understanding dependent arising when there is this - this is, and since being is dependenty arisen on ignorance (and ignorance on asavas) and asavas are absent there is immediate cessation of bhava. It is very important point and I cannot change my understanding merely because of AN 5:170, although of course there seems to be some inconsistency, which I am unable to explain.

Yes, but the Four Noble Truth are didactic device, they discuss difference between puthujjana and arahat, so just like in the case of Puthujjana aggregates subjected to upadana are suffering, the most important point regarding the eye is to see that it is (in Puthujjana experience) seen as mine, and experience is interpreted as “I see”. Cessation of asmimana nullify possibly of suffering, apart physical pain. Teachings that eye is suffering on the first place is directed to one who sees it as “mine”.

Summarise, now I see more clearly your position, and I see it not quite unjustified (from your point of view).

Unfortunately, regarding the cessation of bhava here and now, I am certain that there is such thing, and I see it as very important point which has to be emphasised. Again dependent arising when there is this (upadana) this is (bhava). Now most fundamental upadana taught only by the Buddha is attavadupadana. Arahat is free from any upadana, that’s why Tathāgata is not to be found here and now, unlike Puthujjana who in this sense is to be found and his state is that of being.

But attavada is inseparable with sakkāyaditthi, and according to my understanding sakkāyaditthi can be stated as “assumption of having duration”. (Self is always identified with things which have past and future. )

When “one” has no past, no future, one cannot help, must be beyond bhava.

‘I was’ is not for me, not for me is ‘I shall be’;

Determinations will un-be: therein what place for sighs?

Pure arising of things, pure series of determinants—

For one who sees this as it is, chieftain, there is no fear.

Theragāthā 715, 716

I answered to clarify my position, perhaps it could be of some use, otherwise I respect your ideas, at least in the sense, if you are satisfied with them, that’s fine.

My ideas haven’t changed for the last 22 years, and I don’t see how I could stop to appreciate the great wisdom of Ven Nanamoli:

To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that “it is” can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

According to you, he is mistaken. It may be so, unfortunately all my understanding depends on Ven Nanamoli’s understanding of dependent arising. So to repeat, unless still there are some points which could be discussed in order to more clearly see what our disagreement is based on, it is better to stop it here. But I think it looks like all our disagreement hangs on dependent arising when there is this, this is. For me it is sine qua non, and cessation of ignorance is synonymous with the cessation of bhava.

24

Six-sense Basis is also dependently originated, however, an arahat still has six-sense bases as in MN 121 again:

There is only this modicum of stress, namely that related to the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
imameva kāyaṁ paṭicca saḷāyatanikaṁ jīvitapaccayā’ti.

If it was as Ven Nanavira suggests, that DO vanishes completely for an arahat, how is there six sense bases which is dependent on ignorance?

In fact, it would be impossible to find any of the links of DO applied to a arahat, but they’re still said to exist.

Likewise, with khandas. Khandas are dependently originated on the ignorance - even if an arahat “gets rid of upakkhandas”, then there’s the remaining khandas - what are they conditioned by? Are they unconditioned?

Take the same example to vedana. If bhava doesn’t apply to the Arahant, then why does vedana apply? Isn’t there need to be ignorance for Vedana to manifest at all?

I think these are relevant points that’s not what you and Bhante Sunyo had tackled yet. :slight_smile:

25

Now the Buddha has described the world (that is not just the external world but the consciousness that cognizes it, and not only other peoples’ consciousness objectified, but mine, too, and not only mine (of) past and future objectified but mine committed to it now—no matter who ‘I’ am.). His description of the way it works is the first two truths, while the last two deal with the escape from it.

If we are interested in ‘being’ we must look to the Dependent Origination (D/O), of which ‘being’ (bhava) is the tenth member.

Nanamoli Thera

As I said before dependent arising is a didactic device, with ignorance as condition, is not kind of universal law but description or rather set of descriptions, which describe puthujjana experience. It is the main aim, since puthujjana doesn’t understand his own experience as much as he doesn’t understand arahat. Dependent arising provides kind of mirrow, so puthujjana can see in it his own ignorance, with its most fundamental aspect, the attitude “I am”.

So “with the cessation of ignorance” in the pattern of the noble truths, describes arahat. Cessation of feeling or the sense bases, describes experience, where asmimana and attavada are absent, so in fact there is nobody there who experiences feeling, and by self-identification localises himself in the world.

So again:

To the question: “What are these sets of terms intended to describe?” we may answer tentatively that they are intended to describe experience of any possible kind where ignorance (that is lack of personal realization of the Truths) is present.

Nanamoli Thera

Ignorance, upadana and bhava are strictly subjective aspects of puthujjana experience, so the cessation of ignorance involves the total absence of these descriptions. Regarding descriptions of objective aspects of puthujjana experience, cessation of feeling or sense organs means merely cessation of puthujjana feeling, with such ideas as I feel, I am sad, or I see.