Wrong views due the khandhas being impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self

Discussion
1

That the khandas are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self can among other things lead to various wrong views.

From 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.’

Views Number 1 & 6 are applicable to the misconceptions held by Sāti in MN 38

————————————————
In SN 22.81 all these 6 views from MN 2 are also represented in various groups that see the khandhas as not-self but despite this hold on to eternalism.
Or when letting go of eternalism instead embraces annihilationism.

The Buddha tells this group to give up the view of annihilationism which 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.”

If Nibbāna was truly like the annihilationists imagine there would be no reason to give up this view and it would be considered right view.

If the annihilationists were right, the Buddha would instead encourage being repulsed by continued existence, and not being repulsed by the cessation of continued existence. But the Buddha doesn’t, quite the contrary.

So by now it ought to be crystal clear that Nibbāna (the ending of all defilements) does not result in the annihilationists/cessationalists mistaken view.
:pray:

Feel free to link to other suttas where the 6 wrong views regarding self and all wrong views regarding eternalism/annihilationism are found. :+1:

2

The problem is the holding of a view rather than directly understanding cessation.
And holding onto a view necessarily means there is grasping, an obvious obstruction to fully letting go – > cessation.

Any attraction or repulsion, as in the quote, are due to clinging.
This is different than what those who talk about final cessation are pointing to.

3 Likes
3

AN4.199 - 108 currents of craving, brings in present/past/future and interior/exterior

DN1 3&4 - complete description of eternalism and annihilationism

My summary of DN 1 3&4

18 views about the past

  • Eternalism - the self and the cosmos are eternal (an ascetic came to this conclusion from…)
    1. recollecting rebirths
    2. recollecting one eon of the cosmos contracting and expanding
    3. recollecting ten eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding
    4. logic
  • Partial Eternalism - the self and the cosmos are partially eternal
    5. permanent creator with impermanent creations
    6. only ‘depraved by play’ gods are impermanent, the rest permanent
    7. only ‘malevolent’ gods are impermanent, the rest permanent
    8. logic: some parts of us are impermanent, consciousness is not
  • The Cosmos is Finite or Infinite
    9. the cosmos is finite and bounded, known from immersion
    10. the cosmos is infinite and unbounded, known from immersion
    11. the cosmos is both finite and infinite, known from immersion as finite vertically but infinite horizontally
    12. logic: the cosmos is neither finite nor infinite
  • Endless Flip-floppers
    13. not understanding what is skillful and unskillful, declaring this would lead to stress and would be an obstacle
    14. not understanding what is skillful and unskillful, declaring this would lead to desire or greed or hate or repulsion and would lead to stress and would be an obstacle
    15. not understanding what is skillful and unskillful, declaring this would lead to other people pressing me, and would lead to stress and would be an obstacle
    16. stupidity, denying all cases
  • Doctrines of Origination by Chance - self and the cosmos arose by chance
    17. ‘non-percipient beings’ gods that die from perception not existing before, I came to exist
    18. logic

44 views about the future

  • Percipient Life After Death - self lives on after death to be percipient (18) "self has…
    • form
    • formless
    • both having form and formless
    • neither having form nor formless
    • finite
    • infinite
    • both finite and infinite
    • neither finite nor infinite
    • of unified perception
    • of diverse perception
    • of limited perception
    • of limitless perception
    • experiences nothing but happiness
    • experiences nothing but suffering
    • experiences both happiness and suffering
    • experiences neither happiness nor suffering"
  • Non-Percipient Life After Death (8) (same as…)
  • Neither Percipient Nor Non-Percipient Life After Death (8)
    • form
    • formless
    • both having form and formless
    • neither having form nor formless
    • finite
    • infinite
    • both finite and infinite
    • neither finite nor infinite
  • Annihilationism - end of self after death (7)
    • self has form, made of matter
    • self is divine and has form, with form
    • self is divine and has form, mind-made, complete, with form
    • self is beyond perception of form and exists in the dimension of infinite space
    • self is beyond infinite space and exists in the dimension of infinite consciousness
    • self is beyond infinite consciousness and exists in the dimension of nothingness
    • self is beyond nothingness and exists in the dimension of perception nor non-perception
  • Extinguishment in the Present Life (5)
    • materialism
    • first, second, third, fourth absorption

These assertions are only the feeling of those who do not know or see, the anxiety and evasiveness of those under the sway of craving. They are conditioned by contact and it is impossible otherwise. Their theorizing is experienced through the six fields of contact, which conditions craving, then grasping, then continued existence, then rebirth, then suffering.

-End summary-

The last italicized part is related to what @Jasudho just said. We have wrong view separate from holding on to views, both leading to rebirth. It seems complex because in holding on to views, holding on happens from the wrong view of “this is my view”. The sutta also mention that the Buddha knows exactly where beings with such wrong views will be reborn into suffering.

4

Don’t you mean:

  • “Misunderstanding that the khandas are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self can among other things lead to various wrong views.”
  • “Not fully understanding that the khandas are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self can among other things lead to various wrong views.”
  • “Claiming to understand, but not really understanding that the khandas are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self can among other things lead to various wrong views”

Or something similar?

You don’t really mean to suggest that, “Depending upon correctly understanding that the khandas, are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self, various wrong views can arise??”

:pray:

5

Here are some parallels translated by ChatGPT3.5 of the MN2 passage you qoute;

Such thoughts give rise to inauspicious ideas, and one entertains the views of the six types of existence. The view of self arises in opposition to the view of no self; the view of no self arises in opposition to the view of self. Within these, the view that there is a self and the view that there is no self arise, leading to doubt. Then, the person turns to observe the body, and the views of self and no self arise again. The person contemplates themselves but does not see themselves, and these views arise. At that time, the person once again develops the wrong view: ‘I exist in the present and will continue to exist in the future, perpetually enduring in the world without decay, change, or movement.’

EA40.6

Engaging in such wrong contemplation, they generate views within the six types of existence. Depending on their views, they think, ‘There truly are gods.’ ‘There truly are no gods.’ ‘Gods perceive gods.’ ‘Gods perceive non-gods.’ ‘Non-gods perceive gods.’ ‘This god is capable of speech, knowledge, creation, teaching, initiation, and giving instruction. Beings are born in various realms and receive good or bad karmic results.’ ‘There is an ultimate source.’ ‘There is no origin.’ ‘There should be no origin.’"

MA10

Due to not engaging in such foundational contemplations, doubts arise, leading to various misconceptions. They question: ‘Does the self exist? Does the self not exist? Is this body mine? Is this body not mine?’ This doubt generates self-views and views about the nature of existence. They question: ‘Where did I come from? Where will I go? What will happen to me?’ Such questioning creates doubt about the self, leading to the perception of a self and the arising of different views about the self.

In this way, doubt gives rise to various misconceptions and views. Is there a self in the past? Is there no self in the past? This doubt about the past creates a sense of self, a perception of a past self. Similarly, doubt about the future creates a sense of self, a perception of a future self. Doubt about the present creates a sense of self, a perception of a present self. These doubts about self and existence lead to misconceptions, and one perceives actions, both good and bad, everywhere, resulting in the continuous cycle of birth and suffering."

T31

also @Dhabba you may be interested in my thread on anatta here;

Although I have since modified my views somewhat after learning a bit more about chinese from the ever helpful @cdpatton

Basically I think we have the same suspicion that some ways of interpreting anatta, aggregates and cessation can amount to annihilationism by another name and are therefore not the dhamma of the buddha, but I have struggled to convince anyone on this board of this idea for more than a year now and watched several contributors who I admire and share a perspective with post less and less frequently and eventually disappear completely because of the frustration this can cause.

Religious views can be very tightly held :slight_smile: even amongst buddhists, and I would caution you to learn from my mistakes and not allow yourself to be dragged into an endless attempt to convince people who will simply not ever agree with you.

Much Metta.

2 Likes
6

But however we look at this view it is still considered wrong and an obstacle on the path. Right?

So the true problem is of course this:
If final Nibbāna truly is what you say, how can then a perfect description of this final Nibbāna: ”repulsed by continued existence, not repulsed by the cessation of continued existence” even be an obstacle on the path to the final Nibbāna?

The wrong view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’ is strongly tied to the wrong cessation/annihilation view.

1 Like
7

Hi,

To try to clarify: any view, is just a view and before full awakening is based on clinging/aversion and an underlying sense of self.

I agree with

except, not the cessation part. Those who speak of cessation do so based on understanding, such as the teachings that explicitly talk about cessation of consciousness and all the aggregates/senses, and also for some people on direct experience of this. No “my self” is involved, which when present directly ties in to the annihilations view.

So, in this way the annhilationist view remains wrong view, and any position based on attraction or repulsion is due to underlying clinging. But you appear to be conflating this with understanding that final nibbāna is cessation as in the above quote.

Plus I’d say there is no “perfect description” of final nibbāna in terms of anything with any characteristics, being that final cessation means there’s nothing to describe. Even the word/concept “empty” is inadequate – especially as the mind can reify pretty much anything.

Usually these discussions about final nibbāna tend to go around and around.
I respect that sincere Dhamma practitioners have different perspectives on this and, just saying, my posts are not to try to convince anyone of anything.
imo there’s too much stress for both sides in that.
The hope is something not clear before might become clearer in the sharing for everyone involved.

3 Likes
8

Hi, :slight_smile:

But ”repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by the cessation of continued existence” is a perfect tool for final Nibbāna, the permanent cessation of consciousness and all the aggregates/senses.

There’s no need for clinging/aversion (there are meditation techniques for that) or even an underlying sense of self, let go of all that stuff and only focus on:
”being repulsed by continued existence and not being repulsed by the cessation of continued existence” - since this ought to take one straight to final Nibbāna and make it way easier for the permanent cessation of consciousness and all the aggregates/senses.

So why doesn’t the Buddha encourage it?
(The best teacher ever BTW) :thaibuddha: :dharmawheel:

9

I’d say the Buddha does, directly and indirectly, in his teachings. Letting go of all clinging and attachment to all the khandhas, leading to the cessation of all the khandhas, is taught hundreds of times. Cessation.

Tachings on saññāvedayitaniroda and how it is close to final nibbāna is taught in MN43, also AN9.34, MN44, SN36.11, …and more.
Cessation.

Also in the Buddha’s teachings on signlessness and emptiness meditations in DN33, SN40.9, SN43.4.
All these involve no wish for continued existence, nor a wish for annihilation – just the cultivation of nibbidā, virāga, nirodha, nibbāna, as per the frequently repeated phrase in the suttas.

All these involve no wish to continually exist and no repulsion by cessation, so to speak, even if it is not said in exactly this way.

4 Likes
10

And cessation could of course also be not to relish in the blissful feelings/perceptions in the highest formless realm until nothing is felt. That’s how you truly get rid of greed, made like a palm stump never to arise again.

I agree though that letting go of all clinging and attachment to the khandhas , different realms and all types of phenomena leads one to the goal.

The difference is that in your view cessation of the khandhas leads to permanent unconscioussness because ending the defilements, nibbāna, can’t be cognized.

Is the following sentence true about the permanent cessation of the khandhas:
They might not be, and it might not be theirs. They will not be, and it will not be theirs.’

?

11

Could you link an example to an ebt saying “the cessation of all khandas” is nibanna?

I want to understand what you are saying.

Again, I cannot find the claim that this attainment is “closest to parinibanna” in the links you provide, can you direct me to the paragraph(s) you are talking about?

1 Like
12

Not quite.
Ending the defilements, nibbāna with residue (Iti44) can be known as this occurs while an arahant is still alive and the khandhas are still present.

Also, “unconsciousness” doesn’t fit either, as the word implies that consciousness is temporarily suspended. On the other hand, do we say the vacuum of space is “unconscious”? Does a materialist say a deceased person is “unconscious”?
Maybe not the best examples, but hopefully illustrates the basic point.

Actually, I’d say no; rather this is a form of analysis and reflection rather than a "description"of final cessation. There’s movement of the mind in all this, not sabbasaṅkhārasamatho…the stilling of all formations, (MN26).

All best.

13

Hi,

If you’re looking for an exact quote in these exact words, no. Yet how many times do the Buddha’s
teachings point to this?
Since the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha:
as in SN56.11 and
SN22.10: "“Mendicants, form…feelings…perceptions…consciousness of the past and future is suffering, let alone the present. and
SN22.15: What’s impermanent is suffering. Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ. Clearly referring to the aggregates, all of which are impermanent,
SN12.15: Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing, Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī
Dhp278: All conditions are suffering; Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā
DN33, describing the types of dukkha…and so on.

This, and from the Buddha’s teaching that only nibbāna is free of dukkha (final nibbāna), is the basis for the general statement on how the cessation of the khandhas with the death of an arahant (Iti44) is a way to point to final nibbāna.

Fair point!
MN43 implies this: “Are the vital forces the same things as the phenomena that are felt? Or are they different things?”
“The vital forces are not the same things as the phenomena that are felt. For if the vital forces and the phenomena that are felt were the same things, a mendicant who had attained the cessation of perception and feeling, saññāvedayitaniroda, would not emerge from it. [Ven. Sujato: This introduces the most subtle of all meditation states, accessible only to non-returners and arahants who are fully accomplished in all the absorptions].
But because the vital forces and the phenomena that are felt are different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling [and consciousness] can emerge from it.”

So, the temporary cessation of all the khandhas, including consciousness, is only temporary due to the presence of āyusaṅkhārā , called the vital or life force. Otherwise, the death and final cessation of all the khandhas at the death of an arahant is the same – just not temporary.

Admittedly, this is not a foolproof example, as nibbāna is otherwise noted to be the cessation of greed, anger, and ignorance (while alive). So it’s inferential here, based on this attainment only by arahants and perhaps once-returners and the temporary cessation of all the khandhas, as noted above.
I seem to recall a sutta in which the Buddha was more explicit about this, but having quickly looked through several citations cannot find it and am probably mistaken, (although the rough equivalency of this to nibbāna is mentioned in several commentaries, including the Visuddhimagga) – still, admittedly, my statement may have been too categorical.

Thanks.

3 Likes
14

But thats the point @Jasudho we are arguing about what the Buddhas teachings point to, so assuming that they point to what you are arguing for is called the question begging fallacy.

Again, this is exactly what we are arguing about, what do the ebts imply where they do not explicitly say.

Yes, but this forum is about the ebts, not about the centuries later development of the therevadan commentarial orthodoxy.

My frustration arises when people defend this commentarial reading of the ebt without providing any evidence beyond the commentaries themselves.

So for example your refrence to iti44 is very direct and explicit in claiming there is a distinction to be made between nibanna and parinibanna. The only problem? There are no known parallels so its very hard to establish that this is a pre-sectarian text.

And one last note thats a little dig at @Sujato -

How is it that the same sense is conveyed by:

“My self does not exist in an absolute sense.”
And
“My self does not survive.”

Being the old and new renderings of:
“natthi me attā”?

of which which CahtGPT 3.5 says;

The Pali phrase “natthi me attā” can be translated to English as “I have no self” or “There is no self in me.”

Not that ChatGPT knows anything really of course, just for contrast.

15

Not sure what the real point is here – are we not permitted to phrase an understanding of the teachings in the suttas that are not always direct quotes? If challenged, we cite the texts.

When you asked for a quote, was this just for a particular quote or, more importantly, for what the teachings directly convey in many suttas, that the cessation of the khandhas aligns with the cessation of dukkha? If the latter, what’s the issue?

I agree, I don’t cite the commentaries, though they can be helpful in some cases. I merely was expressing where the relationship of saññāvedayitaniroda and parinibbāna may have come from.

In either case, everyone interprets the suttas – except ChatGPT. There’s no way around this until all the defilements have been extinguished.
So relating the temporary cessation of saññāvedayitaniroda to the final cessation of the khandhas at parinibbāna is, as I said, inferential, but in line with not only Iti44 (I know, you want to toss this out because it has no parallel, but that’s a judgement too), but also with DO, DN15. The ending of rebirth, hence of the khandhas, is the ending of dukkha.
And SN36.11: "Suffering includes whatever is felt; yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ, taṁ dukkhasmin’ti and clearly saññāvedayitaniroda is without feeling, etc.

So, if you or anyone wants to disagree about cessation in saññāvedayitaniroda and its similarity to final nibbāna that’s fine. It’s not a foundational point for me.

Rather, I do think it’s more meaningful with respect to how cessation/extinguishment (as exemplified by saññāvedayitaniroda with the exception of the vital force remaining), is called the highest bliss by Sariputta in AN9.34, compared to those who assert that final nibbāna is a kind of ineffable blissful “something.”
And where are the clear-cut sutta citations for that?

16

But i am not one of those who even recognises “final” nibanna at all, so i certainly do not think ot is a “something” blissful or otherwise.

And t9 be clear, I do not think even plain old “nibanna” is a “blissful something”, I think it simply means “extinguished” and what i take to be extinguished is lust, hatred and delusion.

1 Like
17

Whilst there are none today this sutta did once have a parallel as Ven. Chandrakirti references it in his work.

2 Likes
18

But Jasudho talks about the cessation of perception and feeling, and not the cessation of craving and pleasure in relation to perception and feeling.

Your interlocutor did not say such nonsense.

19

I will not argue any more about this but I only had a wish that maybe you could see and understand where I’m coming from when questioning your view?

Because I can’t honestly see any difference at all between your views/understanding and the views/understanding of the annihilationist group in SN 22.81. None whatsoever.

They just like you see the khandhas as impermanent/unsatisfactory/not-self and they reject eternalism.

When the Buddha says they need to give up the view:
I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’

Your answer in other threads has been, that there is no ”I” to begin with and the khandhas are selfless, there is no self in cessation - Which to me is almost like saying: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’

The annihilationist group in SN 22.81 also have the view that ”No “my self” is involved” since they see already the khandhas as impermanent/unsatisfactory/not-self, remember? The Buddha just phrases this particular view in first person, hence the ”I” in the formula.

When I then ask, is the following sentence true about the permanent cessation of the khandhas: ”They might not be, and it might not be theirs. They will not be, and it will not be theirs.’” ?

You answer:

Which basically means it is true, but more from a analytical and reflective point of view but not as an actual description of final nibbāna since movement is still involved. But still true.

You also agree that the Buddha teaches both directly and undirectly: ”being repulsed by continued existence and not being repulsed by the cessation of continued existence”.

So since you directly and undirectly adhere to both these annihilationist views that the Buddha says one should let go off in the pursuit of ending the defilements - I hope you now at least understand why I get the impression you are an ”annihilationist” who has not given up these views at all. :pray:

If they on top of already seing the khandhas as selfless, (hence ”No “my self” is involved”) and ALSO reject eternalism; What do think they imagine the ending of the defilements actually results in?
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

20

Buddha pointed out this difference. Annihilationists believe that the Self will be destroyed at death.
Buddhists believe that depending on craving, impersonal aggregates arise and only with the cessation of craving are impersonal aggregates not born again.
That is, two components. 1. An annihilationist does not believe in rebirth. 2. The annihilationist perceives the body and mind as his own Self, person, living being, which is destroyed at the time of death.

This is the difference - rebirth under the influence of craving and impersonality. And this is well explained in the suttas.

2 Likes