“Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine’?”
“Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …”
“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“That which is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind: is that permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.” …
“But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would such a view arise?”
“No, sir.”
“When a noble disciple has given up doubt in these six cases, and has given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation, they’re called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.” SN 24.4
In the same way in another sutta, only with the view of the absence of birth and karma. SN 24.5
And also the idea of the non-existence of the Tathagata after death SN 24.16
Where did you get this statement and why do you decide that it contradicts the Dhamma? If you carefully read the Yamaka Sutta, Vajira Sutta and other suttas about emptiness (the absence of the Self and that which belongs to the Self in the world), then this is what the correct view will sound like - the aggregates are not the Self/Arahant/Tathagata and the Self/Arahant/Tathagata is not outside the aggregates . A being is only a name for a collection of totalities, just as a cart is a name for a collection of parts. Only suffering arises and only suffering disappears (Vajira Sutta).
I have actually given my reasoning in earlier thread, titled ‘another way to nibbana…’ but since you created thisanother special thread, here I try again.
IMHO, there is a difference between view of ‘nibbana being cessation of continued existence’ and ‘cessation’ itself, which probably for you are interchangeable.
Suppose we construct a building, this process you can call ‘construction’. Now ‘cessation’ becomes ‘annihilation’, when you actually destroy/demolish the building whereas real ‘cessation’ is when you STOP the process of construction of new building.
So you see, that I see this is the difference between annihilation and cessation. (Even if you don’t agree with this difference, let’s say due to some English dictionary saying that, still plz for the moment let’s just suppose this)
Now let’s take another analogy, you want to go to other shore, so you will use a raft, but when you reach other shore, let’s say your raft is literally touching a part of that other shore, though you have reached, still you will not be said to have landed on the other shore because for that you have to actually let go of the raft in order to actually land on other shore.
Let’s talk about the view itself, which leads to, “getting repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence”.
This view is supposed to be held on till one reaches at that stage, where letting go of this final view is one of the last steps of attaining nibbana.
Now this view which leads to, one getting repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence, if one holds on to it, it will help one to leave household life(because he is repulsed by, continued existence which is symbolized by householder life) in order to lead life of mendicant/recluse/monk/homelessness(as he is not repulsed by cessation of continued existence). This is the reason one has to hold on to this view at the start.
As one progresses further, due to being repulsed by continued existence, one goes nearer towards cessation and reaches the complete/perfect understanding that, nibbana means, ‘cessation of continued existence’. Now it is at this stage(buddha says) one should let go of this view of nibbana being ‘cessation of continued existence’ in order to attain ‘cessation of continued existence’. Because as long as one holds onto this view of ‘nibbana being the cessation of continued existence’, one is likely to see nibbana as annihilation hence one hasn’t yet attained the ‘cessation of continued existence’ in real sense.
Here there are 3 things, which are different than each other and not same…
1) holding view that, ‘nibbana is cessation of continued existence’. 2) perfectly understanding nibbana to be, ‘cessation of continued existence’. 3) Attaining nibbana or attaining cessation of continued existence.
Mind you, goal is no other than ‘cessation of continued existence’ but only when one has perfectly understood that this is the real goal on experiential level, only then one has to let go of that view(of goal itself) in order to really attain cessation of continued existence! And not before that.
One has to hold on to raft till one reaches other shore, and if one tries to let go of the raft even before reaching other shore, one definitely won’t reach the other shore. Only after one reaches other shore one has to let go of even that raft otherwise one will just reach the other shore but not land on it.
In other words, the view which leads to one, “getting repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence”, is necessary to reach nibbana, but in order to attain it(which is possible only after reaching it), one has to let go of even this view, but only after reaching it by holding on to that view.
Let’s suppose there is a straight road, and there are 3 cities on that road, 1st city is A, 2nd the middle one is B and at the end of road there is city C.
If person X who doesn’t know where city B is and can’t even recognise city B but knows way to city C, standing at the city A, asks where is city B(as he doesn’t know where B is located), and person Y points towards city B, now this person X thinks that this person Y is wrong, because X himself knows that this road goes to city C. It’s because both city B and C are located in the same direction, the person X is getting confused and as a result misinterpreting person Y. So person Y gives instructions to person X, ‘go to city C first and then return by the same path for some certain distance there you’ll have to descend from the vehicle then only you will be in city B’
City C = 2) perfect understanding that nibbana is cessation of continued existence.
City B = 3) attainement of nibbana or cessation of continued existence
Now when you said “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”.
Here, I believe you are the one mistaking ‘cessation of continued existence’ to be same as ‘view of nibbana to be cessation of continued existence’ (if you remember the 3 things I mentioned above). In other words you are taking 1) to be same as 3).
Here you are talking about the 1) thing from 3 things I have mentioned above.
You are actually not wrong, but you are not completely right either.
IMO, You’ll be completely right if you say, "Nibbana (the ending of all defilements) does not result in the annihilationists/cessationists view(as this will be saying same as 1st thing among 3 things I mentioned above), rather it results in ‘cessation of continued existence’.
See if one has the ‘1)’ which is view, ‘nibbana is cessation of continued existence’ one will not attain ‘3)’ which is, ‘attaining nibbana or cessation of continued existence’ but only if one let’s go of this view of nibbana being the cessation, one can actually attain cessation and to do that one has to have ‘2)’ which is, ‘perfectly understanding nibbana to be the cessation of continued existence’.
I believe ajahn and most of the people here, are aware of this, they are just talking about the part where one has to hold on it(the most important part) and what you are talking about is the next part where one has to let go of it(next part is only important after one has progressed enough hence less important at the start).
Everything is clear, I now understand what you mean. The fact is that in addition to positing the Self/Tathagata in the Khandhas, there is the option of positing the Self/Tathagata outside the Khandhas. There were annihilationists who believed in a annihilable atman. They also achieved one of the arupa jhanas, as described in the Brahmajala Sutta. In any case, even without considering the mind and body to be themselves, they believed that their I, which is not the body and not the mind, but still the I, might not exist and will not exist after death. The Buddha corrects this view by replacing the Self with “it,” that is, the impersonal khandhas, thereby eliminating the position of the Self outside the khandhas and the whole formula suddenly becomes completely correct and leading to awakening. But even these views are connected in one way or another with a hidden tendency to cling to aggregates, which is what the suttas I cited above speak about.
But in another sutta the Buddha reformulated it this way
AN 7.55
And in the new formulation, the view leads to the throwing away of fetters, that is, it is the Dhamma, the right view. The difference is in the position of Self/impersonality. And that’s the salt.
Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? … That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.
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.’
Do you see how some could come to the wrong view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’ since they see the khandhas as selfless and on top of that also reject eternalism?
The question is:
What would be the result of having these two views?
I prefer Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation. I believe that his translation reflects much better what is actually said in the original Pali. It is about entanglement in self-concepts. I don’t have a self.
When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’
Here is the translation of GPT3.5 chat. He also gives the option “I have no self.” One can guess why Bh. Sujato chose this translation option. As an assumption - his polemic with the Theravada commentary view, which reduces the Self to the level of a concept and asserts that the personality does not exist in an absolute sense. Thus Bh. Sujato perhaps sees in this passage a refutation of the position that emerged in the Abhidhamma and later Theravada commentary texts.
1. “The view arises in him: ‘I have a self’; or ‘I have no self’; or ‘I perceive myself’; or ‘I perceive myself not’; or ‘It is thus that my self is to be perceived.’” 2. “Or else, he has such a view: ‘This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here and there to the ripening of good and bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, and not subject to change; and it will endure as long as eternity.’”
Without the Buddha’s incredible insights I would have never been able to write the following.
Let us take this from a whole nother perspective.
Imagine the laypeople and the ordained of the annihilationist ascetic sect having this discussion we are having right, but instead regarding their Dhamma.
Some would very sure about themselves and their understanding and answer that existence ceases completely, because our teacher says specifically to: ”be repulsed by continued existence and not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence”.
Then some would ask, has consciousness ceased altogether in the dimension of nothingness?
The answer to this would be: Of course it has! ”Going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, one enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness.”
Is it possible to somehow be conscious of this nothingness?
Nope. It is IMPOSSIBLE to cognize nothingness because the cessation of consciousness already took place in the dimension of infinite consciousness.
But hold on, doesn’t our teacher say that ”aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, one enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness.”
So how can one even be aware that ‘there is nothing at all’ if one is truly annihilated?
This ”awareness” takes place in the dimension of infinite consciousness.
With the insight ‘there is nothing at all’ there is the cessation of infinite consciousness. With cessation of infinite consciousness there is the entering and remaining in the in the dimension of nothingness, which our teacher says is the cessation of continued existence.
So one is truly annihilated with nothing left?
YES! One is completely annihilated in the dimension of nothingness.
If ”nothing” could truly be cognized the cognizer of ”nothing” must be ”something”. But in the dimension of nothingness there is not a single ”something”,
only nothingness and nothing but nothingnes.
(Since infinite conscioussness has been transcended)
While still having a physical body you can only have a glimpse of this nothingness, but with the death of the physical body not hampering you anymore you enter and remain in the dimension of nothingness.
See how IMPOSSIBLE it would be to refute this as untrue? , anyone would be convinced of it being accurate. The words, the phrasing, the whole logic behind it make it seem like the dimension of nothingness truly is the highest attainment and more importantly annihilation.
Only the advocates of the ultimate purity of the spirit, that is, who go totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception could refute it BUT they teach Dhamma in order to directly know and realize this. ”Some sentient beings have such a doctrine. But even the sentient beings who have such a doctrine decay and perish.”
How does the Buddha know they will decay and perish?
So maybe instead of us making definitive cases of what Nibbāna is or what the cessation of the khandhas ”must result in” based on a certain logic, formulas, phrases from other suttas whatever etc.
Let’s just step back and say we don’t know. But feel free to reject BOTH eternalism and annihilationism and any other ism as the Buddha has already told us to do
Bottom line: We DON’T know.
TETRALEMMA
(i) the Tathagata exists after death;
(ii) the Tathagata does not exist after death;
(iii) the Tathagata both does and does not exist after death;
(iv) the Tathagata neither does nor does not exist after death.
Last time I checked the arahants can dive through earth like it was water, walk on water, levitate, make heavenly castles shake with their toes, read minds,
appear instantly in any world, be invisible, create fire from nothing and so on and so on. If we have NO CLUE how these feats are even performed in Samsara how can we be so sure about something beyond Samsara?
Where is the logic and proof that any of this supernatural stuff is even possible in the first place? If no one can explain it, how can it be said to be true?
If we stop having concepts of self, eternalism and annihilation just like the Buddha told us to do and also give up all doubts we are in a much better place than imagining we know what the ending of the defilements and the cessation of the khandhas MUST be like and result in. That is where I’m coming from.
So let us say someone on the path is convinced of the following: “I have no self.” and they also reject eternalism: what would ending the defilements and the permanent cessation of the khandhas mean and finally result in for such a person?
Yes, I am getting what you are trying to say here.
So you mean to say is that, this above answer would be correct only if, those who have reached dimension of nothingness would never perish and again become something. I hope I am right here in interpreting you.
In other words, you are saying, in order to cognize the ‘nothingness’, there has to be ‘congnizer’ (which is actually different from, ‘presence of consciousness’ as in realm of infinite consciousness below). Hence those who are their in dimension of nothingness actually are (mistakenly) believing that there is no cognizer…am I right?
And only the advocates of the ultimate purity of the spirit, that is, those who go totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enter and remain in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception could refute the wrong view of those in dimension of nothingness (the annihilationists).
Because buddha has attained deathless/nibbana, and this deathless spans over and includes everything there is and everything there isn’t and at the same time it is beyond both of them. From the pov of deathless everything can be understood and comprehended, hence buddha knows that they will decay and perish.
I agree with you completely here. I am on the same page as you.
Exactly.
Correct.
I agree with this, in fact since the start I wanted to mean this only. But I chose to answer each point one by one so that, we both are on same page.
I know this is not directed to me, but I’ll try to answer anyway.
Such person, who is convinced of ‘I have no self’ who is also rejecting eternalism, if we go by these words, will upon break up of body, enter and remain in dimension of nothingness or in formless realms. Hence in order for such person to prevent entering in the dimension of nothingness or in formless realms, buddha exclusively asks to let go of such view which leads one to getting repulsed by continued existence and not repulsed by cessation of continued existence! Meaning after rejecting eternalism one has to reject annihilationism as well. Now, @Dhabba , I was literally trying to say this only in my earlier post, where I tried to explain/discuss why buddha says to let go of that view
I hope I am still on the same page as you. Plz correct me if I have assumed anything wrong about what you said here.
This is not true. Subtle forms of consciousness and perception remain in these conditional states. That’s how they’re known and experienced at all.
SN40.7: “‘It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that “there is nothing at all”, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness.
‘idha bhikkhu sabbaso viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ samatikkamma natthi kiñcīti ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ upasampajja viharati.”
It’s letting go of consciousness as the focus of attention that allows one to proceed to the dimension of nothingness.
Of course, only the Buddha could truly say no annihilation is actually taking place and they will decay, perish and have rebirth not even those above the annihilationists the advocates of the purity of spirit would know that they are also mortal just like annihilationists. There is a good reason we are told not to think about the powers of a Buddha.
I’m was just trying to put myself in the annihilationists shoes and how laypeople and ordained in their dhamma could have had conversations just like that.
That is one way to see it
I would say they are also convinced Nibbāna equals
”annihilation” since with the final cessation of the khandhas and being certain of “I have no self.”
plus rejecting eternalism but embracing annihilationism it can’t be any other way.
Essentially these buddhists have a preconceived idea of what Nibbāna must be, based more on their views of saying ”there is no self” and rejecting eternalism.
When the physical body eventually dies there is final Nibbāna. Before the death of the body they only get glimpses.
But in reality the physical body needs food, to defecate/urinate etc. so that is the true reason one can’t stay in what the Buddha called the highest bliss (without feelings) - the physical body hampers one with all its various needs, when it is gone the arahant is of course much better off.
Remember the eternalists are no better, they also do not see the khandhas as self so to them the ”true” self is only revealed to them via Nibbāna - this is also a view the Buddha tells us to give up.
In discussions between laypeople and ordained in the dhamma of the annihilationists, they would not bring up buddhist suttas (an outside sect) as evidence to refute their entire own sect and views.
But if you insist and refuse to see what I actually wrote and more importantly why I wrote it that way, that’s ok.
So why did the annihilationists claim to be annihilated then? End of existence and all of that talk?
Explain this without any suttas and buddhism.
Pretty hard right?
Frankly, I’m having some trouble following exactly what your primary points are.
If you’re mainly raising this point:
the answer offered is that in final cessation there indeed would not be any awareness that there is nothing at all. In fact, no awareness at all.
This again differs from the doctrines of the annhilationists who proclaimed a self (any “I” or some “thing”) that is annihilated at death (as opposed to the cessation of particular configurations of ever-changing selfless aggregates/processes) – and/or a denial of rebirth, as in DN2. This latter point is important, as it is in direct contradiction to the Buddha’s teachings.
And the buddhists in SN 22.81 who say there is no self at all as in:
and who also reject eternalism would come to exactly the same conclusion about Nibbāna as you just did right now. So do you now understand why I see your view as identical to the group in SN 22.81?
That is what is I’m trying to make you see, how would you refute that the annihilationists actually never became annihilated without the Buddha’s insights/teachings or any suttas? Even if you did it with the help of the advocates of the purity of spirit you’d still no nothing about anicca, dukkha, anatta. Right?
And if Nibbāna is truly no awareness it’s also impossible to say anicca, dukkha & anatta from no awareness.
So what is anicca, dukkha & anatta even based on?
Your view of Nibbāna is identical to those in SN 22.81 who also reject eternalism and is based on a certain logic and held on to dearly as a preconcieved notion about Nibbāna due to being 100% certain ”There is no self”.
And I’m sorry, sabbe dhammā anattā will not help you here:
@Jasudho Do you care to understand my perspective of following the Buddha’s advice and rejecting ALL concepts of self, ALL concepts of eternalism, ALL concepts of annihilation and also getting rid of doubts about the Buddha’s teaching?
Because that is what he was asking from anyone following him.
No one is arguing for holding onto any views or concepts.
SN22.81 is not about nibbāna, but about the holding on to various views of self, eternalism, and annihilation – which specifically employs:
"‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṁ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṁ na me bhavissatī’ti.
So it’s not at all about my view of final nibbāna being the same as those in this sutta.
Nor is it
Beyond this, our discussion has probably run its course.
, anyone would be convinced of it being accurate. The words, the phrasing, the whole logic behind it make it seem like the dimension of nothingness truly is the highest attainment and more importantly annihilation.
