But it is said that the six spheres ceased. This is the statement that everything has stopped. Because if there is something, then it is an object. And there must be a mind that experiences it. Thus we return again to some feeling and object, that is, to the six spheres.
So the commentary considers that the questions presupposed the illusion of the Self?
It’s an interesting line of reasoning, but the sutta doesn’t explicitly state this reasoning. What it does say explicitly, on the contrary, is that we shouldn’t say “there’s nothing after the end of the 6 senses”.
Just as we cannot say that there is anything after the cessation of the six spheres of contact.
Or that something neither exists nor does not exist after the cessation of the six spheres, etc.
But the Sutta very clearly and directly states precisely that the six spheres of contact have completely ceased. And if you ask whether something continues to exist or does not continue to exist after the cessation of the six spheres, then this means that you automatically assume the possibility of the existence of something other than the six spheres of contact (which in other suttas are called “world”, “ existence", “All, beyond which there is no other All”, a synonym for the five aggregates, etc.) - and since you assume something beyond the six spheres, then you are involved in the invention of the Self, the personality outside the aggregates, the seventh consciousness, which either continues to exist or is destroyed with the cessation of the six spheres of contact.
The sutta clearly states that the six spheres ceased. And thinking out, proliferating something beyond the six impersonal spheres of contact is proliferation and it is associated with passionate desire and self-grasping.
As for your assertion that the sutta does not contain the kind of reflection that I presented, I will tell you this: suttas often illuminate not all thoughts at once, but some part of the Dhamma. But in this part all other elements of the Dhamma are implied. For example, the doctrine of the six spheres of contact implies a description of everything possible, conceivable and knowable, and all possible ways of knowledge - bodily-sensory and super-sensory. The suttas describe it as Everything, The All.
So my explanation is implied in the suttas and explained in other suttas, it is logical and consistent.
There is another way to look at this issue. If something remains after parinibbana, then this something either arises at the moment of parinibbana (that is, has the fact of occurrence) or always existed before that. In the first case, we must conclude that nibbana is not final, since it is the beginning for the emergence of other impermanent, and therefore passive formations. In the second case, we get Something that is constant in nature and relates to the personality: something that is related to the personality and at the same time constant in nature can fully be called Atta. In the first case, something that remains turns out to be impermanent and suffering; in the second case, there is a contradiction with the teaching of sunyata/anatta.
Adding to what Nikolay said.
It comes down to understanding that all that arises ceases.
Remember what Aassaji said to Upatissa (sariputta) when asked for a teaching.
p53, 54 Horner Book of discipline (Vinaya, Mahavagga )-
Then the venerable Assaji uttered this terse expression5 of
dhamma to the wanderer Sariputta :
Those things which proceed from a cause, of these the
Truth-finder has told the cause
And that which is their stopping~-the great recluse has
such a doctrine
Ye dhamma hetuppabbhavā,
Tesaṃ hetuṃ Tathāgato āha;
Tesañca yo nirodho,
Evaṃ vādi Mahāsamano
There is dukkha and the end of dukkha.
Sabbe sankhara anicca
sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
and
Then while they were being exhorted, instructed by the Lord With dhamma-talk, dhamma-vision, dustless, stainless, arose to the venerable Mahanama and to the venerable Assaji, that ·whatever is of the nature to uprise, all that is of the nature to stop." p.19 Horner mahavagga
There is nibbana though, which is something in CT. Something permanent and eternal. An objective state.
According to Mahasi Sayadaw and Ledi Sayadaw, nibbana dhamma is the element of peace or non-arising. A property or quality, like any dhamma of the abhidhamma. Its characteristic or sabhava is peace. It is essentially the same positive expression for the simple fact of cessation. Only if the cessation of aggregates is rather a concept, then the peace of non-arising is a definite property, simple and unconditioned. I follow the teachings of these renowned and wise teachers who have known Nibbana in theory and practice. The fact that nibbana is dhamma does not mean that it is some kind of world where consciousness arises again or some kind of eternal experience, etc. It only means that the element of peace is eternal and unchanging, exposed when illness, anxiety, passion are removed. The work of the six spheres of contact and consciousness is restless and painful, oppressed by the incessant torment of arising and ceasing. In the dhamma of peace (coolness) there is no tormenting arising and cessation.
According to the Visuddhimagga, its not just cessation. I never said it was a world or consciousness. According to CT it really is something, but its beyond language. If someone says its cessation only, then they are saying nibbāna doesn’t exist. This was a tenant of the Sautrāntika, where it was seen as the true and final “death”, but this was rejected by the Vaibhāṣika for whom nibbāna really exists and so can’t be mere cessation. Theravāda agrees with the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣikas here.
1 Like
I have clearly expressed the Theravada position to you, yes, nibbana is something, namely an Element, the property of rest/non-arising. This is precisely its sva-lakhana, and according to Theravada, dhamma and its individual characteristics are essentially the same thing. And as I indicated above, the cessation of the khandhas will be only a concept, and the positive expression of this cessation, that is, peace, is paramattha-dhamma nibbana.
You earlier were arguing that nibbāna is just cessation. That isn’t the CT point of view.
Quote where it was stated that Nibbana is not a positively expressed dhamma? but yes, I, like those teachers whom I rely on in this matter, say that the dhamma of peace (nibbana) and cessation are essentially no different. After all, the cessation of khandhas reveals peace. This is peace in itself. Like the coolness (after extinguishing the fire) we call the extinguishing of the fire or the extinguished fire.
This looks like a red-herring
but yes, I, like those teachers whom I rely on in this matter, say that the dhamma of peace (nibbana) and cessation are essentially no different.
This looks to be the personal opinion of those teachers, but it contradicts the Visuddhimagga.
It is not for us to judge highly educated monks, teachers, representatives of tradition. Visudhimagga is based on Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma defines Nibbana through its individual characteristic, that is, the property of rest/non-arising. This is dhamma-nibbana and it does not depend on our personal preferences.
I’m not “judging” them. I’m saying what you say they have said contradicts the Visuddhimagga. We are allowed to distinguish between varying levels of authority.
Visudhimagga is based on Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma defines Nibbana through its individual characteristic, that is, the property of rest/non-arising. This is dhamma-nibbana and it does not depend on our personal preferences.
Yes, and the Visuddhimagga says that nibbāna is not mere cessation.
No, it doesn’t contradict. You saw contradictions - but this is your personal opinion. I haven’t seen any arguments yet.
Because nibbana, according to Abhidhamma, is the property of rest (non-arising-again).
Budhagossa in Visudhimagga actually denies a certain view that Nibbana is only the cessation of defilement and khandhas. He does this on the basis that (1)cessation is conditioned by effort on the path (2)and arises in time, (3)and is also a concept derived from khandhas and defilements. The quality of peace, dhamma-nibbana, as a positive expression of the cessation of dukkha, has no such problems. And at the same time, it is not essentially different from the cessation of aggregates/defilements, but is an expression in the language of paramattha-dhamma of what was expressed in the language of concepts.
The argument was that said teachings, namely that nibbāna is just cessation, is rejected by the Visuddhimagga.
Budhagossa in Visudhimagga actually denies a certain view that Nibbana is only the cessation of defilement and khandhas. He does this on the basis that (1)cessation is conditioned by effort on the path (2)and arises in time, (3)and is also a concept derived from khandhas and defilements. The quality of peace, dhamma-nibbana, as a positive expression of the cessation of dukkha, has no such problems. And at the same time, it is not essentially different from the cessation of aggregates/defilements, but is an expression in the language of paramattha-dhamma of what was expressed in the language of concepts.
The Visuddhimagga denies that nibbāna is A) The mere cessation of the defilements and B) The mere cessation of the aggregates. So nibbāna isn’t just the cessation of the defilements and aggregates. Its something subtle. Its on coming to that subtle thing that the defilements and aggregates are brought to cessation.
Because this is the property of rest/non-arising.
This is his individual characteristic and no other. And we know that dhamma is equal to its own characteristic.
You say A (that the Visudhimagga denies that nibbana is simply the concept of the cessation of dhammas) and do not say B (that nibbana is the quality of peace according to Theravada). This is revealed in the visudhimagga in other sections, for example, in the section on contemplation of the quality of peace among the forty kammathanas and in some others, and most importantly in other sets of Theravada texts (it seems you could decide to build your personal classical Theravada on the basis of one or more texts based on your own interpretation these texts and the concepts in them). In other words, we cannot reduce coolness to the extinction of fire, but nevertheless, coolness and extinction of fire are inextricably linked and no one will deny this.
It has the characteristics of peace, yes. It is nothing but peace. It is peace from all conditioned things. It doesn’t follow that therefore its simply cessation
- [Q. 5] But is not Nibbána destruction, because of the passage beginning,“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate … of delusion … is Nibbána]?” (S IV 251).
[A.] That is not so, because it would follow that Arahantship also was mere destruction. For that too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S
IV 252). And what is more, the fallacy then follows that Nibbána would be temporary, etc.; for if it were so, it would follow that Nibbána would be temporary, have the characteristic of being formed, and be obtainable regardless of right effort; and precisely because of its having formed characteristics it would be included in the formed, and it would be burning with the fires of greed, etc., and because of its burning it would follow that it was suffering.[Q. 6] Is there no fallacy if Nibbána is that kind of destruction subsequent to which there is no more occurrence?
[A.] That is not so. Because there is no such kind of destruction. And even if there were, the aforesaid fallacies would not be avoided. Also because it would follow that the noble path was Nibbána. For the noble path causes the destruction of defects, and that is why it is called “destruction”; and subsequent to that there is no more occurrence of the defects.
70. But it is because the kind of destruction called “cessation consisting in non-arising,” [that is, Nibbána,] serves figuratively speaking as decisive-support [for the path] that [Nibbána] is called “destruction” as a metaphor for it.
So nibbāna is not the mere cessation of A) The defilments nor B) A total cessation.
[Q. 7] Why is it not stated in its own form?
[A.] Because of its extreme subtlety. And its extreme subtlety is established because it inclined the Blessed One to inaction, [that is, to not teaching the Dhamma (see M I 186)] and because a Noble One’s eye is needed to see it (see M I 510).
71. It is not shared by all because it can only be reached by one who is possessed
of the path. And it is uncreated because it has no first beginning.
It can’t be said what nibbāna actually is, because of how subtle it is (and because its beyond thoughts and concepts). Your claim that nibbāna = cessation contradicts this.