“They had no consciousness” is one extreme. “They had consciousness” is another extreme. In the middle way there is the answer: end of clinging.
While alive, the Buddha and arahats had a Cease of ignorance, consciousness, birth, dukkha, and the rest of links in the dependent origination.
But the orthodox view is that while the arahats have indeed eliminated igorance and craving there is still the remnant of the fire of samsara, the cooling embers, until khandha parinibbana.
That is why there is sopadisesa nibbana-dhatu and anupadisesa nibbana-dhatu (final extinguishment).If the Buddha and arahats had no consciousness, vinnana, they could not see or hear or think .
yes, they have the remainder. The point is that “Cease” doesn’t mean the annihilation of consciousness but it is the annihilation of clinging to the clinging-consciousness aggregate.
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, “Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”
Khandha Sutta: Aggregates
-
five aggregates: forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications, consciousness
-
five clinging aggregates: clinging forms, clinging feelings, clinging perceptions, clinging fabrications, clinging consciousness
The five clinging aggregates is the ambit of clinging and also of cease:
"The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? ‘The five clinging-aggregates,’ it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: This, monks, is called the burden.
"And which is the carrier of the burden? ‘The person,’ it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name: This is called the carrier of the burden.
"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This is called the taking up of the burden.
“And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless dispassion-cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This is called the casting off of the burden.”
therefore, the Cease in the Buddha teaching doesn’t mean the annhilation of something.
For such reason the Buddha taught the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates. This is a very clear statement in His teaching denying annihilation.
Or perhaps you think they had a special type of seening, hearing, tasting , touching, thinking that is not viññāṇa khanda? Please explain.
we should do these same questions from the opposite side:
- Do we believe that those episodes of nibbana inside the Suttas (of course including the Cease of Consciousness) were the annihilation of Consciousness and the whole Reality?.
- Maybe those arhants entered in some black dimension in where nothing existed?
- Maybe their nibbana experiences were amnesia episodes in where only a nothingness existed?
Obviously no.
Therefore, we should discard that meaning of “Cease” like some annihilation as those EBT and materialists are preaching. Because it lacks of any sense.
The issue is in clinging: any thing becomes and is born by means clinging. Any thing cease to become and to be born by means the end of clinging.
Existence and non-existence has nothing to do with the true reality. We say “there is existence” because we live ignoring how the clinging cause the becoming. We say “there is non existence” because we live ignoring how is the non-clinging to Reality.
And also this includes death. Death is atta delusion and without relevance for the arhant position, already liberated
The three marks (characteristics), tilakkhana only apply to actual dhammas, realities. Concepts like TV or self are not included.
[…]
Right, the three marks, anicca, dukkha and anatta are characteristics of dhammas, the nature of dhammas, not dhammas themselves:
precisely. We cannot say the arhants experience dukkha when we know in anatta there is no dukkha because there is no atta, substantial entity to be grasped.
When we say “aggregates are dukkha for the arhant” this is wrong because there is no vedana dukkha in the arhant. What we are doing is using the dukkha concept applied from our position → to the aggregates, while forgetting it doesn’t have application in the arhant case.
Regarding the death of the arhant there is no difference. The end of clinging to the clinging-aggregates is like the end of clinging to whatever other thing, be a mountain or whatever. Because for the arising of becoming and dukkha there is necessity of clinging.
What’s the difference in the case of the aggregates and death for the arhant?. Could it be its presence in life?. While there is no clinging and becoming, the persistence of the aggregates accompanying the arhant is so relevant for his dukkha like the presence of a mountain in front him and accompanying him.
If here we could say: “the arhant can eradicate the clinging to the mountain but he should experience attachment and dukkha until the mountain can disappear”. This would be an absurdity, because there is no clinging and no atta. This would be just an atta materialist notion, unaware of the no-clinging and becoming. This lack of any logical fit inside the Buddha teaching.
This is all true. However, kiriya cittas and vipaka cittas are just as much sankhara dukkha as any other citta.
no like any other citta because kiriya cittas are without cause, ahetuka. These don’t arise in a causal mechanics with clinging but from the pure nature of knowledge. IMHO what the Abhdihamma is doing is to facilitate to our reason the fit of a type of knowledge inherent to nibbana and anatta, with our experience of the atta conditional reality. Although this conceptual bridge was made to us, because the difficulty exist in us. For the arhant there are not two realities working neither to be conciliated: there is the only true reality and there also is an error, a delusion experienced by other beings.
. But still they have to wait until final khandha parinibbana until the khandas -which include vinnana, finally cease. Then all that is left is the physical remains.
that “final” cease of consciousness is the same cease of consciousness. No difference.
Again, I understand that we should leave that materialist understanding about “when there is no body then it is the real nibbana”. Because in example, What about the second acquisition of a -self in where beings and worlds are experienced without necessity of a physical body or material senses?
The Parinibbana and the cease “without trace” is referred to the manifestation of the Buddha and arhant for us. That trace is logically a trace for somebody, for us, for the rest. It doesn’t mean annihilation.
The leaving of aggregates is not any new situation for the arhant. This is just more of the same posiiton of no existence neither non-existence. Same of what happens with the Cease when the arhant is alive. The nibbana ambit and its cease in life is the same, no difference. .
Hope it clarifies the points from the position that I try to explain, which is of the transcendental nature in the Buddha teaching, that those new western interprets of Buddhism cannot understand or they pretend to distort.
The view about the Buddha and arhants only can eradicate dukkha completely after death it’s a materialist wrong view.