Wrong view and Avici Hell

[perkele]

You will also hear alot of it from the Buddha himself in the suttas.

Sure, but everybody believed in other realms and a flat world in Iron Age India 2,500 years ago.

.

But the Buddha maintained that he had seen these things with his own eyes, according to what is taught in the suttas.
And according to my belief at least, the Buddha was indeed a perfect and completely and unsurpassably enlightened being.
I, for one, find it impossible to reconcile my belief that the Buddha was enlightened with the belief that the Buddha took hallucinations for reality or even told flat out lies.

[Bundokji]

This makes me wonder, why teaching nihilistic views ensures rebirth in hell but not eternalism? did not the Buddha reject both views?

Here's a nice point made by Ajahn Thanissaro which addresses that issue:

the Buddha said, when you face dukkha—suffering or stress—you have two reactions. One is a sense of
bewilderment: Why is this happening to me? And the second is a search: Is there anyone who knows a way
out from this suffering and stress?
The Buddha took that sense of bewilderment very seriously. The other teachings given in his time that he
criticized the most were the ones that he said leave people bewildered: teachings that would say there’s
nothing you can do because you have no power of action or choice. That, he said, leaves you unprotected,
leaves you bewildered. Or the teaching that your life is totally dependent on the decisions of some creator god:
That, too, leaves you unprotected and bewildered. Or the teaching that everything is random, there’s no
pattern to why you suffer, so no matter how hard you try to figure it out, there’s no pattern to be discerned:
That leaves you bewildered and unprotected as well, for it leaves you with no way of making a decision as to
what you should and shouldn’t do to deal with your suffering

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Wri ... fering.pdf

I see the "hell" aspect as meaning that while you have such beliefs there is literally no hope; a thorough-going nihilist or theological determinist would not see practice as a possibility.

Thanks Sam for the reference, it is really beneficial.

[Aloka]

But the Buddha maintained that he had seen these things with his own eyes, according to what is taught in the suttas.
And according to my firm belief at least, the Buddha was indeed a perfect and completely enlightened being, who would never tell a lie or take hallucinations for reality.
I, for one, find it impossible to reconcile the belief that the Buddha was enlightened with the belief that the Buddha took hallucinations for reality or even told straight out lies.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Buddha wasn't enlightened but its possible that he could have been using what is called "skillful means" to teach the people around him in accordance with the beliefs that were popular in India at that time.

.

[bodom]

But the Buddha maintained that he had seen these things with his own eyes, according to what is taught in the suttas.
And according to my firm belief at least, the Buddha was indeed a perfect and completely enlightened being, who would never tell a lie or take hallucinations for reality.
I, for one, find it impossible to reconcile the belief that the Buddha was enlightened with the belief that the Buddha took hallucinations for reality or even told straight out lies.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Buddha wasn't enlightened but its possible that he could have been using what is called "skillful means" to teach the people around him in accordance with the beliefs that were popular in India at that time.

.

Very well could be. Though I tend to fall more to the literal view, I know both approaches, belief in literal hell realms and the belief that the Buddha taught them as skillful means work. I think as long as either spur you on to practice then that is all that matters.

[perkele]

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Buddha wasn't enlightened but its possible that he could have been using what is called "skillful means" to teach the people around him in accordance with the beliefs that were popular in India at that time.

In other words, he might have just lied "for a good cause".
I believe that is simply not compatible with enlightenment.

[paul]

(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

(1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosála, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate.
(2) was taught by Púrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected."
(3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc.

Interesting to contrast these three evil views with fixed destiny with the opposite threefold higher knowledge which the Buddha achieved on enlightenment, particularly the first two which illustrate the action of kamma, demonstrating how important a belief in and a working knowledge of kamma is -even at the level of cause and effect- in the practice:

-He remembers manifold former existences
-With the divine eye the pure one, he sees beings vanishing and reappearing, low and noble ones, beautiful and ugly ones, sees how beings are reappearing according to their deeds.
-Through the extinction of all cankers even in this very life he enters into the possession of deliverance of mind, deliverance through wisdom, after having himself understood and realised it. —-Buddhist Dictionary, Nyanatiloka.

"To recognize this principle (cause and effect) is to hold right view of the mundane kind. This view at once excludes the multiple forms of wrong view with which it is incompatible. As it affirms that our actions have an influence on our destiny continuing into future lives, it opposes the nihilistic view which regards this life as our only existence and holds that consciousness terminates
with death. As it grounds the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, in an objective universal principle, it opposes the ethical subjectivism which asserts that good and evil are only postulations of personal opinion or means to social control. As it affirms that people can choose their actions freely, within limits set by their conditions, it opposes the “hard deterministic” line that our choices are always made subject to necessitation, and hence that free volition is unreal and moral responsibility untenable." ---The Noble Eightfold Path, Bikkhu Bodhi.

[Aloka]

In other words, he might have just lied "for a good cause".
I believe that is simply not compatible with enlightenment.

I guess it depends on what one considers to be "lies" - but anyway, lets not argue, perkele. I'm happy with the practice advice I've had from teachers with two different traditions - and I wish you peace and happiness with your practice too.

[Polar Bear]

The points you raised about Kamma and Ahimsa is quite interesting. Maybe it shows that the Buddha's rejection of both Eternalism and Nihilism is not purely related to the moral consequences of those views. You can hold morally right view and still believe in eternalism and nihilism and vice versa. This is why i did not understand what Robert quoted as it implies that nihilism (denying the survival of the personality in any form after death) necessarily lead to negating the moral significance of deeds.

Would it be wrong to conclude that the Buddha's rejection of the two extremes is more related to wisdom than morality?

I think it would be largely correct to conclude such. But allow me to explain how so-

I wrote above:

Ethically sound versions of eternalism are preferable to annihilationism when it comes to ethics, even if the annihilationist has a strong sound ethics, since there's room then for thinking that sometimes it might serve one better to be unethical. However, when it comes to dispassion, annihilationism is best among outside views, since annihilationists are not scared when the dhamma is taught for the cessation of being.

In other words, I think that in the buddhist teachings on kamma/rebirth and in ethically sound versions of eternalism, self-interest and ethics/morality become perfectly aligned. With annihilationism, while there are certainly extremely ethical people with such a view, there are instances where self-interest is more likely to trump morality since there are instances where one might come to some immediate harm or at least disadvantage/inconvenience while doing what is good and avoiding what is not. The buddhist or ethical eternalist can suffer an immediate harm for the sake of virtue with the belief that they will gain a greater happiness later, whereas the annihilationist has no (or at least less) recourse to such an assumption.

So the explicit rejection of annihilationism helps to prevent a rejection of objectivism, and to prevent one's desire to satisfy self-interest from overcoming one's moral sensibilities in a situation where if one was an objectivist annhilationist one would cave for the sake of self-preservation/interest.

From my understanding, eternalism is rejected, not because of anything related to ethics, but because eternalism prevents one from overcoming craving for being/existence, and thereby prevents one from realizing nibbana, which is the destruction of craving.

I think that's the crux of the matter.

[perkele]

In other words, he might have just lied "for a good cause".
I believe that is simply not compatible with enlightenment.

I guess it depends on what one considers to be "lies" - but anyway, lets not argue, perkele. I'm happy with the practice advice I've had from teachers with two different traditions - and I wish you peace and happiness with your practice too.

If you think so that there are different possible definitions for a lie , but thanks, and of course I wish you all the best with your practice as well.

[Bundokji]

In other words, I think that in the buddhist teachings on kamma/rebirth and in ethically sound versions of eternalism, self-interest and ethics/morality become perfectly aligned. With annihilationism, while there are certainly extremely ethical people with such a view, there are instances where self-interest is more likely to trump morality since there are instances where one might come to some immediate harm or at least disadvantage/inconvenience while doing what is good and avoiding what is not. The buddhist or ethical eternalist can suffer an immediate harm for the sake of virtue with the belief that they will gain a greater happiness later, whereas the annihilationist has no (or at least less) recourse to such an assumption.

So the explicit rejection of annihilationism helps to prevent a rejection of objectivism, and to prevent one's desire to satisfy self-interest from overcoming one's moral sensibilities in a situation where if one was an objectivist annhilationist one would cave for the sake of self-preservation/interest.

From my understanding, eternalism is rejected, not because of anything related to ethics, but because eternalism prevents one from overcoming craving for being/existence, and thereby prevents one from realizing nibbana, which is the destruction of craving.

I think that's the crux of the matter.

I totally agree with your analysis, and my agreement with you is not based on theory, but from personal experience as a nihilist. I have never found the moral aspects of the teachings to be interesting, at least as a set of rules to be followed. I also find that my nihilistic views often drives me to seek immediate gratifications at the expense of long term benefits, and this is most obvious on the way i handle money. Give me one million dollars and i will spend it in a week. While the practice helped me see how beliefs shape our behavior, and how our actions, both good and bad, tend to repeat themselves/reappear in the future, but i also see that the whole pattern is also impermanent.

As a nihilist, and based on evidence, there is no good reason to be good! And yet, i consider seeking goodness to be an act of courage, to see the absurdity of the whole thing, and still try to be good.

My views affected the way i approached the teachings, which is more focusing on wisdom than goodness. I want goodness to be a by product of wisdom, not the opposite. I follow only three of the five precepts, i still engage in casual sex and drink alcohol, and the sense of guilt i get after doing these things has nothing to do with breaking a set of rules, its just the way they affect the practice (opportunity cost). However, i somehow accept that existential pain is to be expected for the unenlightened, i see my consumption of sex and alcohol as a mere symptom of a bigger disease (hence never pushed myself too hard to stop). Even when i seek sensuality, i tend to do it without emotional investment. It is akin to using the toilet to release discomfort, something we do and forget about when we are done.

I can clearly see how and why a nihilist would be interested in the practice, but i can't see how an eternalist would be. Nihilism has to be the driving force behind the practice. I don't see why would someone who finds meaning in this world to be interested in seeking a higher truth.

[Unexist]

The Eightfold path means insight, made up of eight bends or eight curves or eight bhajangas. It is the same as Sunyata or Brahman of Advaita. Samma ditthi is the starting point which is starting with higher knowledge. Samma means 'absorbed into that' or like when one looks at the mirror knows his true face reflected in it by the actual face. Now he know his face and discards the mirror since it is not needed now. This is called Samma Ditthi. Now after the Samma Ditthi one needs to renunciate from all ties to proceeds further. He who walk along the path of Eightfold absorption, always absorbed in That while walking, sleeping, eating or doing something. Hence it is called Samma activities, absorbed acts. Who acquire the Samma Ditthi make resolve to end the suffering and being a traveling like a Rhino, partaking nothing but some thrown cloths and food by begging. He travels from place to place, like Fakir, Sometimes like Sage, like Madman. Eventually this is the way. The word Samma denotes high level of knowledge. The world enveloped in the delusion towards Samma meaning, hence, they translate as 'Right'.

[cappuccino]

The question is, what does "teaches wrong view" mean?

Right view is karma and rebirth.

[davidbrainerd]

(3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc.

Ah, there's the historical "Buddha" of Secular Buddhism.

[paul]

Currently making the best seller lists:

"He acknowledges that he doesn’t believe in rebirth,"
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildfoxzen ... PbbRwwb.99
________________________________

Bikkhu Bodhi on the action of kamma:
“As it (cause and effect) affirms that people can choose their actions freely, within limits set by their conditions, it opposes the “hard deterministic” line that our choices are always made subject to necessitation, and hence that free volition is unreal and moral responsibility untenable."

It is profitable to look into this statement, which refers to the time component in the action of kamma, and a working knowledge of it liberates the practitioner from the demands of ego, which cries for an immediate solution to every problem. Planting the seed of kamma requires patience until fruition, and observing the process is a requirement of mundane right view. The conditions suitable for fruition in many cases occur within a relatively short time span, and knowledge of it enables the practitioner with such insight to utilize the action of kamma to replace egotistical motivation, and to initiate actions from a higher moral standpoint which do not satisfy the craving for immediate reactive effect.
This is a necessary stage on the path of insight to bypass ego, where it is known as purification by overcoming doubt.