In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:

[daverupa]

That is to say, the annihilation the materialist assumes to achieve without effort the Buddha tells us must be laboriously earned.

Well, you're assuming that the post-death situation is the goal, but the ultimate aim is the reduction & elimination of dukkha, which doesn't have to make reference to post-death scenarios.

In the case of parinibbana, it's simply a result of attaining nibbana - it is not in and of itself the goal (which centers on the four Truths) but simply a component of the result.

Again, how is this the middle way?

It altogether bypasses the question of a person somehow existing forever or else being annihilated.

And why would a materialist, or anyone who doesn't remember former lives be interested in the Buddhist path?

Dukkha here and now is reduced & even eliminated, to various degrees; as the simple Sutta above shows, these three altogether encompass 'the suck', and do not make metaphysical references.

However!

[Pragmatic]

Hi Pragmatic
What do you mean by annihilation?
Annihilation of what?
According to Buddhism there is no self to be annihilated.
If you say annihilation of attachment, aversion or ignorance, it may be applicable here.

Hi SarahW. Thanks for your response. Yes I'm very familiar with this explanation, which I'm sure you'll agree is an orthodox one, but it has always seemed to me to be a piece of sophistry.

The question turns on the full implications of "anatta". In short, because I don't want to blab on too much, the dependent, relative, designated "self" we have that is dependent somehow on the aggregates is itself just one more aspect of suffering, of dukkha, an integral part of the whole mass of suffering that is dissolved on reaching nibbana. The point is that we can only exist AS suffering and so to dissolve suffering in this orthodox view is to me indistinguishable from annihilation.

Again, to exist is to suffer, either in the unregenerate way that increases the suffering of others, or in an enlightened way that takes on and relieves the suffering of others.

So a non-annihilationist view, it seems to me, would be one that advocates the transformation not the dissolution of the aggregates, whether that's conceived as being in some other realm or here, where we stand.

Thanks again for the metta of engaging with my question.

[samseva]

Hi SarahW. Thanks for your response. Yes I'm very familiar with this explanation, which I'm sure you'll agree is an orthodox one, but it has always seemed to me to be a piece of sophistry.

The question turns on the full implications of "anatta". In short, because I don't want to blab on too much, the dependent, relative, designated "self" we have that is dependent somehow on the aggregates is itself just one more aspect of suffering, of dukkha, an integral part of the whole mass of suffering that is dissolved on reaching nibbana. The point is that we can only exist AS suffering and so to dissolve suffering in this orthodox view is to me indistinguishable from annihilation.

Again, to exist is to suffer, either in the unregenerate way that increases the suffering of others, or in an enlightened way that takes on and relieves the suffering of others.

So a non-annihilationist view, it seems to me, would be one that advocates the transformation not the dissolution of the aggregates, whether that's conceived as being in some other realm or here, where we stand.

Thanks again for the metta of engaging with my question.

Once one has attained Nibbāna, there is no more dukkha. The roots that cause it are uprooted. Like daverupa mentioned, the fact that an Arahant is not reborn is only an indirect consequence of the cessation of dukkha; it shouldn't be the end goal. If annihilationism is the end goal, then that desire is rooted in aversion.

The goal of the teachings is to end dukkha. If rebirth wouldn't take place, we would simply need to wait for our death. However, this is not the case. Until we continue to have the defilements, they will cause us to suffer and we will be reborn and suffer and be reborn and suffer. If we uproot the defilements, there will be no more dukkha, but there will be no more rebirth as well.

[SarathW]

it shouldn't be the end goal. If annihilationism is the end goal, then that desire is rooted in aversion.

Yes that is Vibhava Thanha.
Other way to look at this is by Nibbana as deathless.
If you do not have attachment, aversion and ignorance there is noting to die!

[cappuccino]

Rebirth:
Doubt is a fetter, faith isn't.

Nirvana:
Deathless implies no rebirth.

[Pragmatic]

That is to say, the annihilation the materialist assumes to achieve without effort the Buddha tells us must be laboriously earned.

Well, you're assuming that the post-death situation is the goal, but the ultimate aim is the reduction & elimination of dukkha, which doesn't have to make reference to post-death scenarios.

In the case of parinibbana, it's simply a result of attaining nibbana - it is not in and of itself the goal (which centers on the four Truths) but simply a component of the result.

Again, how is this the middle way?

It altogether bypasses the question of a person somehow existing forever or else being annihilated.

And why would a materialist, or anyone who doesn't remember former lives be interested in the Buddhist path?

Dukkha here and now is reduced & even eliminated, to various degrees; as the simple Sutta above shows, these three altogether encompass 'the suck', and do not make metaphysical references.

However!

Hi daverupa. I do appreciate how you patiently field my queries even while our perspectives are bound to be so much at odds. Life on the fringe!

But again I feel your responses miss my point, although I'm sure my defective way of putting things are partly at fault. Neither the materialist nor the Buddhist of the type in question have a goal of annihilation, I agree. The one merely assumes it will happen, the other pursues a course that, in my view, effectively leads in that direction.

Dukkha as you know better than I is much more than literal pain or suffering; it's sometimes translated as unsatisfactoryness and together with anicca and anatta is expressive of the way things are, as matter of empirical fact: impermanent, in flux, lacking effective inner control and thus if not always literally painful never altogether satisfactory or the way one would wish.

It seems to me that anicca has the logical priority; everything follows from the fact of impermanence. But as we can gather from the four noble truths dukkha in the end comes to stand for the rest, and finally to stand in a sense for the later formulations of dependent origination. The overcoming of dukkha is simultaneously it would seem the overcoming, the dissolution of pratityasamutpada or conditionality.

But here's the point I've already made in another post in slightly different words: conditionality is precisely how we exist; we know of no other existence outside of conditionality. So if we are to dissolve conditionality without having in view any other mode of existence, but simply the end of rebirth, how is this not a practice that aims, if indirectly, at annihilation?

Finally I would add that this is not a question in my view of the shell game self/non-self, empirical self, attributed self, relative self - no one in our age who in any way seriously thinks about the matter really believes in an inherently existing, non-relational soul that can be located in some particular place. Rather it's about our paradoxical ongoing participation in the play of existence, and whether our spiritual practices seek to enhance that play or seek to end it.

[cappuccino]

Buddha never said there is no soul.
He merely said, there is a jungle of views, a fetter of views.

[cappuccino]

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? ... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... is undeclared by me."
Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta

[samseva]

...

Hi Pragmatic,

Maybe you missed my post (maybe not though), but it talks about some things you mentioned as well as some other things you posted in 'the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread'.

Once one has attained Nibbāna, there is no more dukkha. The roots that cause it are uprooted. Like daverupa mentioned, the fact that an Arahant is not reborn is only an indirect consequence of the cessation of dukkha; it shouldn't be the end goal. If annihilationism is the end goal, then that desire is rooted in aversion.

The goal of the teachings is to end dukkha. If rebirth wouldn't take place, we would simply need to wait for our death. However, this is not the case. Until we continue to have the defilements, they will cause us to suffer and we will be reborn and suffer and be reborn and suffer. If we uproot the defilements, there will be no more dukkha, but there will be no more rebirth as well.

[SarathW]

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? ... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... is undeclared by me."
Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta

But Buddha very clearly said that there is no permanent unchanging entity names soul.
He taught the dependent origination.

[daverupa]

So, it's worth starting new threads to ask about & address these issues; this is not the thread for it.

[samseva]

So, it's worth starting new threads to ask about & address these issues; this is not the thread for it.

That would be a good idea. The discussion started with this post. Maybe the great Nibbāna = annihilation thread would be the correct thread?

[Pragmatic]

Buddha never said there is no soul.
He merely said, there is a jungle of views, a fetter of views.

Hi cappuccino. Good point to bring up. In my admittedly amateur reading of the early suttas I see the Buddha making basically four points about "self", three explicit and one implicit:

1. There is no substantial, inherently existing, non-relational metaphysical self.
2. The grasping self is the principle source of pain.
3. To have views or theories of self is to fall into a jungle, a thicket.
4. There is (implicitly) a conventional, relational or phenomenal self, which is a necessary instrument of practice, of liberation as well as suffering, a refuge.

But of course that doesn't fit so easily on a license plate and unfortunately there is a tendency to over-simplify the case.

[Pragmatic]

...

Hi Pragmatic,

Maybe you missed my post (maybe not though), but it talks about some things you mentioned as well as some other things you posted in 'the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread'.

Once one has attained Nibbāna, there is no more dukkha. The roots that cause it are uprooted. Like daverupa mentioned, the fact that an Arahant is not reborn is only an indirect consequence of the cessation of dukkha; it shouldn't be the end goal. If annihilationism is the end goal, then that desire is rooted in aversion.

The goal of the teachings is to end dukkha. If rebirth wouldn't take place, we would simply need to wait for our death. However, this is not the case. Until we continue to have the defilements, they will cause us to suffer and we will be reborn and suffer and be reborn and suffer. If we uproot the defilements, there will be no more dukkha, but there will be no more rebirth as well.

Hey samseva. Yes I have seen your post and intended to respond but couldn't get to it until now. I do have a life you know! Not much of one it's true, but still...

So lets return to what's at issue, option #2 above: "no more becoming, non-existence as we know it but not annihilation since there is no self".

I've said elsewhere that in my view this is sophistry. Here I'll expand. First of all, what kind of "self" are we talking about? Metaphysical, phenomenal, relational, empirical, conventional, mere verbal designation? The self we can't find or the self that is our refuge? One of the most interesting moves of the Buddha was precisely to point out how slippery a notion the self is, and yet so many Buddhists talk about the self as if, well, they know what they're talking about!

Anyway here the statement is categorical: no self of any kind. So the principle I guess is that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it...

Lets agree that the metaphysical, inherently existing self was never there, but was there really no self of any kind? I suggest this is plainly false. No matter how relational, ever changing, dependent, even deceptive if you like, "self" or "selfing" was part of the fabric of conditioned existence, part of what it does, as real or unreal as any other mutually conditioning element. To unravel the fundamental basis of conditioned existence, offering no other basis, and then hold that some part of it was never there in the first place is the shell game of self/no-self, and in a way a red herring or diversion. Again, in my view the "self" however we conceive it is part of the fabric of dukkha, of conditioned existence, no less and no more real than any other dhamma that makes up the aggregates.

But finally these are just my views - and no doubt a forest and a jungle! And the exchange of views I think is only interesting and wholesome up to a point, which I've think we've reached since we have already expressed our differing assumptions and starting points.

Besides, my real intent here was to get some sense of how the Theravadin way worked as a spiritual path and now I feel I do have that sense, not gained through argument or quotes from the suttas but between the lines as it were, by the tenor of the responses.

The thing is that the standard definitions and defenses of tradition are only convincing for those who are within it, not to the outsider. A good analogy are the arguments for the existence of God by Aquinas, say, which only carry weight with those who already have a base of Christian belief.

What does carry weight with the outsider I think is as I've said the tenor, the feel of the responses, the between the lines. I'm sorry if this sounds vague but through reading your responses and what I knew already about Buddhist practice I was able to imagine how this works and see it as a path of renunciation not unlike paths in other traditions.

So while at the abstract, intellectual level one may debate notions of annihilation, etc. on the level of practice I can see that it doesn't apply.

Thanks for lending me insight into your world, and all the best in your practice. Pragmatic.

[samseva]

But here's the point I've already made in another post in slightly different words: conditionality is precisely how we exist; we know of no other existence outside of conditionality. So if we are to dissolve conditionality without having in view any other mode of existence, but simply the end of rebirth, how is this not a practice that aims, if indirectly, at annihilation?

Nibbāna is not annihilation. Some of the reasons why are as follows.

The goal of the Buddha's teachings is to put an end to dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness and all it derivatives). There are different causes of dukkha, with taṇhā (craving) being the most prominent—which is then subdivided into kāma-taṇhā (sensual-craving), bhava-taṇhā (craving for existence), vibhava-taṇhā (craving for non-existence). Out of those three, vibhava-taṇhā can been seen as desiring annihilation.

As paṭiccasamuppāda (Dependent Origination) functions, craving will always be present if its former conditions are present, which are all the conditions having to do with mentality and corporeality, but ultimately ignorance (avijiā). Once ignorance has been uprooted, then there is no more craving that can arise and the only thing that is left is the remaining conditions which are the current mentality and corporeality.

Notice that in all this process, there is no mention at all of annihilation (except the annihilation of the causes of dukkha, if one is to be meticulous). However, it is the case that with the uprooting of ignorance and craving, the goal being to put an end to suffering, the conditions for rebirth are no more and therefore rebirth does not take place.

Even more important is the fact that for there to be a rebirth, certain conditions must be actively created and maintained. The causes of suffering and rebirth happen to be defilements of mind which are greed (lobha), hate (dosa) and delusion (moha). These are fuels of the mind that give rise to the exact conditions needed for rebirth to take place. To stop providing the fuel is not at all annihilation, but a choice to not continue, i.e., not maintaining the causes of dukkha. Although very intricate, being reborn is in a way a choice and to choose to not continue is very different than to kill or annihilate yourself.