Suicide and rebirth

[Paññāsikhara]

A living puthujjana actually and in truth is to be found but not an arahant.

It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant. Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?

Whereas "actual in truth" even a puthujjana is not to be found. That is what is meant by "not self", etc.

The difference between the puthujjana and the arahanat is not viz whether or not "actual in truth" there is a being to be found, but whether or not the defilements are present. Between a puthujjana and a sotapanna, the difference is whether or not the "identity view" is present.

It seems to me that you are conflating "actual in truth being" with "identity view". Whether or not some so-called being has an identity view or defilements is irrelevant to whether or not the term "killing" is applicable.

Although if an arahant were killed, they would not think "I (actually and truly) am being killed", this is irrelevant to the act of "killing". If the killer did not think that the arahant were "actually and truly" a living being, then they wouldn't have the intention to kill the arahant in the first place. Because such a person would be at least a sotapanna, thus incapable of committing any act which would lead to hellish rebirth, and thus incapable of killing an arahant.

[acinteyyo]

A living puthujjana actually and in truth is to be found but not an arahant.

It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant.

No, there isn't some "actual in truth" soul/person/being but there is some "actual in truth" illusion of a soul/person/being in case of an unenlightended person, but not for an arahant.

Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?

No, it entails the destruction of the illusion.

The difference between the puthujjana and the arahanat is not viz whether or not "actual in truth" there is a being to be found, but whether or not the defilements are present. Between a puthujjana and a sotapanna, the difference is whether or not the "identity view" is present.
It seems to me that you are conflating "actual in truth being" with "identity view". Whether or not some so-called being has an identity view or defilements is irrelevant to whether or not the term "killing" is applicable.

A definiton from a dictionary for "to kill":

a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life

No "identity view" means no "person" existing, no "person" existing means no conceit "I am", no conceit "I am" means there is no "being", no "being" means terms like "birth", "life", "death" aren't applicable.
According to the dictionary definition "killing" is not applicable in case of an arahant.

Although if an arahant were killed, they would not think "I (actually and truly) am being killed", this is irrelevant to the act of "killing".

Absolutely! In case of an unenlightened person it is even irrelevant who is going to be killed, it doesn't matter (very much) whether it is an arahant or not. The intentions matter and would lead to hellish rebirth for the one who's acting.

If the killer did not think that the arahant were "actually and truly" a living being, then they wouldn't have the intention to kill the arahant in the first place. Because such a person would be at least a sotapanna, thus incapable of committing any act which would lead to hellish rebirth, and thus incapable of killing an arahant.

Sure! I already said something like this here. But not equally detailed like you.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Prasadachitta]

Hello acinteyyo,

It sounds a little like you have a Theravada equivalent of "emptiness sickness". You seem to associate "life" with "illusion". Try thinking outside the box. I wish I knew how to say that in a better way but right now but alas I am at a loss.

Metta

Gabe

[mikenz66]

Hi acinteyyo,

I, too, don't see how you think there is "something" to be found in a non-Arahant.

Admittedly the following is attributed to Ven Vajira, not the Buddha, but I take this as the canonical position:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

Metta
Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi Acinteyyo,

Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?

No, it entails the destruction of the illusion.

I think you are confusing two things:
1. The Arahant going beyond self-view.
2. The view of a non-Arahant perceiving another being who may or may not be an Arahant.
In the second case whether the being is an Arahant or not makes no difference to whether the non-Arahant perceives a self in him/her.

Metta
Mike

[acinteyyo]

Hello acinteyyo,
It sounds a little like you have a Theravada equivalent of "emptiness sickness". You seem to associate "life" with "illusion". Try thinking outside the box. I wish I knew how to say that in a better way but right now but alas I am at a loss.
Metta
Gabe

Hi Gabe,
this is right, more or less. I associate "living being" with "belief in self" and the "belief in self" is a delusion. Because the puthujjana thinks: "I am" this "living being". This "living being" is just the five aggregates of grasping and the puthujjana regards the five aggregates of grasping as himself. But as we know, the five aggregates are not-self. It is difficult for me to explain myself better. Maybe you could show me the mistakes I made in your opinion. This would make things easier for me to argue with.

Hi acinteyyo,
I, too, don't see how you think there is "something" to be found in a non-Arahant.
Admittedly the following is attributed to Ven Vajira, not the Buddha, but I take this as the canonical position:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

Metta
Mike

Hi Mike,
I think you misunderstood me. When we say "non-arahant" (we don't mind sotapanna or anagami and so on here...) what we mean is "a being". "A being" means the five aggregates of grasping (pañc'upādānakkhandhā), this is also meant by "a person". So what is found in "a being" or rather what is "a being"? - the five aggregates of grasping. What is not to be found is "a self". "A being" clings to the five aggregates of grasping and takes what appears to be his 'self' at face value. This is the delusion. "A being" regards himself as a "self" (because of attavāda). The fundamental clinging (upādāna) in the five aggregates of grasping (pañc'upādānakkhandhā) is the "belief in self" (attavāda). To regard the five aggregates of grasping as "self" is the "personality view" (sakkāyaditthi). The five aggregates of grasping are regarded as the "person" (sakkāya). (Meaning that the pañc'upādānakkhandhā are regarded as sakkāya.)
The "person" (pañc'upādānakkhandhā) which "I am", which is "mine", which is "my self". This delusion can be found in a "non-arahant" but cannot be found in an arahant. It is the fundamental clinging to the "belief in self" which can be found in a "non-arahant" but not in an arahant. That is the reason why the five aggregates "of an arahant" are called "pañcakkhandhā". There is no clinging (upādāna) to "belief in self" (attavāda).

Hi Acinteyyo,

Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?

No, it entails the destruction of the illusion.

I think you are confusing two things:
1. The Arahant going beyond self-view.
2. The view of a non-Arahant perceiving another being who may or may not be an Arahant.
In the second case whether the being is an Arahant or not makes no difference to whether the non-Arahant perceives a self in him/her.

Metta
Mike

You have to read the whole reply.
Ven. Paññāsikhara said:

It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant.

And I answered:

No, there isn't some "actual in truth" soul/person/being but there is some "actual in truth" illusion of a soul/person/being in case of an unenlightended person, but not for an arahant.

The illusion I meant is the "belief in self" (attavāda), which is the fundamental clinging (upādāna).
The Ven. Paññāsikhara asked what you quoted above.
I'm not talking about the things you think I'm confusing. I'm only talking about "belief in self" (attavāda). Which is to be found in the puthujjana and not in an arahant.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Prasadachitta]

Hello acinteyyo,

Can a self view "actually" be found? I would say that the nature of such a fundamental misunderstanding is that when we imagine it will disappear we cant help but couch it in terms of self view. If we hold to the "no self view" rigidly without leaving some room for a non conceptual understanding we will miss how this understanding is being skewed by our self view. Our misunderstanding does not exist nor is it non existent.



Metta

Gabe

[acinteyyo]

Hello acinteyyo,
Can a self view "actually" be found?

Hi Gabe,
certainly yes, a self view "actually" can be found.
It seems to me that some people here may belief that "emptiness" means that everything is absolutely void of content. It is not. "Emptiness" means that everything is void of "self" (sabbe dhamma anatta). But there is some "content" (there are dhammā to be found) naturally, otherwise there would be merely nothing and everything would just be an illusion.

I would say that the nature of such a fundamental misunderstanding is that when we imagine it will disappear we cant help but couch it in terms of self view. If we hold to the "no self view" rigidly without leaving some room for a non conceptual understanding we will miss how this understanding is being skewed by our self view. Our misunderstanding does not exist nor is it non existent.
Metta Gabe

Sorry, but I don't get your point.
best wishes, acinteyyo

[mikenz66]

Hi Acinteyyo,

You have to read the whole reply.
Ven. Paññāsikhara said:

It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant.

And I answered:

No, there isn't some "actual in truth" soul/person/being but there is some "actual in truth" illusion of a soul/person/being in case of an unenlightended person, but not for an arahant.

The illusion I meant is the "belief in self" (attavāda), which is the fundamental clinging (upādāna).
The Ven. Paññāsikhara asked what you quoted above.
I'm not talking about the things you think I'm confusing. I'm only talking about "belief in self" (attavāda). Which is to be found in the puthujjana and not in an arahant.

I don't believe I'm misunderstanding. What I meant was that a puthujjana will find the illusion of a self in him/herself, and assume a self in a fellow puthujjana or an arahant. I think you agree that it's all illusion, so no self is actually to be found.

Metta
Mike

[acinteyyo]

I don't believe I'm misunderstanding. What I meant was that a puthujjana will find the illusion of a self in him/herself, and assume a self in a fellow puthujjana or an arahant. I think you agree that it's all illusion, so no self is actually to be found.

Exactly! But the puthujjana doesn't know that the self in which he believes is actually an illusion. The puthujjana takes the illusion at face value and assumes a true self in himself and a fellow puthujjana or an arahant. So I agree, that actually a self is not to be found in both, puthujjana or arahant. But the illusion of a true self, the "belief in self" is to be found in a puthujjana.
I wonder what you then meant with:

I think you are confusing two things:
1. The Arahant going beyond self-view.
2. The view of a non-Arahant perceiving another being who may or may not be an Arahant.
In the second case whether the being is an Arahant or not makes no difference to whether the non-Arahant perceives a self in him/her.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[mikenz66]

Hi acinteyyo,

I think we agree. The list I gave was a repetition of the point I explained.

Metta
Mike

[nowheat]

The debate over whether Channa was an arahant or not seems to come from the translation of the Buddha's comment about Channa's blamelessness, which the Buddha pointed out was true on two accounts, the first about supporters we dismiss, but the second, about using the knife is the one the debate focuses on. The way this is translated in Nanamoli/Bodhi's version is:

MN144.13 p 1116

Sariputta, when one lays down the body and takes up a new body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in this case of the bhikkhu Channa; the bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly.

This translation leads us to the conclusion that the placing of, or freedom from blame hinges on whether Channa was going to take up a new body or not -- in other words, was he an arahant? -- and thus the debate over what he said in answer to Sariputta's questions about his understanding of "This is mine, this I am..."

But the above wording depends on an unusual translation of the word "upadiyati" which in the instances I've found in suttas means "clinging" (a mental clinging) not "taking up" (a physical process). So my inelegant translation comes out:

Indeed, Sariputta, whomever lays aside his body, because he clings to another body, I say he is blameworthy. That is not present in the monk Channa. Blamelessly, Channa ate the knife.

That is about half-way to what it seems to me is actually being said. "Clings to" still sounds physical when we know that "clinging to" in the Buddha's parlance is mental. "Desires" would be a better word here, and I guess that though "eating the knife" makes clearer what he did with the knife (put it into his throat?) the traditional "used the knife" might be less gory, so:

Indeed, Sariputta, whomever lays aside his body, because he desires another body, I say he is blameworthy. That is not present in the monk Channa. Blamelessly, Channa used the knife.

What Sariputta was asking Channa when he visited him was not "are you an arahant?" but "Are you going to kill yourself to get a new body?" Channa answered in the Buddha's own style of speaking that he was not clinging to ideas of "This I am" -- he recognized that there was no guarantee of a new body. In other words, his intentions in killing himself were quite pure.

[Paññāsikhara]

A living puthujjana actually and in truth is to be found but not an arahant.

It sounds to me as though you think that an in the case of an unenlightened person there is some "actual in truth" soul / person / being, but not for an arahant.

No, there isn't some "actual in truth" soul/person/being but there is some "actual in truth" illusion of a soul/person/being in case of an unenlightended person, but not for an arahant.

Do you think that becoming an arahant entails the destruction of this "actual in truth" soul / person / being?

No, it entails the destruction of the illusion.

The difference between the puthujjana and the arahanat is not viz whether or not "actual in truth" there is a being to be found, but whether or not the defilements are present. Between a puthujjana and a sotapanna, the difference is whether or not the "identity view" is present.
It seems to me that you are conflating "actual in truth being" with "identity view". Whether or not some so-called being has an identity view or defilements is irrelevant to whether or not the term "killing" is applicable.

A definiton from a dictionary for "to kill":

a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life

No "identity view" means no "person" existing, no "person" existing means no conceit "I am", no conceit "I am" means there is no "being", no "being" means terms like "birth", "life", "death" aren't applicable.
According to the dictionary definition "killing" is not applicable in case of an arahant.

Although if an arahant were killed, they would not think "I (actually and truly) am being killed", this is irrelevant to the act of "killing".

Absolutely! In case of an unenlightened person it is even irrelevant who is going to be killed, it doesn't matter (very much) whether it is an arahant or not. The intentions matter and would lead to hellish rebirth for the one who's acting.

If the killer did not think that the arahant were "actually and truly" a living being, then they wouldn't have the intention to kill the arahant in the first place. Because such a person would be at least a sotapanna, thus incapable of committing any act which would lead to hellish rebirth, and thus incapable of killing an arahant.

Sure! I already said something like this here. But not equally detailed like you.

best wishes, acinteyyo

Okay, I see what you are saying now.

Because you used the term "kill" to describe the "suicide", I applied it elsewhere, and the confusion set in. I still think you would have been better to indicate "suicide" in your examples, because we would know the difference between an arahant killing themselves and others killing an arahant. By using the term "kill" alone, rather than "suicide", it was easy to confuse your position and think that what you were saying was applicable to any killing of an arahant, when it was not. You wanted to mean an arahant killing an arahant as suicide. But using "killing" is open.

I don't know if you get my drift, but anyway, I understand your point now, and we are agreeing in a sense. I hope you can also see where and why I misunderstood you, because, if I may be direct and to the point, the way you worded it could be improved upon a bit! This is just a note, if, like me, you like to improve on clear expression of Dharma to share with others in the future.

[acinteyyo]

[Prasadachitta]

Hello acinteyyo,
Can a self view "actually" be found?

Hi Gabe,
certainly yes, a self view "actually" can be found.
It seems to me that some people here may belief that "emptiness" means that everything is absolutely void of content. It is not. "Emptiness" means that everything is void of "self" (sabbe dhamma anatta). But there is some "content" (there are dhammā to be found) naturally, otherwise there would be merely nothing and everything would just be an illusion.

Hi acinteyyo,

Given that there is content and that it does not come from a self or go to a self, where is the self view?

It sounds as if you are saying that an Arahat is devoid of life because he is devoid of illusion. Is this not equating life with illusion? How does this differ from saying everything is an illusion?

Metta

Gaber