DCM wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:53 pm
Bodhi is here commenting on ‘Some modern interpreters—including a number of prominent Western bhikkhus’.
BB: This isn’t my position, but their position.
They would say that annihilationism is the doctrine that there is a substantial self that perishes at death, but with “right view” one sees that it is only the procession of self-less aggregates that ceases and beyond this there is nothing. For them, nibbāna is total extinction. It seems to me that on this position, what happens to the arahant at the time of death is exactly what happens to every living being at the time of death from the perspective of philosophical materialism. The only difference would be that the Buddhist posits rebirth for those who are non-arahants while the materialist posits “final nibbāna” for everyone.
I am personally intrigued by what VBB has to say here so I decided to research more, namely, MN 60, which states:
Thanissaro wrote: There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and realized it for themselves.'.... a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence (natthikavādo).'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
VBB translates
natthikavādo as follows:
natthikavāda
mfn.
professing the doctrine of an unbeliever.
natthika
m(fn).
an unbeliever; a skeptic.
The word '
natthika' is found in SN 3.21 and obviously does not mean a doctrine of 'annihilationism':
He who abuses & reviles ascetics
Brahmins & other mendicants
A natthika (nihilist), a scoffer, who hinders
Another giving food to beggers
Alternate translation:
A miserly man without faith and means, in view gone wrong,
With evil thoughts, greedy and without compassion,
Angry without a reason, he rebukes and debases, recluses,
Brahmins, or wayfarers and prevents them from getting gifts.
Therefore, it seems VBB, by validly choosing the English word 'nihilist' for 'natthika', is confusing this with the word 'uccheda' (annihilationism).
nihilist
a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
In my opinion, the word '
uccheda' (annihilationism) has no relationship in the suttas with disbelief in '
kamma & rebirth'. As shown in my previous post, '
uccheda' (annihilationism) appears to refer to the view that a '
self' perishes at death. Where as the word for '
disbelief' in kamma & rebirth appears to be one of the three doctrines below from MN 60, MN 117, SN 22.62 and AN 4.30 that are criticized, namely:
1. ahetuvādā - doctrine of noncausality
2. akiriyavādā - doctrine of inefficacy of action
3. natthikavādā - doctrine of nihilism or immorality
'
Ucchedavada' (annihilationism) does not appear to be related to the above three doctrines; which is probably why VBB's idea below is not related to the suttas. What is highlighted in green appears to accord with the suttas. The remainder appears to be VBB's personal depature into other wrong doctrines, such as ahetuvādā, akiriyavādā & natthikavādā.
BB: This isn’t my position, but their position. They would say that annihilationism is the doctrine that there is a substantial self that perishes at death, but with “right view” one sees that it is only the procession of self-less aggregates that ceases and beyond this there is nothing. For them, nibbāna is total extinction. It seems to me that on this position, what happens to the arahant at the time of death is exactly what happens to every living being at the time of death from the perspective of philosophical materialism. The only difference would be that the Buddhist posits rebirth for those who are non-arahants while the materialist posits “final nibbāna” for everyone
It seems quite strange that VBB gives the impression of labelling those with the right view of
anatta as "philosophical materialists" and labelling those with the view of self (
atta) or beings (
satta) as "Buddhist". Regardless, VBB's position above sounds mixed up (because VBB appears to be mixing doctrines; as previously suggested). Just because a Noble Practitioner views all life forms (including at the termination of life) as
anatta (not-self); this does not necessarily mean there is an implicit denial of 'something' being reincarnated. VBB, above, appear to be refuting the phase: "
Sabbe dhamma anatta" (all things are not-self). VBB appears to be saying Arahants are not-self (because there is not a substantial self that perishes at death for arahants) but non-arahants are a self (because for non-arahants a substantial self that perishes at death). This mixed up appears to be result of mixing up the doctrines of ucchedavada, ahetuvādā, akiriyavādā & natthikavādā.