Goal of the path: "nirvana" vs "nirodha"?

[Lazy_eye]

Eternalism assumes there is existence and that it is indefinite. Annihilation assumes there is existence and it is destroyed. Each come from the root view that there is, at some point, existence. Yet (as I was kindly reminded by a fellow DW member earlier today), the Buddha said that "as even a little excrement is of evil smell, I do not praise even the shortest spell of existence, be it no longer than a snap of the fingers."

So, along similar lines, what is mistaken about vibhava-tanha? After all, isn't it reasonable to want to be rid of the excrement/evil smell?

[katavedi]

Hello Lazy_eye,

So, along similar lines, what is mistaken about vibhava-tanha? After all, isn't it reasonable to want to be rid of the excrement/evil smell?

Vibhava-tanha is still based on the mistaken assumption of existence. Wanting to be rid of existence means that one believes existence is real. If someone is hallucinating that ants are crawling all over their body, the imaginary ants aren't the problem -- the hallucinating is.

Kind wishes,
katavedi

[daverupa]

So, to get around a rebirth-necessity in the case of a null bomb or a death doctor, begin from the foundation that agnosticism prevails in all cases of post-death assertions. This also removes post-death promises from being considered as primary goals since the Dhamma is unique in offering a 'here and now' method of investigation.

What is left as an axial value is cessation of dukkha for living beings. Bombs & Deathdocs don't do that (though, in my opinion, another axial value here is a stepwise anti-natalism).

[Mkoll]

So, to get around a rebirth-necessity in the case of a null bomb or a death doctor, begin from the foundation that agnosticism prevails in all cases of post-death assertions. This also removes post-death promises from being considered as primary goals since the Dhamma is unique in offering a 'here and now' method of investigation.

What is left as an axial value is cessation of dukkha for living beings. Bombs & Deathdocs don't do that (though, in my opinion, another axial value here is a stepwise anti-natalism).

For the sake of argument, let's say someone is agnostic about rebirth and they practice diligently and attain arahantship.

Are they then still agnostic about rebirth? Do they still not know if rebirth follows the break-up of their body? Not knowing this, do they really have "final knowledge"? Have they really attained arahantship?

Or upon arahantship, do they gain the "final knowledge" that there is no rebirth after the break-up of their body? In that case, wouldn't they no longer be agnostic about rebirth but sure of it? So in the end, though they might not have adopted rebirth as a view on the way there, they end up knowing its potential, or rather the end of its potential, in fact?

In responding to this, please keep in mind the difference between the power of recollecting past lives and knowledge of the end of rebirth at arahantship. One is not required for the other according to the texts.

[Lazy_eye]

So, to get around a rebirth-necessity in the case of a null bomb or a death doctor, begin from the foundation that agnosticism prevails in all cases of post-death assertions. This also removes post-death promises from being considered as primary goals since the Dhamma is unique in offering a 'here and now' method of investigation.

What is left as an axial value is cessation of dukkha for living beings.

Thanks, Dave. It seems as though you and Breyer are basically in agreement:

The Nirodha View has the resources to resist the Null Bomb Objection precisely because it recognizes that the cessation of
suffering is intrinsically valuable in a relational sense: it is not the unqualified cessation of suffering that is intrinsically valuable, but the cessation of suffering in those capable of suffering.

...although you add the element of agnosticism, which I don't believe he mentions.

So, just to sum up, I see three available responses to the Null Bomb: the argument from rebirth, the argument from dependent origination, and the argument based on scope (the Dhamma is for living beings). Whether these arguments are mutually compatible might be an interesting question: if we add in agnosticism, #3 seems to contradict #1. It is still consistent with #2, though.

If someone is hallucinating that ants are crawling all over their body, the imaginary ants aren't the problem -- the hallucinating is.

That explains it very clearly -- thanks Katavedi!

[daverupa]

For the sake of argument, let's say someone is agnostic about rebirth and they practice diligently and attain arahantship. Are they then still agnostic about rebirth?

SN 12.70 applies here. It demonstrates that for some arahants (most? could it be... ALL of them?) the regularity of the Dhamma is seen, but they do not see past lives or kamma-vipaka for beings.

Unless they overestimate themselves, they know that the cessation of ignorance has occurred & therefore that there is no more coming to any state due to the lack of necessary nutriment for such an event. At the same time, they do not have any confirmation of pre-/post-death continuities (meditative visions of such things are not confirmation of them as ontological facts, but simply ongoing evidence of their having a foundation in feeling, per DN 1).

...so, what's the problem again? Staying within the scope of the OP, the goal is dukkha-nirodha, not rebirth-nirodha. (The former is alleged to mean the latter, but this always remains an inferential conclusion. The former, in and of itself, is the point.)

[Mkoll]

For the sake of argument, let's say someone is agnostic about rebirth and they practice diligently and attain arahantship. Are they then still agnostic about rebirth?

SN 12.70 applies here. It demonstrates that for some arahants (most? could it be... ALL of them?) the regularity of the Dhamma is seen, but they do not see past lives or kamma-vipaka for beings.

That sutta backs up what I said before:

In responding to this, please keep in mind the difference between the power of recollecting past lives and knowledge of the end of rebirth at arahantship. One is not required for the other according to the texts.

As the sutta says, seeing kamma-vipaka of other beings falls under the same category as recollection of past lives: not necessary for arahantship.

~~~

Unless they overestimate themselves, they know that the cessation of ignorance has occurred & therefore that there is no more coming to any state due to the lack of necessary nutriment for such an event. At the same time, they do not have any confirmation of pre-/post-death continuities (meditative visions of such things are not confirmation of them as ontological facts, but simply ongoing evidence of their having a foundation in feeling, per DN 1).

...so, what's the problem again? Staying within the scope of the OP, the goal is dukkha-nirodha, not rebirth-nirodha.

So you are saying they know there is no nutriment for rebirth, or "coming into any state", yes? If so, how is that not confirmation of the lack of post-death continuity, i.e. confirmation that birth has ended, i.e. no more rebirth? It sounds like a contradiction.

[Aloka]

the Buddha said that "as even a little excrement is of evil smell, I do not praise even the shortest spell of existence, be it no longer than a snap of the fingers."

Could you provide the source of the quote, please Paul ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Aloka,

It's AN 1.328.

Metta,
Paul.

[daverupa]

My thinking was that the arahant knows that the ending of dukkha has occurred, though the body may yet stand as a condition for unpleasant feeling. But that's only temporary, and when it ends there's just no more fuel around for such things, whether or not it would have happened.

Maybe it's too thin a slice to satisfy... ah well; I still see a space for withholding a commitment. Surely I can only guess at what an arahant knows.

[Mkoll]

My thinking was that the arahant knows that the ending of dukkha has occurred, though the body may yet stand as a condition for unpleasant feeling. But that's only temporary, and when it ends there's just no more fuel around for such things, whether or not it would have happened.

Maybe it's too thin a slice to satisfy... ah well; I still see a space for withholding a commitment.

Yes, the contradiction remains AFAICS. I do agree about withholding full commitment though, as per the Canki Sutta (MN 95).

Surely I can only guess at what an arahant knows.

Indeed, we can only speculate.

[Lazy_eye]

Maybe it's too thin a slice to satisfy... ah well; I still see a space for withholding a commitment. Surely I can only guess at what an arahant knows.

That is a very interesting sutta. It makes me wonder whether an "axiological" approach to the Dhamma might be fundamentally off the mark -- since in this presentation, samsara itself seems to bring forth nibbana.

[The Thinker]

How can one" know or see "if he should not think?

[The Thinker]

Paul davy wrote - AN 1.328.

This sutta in isolation can be a great cause of suffering, I feel it was not correct, or I should say a poor teaching if thinking is a cause of suffering this can trigger all sorts of nihilistic thought and yes some may encounter thoughts of suicide. If craving( not-thinking) was the meaning then the word craving should have been used!

[Sylvester]

For the sake of argument, let's say someone is agnostic about rebirth and they practice diligently and attain arahantship. Are they then still agnostic about rebirth?

SN 12.70 applies here. It demonstrates that for some arahants (most? could it be... ALL of them?) the regularity of the Dhamma is seen, but they do not see past lives or kamma-vipaka for beings.

I think SN 12.70 and its Chinese parallel have both suffered some messy transmission problems.

For one, the Chinese has the enlightened monk declaring that he does not have any of the jhanas, unlike SN 12.70 which mentions only the formless attainments. Unlike the Pali version, the Chinese is missing any reference to the supernormal powers.

What gives? On the basis of SA 347, there is now canonical support for the notion of the Dry-Insight Worker.