Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

gabrielbranbury wrote:I found talks in English. Was that a translator?

gabrielbranbury wrote:

beeblebrox wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:Would you (or anyone else) happen to know of the status of the English versions of Nibbāna Sermons 26-33? The English versions of Sermons 1-25 have been available online for a few years now, but after #25 appeared on Beyond the Net they seem to have stopped....

When I read the sermons, the language style in the latter sermons seems to be different from the earlier sermons (including the formatting of the Pāli). I think the translator was probably changed around that point; I guess this second translator stopped translating after a few sermons for whatever reason (the same as the first one); and then they haven't found new translator to finish the rest. Just my speculation.

I found talks in English. Was that a translator?

Kenshou wrote:I am curious how it is that what is anicca is dukkha even without upadana. Can you elaborate? I want to know specifically why.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Alex,

Alex123 wrote:Remember that ALL things are dukkha.

It's all sankharas that are dukkha. All things (dhammas) are anatta.

A significant difference in the context of this discussion, IMO.

Metta,
Retro.

beeblebrox wrote:I had the distinct impression that you said that the arahants were already "non-existing beings," so that's why there's no annihilation.

Also, I was bit confused when you said that the tetralemma only applies after death... which seemed to imply that one of these 4 things can be said about the arahants before death. If those were mistaken, then I apologize, Alex. Also... your constant equivalence between parinibbāna and atheist's one-life death didn't help.

retrofuturist wrote: The difference between your form of annihilation and that of the classical Indian traditions, is that you chop the atman up into 5 pieces before wanting to annihilate it. Either way, you crave the annihilation and permanent destruction of things you perceive to exist.

It’s only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.”SN 5.10 Vajirå Ven BB Trans.

Alex123 wrote:

beeblebrox wrote:I had the distinct impression that you said that the arahants were already "non-existing beings," so that's why there's no annihilation.

Right. What we call a being is a conditioned process of mental & physical factors. The process does exist, and one process can be distinguished from another process. Since it is a process and not a Self being that has any mastery over things, it is unsatisfactory. One cannot control the reality such as "let me experience always blissful bodily feelings.", etc, etc.

Alex123 wrote: The tetralemma does NOT apply after death because the launching point of the question is the assumption of a Self (or Arahant, or Tathagata) as a Self existing being.

That question asks "What happens to an Arahant as a Self existing being after death"? The 4 kinds of answers do not apply because they imply a fate of a Self. To definitely answer the wrongly put tetralemma would assent to its basic premise of an Existing Self. It would be like trying to answer a tricky question of "have you stopped beating your wife?" , any type of answer would make it look like you did beat your wife. This is why the Buddha refused to answer yes/no to the tetralemma.

Alex123 wrote:

Kenshou wrote:I am curious how it is that what is anicca is dukkha even without upadana. Can you elaborate? I want to know specifically why.

By dukkha I do not mean only emotional suffering. I mean the painful bodily feeling and the fact that pleasant feelings are impermanent and can give way to unpleasant ones.

Just because one is an arahant it doesn't preclude one from being brutally hurt and/or killed.

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."

Sobeh wrote:The Five Aggregates are not dukkha; the Five Aggregates Subject to Clinging are dukkha.

Alex123 wrote:

retrofuturist wrote: The difference between your form of annihilation and that of the classical Indian traditions, is that you chop the atman up into 5 pieces before wanting to annihilate it. Either way, you crave the annihilation and permanent destruction of things you perceive to exist.

I don't believe in an Atman or Self. Furthermore, as long as one believes in Self or possesion of the Self, then of course the complete cessation would feel threatening. It would be viewed as part of a Self that ceases. But if what has ceased (5 aggregates) were never under full control, and were never The Self, then their cessation is not a bad thing.

The suttas are clear that all that arises is just dukkha, and all that ceases is just dukkha that ceases. To cling to anything (such as awareness, will, consciousness, life, etc) is only clinging to Dukkha. It is like grabbing a red-hot iron ball and tightly holding it. It betrays the fact that one is still attached to something.

However, as I see it, the contention arises because you take the five aggregates as things that "exist". You take their "existence" as an objective and ontological given, a fait accompli, leaving no room or scope for any degree of experiential or perceptual measure in what might constitute this "existence" (despite the caveats found in suttas such as SN 12.15).