What is Vibhava Tanha?

[DooDoot]

Now you are slandering Buddha.

I doubt my good self & the Venerable Thanissaro would slander the Buddha, here, nor could a Hindu guru admirer distinguish such.

There’s a passage where the Buddha once said that belief in annihilationism is the highest of all wrong views, because it helps lead toward dispassion.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... alks_3.pdf

Ajahn Brahmali also said:

The Buddha specifically said that the annihilationist view is the highest view of those outside of Buddhism (that is, higher than the eternalist view) because one who holds this view will will not be repelled by cessation (see AN10:29 and SN22:81). In other words, there is more clinging with the eternalist view. This seems to be the exact opposite of what you are suggesting here.

https://bswa.org/forum/forum/discussion ... n-buddhism

What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha?

I am loathed to answer this question (since the Buddha taught about the types of tanha so becoming, self-view & eternalism is abandoned) but I found an answer, even though it does not include "rebirth" and even though "vibhava" does not always mean "annihilationism". In fact, I am not going to provide the answer because I believe it will be unbeneficial or harmful. Answering will increase the quagmire or mixing up of words & definitions (until the Dhamma become unrecognisable).

[DooDoot]

OK. I will provide an answer but change the question.

What is the destination (rebirth) of an annihilationist?

From SN 22.81:

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṃ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṃ na me bhavissatī’ti.

But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, ucchedadiṭṭhi saṅkhāro so.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/sujato

From MN 106, which might have the same or similar annihilationist view :

“Ānanda, take a mendicant who practices like this:
“Idhānanda, bhikkhu evaṃ paṭipanno hoti:

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’
‘no cassa, no ca me siyā; na bhavissati, na me bhavissati; yadatthi, yaṃ bhūtaṃ—taṃ pajahāmī’ti.

In this way they gain equanimity.
Evaṃ upekkhaṃ paṭilabhati.

They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to that equanimity.
So taṃ upekkhaṃ abhinandati, abhivadati, ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.

Their consciousness relies on that and grasps it.
Tassa taṃ upekkhaṃ abhinandato abhivadato ajjhosāya tiṭṭhato tannissitaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ tadupādānaṃ.

A mendicant with grasping does not become extinguished.”
Saupādāno, ānanda, bhikkhu na parinibbāyatī”ti.

“But sir, what is that mendicant grasping?”
“Kahaṃ pana so, bhante, bhikkhu upādiyamāno upādiyatī”ti?

“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
“Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ, ānandā”ti.

“Sir, it seems that mendicant is grasping the best thing to grasp!”
“Upādānaseṭṭhaṃ kira so, bhante, bhikkhu upādiyamāno upādiyatī”ti?

“Indeed, Ānanda.
“Upādānaseṭṭhañhi so, ānanda, bhikkhu upādiyamāno upādiyati.

For the best thing to grasp is
Upādānaseṭṭhañhetaṃ, ānanda, yadidaṃ—

the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ.

Take a mendicant who practices like this:
Idhānanda, bhikkhu evaṃ paṭipanno hoti:

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’
‘no cassa, no ca me siyā; na bhavissati, na me bhavissati; yadatthi, yaṃ bhūtaṃ—taṃ pajahāmī’ti.

In this way they gain equanimity.
Evaṃ upekkhaṃ paṭilabhati.

They don’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging to that equanimity.
So taṃ upekkhaṃ nābhinandati, nābhivadati, na ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.

So their consciousness doesn’t rely on that and grasp it.
Tassa taṃ upekkhaṃ anabhinandato anabhivadato anajjhosāya tiṭṭhato na tannissitaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ na tadupādānaṃ.

A mendicant free of grasping becomes extinguished.”
Anupādāno, ānanda, bhikkhu parinibbāyatī”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn106/en/sujato

So, SN 22.81 and MN 106, in combination, might say the annihilationist (who must grasp to be an annihilationist) attains equinimity & the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

The above said, this answer is probably wrong because SN 22.81 is the annihilationist view of "I will not be" (nābhavissaṃ) where as MN 106 is the view "it will not be" (na bhavissati) .

[DooDoot]

Now you are slandering Buddha.

AN 10.29 is definitely about the annihilationist referred to in SN 22.81:

This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, bāhirakānaṃ diṭṭhigatānaṃ yadidaṃ ‘no cassaṃ, no ca me siyā, na bhavissāmi, na me bhavissatī’ti.

When someone has such a view, you can expect
Evaṃdiṭṭhino, bhikkhave, etaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ:

that they will be repulsed by continued existence,
‘yā cāyaṃ bhave appaṭikulyatā, sā cassa na bhavissati;

and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.
yā cāyaṃ bhavanirodhe pāṭikulyatā, sā cassa na bhavissatī’ti.

Some sentient beings have such a view.
Evaṃdiṭṭhinopi kho, bhikkhave, santi sattā.

But even the sentient beings who have views like this decay and perish.
Evaṃdiṭṭhīnampi kho, bhikkhave, sattānaṃ attheva aññathattaṃ atthi vipariṇāmo.

“Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change.

The supreme view-point external [to the Dhamma] is this: 'I should not be; it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.' Of one with this view it may be expected that '[the perception of] unloathsomeness of becoming will not occur to him, and [the perception of] loathsomeness of the cessation of becoming will not occur to him.' And there are beings who have this view. Yet even in the beings who have this view there is still aberration, there is change.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.29/en/sujato

[SarathW]

DD
Are you saying when a person takes his own life it is some sort of Nibbana?

[DooDoot]

DD
Are you saying when a person takes his own life it is some sort of Nibbana?

No. What I said was:

I am loathed to answer this question (since the Buddha taught about the types of tanha so becoming, self-view & eternalism is abandoned) but I found an answer, even though it does not include "rebirth" and even though "vibhava" does not always mean "annihilationism". In fact, I am not going to provide the answer because I believe it will be unbeneficial or harmful. Answering will increase the quagmire or mixing up of words & definitions (until the Dhamma become unrecognisable).

What I said was:

My impression is the above question is invalid. My impression is rebirth is generally about morality (results of actions towards others) rather than mere thoughts. The above question seems to be ignoring the teachings. Instead of abandoning vibhava tanha as the Buddha taught, the above question seems to be creating eternalism from vibhava tanha.

You appear to be taking the Buddha's teaching about vibhava tanha; not practising what the Buddha taught about it; redefining it inappropriately; then using it as a weapon to condemn others. The Buddha said:

There are here, O monks, some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight.[10] They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. They do not experience the (true) purpose[11] for which they[12] (ought to) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nypo.html

When a person takes his own life, they are generally craving for another world (such as craving for the lover who left them or craving for the money they lost on the stock market). Therefore, it cannot be some sort of Nibbana. Where as the annihilationist is not craving for another word. The annihilationist is disenchanted with life but has not yet realised anatta (not-self). As I said, you appear to just be playing games with words & distorting the teachings. The Buddha said the annihilationist is the foremost in views of outsiders. The Buddha never said suicidal people are annihilationists. Its so predictable you had to bring up suicide to promote Eternalism.

[pitakele]

When a person takes his own life, they are generally craving for another world (such as craving for the lover who left them or craving for the money they lost on the stock market).

I doubt suicide can be reduced to one motive. In this particular article, six reasons are given for people trying to kill themselves:

1. They're depressed
2. They're psychotic
3. They're impulsive
4. They're crying out for help
5. They have a philosophical desire to die
6. They've made a mistake

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... pt-suicide

[auto]

Now you are slandering Buddha.

AN 10.29 is definitely about the annihilationist referred to in SN 22.81:

This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, bāhirakānaṃ diṭṭhigatānaṃ yadidaṃ ‘no cassaṃ, no ca me siyā, na bhavissāmi, na me bhavissatī’ti.

When someone has such a view, you can expect
Evaṃdiṭṭhino, bhikkhave, etaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ:

that they will be repulsed by continued existence,
‘yā cāyaṃ bhave appaṭikulyatā, sā cassa na bhavissati;

and they will not be repulsed by the cessation of continued existence.
yā cāyaṃ bhavanirodhe pāṭikulyatā, sā cassa na bhavissatī’ti.

Some sentient beings have such a view.
Evaṃdiṭṭhinopi kho, bhikkhave, santi sattā.

But even the sentient beings who have views like this decay and perish.
Evaṃdiṭṭhīnampi kho, bhikkhave, sattānaṃ attheva aññathattaṃ atthi vipariṇāmo.

“Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change.

The supreme view-point external [to the Dhamma] is this: 'I should not be; it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.' Of one with this view it may be expected that '[the perception of] unloathsomeness of becoming will not occur to him, and [the perception of] loathsomeness of the cessation of becoming will not occur to him.' And there are beings who have this view. Yet even in the beings who have this view there is still aberration, there is change.

https://suttacentral.net/an10.29/en/sujato

you miss the context

But even the sentient beings who have views like this decay and perish.
Evaṃdiṭṭhīnampi kho, bhikkhave, sattānaṃ attheva aññathattaṃ atthi vipariṇāmo.

next line is telling

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with it.
Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako tasmimpi nibbindati.

Their desire fades away even for the foremost, let alone the inferior.
Tasmiṃ nibbindanto agge virajjati, pageva hīnasmiṃ. (8)

the desire for non-existence is fleeting, even the most strongest.

the 'sentient being' who perish is the pre-birth state bhava. After that is perished you might start liking the existence.

[sentinel]

Annihilation :
the state of being annihilated; total destruction; extinction .

Nibbana :
through practising , termination of existence .

Fundamentally , both concept looks the same .

[auto]

Annihilation :
the state of being annihilated; total destruction; extinction .

Nibbana :
through practising , termination of existence .

Fundamentally , both concept looks the same .

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
“Dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca.

But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. Lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.

And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
Lokanirodhaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti.

nibbana can't be similar to annihilation

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

annihilation:

With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'

-
Arising and passing away doesn't mean destruction or annihilation:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"'All phenomena are rooted in desire.[1]
"'All phenomena come into play through attention.
"'All phenomena have contact as their origination.
"'All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.
"'All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.
"'All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.
"'All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.
"'All phenomena have release as their heartwood.
"'All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.
"'All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.'

just need to excuse some bold wordings into hint to some not on point meaning

"when you see cessation of a world you can't have notion of existence regarding to world". - If it would be truly a destruction of a world what after that doesn't arise anymore, then how you can have any notion on it at all?

[auto]

OK. I will provide an answer but change the question.

What is the destination (rebirth) of an annihilationist?

From SN 22.81:

‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’
‘no cassaṃ no ca me siyā nābhavissaṃ na me bhavissatī’ti.

But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon.
Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, ucchedadiṭṭhi saṅkhāro so.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/sujato

From MN 106, which might have the same or similar annihilationist view :

“Ānanda, take a mendicant who practices like this:
“Idhānanda, bhikkhu evaṃ paṭipanno hoti:

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’
‘no cassa, no ca me siyā; na bhavissati, na me bhavissati; yadatthi, yaṃ bhūtaṃ—taṃ pajahāmī’ti.

In this way they gain equanimity.
Evaṃ upekkhaṃ paṭilabhati.

They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to that equanimity.
So taṃ upekkhaṃ abhinandati, abhivadati, ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.

Their consciousness relies on that and grasps it.
Tassa taṃ upekkhaṃ abhinandato abhivadato ajjhosāya tiṭṭhato tannissitaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ tadupādānaṃ.

A mendicant with grasping does not become extinguished.”
Saupādāno, ānanda, bhikkhu na parinibbāyatī”ti.

“But sir, what is that mendicant grasping?”
“Kahaṃ pana so, bhante, bhikkhu upādiyamāno upādiyatī”ti?

“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
“Nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ, ānandā”ti.

“Sir, it seems that mendicant is grasping the best thing to grasp!”
“Upādānaseṭṭhaṃ kira so, bhante, bhikkhu upādiyamāno upādiyatī”ti?

“Indeed, Ānanda.
“Upādānaseṭṭhañhi so, ānanda, bhikkhu upādiyamāno upādiyati.

For the best thing to grasp is
Upādānaseṭṭhañhetaṃ, ānanda, yadidaṃ—

the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ.

Take a mendicant who practices like this:
Idhānanda, bhikkhu evaṃ paṭipanno hoti:

‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’
‘no cassa, no ca me siyā; na bhavissati, na me bhavissati; yadatthi, yaṃ bhūtaṃ—taṃ pajahāmī’ti.

In this way they gain equanimity.
Evaṃ upekkhaṃ paṭilabhati.

They don’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging to that equanimity.
So taṃ upekkhaṃ nābhinandati, nābhivadati, na ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.

So their consciousness doesn’t rely on that and grasp it.
Tassa taṃ upekkhaṃ anabhinandato anabhivadato anajjhosāya tiṭṭhato na tannissitaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ na tadupādānaṃ.

A mendicant free of grasping becomes extinguished.”
Anupādāno, ānanda, bhikkhu parinibbāyatī”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn106/en/sujato

So, SN 22.81 and MN 106, in combination, might say the annihilationist (who must grasp to be an annihilationist) attains equinimity & the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

The above said, this answer is probably wrong because SN 22.81 is the annihilationist view of "I will not be" (nābhavissaṃ) where as MN 106 is the view "it will not be" (na bhavissati) .

well just sit, and the urge comes to do something, if you actually go and do then that is being, bhava. If you don't go but continue to sit and say it is not mine etc then eventually equanimity will arise, now it is the point where you should not concentrate on emptiness but on self like i am sitting.

By following the sense of self you will reach to permanent not moving thing and dissect from the fleeting, transient.

[auto]

Now you are slandering Buddha.

I doubt my good self & the Venerable Thanissaro would slander the Buddha, here, nor could a Hindu guru admirer distinguish such.

There’s a passage where the Buddha once said that belief in annihilationism is the highest of all wrong views, because it helps lead toward dispassion.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... alks_3.pdf

Ajahn Brahmali also said:

The Buddha specifically said that the annihilationist view is the highest view of those outside of Buddhism (that is, higher than the eternalist view) because one who holds this view will will not be repelled by cessation (see AN10:29 and SN22:81). In other words, there is more clinging with the eternalist view. This seems to be the exact opposite of what you are suggesting here.

https://bswa.org/forum/forum/discussion ... n-buddhism

What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha?

I am loathed to answer this question (since the Buddha taught about the types of tanha so becoming, self-view & eternalism is abandoned) but I found an answer, even though it does not include "rebirth" and even though "vibhava" does not always mean "annihilationism". In fact, I am not going to provide the answer because I believe it will be unbeneficial or harmful. Answering will increase the quagmire or mixing up of words & definitions (until the Dhamma become unrecognisable).

the average Joe who believes in that there is no rebirth or life after death, he isn't annihilationist. Annihilationist is who thinks the being resulted from clinging is not self and it gets annihilated after body is broken up.

Other words not believing in continuance:
https://suttacentral.net/mn11/en/sujato

views favoring continued existence and views favoring ending existence.
bhavadiṭṭhi ca vibhavadiṭṭhi ca.

[DooDoot]

I doubt suicide can be reduced to one motive. In this particular article, six reasons are given for people trying to kill themselves:

Thanks but what you posted is not relevant to my post. My post was to show to SarathW that suicide is not Nibbana because Nibbana is "not this world; not another world" (Ud 8.1). The suttas say: "letting go of this kaya and not picking up another kaya". Thus, as the suttas say, the annihilationist believes: "when my life ends, this will be peaceful" (Iti 49). The annihilationist is not seeking any kind of rebirth, new life or different life. The entire error of SarathW was equating "vibhava tanha" with suicide & annihilationism. Vibhava tanha appears to be any type of negative desire, such as not wanting your neighbours to make noise. Vibhava tanha appears to be very broad yet SarathW appears to make vibhava tanha so limited; possibly thinking their mind does not have any vibhava tanha.

you miss the context

the 'sentient being' who perish is the pre-birth state bhava. After that is perished you might start liking the existence.

I doubt the sutta is saying the above. Possibly start a new topic on it. The point of my quoting this sutta was to show SarathW the Buddha said annihilationism is the foremost of non-Buddhist doctrines because it can lead to dispassion.

In fact, Dhammapada 6, which appears to be any ordinary mundane teaching, appears to be annihiliationist:

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

[sentinel]

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
“Dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca.

But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. Lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.

And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
Lokanirodhaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti.

"when you see cessation of a world you can't have notion of existence regarding to world". - If it would be truly a destruction of a world what after that doesn't arise anymore, then how you can have any notion on it at all?

When Buddha says Loka Samudayam / Nirodham
, Loka as existence or non existence was referring to what exactly ?
Is it Externally Existence (world/ universe) ?
Or is it existence as an Experience in the eye of a person ?

[auto]

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
“Dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca.

But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. Lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.

And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
Lokanirodhaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti.

"when you see cessation of a world you can't have notion of existence regarding to world". - If it would be truly a destruction of a world what after that doesn't arise anymore, then how you can have any notion on it at all?

When Buddha says Loka Samudayam / Nirodham
, Loka as existence or non existence was referring to what exactly ?
Is it Externally Existence (world/ universe) ?
Or is it existence as an Experience in the eye of a person ?

loka, the world what is after the death of a born being. The notion is about does that world exist or not. Through samudaya, thinking about origination case and effect you will not have the notions of if it exist or not.

vinibandha(i wonder if its related to nibbana?)

The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and insisting.
Upayupādānābhinivesavinibandho khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena.

http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/v/vinibandha

vinibandhaPTS Pali-English dictionary The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
Vinibandha，[vi+nibandha] bondage S．II，17； III，135，186； A．I，66 （+vinivesa）； Sn．16．-- The five cetaso vinibandhā （bondages of the mind） are：kāmesu rāgo，kāye rāgo，rūpe rāgo，yāvadatthaṁ udar’âvadehakaṁ bhuñjitvā seyya-sukhaṁ anuyogo，aññataraṁ deva-nikāyaṁ paṇidhāya brahmacariyaṁ； thus at D．III，238； M．I，103； A．III，249； IV，461，463 sq．； V，17； Vbh．377．（Page 624）

clinging(to self view)

But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’,
Tañcāyaṃ upayupādānaṃ cetaso adhiṭṭhānaṃ abhinivesānusayaṃ na upeti na upādiyati nādhiṭṭhāti: ‘attā me’ti.

clinging is cause for bhava, being what is cause for birth. And birth is a case for old age, death, sickness etc what are condition for world(what is after the death)

[auto]

you miss the context

the 'sentient being' who perish is the pre-birth state bhava. After that is perished you might start liking the existence.

I doubt the sutta is saying the above. Possibly start a new topic on it. The point of my quoting this sutta was to show SarathW the Buddha said annihilationism is the foremost of non-Buddhist doctrines because it can lead to dispassion.

In fact, Dhammapada 6, which appears to be any ordinary mundane teaching, appears to be annihiliationist:

6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

if you are annihilationist then you don't believe in bhava what is waiting to reborn. The bhava is what affect you and you act and the fruits of these actions you experience in this or next existence.
If you stop following these influences and stop thinking that these are your self in short just stop clinging then you enter into equanimity through non-clinging, anupadaya.

But i think what you mean is when i believe in self(clinging) what is one of the elements what is unaffected and carries on from life to life. Then if i think about that that self is going to die, then yes it causes dispassion.