Confused about MN 60

[Coëmgenu]

For the discussion of the term 'bhava', see:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=27543

Best wishes!

The only thing difficult here is that Venerable Bodhi presents a false dichotomy between bhava and atthita by only saying what is generally true about these terms and not giving their full semantic ranges. Bhava can also mean something absolutely identical to atthita.

[Gwi]

Please only provide answers from the Classical Theravada perspective, Suttanta or other perspective answers would confuse the issue further and are not relevant in this sub forum, as per the guidelines for this sub forum posted below.

V. There is no Cessation of Being
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is definitely no cessation of being.’

“Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There definitely is a cessation of being.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”

“About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there is definitely no cessation of being,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me. Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is possible that I might here and now attain final Nibbāna. The view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being” is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging; but the view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is cessation of being” is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.’ After reflecting thus, he practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being.
-MN 60

So, the Buddha is saying that he does not say, or even know, that there is a cessation of being, but that we should practice the way to cessation of being? I am very confused.

What is the Classical Theravada take on this? Is he avoiding someone mistaking "being" for a self? Because there are other suttas where he says that every facet of what is called a being does indeed cease. In fact, there is at least one sutta where he defines "being" as "suffering" (SN 23.2) and we all know there are many, many suttas where he declares that suffering ceases! So, beings cease?

A being is defined within the five aggregates, as the sequence of dependent origination and as suffering, literally all of these things are said to cease (SN 12.2 for dependent origination, the other referenced suttas demonstrate the cessation of the other items mentioned). Even then, the Buddha delineates the All (SN 35.23), and every single thing included in the all is said to cease (SN 22.56). So that means that unless the Buddha said "A being is Nibbana." that a being necessarily ceases at some point, because any formulation of what a being is must be part of the All and therefore impermanent, subject to cessation, and Nibbana is the only unconiditioned, permanent dhamma that does not cease.

This is strange. Other than Nibbana, literally everything, without exception, ceases as per the Suttas. Why would the Buddha refrain from saying "A being ceases."? Again, is it merely because he wanted to avoid saying that a being exists, to avoid a verbal trap in which he could be misinterpreted as confirming the existence of a self?

Further, the Buddha didn't even know whether a being ceases or not? What? I realize he never claimed to have infinite knowledge (MN 71.), but not knowing the answer to such a basic and pertinent question seems really out of character. Can someone clear this up please?

Guidelines for this sub forum:


The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Posts should, where appropriate, include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.

V. There is no Cessation of Being
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is definitely no cessation of being.’
---> Aṭṭhakathā: that means nibbānå


Nibbānå is amatå (immortal).
Except buddhisme they think
When we ded, we can be immortal.

But, in buddhisme, u can be immortal
When u have destroyed lobhå, doså, mohå.
Crushed (till) to the roots (aka ten fetters).
So, we can be immortal.

Nibbānå only in buddhism.