A quick essay on fourth path. - Discussion
Daniel M. Ingram:
Dear James,
There is always the sticky issue of timing and the difference between nibbana and paranibbana, meaning what is possible while the body is still alive and what is possible on the dissolution of the body.
There is always the sticky issue of timing and the difference between nibbana and paranibbana, meaning what is possible while the body is still alive and what is possible on the dissolution of the body.
The difference between nibbana and parinibbana is in fact a misnomer. Quickly after the parinibbana (irony) of the Buddha, the sectarian Buddhists began to draw logical conclusions regarding the teachings of the Buddha.
It is in fact the case that the Buddha did not intend his teachings to be logically deduced from. Nevertheless after his demise many a follower did in fact begin to explicated what shouldn't be explicated, and not explicated what should have been explicated.
The common misnomer is that there is a final end to suffering after death and a precursor end of suffering while one is alive. This is not the intended teaching. The end of suffering occurs while alive, finish. After death, we cannot speculate what happens. Nevertheless we know that the end of suffering in fact occurs while the body is alive.
Now of course, someone could ask me, James why don't you pinch yourself? If you hurt then we will conclude that Awakening does not end bodily pain. But the fact of the matter is is that it's not so simple.
I don't feel bodily pain, period. There is no what-if. The only arrow is the arrow of craving. I haven't felt bodily pain in years, it is erased. There is no body anymore, the body is gone. I feel only satisfaction.
Being very traditional about it, and drawing on the Pali Canon, there is still some suffering while the body still lives.
There are numerous places to look for this:
the pains the Buddha suffered (back pains, headaches that were probably migraines and his painful abdominal cramps before his death),
the case of Channa (often mentioned in these discussions) the arahat who killed himself,
and the even worthy MN 121 that reminds us that for the arahat, while there may not be the taints ignorance, attachment or aversion, there is still the suffering of the body conditioned by life.
There are numerous places to look for this:
the pains the Buddha suffered (back pains, headaches that were probably migraines and his painful abdominal cramps before his death),
the case of Channa (often mentioned in these discussions) the arahat who killed himself,
and the even worthy MN 121 that reminds us that for the arahat, while there may not be the taints ignorance, attachment or aversion, there is still the suffering of the body conditioned by life.
But with the ending of the body there can be no more suffering. I have ended the body (so called), therefore suffering is ended. There is nothing further for this world. Whatever there is to know has been known.
One can also look to Dependent Origination and carefully tease out what the Buddha meant by suffering, which was many things, but among them were old age, pain, lamentation, grief, despair, illness and death: those things that happen to a body that was born.
Thoughts on these textual sources and their meaning and implications?
Thoughts on these textual sources and their meaning and implications?
I'm really stuck trying to convey this truth that I witness with my body. There really is no more suffering here, and by that I mean literally no more old age, pain, lamentation, grief, despair, illness and death. It is in fact gone. There is no one here to feel it and there is no one to suffer.
You could conclude that all bodies that are born suffer, but are all trees that are born suffer? Trees are not subject to birth, suffering, aging and death.
But I am, I always will be.
Seeing thus, he wanders for a long time. Therefore, crave not, with the ending of craving is the ending of me. And what am I? The conceit "I am" must be ended.
Daniel
