Understanding Sassata (Eternalism) and Uccheda (Annihilationism) Views in Buddhism

 It's rare to find people who truly understand the Five Precepts. Isn't this worth contemplating?

How should we contemplate? Throughout history, many Buddhas have appeared, and in every village and town, aren't there monks giving the Five Precepts as part of Buddhist practice?

Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī - should we kill or abstain? Hmm - we should abstain. #We_must_abstain, remember? Isn't this taught everywhere? Think about it.

Let's think again. When monks travel for missionary work, don't people investigate what the monks eat? #Don't_they_ask_what_the_Maunglae_Sayadaw_eats? They do investigate.

They say he eats gourd leaves, pumpkin, tender vegetables, and such fruits and vegetables. Don't they mention these? They do. So, don't people then search for these foods that monks eat? They do.

Some also ask, "What does your teacher like to eat?" Don't they say he likes eggs? Don't they then look for eggs?

They say he likes chicken soup. Don't they then search for these, #because_it's_what_the_monk_likes? Don't they search? Yes, they do.

Look here - isn't it taught that liberation from the three cycles (kilesa vaṭṭa, kamma vaṭṭa, vipāka vaṭṭa) leads to Nibbāna?

Also consider conventional truth again. Consider ultimate truth as seen by wisdom. Don't we need to distinguish between concepts and ultimate reality?

Doesn't Mogok Sayadaw teach in his recordings that mixing conventional and ultimate truth is more painful than being struck by lightning? Think about this.

Well, if we eat vegetarian food and fruits, don't we develop #attachment_and_craving? We enjoy it. "This gourd leaf curry is good, today's coffee is nice" - don't we become attached? Isn't this craving?

With meat and fish too: "The fried egg is good, today your pork curry is well-cooked" - don't people say this? Don't they enjoy it? #Craving. Isn't the nature of craving the same in both cases? Yes, it is.

So when someone likes pork, chicken, or eggs, don't they have to search for these? #When_searching_consider_whether_it_leads_to_killing.

Well, if you eat vegetarian food and fruits, does the person who has to search for these foods incur the kamma of killing? Think about this too.

Isn't it taught that we should be "sutavā ariyasāvako" (well-informed noble disciples)? #Don't_speak_one-sidedly.

Consider also the Goṇasurā Dīpanī text written by Ledi Sayadaw, who wrote about seeing both sides of pariyatti and paṭipatti (theory and practice).

Look from the conventional truth perspective and from wisdom's ultimate truth perspective. Isn't this worth contemplating? When they say the monk likes something, they have to search for it. When eating meat, don't they have to search for meat? Don't the people who search for animals for our consumption #create_unwholesome_kamma? They do.

Now, the craving for fruits and vegetables - yes, they have physical life, but does it incur the kamma of killing? Living beings have both physical and mental life. #It_incurs_killing_kamma. No, it doesn't. Yes, it does.

Isn't "Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi" (I undertake the precept to abstain from killing) included in the traditional giving of precepts? Doesn't it say we must abstain? Think about this, do you understand?

Then, in some places I've heard - well, I'm not sure if it's true or not, I wasn't there when the monk came - but that village had read Ledi Sayadaw's text.

After reading it, they avoided a lot. When they avoided these things, some people who liked certain foods couldn't eat them anymore.

Then they say, "Well, we didn't kill them ourselves. You didn't kill them either. This is paṃsukūla (already available food)," don't they say this?

Then the devotee replied, "In that case, Venerable Sir, let's set aside the precept about killing," do you hear?

Include the other precepts. They say they'll avoid as the venerable ones teach. Think about this too. Hmm, isn't this worth studying?

This is conventional truth - avoiding killing based on the concept of life, soul, and permanent existence.

🌺Eternalism (Sassata) / Annihilationism (Uccheda)🌺

Isn't eternalist view considered wholesome? Isn't it taught as meritorious wholesomeness? But with annihilationism, believing there's no next world, they think "I'll kill if I want to eat."

When one commits unwholesome actions... If there's no next world, wouldn't people commit cruel unwholesome acts? Because there are no consequences.

With no next world, there are no consequences, so they won't even worry about five cents. #Won't_do_good_deeds. Since there's nothing to receive the results. Without consequences, don't they commit cruel unwholesome acts?

Consider this about eternalism and annihilationism. Isn't this worth contemplating? We need to understand these two views. Annihilationists commit greater wrong, eternalists lesser wrong, understand?

The eternalist greatly fears killing beings. They're afraid of doing wrong deeds, but they dare to do good. #They_fear_unwholesome_acts.

The annihilationist doesn't do good deeds, understand? They commit cruel unwholesome acts. When meeting the Buddha, between annihilationists and eternalists, annihilationists are easier to liberate, understand?

Because they're absolute, you see. When meeting the Buddha and the Sangha, #they're_easier_to_liberate. Eternalists are harder to liberate.

Isn't it worth asking why those with more good deeds are harder to liberate? Speaking as a farmer, when you have fields, don't you plant mango trees, eucalyptus trees, durian trees around?

#You_still_want_to_eat_what_you_plant, understand? You still want to eat what you planted. Don't you want to eat? You still want to eat what your children offer. The food from children.

Or the merits from giving (dāna) and morality (sīla) you've done. You still want to enjoy these results, understand? That's why liberation is difficult. Isn't this worth considering? #Annihilationists_don't_have_these_attachments. Isn't this worth studying?

Without meeting the Buddha or his disciples, annihilationists go straight to lower realms. #To_Avīci. Eternalists cycle between human and deva realms.

Because they have many good deeds. But for Nibbāna, they're harder to liberate, understand? They still want to enjoy the results of their giving, their morality. Isn't this how they are?

Farmers too still want to eat from plants they grew. #They're_not_satisfied_if_they_can't_eat_what_they_planted. Study this too. Isn't this worth contemplating deeply?

"Two Ways of Eating (စားသုံးခြင်း နှစ်မျိုး - တဏှာမှ လွတ်မြောက်ရာသို့)

 Metta (loving-kindness) is already included when one observes the Five Precepts perfectly. Particularly, as something to be avoided, we include it as Navanga Sila (Nine Precepts). Isn't this worth contemplating?

Then, didn't the Buddha clearly demonstrate victory through metta in the Eight Victories? That's conventional truth (sammuti sacca). It's not ultimate truth (paramattha sacca) seen through wisdom.

Isn't this also worth studying? Consider this too. Don't we need to understand each truth in its own context?

We must have faith in kamma and rely on wisdom. Puññābhisaṅkhāra is the path of kamma. Āneñjābhisaṅkhāra is the path of jhana. Apuññābhisaṅkhāra is indeed kamma. Don't we need to distinguish between unwholesome and wholesome kamma?

Vipassana insight and Path knowledge were only heard after the Buddha's enlightenment. Isn't this worth contemplating? So, one should reflect on Vipassana insight and Path knowledge. Think about this again.

When eating, doesn't the Buddha teach about six tastes: sweet, sour, spicy, salty, bitter, and astringent?

Among these, are vegetarian foods included? Are bananas included? Are oranges included? No, they're not.

Is chicken or pork included? No, they're not. Listen, isn't this worth contemplating?

Don't we need to understand these taste elements? For one who knows how to eat properly... if one knows how to eat properly, this leads to transcending defilements.

I've heard about a meeting between the venerable ones - Sangha Raja Sayadaw and Kyaut Mae Sayadaw. They were monastery friends and study companions.

However, the forest-dwelling monk was senior by about 5 vassa (rains retreats), being 4-5 or 6 years older. After leaving the monastery, they hadn't met for a long time. After about 10-15 vassa, news arrived.

"Venerable Sir, which day shall we come visit?" A letter was sent saying, "Please don't come anywhere." When the letter arrived, Phoe Thu Taw(Devodee) received it and read it. The Sanga Raja Sayadaw was planning to visit.

He would come with attendants, lay supporters, and the king. Ministers and generals would accompany them. "There's not even a single mat in the monastery. Shouldn't we borrow some mats from the village?" "This is a forest monastery."

"In a forest monastery, one sits as circumstances allow, isn't that what they say? Don't borrow anything."

"For drinking water, won't a coconut shell water dipper be enough? They can drink from that. Don't borrow anything," that's what was said. And so they arrived.

Upon arrival, they made offerings of various foods and drinks. They offered robes and other requisites, high-quality blankets of various kinds. Whatever was received was offered onward to the Buddha. Every offering received was dedicated to the Buddha.

Phoe Thu Taw found it difficult to understand. Instead of keeping things for himself, he wanted them kept for personal use, but everything was offered to the Buddha.

After making offerings, they engaged in friendly conversation. At mealtime, they offered the meal. They brought various foods - fried chilies and onions, fried fish, fried chicken wings, and many other delicacies. All sorts of foods and drinks.

"Chewing is suffering, swallowing is suffering, eating is suffering" - that's what the partaking monk said. Phoe Thu Taw heard this from below and said, "Oh, how I wish to experience such suffering!" That's what he said, do you hear?

"How I wish to experience such suffering!" Hmm, isn't this worth contemplating? Consider this too, study it thoroughly.

Now, one who knows how to eat says it's suffering. One who knows how to chew says it's suffering. Doesn't the Buddha teach that chewing and swallowing are suffering? Is there craving in this? No, there isn't. Isn't this worth contemplating? Well, doesn't the Buddha teach "Rāgakkhayo Nibbānaṃ" (the destruction of lust is Nibbana)? That's how one who knows how to eat properly understands.

Can one truly know how to eat without seeing mind-and-matter (nāma-rūpa)? Hmm, can one know how to eat without seeing mind-and-matter? Just knowing the physical mouth and mental states isn't enough. Can the Five Aggregates be understood through mere perception?

Didn't the Mogok Sayadaw teach that it can't be achieved through textual Dependent Origination alone? It must be through understanding the Aggregates in Dependent Origination. Think about this. You must understand the Aggregates. Isn't this worth examining carefully?

When there is true knowing, there is abandoning. Will unwholesome states still arise? Will they manifest even at the level of verbal conception? They won't arise anymore. Don't physical behaviors change? Don't verbal behaviors change? Everything must transform...

"The Two Extremes: Eternalism and Annihilationism

Through consciousness and conventional truth, isn't it taught that we must believe in kamma-ownership right view (kammassakatā sammādiṭṭhi) - the two aspects of unwholesome and wholesome kamma?

From killing living beings to taking intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - when these are committed, is it wholesome or unwholesome?

Isn't it taught that due to unwholesome kamma, the result immediately after death is hell, animal realm, peta realm, or asura realm? Is this happiness or suffering? Isn't it frightening?

When one abstains from killing living beings to taking intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - is it unwholesome or wholesome?

Due to wholesome kamma, isn't it taught that the result is human realm and six deva realms? Is this suffering or happiness?

Isn't it taught that we must believe in kamma?

Kamma-ownership right view, Jhāna right view, Vipassanā right view, Path right view, Fruition right view - aren't these five types of right view mentioned in Mogok Sayadaw's recordings? Consider that we must believe in kamma.

Therefore, when committing acts from killing to taking intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - it's unwholesome. When abstaining, it's wholesome. Let's consider this.

People who truly understand the five precepts are rare.

Isn't this worth contemplating?"

"How should we consider this? Since the time of previous Buddhas, haven't there been monks giving the five precepts in every village and town related to Buddhism?

Regarding 'pāṇātipātā veramaṇī' - should we kill or abstain? Yes - we should abstain. Isn't this taught everywhere? Think about it.

Let's consider again. When monks travel doing missionary work, people investigate. They ask what the Sao Dhammasami monk eats. Don't they investigate?

They say he eats gourd leaves, pumpkin, fresh vegetables, and such fruits. Don't they mention these? Yes. So people have to search for these vegetarian foods, don't they?

Some also ask, "What does your teacher like to eat?" Don't they mention he likes eggs? Don't they have to find eggs? They say he likes chicken soup. Don't they have to search for these because the monk likes them?

Look at this - the three cycles: defilements (kilesavaṭṭa), kamma (kammavaṭṭa), and results (vipākavaṭṭa). Isn't it taught that when freed from these three cycles, one reaches Nibbāna?

Consider conventional truth again. Consider ultimate truth with wisdom. Don't we need to distinguish between concepts and ultimate reality?

Doesn't Mogok Sayadaw teach in his recordings that mixing conventional and ultimate truth is more painful than being struck by lightning? Think about this.

If we eat vegetarian food and fruits, don't we still get craving? We enjoy it, saying "How good this gourd leaf is today," or "How nice to have coffee today." Don't we develop attachment? Isn't this craving?

With meat too - "The fried egg is good," "Your pork is well-cooked today" - don't people say such things? Don't they enjoy it? Craving. Isn't the term 'craving' the same in both cases?

So when someone likes pork, chicken, or eggs, don't they have to search for these? When searching, does this incur the kamma of killing?

If we eat vegetarian food and fruits, but others have to search and kill for us, would they incur the kamma of killing? Consider this too.

Isn't it taught that we should be 'sutavā ariyasāvako' (well-informed noble disciples)? Don't speak one-sidedly.

Consider also the Goṇasurā Dīpanī text written by Ledi Sayadaw, who wrote about both theoretical and practical aspects.

Look from both conventional truth and ultimate truth perspectives. Isn't this worth considering? When monks say they like something, people have to search for it. When eating meat, don't they have to search for animals? Don't those who search for animals for others create unwholesome kamma? They do.

Consider this: craving for fruits and vegetables affects physical life, but does it incur the kamma of killing? Living beings have both physical and mental life. It does incur killing kamma.

Isn't 'pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi' (I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing) included in the traditional giving of precepts? Doesn't it say we must abstain? Think about this.

In some places, they've heard about this - well, Bhante doesn't know when they encountered it. They've read Ledi Sayadaw's text.

After reading it, they largely avoid [killing]. When they avoid it, some who like certain foods can't eat them anymore.

Then they say, "Well, we didn't kill these ourselves. These are like alms food (piṇḍapāta)."

Then the devotee replies, "In that case, Venerable Sir, let's set aside the kamma of killing."

They say, "Let's include the other [precepts]. We'll avoid as you've taught." Consider this too. Isn't this worth studying?"

"This is conventional truth. Avoiding killing based on the belief that beings have life and soul - that's eternalism (sassata). Isn't eternalist view taught as wholesome, as puññābhi kusala?

When one takes the annihilationist (uccheda) view that there's no next life (na paraloke), they kill if they want to eat. They commit unwholesome acts freely.

If there's no next life, wouldn't people commit cruel unwholesome acts? Because there's no consequence to face.

With no next life to aspire to, there's no goal. Without a goal, they won't even give five cents. They won't do wholesome deeds because there's nothing to aspire to.

With nothing to aspire to and no consequences to face, wouldn't they commit cruel unwholesome acts? Consider this. Isn't it worth considering eternalism and annihilationism?

The annihilationist has greater fault.
The eternalist has lesser fault. You see?

The eternalist is very afraid of killing beings. They fear committing wrongdoing. They dare to do wholesome deeds but fear unwholesome ones.

The annihilationist doesn't do wholesome deeds, you see? They commit cruel unwholesome acts freely.

When meeting the Buddha, between annihilationism and eternalism - the annihilationist is easier to liberate, you see? Because they're decisive.

When meeting the Buddha and the Sangha, they're easier to liberate. The eternalist is harder to liberate.

Isn't it worth asking why it's harder to liberate someone with more wholesome deeds?

Speaking as a farmer - when you have fields, don't you plant mango trees, coconut trees, durian trees around? You still want to eat from the trees you planted, right?

You want to eat what you've planted. Don't you want to eat? You want to eat what your children offer. The food from your children.

Or the merits from dana (giving) and sila (morality) you've done - you still want to enjoy these results, you see? That's why liberation is difficult. Isn't this worth considering? The annihilationist doesn't have these attachments. Isn't this worth studying?

Without meeting the Buddha or his disciples, the annihilationist goes straight to the lower realms - to Avīci hell.

The eternalist alternates between human and deva realms. Because they have many wholesome deeds. But for Nibbana, they're harder to liberate, you see? They still want to enjoy the results of their dana and sila. Isn't this how it is?

A farmer still wants to eat from the plants they grew. They're not satisfied if they can't eat what they planted. Study this too. Isn't it worth considering deeply?

Therefore, metta (loving-kindness)...
One who keeps the five precepts perfectly already has metta.

Isn't it worth considering why it's included as navanga-sila (nine precepts) specifically as abstinence?

Isn't it clear that the Buddha conquered through metta in his eight victories? That's conventional truth, not ultimate truth seen with wisdom.

Isn't this worth studying? Consider this.

Don't we need to understand each truth in its own context?

We must believe in kamma and rely on wisdom..."