On ignorance and being

 

I am. This certainty of being (bhava) if not examined, forces me to create more or less precise self-image of what I am. Without information from outside (parato ca ghoso) there is no escape from suffering, since these both levels of ignorance - conceit "I am" - ( ignorance on pre-reflexive level) and self-image, personal view -sakkayaditthi - (ignorance on reflexive level) supporting each other imprison puthujjana in dialectics "to be or not to be?"

"I can assert my existence or I can deny it, but in order to do either I must exist; for it is I myself who assert it or deny it. Any attempt I may make to abolish my existence tacitly confirms it; for it is my existence that I am seeking to abolish."

"The faculty of self-observation or reflexion is inherent in the structure of our experience. Some degree of reflexion is almost never entirely absent in our waking life, and in the practice of mindfulness it is deliberately cultivated. To describe it simply, we may say that one part of our experience is immediately concerned with the world as its object, while at the same time another part of our experience is concerned with the immediate experience as its object. This second part we may call reflexive experience. It will be clear that when there is avijjā there is avijjā in both parts of our experience (...) Simply by reflexion the puthujjana can never observe avijjā and at the same time recognize it as avijjā; for in reflexion avijjā is the Judge as well as the Accused, and the verdict is always ‘Not Guilty’. In order to put an end to avijjā, which is a matter of recognizing avijjā as avijjā, it is necessary to accept on trust from the Buddha a Teaching that contradicts the direct evidence of the puthujjana’s reflexion. This is why the Dhamma is patisotagāmī (Majjhima iii,6 <M.i,168>), or ‘going against the stream’. The Dhamma gives the puthujjana the outside view of avijjā, which is inherently unobtainable for him by unaided reflexion (in the ariyasāvaka this view has, as it were, ‘taken’ like a graft, and is perpetually available)."

Nanavira Thera

“Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.

Any recluses or brahmins who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favouring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say". MN 11

The two most fundamental attitudes towards one's own existence which puthujjana can adopt are as follows:

Deities and human beings love being, delight in being, enjoy being; when the Dhamma is expounded to them for the ending of being, their hearts do not go out to it or acquire confidence, steadiness and decision. So some hang back. And how do some overreach? Some are ashamed, humiliated and disgusted by that same being, and they look forward to non-being in this way: ‘Sirs, when with the dissolution of the body this self is cut off, annihilated and accordingly after death no longer is, that is the most peaceful, that is the goal superior to all, that is reality.’ So some overreach. Itv 49

Unlike puthujjana, ariya savaka understand puthujja's experience and sees direct, immediate relationship between ignorance and the state of being and precisely the very knowledge about dependently arisen nature of one's own existence (bhava) provides escape from the dialectic "to be or not to be?".

In short, the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering. (...) Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. MN 28

And how do those with vision see? Here a bhikkhu sees whatever has come to being as come to being. By seeing it thus he has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the fading and ceasing of lust for it. That is how one with vision sees.”
Iti. 49

It is important to understand that the idea "there is no self" is merely the opposite side of affirming "self". People are selfish and this is a problem which has to be solved. Puthujjana identifies himself with certain aspects of experience (body and so on) and  the teaching "all things are not self", tells him that he is a victim of wrong self-identification.

Understanding Dhamma with the help of God  (escape from affirmation/negation of dependently arisen thing.

And what, then, about the Buddha’s Teaching—how does it tell us to deal with the question whether or not God exists? The first thing is to refuse to be bullied into giving a categorical answer, yes or no, to such a treacherous question. The second thing is to see that the answer to this question will depend on the answer to a more immediate question: ‘Do I myself exist? Is my self in fact eternal, or is it something that perishes with the body?’ And it is here that the difficulties begin. The Buddha says that the world is divided, for the most part, between the Yeas and the Nays, between the eternalists and the annihilationists, and that they are forever at each other’s throats. But these are two extremes, and the Buddha’s Teaching goes in between.

So long as we have experience of our selves, the question ‘Does my self exist?’ will thrust itself upon us: if we answer in the affirmative we shall tend to affirm the existence of God, and if we answer in the negative we shall deny the existence of God. But what if we have ceased to have experience of ourselves? (I do not mean reflexive experience as such, but experience of our selves as an ego or a person.

This is a hard distinction to see, but I must refer you to the Notes for further discussion.) If this were to happen—and it is the specific aim of the Buddha’s Teaching (and of no other teaching) to arrange for it to happen—then not only should we stop questioning about our existence and the existence of God, but the whole of Jaspers system, and with it the doctrine of ciphers, would collapse. Nanavira Thera

"The argument that God cannot have created the world because of the suffering, misery and ugliness in it (or some similar form) has always seemed to me as inconclusive for proof that there is no god as the opposite argument that ‘God must have created the world because of the order, joy and beauty in it’ (or some similar form) seemed for proof that there is a god. In either case it is presumed that one knows, can distinguish, what god ought to be. Both alike imply that the holders of each view will only believe in what they approve of, i.e., in what pleases them.

Now, surely, is it not that assumption, that growth or surcease in one’s subjective self, that ought to be understood and faith in its subsidence cultivated?"

Ignorance screens the truth. It is on that screen that people paint pictures and write underneath their labels “god” and “not-god” and “theism” and “atheism.” Nanamoli Thera

But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases.

Dependent arising is a part of structure known as a the Four Noble Truth. We define the attitude "I am" as a core of suffering and so cessation of the conceit "I am" as the end of suffering, or in the positive terms:

Pleasurable is dispassion in the world,
The getting beyond sensuality.
But the putting away of the conceit ‘I am’
—this is the highest pleasure.

Udàna 11

Since the very puthujja's being is the state of suffering, it has to be understood as such. And this is precisely what the aim of dependent arising is: to point out to puthujjana an escape from dialectic "to be or not to be?", (see MN 11) by undermining his certainty of being through the insight  into immediate connection between ignorance and being (bhava). This is precisely the reason why thinking about dependent arising or the Second Noble Truth in terms of three, two, one existence, or existence from moment to moment is not only mistaken, but by ignoring structural and atemporal relatinship between the present  ignorance and the present state  of being, effectively  prevents puthujjana to understand the nature of his own existence.

Nanamoli Thera: To the question: “What are these sets of terms intended to describe?” we may answer tentatively that they are intended to describe experience of any possible kind where ignorance (that is lack of personal realization of the Truths) is present. (...)

Disregarding the numerous and strange European interpretations, logical, symbolic, historical, etc., of the P/S the best approach to it from the European position is probably from Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum. That famous formula, which still guides European Ontology, is not a logical (syllogistic) proposition; nor is the P/S. ... one can hardly fail to notice the parallel between cogito and viññāṇa on the one hand and sum and bhava on the other. What is common to both is the interdependence of the terms. Instead of falling back upon unverifiable hypostasis to support the formula, the P/S pursues the element of interdependence by successive links between the two, each pair being open to introspection.

And

Hence, I argue, to translate (even to interpret to oneself) bhava by ‘becoming’ is an opiate that leaves the illusion of ‘being’ untreated. I doubt if that is what the Buddha intended.

Nanavira Thera: The puthujjana sees neither a task to be performed that can justify his existence(...)—nor a way to bring his unjustifiable existence to an end. The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see the way to bring his existence to an end, and he sees that it is this very task that justifies his existence.

Quotes on direct relationship between ignorance and being

To be is to suffer. The narrower the circle of my self-identification, the more acute the suffering caused by desire and fear. Nisargadatta Maharaj

What I am (what I identify my self-myself with) that I am for ever. But at another time I am similarly something else. There is no conscious transition. Moments of reflexion discover this contradiction, which is disconcerting and so covered up by forgetting it. I am this body when I leap back to avoid treading on a deadly venomous snake or when I am (or have the sensation of being) discovered by another in some discreditable act. I own this body of mine when I examine a pimple on it or take it to a dentist or a doctor for treatment. I disown it (i.e., its acts) when I am accused of some crime and decide to lie it out. I am not it when sitting quiet face to face with what seems certain death.

Bhava which is positive, describes the constitution of the moving spatio-temporal contingency which is (a) possible in virtue of the negation consisting in consciousness, and is (b) factual in virtue of the limitations of viewing things imposed by ignorance, and limitations of time/action imposed by craving/clinging.

As I see it, the Buddha’s treatment of Ontology is most clearly set out, according to right view, in MN 38, which, yathābhūtaṃ, sets out how the illusion of ‘being’ (both in positive and negative forms—with the bhavataṇhā and vibhavataṇhā of DN 9, 22, and the anurodha and paṭivirodha of MN 1), can and should be treated and eliminated. MN 1 and MN 49 are complementary: MN 1 describes the modes of asmi-māna (which is pre-logical) and MN 49 presents the same situation in ‘ontological’ terms, i.e., in the functioning of a logically formulated wrong view (while MN1 describes the prelogical and prereflexive asmimāna—the mānānusaya, the fundamental wrong attitude), MN 44 & MN 109 describe the logically formulated views which arise out of and are built upon the prelogical tendency—the connexion between these is shown briefly in MN 1 and forms the subject matter of MN 49.

Nibbāna is the cessation of ontology: bhava-nirodho nibbānaṃ. It is not, however, the ‘abyss of non-being’, since that requires consciousness to cognize it as such. It is ‘absolute cessation,’ which includes the non-ascription, of either being or non-being: nāpahosiṃ.

To be is to be contingent: nothing, of which it can be said that ‘it is,’ can be said to be alone and independent. But being is a member of the paṭicca-samuppāda as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance. The destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, then consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all; for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no more ignorance then it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in MN 22).

Nanamoli Thera

Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... ('With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...') The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (...) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on)*. The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation  (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of rebirth is totally irrelevant here.

*

All being is limited and particularized—if I am at all, I am in a spatial world.

Nanavira Thera

It has to be understood that mere presence of the body in the field of consciousness (in spacial world) doesn't constitute the state of bhava -being- what requires one additional factor, namely self-identification with the body or generally with things in a spatial world. Arahat is free from any kind of self-identification.

Q: Do you mean to say you are quite unconscious of having a body?
M: On the contrary, I am conscious of not having a body.

Nisargadatta Maharaj 

“Now, Aggivessana, this body that has material form consists of the four great entities (of earth, water, fire, and air); it is procreated by a mother and father and built up out of rice and bread; it is subject to impermanence, to anointing and rubbing, to dissolution and disintegration. It must be regarded as impermanent, as suffering, as a boil, as a dart, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. When he regards it so, he abandons his desire and affection for it and his habit of treating it as the necessary basis for all his inferences.*

* Habit of treating it (the physical body) as the basis for all his inferences” (k±yanvayat±) refers to the way of thinking which assumes the physical body as the basic reality, the empirical truth, and builds its system upon that (materialism, in fact, the physiological view of mind, or the view of consciousness as an “epiphenomenon” upon matter). Both this standpoint and the opposite, which treats matter as subordinate to mind, are discussed at the beginning of M. 36.

Nanamoli Thera

“He understands thus: ‘Whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of sensual desire, those are not present here; whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of being, those are not present here; whatever disturbances there might be dependent on the taint of ignorance, those are not present here. There is present only this amount of disturbance, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ He understands: ‘This field of perception is void of the taint of sensual desire; this field of perception is void of the taint of being; this field of perception is void of the taint of ignorance. There is present only this non-voidness, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ Thus he regards it as void of what is not there, but as to what remains there he understands that which is present thus: ‘This is present.’ Thus, Ānanda, this is his genuine,  undistorted, pure descent into voidness, supreme and unsurpassed.

MN 121

Summarise, in the Dhamma consciousness is a decisive factor:

Wisdom and consciousness, friend—these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the other in order to describe the difference between them. For what one wisely understands, that one cognizes, and what one cognizes, that one wisely understands. That is why these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the other in order to describe the difference between them.”

“What is the difference, friend, between wisdom and consciousness, these states that are conjoined, not disjoined?”
“The difference, friend, between wisdom and consciousness, these states that are conjoined, not disjoined, is this: wisdom is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully understood.” MN 43

But while puthujjana consciousness is established on the namarupa, consciousness of liberated from any self-identification whatsoever, free from the state of bhava, is not to be found:

Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say]: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is not to be found here and now.

“So saying, bhikkhus, so proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’

“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. MN 22

Nanavira Thera: The reason why the Tathāgata is not to be found (even here and now) is that he is rūpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto (ibid. 1 <S.iv,378-9>), i.e. free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness. This is precisely not the case with the puthujjana, who, in this sense, actually and in truth is to be found.

Puthujjana doesn't see that sakkayaditthi, conviction of being something, of having duration, depends on self-identification with things which have duration:

“If, Ānanda, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Ānanda, what are the things of which an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned?’—being asked thus, how would you answer?”

“Venerable sir, if they were to ask me this, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, with form an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned. With feeling … perception … determinations … consciousness an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned. These, friends, are the things of which an arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned.’ Being asked thus, venerable sir, I would answer in such a way.”

“Good, good, Ānanda! (...) SN 22 : 37

Now, perhaps there is something wrong even with time, as the Sutta seems to suggest:

Bhikkhus, these are the three times. What three? Past time, future time, and present time. These, bhikkhus are the three times.

Perceiving what can be expressed through concepts,
Creatures take their stand on what is expressed.
Not fully understanding the expressed,
They come under the bandage of Death.

But by fully understanding what is expressed
One does not misconceive the speaker.
His mind has attained to freedom,
The unsurpassed state of peace.

Understanding what is expressed,
The peaceful one delights in the peaceful state.
Standing on Dhamma, perfect in knowledge,
He freely makes use of concepts
But no more enters into concept's range.

Itv Āddhā Sutta

But asankhata dhatu is a synonym for nibbāna, and so, arahat as well.

‘I was’ is not for me, not for me is ‘I shall be’;
Determinations will un-be: therein what place for sighs?
Pure arising of things, pure series of determinants –
For one who sees this as it is, chieftain, there is no fear.

Theragāthā 715, 716

All your problems arise because you have defined and therefore limited yourself. When you do not think yourself to be this or that, all conflict ceases. Any attempt to do something about your problems is bound to fail, for what is caused by desire can be undone only in freedom from desire. You have enclosed yourself in time and space, squeezed yourself into the span of a lifetime and the volume of a body and thus created the innumerable conflicts of life and death, pleasure and pain, hope and fear. You cannot be rid of problems without abandoning illusions. (...)
See that you are not what you believe yourself to be. Fight with all the strength at your disposal against the idea that you are nameable and describable. You are not. Refuse to think of yourself in terms of this or that. There is no other way out of misery, which you have created for yourself through blind acceptance without investigation. Suffering is a call for enquiry, all pain needs investigation. Don't be too lazy to think.

Or:

M: What makes you believe that you are a separate individual?

Q: I behave as an individual. I function on my own. I consider myself primarily, and others only in relation to myself. In short, I am busy with myself.

M: Well, go on being busy with yourself. On what business have you come here?

Q: On my old business of making myself safe and happy. I confess I have not been too successful. I am neither safe nor happy. Therefore, you find me here. This place is new to me, but my reason for coming here is old: the search for safe happiness, happy safety. So far I did not find it. Can you help me?

M: What was never lost can never be found. Your very search for safety and joy keeps you away from them. Stop searching, cease losing. The disease is simple and the remedy equally simple. It is your mind only that makes you insecure and unhappy. Anticipation makes you insecure, memory — unhappy. Stop misusing your mind and all will be well with you. You need not set it right — it will set itself right, as soon as you give up all concern with the past and the future and live entirely in the now.

Q: But the now has no dimension. I shall become a nobody, a nothing!

M: Exactly. As nothing and nobody you are safe and happy. You can have the experience for the asking. Just try.

M - Nisargadatta Maharaj