the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14343
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:03 pm

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:Are you claiming that "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned." is poetry rather than prose?


Yes, on the basis that the Udana is mostly verse. If someone more intimate with the Pali knows better I'm sure they'll correct me.

davidbrainerd wrote:And no, "an" is not a problem. Its required by English grammar. So Pali and a host of other languages don't need an indefinite article. Only somone who knows English only would complain about that as if it matters at all.


I think the reason "an" is needed because it makes for better poetry than...
"There is, monks, that which is unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that which is unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from that which is born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned."

So we have:
https://suttacentral.net/pi/ud8.3/-1
“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ.
https://suttacentral.net/en/ud8.3/3-3.277
“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned.

But literally, the Pali says:
Exists monks unborn...

See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.

:anjali:
Mike

davidbrainerd
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby davidbrainerd » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:09 pm

mikenz66 wrote:But literally, the Pali says:
Exists monks unborn...

See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.

:anjali:
Mike


Nope. Monks is in the vocative. So it says:

"There exists, O monks, [something] unborn..." (i.e. he's telling the monks something unborn exists, not saying the monks are unborn)

The construction "There exists, O monks, unborn..." is fine in Pali, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, etc.

But in English we need an "an" or "something" or "that which", etc.

Its merely a difference in grammar between ancient languages and English. There is no difference in meaning hidden in it.
Last edited by davidbrainerd on Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby Goofaholix » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:11 pm

mikenz66 wrote:But literally, the Pali says:
Exists monks unborn...

See: viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.


Thanks, that makes more sense than the translations we've been working with.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby cappuccino » Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:17 pm

Know that faith is one of the five faculties.
And the four stages are a measure, of the strength of these five faculties.
The standard description of nibbana after death is,
"All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here."

User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby polarbear101 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:35 am

tiltbillings wrote:
polarbear101 wrote:
It seems to me that one only has two choices, either accept that nibbana is "merely" the destruction of passion, aversion, and delusion, the ending of craving, the remainderless cessation of dukkha, or nibbana is a form of consciousness.
It is both.


I'm not sure if you are referring to arahatta-phala samadhi or just the fact that any time-slice of the arahant's consciousness is freed from craving, but what I meant by nibbana as a form of consciousness was that it is a form of consciousness that survives the final ending the of the five aggregates. And there is no good evidence for that notion in the suttas as far as I can tell.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby cappuccino » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:08 am

“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support. This, just this, is the end of stress.”
Ud 8.1
The standard description of nibbana after death is,
"All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here."

theY
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby theY » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:42 am

when you wanna actually know something, you should learn everything what it be. Nibbaana are from pali, please learn it from pali.
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/2016/09/tipitaka-memorization-is-rule-of-monks.html

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:07 am

polarbear101 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
polarbear101 wrote:
It seems to me that one only has two choices, either accept that nibbana is "merely" the destruction of passion, aversion, and delusion, the ending of craving, the remainderless cessation of dukkha, or nibbana is a form of consciousness.
It is both.


I'm not sure if you are referring to arahatta-phala samadhi or just the fact that any time-slice of the arahant's consciousness is freed from craving,
Pretty much these two things.

but what I meant by nibbana as a form of consciousness was that it is a form of consciousness that survives the final ending the of the five aggregates. And there is no good evidence for that notion in the suttas as far as I can tell.
Interestingly I had a conversation on E-Sangha with Malcolm Smith, aka Namdrol, about this sort of thing. He was advocating this sort of position that you are taking. Honestly, I won't go there, not that it could not be defended, but the dangers of taking such a position far out weigh any advantage in making sense of post-mortem nibbana. Way too easy to slip into holding an ersatz atman/brahman -- tat tvam asi/om tat sat/sat chit ananda -- notions, but mostly I do not really care about this issue at this level since I do not see a practical application in terms of practice.

But then I really do not care about such ideas a sotāpanna, once returners and such as a goal. I have seen/known over the past 48-9 years of my being a Buddhist any number of folks who have claimed of themselves having attained ariya status. Most, almost all, of the people were in fact seriously flawed in way that undermines any claim of awakening, and this includes some of the more recent ones I have encountered and with whom I have had interactions.

The ones I feel, without question, who have managed to gain no small degree of insight and transformation from their practice rarely claimed such of themselves, or spoke of it in a way that drew no attention or little favor in their direction.

For myself, doing the practice is enough, and in a very real way, what I am practicing for is dying, death. If one cannot sit with an equanimous, concentrated mindful mind in face of the dangerous mind states, I suspect one will find it a bit more difficult to face the moments of death. I deal with death directly, with the dying and with their families before and after the death of their loved one. If I have to have a goal, it is to have a good death, to be as much awake as possible as I die. After that, I am not worried.

The sort of things I outlined here and here is how I understand the Dhamma in terms of practice. No one needs to agree with me on any of this.

So, the bottom line, I have offered some ideas on the subject of this thread, and others have proffered their ideas. Now it is time to practice.
Last edited by tiltbillings on Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

chownah
Posts: 5159
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby chownah » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:34 am

cappuccino wrote:Some cannot accept transcendent realities,
for they already accept there are none, period.

(God is impossible attitude…)

Some neither accept nor reject "transcendent realities" because some understand that this concept lies beyond range.

Some neither accept nor reject "transcendent realities" because it seems that a cogent and functional definition of this term has not been found.

People use the term "transcendent reality" without even referring to the rather mundane issue as to whether they mean "santa claus is a transcendent reality" or whether they mean that "santa claus lives in a transcendent reality". People don't seem to understand that one needs to indicate which usage one is asserting which shows how ambiguous the conversation can become....never mind that both of these definitions lack a cogent and functional definition and seemingly are out of range.
chownah

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14343
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:44 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:But literally, the Pali says:
Exists monks unborn...

See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.

:anjali:
Mike


Nope. Monks is in the vocative. So it says:

"There exists, O monks, [something] unborn..." (i.e. he's telling the monks something unborn exists, not saying the monks are unborn)
....

Yes, sure, the monks are not unborn, of course...

Anyway, the link I gave goes into this in excruciating detail.

:coffee:
Mike

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14343
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:47 am

cappuccino wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:
cappuccino wrote:Obviously you're not accepting Buddha's rejection of annihilation…

Is this a comment addressed to a particular post or person?


If you don't accept nirvana is a reality.

What do you mean by "a reality"? It might be better to frame the question along the lines of whether or not "nibbana is possible".

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby SDC » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:07 am

mikenz66 wrote:It might be better to frame the question along the lines of whether or not "nibbana is possible".


What fun would that be?

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby Goofaholix » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:55 am

cappuccino wrote:“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support. This, just this, is the end of stress.”
Ud 8.1


I'm guessing, as we generally have to with your posts, that you like the word dimension here.

The pali word used is āyatanaṃ:(Place,dwelling-place,abode,home,seat,rendezvous,haunt,receptacle,mine; altar,shrine; place of origin,source,fount,cause,origin) and it is also variously translated as base or sphere.

Ripe ambiguity for poetry I'd think.

I saw a couple of comments that the Buddha was specifically referring to brahmanical cosmology here.

Interestingly if you drop the m you get Āyatana (sense base) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana I wonder if the Buddha was punning here.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:35 am

mikenz66 wrote:See: viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.


Clearly the Udana passage is describing Nibbana, and it would make sense for unborn, unbecome etc to be adjectives describing it.

I think the ambiguity is really around the meaning of "There is" and "There exists". Does this mean that Nibbana exists now, or does it mean Nibbana is a potential state of mind?


There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
conditioned. -- J. Ireland

There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. --
Thanissaro

Monks, there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
compounded. -- F.L. Woodward

There exists, monks, that in which there is no birth, where nothing has come
into existence, where nothing has been made, where there is nothing conditioned.
-- P. Masefield
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby Goofaholix » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:53 am

Spiny Norman wrote:I think the ambiguity is really around the meaning of "There is" and "There exists". Does this mean that Nibbana exists now, or does it mean Nibbana is a potential state of mind?


Consider these clunky pieces of poor grammar...

"There is an uneducated - unemployed - unqualified - insolvent"
... do you assume this is talking about the existence of a separate reality/sphere/existent entity? or a group of people sharing similar characteristics in our own reality?

"There is an undamaged - unused - unsoiled - unexpired"
... do you assume this is talking about the existence of a separate reality/sphere/existent entity? or some stock or goods sharing similar characteristics in our own reality?
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:47 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.


Clearly the Udana passage is describing Nibbana, and it would make sense for unborn, unbecome etc to be adjectives describing it.

I think the ambiguity is really around the meaning of "There is" and "There exists". Does this mean that Nibbana exists now, or does it mean Nibbana is a potential state of mind?


There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
conditioned. -- J. Ireland

There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. --
Thanissaro

Monks, there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
compounded. -- F.L. Woodward

There exists, monks, that in which there is no birth, where nothing has come
into existence, where nothing has been made, where there is nothing conditioned.
-- P. Masefield


The "un-words" are adjectives. The subject in the sentence is left unspoken. Try this:

        There is, monks, [nibbana] unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated.
Now your job is to exegetically examine these adjectives in their various sutta contexts to see what they actually have to say about, how they are used in relation to, the word they are describing -- nibbana. It is a rather interesting and informative endeavor. Good luck.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14343
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:53 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.


Clearly the Udana passage is describing Nibbana, and it would make sense for unborn, unbecome etc to be adjectives describing it.

I think the ambiguity is really around the meaning of "There is" and "There exists". Does this mean that Nibbana exists now, or does it mean Nibbana is a potential state of mind?...

Of is nibbana something that happens (the end of dukkha)?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... averb.html

:coffee:
Mike

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:46 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:. . .
Let me suggest that you revisit this thread, in which you participated in (note your Gilliam influenced avatar). It covers a lot of the ground that is actually quite relevant to your questions here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby cappuccino » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:03 pm

Again, faith is one of five faculties,
the four stages measure the strength of these faculties.
The standard description of nibbana after death is,
"All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here."

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Postby suttametta » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:32 pm

Tilt, Your conclusion that amata has a limited meaning of not going to be reborn is simply illogical, because that would be reference to a future event, and Nibbana is clearly a present event for the one who has understood it. Nibbana is an understanding. It's an understanding that comes from seeing the 12 links in action. Yes one will be freed from birth, but also one is freed in what is not born, not made, etc., because it is seeing of the true state of affairs. Yes, also greed, etc., are terminated, as is death as such, etc., but one is present discerning this true state of affairs because it is the causal basis for continuing the result, which is a new improved consciousness having this acute perception or understanding as it main identifying factor. For one governed by avijja there is vinnana. For one governed by vijja there is pañña. Pañña is Nibbana, is Damma, etc., such that vipassana is seeing, insight, wisdom. None of this is limited to a destroyed poetential for rebirth. Your reading by way of cross reference to other instances of Amata to limit it meaning to support your position that Nibbana is only a lack of desire, birth, etc., leaves out all the text where Nibbana is clearly being described as an experience. It is something someone is having. Buddha was not trying to tell mind twisters. He was saying what was easy to understand using common sense phrases. So "freedom from" for the prefix a simply does not fly at all. It works just like ours works, un, unborn, etc. There is that which is unborn, a viññanam which arises from pañña, because seeing the conditions at play is sight, vijja, like seeing all the links in a process or seeing how there is a new understanding which has this effect of terminating desire, seeing a purified consciousness, a discernment, panajati. btw none of this implies atman. Those guys are positing a fundamental element. It's a big conjecture they make to try and get their big social system to fit together with Brahmins in charge. The Buddha is saying it's not being something that makes you special, but learning something.


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dhammapal, Google [Bot] and 32 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine