Nibbana vs. annihilation?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Lazy_eye » Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:10 pm

Alex123 wrote:The suttas are quite clear that only bodily remains remain after the break-up of the body of an Arahant. No awareness is left, and there isn't anything to be aware of, so what awareness can be?


I don't know! :)

But it occurred to me that if one wants to posit such an awareness -- and again, I realize you don't -- it would logically require some sort of "buddha nature".
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:16 pm

Someone help me here. What is it in pali that we might call "awareness" ?
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:31 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:Someone help me here. What is it in pali that we might call "awareness" ?



Whatever it is, it cannot be without conscious or mind or intellect

Wrong View #8
"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html


But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Without permanent citta, mano, viññāṇa - there simply can't be permanent awareness.

And the Buddha did state on many occasions in one way or another that:

I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.
...
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"
"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Oh, another interesting point that "where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality," so how can there be any possession (such as awareness) that survives Parinibbana?


With metta,

Alex
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Individual » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:37 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:Someone help me here. What is it in pali that we might call "awareness" ?

Mindfulness: Sati
Discernment: Panna
Perception: Sanna
Consciousness: Vinnana
Mind: Nama, Mano
Contact (between sensory organs and sensory info): Phassa
Insight: Vipassana

There might be other words I'm forgetting.

There is also "Bodhi," but I don't think that would be the same as what we mundanely refer to as mere "awareness".
Last edited by Individual on Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:40 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:. . .
. . . "Bhava-nirodho nibbnam" - "Nibbana is the cessation of existence." (SN 12, 68)
All depends upon what you hang on the word bhava.


According to pali lookup program that I have:

bhava = the state of existence.


Bhava [cp. Sk. bhava, as philosophical term late, but as N. of a deity Vedic; of bhū, see bhavati] "becoming," (form of) rebirth, (state of) existence, a "life."
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... li.1753255
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:41 pm

Alex123 wrote:Whatever it is, it cannot be without conscious or mind or intellect


OK. :roll:
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:46 pm

Individual wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:Someone help me here. What is it in pali that we might call "awareness" ?

Mindfulness: Sati
Discernment: Panna
Perception: Sanna
Consciousness: Vinnana
Mind: Nama
Contact (between sensory organs and sensory info): Phassa
Insight: Vipassana

There might be other words I'm forgetting.

There is also "Bodhi," but I don't think that would be the same as what we mundanely refer to as mere "awareness".


Thanks Individual,

I am "aware" :jumping: of all of those. I think its helpful for us to keep in mind how nuanced aspects of what we call "awareness" can be.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Sunrise » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:05 pm

These three are the beings: `tayo 'me àvuso bhavà'. Being is the mind's behaviour in sensual thoughts, thinking about material and maintaining the mind in immaterial states.


Nibbana is the cessation of all these mental manifestations (bhava). It has nothing to do with ending physical existence.
Sunrise
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:30 pm

Hi all,
It is my understanding that the principle of Paṭicca-samuppāda can be perceived in all instances of change. To perceive this principle regardless what it is that changes is the middle way. It is ignorance when a subject is added to this. In the perception of Paṭicca-samuppāda there is no addition of a subject. All ways of understanding what this means without being enlightened are provisional. The idea that Paṭicca-samuppāda can only be represented by one set of 12 or 24 conditions is common but I simply cant see how that is tenable. For me it is the principle which conveys contingency as a quality regardless of how we bifurcate a situation. To say that the Buddha continues to perceive Paṭicca-samuppāda after her body breaks up makes no sense whatsoever. But to differentiate between what she is before that break up and what she is after also makes no ultimate sense. It only makes conventional sense. Conventional sense is bound up with suffering. We should do our best not to project our suffering onto the Buddha. If we do I think its best that we project the most lofty, exalted and (dare I say) godlike suffering onto her. But of course we should not. :anjali:

With Metta


Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Sunrise » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:36 pm

Btw, the Buddha was a guy you know
Sunrise
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:41 pm

Sunrise wrote:Btw, the Buddha was a guy you know


The Buddha is Awake.

Sidartha was a guy. :rofl:


With Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Sunrise » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:44 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:
Sunrise wrote:Btw, the Buddha was a guy you know


The Buddha is Awake.

Sidartha was a guy. :rofl:


With Metta

Gabe


You take your time :mrgreen:
Sunrise
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Individual » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:53 pm

Hanzze wrote:Seems there is a lot of monkey discrimination here, but the only thing he would need is to give up grabs another branch.

no mind, no intellect, no consciousness :rofl:

just a self reflection :D

:thumbsup:
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:27 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:]All depends upon what you hang on the word bhava.


According to pali lookup program that I have:

bhava = the state of existence.


Bhava [cp. Sk. bhava, as philosophical term late, but as N. of a deity Vedic; of bhū, see bhavati] "becoming," (form of) rebirth, (state of) existence, a "life."
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... li.1753255
Depends upon what you mean by existence. Clearly existence is not a measurement appropriate to a tathagata.
Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not - SN III 118

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. – MN I 139
One cannot say exist or does not exist (both or neither) in relation to a tathagata. The "consciousness" process is no longer conditioned by - dependent on this - greed, hatred, or delusion.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19556
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:28 pm

Individual wrote:
Hanzze wrote:Seems there is a lot of monkey discrimination here, but the only thing he would need is to give up grabs another branch.

no mind, no intellect, no consciousness :rofl:

just a self reflection :D

:thumbsup:
Huh? No self reflection without consciousness.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19556
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:07 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Depends upon what you mean by existence. Clearly existence is not a measurement appropriate to a tathagata. One cannot say exist or does not exist (both or neither) in relation to a tathagata. The "consciousness" process is no longer conditioned by - dependent on this - greed, hatred, or delusion.


The tetralemma was used in reference to state AFTER death of an Arahant mispercieved as a self-existing Being. The tetralemma was rejected because it implied that an Arahant existed as self-existing Being.

But the 5 aggregates did exist that were called "The Buddha", and they were conditioned by certain causes such as:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

the above and similar type of conditionality applies even to Arhats/Buddha. It is only that certain mental elements (from eradicated fetters) do not occur.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:50 pm

Alex123 wrote:The tetralemma was used in reference to state AFTER death of an Arahant mispercieved as a self-existing Being. The tetralemma was rejected because it implied that an Arahant existed as self-existing Being.

As long as you refer to an Arahant as an existing being, or a non-existing being, you're still trapped within these two viewpoints. This idea do not apply at all. Any mention of this so-called "being," from either sides, is null and void according to a Tathagata.

Why? Because it is:

"[ ... ] a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

And also this:

"A 'position' [ ... ] is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling [ ... ] such is perception [ ... ] such are mental fabrications [ ... ] such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Even though you say this:

Alex123 wrote:But the 5 aggregates did exist that were called "The Buddha", and they were conditioned by certain causes such as:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.


You still refer to these five aggregates back from a "being" or the non-existence thereof. You're still trapped in referring from that position of a "being." I think that this idea of a "being" (or a strawman, if I may call it that) is irrelevant in these type of discussion. Any attempt in using this "strawman" as an argument is what causes the entanglement of views... and thus continues the samsara.

When there is existence, view it as existing. And when it ceases, view it as a cessation. When there's a fire, view it as a fire. When it goes out, then see it as extinguished... and go no further. It's as simple as that.
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:01 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Depends upon what you mean by existence. Clearly existence is not a measurement appropriate to a tathagata. One cannot say exist or does not exist (both or neither) in relation to a tathagata. The "consciousness" process is no longer conditioned by - dependent on this - greed, hatred, or delusion.


The tetralemma was used in reference to state AFTER death of an Arahant mispercieved as a self-existing Being. The tetralemma was rejected because it implied that an Arahant existed as self-existing Being.
After death? The text says:

Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

[E]ven when actually present, which would indicate a living tathagata, and the passage indicates that what is true for one is true of the other. Being incomprehensible, one cannot measure a living or a dead tathagata by the terms of existence and non-existence. There is no measure of a tathagata, living or dead:

"What wise man here would seek to define
An immeasurable one (i.e. arahant) by taking his measure?
He who would measure an immeasurable one
Must be, I think, an obstructed moron."
- SN I 149
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19556
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:02 pm

beeblebrox wrote: You still refer to these five aggregates back from a "being" or the non-existence thereof. You're still trapped in referring from that position of a "being." I think that this idea of a "being" (or a strawman, if I may call it that) is irrelevant in these type of discussion. Any attempt in using this "strawman" as an argument is what causes the entanglement of views... and thus continues the samsara.

When there is existence, view it as existing. And when it ceases, view it as a cessation. When there's a fire, view it as a fire. When it goes out, then see it as extinguished... and go no further. It's as simple as that.
I think you have nailed Alex's problem.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19556
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Vepacitta » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:00 am

I dunno I may be utterly daft here but I don't read Alex' comments as imputing a 'being' to the Tathagata - any reference to 'being' seems only to be used in the conventional sense.

And even upon nibana - there is still 'stuff' 'there-ish-ness-not-nish-ness' - no more subject to static clinging of course (kaplah! - no wait - that's for a Kling-on - never mind).

It's difficult to talk about this subject - perhaps - instead of thicket of views - it's a thicket of - the limitations of language? Just a thought.

From Mt. Meru with KARUNA (tm) FABRIC SOFTENER,

V.
I'm your friendly, neighbourhood Asura
User avatar
Vepacitta
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: Somewhere on the slopes of Mt. Meru

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Goofaholix and 8 guests