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

[TheSynergist]

Fascinating! I've been reading this thread to better grasp the difference between perception vs. consciousness. It does sound like the Pali word "vinnana" is more like how I would definite "awareness" than "consciousness." I wonder why "consciousness" is used in the English translations over "awareness."

Probably because the term awareness is somewhat more vague than the word consciousness. Or perhaps because it just sounds more technical. Really a lot of these translations are just accidents of history.

Is there a Pali term that refers to what I'm describing as "consciousness" (what you are referring to as "self-consciousness")? Is it possibly related to the fetter of "conceit" (one of the 5 higher aggregates)?

I think the closest Pali term would be ahaṅkāra, which literally means "I-making" which is closely associated with conceit.

Thanks again! Is the word "ahaṅkāra" used in the Suttas? My understanding is that "Mana" is the term translated to mean "conceit" in the 10 fetter model. Unfortunately, I cannot find anywhere in the Suttas where the higher 5 fetters are explained, which makes it rather difficult to precisely define "Arahat"...which of course it turn makes it difficult to understand parinirvana

[Dhammanando]

Thanks again! Is the word "ahaṅkāra" used in the Suttas?

Yes.


Anusayasutta (SN.ii.252)
Apagatasutta (SN.ii.253)
Upatissasutta (SN.ii.275)
Rādhasutta (SN.iii.79-80)
Surādhasutta (SN.iii.80-1)
Puṇṇamasutta (SN.iii.100-104)
Rāhulasutta (SN.iii.135-6)
Dutiyarāhulasutta (SN.iii.136-7)
Kappasutta (SN.iii.169)
Dutiyakappasutta (SN.iii.169-70)
Vivekajasutta (SN.iii.235-6)
Avitakkasutta (SN.iii.236)
Pītisutta (SN.iii.236-7)
Upekkhāsutta (SN.iii.237)
Nirodhasamāpattisutta (SN.iii.238)
Upasena-āsīvisasutta (SN.iv.40-1)

Ānandasutta (AN.i.132-3)
Sāriputtasutta (AN.i.133-4)
Atammayasutta (AN.iii.444)
Dutiyasaññāsutta (AN.iv.46-53)

Tatiyanānātitthiyasutta (Ud. 70)

[TheSynergist]

Thanks again! Is the word "ahaṅkāra" used in the Suttas?

Yes.


Anusayasutta (SN.ii.252)
Apagatasutta (SN.ii.253)
Upatissasutta (SN.ii.275)
Rādhasutta (SN.iii.79-80)
Surādhasutta (SN.iii.80-1)
Puṇṇamasutta (SN.iii.100-104)
Rāhulasutta (SN.iii.135-6)
Dutiyarāhulasutta (SN.iii.136-7)
Kappasutta (SN.iii.169)
Dutiyakappasutta (SN.iii.169-70)
Vivekajasutta (SN.iii.235-6)
Avitakkasutta (SN.iii.236)
Pītisutta (SN.iii.236-7)
Upekkhāsutta (SN.iii.237)
Nirodhasamāpattisutta (SN.iii.238)
Upasena-āsīvisasutta (SN.iv.40-1)

Ānandasutta (AN.i.132-3)
Sāriputtasutta (AN.i.133-4)
Atammayasutta (AN.iii.444)
Dutiyasaññāsutta (AN.iv.46-53)

Tatiyanānātitthiyasutta (Ud. 70)

Wow, thank you Ven. Dhammanando! It would appear to be a fairly common term, then, at least in the Samyutta Nikaya.

Gosh, all these terms --- vinnana, ahaṅkāra, mana, māna, citta....so much gets lost in the imprecision of translation! No wonder there is so much debate on the topic of the scope of anatta and what does or does not survive nirvana

[acinteyyo]

Nibbāna is described as the cessation of perception and feeling, not as the cessation of consciousness.

What consciousness can be if all perception & feeling ceases?

Consciousness without feature?

The interpretation of that passage is, of course, controversial. See, for example:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=520&start=0
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11079
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 2&start=20
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13690
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p329396
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 63#p334996


Mike

In addition to those links there is also this one that is relevant:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=22000

It'll take some time to check these references

Edit 15.04.2015:
So I've checked about a third to a half of the given links and it appears to me that "viññanam anidassanam" is somehow understood as a property of the arahants attainment of nibbana, or a consciousness independent of the "All" (respectively the six senses), or a consciousness (or a citta) somehow eternal, everlasting or not subject to conditionallity opposed by an understanding that denies the existence of an somehow indipendent consciousnes.

Anyhow I believe my interpretation of "viññanam anidassanam" differs from the summary I've given above.
I think it is easier to get if I use the term "consciousness without surface" and I ask the question: "Without surface for what?"
I think "consciousness without surface" is still a consciousness dependent on the six senses, contact and so on, which I consider to be past kamma in the case of an arahant, however it is not a surface for those phenomena to take a footing as a base for greed, hatred and delusion. I don't get by the way, how one could interpret "viññanam anidassanam" as independent. For example the phrase "does not partake in the allness of the all" doesn't necessarily have to be understood as independence, but could be understood as I do it, as not providing a surface for the all to give greed, hatred and delusion a stable base to arise.
When I recall the sutta correctly then it says that the four great elements don't get a footing in "consciousness without surface". I conclude therefore that anything else doesn't get a footing in "consciousness without surface". However this doesn't mean that such a consciousness doesn't establish or isn't conscious of content (namely nama-rupa), but it doesn't function as a base, it doesn't give a footing for greed, hatred and delusion.
I can imagin that this may be meant by the "true nature of the citta" of the Thai Forest tradition. Altogether this is probably better discussed in another topic.
I know what I say here isn't very well explained nor is it backed up decently. It shows, however, an alternative to the various interpretations which seem ambiguous to me.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[kirk5a]

When I recall the sutta correctly then it says that the four great elements don't get a footing in "consciousness without surface". I conclude therefore that anything else doesn't get a footing in "consciousness without surface". However this doesn't mean that such a consciousness doesn't establish or isn't conscious of content (namely nama-rupa), but it doesn't function as a base, it doesn't give a footing for greed, hatred and delusion.

I wonder if you are taking into account the sutta which says that viññanam anidassanam is not "experienced through the allness of the all"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[acinteyyo]

When I recall the sutta correctly then it says that the four great elements don't get a footing in "consciousness without surface". I conclude therefore that anything else doesn't get a footing in "consciousness without surface". However this doesn't mean that such a consciousness doesn't establish or isn't conscious of content (namely nama-rupa), but it doesn't function as a base, it doesn't give a footing for greed, hatred and delusion.

I wonder if you are taking into account the sutta which says that viññanam anidassanam is not "experienced through the allness of the all"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Which one does it? I don't see the connection at the moment. AN10.6 speaks of samadhi. I don't see where it mentiones viññanam anidassanam.

Viññanam anidassanam must be experienced through the mind-base otherwise I don't know how an arising of viññanam anidassanam could possibly take place. An interesting question is what mind-object it might be which comes together with the mind-base that leads to the arising of "consciousnes without feature (or surface)"? I don't know how to phrase this but I think it is the realisation of the Dhamma, the "knowing of the process of dependent origination" which establishes a consciousness that is released from ignorance.
I find it quite complicated to express myself because as I see it one is able to be aware of the state of mind via the mind which leads to multiple feedbackloops which are all entangled alltogether, but seeing this brings about a consciousness released from that entanglement.

I've not thought this through entirely yet and have difficulties expressing it in words and thoughts.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[kirk5a]

Which one does it? I don't see the connection at the moment. AN10.6 speaks of samadhi. I don't see where it mentiones viññanam anidassanam.

best wishes, acinteyyo

Oh sorry, I pasted the wrong link. Actually here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[acinteyyo]

Which one does it? I don't see the connection at the moment. AN10.6 speaks of samadhi. I don't see where it mentiones viññanam anidassanam.

best wishes, acinteyyo

Oh sorry, I pasted the wrong link. Actually here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Thank you kirk5a.
It seems to me that what is not experienced through the allness of the all in this sutta is nibbana. See Note6 which indicates that.
However I'm not sure how to understand that:

"'Consciousness without surface ... has not been experienced through ... the allness of the all.'

Why does it say "not been experienced through the allness of the all?
Is that the same as "not been experienced through the all"?
I'm therefore not content with Note9 which explains that there is no surface for consciousness to land on. I somehow have the feeling that it is the other way round, consciousness is no longer a surface for nama-rupa to land on, but that's just an unsupported claim at the moment.
I think that it is not the allness of the all what determines "consciousness without feature", which comprises the usual content fabricated by ignorance, yet it is determined by the mind. I have no evidence at the moment to support this. I can't however understand why a new type of consciousness should be invented that stands somehow "outside" of the all.

As I said, I admit that I haven't thought this through entirly.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[SSS]

The Pali word Nibbana is formed by "NI" "VANA" NI means no or negative particle and VANA means lusting or attachment, so the Nivana means non attach, If one can get ride of all lusts and attachments he will be free all burdens and can easily get ride of mind. The mind is attach to us due to lust "Thanha" Carving, which leads to ever-continue cycle of reincarnation. once you are free of mind that is Nibbana. CJS.

[SSS]

The consciousness is vinnana, when you see something, at that moment the vinnana is in the eye called chakku-vinnana , when you hear a thing the vinnana is in you ears the sotha-vinnana, when you taste a thing the vinnana is in your tong the diveha-vinnana, when you smell something the vinnana is in you in your nose he ghana-vinna. Like wise vinnana is every where. When a person attain Nirvana He do not take anything in from five censors as I saw, I hear, I taste likewise, the I is not there because there is no vinnana in arahath person. CJS.

[Myotai]

Hi all,

I read recently (and I cannot recall where!) that there are differences of opinion within the Theravada as to what the after death state is or is not.

My initial understanding is that its a pretty dark scenario for those hoping for there to be some sort of perpetuation of conciousness - though others, including Ajahn Brahm seem to disagree and err more on the side of the Tibetan schools.

Where can I get some clarification?

Thanks!

M...

[SarathW]

Can you give some reference?
So we can understand what your question exactly is.

[Myotai]

Can you give some reference?
So we can understand what your question exactly is.

Well, I'm not sure I can clarify something I don't understand and as I said I can't recall where I heard that there is a difference of opinion.

Ajahn Brahm did a talk that was I think called "What happens after we die?" I saw it on YouTube recently. He sets out his stance very clearly there

Others, I believe, think differently and suggest that death is the annihilation of conscious thought. Presumably based upon the theory that the brain is the source of conciousness. But that's another story.

M...

[Lazy_eye]

Hi all,

I read recently (and I cannot recall where!) that there are differences of opinion within the Theravada as to what the after death state is or is not.

My initial understanding is that its a pretty dark scenario for those hoping for there to be some sort of perpetuation of conciousness - though others, including Ajahn Brahm seem to disagree and err more on the side of the Tibetan schools.

Where can I get some clarification?

Thanks!

M...

I wonder if your question might actually entail two different questions:

1. What is the after death state of an unenlightened person?
2. What is the after death state of a Buddha or arahant?

From what I've seen, there are some differences of opinion within Theravada regarding #2, but the mainstream view is that the arahant or Buddha ceases to be. After death, there is no longer any state for that person.

For #1, the situation is different. Here the debates mostly center around the Buddhist teachings on rebirth. The traditional view, as I understand it at least, is that rebirth takes place but that the resulting consciousnessness is neither the same, nor entirely different from that of the previous life.

It's more like a continuum, with the past life causing the next life, etc, with the principle of impermanence applying in all cases. So, according to the traditional view, you will be reborn somewhere else after death -- but you won't be the same you as you are now.

[Myotai]

Hi all,

I read recently (and I cannot recall where!) that there are differences of opinion within the Theravada as to what the after death state is or is not.

My initial understanding is that its a pretty dark scenario for those hoping for there to be some sort of perpetuation of conciousness - though others, including Ajahn Brahm seem to disagree and err more on the side of the Tibetan schools.

Where can I get some clarification?

Thanks!

M...

I wonder if your question might actually entail two different questions:

1. What is the after death state of an unenlightened person?
2. What is the after death state of a Buddha or arahant?

From what I've seen, there are some differences of opinion within Theravada regarding #2, but the mainstream view is that the arahant or Buddha ceases to be. After death, there is no longer any state for that person.

For #1, the situation is different. Here the debates mostly center around the Buddhist teachings on rebirth. The traditional view, as I understand it at least, is that rebirth takes place but that the resulting consciousnessness is neither the same, nor entirely different from that of the previous life.

It's more like a continuum, with the past life causing the next life, etc, with the principle of impermanence applying in all cases. So, according to the traditional view, you will be reborn somewhere else after death -- but you won't be the same you as you are now.

Thanks,

I cannot see any inspiration in ceasing to exist...sounds horribly nihilistic!