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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Hello all,


The suttas clearly state that


1.Arahant/Tathagata is not found inside or outside of 5 aggregates. SN 22.85-86

2.Self or what belongs to self is not found in truth or reality. MN22

3.There is no permanent possesion. MN22. 5 aggregates are impermanent SN22.97

4.Nibbāna is cessation of becoming. AN10.7. bhavanirodho nibbāna. IMHO cessation of becoming is not some new becoming, such as becoming an infinite consciousness.

5.Wouldn’t gaining a permanent, eternal, not subject to change consciousness be considered acquiring (ūpadhi) Something? But many suttas clearly say that Nibbana is calming of all fabrications and relinquishing of ALL acquistions sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo – PTS A 4.423 (AN 9.36)


6. Five Aggregates cease and never reoccur when Parinibbāna happens. Thus what can remain and be oneself or possession of oneself? Why is there no sutta that says that at parinibbana 5 aggregates cease but some Consciousness remains?

7.There is no eternal and unchanging consciousness that transmigrates from sense base to sense base, much less from life to life. MN38. All consciousness is conditioned and dependently arisen.

8.“The body disintegrated, perception ceased, pain & rapture were entirely consumed, fabrications were stilled: consciousness (Viññāṇaṃ) has come to its end.” – Ud 8.9 Such is the description of Nibbāna.

9.Consciousness cannot be without other aggregates (which cease in parinibbāna)

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.”
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



What would be condition for consciousness in Nibbāna? OF what would it be aware? Wouldn’t its object of awareness be one of the aggregates? But then it would mean that something conditioned (aggregates) remain in Nibbāna…

Re: Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ in DN11
In DN11 quote if one looks carefully, there are two questions and two answers to the questions of:
Q #1 Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?
Q #2 Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to
an end?

Q1) Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?
A1) Consciousness without feature (Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), and radiant everywhere, Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.

Q2) Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?
A2) Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul, name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Viññāṇa remains in Nibbāna, and DN11 clearly states that consciousness ceases.


Remember that ALL things are dukkha. To posit something that remains eternally
is only to posit an eternally existent dukkha and according to MN22 there isn’t anything that is permanent and everlasting not subject to change. The talk on ANY kind of existence in Nibbana betrays one's wish for eternal survival, even if it is in some unexplained form.



MN72 clearly states parinibbāna of Arahant is like flame going out. In fact the words extinguished is the same as word for Nibbāna. Just like extinguished flame doesn't become the whole world, same is with Arahant.


The metaphors for nibbāna is a flame going out that is simply reckoned as 'out' (nibbuto)

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out (nibbāyeyya), would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out (nibbuto)'?"
"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?'
Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
=
“What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
=
"there is no form... no feeling... no perception... there are no fabrications... there is no consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
=
"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. 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, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"


"Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] 'belonging to my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] 'my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"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

=
[Sariputta] how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"
[Yamaka] "Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. [Buddha] Sàti, how is that consciousness? [Sati] Venerable sir, this uttering and feeling one, that reaps the results of actions good and evil done here and there. [Buddha:] Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit and that will be for your undoing and unpleasantness for a long time.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' ‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbāna’nti.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



With metta,

Alex
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

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

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Individual » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:34 pm

Alex123, you seem to know the suttas much better than I do.

However, I find it difficult to understand nibbana strictly in the negative terms that you and other Theravadins do, because I read:

http://www.serve.com/cmtan/Dhammapada/heedfulness.html
Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless, (Nibbana) heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful do not die; the heedless are like unto the dead.

Distinctly understanding this (difference) the wise (intent) on heedfulness rejoice in heedfulness, delighting in the realm of Ariyas.

If Nibbana is merely the extinguishing of all aggregates, why is it called the "Deathless"? How can there be eternal life independent of the Five Aggregates? That's not the Theravada interpretation, but from my point-of-view, it's in the Dhammapada right there. The "realm of the Ariyas" could also be interpreted literally as a place, couldn't it?

You could easily dismiss this: there is no eternal self, Nibbana is not subject to the elements, etc.. And I'd agree with you, but that still doesn't help your own interpretation, does it?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Jason » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:36 pm

Alex123 wrote:What would be condition for consciousness in Nibbāna? OF what would it be aware? Wouldn’t its object of awareness be one of the aggregates?


Not necessarily. As I mention in one of the blog posts linked above:

    One objection to this is that consciousness is simply bare awareness of sense data and ideas, and it's absurd to think about consciousness without an object. Positing a transcendent consciousness, then, would be a contradiction in terms. However, this objection is countered by the fact that the consciousness of nibbana is said to have the deathless (amata) as it's object. For example, there's this passage from MN 64:

      Whatever is there of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — he beholds these phenomena as impermanent, suffering, as a disease, a boil, a dart, a misfortune, an affliction, as alien, as decomposing, as empty, as selfless. He turns his mind away from these phenomena; and when he has turned his mind away from them, he focuses his mind on the deathless element [amata-dhatu], thinking: "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of the foundations, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbana." (Bodhi)
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby beeblebrox » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:46 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:Hi all,
Specifically, it was proposed that if there is only one life, "instant nibbana" can be attained through suicide. As Alex123 explained,
Now this line of thinking raises a rather important question: what kind of state is Nibbana?


Other than conceptual overlay (there is no Self, or anything pleasant that ceases), there is no difference between Parinibbana and Atheistic one-life-only death.


I doubt that. The kamma that were produced in that "one life" would still continue to fruit after the death.

The difference between Dhamma and Atheistic one-life-only is that Dhamma teaches that there is cause-effect stream of delusive "I, me, mine" making that goes on until citta is no longer producing future effect (Arhatship).


The so-called "one life" is included in the Dhamma. There are incorrect views of what this "one life" means, and also the correct view of what it means. The latter is Dhamma; it includes kamma, re-becoming, rebirths due to conditions, etc.

I think there is still some confusion about how saying, "The suicide is the best option for one-life model," as an attempt to prove this model as mistaken, is still a mistaken view.

Why? First, suicide implies that if you take away the self, then the suffering would end. (Annihilationism.) If you perceive the suicide as the best possible option for one-life, then what that really means is that you still perceive a self. If you don't perceive a self, then no such thought would've occurred to you.

If someone brings up suicide as an option, then you can point out that it's mistaken. That's all. I don't think the Buddha would ever try to use suicide as an invalidation for the one-life model (in fact, you don't find this in the suttas at all), because he doesn't perceive a self.

If someone tries to point out this so-called "dilemma" to the Buddha, he would give them a discourse about Anatta. That is how it is with the Dhamma.

If you understand that... then maybe you can see the irony of how it seems like it's only a literal-rebirther (not all of them, though) would bring up the suicide dilemma, while the one-lifers (at least within the context of Buddhism) would say no such thing. How do you explain that? It's a strange anomaly.

Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Sunrise » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:22 pm

Individual wrote:If Nibbana is merely the extinguishing of all aggregates


Nibbana is extinguishing of all mental defilement (greed, hatred and illusion)

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all; the crushing of infatuation, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment .... the destruction of craving, nibbana. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of dispassion have faith in the best

Anguttara Nikaya
Last edited by Sunrise on Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Sunrise » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:26 pm

Jason wrote:One objection to this is that consciousness is simply bare awareness of sense data and ideas, and it's absurd to think about consciousness without an object.


Indeed.

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible

Upaya sutta

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

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Individual » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:49 pm

Jason's words and his blog post above are both very good.

Sunrise wrote:
Individual wrote:If Nibbana is merely the extinguishing of all aggregates


Nibbana is extinguishing of all mental defilement (greed, hatred and illusion)

Monks, among things conditioned and unconditioned, dispassion is reckoned to be the best of them all; the crushing of infatuation, the removal of thirst, the uprooting of attachment .... the destruction of craving, nibbana. Those who have faith in the Dhamma of dispassion have faith in the best

Anguttara Nikaya

Yes, but mental defilement is said to be what holds the aggregates together.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:08 pm

Individual wrote:However, I find it difficult to understand nibbana strictly in the negative terms that you and other Theravadins do, because I read:


Only 5 aggregates (or name&form with consciousness, DN15) are the limit of description. Nibbana is not a positive thing that can be positevely described. It "is" only in the sense that 5 aggregates can cease and never re-arise.


If Nibbana is merely the extinguishing of all aggregates, why is it called the "Deathless"? How can there be eternal life independent of the Five Aggregates? That's not the Theravada interpretation, but from my point-of-view, it's in the Dhammapada right there. The "realm of the Ariyas" could also be interpreted literally as a place, couldn't it?

You could easily dismiss this: there is no eternal self, Nibbana is not subject to the elements, etc.. And I'd agree with you, but that still doesn't help your own interpretation, does it?


Nibbana is deathless because there is NOTHING there to age, die or experience anything. It is NOT an eternal life, but a cessation with no remainder.


"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:09 pm

Sunrise wrote:
Nibbana is extinguishing of all mental defilement (greed, hatred and illusion)


And at the end of an Arahant's life, there will not be rebirth.

An Arahant knows that:
"He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all feelings, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere
bodily remains will be left
."
- SN12.51(1).
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:15 pm

Jason wrote:
    One objection to this is that consciousness is simply bare awareness of sense data and ideas, and it's absurd to think about consciousness without an object. Positing a transcendent consciousness, then, would be a contradiction in terms. However, this objection is countered by the fact that the consciousness of nibbana is said to have the deathless (amata) as it's object.


1) You stated correctly that consciousness cannot be without an object. This is correct, see MN38.
2) You stated correctly that it's absurd to think about consciousness without an object.

But you then stated that "consciousness of nibbana is said to have the deathless (amata) as it's object. "

Are you saying that consciousness-aggregate exist in Nibbana, and it takes an "object"? Here are at least two things already. This is compounded experience, saṅkhata not asaṅkhata.

For example, there's this passage from MN 64:

    Whatever is there of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — he beholds these phenomena as impermanent, suffering, as a disease, a boil, a dart, a misfortune, an affliction, as alien, as decomposing, as empty, as selfless. He turns his mind away from these phenomena; and when he has turned his mind away from them, he focuses his mind on the deathless element [amata-dhatu], thinking: "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of the foundations, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbana." (Bodhi)


This happens while one still has 5 aggregates, using the consciousness aggregate + wisdom (which belongs to other aggregates).






In various ways I have preached that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness....
Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it's reckoned eye consciousness. On account of ear and sounds arises consciousness, it's reckoned ear consciousness. On account of nose and smells arises consciousness, it's reckoned nose consciousness. On account of tongue and tastes arises consciousness, it's reckoned tongue consciousness. On account of body and touches arises consciousness, it's reckoned body consciousness. On account of mind and ideas arises consciousness, it's reckoned mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as based on whatever fire burns, it is reckoned by that. Fire ablaze with sticks is stick fire. Ablaze with twigs is twig fire. Ablaze with grass is grass fire. Ablaze with cow dung is cow dung fire. Ablaze with grain thrash is grain thrash fire. Ablaze with dirt is dirt fire.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html


That quote clearly states that consciousness doesn't even travel from sense-base to sense-base, much less from life to life, and nothing to say about remaining "in Nibbana". That teaching by the Buddha was to dispel the

evil view had arisen to a bhikkhu, named Sàti the son of a fisherman: 'As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html
It
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8491
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby cooran » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:26 pm

Hello all,

These writings by respected Bhikkhus may be of assistance:

Is Nibbana mere annihilation ? - by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/nibbanaAnni.htm

State of an Arahant after passing away – by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/nibbanaState.htm

Nibbana by Narada Thera
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell10.htm

What is Nibbana by Mahasi Sayadaw
http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/nibbana5.htm

Nibbana Sermons by Bhikkhu K. Ñänananda
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... mon_18.htm

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:58 pm

"Where do earth and water,
Fire and wind no footing find,
Where is it that long and short,
Fine and coarse, pleasant, unpleasant,
As well as name-and-form,
Are held in check in a way complete?"

"Consciousness, which is non-manifestative,
Endless, lustrous on all sides,
Here it is that earth and water,
Fire and air no footing find,
Here it is that long and short,
Fine and coarse, pleasant, unpleasant,
And name-and-form,
Are cut off without exception,
When consciousness has surceased,
These are held in check herein."


DN 11
Kevatta Sutta
as Quoted in the Nibbana Sermons by Bhikku Nanananda





"Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?

And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature,[ without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"

DN 11

Kevatta Sutta

translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html
"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
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:02 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:"Where do earth and water, Fire and wind no footing find, Where is it that long and short, Fine and coarse, pleasant, unpleasant,
As well as name-and-form, Are held in check in a way complete?"

"Consciousness, which is non-manifestative, Endless, lustrous on all sides, Here it is that earth and water, Fire and air no footing find,
Here it is that long and short, Fine and coarse, pleasant, unpleasant, And name-and-form, Are cut off without exception, When consciousness has surceased,
These are held in check herein."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html



There are two questions and two answers. In "Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ " the dualities "find no footing". But they cease with the cessation of consciousness.

The DN11 clearly says that consciousness ceases, and with them [perception of] the dualities.


Nowhere do the suttas equate parinibbana with being a "consciousness" or even an experience of some kind.


"The body disintegrated, perception ceased, pain & rapture were entirely consumed, fabrications were stilled: consciousness (Viññāṇaṃ) has come to its end.” – Ud 8.9 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Such is the description of pariNibbāna.



PariNibbāna is not some retirement home where consciousness go to exist for eternity. Unfortunately some teachers are afraid of giving a clear cut explanation of Final Nibbāna, and try to obfuscate the issue by making it sound as not complete and utter cessation without any remainder. Thus ending becomes reinterpreted as a new beginning, and nothing is reinterpreted as something. Existence of any kind is simply not worth it, every saṅkhāra is tainted with dukkha. Those who think that Final Nibbāna is some form of existence, haven't seen the fact that all and any experience is just more or less, hidden or revealed dukkha.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:37 pm

Existence of any kind is simply not worth it


What do you think "Existence" is? And worth what?


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
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:48 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:
Existence of any kind is simply not worth it


What do you think "Existence" is? And worth what?


Metta

Gabe


Existence = presence of mind and/or body.

It is ultimately more or less dukkha, but still dukkha. The cessation of all dukkha is real peace.

Some think that happiness lies in pleasant feelings. But real "happiness" is absence of any and all dukkha.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:00 pm

Alex123 wrote:Existence = presence of mind and/or body.

It is ultimately more or less dukkha, but still dukkha. The cessation of all dukkha is real peace.

Some think that happiness lies in pleasant feelings. But real "happiness" is absence of any and all dukkha.



Are you saying that the Buddha didnt get released from dukkha till his body perished?
"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
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:08 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Existence = presence of mind and/or body.

It is ultimately more or less dukkha, but still dukkha. The cessation of all dukkha is real peace.

Some think that happiness lies in pleasant feelings. But real "happiness" is absence of any and all dukkha.



Are you saying that the Buddha didnt get released from dukkha till his body perished?



Right. Even the Buddha experienced Physical dukkha. He just didn't experience emotional/mental one. He was "shot with one arrow" rather than "being shot with two". It may shock some, but even being an Arhat is still dukkha, just much less dukkha than being someone below that. The most peaceful and totally dukkha free is PariNibbana. Even an Arahant/Buddha has pain due to existence of remaining aggregates.
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:21 pm

Alex123 wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Existence = presence of mind and/or body.

It is ultimately more or less dukkha, but still dukkha. The cessation of all dukkha is real peace.

Some think that happiness lies in pleasant feelings. But real "happiness" is absence of any and all dukkha.



Are you saying that the Buddha didnt get released from dukkha till his body perished?



Right. Even the Buddha experienced Physical dukkha. He just didn't experience emotional/mental one. He was "shot with one arrow" rather than "being shot with two". It may shock some, but even being an Arhat is still dukkha, just much less dukkha than being someone below that. The most peaceful and totally dukkha free is PariNibbana.


I personally think this is a serious misunderstanding.

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

SN 22.85

Yamaka Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

If you think "The Buddha" feels pain and then there is some kind of entity which you call "The Buddha" stops feeling pain, then you have identified a Buddha where no Buddha can be found.


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
Alex123
Posts: 3475
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:24 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:
If you think "The Buddha" feels pain and then there is some kind of entity which you call "The Buddha" stops feeling pain, then you have identified a Buddha where no Buddha can be found.


Metta

Gabe


Not the Buddha/Arhat as an existing Being, but 5 aggregates we call "the Buddha/Arhat" that experience dukkha-vedanā, dukkha-vedanā which is still felt.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:30 pm

Alex123 wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:
If you think "The Buddha" feels pain and then there is some kind of entity which you call "The Buddha" stops feeling pain, then you have identified a Buddha where no Buddha can be found.


Metta

Gabe


Not the Buddha/Arhat as an existing Being, but 5 aggregates we call "the Buddha/Arhat" that experience dukkha-vedanā, dukkha-vedanā which is still felt.


To percieve a difference between Nibbana and ParaNibbana is to identify the Buddha with the aggregates or apart from the aggregates. Besides you already defined existence in terms of the presence of a body or a mind.


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


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kim OHara, Tom and 11 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine