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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by 5heaps »

tiltbillings wrote:What would Nagarjuna say to this question: Is it "impossible for us to discern what exists and what does not exist?"
he means that svabhava and characteristic marks dont exist. is he saying things dont exist? no. does this imply that things exist through svabhava? no. does this mean things are just conventions? no.

What is Madhyamika?
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:What would Nagarjuna say to this question: Is it "impossible for us to discern what exists and what does not exist?"
he means that svabhava and characteristic marks dont exist. is he saying things dont exist? no. does this imply that things exist through svabhava? no. does this mean things are just conventions? no.

What is Madhyamika?
Thanks. You have nicely just made the point that all this Sarvastivadin svabhava talk is not appropriate here, nor is reading the sarvastivadin stuff into the Theravada. Your partless particle have no place here.

You want to hear that again? Of course you do: Your partless particle have no place here.
>> 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

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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Nyana »

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:This is nonsense. What school posits that persons (puggala) are sabhāva or possess sabhāva? Theravāda certainly doesn't make such claims.
of course things exist through their own characteristic natures. are you a nihilist such that you want to deny that things exist?
Hi 5heaps,

Firstly, a puggala or a satta isn't a dhamma. Therefore, no Theravādin would ever even remotely suggest that a person possess sabhāva. (Nor would any Sarvāstivādin if there were actually any living Sarvāstivādins left in this world.)

Secondly, the Indian mādhyamikas thoroughly refuted the Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika notions of svabhāva. If you're going to base your study and practice on the Indian schools, then it's a good idea to understand Indian Mādhyamaka (i.e. not Je Tsongkhapa's hybrid system which isn't accepted by the vast majority of non-Gelugpa lamas).

All the best,

Geoff
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by 5heaps »

tiltbillings wrote:You want to hear that again? Of course you do: Your partless particle have no place here.
what about these:

Satipatthana Vipassana
"The solid substance of body as it is now found belongs to the group of materiality. According to the usual enumeration of material phenomena, there are altogether twenty-eight kinds in this group, but in short it may be noted that body is a mass of materiality. For example, it is the same as a doll made of clay or wheat, which is nothing but a collection of particles"

"Logs and pillars, bricks and stones and lumps of earth are a mass of materiality."

The Abhidhamma in Practice
'There is no unit of matter that does not contain these four elements in varying proportions. The preponderance of one element over the other three gives the material object its main characteristic."

Mahabhuta
"These four elements are described as "primary" or "underived" (no-upādā) matter (rūpa), meaning that they cannot be analyzed into further atomistic units. While underived, this does not mean that they are "unconditioned."[10] Thus, for instance, according to the 5th c. CE commentarial Visuddhimagga, "as to the proximate cause, each [element] has the other three as its proximate cause."[11]"
Ñāṇa wrote:Firstly, a puggala or a satta isn't a dhamma. Therefore, no Theravādin would ever even remotely suggest that a person possess sabhāva.
hi, persons exist therefore they are dhammas. what does not exist are persons qualified by souls/enduring essences (atta/atman)

not Je Tsongkhapa's hybrid system
has nothing to do with that. every madhyamika and yogacara dismisses characteristic marks to some extent, which is nihilistic according to those who assert characteristic marks
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:What would Nagarjuna say to this question: Is it "impossible for us to discern what exists and what does not exist?"
he means that svabhava and characteristic marks dont exist.
Quote Nagarjuna showing that is so.
is he saying things dont exist? no.
Quote Nagajuna sowing that is so.
does this imply that things exist through svabhava? no.
Quote Nagarjuna showing that is so.
does this mean things are just conventions? no.
Quote Nagarjuna showing that is so.

Or stop making assertions without support for them.
>> 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

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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You want to hear that again? Of course you do: Your partless particle have no place here.
what about these:

Satipatthana Vipassana
"The solid substance of body as it is now found belongs to the group of materiality. According to the usual enumeration of material phenomena, there are altogether twenty-eight kinds in this group, but in short it may be noted that body is a mass of materiality. For example, it is the same as a doll made of clay or wheat, which is nothing but a collection of particles"

"Logs and pillars, bricks and stones and lumps of earth are a mass of materiality."

The Abhidhamma in Practice
'There is no unit of matter that does not contain these four elements in varying proportions. The preponderance of one element over the other three gives the material object its main characteristic."

Mahabhuta
"These four elements are described as "primary" or "underived" (no-upādā) matter (rūpa), meaning that they cannot be analyzed into further atomistic units. While underived, this does not mean that they are "unconditioned."[10] Thus, for instance, according to the 5th c. CE commentarial Visuddhimagga, "as to the proximate cause, each [element] has the other three as its proximate cause."[11]"
That is not partless particles.
>> 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

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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

Moderator note: As I have tried to point out several times above this is the General Theravada discussion section. What this means is that there will be no further off-topic discussions of partless particles, which are not necessarily part of the Theravada, nor will there be any further discussion of the Sarvastivada, nor will Nagarjuna find a place in this thread. Any further discussions of these topics can take place in the Dhamma-free-for-all section. Any further posting of these topics in this thread will go away without comment, and that includes reading into the Theravada a non-Theravadin interpretation of Theravadin doctrine.

If possible, back to the topic.
>> 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

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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by mikenz66 »

Perhaps Mahasi Sayadaw's take on Nibbana is on topic...

Extract from a long discourse.
http://www.mahasi.org.mm/discourse/E17/E17ch01.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ARAHATS OUTLOOK ON LIFE

The arahat has no illusion about the nature of sense-objects. He is aware of their unwholesomeness and this means he realizes the truth of dukkha because he is free from ignorance (avijjæ). So he has no craving for anything. Inevitably he has to fill the biological needs of his physical body such as eating, sleeping, etc., but he regards them as conditioned (sa³khæra) dukka and finds nothing that is pleasant to him.

The question arises as to whether he should long for speedy death to end such suffering. But the desire for early death or dissolution of the physical body too is a destructive desire and the Arahat is free from it. So there is an Arahat’s saying in the Theragæthæ that he has neither the wish to die nor the wish to live.

The Arahat does not wish to live a long life for life means largely the burden of suffering inherent in khandhæ. Although the burden of khahdhæ needs constant care and attention, it is not in the least reliable. To many middle-aged or old people, life offers little more than frustration, disappointment and bitterness. Living conditions go from bad to worse, physical health declines and there is nothing but complete disintegration and death that await us. Yet because of ignorance and attachment many people take delight in existence. On the other hand the Arahat is disillusioned and he finds life dreary and monotonous. Hence his distaste for life.

But the Arahat does not prefer death either. For death wish is an aggressive instinct which he has also conquered. What he wants is to attain Nibbæna, a longing that is somewhat analogous to that of a worker who wishes to get his daily or monthly wage.

The worker does not like to face hardship and privations for he as to work inevitable just to make his living but he does not want to lose his job either. He wants only money and looks forward to payday. Likewise, the Arahat waits for the moment when he should attain Nibbæna without anything left of his body mind complex. So when they think of their life span, the Arahats wonder how long they will have to bear the burden of næmarþpa khandha. Because of his disillusionment, the Arahat’s life-stream is completely out off after Nibbæna, hence it is called anupædisesa-nibbäna.

NOT ANNIHILATION BUT EXTINCTION OF SUFFERING

Those who believe in ego or soul deprecate Nibbäna as eternal death of a living being. In reality it is the total extinction of suffering that results from the non-recurrence of psychophysical phenomena together with their causes viz, kamma and defilements. So the Buddha points out the cessation of upædæna arising from the complete cessation of craving, the process of becoming (bhava) ceasing to arise due to cessation of upædæna and so on. With the non-arising of rebirth, there is the complete cessation of old age, death and other kinds of suffering.

Here the popular view is that birth, old age and death are evils that afflict living beings. But in point of fact these evils characterize only the psychophysical process and have nothing to do with a living entity. Since there is no ego or soul, it makes no sense to speak of the annihilation of a living being with the cessation of rebirth and suffering.

So those who regard Nibbæna as annihilation are not free from the illusion of ego-entity. To the intelligent Buddhist, Nibbæna means only cessation of suffering. This is evident in the story of bhikkhu Yamaka in the time of the Buddha.

STORY OF YAMAKA

Yamaka believed that the Arahat was annihilated after his death. He clung to his view although other bhikkhus pointed out its falsity. Then Særiputræ summoned him. Questioned by the elder thera, Yamaka admitted that all the five khandhæs are impermanent and suffering, that it would be a mistake to regard them as one’s possession or self. Særiputræ told him to see the five khandhæs as they really are. He would then become disillusioned, detached and liberated.

While hearing the sermon, Yamaka attained the sotæpanna stage. He was now free from false beliefs. Særiputræ then questioned him again. In response to the thera’s questions, Yamaka said that he did not identify the Arahat with the physical body. The perception, the feeling, conformations (sa³khæra) or the consciousness. Nor did he believe that the Arahat existed else where without the rþpa, vedanæ or any other khandhæ. Therefore since the Arahat or a living entity is not to be found in the five khandhæs even before death, it makes no sense to speak of the Arahat’s annihilation after his parinibbæna.

Yamaka confessed his mistaken view. He was now free from it and he knew what to say about the destiny of the Arahat. If someone were to ask him, “What happens when the Arahat passes away? he would answer, “the death of the Arahat means the complete cessation of suffering inherent in the impermanent five khandhæs.”

This statement about the Arahat was confirmed by Særiputræ. The thera likened the khandhæs to the murderer who poses as a friend and said that identifying the khandhæs with atta is like welcoming the murderer, etc.

Here the thera Yamaka at first believed that the Arahat was annihilated after death, that there was nothing left. This belief presupposes the illusion of ego-entity and so the annihilation-view of Nibbæna is called ucchedaditthi, the view that Nibban means the negation of atta after death. When he realized the truth and attained sotæpanna, Yamaka said that the death of the Arahat means the complete extinction of suffering inherent in the impermanent five khandhæs.

To sum up the way to the cessation of suffering, failure to note seeing, hearing and other psycho-physical phenomena leads to the arising of avijjæ, ta¼hæ, upædæna, kamma and sa³khæra that in turn cause birth, old age and death in future. Mindfulness of all phenomena forestalls the five present causes viz, avijjæ, etc and the five consequences that involve suffering.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

Ñāṇa wrote:
Sylvester wrote:I think what will be most tantalising from the interview will be Ven Nanananda's revelation that there was to have been a Nibbana Sermon #34.
Hi Sylvester & all,

Thanks for posting the link to the interview. Would you (or anyone else) happen to know of the status of the English versions of Nibbāna Sermons 26-33? The English versions of Sermons 1-25 have been available online for a few years now, but after #25 appeared on Beyond the Net they seem to have stopped....

All the best,

Geoff
Dear Geoff

Sorry for the late reply.

You may wish to slow down your search for the English version of Nibbana Sermons. I understand that Ven Analayo is working with Ven Nanananda on a new edition of the Sermons. Not sure when that will see the light of day though.

With metta
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Nyana »

Sylvester wrote:I understand that Ven Analayo is working with Ven Nanananda on a new edition of the Sermons.
Hi Sylvester,

That's good to hear. Thanks.

All the best,

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

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Individual »

Something to add: Nibbana is liberation. :)

If it were extinction, that would not be freedom because action would no longer be possible. If it were something like birth in a heavenly realm above the highest heavens of samsara, it would not be freedom because action would be required; you would have to be a sentient, acting being, subject to the laws that govern that realm.

With total liberation, action is possible but not required. It is liberation without a self to be liberated, neither action nor non-action (action and non-action do not apply). The distinction between annihilation and eternalism seems to develop from self-thinking, thinking in terms of gain and loss.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by rowyourboat »

5Heaps

It strikes me that you are equating a physical 'particle' with a 'particle' of experiential phenoemena. It is very unwise to confuse the two. Science is about the former, the dhamma is about the latter.

There is a middle path between existence and non existence. Imagine a person believes that everything he sees on tv is real- ie- there are REAL people in the box. Now if someone told him there was NOTHING in the box that would not be true, as he experiences something. Through satipatthana and vipassana it becomes possible to see that there are only pixels lighting up - a meaningless dance at that. Not the riveting soap we thought was going on. Then we let go... This is the MIDDLE path.

with metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Alex123 »

Individual wrote:Something to add: Nibbana is liberation. :)

If it were extinction, that would not be freedom because action would no longer be possible. If it were something like birth in a heavenly realm above the highest heavens of samsara, it would not be freedom because action would be required; you would have to be a sentient, acting being, subject to the laws that govern that realm.

With total liberation, action is possible but not required. It is liberation without a self to be liberated, neither action nor non-action (action and non-action do not apply). The distinction between annihilation and eternalism seems to develop from self-thinking, thinking in terms of gain and loss.

How can there be action when 5 aggregates have ceased and only bodily remains have left (which would decompose soon enough). ?

How can there be any action if sankhara-khandha has fully ceased?
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Individual »

Alex123 wrote:
Individual wrote:Something to add: Nibbana is liberation. :)

If it were extinction, that would not be freedom because action would no longer be possible. If it were something like birth in a heavenly realm above the highest heavens of samsara, it would not be freedom because action would be required; you would have to be a sentient, acting being, subject to the laws that govern that realm.

With total liberation, action is possible but not required. It is liberation without a self to be liberated, neither action nor non-action (action and non-action do not apply). The distinction between annihilation and eternalism seems to develop from self-thinking, thinking in terms of gain and loss.

How can there be action when 5 aggregates have ceased and only bodily remains have left (which would decompose soon enough). ?

How can there be any action if sankhara-khandha has fully ceased?
Because it is action pertaining to freedom, not action pertaining to cause & effect.

Sankhara-khanda has not truly ceased. One merely regards it as empty: impermanent and not self. Therefore, it is called "ceased". Compared to an ordinary state, it is appropriately called cessation. It is distinguished, however, from whatever one might regard as "cessation." :)
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
dhammapal
Posts: 2646
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Nibbana is Freedom Not Extinction

Post by dhammapal »

Majjhima 22 wrote:The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet.
<snip>
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?'
From: Alagaddupama Sutta translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
So someone who attains parinibbana is free to go wherever they like?

Thanks / dhammapal.
Post Reply