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

[cappuccino]

What happens to one who has fully realized Nibbana?

[Aggivessana Vacchagotta:] "But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

[The Buddha:] "'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...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)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

"Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea."

— MN 72

[cappuccino]

"Yes, friends. 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."

"Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"

Yamaka Sutta: To Yamaka

[mikenz66]

"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise....

Here is an alternative translation, along with the Pali:

For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.
Gambhīro hāyaṃ, vaccha, dhammo duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkāvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍitavedanīyo.
https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato#18.2

No mention of "nibbana" there. It's about the Dhamma.


Mike

[cappuccino]

Nirvana is the dhamma

if the dhamma is difficult, Nirvana is difficult

[Seymour]

Ven. Bodhi
"Bhava, however, is not “existence” in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation."

I don't agree with him here on bhava, because there are no statements in the suttas which do support this explanation. For me bhava is precisely existence in ontological sense. Such meaning fits perfectly with what is written in the suttas.

Although you can easily see how The Buddha was into his own kind of ontological research, It doesn't surprise me that there are no statements in the suttas supporting the idea that his conception of bhava doesn't correspond to the notion of existence in the most universal ontological category. This may have been more likely had his contemporary countrymen been Aristotle instead of Alara Kalama. But looking at the examples from above... "that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation." I don't think the ABC's are hindered with the same category of existence as us and agree with him that this is not what is meant by bhava. He later explains this type of existence as corresponding to the Pali verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitā.

When there is a living being, when it exists ontologically, there is suffering. When being does not exist ontologically, there is no suffering. Just that simple.

Indeed a simplistic statement, but ontology is a vastly ambiguous field in itself and his definition, one I'm guessing comes from the suttas/commentators suits its own purpose quite well. Although it would have been interesting to hear questions posed to The Buddha by Heidegger.

Ven. Bodhi
Rebirth existence is the set of five kammically acquired aggregates produced by that kamma; for this is called "existence" in the sense that "it comes to be there." The same method of explanation applies to form-sphere and formless-sphere existence (except that in formless-sphere rebirth-existence only the four mental aggregates exist).

"being" the kammically determinative aspect of the present life that causes future birth, followed by future ageing and death"(MLDB Pg.1168 note 30)

Bhava is concrete sentient existence in one of the three realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. In the formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both (i) the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and (ii) the mode of sentient existence that results from such activity.
Existing "ontologically" "kammically"?

However, such explanation seems too tough for ordinary people.

Ordinary people or studied Buddhists? If the latter, I believe most are familiar with the idea that relinquishing the 5 khandhas is the aim and imagine they would be fine with that simile on the six sense bases.

so they imagine nibbana as some extra existence which is located somewhere behind samsara.

I haven't read much on the subject of they.
Extra existence? Or are you talking about unconditioned dhamma?

then wouldn't calling it the mere distrution of the defilments be going against this, placing it within the relm of conditions?

It's always fun when you had a thought before coming across the same thought. Ven.Bodhi " It is in dependence on this element (taṃ āgamma), by arriving at it, that there takes place the destruction of the defilements and release from conditioned existence. Nibbāna itself, however, is not reducible to these two events, which are, in their actual occurrence, conditioned events happening in time."
I understand this is not the view of some, no problem.

But well, this view of theirs is just a back door to samsara - endless cycle of births and deaths. Why? Because it based entirely on their craving to existence.
And if they crave to exist, they will exist, of course.

Ouch. Or in his case it's based on an understanding after nearly a lifetime of intensive study and doesn't that type of knowledge, knowing others karmic destinations, require a devine eye?

but not about flame.

O, I didn't mean to imply anything about flame, extinguishing flame talk.

[cappuccino]

there is the desire to exist and the desire to not exist

there is the idea of eternal identity and the idea of annihilation

these are extremes

both and neither is the teaching

neither eternal identity, nor annihilation

[Komuso]

The most obvious thing is that physical death is the cessation of the five aggregates and all of the emergent properties thereof.

If you have ever actually watched the disintegration of a living being until it is just bones and then watched those bones start to disintegrate you have actually seen paranibbana. In fact this is like one of the meditations given by the buddha. You are to have no delusions about paranibbana. Paranibbana should not be feared, there will be no awareness of anything. There will not even be the awareness that you are dead. So from the conventional point of view paranibbana is annihilation. From the non-conventional point of view "you" are a figment of the imagination and can not die because "you" never were.

Nibbana is something that takes place during life.

Rebirth is something that takes place during life.

Samsara is something that takes place during life.

Suffering is something that takes place during life.

Just because paranibbana is annihilation does not make the Buddha way not worth it. Don't forget that seeing a dead human being was one of the conditions for the Buddha's nibbana.

And the Buddha's last words "All composite phenomena are impermanent, strive for your liberation". The last teaching of the Buddha while on his death bed was impermanence. Really turn that over. Of all the things Shakyamuni Buddha could have said he told his monks that death was certain for them and to practice to realize the Dhamma. The Buddha made it clear he teaches only suffering and the end of suffering that is the Buddha dhamma.

Life is precious and we are all subject to death, please do not fool your self.

However, if you are still struggling i invite you to strive for rebirth in sukhavati. Simply chant Namo Amitabha Buddhaya.

[cappuccino]

Rebirth is something that takes place during life.

That is not the teaching.

[zan]

Nirvana is the dhamma

if the dhamma is difficult, Nirvana is difficult

Just out of curiosity and respectfully (you are clearly an intelligent person and I appreciate your ability to reason and understand logic, as well as to articulate!):

In your constant, never ending crusade to persuade people to believe that nibbana is not cessation, who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Or the people that you argue with?

[cappuccino]

Nirvana is cessation of this world.

Nirvana is cessation of existence as you know it.

I just…

I know to qualify cessation.

[cappuccino]

(I know to limit or modify the meaning of cessation)

Nirvana is not black & white, it's grey

[zan]

Just out of curiosity and respectfully (you are clearly an intelligent person and I appreciate your ability to reason and understand logic, as well as to articulate!):

In your constant, never ending crusade to persuade people to believe that nibbana is not cessation, who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Or the people that you argue with?

Nirvana is cessation of this world.

Nirvana is cessation of existence as you know it.

I just…

I know to qualify cessation.

Some day something will click and everything will be clear to you. You will realize that there was never anyone to convince in the first place and you will know freedom and peace.

[tharpa]

True, but Mun is more of an outlier, not a typical, mainstream theravada view.

This is something I don't know a whole lot about. Does the typical Theravada Buddhist, in traditionally Theravadin countries, believe that the Buddha remains present in the world?

Absolutely not. Such a view is sometimes found in fringe Mahayana sects though, such as the Nichiren.

But to give the Buddha's teachings on this: The Buddha was asked thousands of questions during his 45 years of teaching. There were a very, very few he declined to answer. One of the ones he declined to answer was, "Does an arahant exist after death, or not exist after death?"

Please note that a Buddha is one of the three kinds of arahants.

[cappuccino]

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.
— SN 22.86

So consider the cessation of stress. And I ask, have you ceased to exist?

Buddha did not disappear completely.

[magar]

Buddha taught the middle way -- neither eternalism nor extinction. Both, according to him were avijja. There were teachers during the Buddha's time who taught these two extremes.