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

[theY]

That is not bh. mun's speech. I am a Thai. I know mun. He is abhidhammist.

Bhikkhu Thanissaro actually said that Ajahn Mun sharply criticized the commentaries.

No, many mun's students release abhidhamma books. For the example: summary abhidhammatthasaṇgaha by bh. mun, handbook abhidhammaparamatthasaṅgaha of bh. man, abhidhammātikābanyay by bh. phan (man's student), many books of bh. dest desasaṅsī (mun's student) used abhidhamma. Also, Bh. Bua Ñāṇasampaṇṇo had protected commentary, too.

This is the reason that why commentary still important in thailand, although someone in thai past dynasty was anti-commentarist (because of colony war).

Reading is a bad learning method, so bodhisatta not born in the western, where will be having reading civilization. Wrong knowledge about commentary and abhidhamma come from reading.

[Spiny Norman]

Over 100 pages and we still haven't got an answer? Doh!

[theY]

Over 100 pages and we still haven't got an answer? Doh!

Recite & memorize tipitaka pali, because answer is inside there. Don't just read.

[aflatun]

Over 100 pages and we still haven't got an answer? Doh!

Recite & memorize tipitaka pali, because answer is inside there. Don't just read.

bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ... bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ...bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ

the cessation of existence is nibbana...the cessation of existence is nibbana...the cessation of existence is nibbana


Sāriputtasutta

[Garrib]

bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ... bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ...bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ

the cessation of existence is nibbana...the cessation of existence is nibbana...the cessation of existence is nibbana


Sāriputtasutta

Well, to quote a poster from another thread here, "Pali Term: Bhava":

Hello Pāli friends,

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

"Bhava, in MLDB, was translated “being.” In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with “becoming,” but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to “existence,” used in my earlier translations. 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. Existence in the latter sense is covered by the verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitā. 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."

http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/connecte ... troduction

So, "cessation of existence" doesn't seem to answer the question, if existence refers to samsaric rebirth...I doubt that many students of early Buddhism believe that Nibbana entails samsaric rebirth, but nonetheless they reject the notion that Nibbana is nothingness, or "mere cessation" - they believe it is a real dhamma.

[theY]

Over 100 pages and we still haven't got an answer? Doh!

Recite & memorize tipitaka pali, because answer is inside there. Don't just read.

bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ... bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ...bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ

the cessation of existence is nibbana...the cessation of existence is nibbana...the cessation of existence is nibbana


Sāriputtasutta

Right. I confirm this translation in pali.

[aflatun]

So, "cessation of existence" doesn't seem to answer the question, if existence refers to samsaric rebirth...I doubt that many students of early Buddhism believe that Nibbana entails samsaric rebirth, but nonetheless they reject the notion that Nibbana is nothingness, or "mere cessation" - they believe it is a real dhamma.

Hi Garrib

I assume what you mean is, cessation of existence doesn't answer the question, because the question is, "what happens after that?"

And I agree with you regarding rejecting Nibbana as nothingness or "mere cessation." Outside of the Sautrantikas (supposedly) and a few modern Theravadins, I still maintain that this is basically a modern innovation, and not a good one. The more universal view, in so far as I can tell, not just in Theravada but also in non Theravada "hinayana" systems (minus Sautrantika again, supposedly), is that Nibbana is an unconditioned existent dhamma (or at least something closer to that). Yes all five aggregates end, but we're not left with absolute death. I said much the same over a few posts starting a few pages back:

Post

As much as all of these views rub me the wrong way on some level, commentarial theravada is far closer to the mark on this point IMO than contemporary "sutta only" absolute death camp.

I'm personally satisfied with the notion that Nibbana is the cessation of existence, and that this cessation entirely applies to the living Arahant. There's nothing more that can be said, about the living Arahant, let alone the "dead" Arahant. To do so is to proliferate the unproliferated. The second quote in my signature sums up my position on this better than I ever could!

[Garrib]

If Nibbana is the cessation of existence, and this cessation applies to the living Arahant (as well as one who has attained to Parinibbana) - then "existence" must not mean what we usually think it means...perhaps this is because this translation of "bhava" is somewhat misleading?

This is all so difficult to work out - so many systems and interpretations - AHH! - I think that there is a lot of value in returning to the EBT's and sort of putting the commentarial stuff on the back burner. That being said, I suspect that at least some of the people who wrote commentaries were enlightened, and in any case, left behind some insightful clues for how to interpret the meaning of the Suttas. Presumably, there may have also been fallible commentators who got some things wrong. But personally - I started reading the Suttas before dealing with any commentaries (although after a fairly lengthy exposure to Mahayana/Tibetan Buddhist ideas and practices), and the "absolute death" style nihilistic interpretation of Nibbana never occurred to me - or if it did, it didn't stick. The passages that might be seen to support that kind of interpretation actually sometimes inspire in me a sense of awe and wonder, a feeling that there really is something unconditional, something quite beyond the aggregates and worldly experience/life as we know it - Nibbana. I am inspired to realize that Dhamma, and I can take refuge in the fact that it is real - it is a source of immense hope, not only for myself, but for any being human or otherwise. When I see people then claiming that this true Dhamma is actually just "mere cessation"/nothingness, it just seems off to me - like you can put together a coherent sounding argument in favor of that view, but on some deeper level it just seems incomplete, not quite there...I guess I should be used to encountering views on the Dhamma that don't appeal to me by now, like the ones that somehow seem to support white nationalism (or other ethnocentrism), nazism etc...but I still get disheartened from time to time, and even feel the need to "defend" my own position. Going into "defense mode" I can see myself becoming more and more critical of other's opinions and views, and this can lead to unwholesome speech and all the rest - so I really need to work on getting that under control! It is obviously all rooted in a wrong view of self - something that should be let go of.

Enough rambling - Thanks for the conversation, and thanks to everyone for expressing their views. I think we all have the intention of bettering ourselves through the Dhamma, and that is a good thing, even if our understanding is not perfect...

[theY]

At buddha generation, oral reciting&memorizing was the only one way to learn buddha's teaching. So this is the main cause to have commentary at that buddha generation.

Why?

Because Buddha taught each sutta for just students in front of him. So, when bh. ānanda, bh. sāriputta, and bh. upāli had learned oral teaching from buddha, then after buddha finished sutta, they must asked about state, situation, and meaning of each word in that sutta. This was called the great dhamma&vinaya commentary.

There are very less people in tipitaka who appear to be the most important commentators at buddha generation (A.N. Ekapuggala) : budhha, sāriputta (as dhamma teacher), upāli (as vinaya teacher). The others always listen&learned&asked from those important teachers.

The special teaching, about vinaya from buddha to upāli, were appear with upāli literature style in sikkhāpada-nidāna, sikkhāpada-vibhaṅga, parivāra, and the great vinaya commentary (vanished).

The special teaching, about dhamma from buddha to sāriputta, were appear with sāriputta literature style in abhidhamma-pitaka, K.N.Niddesa, K.N. Paṭisambhidāmagga, K.N. Buddhavaṃsa, K.N. Cariyāpitaka, and the great vinaya commentary (vanished).

Tipitaka strongly keep in pali language because of memorizing vinaya rule that force bhikkhu to memorize tipitaka before live alone or teach others.

But the great commentary didn't include in that vinaya rule, so when the time gone by, commentary loose pali form.

However, the great commentary translated to siṅhala after 3rd saṅgāyanā and translated back again (with extended comment from siṅhala-teachers) by buddhaghosa and many bhikkhus at 10th buddhist century.

[cappuccino]

the cessation of existence is nibbana

existence as you know it

[theY]

the cessation of existence is nibbana

existence as you know it

In pali that is not just opinion, Buddha taught that:

the cessation of 5 aggregates existence is anupadisesanibbanadhatu.

the cessation of attachment existence is saupadisesanibbanadhatu.

[cappuccino]

the cessation of existence as you know it is nibbana

[cjmacie]

Reading is a bad learning method, so bodhisatta not born in the western, where will be having reading civilization. Wrong knowledge about commentary and abhidhamma come from reading.

That’s excellent.

It helps explain the ubiquitous discussions on the internet where people quibble about literalist textual interpretations, e.g. “EBT” vs abhidhamma and commentaries (and the “contradictions” between them), ignoring how every aspect of the Pali Canon represents someone’s interpretation – valid from their point of view though perhaps seeming different from other viewpoints -- of how practice can be enhanced.

Reminds me of Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s dhamma talk about the difference between ‘scribe knowledge” (book learning) and “warrior knowledge” (pragmatic learning), which, if I recall, is from the Thai Forest ("Wilderness", as Than-Geoff prefers) Tradition.

[cappuccino]

reading is how to attain stream entry

by understanding the teaching

[cjmacie]

And I agree with you regarding rejecting Nibbana as nothingness or "mere cessation." Outside of the Sautrantikas (supposedly) and a few modern Theravadins, I still maintain that this is basically a modern innovation, and not a good one....

As much as all of these views rub me the wrong way on some level, commentarial theravada is far closer to the mark on this point IMO than contemporary "sutta only" absolute death camp... [emphasis added]

A perhaps extreme example of this “modern innovation” is the case made in:
On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem, by Paul J. Griffiths (1986).
(Note the negative bias from the get-go in the title – “Mindless”.)

One can plow through that book (I got partway through), or consider the book review by Frank Hoffman in “The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies” [JIABS], Vol. 11, 1988, No. 2.

“A major ambiguity in Theravada tradition is explicated by asking whether "cessation" is equivalent to nirvana (Buddhaghosa's view) or to nirvana in life with substrate (Dhammapala's view). Griffiths' puzzle is: in the second case how could one emerge from "cessation" (30-31)? He offers a complex argument for the claim that the puzzle of how emergence from "cessation" is possible once one enters it is neither answered in Theravada Buddhism nor is answerable on Theravada assumptions (41).
...
…[detailed logical analysis of Griffith’s argumentation]
...
Despite some difficulties which make his case less than entirely convincing, Griffiths gives considerable thought to the topic of "cessation" so as to repay careful reading. His conclusion is: "In sum, we have a non-substantivist, event-based interactionist psycho-physical dualism" (112). Some passages, e.g. as in Griffiths' note 80 discussed above, do suggest that a mind-body dualism is presupposed in Sutta Pitaka Buddhism (SPB), but SPB does not unequivocally assert a mind-body dualism overall. To follow Griffiths on this point without reservation would be to superimpose a (basically Western) mind-body distinction wholesale.”

Note also the usage “Sutta Pitaka Buddhism (SPB)”, which appears to be an earlier (1980s) incarnation of the currently popular notion of “Early Buddhist Teachings” (EBT).

I ran across Griffith’s work as part of the background (together with the work of one Martin Stuart-Fox) for Rodney Bucknell’s essay “Reinterpreting the Jhānas” (JIABS, Vol 16, No 2, Winter 1993), which Leigh Brasington led me to as a foundation for his notion of “Sutta-Jhāna”.

Note also, Rupert Gethin, in his article on ‘bhavanga’, takes Griffiths to task for failing to grasp essentials of abhidhamma, and Bucknell’s thesis is soundly criticized by other scholars (c.f. threads in SuttaCentral discussions). But relatively naïve literalist interpretations (not unlike comparable Christian Biblical views) of the EBT vs abhidhamma and commentaries etc. continue to thrive in the forums.