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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:25 am

cappuccino wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
cappuccino wrote:One should think in terms of not self.
Rather than no self.
What about "sabbe dhamma anatta"? That seems pretty clear.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
So the Buddha didn't want to confuse Ananda by telling him he didn't have a self. OK.

But "sabbe dhamma anatta" is saying there is no self anywhere, not even "in" Nibbana. It's not like the aggregates aren't self, but something else is self - that would be more like Atman/Brahman in Hinduism.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

theY
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

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

Post by theY » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:03 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
cappuccino wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:...

What about "sabbe dhamma anatta"? That seems pretty clear.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
(On Self, No Self, and Not-self)
So the Buddha didn't want to confuse Ananda by telling him he didn't have a self. OK.

But "sabbe dhamma anatta" is saying there is no self anywhere, not even "in" Nibbana. It's not like the aggregates aren't self, but something else is self - that would be more like Atman/Brahman in Hinduism.
In vinaya pitaka 5 Samuṭṭhānasīsasaŋkhepo:
Aniccā sabbe saŋkhārā dukkhā'nattā ca saŋkhatā,
Nibbānañc'eva paññatti anattā iti nicchayā
Translation: all saŋkhatā is anicca dukkha anatta, but nibbāna and paññatti are just anatta.
Last edited by theY on Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:48 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:But "sabbe dhamma anatta" is saying there is no self anywhere, not even in Nibbana.
No self is flawed, it hints at annihilation.

The correct, is not self. Body isn't self, consciousness isn't self, etc.
Matthew 7

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:57 am

cappuccino wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:But "sabbe dhamma anatta" is saying there is no self anywhere, not even in Nibbana.
No self is flawed, it hints at annihilation.
I don't see how. "No self" is just a description of the way things are. We don't "have" a self, soul or core, we are just a process.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:53 pm

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].

And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'
Matthew 7

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:17 pm

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
Matthew 7

User avatar
stentoriusmaxim
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:00 pm

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

Post by stentoriusmaxim » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:13 pm

The no-self remains but the material stuff extinguishes... is it death or is it birth?

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:41 am

cappuccino wrote:If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].
And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'
I think the Buddha's point here is that all such views and positions should be abandoned:

"When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html

I'm still not clear why you object to "no-self". Do you think there is a self lurking somewhere?
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:41 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:I'm still not clear why you object to no-self.
No self is an extreme view. Buddha rejects the extremes.
Matthew 7

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:15 am

cappuccino wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:I'm still not clear why you object to no-self.
No self is an extreme view. Buddha rejects the extremes.
Buddha rejected the extremes of existence and non-existence and taught dependent origination, ie conditionality ( paticca-samuppada: "When this is, that is...."). Conditionality excludes the possibility of a self or soul. And of course self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.

I'm still not clear on what your position is here. Are you saying that there is a self, or that Buddha taught there is a self? If so, some sutta support for this view would be appreciated.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

Saengnapha
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:22 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
cappuccino wrote:If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].
And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'
I think the Buddha's point here is that all such views and positions should be abandoned:

"When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html

I'm still not clear why you object to "no-self". Do you think there is a self lurking somewhere?
This is a very subtle subject that often gets overlooked. Of course, the Buddha taught impermanence and with that the idea that there is an existent someone was erroneous. Yet, taking the position of there being no self, can be contrasted with the position of self existing. Since self neither exists or doesn't exist is something to be debated only when dependent origination is not established. Those who do establish it, do not think in terms of is or isn't, and so forth. This is an insight much debated and very difficult to experience.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:52 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:I'm still not clear on what your position is here.
No self is an extreme view to be rejected. Self is an extreme view.

Not self is different in a subtle way. Body isn't self, mind isn't self, etc.
Matthew 7

theY
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

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

Post by theY » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:07 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:I'm still not clear on what your position is here.
No self is an extreme view to be rejected. Self is an extreme view.

Not self is different in a subtle way. Body isn't self, mind isn't self, etc.
All self that you said, is included in 20 sakkayaditthi.
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: LP Sumedho "consciousness is permanent" - thoughts?

Post by aflatun » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:53 am

Sam Vara wrote:
JMGinPDX wrote:Hello all -
As mentioned in a previous post, LP Sumedho visited our local center last month and I was able to shoot video and audio of the event and post it to our YouTube channel.

One statement Ven. Sumedho made in the Q&A session surprised me, and I wanted to get input from those more familiar than I am with his teachings and the Dhamma in general.

Go to 26:45 in this video:
https://youtu.be/1aRgIERpX3U

In the question, the woman asks if it's true that "consciousness is continuous but not permanent."
Luang Por responds by saying "no, I'm saying that consciousness is permanent."
There's an audible reaction from the audience (I think we had upwards of 200 people there), many of whom, like me, were a bit surprised by this statement.
He expands on his statement in the remainder of his answer, but I wanted to extract this for contemplation and discussion to see what others think and what your understanding is of what he said.
I've attended a lot of L.P. Sumedho's dhamma talks, and this did seem to be a recurring theme. He didn't ever state it so bluntly, but there was a frequent reference to "awareness", "present moment awareness", "consciousness", etc., as if understanding it was somehow the goal of the practice. This is in line with his talks in the book "Intuitive Awareness". Consciousness is happening in the present moment, but is presented as unchanging - as if the contents of the consciousness are subject to change, but not the consciousness itself. There is an older tradition, stretching back at least as far as Ajah Chah, of the "poo roo" - the "one who knows".

Context is everything, of course (I haven't had time to view the video yet) and he might have meant that consciousness is permanent in terms of our experience of this life (i.e. it is the one factor which persists throughout our entire lives, from birth to death). If he meant, though, that there is an everlasting consciousness which is uncaused and which persists after our death, then I think he is at odds with what the Buddha taught.

I seem to recall earlier threads when this aspect of L.P. Sumedho's teaching has been raised.
Woah, this thread ended up in here? :?:

Just stumbled upon this, seems to be a similar theme:

https://youtu.be/Y4LcEcTbc9g?t=26m4s
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:17 am

Saengnapha wrote:This is a very subtle subject that often gets overlooked. Of course, the Buddha taught impermanence and with that the idea that there is an existent someone was erroneous. Yet, taking the position of there being no self, can be contrasted with the position of self existing. Since self neither exists or doesn't exist is something to be debated only when dependent origination is not established. Those who do establish it, do not think in terms of is or isn't, and so forth. This is an insight much debated and very difficult to experience.
But as previously discussed, "sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies that there is no self to be found, not even "in" Nibbana. And paticca-samuppada ( "When this is, that is..", ie conditionality ) isn't compatible with an abiding self, soul or essence. I don't "no-self" as taking a position here, I just see it as the logical conclusion from teachings like these. The difficulty I see with "not-self" is a sense of ambiguity, ie the aggregates are not self, but something else might be. The view that there is something else which is a self would be Hinduism, not Buddhism.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:20 am

cappuccino wrote:Not self is different in a subtle way. Body isn't self, mind isn't self, etc.
So are you saying there is something apart from the aggregates which is a self? It's a straightforward question I have asked you several times.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:40 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:So are you saying there is something apart from the aggregates which is a self?
Self is an extreme view to reject. So how could I be saying there is a self?

I'm saying no self is the other extreme, to reject as well.

All isn't self to begin with, is right view.
Matthew 7

theY
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

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

Post by theY » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:22 pm

Anicca, dukkha =whole 5 aggregates, both lokiya and lokuttara aggregates. Because they depend on many causes to arise.

Object of insight meditation=just 5 lokiya aggregate, except tanha. Because lokuttara aggregates can't not be attached by tanha, so practitioner must doesn't make vipassana on lokuttara. Another, tanha is samudayasacca, so practitioner must make tanha finish at all, not just make vipassana on tanha.

Anatta=everything and every objects=whole 5 aggregates, nibbana, and paññatti.

Paññatti=imagination (it is not reality, like a dream, never arise, no cause). Aatta (self) is one kind of paññatti, too.
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

Saengnapha
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:22 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Saengnapha wrote:This is a very subtle subject that often gets overlooked. Of course, the Buddha taught impermanence and with that the idea that there is an existent someone was erroneous. Yet, taking the position of there being no self, can be contrasted with the position of self existing. Since self neither exists or doesn't exist is something to be debated only when dependent origination is not established. Those who do establish it, do not think in terms of is or isn't, and so forth. This is an insight much debated and very difficult to experience.
But as previously discussed, "sabbe dhamma anatta" clarifies that there is no self to be found, not even "in" Nibbana. And paticca-samuppada ( "When this is, that is..", ie conditionality ) isn't compatible with an abiding self, soul or essence. I don't "no-self" as taking a position here, I just see it as the logical conclusion from teachings like these. The difficulty I see with "not-self" is a sense of ambiguity, ie the aggregates are not self, but something else might be. The view that there is something else which is a self would be Hinduism, not Buddhism.
I don't find that ambiguity in not self. Not self is not self, not something else, or the implication that something else might be self. What I mean about taking a position of no self or not self is the difference between having an intellectual understanding of there being no existing self and the direct experience of it which has no position because there is none needed or conceptualized, ie., Suchness. I hope I'm not being too abstract here. Maybe my Mahayana tendencies might be showing a bit.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5111
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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

Post by Spiny Norman » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:20 am

cappuccino wrote:All isn't self to begin with, is right view.
OK, but what is the practical difference between that, and "no-self"? I'm not seeing one.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: justindesilva, kverty, Majestic-12 [Bot], one_awakening, Yahoo [Bot] and 61 guests