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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Dinsdale
Posts: 5358
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:22 am

Saengnapha wrote:
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.
Sure, there is a big difference between intellectual understanding and insight. But I saying that "no-self" represents the correct intellectual understanding, based on the teachings, and that holds true for both Theravada and Mahayana, given that sunyata is a development of anatta.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:31 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
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.
I know you think nirvana is annihilation. I don't, that's the practical difference.

Nirvana is an everlasting state.

User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

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

Post by Myotai » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:42 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.

The correct, is not self. Body isn't self, consciousness isn't self, etc.
I have always read 'Not Self' as opposed to 'No Self'.

Of course we have a 'self'....but its mode of existence is deceptive. It appears to be a permanent non-dependent related phenomena. Actually its more of an appearance to mind - like a rainbow (as the Tibetans might say).

Dinsdale
Posts: 5358
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:33 am

cappuccino wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
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.
I know you think nirvana is annihilation. I don't, that's the practical difference.

Nirvana is an everlasting state.
I don't have a view either way on this, and I think the suttas are rather ambiguous. But I don't see the relevance of this point, we are discussing whether no-self is the correct conclusion to draw from the teachings, not whether Nibbana is eternal.

"Sabbe dhamma anatta" indicates that if Nibbana is eternal then it must be impersonal, not involving an abiding self or soul or personal essence.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

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

Post by Myotai » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:13 am

Nirvana is an everlasting state.
I don't have a view either way on this, and I think the suttas are rather ambiguous. But I don't see the relevance of this point, we are discussing whether no-self is the correct conclusion to draw from the teachings, not whether Nibbana is eternal.
Hey Spiny,

Sorry if I am being naive here...

Isn't 'No' self a self defeating statement? Our subjective experience is of having a self though we know it doesn't actually 'exist' as such. So can we really say 'No' self? As we cannot identify the self, as its 'un-findable' and we can only ever identify things its not...isn't 'Not' self more viable an angle?

BW

M...

Dinsdale
Posts: 5358
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm

Myotai wrote:Nirvana is an everlasting state.
I don't have a view either way on this, and I think the suttas are rather ambiguous. But I don't see the relevance of this point, we are discussing whether no-self is the correct conclusion to draw from the teachings, not whether Nibbana is eternal.
Hey Spiny,

Sorry if I am being naive here...
Isn't 'No' self a self defeating statement? Our subjective experience is of having a self though we know it doesn't actually 'exist' as such. So can we really say 'No' self? As we cannot identify the self, as its 'un-findable' and we can only ever identify things its not...isn't 'Not' self more viable an angle?
BW
M...
As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:06 pm

Not self is the teaching rather than no self
as explained in the Ananda Sutta

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

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:10 pm

“This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful,
refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.”


- the Blessed One

User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

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

Post by Myotai » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:58 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm

As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
Not self is far from ambiguous. The clear implication is that the self is unfindable. 'Not' within and 'Not' outside the Skandhas. But nonetheless appears to our mind (like everything else really....including 'mind').

No self fly's in the face of our own subjective experience.

'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:02 pm

Awakening implies you're dreaming…
dreaming yourself.

Whatever you think of yourself:
good, bad, indifferent,
is a dream.

Saengnapha
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:01 am

Myotai wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:58 pm
Spiny Norman wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm

As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
Not self is far from ambiguous. The clear implication is that the self is unfindable. 'Not' within and 'Not' outside the Skandhas. But nonetheless appears to our mind (like everything else really....including 'mind').

No self fly's in the face of our own subjective experience.

'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).
Not self or no self is a simple statement of fact in the same vein as impermanence is a fact. Impermanence is easier to intellectually understand than not self or no self because we are deeply ingrained to think that there is a self somewhere in the centre of all our experiences. Through the contemplation of dependent origination and mindfulness of your own experience, you begin to see that this self, this centre, is an illusion. Nitpicking no or not is a waste of energy, but carry on if you have to.

User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

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

Post by Myotai » Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:58 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 5:01 am
Myotai wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:58 pm
Spiny Norman wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm

As previously explained, I think "not-self" is ambiguous and confusing, since it allows for the possibility of a self "outside" the aggregates. I think "no-self" ( absence of self ) is what the suttas describe - for example "sabbe dhamma anatta", pattica-samuppada ( conditionality ), the fetters of self-view and conceit, and so on.
Not self is far from ambiguous. The clear implication is that the self is unfindable. 'Not' within and 'Not' outside the Skandhas. But nonetheless appears to our mind (like everything else really....including 'mind').

No self fly's in the face of our own subjective experience.

'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).
Not self or no self is a simple statement of fact in the same vein as impermanence is a fact. Impermanence is easier to intellectually understand than not self or no self because we are deeply ingrained to think that there is a self somewhere in the centre of all our experiences. Through the contemplation of dependent origination and mindfulness of your own experience, you begin to see that this self, this centre, is an illusion. Nitpicking no or not is a waste of energy, but carry on if you have to.
:jumping:

Unexist
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 pm

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

Post by Unexist » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:16 am

Nirvana is cannot be caught in terms as eternal. It is complete cessation without a remainder. Like a seed that is burnt by the fire of knowledge.

Nirvana is described completely in it's core by various Arhats in the following statement;
"Yam kinki samudayadhamma sabbam tam nirodha dhamma". "That which was bound take various birth and death in series like a river with it's Mass of water continuously flowing to the eternal existence. But when True wisdom or Tathagata or Wisdom or Eightfold path arises, that which is bound will completely unbound and thus annihilated."

Question is there what is there to bound? The answer is all the perception, feeling, sensation, five elements and chain of cause( Desire and Avidya).
All these make a whole becoming of a being.

Vidya arises, then chain of causation broke down to peices, clearly visible to the eye of wisdom in front of him. That's why it is called insight of impermanence. This is the Nirvana. The final extiction. After that nothing to be done.

So called supernatural powers and other debates on who am I, where is this world come from, what happens after death is all meaningless question of the quest of delusion. Wise always stay that aside and only seek towards his goal as cessation.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:30 am

but if nirvana is annihilation, you would be insane to seek it

rather this teaching should lead to sanity

Dinsdale
Posts: 5358
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:59 am

Myotai wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:58 pm
'Not' leaves room for investigation (red Herring) whereas 'No' is a dead end and illogical (in the face of our experience).
And yet the Sunna Sutta clearly says no self...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:17 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:59 am
And yet the Sunna Sutta clearly says no self
No it says, empty of a self.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5358
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:20 am

cappuccino wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:17 pm
Spiny Norman wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:59 am
And yet the Sunna Sutta clearly says no self
No it says, empty of a self.
Same thing. If the world is empty of a self, then there is no self in the world.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Saengnapha
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:53 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:30 am
but if nirvana is annihilation, you would be insane to seek it

rather this teaching should lead to sanity
Yes, that's exactly right. But, nirvana is not annihilation. This would be nihilism and an erroneous belief in what the teachings are saying. The Buddha constantly reiterates the point of not discerning anything apart from dependent origination as an alternative position. That is called emptiness which is neither self or not self, and so on.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:37 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:20 am
Same thing. If the world is empty of a self, then there is no self in the world.
The difference is subtle.

You fail to appreciate the difference.

chownah
Posts: 7026
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:20 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:20 am
cappuccino wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:17 pm
Spiny Norman wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:59 am
And yet the Sunna Sutta clearly says no self
No it says, empty of a self.
Same thing. If the world is empty of a self, then there is no self in the world.
You may think it is the same thing but yet the sunna sutta does not clearly say no self as you have stated. Did you make a mistake?....or do you want to continue to dispute what the sunna sutta clearly says?
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 59 guests