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

[reflection]

There is no "in Nibbana".

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Nibbāna is described as the cessation of perception and feeling, not as the cessation of consciousness. If there were no awareness while the Noble Ones were abiding in Fruition Consciousness (phallacitta), they would be no different to someone who is unconscious or fast asleep.

Both path consciousness (maggacitta) and fruition consciousness (phalacitta) are types of consciousness, not the absence of consciousness. Nibbāna cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or touched. However, it can be cognized by the mind.

See my article on What is Nibbāna?, which collects some key points from the Milinda Pañha.

[Zom]

Opinion of Ven. Sujato on nibbana: http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/ ... t-vinnana/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[vinasp]

Hi Dugu,

Quote:
"Or is nibbana also cessation of all forms of consciousness?"

1. Do you mean nibbana for one still alive, or some supposed after-death state?

2. If you mean for one still living, why would anyone even ask this question?
Are you confused by certain passages in the Nikaya's?

Please provide more background, to help us understand the question.

Kind regards, Vincent.

[ground]

The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is just this Noble Eightfold Path

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .ntbb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now ... is right view right?

Kind regards

[Dugu]

Hi Dugu,

1. Do you mean nibbana for one still alive, or some supposed after-death state?

I suppose my question refers more to after-death state.

[vinasp]

Hi Dugu,

Quote:

"I suppose my question refers more to after-death state."

We are all, of course, free to believe whatever we wish, so I expect that
you will receive a wide range of answers to your question. Many forum
members seem to be mixing different Buddhist traditions. But, here is the
opinion of a modern writer from within the Theravada tradition.

From: What the Buddha taught, by Walpola Rahula - online version - Link:

http://www.quangduc.com/English/basic/6 ... ht-04.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Some popular inaccurately phrased expressions like ‘The Buddha entered into Nirvāna or Parinirvāna after his death’ have given rise to many imaginary speculations about Nirvāna. [22]The moment you hear the phrase that ‘the Buddha entered into Nirvāna or Parinirvāna’, you take Nirvāna to be a state, or a realm, or a position in which there is some sort of existence, and try to imagine it in terms of the senses of the word ‘existence’ as it is known to you. This popular expression ‘entered into Nirvāna’ has no equivalent in the original texts. There is no such thing as ‘entering into Nirvāna after death’. There is a word parinibbuto used to denote the death of the Buddha or an Arahant who has realized Nirvāna, but it does not mean ‘entering into Nirvāna’. Parinibbuto simply mean ‘fully blown out’ or ‘fully extinct’, because the Buddha or an Arahant has no re-existence after his death."

------------------------------ End of Quotation ------------------------

I am not sure that I agree with this myself, but it is probably close to
the official position of Theravada ( if there is one).

For myself, I am happy to allow these questions to remain a mystery which
is beyond my capacity to understand.

Kind regards, Vincent.

[Dugu]

I am not sure that I agree with this myself, but it is probably close to
the official position of Theravada ( if there is one).

For myself, I am happy to allow these questions to remain a mystery which
is beyond my capacity to understand.

Kind regards, Vincent.

Thanks Vincent. This whole thread has given me something to ponder about.

[Virgo]

Hi Dugu,

1. Do you mean nibbana for one still alive, or some supposed after-death state?

I suppose my question refers more to after-death state.

After the final death (parinibbana), there are no more conditions for nama to arise (or rupa), so there is no body, and no consciousness, no perception, etc. -- a process is over.

Kevin

[Nyana]

Nibbāna is described as the cessation of perception and feeling, not as the cessation of consciousness. If there were no awareness while the Noble Ones were abiding in Fruition Consciousness (phallacitta), they would be no different to someone who is unconscious or fast asleep.

FTR the noble path and fruition attainments occur with both concomitant perception and feeling. Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha:

• 1. The First Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with initial application, sustained application, joy, happiness, and one-pointedness,
  2. The Second Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with sustained application, joy, happiness, and one-pointedness,
  3. The Third Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with joy, happiness, and one-pointedness,
  4. The Fourth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with happiness and one-pointedness,
  5. The Fifth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with equanimity and one-pointedness.
  
  These are the five types of Sotāpatti Path-consciousness.
  
  So are the Sakadāgāmī Path-consciousness, Anāgāmī Path-consciousness, and Arahatta Path-consciousness, making exactly twenty classes of consciousness. Similarly there are twenty classes of Fruit-consciousness. Thus there are forty types of supra mundane consciousness.

Also, in keeping with the Kathāvatthu, the Visuddhimagga maintains that the cessation of apperception and feeling, which is also called the cessation attainment (nirodhasamāpatti) is neither supramundane nor not-conditioned (asaṅkhata). Visuddhimagga 23.52:

• As to the question: Is the attainment of cessation formed or unformed, etc.? It is not classifiable as formed or unformed, mundane or supramundane. Why? Because it has no individual essence. But since it comes to be attained by one who attains it, it is therefore permissible to say that it is produced, not unproduced.

[Sarva]

Dear all
I hope Dugu will permit me to add some questions rather than answers to this useful thread. I hope it will help us both because I have some lingering concern with the way consciousness is presented in Theravada.

Firstly, my understanding of the Pali Cannon is that Consciousness is similar to thoughts/memories, which arise and fall, without our ability to control them:

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' Link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is also the concept the consciousness is related to the sense and intellect:

SN 27.3: Viññana Sutta — Consciousness
At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to eye-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to ear-consciousness... nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness... intellect-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."
Link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This is all useful in respect to anatta. However I feel this is not the same consciousness which is well quoted by Ñāṇa above: e.g.

"5. The Fifth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with equanimity and one-pointedness."
Source here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this a problem with translation or are we facing different ideas of consciousness depending on their location and use?

[Nyana]

Firstly, my understanding of the Pali Cannon is that Consciousness is similar to thoughts/memories, which arise and fall, without our ability to control them:

Consciousness (viññāṇa) is the bare awareness of a sense object (i.e. visible form, sound, odor, taste, tactile sensation, mental object).

However I feel this is not the same consciousness which is well quoted by Ñāṇa above: e.g.

"5. The Fifth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with equanimity and one-pointedness."

Is this a problem with translation or are we facing different ideas of consciousness depending on their location and use?

Here the term is "citta" but the meaning is the same as above. Each path consciousness and fruition consciousness are mental consciousnesses (manoviññāṇa). These path and fruition consciousnesses are considered supramundane.

[Sarva]

Firstly, my understanding of the Pali Cannon is that Consciousness is similar to thoughts/memories, which arise and fall, without our ability to control them:

Consciousness (viññāṇa) is the bare awareness of a sense object (i.e. visible form, sound, odor, taste, tactile sensation, mental object).

However I feel this is not the same consciousness which is well quoted by Ñāṇa above: e.g.

"5. The Fifth Jhāna Sotāpatti Path-consciousness together with equanimity and one-pointedness."

Is this a problem with translation or are we facing different ideas of consciousness depending on their location and use?

Here the term is "citta" but the meaning is the same as above. Each path consciousness and fruition consciousness are mental consciousnesses (manoviññāṇa). These path and fruition consciousnesses are considered supramundane.

Thanks Ñāṇa
Is there always consciousness in Theravada, be it either translation, or is there ever a time when we can speak of no consciousness of any type?

[Nyana]

Is there always consciousness in Theravada, be it either translation, or is there ever a time when we can speak of no consciousness of any type?

In unconscious states such as a faint or deep sleep there is no active consciousness occurring.

[Sarva]

Is there always consciousness in Theravada, be it either translation, or is there ever a time when we can speak of no consciousness of any type?

In unconscious states such as a faint or deep sleep there is no active consciousness occurring.

Hi Ñāṇa
Do you know if it is considered that inactive consciousness continues through sleep? For example, in dream sleep there is a certain consciousness of dream, later on awaking we are consicous that we slept deeply and/or that we drempt. I am curious if there is such a consciousness in scripture or spoken of elsewhere that you may know?

Metta