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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
murphythecat8
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:07 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by murphythecat8 »

its a state of consciousness?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by cappuccino »

murphythecat8 wrote:its a state of consciousness?
The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by Spiny Norman »

tiltbillings wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.
Clearly the Udana passage is describing Nibbana, and it would make sense for unborn, unbecome etc to be adjectives describing it.

I think the ambiguity is really around the meaning of "There is" and "There exists". Does this mean that Nibbana exists now, or does it mean Nibbana is a potential state of mind?


There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
conditioned. -- J. Ireland

There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. --
Thanissaro

Monks, there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
compounded. -- F.L. Woodward

There exists, monks, that in which there is no birth, where nothing has come
into existence, where nothing has been made, where there is nothing conditioned.
-- P. Masefield
The "un-words" are adjectives. The subject in the sentence is left unspoken. Try this:
      • There is, monks, [nibbana] unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated.
Now your job is to exegetically examine these adjectives in their various sutta contexts to see what they actually have to say about, how they are used in relation to, the word they are describing -- nibbana. It is a rather interesting and informative endeavor. Good luck.
It sounds like I have some homework to do. ;)
But seriously, I am, as always, trying to understand what the suttas mean, and trying to relate them to the way I experience things. To put it very clumsily, I experience a great stillness beneath the movement of the sense bases, the challenge is trying to understand what that means. Or perhaps I am just thinking too much.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by Spiny Norman »

tiltbillings wrote:For myself, doing the practice is enough, and in a very real way, what I am practicing for is dying, death. If one cannot sit with an equanimous, concentrated mindful mind in face of the dangerous mind states, I suspect one will find it a bit more difficult to face the moments of death. I deal with death directly, with the dying and with their families before and after the death of their loved one. If I have to have a goal, it is to have a good death, to be as much awake as possible as I die. After that, I am not worried.
:goodpost:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=2409#p33515 for a detailed discussion.
Clearly the Udana passage is describing Nibbana, and it would make sense for unborn, unbecome etc to be adjectives describing it.

I think the ambiguity is really around the meaning of "There is" and "There exists". Does this mean that Nibbana exists now, or does it mean Nibbana is a potential state of mind?


There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
conditioned. -- J. Ireland

There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. --
Thanissaro

Monks, there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-
compounded. -- F.L. Woodward

There exists, monks, that in which there is no birth, where nothing has come
into existence, where nothing has been made, where there is nothing conditioned.
-- P. Masefield
Wouldn't a state of mind be born, made, fabricated? Unless it exists now and always has, its not unborn, unmade, unfabricated. A state of mind tapping in to a dimension that has always existed is different from something that is only a state of mind and thus is born, made, created, arisen, conditional, etc. etc.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by cappuccino »

A fire is made but its cessation is different. Imagine being that fire, rather than disregarding its condition, after ceasing. Being out, not merely out.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by tiltbillings »

suttametta wrote:Tilt, Your conclusion . . .
If you seriously want to deal with this, you need to repost this in the appropriate thread. And I suggest you read the whole thing.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by Goofaholix »

davidbrainerd wrote: Wouldn't a state of mind be born, made, fabricated? Unless it exists now and always has, its not unborn, unmade, unfabricated. A state of mind tapping in to a dimension that has always existed is different from something that is only a state of mind and thus is born, made, created, arisen, conditional, etc. etc.
That would be true if you assume the mind itself is fabricated.

I'd suggest instead that with Awakening (aka realisation of Nibbana) the mind has evolved into it's most natural state and that the cessation that characterises this includes the cessation of fabricated mind states.

There is no need to posit a separate reality to account for the mind returning to it's most natural state.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote: Wouldn't a state of mind be born, made, fabricated? Unless it exists now and always has, its not unborn, unmade, unfabricated. A state of mind tapping in to a dimension that has always existed is different from something that is only a state of mind and thus is born, made, created, arisen, conditional, etc. etc.
That would be true if you assume the mind itself is fabricated.

I'd suggest instead that with Awakening (aka realisation of Nibbana) the mind has evolved into it's most natural state and that the cessation that characterises this includes the cessation of fabricated mind states.

There is no need to posit a separate reality to account for the mind returning to it's most natural state.

If I were new to the forum I would think you were saying the mind is the atta and nibbana is the atta returning to its pure atta-ness devoid of fabrications. Only because we've discussed anatta so many do I know that can't be what you mean despite it sounding like you're saying that.
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by Goofaholix »

davidbrainerd wrote:If I were new to the forum I would think you were saying the mind is the atta and nibbana is the atta returning to its pure atta-ness devoid of fabrications. Only because we've discussed anatta so many do I know that can't be what you mean despite it sounding like you're saying that.
Lucky you're not new to the forum, "the mind" is not a translation of atta. When I refer to the mind I refer to an aggregation of mental processes that is inconstant and subject to conditioning, the way I see it when Nibbana is achieved conditioning is no longer controlling and proliferating those processes.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by tiltbillings »

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:If I were new to the forum I would think you were saying the mind is the atta and nibbana is the atta returning to its pure atta-ness devoid of fabrications. Only because we've discussed anatta so many do I know that can't be what you mean despite it sounding like you're saying that.
Lucky you're not new to the forum, "the mind" is not a translation of atta. When I refer to the mind I refer to an aggregation of mental processes that is inconstant and subject to conditioning, the way I see it when Nibbana is achieved conditioning is no longer controlling and proliferating those processes.
"... when Nibbana is achieved conditioning [of greed, hatred, delusion] is no longer controlling and proliferating those processes."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by Goofaholix »

tiltbillings wrote: "... when Nibbana is achieved conditioning [of greed, hatred, delusion] is no longer controlling and proliferating those processes."
Yes
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:If I were new to the forum I would think you were saying the mind is the atta and nibbana is the atta returning to its pure atta-ness devoid of fabrications. Only because we've discussed anatta so many do I know that can't be what you mean despite it sounding like you're saying that.
Lucky you're not new to the forum, "the mind" is not a translation of atta. When I refer to the mind I refer to an aggregation of mental processes that is inconstant and subject to conditioning, the way I see it when Nibbana is achieved conditioning is no longer controlling and proliferating those processes.
So why did you say "...if you assume the mind itself is fabricated" as if you don't think it is? Do you see a distinction between conditioned and fabricated?
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by Goofaholix »

davidbrainerd wrote:So why did you say "...if you assume the mind itself is fabricated" as if you don't think it is? Do you see a distinction between conditioned and fabricated?
I would have thought that was quite clear.

fabricated: to make by assembling parts or sections, to devise or invent, or to lie or fake.

conditioned: characterized by a predictable or consistent pattern of behavior or thought as a result of having been subjected to certain circumstances or conditions.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a transcendent reality, or just a state of mind?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Goofaholix wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:So why did you say "...if you assume the mind itself is fabricated" as if you don't think it is? Do you see a distinction between conditioned and fabricated?
I would have thought that was quite clear.

fabricated: to make by assembling parts or sections, to devise or invent, or to lie or fake.

conditioned: characterized by a predictable or consistent pattern of behavior or thought as a result of having been subjected to certain circumstances or conditions.
I think in the suttas conditioned means exactly the same as born, made, fabricated, i.e. something non-eternal, something originated.
Post Reply