Yeah, but in what form? It's an unanswerable question, unless one's experienced it.cappuccino wrote:Death is not the end, it's the beginning.
In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi
http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Spirit form, a subtle body.Santi253 wrote:Yeah, but in what form? It's an unanswerable question, unless one's experienced it.cappuccino wrote:Death is not the end, it's the beginning.
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Can the enlightened being speak to us or visit us from the Nirvana realm?cappuccino wrote:Spirit form, a subtle body.Santi253 wrote:Yeah, but in what form? It's an unanswerable question, unless one's experienced it.cappuccino wrote:Death is not the end, it's the beginning.
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi
http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Santi253 wrote:Can the enlightened being speak to us or visit us from the Nirvana realm?
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
This is a main difference between Mahayana and Theravada, since Mahayana teaches that the enlightened being remains active in the world after death, out of compassion for all beings.cappuccino wrote:Santi253 wrote:Can the enlightened being speak to us or visit us from the Nirvana realm?
Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. - Mahatma Gandhi
http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
http://www.matthewsatori.tumblr.com
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Interesting poll results so far.
About 37% chose some kind of non-existence (as we know it) but not necessarily nihilism since there is no self to begin with.
About 26% for setting it aside for now (wait and see approach).
And then about 37% for some kind of subtle existence.
Most of the members here are Western-born convert Buddhists. If we asked only Western born monks, I imagine the 'non-existence' as we know it option would be even a much higher percentage. Whereas, Asian Buddhists appear to be mostly aligned with one of the subtle existence options as evidenced by this post from Bhante Dhammanando:
About 37% chose some kind of non-existence (as we know it) but not necessarily nihilism since there is no self to begin with.
About 26% for setting it aside for now (wait and see approach).
And then about 37% for some kind of subtle existence.
Most of the members here are Western-born convert Buddhists. If we asked only Western born monks, I imagine the 'non-existence' as we know it option would be even a much higher percentage. Whereas, Asian Buddhists appear to be mostly aligned with one of the subtle existence options as evidenced by this post from Bhante Dhammanando:
There appears to be an East-West divide; not saying which one is correct, just noting the divide which could be cultural or could be something else.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:40 pmI think "common" would be a bit of an understatement. The primordial citta conception and similar strains of thinly disguised soul theory and semi-eternalism are ubiquitous in these traditions.Mkoll wrote:In your experience, is this concept of a primordial citta common in the Ajahn Mun and Chah forest traditions?
Among the Thai ajahns I don’t know of any who don’t teach this.Mkoll wrote:Can you say say who is well-known from those traditions who espouse it and those who don't?
As for the non-Thai (i.e. mostly western) ajahns, with these you can predict it with a fairly high degree of accuracy from the monk’s biography. The non-eternalists for the most part comprise those who had some background in relatively orthodox strains of Theravada Buddhism before they got mixed up with the forest tradition. Examples would include Ajahns Khemadhammo, Tiradhammo and Sujāto, who all began as Mahasi practitioners; Ajahn Viradhammo, who began as a Ñāṇavīra enthusiast after Sāmaṇera Bodhesako introduced him to the man’s teachings; and Ajahn Brahmavamso, who began with the Samatha Trust, a British group that combines samatha meditation with Abhidhamma study. All of these appear to have avoided the semi-eternalist error that’s endemic to the Thai forest tradition. But those monks who had no previous background in Buddhism before they stumbled across the Thai forest tradition have for the most part not avoided it.
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
interesting poll results indeed
- Lucas Oliveira
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
studying and practicing ...
to be known by the wise, each for himself.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pali_chant.htm
to be known by the wise, each for himself.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pali_chant.htm
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
I think there should be another option for the poll:
Understanding parinabana is impossible.
chownah
Understanding parinabana is impossible.
chownah
- one_awakening
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Why does the second choice refer to no self?.....considering the Buddha never said there is no self.
“You only lose what you cling to”
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Topic bumped back to top of active topics at the request of a member, to see if more can vote in this poll to see where members are at on this topic.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
If you don't count the first and last options in the poll then we currently have a sort of 2 way tie:
37% for non-existence as we know it, but not annihilation since there is no self to begin with
37% for some kind of subtle existence
37% for non-existence as we know it, but not annihilation since there is no self to begin with
37% for some kind of subtle existence
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Hello,
It would be somewhat logical to make a summary like that [adding up small "similar" ones to rank up against a "unique" one], only when the number of option avaliable to choose [for each and every individual] is limited to one.
Metta,
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
- Nicholas Weeks
- Posts: 4210
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
- Location: USA West Coast
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
Another possible (or maybe technically not) modification is to reduce the votes to two choices only.
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17190
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: In your view, understanding, Parinibbana is:
In the great nibbana thread, tharpa wrote:
Note: not that the majority decides what is true and correct of course as that would be argumentum ad populum. Just curious.
And yet we find eternalist type views in forest traditions:tharpa wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:38 amAbsolutely not. Such a view is sometimes found in fringe Mahayana sects though, such as the Nichiren.Santi253 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:02 pmThis is something I don't know a whole lot about. Does the typical Theravada Buddhist, in traditionally Theravadin countries, believe that the Buddha remains present in the world?David N. Snyder wrote: True, but Mun is more of an outlier, not a typical, mainstream theravada view.
But to give the Buddha's teachings on this: The Buddha was asked thousands of questions during his 45 years of teaching. There were a very, very few he declined to answer. One of the ones he declined to answer was, "Does an arahant exist after death, or not exist after death?"
Please note that a Buddha is one of the three kinds of arahants.
And see also:Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:43 pm It'd be a good idea to save this file Ajahn Martin , in case of probable future deletion, similar to the fate of "some links" mentioned in the pdf.
Ajahn Martin --->Consciousness or vinnana is one of the khandhas and of course is not eternal. The citta is eternal. Just remember what the Lord Buddha said, the Thatagata after dead neither is nor is not. The citta is not individualistic, not personal. How could the Lord Buddha talk to Acharn Mun presenting Dhamma to him in the form of the Lord Buddha, if there is nothing that is eternal and everything dies away? We grasp the term citta wrongly, we think every beeing has a citta, no that is not right, every being is part of that one citta, that is eternal. This would be the correct view.
Here at DW in our very small sample size, we see about an even split in views, but would the poll results be much more skewed toward eternalism among Buddhists in Buddhist countries; i.e. more of the born-Buddhist adherents as opposed to mostly convert Buddhists on english-language Buddhist forums?Dhammanando wrote: ↑Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:40 pmI think "common" would be a bit of an understatement. The primordial citta conception and similar strains of thinly disguised soul theory and semi-eternalism are ubiquitous in these traditions.Mkoll wrote:In your experience, is this concept of a primordial citta common in the Ajahn Mun and Chah forest traditions?
Note: not that the majority decides what is true and correct of course as that would be argumentum ad populum. Just curious.