Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.
zan
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by zan » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:48 am

pegembara wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:45 am
zan wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:17 pm
pegembara wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:35 am


Anatta=No thingness
Nibbana isn't a thing. Sabbe dhamma anatta
Thanks, I'm confused, though, are you arguing against "sabbe dhamma anatta" proving that nibbana is not self? Could you please explain what your post is trying to get accross?

Nibbana is a dhamma. And anatta means "not self". So sabbe dhamma anatta (all dhammas are not self) does include nibbana and so nibbana is not self. If you are trying to argue against this point made by Bhikkhu Bodhi, referenced in my above post, please read the op title and full text. I am trying to create a thread of statements supporting one idea, free from debates, counter statements, casting of doubt, and arguments.

If you are not trying to argue perhaps I am just failing to understand you and if that is the case I apologize for my confusion and would appreciate your clarification :)
I am not arguing against the Buddha by asserting that nibbana is atta!

all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished - Since nibbana is not extinguished(nibbana is not anicca), it isn't included in the All.
Since all experience is extinguished, 'consciousness' is likewise extinguished and cannot be equated with nibbana.
'Consciousness' is an activity, not an entity. The activity ceases in final nibbana.
"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
:goodpost:

Thank you! Apologies for my confusion.
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

pegembara
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by pegembara » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:17 am

cappuccino wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:05 pm
pegembara wrote: Anatta=No thingness
Nothingness is a jhana. Yes, from seeing no self.

Buddha taught not self.
Nothingness/void is not no 'thingness'!
Because of no thingness - nothing can be grasped as 'self' or belonging to 'self'.
Giving names to them eg. cappuccino/pegembara doesn't make them ultimately real.

Imagine the beautiful, intricate Tibetan mandalas which takes days or weeks to make being 'destroyed' in the blink of an eye.
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.

"He grows disenchanted with the ear...

"He grows disenchanted with the nose...

"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...

"He grows disenchanted with the body...

"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released.
Released from what? (Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) Consciousness.
"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned."

The born, come-to-be, produced,
The made, the conditioned, the transient,
Conjoined with decay and death,
A nest of disease, perishable,
Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord —
That is not fit to take delight in.

The escape from that, the peaceful,
Beyond reasoning, everlasting,
The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states linked to suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Pondera » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:12 am

alfa wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:41 pm
Pondera wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:41 am
"What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"

"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
How is this even possible? :shrug:
How is what possible? That his faculties are exceptionally clear?

There is the eye faculty; the eye object; and eye consciousness. When eye consciousness ceases - faculty and object remain; but are no longer in contact.

Ie. the faculties remain for one who has entered the cessation of feeling and perception - but there is no contact with sense media.

Ie. the “mind” faculty remains bright and unsullied by “mind” objects. Ie. one experiences Nibbana with the mind - apart from all feeling and perception. As you know, Nibbāna has been declared a perception by the Buddha before.

Or is your question something else? I do not understand your question in that case.

Edit: as far as I know, Sāriputta declared Nibbana a perception. Not the Buddha, necessarily.
Last edited by Pondera on Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
What is “rupa” Jhāna? Here are four simple meditations on earth, water, fire, and wind - leading to tranquility and pleasure, rapture and equanimity - peacehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1sdgpi ... hIz3wgz7ep

User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Pondera » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:42 am

AN 10.7
[1][pts][bodh] Then Ven. Ananda went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Yes, friend Ananda, he could..."
"But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient."
"But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?"
"'The cessation of becoming — Nibbāna — the cessation of becoming — Nibbāna': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'"
Last edited by SDC on Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal comments not relevant to topic removed
What is “rupa” Jhāna? Here are four simple meditations on earth, water, fire, and wind - leading to tranquility and pleasure, rapture and equanimity - peacehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1sdgpi ... hIz3wgz7ep

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:12 am

Buddhism and Death
by
M. O'C. Walshe

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el261.html

Death and the Arahant
For one who has attained full Enlightenment in this life, the death of the body brings with it the end of all individual existence: this at least is the Theravada teaching. This is called anupaadisesa-nibbaana, "Nibbaana without the groups remaining." While the final attainment of Nibbaana should not be understood as mere annihilation in the materialistic sense (though some scholars seem to interpret it in this way), nothing positive can be predicated of it. It is not the extinction of self, for that self never was real in the first place, nor is it "entering into Nibbaana," for there is no being who enters. It is the final cessation, however, of the five aggregates which were the product of greed, hatred and delusion. We may think of it as a state of utter peace, and perhaps we can leave it at that. It is the Deathless State.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
with thanks,
to zan for creating this thread
and, to those concerned, for making it a safe haven
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:48 am

The Discourse on the Snake Simile
Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22)
translated from the Pali, with an Introduction and Notes by
Nyanaponika Thera

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el048.html
Here, and in almost all the following sections, up to §41, it is the gravest of all wrong views — the belief in a Self, in an abiding ego-entity — that is dealt with from different angles. Our discourse is one of the most important texts concerned with the Anattaa-doctrine, the teaching on Not-self. This teaching is the core of the Buddhist doctrine and a singular feature of it. It is of a truly revolutionary nature, and hence it is not easily absorbed by the human mind which, since an unfathomable past, has been habituated to think, and to induce action, in terms of "I" and "Mine." But this bias towards egocentricity has to be broken on the intellectual, emotional, and ethical level, if deliverance from suffering is ever to be won. In this task, the repeated and careful contemplation of our discourse can become a valuable aid.
Hence the Buddha took great care to question and re-question his monks on this crucial point of soul and self, in order to remove any doubt in this respect. The thorough manner of his inquiry is exemplified in §§22-25 which leave no room for ambiguity on this issue. In §§26-27 all the possible constituents of an alleged self (i.e., the five aggregates) are examined and found to be evanescent, liable to suffering and without a self or any other underlying substance. It should be noted that the statement of the text extends also to the most sublime manifestations of consciousness, be they conceived as internal ("in oneself") or external.
15. "There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.[15] What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';[16] he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;[17] what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,[18] this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the Self.[19] That I shall be after death;[20] permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same,[21] shall I abide in that very condition' — that (view), too, he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.'[22]
21. "But, Lord, can there be absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal?"

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone does not have this view: 'The universe is the Self... eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishing of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then does not think: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he does not grieve, is not depressed, does not lament; he does not beat his breast nor does he weep, and no dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there absence of anxiety about unrealities, in the internal.[25]
23. "You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

"What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea." :rofl:
25. "If there were a self, monks, would there be my self's property?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Or if there is a self's property, would there by my self?" — "So it is, Lord." — "Since in truth and in fact, self and self's property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition' — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?" — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea ."[30] :clap:
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2473
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Zom » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:10 am

sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self
Consciousness, according to Buddha, is always a conditioned thing. There is no sutta which say that consciousness can be unconditioned (and thus - be either nibbana or self).

From MN 38:

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.

From SN 22.97:

Sitting to one side, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Is there, venerable sir, any consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself?”

“Bhikkhu, there is no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself". Then the Blessed One took up a little bit of soil in his fingernail and said to that bhikkhu: “Bhikkhu, there is not even this much consciousness
that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much consciousness that was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned."

The answer to why there are debates on this topic lies in SN 12.67:

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ — the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.

:reading:

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:22 am

Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha
translated by
Ñanamoli Thera
© 1995

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el017.html
Nibbana, in so far as it is knowable — describable — is an object of the mind, and is thus an idea. "All ideas are not-self." What is inherently unknowable has no place in the Teaching.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:45 am

Fundamentals of Buddhism
Four Lectures
by
Nyanatiloka Mahathera

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el394.html
The words "I," "you," "he," etc., are merely terms found useful in conventional or current (vohara) speech, but do not designate realities (paramattha-dhamma). For neither do these physical and mental phenomena constitute an absolute ego-entity, nor yet does there exist, outside these phenomena, any ego-entity, self, or soul, who is the possessor or owner of the same.
Insight, as already said, is induced by means of analysis and intense contemplation on all the phenomena of existence, i.e. on corporeal phenomena, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and states of consciousness; by the contemplation on their impersonality, futility, emptiness and unsubstantiality; by contemplating the fact that in reality, neither inside nor outside these fleeting phenomena, is there to be found any ego-entity (atta), and that "I" or "self" or "person," etc., are nothing but conventional names. Really, this teaching of unsubstantiality and egolessness (anatta), together with the teaching of the conditionedness of all phenomena of existence, are the only specific doctrines of Buddhism, and without insight into these profound truths nobody can ever rightly grasp the Four Noble Truths or enter the path.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:02 pm

Directions for Insight - Six Dhamma Talks on Centering the Mind in Non-attachment
by Acharn Kor Khao-suan-luang (Upasika Kee Nanayon) edited by Bhikkhu Ariyesako

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/tha ... tions.html
The Lord Buddha declared, "Sabbe dhammaa anattaa" — All things are not-self."... There's just Dhamma that is essential but not-self. This doesn't mean the wrong view of complete annihilationism, but the extinction of all attachment and holding 'me' and 'mine'. There's only that which is called the Undying Dhamma[6] — without birth, without aging, without pain and without death. Only the defilements and suffering are annihilated. This is also known as 'Sunyo', the voidness of a substantial self.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

zan
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by zan » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:41 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:12 am
Buddhism and Death
by
M. O'C. Walshe

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el261.html

Death and the Arahant
For one who has attained full Enlightenment in this life, the death of the body brings with it the end of all individual existence: this at least is the Theravada teaching. This is called anupaadisesa-nibbaana, "Nibbaana without the groups remaining." While the final attainment of Nibbaana should not be understood as mere annihilation in the materialistic sense (though some scholars seem to interpret it in this way), nothing positive can be predicated of it. It is not the extinction of self, for that self never was real in the first place, nor is it "entering into Nibbaana," for there is no being who enters. It is the final cessation, however, of the five aggregates which were the product of greed, hatred and delusion. We may think of it as a state of utter peace, and perhaps we can leave it at that. It is the Deathless State.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
with thanks,
to zan for creating this thread
and, to those concerned, for making it a safe haven
No problem! And thank you and everyone else who is contributing!
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

zan
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by zan » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:16 pm

"At Savatthi. Seated to one side, that mendicant said to the Buddha: “Sir, is there any form at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever? Is there any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever?” “Mendicant, there is no form at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. There’s no feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.”

Then the Buddha, picking up a little bit of dirt under his fingernail, addressed that mendicant: “There’s not even this much of any form that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. If there were, this living of the spiritual life for the complete ending of suffering would not be found. But since there isn’t, this living of the spiritual life for the complete ending of suffering is found.

There’s not even this much of any feeling …

perception … choices …

consciousness that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. If there were, this living of the spiritual life for the complete ending of suffering would not be found. But since there isn’t, this living of the spiritual life for the complete ending of suffering is found.

What do you think, mendicant? Is form permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “So you should truly see … Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’”
-SN 22.97
So from this and hundreds of similar quotes it's quite clear that nibbana is not consciousness as nibbana is permanent, and all consciousness is said to be temporary. A common argument against this is that nibbana supposedly is consciousness and is hinted at in other suttas and that the Buddha meant more than is stated in the above sutta, or that he was deliberately omitting listing some other type of consciousness every single time he discussed the aggregates or the temporary nature of all consciousness. The natural problem with that is that the Buddha said what he meant. If he said "All consciousness" then that's what he meant. This is apparent when we consider the following quotes:
"I have taught Dhamma, Ananda, making no 'inner' and 'outer': the Tathaagata has no 'teacher's fist' in respect of the doctrines."
DN 12
No hidden teaching, he taught everything up front.
The acceptance of this dichotomy between conventional and transcendental language is widespread today, as is the suppositious parallel distinction between conventional and absolute truth, or reality. Therefore some may be surprised to learn that such a distinction (whether with regard to language, truth, or reality) ... is of later invention and is not to be met with in the Suttas. Quite the contrary, it is specifically and repeatedly condemned. At M. 99: ii,202, for instance, the Buddha goes out of his way to lead his listener to acknowledge the superiority of conventional speech (as well as of speech that is well-advised, spoken after reflection, and connected with the goal) over unconventional speech (and also over speech that is ill-advised, etc.). And consistent with this, at M. 139: iii,230 the monks are advised that when teaching they should (among other things) “not deviate from recognized parlance.

The suttas, then, clearly assert that they are to be understood as saying what they mean. They are not to be interpreted, for to do so must result in misunderstanding them.
-Samanera Bodhesako
The common argument from here is something like: well nibbana is said to be consciousness in some suttas, and that nibbana consciousness is outside the all, so the Buddha omitted it every time he spoke about the aggregates.

To reply to that we have:
nowhere in the Nikayas is Nibbana described as consciousness
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, note to MN 49
and when people use "Consciousness non-manifest, infinite, radiant all around" from DN 11 amd MN 49 to prove that nibbana is consciousness they are missing two things:

One: in MN 49 it is probably a typo,
the Sri Lankan, Thai, and English editions of the Pali attribute the phrase to Brahma, not the Buddha, while only the Burmese attributes it to the Buddha. (The commentary attributes it to the Buddha and says it refers to Nibbana; Burmese texts are notorious for incorporating ‘corrected’ readings from the commentary.)
-Bhikkhu Sujato, "Nibbana is still not Vinnana"
And

Two: for DN 11

It is in the next lines of the verse, which are usually overlooked by the viññāṇa = Nibbana school, that the Buddha’s true position is stated. With the cessation of viññāṇa all this comes to an end. The ‘infinite consciousness’ is merely the temporary escape from the oppression of materiality, but true liberation is the ending of all consciousness.
-Bhikkhu Sujato "Vinnana is not Nibbana, really it just isn't"
Sujato also makes this excellent point:
When passages such as the ‘anidassana vinnana’ or the ‘pabhassara citta’ are invoked to lend support for the notion that Nibbana is an eternal cosmic awareness that survives the death of an arahant, the first question we should ask is, ‘Do these phrases actually refer clearly to the state of an arahant after death?’ If they don’t, they are irrelevant to the problem. We all agree that an arahant is conscious before their death.

Arguments for the ‘eternal-consciousness Nibbana’ almost invariably tend to slip from talking about the citta or vinnana in this life to the state after death. It is a subtle sleight of hand, which pivots on the ambiguity of the term Nibbana, and is hidden by the conceptual fog that mere mention of the term evokes.
-Bhikkhu Sujato "Nibbana Remains Not Vinnana"
And of course the usual argument to all of the above is endless twisting and turning about the texts to prove that nibbana is self or consciousness or that there is a special consciousness outside the five aggregates that is self and so on. Taking the above into consideration, particularly that the Buddha said what he meant, we can assume that if nibbana was self or consciousness or if there were some special consciousness outside the aggregates, the Buddha would have stated it clearly and repeatedly as he did with most of his teachings.

Bhikkhu Sujato makes some points in this direction on his comments on his blog post on the matter:
The Buddha was so very very emphatic that the end of dependent origination was the end of all forms of consciousness. Making distinctions between “consciousness” and “awareness” and the like is no use, since these do not apply in the suttas.

Unfortunately, most Buddhist commentators on this point are not familiar with the relevant pre-Buddhist Upanishads; for in those texts, it is precisely vijnana (= Pali vinnana) that is the “Universal Awareness” that survives all. If you read what the Upanishads say about vijnana, side by side with what the Buddha says, it becomes perfectly clear that the Buddha was specifically adopting the Upanishadic terminology in order to refute it.

If what the Buddha taught is really in essence the same as the Upanishads–and the ideas that you good gentlemen are talking about are, indeed, Upanishadic–then why was he so chronically unable to say so clearly? Why did he not repeat, as part of the basic definition of Nibbana, that it meant “an eternally lasting radiant omniscient transcendent consciousness”. It’s not so hard; I can do it, and the Upanishadic teachers could. Why did the Buddha, so extraordinarily clear and analytical in all things that matter, fail to say what he meant? Why, in all the dozens of epithets and descriptions of Nibbana, did he so scrupulously avoid anything that implies an existent state? Why, then, do those who search to validate such ideas in the Suttas constantly bringing up the same few, obscure passages of poetic or dubious interpretation? Passages which, moreover, have been shown time and time again to not mean what they are supposed to. The pabhassara citta in the canon, for example, clearly refers to the mind that is developed through samadhi; and if it can be developed it cannot be unconditioned. If actually you consider the passages that supposedly support the idea of Nibbana as a transcendental consciousness, they invariably undermine any such tendency by phrasing themselves in the negative: “There is the unborn…” It’s an emphatic assertion of a negative, not of a positive.

Nibbana is supposed to be threatening. It’s supposed to be disturbing. That’s why, when the Devas or others of limited ability here of it, they are terrified and traumatized. Who gets traumatized by the idea that they will live forever as a transcendent consciousness? Nibbana poses the ultimate existential question, which is why the Buddha always described in ontologically in the negative. At the same time, however, he described it psychologically in the positive: the peaceful, the shelter, the cool, the ultimate bliss. But we can’t realize that state of peace as long as we still attach to refined forms of suffering such as a transcendent consciousness.
-Bhikkhu Sujato's comment on "Vinnana is not nibbana really it just isn't"
In summary: if nibbana were self or consciousness or if there was an extra consciousness outside the aggregates to facilitate these or other things, the Buddha would have said it, clearly and repeatedly, in many different ways in the thousands of suttas of the nikayas. Since he didn't, and actually ruled these ideas out hundreds of times and only a very few vague, sparse quotes support them, and then only with interpretation and explanation, we've much reason to side with Bhikkhu Sujato, all the other Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis who agree with him and the entire classical Theravada school.
[/quote]
Last edited by retrofuturist on Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:27 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Reason: Updated after the time limit, with mod assistance.
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

User avatar
pitakele
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 11:27 pm

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by pitakele » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:33 pm

The First Discourse about Dabba - Udāna 8.9
Abhedi kāyo nirodhi saññā,
Vedanā sītibhaviṃsu sabbā;
Vūpasamiṃsu saṅkhārā,
Viññāṇaṃ atthamāgamā'ti.

The body broke up,
perception ceased,
feelings went cold
— all —
fabrications were stilled,
consciousness has come to an end.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
now here = nowhere

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2835
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by cappuccino » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:51 pm

topic for consideration: Don't misrepresent the Blessed One
Last edited by retrofuturist on Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Please note: This link to a "response topic" has been allowed, since because of the way the original post has been framed, counter-arguments are off-topic.

alfa
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 pm
Location: India

Re: Post sutta quotes that utterly rule out nibbana being consciousness or self

Post by alfa » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:03 am

Pondera wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:12 am
alfa wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:41 pm
How is this even possible? :shrug:
How is what possible? That his faculties are exceptionally clear?

There is the eye faculty; the eye object; and eye consciousness. When eye consciousness ceases - faculty and object remain; but are no longer in contact.

Ie. the faculties remain for one who has entered the cessation of feeling and perception - but there is no contact with sense media.

Ie. the “mind” faculty remains bright and unsullied by “mind” objects. Ie. one experiences Nibbana with the mind - apart from all feeling and perception. As you know, Nibbāna has been declared a perception by the Buddha before.

Or is your question something else? I do not understand your question in that case.

Edit: as far as I know, Sāriputta declared Nibbana a perception. Not the Buddha, necessarily.
Thanks, that explains a lot. But does contact (between faculty and object) create consciousness, or is it the other way around?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests