Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Post Reply
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by DooDoot »

Dear forum,

Most suttas about Anupadisesa Nibbana give the impression (Iti 44) or literally say (Iti 112; AN 4.118; AN 8.70; DN 29; MN 140) that Anupadisesa Nibbana (nibbana without residue'/fuel/remainder) is the permanent ending of the life & consciousness of an Arahant.

However, AN 8.19 and Ud 5.5 about the Great Ocean say:
(5) Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbāna in the Nibbāna element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbāna element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline….

https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh208_Nyanap ... I.html#T96
Just as, monks, the streams in the world flow into the great ocean, and showers fall from the sky, but it is not known that there is a depletion or filling of the great ocean by that, so, monks, even if many monks, are completely emancipated in the Emancipation-element which has no basis for attachment remaining, it is not known that the Emancipation-element is either depleted or filled by that. That, monks, even if many monks, are completely emancipated in the Emancipation-element which has no basis for attachment remaining, it is not known that the Emancipation-element is either depleted or filled by that, is the fifth wonderful and marvellous thing, monks, about this Dhamma and Discipline, which, having seen and considered, the monks delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.

https://suttacentral.net/ud5.5/en/anandajoti
In the same way, though several mendicants become fully extinguished through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over, the natural principle of extinguishment never empties or fills up.

https://suttacentral.net/an8.19/en/sujato
Why would the suttas mention (wrong) ideas about the depletion or filling of the Nibbana Element if Anupadisesa Nibbana only related to the ending of the life of Arahants? In other words, obviously nothing occurs when the life & consciousness of an Arahant ends. Thus, why would AN 8.19 and Ud 5.5 even discuss this potential question; unless it was the notion that Nibbana attained during life returns back to the source of Nibbana?

Thank you. Please discuss. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by sentinel »

Why would you say it is wrong ideas and nothing happens after arhat breakup ?
You always gain by giving
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by cappuccino »

In other words, obviously nothing occurs when the life & consciousness of an Arahant ends.
nothing occurs, except losing the body

merely the body is lost

consciousness is not destroyed, for any reason
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by pegembara »

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, ............. he finds estrangement in consciousness.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
Eye, ear, nose, tongue, mind vinnana(consciousness) is impermanent.

Perhaps it is 'citta'(and not vinnana) that is liberated. So the impersonal 'citta' returns to the source.
Nibbana attained during life returns back to the source of Nibbana
"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

"Any feeling... Any perception... Any fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"What gains total release from the five khandhas?"

"The heart, of course, & the heart alone.
It doesn't grasp or get entangled.
No more poison of possessiveness,
no more delusion,
it stands alone.
No saññas can fool it into following along
behind them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/tha ... allad.html
Then there is this-
"What lies on the other side of clear knowing?"

"Release lies on the other side of clear knowing."

"What lies on the other side of release?"

"Unbinding lies on the other side of release."

"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by DooDoot »

pegembara wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:27 am"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Thanks Pegembara. The above quote, whilst not an answer, appears relevant to my question.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by cappuccino »

pegembara wrote:Perhaps it is 'citta' (and not vinnana) that is liberated.
unconditioned consciousness is possible

otherwise, it's impermanent because it's conditioned
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Anupadisesa Nibbana and the Great Ocean ???

Post by pegembara »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:24 pm
pegembara wrote:Perhaps it is 'citta' (and not vinnana) that is liberated.
unconditioned consciousness is possible

otherwise, it's impermanent because it's conditioned
Only nibbana is unconditioned.

'Consciousness' is an activity/verb -not noun.
One is always conscious of "...."

Perhaps you mean consciousness of the Unconditioned is possible.
There is that, which is unborn, uncreated, unformed, unconditioned and unconstructed!
If, Bhikkhus, there was not this unborn, uncreated, unformed and unconstructed,
no escape from what is born, created, formed and constructed could ever be realized...
But since there indeed exists that, which is utterly unborn, uncreated, unformed and
unconstructed, the escape from this born, created, formed and constructed state can
therefore indeed be realized, explained and made known as right here and now!
Q: This word 'citta' is used in the suttas for the subjective consciousness. If there's a citta from which the asavas (biases) are removed and a citta which is liberated, how does this fit in with the idea of self or no-self? How does one avoid self-view in thinking about the citta? If there's no self, who is it that's aware and what is it that becomes enlightened?

A: This is where Buddhism excels. It totally frustrates that desire. The Buddha wouldn't give an inch on that, because that's the non-dualism of the Buddha's teaching. It's psychologically uninspiring. You're left with just letting go of things rather than holding on to the feeling of a God or Oneness or the Soul or the Subject with capital S, or the Overself, or the Atman or Brahman or whatever - because those are all perceptions and the Buddha was pointing to the grasping of perception. The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that.

Like with monism - monistic thinking is very inspiring. "We're all one. We are one - that's our true nature - the one mind." And you can talk of the universal mind and the wholeness and the oneness of everything. That's very uplifting, that's the inspiration. But non-dualism doesn't inspire. It's deliberately psychologically non-inspiring because you're letting go of the desire for inspiration, of that desire and need and clutching at inspiring concepts. This doesn't mean that those concepts are wrong or that monistic thinking is wrong; but the Buddha very much reflected the attachment to it. So, you're not an annihilationist saying there's nobody, nothing, no subject, but by non-dualism, you just let go of things till there's only the way things are.
Then who is it that knows? People say: "Then what is it that knows? Who is it that knows the way things are, who is it that's aware? What is it that's aware?" You want me to tell you? I mean you're aware aren't you? Why do you have to have a name for it? Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness? Why do you have to call it mine, or the eternal essence, or whatever? Why do you have to name it? Why not just be that, be aware. Then you see the desire, the doubt, wanting to label it, add to it. It's avijja paccaya sankhara (creating conditions out of ignorance). The process goes on of wanting to complicate it by giving it a name, calling it something.

Just like the question "Can you see your own eyes?" Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can't see my eyes. I'm sitting right here, I've got two eyes and I can't see them. But you can see my eyes. But there's no need for me to see my eyes because 1 can see! It's ridiculous, isn't it? If I started saying "Why can't I see my own eyes?" you'd think "Ajahn Sumedho's really weird, isn't he!" Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that's not your eyes, it's a reflection of your eyes. There's no way that I've been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it's not necessary to see your own eyes. It's not necessary to know who it is that knows-because there's knowing. And then you start creating views about who is it that knows, then you start the avijja paccaya sankhara and on through the whole thing again to despair and anguish.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajah ... n_Time.htm
"What lies on the other side of ignorance?"

"Clear knowing lies on the other side of ignorance."

"What lies on the other side of clear knowing?"

"Release lies on the other side of clear knowing."

"What lies on the other side of release?"

"Unbinding lies on the other side of release."

"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Metta
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply