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

[Goofaholix]

I think in the suttas conditioned means exactly the same as born, made, fabricated, i.e. something non-eternal, something originated.

It's true that mental formations (sankhara, also called fabrications) are conditioned, I don't think that it follows that the mind as a whole is therefore a fabrication.

[davidbrainerd]

I think in the suttas conditioned means exactly the same as born, made, fabricated, i.e. something non-eternal, something originated.

It's true that mental formations (sankhara, also called fabrications) are conditioned, I don't think that it follows that the mind as a whole is therefore a fabrication.

Right. Thinking that mental formations being conditioned means the mind is also conditioned would be like thinking that because milk is a bodily secretion a cow is also a bodily secretion. Its confusing the produced with the producer.

[dhammarelax]

Dear Friends

Maybe AN 9.34.3 can help:

https://suttacentral.net/en/an9.34

"I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, “This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant.”"...

And AN 9.47 Directly Visible

It is said, friend directly visible Nibbana,, in what way? Here friend secluded from sensual pleasures a bhikku enters in the first jhana, to this extent the Blessedc One has spoken of directlly visible nibbana in a provisional sense...


smile
dhammarelax

[suttametta]

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.

The current thread is most appropriate. But I humored you.

[tiltbillings]

Dear Friends

Maybe AN 9.34.3 can help:

https://suttacentral.net/en/an9.34

"I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, “This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant.”"...

And AN 9.47 Directly Visible

It is said, friend directly visible Nibbana,, in what way? Here friend secluded from sensual pleasures a bhikku enters in the first jhana, to this extent the Blessedc One has spoken of directlly visible nibbana in a provisional sense...


smile
dhammarelax

These are rather interesting texts. You should quote them at a bit more length, and then tell us what you think they are saying.

[cappuccino]

Viññanam anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[cappuccino]

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?

And the answer to that is:

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#fnt-1

[tiltbillings]

In light of the above, this is worth reading: Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t

[mikenz66]

Yes, that's in the original thread for non-Thanissaro enthusiasts:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27956


Mike

[SarathW]

Nibbana is not the consciousness which has no footing.
Nibbana is where the consciousness has no footing.

[tiltbillings]

Nibbana is not the consciousness which has no footing.
Nibbana is where the consciousness has no footing.

Spot on.

[cappuccino]

"It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"
Yamaka Sutta

[tiltbillings]

"It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"
Yamaka Sutta

And, cap, what exactly is your point here? Are you addressing directly in this quote the immediately above two msgs? Are you suggesting that we are misrepresentlng the Buddha?

[davidbrainerd]

"It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"
Yamaka Sutta

MN 78 I think (edit: no, its MN 72), the discussion with Vacagotta, he specifically is against saying that a tathagata continues to exist and that a tathagata ceases to exist. Vacagotta is obviously justifiably confused, and Buddha explains its because "material form" no longer applies. So, in other words, saying that "tathagata continues to exist" he doesn't want to say lest someone misunderstand it as continuing to exist in "material form," but also "that a tathagata ceases to exist" he doesn't want to say because he doesn't cease to exist he only ceased to exist in "material form." This is a complicated way Buddha seeks to explain this, and its stilted, and there is a simpler way to explain it, but we're stuck with the canon as it is. Nonethless, the obvious thing he is saying is there is a self that continues to exist but not in a physical way or "material form" kind of way.

[cappuccino]

what exactly is your point here?

the Blessed One would not say, A monk with no more effluents, does not exist after death.