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

[Zom]

P. S.
Are you trolling on a Dhamma site? ....Bad karma bro.

Seems vice versa to me, actually.

[Seymour]

P. S.
Are you trolling on a Dhamma site? ....Bad karma bro.

Seems vice versa to me, actually.

Lol, we tried our best, it's the thought that counts.

[Seymour]

and since you agreed that the fire in the simile represents the aggregates, your above statement does not make sense to me because The Buddha didn't deny the existence of the aggregates he only said they were empty of self.

5 aggregates = living being. However there is no "living being" in ultimate sense, only in conventional. That what I was speaking about. Same can be said about the flame. There is no "flame in itself". Flame is a conventional thing. Now, is the flame real? Does it exist in reality? Of course it does. But only as a process, not as "an essenсe", which still exists somehow somewhere even after flame goes out (as some think).

   I've come to the conclusion that either we have a slightly different understanding of the terms conventional and ultimate language, or the two are getting mixed together somehow resulting in confusion. I say confusion because I don't actually think we disagree, at least in theory, but are instead in a hashing out over words... I don't really think your trolling and I see how that comment makes me a troller of sorts, although I don't know if a troller would put forth so much effort to understand. Really I just wanted to get down to brass tacs and know where it is exactly that we are not seeing eye to eye.  
   In my view, I consider any one label given to a subject to be a part of conventional language. A label used for the purpose of convenience in communication, these are fairly obvious;
Tathagata, you, Zom, me, Seymour, we, Buddhists, they, Christians, I, American, he, Russian.
   But Just becuse I consider them to be conventional terms, I, personally, wouldn't agree that it's a part of ultimate language (Dhamma language) to say that they don't exist, unless made made clear it's only in this singular conventional sense that they don't. I think that you, at least in part, agree with this idea and so our understanding is not so far apart. Although I would argue that there's a clearer way of using Dhamma language, that being the method used by The Buddha, and if his method was indeed to say of things, or of himself, that they don't exist/he ceases existing, I have yet to come across this and would definitely shut up and humble myself if provided with a reliable source in which he speaks in this way.
   

asserting that after death The Tathagata does not exist (non-existence, cessation of existence), as you have asserted, is in fact positing a sense of self into the **aggregates,

In this sense, Tathagata does not exist even in this very life, not to speak about postmortem state

    This is where it got a bit confusing for me. How could something that ultimately never existed reach a stage of non-existence at death? If ultimately he never existed, it seems out of place to say of him, that after his death he ceases to exist. This feels like a double negative, no?
    Again I agree with you in the sense that Tathagata is a conventional term, but If anything is said to cease, in ultimate terms, shouldn't it be the cause for the future arising of the aggregates (or another variant of a similar note) and not the existence of a conventional term, Tathagata, which like you said, never really was anyhting anyway, just a label.
Possibly this is the reason why The Buddha, from perspective, avoided and denied such language of existence and non-existence. Even if saying of the aggregates, they cease to exist, I'm not entirely sure this is right because it could give one the impression of a past substantiality. It's replacing one term (conventional) for another i.e. self with aggregates. The later being conventional aswell but at a somewhat subtler level. Sure, they no longer arise after his death, but they never had an existence of their own in the first place. "Aggregate" just being a name we have given to certain dependently arisen phenomena. What has actually ceased is a cause, our ignorance, and not an "existences". With the cessation of _____ comes the cessation of_____. In this way of understanding one doesn't end up with with a self view.
After thinking about this I understand why our language will always be limited and I don't mean to preach to you or something, just trying to give an idea of the way I see things and this cannot be accomplished within a few sentences.

[Zom]

Although I would argue that there's a clearer way of using Dhamma language, that being the method used by The Buddha, and if his method was indeed to say of things, or of himself, that they don't exist/he ceases existing

He avoided such phrases because generally people with wrong views would got it wrong. If he had said "I will cease to exist", they would have understood it like "Ow, his self will be annihilated". For this reason he spoke about "cessation" in general, as a fact, without "I/he/she/it/they".

Like here:

“When he feels a feeling terminating with the body, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with the body.’ When he feels a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left.’

“Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would remove a hot clay pot from a potter’s kiln and set it on smooth ground: its heat would be dissipated right there and potsherds would be left. So too, when he feels a feeling terminating with the body … terminating with life…. He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left.’

Or here:

Now as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being (existence),” if their word is true then it is certainly still possible that I might reappear after death among the gods of the immaterial realms who consist of perception. But as to the recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is a cessation of being,” if their word is true then it is possible that I might here and now attain final Nibbāna. The view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is no cessation of being” is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging; but the view of those good recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view “there definitely is cessation of being” is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.’ After reflecting thus, he practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being.

This is where it got a bit confusing for me. How could something that ultimately never existed reach a stage of non-existence at death? If ultimately he never existed, it seems out of place to say of him, that after his death he ceases to exist. This feels like a double negative, no?

Buddha never says this, but his deluded opponents do. They are making such wrong and foolish statements. Why? Because they are deluded.

Sure, they no longer arise after his death, but they never had an existence of their own in the first place.

In "selfhood" sense, yes. Though, historically, this was an issue of buddhist philosophic battles and debates.

[Seymour]

This is where it got a bit confusing for me. How could something that ultimately never existed reach a stage of non-existence at death? If ultimately he never existed, it seems out of place to say of him, that after his death he ceases to exist. This feels like a double negative, no?

Buddha never says this, but his deluded opponents do. They are making such wrong and foolish statements. Why? Because they are deluded.

Tathagata does not exist even in this very life, not to speak about postmortem state

In case of nibbana - situation of non-existence.

5 existing aggregates = existence. So flame here = existence.
Flame going out = cessation of existence (nibbana). Just that simple.

Forgive me for the confusion.

MN60..............

IMG_20180507_000314.jpg (383.65 KiB) Viewed 21719 times

But the notes are a must here and these aren't included in the Sutta Central version.

IMG_20180506_235558.jpg (102.03 KiB) Viewed 21719 times

I might understand now why you keep saying Nibbana is non-existence, but the term used here is (bhavanirodha) cessation of being (Bhava has also been rendered becoming, but I tend to trust Ven. Bodhi as a translator) this carries a different tone then Non-existence (don't you agree?) and because it's synonymous with Nibbana, these good recluses and brahmins in this section of this sutta are denying/affirming the existence of Nibbana in general (or the possibility of?) if this is what you have been meaning, okay, rest assured, I do believe! I mean if one is denying the existence of Nibbana well... I don't think you will get much argument here. But it is "noteworthy" that even if we did have our doubts, liberation is still in the books. Anyway, you might be able to skip some confusion by explaining this definition of bhavanirodha as the basis for your understanding. But thanks for sharing, I feel more learned .

[Zom]

these good recluses and brahmins in this section of this sutta are denying/affirming the existence of Nibbana in general

No, they deny that existence may end. They think that living being always exist somewhere somehow.

this carries a different tone then Non-existence (don't you agree?)

I don't, because "bhava" is "being" or "existence", but in no way "becoming" (this word was introduced by one famous translator with wrong (eternalistic) views).

Bhavanirodha is the cessation of being. Like there is a flame, and when it goes out, this is a cessation of its bhava, existence. It exists no more. There is no more flame anywhere. And it didn't "hide" somewhere as eternalists think. It just stopped to exist. That is the meaning.

[Seymour]

these good recluses and brahmins in this section of this sutta are denying/affirming the existence of Nibbana in general

No, they deny that existence may end. They think that living being always exist somewhere somehow.

Yes, Yes, okay, okay, which is Nibbana in this case, as per the notes #635 & #636. I think we are getting somewhere now , or maybe you/we were already there . I came across these links, many of the things you have been discribing are there.

viewtopic.php?t=27543

https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/connect ... troduction

I see my refutation of you saying "cessation of existence" is not completely warranted .
But I think it's when it was used side by side with Non-existence, saying things don't exists, that made me question what type of existence we were talking about.

Ven. Bodhi
"Bhava, however, is not “existence” in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation."


And its closeness to other concepts
"For the sake of marking the difference, bhava might have been rendered "being," but this English word is too likely to suggest "Being," the absolute object of philosophical speculation. It does not sufficiently convey the sense of concreteness intrinsic to bhava."

This was also helpful
Rebirth existence is the set of five kammically acquired aggregates produced by that kamma; for this is called "existence" in the sense that "it comes to be there." The same method of explanation applies to form-sphere and formless-sphere existence (except that in formless-sphere rebirth-existence only the four mental aggregates exist).

... So these gave some clarity and brought the urge to attempt or seek further explanation to an end, at least for now. But I will definitely keep contemplating on these topics as it's always good to see things in their broader context.

this carries a different tone then Non-existence (don't you agree?)

I don't, because "bhava" is "being" or "existence", but in no way "becoming" (this word was introduced by one famous translator with wrong (eternalistic) views).

[/quote]
I see what your getting at but might not take it that far
it looks like more then one translator has used this rendering at one time or another.

Ven. Bodhi
"Bhava, in MLDB, was translated “being.” In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with “becoming,” but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to “existence,” used in my earlier translations. "

Ven. Thanissaro
"Any Pāli dictionary will show that bhava is related to the verb bhavati, which means to ”be” or to ”become.” This is why bhava is often translated as “being” or “becoming.” But to see what kind of being or becoming is meant by the word, we have to look at it in context."

We all have our opinion.

Bhavanirodha is the cessation of being. Like there is a flame, and when it goes out, this is a cessation of its bhava, existence. It exists no more. There is no more flame anywhere. And it didn't "hide" somewhere as eternalists think. It just stopped to exist. That is the meaning.

This is also described in the link above to Bodhi's Intro of the connected discourses, the section on Nibbana.

"As is well known, nibbāna literally means the extinction of a fire. In popular works on Buddhism, nibbāna plain and simple is often taken to signify Nibbāna as experienced in life, parinibbāna Nibbāna attained at death. This is a misinterpretation."

The whole introduction ( whole Nikaya ) is extremely helpful, although I'm still working on the MN. Here he covers topics of Nibbana that we had so much fun debating about earlier ; as Transcendence etc.

[cappuccino]

eternal ism is wrongly thought to mean eternal existence

rather than what eternalism is, an eternal identity (which is plainly wrong)

Nirvana is described as everlasting in the scriptures

[cappuccino]

further, to say you won't exist is annihilation ism

sorry that's not Nirvana

Nirvana is positive, rather than mere negation

[Seymour]

further, to say you won't exist is annihilation ism

sorry that's not Nirvana

Nirvana is positive, rather than mere negation

No need to apologize.
After a refined understanding of anothers position we might find that it's not what it had appeared to be on the surface, not to say we then have to agree with everything else that person says. But It's hard to refute when there is a word synonymous with Nibbana such as bhavanirodha that has been translated by a leading scholar/translator to be be cessation of being/existence.

IMG_20180507_134135.jpg (30.55 KiB) Viewed 21423 times

Ven. Bodhi
"Bhava, in MLDB, was translated “being.” In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with “becoming,” but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to “existence,” used in my earlier translations. "

I Think alot of the fuss was mostly due to;

A) faulty perceptions of each others understanding regarding the nature of the term existence/being, as discussed in my previous post.

Also, I came across these notes from Ven. Bodhi's translation of MN1 V171 a very difficult sutta to decode. I won't include the verse itself or the full notes and hopefully this isn't taking it to far out of context. I Thought it would still be relevant for a clearer understanding of "being"

IMG_20180507_140231.jpg (70.34 KiB) Viewed 21423 times

B) Either having never read/heard (or forgetting that I have) the translation of this particular word in this way.
Anyway...
In that sutta (MN60) and in those particular verses (32-34), from what I gather, The Buddha is telling us that if we were wise we would refelct, not initially taking up either position, having not seen it or known it. But after reflecting we would see the different potential outcomes of holding each particular view and would then be drawn to practice in a specific way based on the conclusions we drew.

The verses are ^^ up there a few for your viewing pleasure.

At times all of this seems very distant, I'm sure it's good to study, and maybe later on wisdom will arise from it. But getting to obsessed with what I believe at such an early stage of development feels backwards at times, clingy, not allowing the spaciousness of mind for a clear penetrating awareness, not to speek of concentration.

[Zom]

... So these gave some clarity and brought the urge to attempt or seek further explanation to an end, at least for now.

I don't agree with him here on bhava, because there are no statements in the suttas which do support this explanation. For me bhava is precisely existence in ontological sense. Such meaning fits perfectly with what is written in the suttas.

When there is a living being, when it exists ontologically, there is suffering. When being does not exist ontologically, there is no suffering. Just that simple.

“When, bhikkhus, there are no hands, picking up and putting
down are not discerned. When there are no feet, coming and
going are not discerned. When there are no limbs, bending and
stretching are not discerned. When there is no belly, hunger and
thirst are not discerned.

“So too, bhikkhus, when there is no eye, no pleasure and
pain arise internally with eye-contact as condition. When there is
no ear, no pleasure and pain arise internally with ear-contact as
condition…. When there is no mind, no pleasure and pain arise
internally with mind-contact as condition.”

However, such explanation seems too tough for ordinary people, so they imagine nibbana as some extra existence which is located somewhere behind samsara. But well, this view of theirs is just a back door to samsara - endless cycle of births and deaths. Why? Because it based entirely on their craving to existence (bhava-tanha) .) And if they crave to exist, they will exist, of course. The problem is, however, that suffering is an inherent and base feature of any kind of existence.

“Bhikkhus, just as even a trifling amount of feces is foul smelling,
so too I do not praise even a trifling amount of existence,
even for a mere finger snap.”

"As is well known, nibbāna literally means the extinction of a fire. In popular works on Buddhism, nibbāna plain and simple is often taken to signify Nibbāna as experienced in life, parinibbāna Nibbāna attained at death. This is a misinterpretation."

Misinterpretation here is to think that the word "parinibbana" always means the "final nibbana". However, the word "parinibbana" also means "nibbana with a residue". That is what he talking about - but not about flame.

[Seymour]

Your funny.

[cappuccino]

Nirvana is difficult to understand, subtle, hard to see

annihilation isn't difficult to understand, isn't subtle, isn't hard to see

[cappuccino]

what is difficult to understand?

approximation
a value or quantity that is nearly but not exactly correct


keep that in mind about not existing

[Zom]

Nirvana is difficult to understand, subtle, hard to see

Buddha never said that. He said that Dhamma is difficult to understand, and Dependent Origination is subtle, hard to see.