Off-topic posts from: enlightenment in theravada

[cappuccino]

Having nothing,
clinging to nothing:
that is the Island,
there is no other;
that is Nibbæna, I tell you,
the total ending of ageing and death.
~ SN 1094

It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End,
the Truth, the Other Shore, the Subtle,
the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified,
Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety,
the Wonderful, the Marvellous,
Nibbæna, Purity, Freedom,
the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44

[User1249x]

soul remaining forever young in your eternal paradise?

Bodhi:
“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the taintless and the path leading to the taintless. Listen to that….

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the truth and the path leading to the truth…. I will teach you the far shore … the subtle … the very difficult to see … the unaging … … the stable … the undisintegrating … the unmanifest … the unproliferated … the peaceful … the deathless … the sublime … the auspicious … … the secure …. the destruction of craving … the wonderful … the amazing … the unailing … the unailing state … Nibbāna … the unafflicted … dispassion … … purity … freedom … the unadhesive … the island … the shelter … the asylum … the refuge … …”

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the destination and the path leading to the destination. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the destination? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the destination. - SN 43.14-44

no more everlasting:)

[cappuccino]

the island … the shelter … the asylum … the refuge

the Everlasting

the unailing state … Nibbāna

[User1249x]

the island … the shelter … the asylum … the refuge

the Everlasting

the unailing state … Nibbāna

as i said, relying on mistranslations and imagination. Explain how something that is not made fascilitates eternal existence?

[cappuccino]

Explain how something that is not made fascilitates eternal existence?

existence is the status quo, you for some reason think it can be otherwise

even though Deathless implies existence

[User1249x]

Explain how something that is not made fascilitates eternal existence?

existence is the status quo, you for some reason think it can be otherwise

even though Deathless implies existence

that is not a very good explaination. If a man does not build himself a house he can live in it forever?

[cappuccino]

there is nothing for me to explain, the status quo is set in stone

[User1249x]

just explain to me or yourself how you come up with the idea of annihilation

there is nothing for me to explain, the status quo is set in stone

I've tried explaining to you but you don't get it because you seem to adhere to this doctrine;

"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'

plus you also think that with cessation of delusion this stable and eternal mind gets a permanent retirement home and retires into eternity, existing there happily everafter.

[cappuccino]

"consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'

not subject to change
is the err

it will remain the same
is the err

[cappuccino]

I think existence continues as always

differently subjectively

[User1249x]

I don't think anything changes, I think existence continues as always

I think this because Nirvana isn't a change, otherwise it would be conditioned

of course subjectively, Nirvana is different

Are you then declaring your view thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, changing, and it will remain forever just like eternity itself.'

With attainment of Parinibbana that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) goes to the Unmade dimension and will not return from that dimension whilst That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change, that will no longer be made and will not come into being after realization of Parinibbana'

Correct?

[cappuccino]

you're asking if I think consciousness is self
&
you're asking if I think Nirvana has consciousness

these are different questions

you should separate these issues

[User1249x]

you're asking if I think consciousness is self
&
you're asking if I think Nirvana has consciousness

these are different questions

you should separate these issues

Are you then declaring your view thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that is permanent, changing, and it will remain forever just like eternity itself.'

With attainment of Parinibbana that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) is in a state not previously gone to and will not return from that dimension, staying there for eternity. Whilst That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change, that will no longer be made and will not come into being after realization of Parinibbana'

It is easier if you declare it yourself

Alternatively:
With attainment of Parinibbana that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) is in a state of bliss not previously realized and will remain thus for eternity.

[cappuccino]

the Other Shore



the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44

[User1249x]

the Other Shore



the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44

Are you going to resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation ala: '...But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'`

4. Doctrines of Endless Equivocation (Amarāvikkhepavāda): Views 13–16

61. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are endless equivocators.[9] When questioned about this or that point, on four grounds they resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins do so?

62. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, my declaration might be false. If my declaration should be false, that would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of making a false statement, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: "I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.' "This, bhikkhus, is the first case.

63. "In the second case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, desire and lust or hatred and aversion might arise in me. Should desire and lust or hated and aversion arise in me, that would be clinging on my part. Such clinging would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of clinging, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But when questioned about this or that point he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.' "This, bhikkhus, is the second case.

64. "In the third case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Now, there are recluses and brahmins who are wise, clever, experienced in controversy, who wander about demolishing the views of others with their wisdom. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, they might cross-examine me about my views, press me for reasons and refute my statements. If they should do so, I might not be able to reply. If I could not reply, that would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of being cross-examined, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But, when questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.'

"This, bhikkhus, is the third case.

65. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'

"Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:
...
D.

1.Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
2.Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
3.Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
4.Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?

"This bhikkhus, is the fourth case.