I don't want to be offensive. It is absolutely not my intention to be offensive, but this kind of "rough" tone is the only way how I think I might help you with this. Your assumptions are simply absolutely wrong. Because they are all together based on attavada (belief in a self). Can't you see that you're all the time identifying yourself with things (dhamma) which shall not considerd as self? You don't really use the word "self" but it is obvious that you mean it. You say:char101 wrote:Hi,Guy wrote:Hi Char,
But nibbana is the destruction of sankara which are body and mind which are what makes a being. So it's the destruction of a being, isn't it?Nibbana is not destruction of self because there is no self to begin with.
I do accept that self is a wrong view but what is the point of the hard practice to achieve nibbana if the end is the annihilation of the being (i.e. the mind and body and the cycle of samsara). People want to achieve nibbana because there is a lot of suffering risk in this cycle of existence. Beings do not life suffering. That is just their (our) nature. But although nibbana is the end of suffering, it is more than that, it also means the end of all (of a being, i.e. their mind and body). It just does not seem to be the solution of suffering to me. Probably if we can say that nibbana is a way of transformation from current dependently arising form (the mind and body in samsara) to some kind of existence which existence does not dependend on other thing and that does not ill, age, or die, and know that at least the previous state of samsara has been eliminated, nibbana can be seen a better way of this suffering in samsara.
So the [englightment] flow goes from [an impermanent-suffering-not I formation (5 khandhas)] -> [complete destruction of the 5 khandhas and the stopping of the cycle] which seems to me that anything is this world is so pointless?There is only the habitual tendency to grasp at a self, usually one of the 5 khandas (body, feeling, perceptions, mental formations, consciousness) is what we take to be a self or belonging to a self. When we see that all these things are impermanent then what is there that is worth grasping at or clinging to which we can safely identify as a self?
It's like I'm having this conversation with myself
A: what's the point of life?
B: there is no point of life, it's just an impermanent, suffering state with nothing to be called I or mine or myself
A: then is there a better state?
B: yes there is this complete destruction of ourselves both of our wrong view of self and the mind and the body and the cycle of existence
A: how is that any better that the previous?
B: ... ?
And it is noticeable that you think you are this being, made out of sankhata dhammá, body and mind is what you think you are. And that's why you think when body and mind will be destroyed, you too will be destroyed. And that then there will be nothing left. It is a prime example for the view of annhilition. "Being" is just another word for the five aggregates of grasping.char101 wrote:But nibbana is the destruction of sankara which are body and mind which are what makes a being. So it's the destruction of a being, isn't it?
If you aren't, according to the Buddha, the five aggregates, and when the aggregates would finally cease, then what is it that will be "destroyed"? You or yourself will not be "destroyed" because you are not the five aggregates, you are not body and mind, you are not sankhata dhammá, you are not any thing (dhammá) at all. Actually to talk about what you are is irrelevant, because it already presumes a self, which actually is not to be found. So why even talk about something which nobody have ever found anywhere?! Please keep in mind, that there is not even the slightest bit of anger in this post, just to not get me wrong. If I misunderstood you, I apologise.
best wishes, acinteyyo