Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

[beeblebrox]

I thought the Buddha said that talking about what happens beyond nibbāna is going "beyond the range," and that this would only lead to a lot of frustration... I assume not only for oneself, but everyone else, too.

[Aloka]

I thought the Buddha said that talking about what happens beyond nibbāna is going "beyond the range," and that this would only lead to a lot of frustration... I assume not only for oneself, but everyone else, too.

Certainly regarding speculation about 'the Buddha range of the Buddha's,' The Buddha said :

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

AN 4.77 Unconjecturable

[tiltbillings]

I thought the Buddha said that talking about what happens beyond nibbāna is going "beyond the range," and that this would only lead to a lot of frustration... I assume not only for oneself, but everyone else, too.

Certainly regarding speculation about 'the Buddha range of the Buddha's,' The Buddha said :

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

And what is true about the Buddha would be as true about the arahant, given that there is no difference in the bodhi of the arahant from that of a Buddha, according to the suttas.

[Alex123]

You keep trying to play this game of what motivates what others say, which is why I could just as easily say that your limited interpretation is driven by your preoccupation with suicide.

What preoccupation with suicide? I don't believe in truly existing Being, that can get annihilated when parinibbana occurs. There cannot be annihilation of that which doesn't exist. Parinibbana is not annihilation for that reason.

But to address your point, I am not postulating anything. As for "anything that is eternal," that is not an issue. You may want to frame it in those terms, but I am not.

You are not postulating anything?

There is no way to measure the nibbaized individual, dead or alive.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1039&start=60#p121755
There is no measurement possible while alive or dead of the "individuall."
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1039&start=60#p121760
The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=80#p121780
Others can make up their mind as the nature of the trackless arahant before and after death.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=80#p121787
What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless. Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain do not apply.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=100#p121802

Please explain what you have postulated many times. Do you believe in the existence of trackless arahant that cannot be measured as "Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain" ?


With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

You are not postulating anything?

If you had really been paying attention, you would see that I am not postulating anything, so I have not a thing to explain to you.

[Alex123]

You are not postulating anything?

If you had really been paying attention, you would see that I am not postulating anything, so I have not a thing to explain to you.

To clarify:
So trackless arahant, or "The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless." is not anything?

[tiltbillings]

To clarify:
So trackless arahant, or "The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless." is not anything?

You obviously have not been paying attention.

[Alex123]

To clarify:
So trackless arahant, or "The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless." is not anything?

You obviously have not been paying attention.

To what? You kept saying

There is no way to measure the nibbaized individual, dead or alive.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1039&start=60#p121755
There is no measurement possible while alive or dead of the "individuall."
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1039&start=60#p121760
The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=80#p121780
Others can make up their mind as the nature of the trackless arahant before and after death.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=80#p121787
What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless. Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain do not apply.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=100#p121802

Then you have said:

If you had really been paying attention, you would see that I am not postulating anything, so I have not a thing to explain to you.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&p=121944#p121943

I have asked you

To clarify: So trackless arahant, or "The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless." is not anything?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&p=121944#p121944

And you have said:

You obviously have not been paying attention.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&p=121944#p121945

So what is this indescribable and trackless individual and arahant that you keep talking about?
What wasn't I paying attention to?

[tiltbillings]

So what is this indescribable and trackless individual and arahant that you keep talking about? What wasn't I paying attention to?

Already has been explained to you. If paid attention, rather than focusing on your , you would see that I am not postulating anything.

[Alex123]

So what is this indescribable and trackless individual and arahant that you keep talking about? What wasn't I paying attention to?

Already has been explained to you. If paid attention, rather than focusing on your you would see that I am not postulating anything.

So trackless arahant, etc, is not anything?

So you have not been postulating anything when you've said:

There is no way to measure the nibbaized individual, dead or alive.
There is no measurement possible while alive or dead of the "individuall."
The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless.
Others can make up their mind as the nature of the trackless arahant before and after death.
What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless. Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain do not apply.

Then what were those statements about?

[tiltbillings]

So trackless arahant, etc, is not anything?

You simply are not paying attention. I said I am not postulating anything.

[Alex123]

You simply are not paying attention. I said I am not postulating anything.

So what exactly do you mean when you have said:

There is no way to measure the nibbaized individual, dead or alive.
There is no measurement possible while alive or dead of the "individuall."
The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless.
Others can make up their mind as the nature of the trackless arahant before and after death.

What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless. Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain do not apply.

Not anything?
Please explain.

[tiltbillings]

Please explain.

I already have, and I have no interest in your style of endless argumentation.

[Alex123]

Please explain.

I already have,.

Where? Give a link if you don't want to type it, please.

[tiltbillings]

Please explain.

I already have,.

Where? Give a link if you don't want to type it, please.

Above. Just to be straight with you, I am not going to engage you in a debate. Been there, done that, seen others do it, and It is fruitless, and you can spin that however you wish. Opinions on this matter are going to vary and your opinion is just that, your opinion. It is not THE opinion no matter how hard you try to argue down others with differing opinions. Now, I am going to go do something far more interesting, which is dig into the complexities of Irish verbal nouns.

[Alex123]

Above.

The answer isn't there. Your viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=120#p121959 doesn't have an answer, and neither previous post
at viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=120#p121955
Please give a link where you have answered my question.

Just to be straight with you, I am not going to engage you in a debate.

It would be good if you actually did.

Please give a link where you have answered my questions.




So what exactly do you mean when you have said:

I said I am not postulating anything.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=120#p121955

And have also said this:

There is no way to measure the nibbaized individual, dead or alive.
There is no measurement possible while alive or dead of the "individuall."
The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless.
Others can make up their mind as the nature of the trackless arahant before and after death.

What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless. Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain do not apply.


Are you saying that the above is not postulation of anything?

[isle21self]

Actually buddha had mentioned no definition could be given to a monk who has destroyed taints because the aggregates are destroyed. SO cant be defined in terms of rupa, vedana etc, that is to say he cant be said to have this kind of rupa or this kind of vedana etc,. I have forgotten the reference. May be in SN. However, thathgatha cant be said to exist actually in this life too, due to 5 aggregates being devoid of self. Anaththa lakkana sutta. Thus, going along the path is the best I guess.

Metta

[Alex123]

Well, the thing is this.

As I understand the teaching, there is no ultimate Being. Since an Arahant/Buddha, etc, doesn't exist as a Being in itself, it cannot be annihilated when 5 aggregates cease. Just like flying pink unicorns cannot die because they do not exist in the first place, same is here. Idea of annihilation at parinibbāna, IMHO, can be appropriate only when there is idea of "someone" to be annihilated.

When people unknowingly implied existence of a Being, and asked the Buddha "does Arahant exist/not-exist, both, neither exist nor non-exist after death" , the reason the Buddha declined to answer was because the question implied a Being that like the "flying pink unicorn" does not exist for the 4 options to be applied.

[legolas]

I think tilt and alex would make a great vaudeville act. It reminds me of "whose" on first(base) - no whats on first(base) etc. etc. etc.

[darvki]

Just to be straight with you, I am not going to engage you in a debate.

It would be good if you actually did.

Please give a link where you have answered my questions.

Tilt has answered your questions in line with the suttas' rejection of positive, negative, positive-and-negative and neither-positive-nor-negative terms. As such, his answers may come off as not being answers at all since language necessarily involves some facet the rejected tetralemma. You are dogging him to do something which he cannot: give a concrete expression of something which the Buddha said could not be concretely expressed.

As for the accusation that you are preoccupied with suicide, I think this may come from your persistent pushing of the word "cease". You keep qualifying cessation as being different from annihilation, but I think that in this context you are probably creating a false dichotomy. You've convinced yourself that you are not dealing in negative terms (part of the rejected tetralemma) by insisting that you are talking about cessation instead of annihilation, but within the realm of language it seems to me that the two are ultimately synonymous. "Cessation" is a word and, because of the nature of language which I noted above, it will ultimately fall short. I suggest you examine beyond your statement "I don't believe in a self which can be annihilated" and consider that you believe in a self which can cease. Perhaps you don't actually need to do so, but this is not evident from your constant pushing of the negative term of cessation.