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

[DAWN]

With pleasure

[Scott1989]

The Buddha would probably say that none of this is relevant. Trying to describe your true nature is identifying with an object (you feel that you are the one describing the thing that cannot be described instead of being the 'thing' that cannot be described) and stands in the way of liberation.

[DAWN]

It's true..
If we wanna talk about The Dhamma, we shuld stay silent
So we can talk just about The Path

Anyway, we know that every living being seek for 3 things :
- Liberty (peoples want to be rich, and powerfull to have and do every that they want)
- Stability/Savety (peoples want to have good friends, good family, good job, to fill him self in security)
- Peace (peoples don't want to be disturbed, they want some calm, to be in peace)

and the same seeking for the animals, and I am sure for the rest of living creatures to.

The problem is that all this qualities are seeked in phenomenal world, that havn't Liberty, havn't Stability and havn't Peace.

Every living being are seeking for Nibbana,
inconciuosly they are all buddhists,
but who dont met The Dhamma

So I would like just to say that anyway we will stay on the Path, but one day, when we will wake up under a tree, where we spend our night, we must to be awere to be able to understand if before to go sleep we went from left to the right, or from right to the left, and to understand that we must be awere about the leaf of the tree, to be concentrate on dhammas, for understand where the wind lead us, where he lead everybody... But in this world, in society, we have a lot of turbulances that can deceive us, so a wise one go forth, out of the zone of turbulance, now he can take his Path, now he can direct his boath on the beach, without worring about a storm, without worring to break his mast of believe, the wise one will reach the ground in this very life.

[PeterHarvey]

Malcolm turned me on to Peter Harvey's "The Selfless Mind." It is an excellent treatment of just these issues.

I'm not familiar with that work, but by sheer coincidence I just happened to run across Bhikkhu Bodhi's reference to it, in note 314 to SN 4.23.

When the monk is said to attain final Nibbana with consciousness unestablished, this should not be understood to mean that after death consciousness survives in an "unestablished" condition (a thesis argued by Harvey, The Selfless Mind, pp. 208-210); for enough texts make it plain that with the passing away of the arahant consciousness too ceases and no longer exists (see, e.g., 12:51).

"When there is utterly no consciousness, with the cessation of consciousness, would name-and-form be discerned?"
"No, venerable sir."

That's a very good observation. I'm happy to report (from hearsay of course) that Prof Harvey has since changed his mind considerably on the subject. I heard from my teacher that Prof Harvey is hoping to rework some of his earlier works, which he admits had been influenced too much by Ven T's "not-self" strategy.

This is news to me
Peter Harvey

[Sylvester]

Dear Prof Harvey

Pls accept my apologies for any distress that my misreporting may have caused you.

[xabir]

Again, we can go into these issues if you like.

I've already pointed out to you where you are mistaken on a number of issues. Malcolm has patiently done so with regard to many issues. Yet you persist with your wild interpretations of the Budhadhamma.

Whereas, the Pali teachings about sati are uniquely different as to methodology, although not as different as one might think as to result, given the Buddha's statements about nibbana being an eternal radiant consciousness.

Given your penchant for reading Vedic views into the dhamma there's probably very little point in trying to clarify this issue. But here are a couple of contemporary Theravāda authors who refute your ideas about consciousness and nibbāna:

Nibbana is not Viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t by Ven Sujato.

The Mind Stilled: 33 Sermons on Nibbāna by Ven. Ñāṇananda.

You are impugning my knowledge.

I reject your interpretation and understanding of the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna. It's really that simple.

Hi Geoff,

As I have learnt, there are a few interpretations of viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ. Some people interprete this in terms of eternalism - not unlike the Hindus that posit an unchanging consciousness which is the basis of their moksha/liberation.

Apart from this, I have heard of two interpretations which I think does not fall into eternalism but which I think is vastly different.

1) Ven. Nanananda interpretes viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ as the consciousness of an arahant, which is not established in terms of a self in name and form, so it is also considered the cessation of 'manifest' consciousness/name and form, but there is a non-manifestive or non-established consciousness that does not 'reflect' name and form, which is the consciousness of an arahant.

2) Ven. Sujato interpetes viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ as merely the attainment of formless jhanas (plane of infinite consciousness?), but often misread by a wrong syntax and thereby confused with nirvana which is the 'the cessation of consciousness' which is actually something altogether different from viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ. This interpretation would also bring into question: obviously, the arahant is conscious at some level, otherwise an arahant would become inert and insentient like a piece of wood after liberation. Or is Ven. Sujato implying an afterlife parinibbana as being devoid of consciousness?


What is your thoughts on this? What do you think is the correct interpretation? I think that if 1) is correct, then 2) can't be correct, and vice versa. Their explanations seem to be contradictory. Too bad I don't know Pali so can't make judgment on their interpretations. But I personally think Ven. Nanananda might be right.


Update: from the latest comment, Ven. Sujato indeed confirms that 'When the Buddha (or arahant) passes away, this is “an-upadisesa parinibbana”: the five aggregates end, including all vinnana, and there is no suffering.'

[Nyana]

What is your thoughts on this? What do you think is the correct interpretation? I think that if 1) is correct, then 2) can't be correct, and vice versa. Their explanations seem to be contradictory. Too bad I don't know Pali so can't make judgment on their interpretations. But I personally think Ven. Nanananda might be right.

I think there's no need to place too much emphasis on a phrase that only occurs twice in the entire Suttapiṭaka. According to the commentaries this phrase refers to a consciousness of nibbāna.

Ven. Ñāṇananda has probably explored this phrase in more detail than most, and I generally agree with his analysis. However, he misinterprets at least one of the two commentarial explanations and sets up a bit of a straw man argument against the commentary. Recourse to the sub-commentary would have prevented this misinterpretation.

[mogg]

The title of this thread is entirely incorrect.

Ven. Nyantiloka's rendition of MN 109 (inc. notes):

And what, in brief, are the Five Groups of Existence? They are
corporeality, feeling, perception, (mental) formations, and
consciousness.
All corporeal phenomena, whether past, present or future, M. 109
one’s own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near,
all belong to the Group of Corporeality; all feelings belong to
the Group of Feeling; all perceptions belong to the Group of
Perception; all mental formations belong to the Group of Formations;
all consciousness belongs to the Group of
Consciousness.
(These Groups are a fivefold classification in which the Buddha
has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence,
and in particular, those which appear to the ignorant man
as his ego or personality. Hence birth, decay, death, etc. are also
included in these five Groups which actually comprise the whole
world.)

There is no consciousness that is exempt from the tilakkhana. This nibbana = 'universal consciousness' idea is wrong view.

MN 38: Hence I say: the arising of consciousness is dependent upon
conditions; and without these conditions, no consciousness
arises.

I also recommend reading SN 23.94. Categorical on this issue.

[Nyana]

The title of this thread is entirely incorrect.

This thread was split off from another discussion and titled by a moderator.

[Lazy_eye]

It looks like it's been a very interesting discussion, but at this point it would be bewildering to try and trace the argument back to its source. Wondering if someone could quickly clarify:

-- is it that some Mahayana schools posit a "permanent vinnana lighting the cosmos" aka universal consciousness, and Theravada doesn't teach such a thing/

-- Is it that no Buddhist school teaches such a thing, but some variants of Mahayana present nirvana in "positive" terms which seem to suggest it?

-- is it that Thanissario Bhikkhu seems at times to suggest such a concept?

-- None of the above/something else?

Just to make an uninformed layman's observation, what I see is that Mahayana sutras such as the Avatamsaka do seem to present Buddhahood as a sort of abiding transcendent consciousness -- but I've been advised that this is illusory and only appears that way from the standpoint of beings in samsara.

[Nyana]

It looks like it's been a very interesting discussion, but at this point it would be bewildering to try and trace the argument back to its source. Wondering if someone could quickly clarify:

-- is it that some Mahayana schools posit a "permanent vinnana lighting the cosmos" aka universal consciousness, and Theravada doesn't teach such a thing/

-- Is it that no Buddhist school teaches such a thing, but some variants of Mahayana present nirvana in "positive" terms which seem to suggest it?

-- is it that Thanissario Bhikkhu seems at times to suggest such a concept?

-- None of the above/something else?

Just to make an uninformed layman's observation, what I see is that Mahayana sutras such as the Avatamsaka do seem to present Buddhahood as a sort of abiding transcendent consciousness -- but I've been advised that this is illusory and only appears that way from the standpoint of beings in samsara.

Often the source of eternalist views entering into discussions of the Buddhadhamma in contemporary discourse is some sort of contact with notions of a perennial philosophy. As for Buddhist traditions, the Indian commentarial sources generally maintain that all consciousnesses are impermanent and there is no such thing as an eternal, universal consciousness. As for the different Buddhist commentarial traditions take on nibbāna, see here.

[mogg]

The title of this thread is entirely incorrect.

This thread was split off from another discussion and titled by a moderator.

It's positing the question "Is Nibbana the same as universal consciousness?" right? To which I am saying no, the premise implied by the title is incorrect. Nibbana is not the same as universal consciousness (as taught in the suttas).

[Nyana]

Nibbana is not the same as universal consciousness (as taught in the suttas).

No, it isn't. Which is what I've said throughout.

[Dan74]

It looks like it's been a very interesting discussion, but at this point it would be bewildering to try and trace the argument back to its source. Wondering if someone could quickly clarify:

-- is it that some Mahayana schools posit a "permanent vinnana lighting the cosmos" aka universal consciousness, and Theravada doesn't teach such a thing/

-- Is it that no Buddhist school teaches such a thing, but some variants of Mahayana present nirvana in "positive" terms which seem to suggest it?

-- is it that Thanissario Bhikkhu seems at times to suggest such a concept?

-- None of the above/something else?

Just to make an uninformed layman's observation, what I see is that Mahayana sutras such as the Avatamsaka do seem to present Buddhahood as a sort of abiding transcendent consciousness -- but I've been advised that this is illusory and only appears that way from the standpoint of beings in samsara.

Often the source of eternalist views entering into discussions of the Buddhadhamma in contemporary discourse is some sort of contact with notions of a perennial philosophy. As for Buddhist traditions, the Indian commentarial sources generally maintain that all consciousnesses are impermanent and there is no such thing as an eternal, universal consciousness. As for the different Buddhist commentarial traditions take on nibbāna, see here.

Any interesting relevant takes on Nirvana Sutra in this context?

[mogg]

Nibbana is not the same as universal consciousness (as taught in the suttas).

No, it isn't. Which is what I've said throughout.

I wouldn't expect anything less Geoff. Your website is excellent btw.