Nibbana vs. annihilation?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:00 am

beeblebrox wrote:As long as you refer to an Arahant as an existing being, or a non-existing being, you're still trapped within these two viewpoints. This idea do not apply at all. Any mention of this so-called "being," from either sides, is null and void according to a Tathagata.

I've never said so in the thread and have said on numerous times that I use the word only conventionally to distinguish one stream of 5 aggregates from another. So you are attacking a strawman.





"A 'position' [ ... ] is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling [ ... ] such is perception [ ... ] such are mental fabrications [ ... ] such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Even though you say this:

So the cessation of 5 aggregates (parinibbana) isn't felt as cessation of something personal or belonging to a person. Ultimately ""Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality" means that it is not annihilation. Just the impersonal process, that was just dukkha, has ceased.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Please read my posts and don’t say opposite of what I’ve said to refute that position that I would myself.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:04 am

tiltbillings wrote:
beeblebrox wrote: You still refer to these five aggregates back from a "being" or the non-existence thereof. You're still trapped in referring from that position of a "being." I think that this idea of a "being" (or a strawman, if I may call it that) is irrelevant in these type of discussion. Any attempt in using this "strawman" as an argument is what causes the entanglement of views... and thus continues the samsara.

When there is existence, view it as existing. And when it ceases, view it as a cessation. When there's a fire, view it as a fire. When it goes out, then see it as extinguished... and go no further. It's as simple as that.
I think you have nailed Alex's problem.



Please read what I’ve said there and in many other posts in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5935&start=100#p92966


I do not believe in a trully existing being that can exist/not-exist/both/neither after after parinibbana. I do not hold that there is a trully existing being that can be reborn from moment to moment, nothing to say about from life to life. However for the sake of coherency I use common words, this being a Buddhist board I hope that people understand that when I talk about an Arahant, I do NOT mean an Arahant as a trully existing Being, but as a certain procession of vipāka & kiriya cittas along with certain cetasikas and rūpas. Same with worldling except in that case there are also corresponding cittas of all 4 jāti and certain cetasikas and rūpas corresponding to that induvidial.

So please view all my recent messages (certainly this and the rebirth thread) with the above in mind.

With metta,

Alex



This discussion can’t go on if you say what I did not say.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Vepacitta » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:06 am

Is it time to post the cute picture of the tail chasing doggie?

Sitting here with my purring cat on Mt. Meru,

V.
I'm your friendly, neighbourhood Asura
User avatar
Vepacitta
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: Somewhere on the slopes of Mt. Meru

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:09 am

People cannot come up with refutation of the sutta evidence that I’ve provided, so they attack me instead. When I have said “X” some claim that I’ve said “Y” and attack that viewpoint which I myself would refute.

The suttas clearly state that:


1.Arahant/Tathagata is not found inside or outside of 5 aggregates. SN 22.85-86

2.Self or what belongs to self is not found in truth or reality. MN22

3.There is no permanent possesion. MN22. 5 aggregates are impermanent SN22.97

4.Nibbāna is cessation of becoming. AN10.7. bhavanirodho nibbāna. IMHO cessation of becoming is not some new becoming, such as becoming an infinite consciousness.

5.Wouldn’t gaining a permanent, eternal, not subject to change consciousness be considered acquiring (ūpadhi) Something? But many suttas clearly say that Nibbana is calming of all fabrications and relinquishing of ALL acquistions sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo – PTS A 4.423 (AN 9.36)


6. Five Aggregates cease and never reoccur when Parinibbāna happens. Thus what can remain and be oneself or possession of oneself? Why is there no sutta that says that at parinibbana 5 aggregates cease but some Consciousness remains?

7.There is no eternal and unchanging consciousness that transmigrates from sense base to sense base, much less from life to life. MN38. All consciousness is conditioned and dependently arisen.

8.“The body disintegrated, perception ceased, pain & rapture were entirely consumed, fabrications were stilled: consciousness (Viññāṇaṃ) has come to its end.” – Ud 8.9 Such is the description of Nibbāna.

9.Consciousness cannot be without other aggregates (which cease in parinibbāna)

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.”
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

What would be condition for consciousness in Nibbāna? OF what would it be aware? Wouldn’t its object of awareness be one of the aggregates? But then it would mean that something conditioned (aggregates) remain in Nibbāna…


Re: Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ in DN11In DN11 quote if one looks carefully, there are two questions and two answers to
the questions of:
Q #1 Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?
Q #2 Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?

Q1) Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?
A1) Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ , Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.

Q2) Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to
an end?
A2) Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul, name & form are all brought to
an end. With the cessation of consciousness each is here brought to an end.'"

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Viññāṇa remains in Nibbāna, and DN11 clearly states that consciousness ceases.


Remember that ALL things are dukkha. To posit something that remains eternally
is only to posit an eternally existent dukkha and according to MN22 there isn’t anything that is permanent and everlasting not subject to change. The talk on ANY kind of existence in Nibbana betrays one's wish for eternal survival, even if it is in some unexplained form.

MN72 clearly states parinibbāna of Arahant is like flame going out. In fact the words extinguished is the same as word for Nibbāna. Just like
extinguished flame doesn't become the whole world, same is with Arahant.

The metaphors for nibbāna is a flame going out that is simply reckoned as 'out' (nibbuto)


"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out (nibbāyeyya), would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out (nibbuto)'?"
"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?'
Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

=
“What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
=
"there is no form... no feeling... no perception... there are no fabrications... there is no consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
=
"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.
"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"


"Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] 'belonging to my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] 'my self'?"
"Yes, lord."
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"
"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

=
[Sariputta] how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"
[Yamaka] "Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. [Buddha] Sàti, how is that consciousness? [Sati] Venerable sir, this uttering and feeling one, that reaps the results of actions good and evil done here and there. [Buddha:] Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit and that will be for your undoing and unpleasantness for a long time.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' ‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbāna’nti.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:19 am

Greetings Alex,

Alex123 wrote:Remember that ALL things are dukkha.

It's all sankharas that are dukkha. All things (dhammas) are anatta.

A significant difference in the context of this discussion, IMO.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14520
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:42 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Alex,

Alex123 wrote:Remember that ALL things are dukkha.

It's all sankharas that are dukkha. All things (dhammas) are anatta.

A significant difference in the context of this discussion, IMO.

Metta,
Retro. :)



sankhara [sankhaara]:
Formation, compound, fashioning, fabrication — the forces and factors that fashion things (physical or mental), the process of fashioning, and the fashioned things that result. Sankhara can refer to anything formed or fashioned by conditions, or, more specifically, (as one of the five khandhas) thought-formations within the mind.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s



In many suttas the Buddha has declared 5 aggregates to be anicca, dukkha and anatta





"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



Note, in that sutta what makes something dukkha is anicca characteristic - not simply mental defilements.


"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Last edited by Alex123 on Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Vepacitta » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:46 am

and what is suffering is anatta - non-self

'forms (rupa) are impermanent - what is impermanent is non self - what is non-self is suffering
feelings (vedana) are impermanent ... what is nonself is suffering
perceptions ...(sanna)
volitions (sankhara)
consciousness (vinnyana) ...

just flipped thru various sections of the SN - the khandasammyutta in particular but you can open up most any page and find this or permutations there - t

anything that's anatta - form feeling perception volitional formations consciousness - that's what suffers - that's doing the suffering - but we perceive this as a me due to ignorance (add either 9 or 11 or 12 steps here depending upon which sutta to make 10, 12, or 14 steps) starts a whole birthing-suffering-death process - whether right now or 'at such a time' - of a 'me'

round the vortex we go

kinda makes you (since that's how it is for most of us) want to annhilate sometimes don't it (need bugs bunny smiley)

nighty night from Mt Meru - reading the suttas just makes a 'person' feel much better, :smile:

V.
I'm your friendly, neighbourhood Asura
User avatar
Vepacitta
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: Somewhere on the slopes of Mt. Meru

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:52 am

Even the bare arising & persistence of body & mind is dukkha.

“Bhikkhus, the arising, continuation, production, and manifestation of form … of feeling … of perception … of volitional constructions … of consciousness is the arising of suffering, the continuation of disease, the manifestation of aging-and-death.

“The cessation, subsiding, and passing away of form … of consciousness is the cessation of suffering, the subsiding of disease, the passing away of aging-and-death.”

SN26.10 Aggregates - Ven. BB Trans

Same is said in regards to 6 primary elements, 12 bases, 18 elements, 6 kinds of consciousness, etc.


So if these things (body and all cognition, perception, willing of any kind) would finally cease , that would in the sutta words be "cessation of suffering, the subsiding of disease, the passing away of aging-and-death.".

This is why the total cessation of ALL (parinibbana) is bliss. If anything remained, it would only be "arising of suffering, the continuation of disease, the manifestation of aging-and-death".


So the point in parinibbana (complete physical, emotional, mental & spiritual suicide) is to suicide only the suffering, disease, aging and death. There isn't anyone or anything pleasant that ceases. Only dukkha ceases. All life afforming pop-Buddhist teachings only affirm dukkha.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Kenshou » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:29 am

I wonder if such passages as the one you have quoted are meant to apply to "awakened experience" and "unawakened experience" alike.

For the latter, it pretty clearly does. And it is to the latter type of person that such statements are aimed at, right?

But that doesn't necessarily exclude relevance to the awakened mind as well. I don't know, just a thought.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:33 am

Kenshou wrote:I wonder if such passages as the one you have quoted are meant to apply to "awakened experience" and "unawakened experience" alike.

For the latter, it pretty clearly does. And it is to the latter type of person that such statements are aimed at, right?

But that doesn't necessarily exclude relevance to the awakened mind as well. I don't know, just a thought.



They apply to all aggregates. What makes an aggregate dukkha is not just clinging, it is the fact that it is anicca. Becoming awakened doesn't change anicca aggregate into a nicca one, does it? So why should it change the dukkha caused by aggregate being anicca?
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Kenshou » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:39 am

I suppose I would raise the same contention I have before; that what is anicca is only dukkha because of upadana/clinging or whatever term you like. Once that's gone, the fact of anicca doesn't cause any more stress (I suspect, that is).

:shrug:
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:39 am

Alex123 wrote: Please read what I’ve said there and in many other posts in this thread.


Ah, yelling as a way of arguing. The problem is that whatever your point is, it is not at all clear. Simply after death - and before - the arahant/tathagata is not measurable.

People cannot come up with refutation of the sutta evidence that I’ve provided, so they attack me instead. When I have said “X” some claim that I’ve said “Y” and attack that viewpoint which I myself would refute.
Attack you? Not at all. The texts are clear.

The suttas clearly state that:


1.Arahant/Tathagata is not found inside or outside of 5 aggregates. SN 22.85-86

. . .

9.Consciousness cannot be without other aggregates (which cease in parinibbāna)
And the suttas clearly state that there is no measure of an awaklened individual.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18352
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:42 am

tiltbillings wrote:And the suttas clearly state that there is no measure of an awaklened individual.


So what does the above say to refute the sutta's teaching that Parinibbana is complete cessation with nothing remaining?

It was my point all along that parinibbana is not annihilation because there is no Arhat/Tathagata/Buddha/Awakened person as truth and reality in the first place to be annihilated. The cessation of 5 aggregates is just cessation of dukkha. It is not annihilation of an Existing Being.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:47 am

Kenshou wrote:I suppose I would raise the same contention I have before; that what is anicca is only dukkha because of upadana/clinging or whatever term you like. Once that's gone, the fact of anicca doesn't cause any more stress (I suspect, that is).

:shrug:


What is dukkha is precisely because it is anicca. And in any case the present aggregates were caused by craving in the past. So even an Arahant has aggregates remaining that were conditioned by craving long before. So we can also say that craving causes dukkha, it is life affirming action that creates more aggregates, more dukkha,


"Whatever is felt is included in suffering." yaṃ kiñci vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmi’nti SN 36.11(1)

Not just craving, but all that is felt is dukkha.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:48 am

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And the suttas clearly state that there is no measure of an awaklened individual.


So what does the above say to refute the sutta's teaching that Parinibbana is complete cessation with nothing remaining?
There is no thing, no condition, by which a measurement can be made.

It was my point all along that parinibbana is not annihilation because there is no Arhat/Tathagata/Buddha/Awakened person as truth and reality in the first place to be annihilated. The cessation of 5 aggregates is just cessation of dukkha. It is not annihilation of an Existing Being.
And?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18352
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Alex123 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:51 am

tiltbillings wrote:There is no thing, no condition, by which a measurement can be made.


Right, an Arahant doesn't exist as Self-Entity, so that cannot be measured.

Alex wrote:It was my point all along that parinibbana is not annihilation because there is no Arhat/Tathagata/Buddha/Awakened person as truth and reality in the first place to be annihilated. The cessation of 5 aggregates is just cessation of dukkha. It is not annihilation of an Existing Being.


tiltbillings wrote:And?


This answers the original question as to why Parinibbana is not annihilation. There is no One to annihilate in the first place, so how can it be annihilation?

Only those who have Self Views would view complete cessation as an annihilation of whatever they believe Self to be.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby Kenshou » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:00 am

Alex123 wrote:What is dukkha is precisely because it is anicca...
Not just craving, but all that is felt is dukkha.


I am curious how it is that what is anicca is dukkha even without upadana. Can you elaborate? I want to know specifically why.
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:11 am

Greetings Alex,

Alex123 wrote:This answers the original question as to why Parinibbana is not annihilation. There is no One to annihilate in the first place, so how can it be annihilation?

Only those who have Self Views would view complete cessation as an annihilation of whatever they believe Self to be.

I agree that you have been consistent throughout that there is no being or self who is annihilated. What you have said in that sense is totally orthodox.

However, as I see it, the contention arises because you take the five aggregates as things that "exist". You take their "existence" as an objective and ontological given, a fait accompli, leaving no room or scope for any degree of experiential or perceptual measure in what might constitute this "existence" (despite the caveats found in suttas such as SN 12.15).

Because you regard the aggregates as things that "exist", and because they're the things that people do cling to (i.e. the five aggregates of clinging)... the picture of parinibbana you paint does involve annihilation - not annihilation of atman, but annihilation of the five aggregates. So, for someone who is not an arahant (i.e. one such as us who ignorantly identifies with and clings to aggregates), for all intents and purposes your explanation of parinibbana is a form of annihilation. In other words, annihilation of that which you identify as self, due to avijja. Therefore, when you desire the annihilation of the aggregates, you inflict vibhava tanha upon yourself... and this vibhava tanha hinders your pursuit for arahanthood and causes dukkha.

The difference between your form of annihilation and that of the classical Indian traditions, is that you chop the atman up into 5 pieces before wanting to annihilate it. Either way, you crave the annihilation and permanent destruction of things you perceive to exist.

If you feel I have misrepresented you, feel free to explain why... I have no interest in building and attacking strawmen, nor of insulting you.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14520
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:16 am

Alex wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:There is no thing, no condition, by which a measurement can be made.


Right, an Arahant doesn't exist as Self-Entity,
Anyone here said othewrwise?
so that cannot be measured.
Or meaningfully talked about in terms of is, is-not, both or neither.


Alex wrote:
Alex wrote:It was my point all along that parinibbana is not annihilation because there is no Arhat/Tathagata/Buddha/Awakened person as truth and reality in the first place to be annihilated. The cessation of 5 aggregates is just cessation of dukkha. It is not annihilation of an Existing Being.


tiltbillings wrote:And?


This answers the original question as to why Parinibbana is not annihilation. There is no One to annihilate in the first place, so how can it be annihilation?

Only those who have Self Views would view complete cessation as an annihilation of whatever they believe Self to be.
Alrighty then, but complete cessation - a potentially vexing concept - should also not become some thing by which we try to measure the tathagata.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18352
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:23 am

retrofuturist wrote:
However, as I see it, the contention arises because you take the five aggregates as things that "exist". You take their "existence" as an objective and ontological given, a fait accompli, leaving no room or scope for any degree of experiential or perceptual measure in what might constitute this "existence" (despite the caveats found in suttas such as SN 12.15).

Because you regard the aggregates as things that "exist", and because they're the things that people do cling to (i.e. the five aggregates of clinging)... the picture of parinibbana you paint does involve annihilation - not annihilation of atman, but annihilation of the five aggregates. So, for someone who is not an arahant (i.e. one such as us who ignorantly identifies with and clings to aggregates), for all intents and purposes your explanation of parinibbana is a form of annihilation. In other words, annihilation of that which you identify as self, due to avijja. Therefore, when you desire the annihilation of the aggregates, you inflict vibhava tanha upon yourself... and this vibhava tanha hinders your pursuit for arahanthood and causes dukkha.

The difference between your form of annihilation and that of the classical Indian traditions, is that you chop the atman up into 5 pieces before wanting to annihilate it. Either way, you crave the annihilation of things you perceive to exist.

If you feel I have misrepresented you, feel free to explain why... I have no interest in building and attacking strawmen.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Interesting. It is a point needing careful clarification.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 18352
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], greeneggsandsam, mikenz66 and 10 guests