Nibbana vs. annihilation?

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Alex,

It would be interesting to see some different translations of SN 22.94. For example, the translation of this section of text at the following site, shows no sign of such ontological proclamations...

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html

Monks, there is righteous wisdom in the world, as matter is impermanent, unstable, does not stand forever without a change. I too say, it is so.

Monks, there is righteous wisdom in the world, as feelings, perceptions, intentions are impermanent, unstable, not everlasting, changes. I too say, it is so.

Monks, there is righteous wisdom in the world, as consciousness is impermanent, unstable, does not stand forever without change. I too say, it is so.

Which raises the question, what is the Pali here.

[Alex123]

Hello Retro, Nana, Tilt, all,

‘‘Kiñca, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, yamahaṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi? Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi. Vedanā aniccā…pe… viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi. Idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi’’.
PTS S 3.138

The Buddha has said that 5 aggregates "atthī"
atthi = to be; to exist.


How would Aggregates have inherent existence or simply "are" alter the fact that:
1) Parinibbāna is cessation of all Dukkha
2) Parinibbāna is final cessation and no rearising of 5 aggregates?
3) There isn't anything (awareness, experiencing, knowing, willing, etc) that exists in parinibbāna.

I acknowledge Bhikkhu Bodhi is a good translator, but he does translate in such a way as to support his world view...

He translated what is found there. Idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi’’.

[Alex123]

I would only repeat what the texts themselves say. Don't try to put words into my mouth, please.

And what do the text say to remain after Parinibbāna?

With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all feelings, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere
bodily remains will be left." - SN12.51(1).

No talk about "luminious unestablished consciousness", the eternal Citta, the Ground of all Being... To posit anything continuing in or after parinibbāna would contradict the texts. With metta,

Please answer my other questions

Again, lets for the sake of discussion, say that I have meant that 5 aggregates, either:
A)have "true, inherent existence" (sabhāvasiddhi)"
B) Have only experiential, existence/functionality, they are (Atthi).

I prefer to the B option and so says the Buddha.


How would A or B meaning alter the fact that:1) Parinibbāna is cessation of all Dukkha
2) Parinibbāna is final cessation and no rearising of 5 aggregates?
3) There isn't anything (awareness, experiencing, knowing, willing, etc) that exists in parinibbāna.


Please forgive me, but it sounds to me as if some are trying to justify some sort of survival, of parinibbāna being some form of experience, awareness, existence. Also some arguments put forth here seem to be either trying to obfuscate the issue or to take it aside.

Alex

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

No talk about "luminious unestablished consciousness", the eternal Citta, the Ground of all Being... To posit anything continuing in or after parinibbāna would contradict the texts.

Golly... talk about putting words in people's mouths. Is this really what you think people are positing, Alex?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

I would only repeat what the texts themselves say. Don't try to put words into my mouth, please.

And what do the text say to remain after Parinibbana?

Which is an inapproariate question:

Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

"What wise man here would seek to define
An immeasurable one (i.e. arahant) by taking his measure?
He who would measure an immeasurable one
Must be, I think, an obstructed moron." - SN I 149

With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all feelings, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere
bodily remains will be left." - SN12.51(1).

No talk about "luminious unestablished consciousness", the eternal Citta, the Ground of all Being... To posit anything continuing in or after parinibbāna would contradict the texts. With metta,

Alex

Not from me, you are not going to hear any of that. But you seem to want to measure the tathagata by telling us what is not there, whatever "there" is. The point is, there is no measure that is appropriate.

[Shonin]

Not from me, you are not going to hear any of that. But you seem to want to measure the tathagata by telling us what is not there, whatever "there" is. The point is, there is no measure that is appropriate.

I think you hit the nail on the head there (although it's a nail that seems to have received a number of solid hits already).

[Alex123]

Hello Tilt, Retro, Nana, all,

Please answer my fair questions. They were either ignored or discussion went aside.

Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

All the Yamaka/Anurradha sutta states is that "A Tathagata is not found here and now as truth or reality" (diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne) thus how can you say that he is Annihilated. This has been my position all along. With this, of course the tathagata "is immeasurable". There isn't any Self entity to measure and there isn't anything held as "I, ME, Mine" to measure Him by.

So when 5 aggregates cease, it is not an annihilation of an existing being. Do you understand this?
All that ceases is just stress that ceases.
There are 5 aggregates not 6, and they all cease without rearising.

Exactly with what point were we disagreeing relevant to the topic being discussed?

[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

[5heaps]

I'm rejecting the notion that any dhamma-s have true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). I'm suggesting that it's in keeping with the Pāḷi suttas to understand all dhamma-s as mere nominal designations (paññattimatta). In this way we can employ the teachings skillfully without succumbing to metaphysical speculation.

particles for example dont exist? collections of particles dont exist?

[Sobeh]

particles for example dont exist? collections of particles dont exist?

That's ontology, which is not the Dhamma.

[Ñāṇa]

I'm rejecting the notion that any dhamma-s have true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). I'm suggesting that it's in keeping with the Pāḷi suttas to understand all dhamma-s as mere nominal designations (paññattimatta). In this way we can employ the teachings skillfully without succumbing to metaphysical speculation.

particles for example dont exist? collections of particles dont exist?

Hi 5heaps,

Where are "particles" ever mentioned in the Pāḷi suttas? And even more to the point: What bearing does speculating about the existence of particles have on liberation?

All the best,

Geoff

[Ñāṇa]

All the Yamaka/Anurradha sutta states is that "A Tathagata is not found here and now as truth or reality" (diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne)....

Hi Alex,

That is all that needs stating.

Sn 3.12 Dvayatānupassanā Sutta:

Entrenched in name and form,
They conceive that “This is true.”

In whatever way (worldlings) conceive it,
It turns out other than that.
For that is what is false about it.
Whatever is transitory certainly has a false nature.

But nibbāna does not have a false nature.
That the noble ones truly know.
Through fully comprehending the truth,
They are without hunger, quenched.

Ud 3.10 (Ud 32) Loka Sutta:

This anguished world,
Afflicted by contact,
Speaks of a disease as self.
By whatever terms it conceives of (anything),
It turns out other than that.
Although becoming otherwise, the world is held by existence,
Afflicted by existence, yet delights in that very existence.
Where there is delight, there is fear.
What it fears is unsatisfactory.
This holy life is lived for the abandoning of that existence.

Whatever ascetics or brahmans say that emancipation from existence is by means of existence, all of them are not liberated from existence, I say.

And whatever ascetics or brahmans say that escape from existence is by means of non-existence, all of them have not escaped from existence, I say.

All the best,

Geoff

[5heaps]

Where are "particles" ever mentioned in the Pāḷi suttas?

in other words the elements, or any time you talk about form.

are you saying the parts of form are concepts, or are you saying the collections of form are concepts?

That's ontology, which is not the Dhamma.

whats your reason. it cant be "because the Buddha never spoke of them". on the other hand i can say "they are dharma, because the Buddha taught them".

[Kenshou]

Are you saying that you think of the "Elements" as something akin to fundamental particles?

[5heaps]

Are you saying that you think of the "Elements" as something akin to fundamental particles?

its a common notion

[Kenshou]

At risk of hijacking the thread... what's the evidence for that?

[Sobeh]

Are you saying that you think of the "Elements" as something akin to fundamental particles?

its a common notion

It's a sloppy generalization between two concepts developed to explain very different phenomena. Common or not, the notion is wholly flawed. If you wish to speak of elements (dhatu) at all, I think referring to Suttas is sufficient; recourse to scientific ontologies is simply inappropriate.

[Alex123]

Hello Geoff,

Thank you for those sutta quotes. I did read them some time ago. Can you please explain to me the significance of them as you see it?

Why nāmarūpa is false is because it is Anicca. It changes, it doesn't remain the same. I do NOT believe that that quote says that nāmarūpa doesn't exist at all.
Reason why Nibbāna is true is because there isn't anything that changes and becomes otherwise.

For parinibbāna, Geoff & all, how do you interpret these two verses below?

With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all feelings, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; merebodily remains will be left." - SN12.51(1). Ven.BB Trans.
====
[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

With metta,

Alex

[mikenz66]

Hi 5heaps, Sobeh,

Are you saying that you think of the "Elements" as something akin to fundamental particles?

its a common notion

It's a sloppy generalization between two concepts developed to explain very different phenomena. Common or not, the notion is wholly flawed. If you wish to speak of elements (dhatu) at all, I think referring to Suttas is sufficient; recourse to scientific ontologies is simply inappropriate.

Tiltbillings has comment specifically about the "particle over interpretation" issue many times. Most recently in a similar context:

The Theravada does not necessarily teach "partless particles."

What else is it that you think it teaches?

Let me quote something I posted earlier in a different thread:
...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =20#p89007

It seems to be common to take the Buddha's instructional method of slicing and dicing experience from different angles into aggregates, sense bases, elements, etc (not to mention the extensive elaborations to be found in the Abhidhamma) and take them as something that experience is built from, rather than as tools to analyse experience into.

Considering them as building blocks runs into some difficulties. For example, the "aggregate building blocks" and the "sense base building blocks" would have to be combinations of each other. They are, in my view easier to understand as being analogous to slicing a loaf in different directions.

Mike

[Vepacitta]

"There is no Bodhi Tree,
Nor stand of mirror bright,
Where all is void,
Where can the dust alighht?"

Hui-Neng, 6th Patriarch

Apologies to bring Cha'an into it but I do like this one and I think it's appropriate here.

If a person talks about this sort of thing too much - they start talking around self - even when they don't mean to.

We're so conditioned to think in terms of concepts, in terms of a 'thing', 'essence', 'that-ness', 'this-ness' - so when you start talking about 'what' is extinguished upon nibbana, or pari-nibbabana - that 'what' is the issue. It's inappropriate. It doesn't apply. So you get the Tathagata or Ven. Sariputta (and others) either remaining silent, or coming back with 'form is impermanent, etc etc' or 'form is non-self, etc etc' They just throw it back in one's face. It's measureless - and the wanting to quantify it leads one right down into attachment to a 'being' a 'selfi-ness' there.

What is it that's 'left' when all is quenched - only the arahants know - and they aren't talking. (and that favourite saying of mine is 'wrong' - as nothing really applies in this case).

Zennistically yours from Mt. Meru,

V.

[tiltbillings]

Are you saying that you think of the "Elements" as something akin to fundamental particles?

its a common notion

Yes. it is, but is not a notion characteristic of the suttas or even the Abhidhamm Pitaka. This has been pointed out to you more than once, but you continue to try to read very late Tibetan tenet stuff backwards into the Pali suttas and and Theravada in general, and in doing that you are simply, completely and totally wrong, incorrect, off base, not representing the the truth of the matter.