Page 3 of 7

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:47 pm
by Individual
Element wrote: The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
Manapa wrote: everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:56 pm
by stuka
Individual wrote:
Element wrote: The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
The Buddha, after Awakening, was nonetheless still composed of five aggregates.

What causes dukkha is craving and clinging brought on by ignorance.

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:09 am
by Cittasanto
Individual wrote:
Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.
OK, if you want to judge, compare, etc that is fine, but seeing something how it is isn't about how other things are, just how it is! and in and of themselves compared to nothing but itself it is neutral!against itself it can not be good or bad, it can only be itself, which puts it in the neutral position!

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:22 am
by Individual
Manapa wrote:
Individual wrote:
Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.
OK, if you want to judge, compare, etc that is fine, but seeing something how it is isn't about how other things are, just how it is! and in and of themselves compared to nothing but itself it is neutral!against itself it can not be good or bad, it can only be itself, which puts it in the neutral position!
It's not that I want to judge, compare, etc. and neither does Element I think, but that such judgment is skillful. :)

Seeing how something is means seeing how its nature is contingent on (arising co-dependently with) its surrounding factors. Apart from Nibbana, nothing truly exists "by itself". Merely comparing things against themselves (whatever or wherever these abiding selves might be), everything is neutral, and on this basis, how could any comparisons of any kind be made? Overcoming conceit (manas) and developing equanimity (upekkha) is easily confused with nihilism but clearly distinguished from it. Non-attachment to conceit doesn't mean being apathetic or ignorant with regards to value. "Equality" ("neutral") is itself a form of conceit. And so, universal neutrality is a kind of universal conceit, clearly distinguished from the clear & equanimous vision of the Buddha.

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:36 am
by Element
Individual wrote:If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
The suttas state the five aggregates are to be comprehended and craving & attachment towards them are to be abandoned.

Satipatthana is the comprehension of the five aggregates as merely aggregates.

To comprehend, we must practise. :meditate:

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:44 am
by Individual
Element wrote:
Individual wrote:If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
The suttas state the five aggregates are to be comprehended and craving & attachment towards them are to be abandoned.

Satipatthana is the comprehension of the five aggregates as merely aggregates.

To comprehend, we must practise. :meditate:
I see what you mean. You know, conventional and ultimate truth are easily confused in language. I wonder if there's a grammatical convention Buddhists could use to distinguish the two when speaking, in order to reduce unnecessary arguments like this. (I'm not joking)

ULTIMATE: Everything (i.e. the five aggregates) is neutral.
CONVENTIONAL: Everything is not neutral. Triple Gem is good, dhamma is good, etc..

I think a lot of my arguments with you and Stuka are like this, and a lot of Buddhist debates, in general.

Maybe... U: and C:

Hmm. I wonder if it could even be concisely divided in two like that, since even anything that follows after "U:" still wouldn't really be correct.

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:05 am
by stuka
Individual wrote: I think a lot of my arguments with you and Stuka are like this, and a lot of Buddhist debates, in general.
[EDIT: Off-topic response about Individual removed. If there are issues to be resolved, we don't want to see them played out in public please. Forum rule: "Be nice to each other". Thanks. Retro.]

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:39 am
by Ben
Please play the ball - not the man.
Thanks for your cooperation.

Ben

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:35 am
by Element
Individual wrote:I see what you mean. You know, conventional and ultimate truth are easily confused in language.
Individual

I say you do not see what I mean. My post has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

For example, ultimately, dukkha is dukkha. Ultimately, it is to be eradicated. It is not neutral.

When Buddha & Sariputta spoke the following, they were not talking conventional truth.
"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

MN 140
"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended."

MN 43

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:47 am
by Cittasanto
Hi individual
Individual wrote:It's not that I want to judge, compare, etc. and neither does Element I think, but that such judgment is skillful. :)

Seeing how something is means seeing how its nature is contingent on (arising co-dependently with) its surrounding factors. Apart from Nibbana, nothing truly exists "by itself". Merely comparing things against themselves (whatever or wherever these abiding selves might be), everything is neutral, and on this basis, how could any comparisons of any kind be made? Overcoming conceit (manas) and developing equanimity (upekkha) is easily confused with nihilism but clearly distinguished from it. Non-attachment to conceit doesn't mean being apathetic or ignorant with regards to value. "Equality" ("neutral") is itself a form of conceit. And so, universal neutrality is a kind of universal conceit, clearly distinguished from the clear & equanimous vision of the Buddha.

Skillful judgements?

seeing how something is, is about
MN 10 Satipatthana Sutta Frames of Reference Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference. Which four?

"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
if we are looking at things putting aside greed & distress or the eight worldly conditions with reference to the world, we are not looking outside in, seeing how it interacts with other things but inside out seeing how other things react to it!
everything in and of itself is neutral, add other factors to judge it against it isn't.
the three forms of conceit are better than, worse than, and same as, which is nothing to do with what I am talking about, unless their is judgement of things.
what I am talking about is moving the gauge (being ardent, alert, & mindful) to the object setting aside judgements (greed & distress with reference to the world) of the things around it knowing what it is in and of itself. or how it says later in the same sutta
"In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on mental qualities in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that 'There are mental qualities' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:03 am
by Element
Manapa wrote:what I am talking about is moving the gauge (being ardent, alert, & mindful) to the object setting aside judgements (greed & distress with reference to the world) of the things around it knowing what it is in and of itself.
The reason one does this is to incinerate or eradicate defilement & reveal the optimal state, namely, Nibbana.
What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana?'

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:33 am
by Cittasanto
Element wrote: The reason one does this is to incinerate or eradicate defilement & reveal the optimal state, namely, Nibbana.
What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana?'
I wouldn't say "incinerate or eradicate" rather let go of

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:38 am
by Element
Manapa wrote:I wouldn't say "incinerate or eradicate" rather let go of
You may not say but i say "incinerate". :guns:

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:48 am
by Cittasanto
Element wrote:
Manapa wrote:I wouldn't say "incinerate or eradicate" rather let go of
You may not say but i say "incinerate". :guns:
:tantrum: :jedi:

well do they still exist after incineration, just without any sway on what is happening, or do they cease to exist altogether? suppose it is a matter of opinion :shrug:

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:57 pm
by Prasadachitta
To conceive of any phenomena as existing that then goes out of existence is annihilation. To conceive of any sustaining entity or quality"nomena" is eternalist. This is how I understand it. So it would not be ultimately correct to say that there is suffering which comes to an end. It is only a matter of skillful means.

Metta


Gabriel