I meant post the experience of nibbana and I'm not reifying it.daverupa wrote:Post-nibbana? What is that?Spiny Norman wrote:just observing that anicca doesn't seem to apply post Nibbana. Whatever that means.
I said nibbana-as-thing because you're asking about nibbana apart from an experience of nibbana. Nibbana reified - that's nonsensical.
the great Nibbana = annihilation, eternal, or something else thread
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
If that's the case then the experience of pari-Nibbana ( death of an arahant ) would be oblivion, nothingness. If that is the suttas are saying, then I still don't understand why the Buddha didn't come out and just say that, instead of this ambiguous "undeclared" approach. I sort of get the argument about no-self, but it feels more like a smoke screen than an explanation, like a clever play on words which doesn't address the question.daverupa wrote: Are you saying there's a possible reality that is not experienced via the aggregates? Because as I see it, the type we inhabit - samsara - is all-inclusive for all beings.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Thank you, yes!Spiny Norman wrote:If that's the case then the experience of pari-Nibbana ( death of an arahant ) would be oblivion, nothingness. If that is the suttas are saying, then I still don't understand why the Buddha didn't come out and just say that, instead of this ambiguous "undeclared" approach. I sort of get the argument about no-self, but it feels more like a smoke screen than an explanation, like a clever play on words which doesn't address the question.daverupa wrote: Are you saying there's a possible reality that is not experienced via the aggregates? Because as I see it, the type we inhabit - samsara - is all-inclusive for all beings.
My thoughts exactly.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
This does not sound "ambiguous" to me. Clearly, it's not oblivion. Who would describe oblivion as "deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean"?Spiny Norman wrote:If that's the case then the experience of pari-Nibbana ( death of an arahant ) would be oblivion, nothingness. If that is the suttas are saying, then I still don't understand why the Buddha didn't come out and just say that, instead of this ambiguous "undeclared" approach. I sort of get the argument about no-self, but it feels more like a smoke screen than an explanation, like a clever play on words which doesn't address the question.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"Now, lady, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the Tathagata does not exist after death... both exists and does not exist after death... neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?"
"Very well, then, great king, I will question you in return about this very same matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think great king: Do you have an accountant or actuary or mathematician who can count the grains of sand in the river Ganges as 'so many grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of grains of sand' or 'so many thousands of grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand'?"
"No, lady."
"Then do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the water in the great ocean as 'so many buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of buckets of water' or 'so many thousands of buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of buckets of water'?"
"No, lady. Why is that? The great ocean is deep, boundless, hard to fathom."
"Even so, great king, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply.
"Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...
"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply." [1]
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Well, "post-nibbana" is either just the living arahant's experience of nibbana, which - via aggregates - they call to mind at leisure, or it's talk that heads off into the wilderness. There's a living arahant after their awakening and then later the aggregates break up for the final time, and no more can be predicated of such a 'gone-out-one'.Spiny Norman wrote:I meant post the experience of nibbana and I'm not reifying it.daverupa wrote:Post-nibbana? What is that?Spiny Norman wrote:just observing that anicca doesn't seem to apply post Nibbana. Whatever that means.
I said nibbana-as-thing because you're asking about nibbana apart from an experience of nibbana. Nibbana reified - that's nonsensical.
The aggregates are indeed impermanent, even the ones in an arahant's case. Nibbana is a forever-lack, not a forever-thing. Thinking of this as oblivion requires hanging on to "there would be nothing for me" sorts of thoughts & worries, I think.
SN 22.55 wrote:Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is not frightening to the noble disciple: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Your view sounds uncannily like oblivion... And I'm not thinking "nothing for me" I'm thinking "nothing".
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Depending on the specifics of what this word 'oblivion' means to you (e.g. as long as it isn't seen as an annihilation of some sort)... what's the problem with it?Kasina wrote:Your view sounds uncannily like oblivion... And I'm not thinking "nothing for me" I'm thinking "nothing".
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
I really don't have a good answer to that other than I don't see it as what the Buddha taught.daverupa wrote:Depending on the specifics of what this word 'oblivion' means to you (e.g. as long as it isn't seen as an annihilation of some sort)... what's the problem with it?Kasina wrote:Your view sounds uncannily like oblivion... And I'm not thinking "nothing for me" I'm thinking "nothing".
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Why do you want a view. It seems that there is a strong determination to conceptualise that which is beyond or not even related to conceptualisation, whatever side of the fence your mind tends toward.daverupa wrote:Depending on the specifics of what this word 'oblivion' means to you (e.g. as long as it isn't seen as an annihilation of some sort)... what's the problem with it?Kasina wrote:Your view sounds uncannily like oblivion... And I'm not thinking "nothing for me" I'm thinking "nothing".
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
What do you see as having been taught about this?Kasina wrote:I really don't have a good answer to that other than I don't see it as what the Buddha taught.daverupa wrote:Depending on the specifics of what this word 'oblivion' means to you (e.g. as long as it isn't seen as an annihilation of some sort)... what's the problem with it?Kasina wrote:Your view sounds uncannily like oblivion... And I'm not thinking "nothing for me" I'm thinking "nothing".
---daverupa wrote:The mental asterisk I see here and there in posts seems to mark a preference for retaining an idea of some ineffable post-death state, and I wonder about this.
Leading question; I'm not sure where you're going... lack of views is not lack of point-of-view, and it is not lack of knowledge.Mr Man wrote:Why do you want a view.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Wanting to understand something doesn't necessarily mean craving a view, it can just be wanting to understand. If it can be clearly established from the suttas that pari-Nibbana = oblivion, well OK, fair enough. But I don't think that has been clearly established. Quite possibly we won't be able to establish it here.Mr Man wrote: Why do you want a view. It seems that there is a strong determination to conceptualise that which is beyond or not even related to conceptualisation, whatever side of the fence your mind tends toward.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
Yes, good point. And similarly in SN 22.86:kirk5a wrote: This does not sound "ambiguous" to me. Clearly, it's not oblivion. Who would describe oblivion as "deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean"?
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
So do you hold that you can mentally conceive nibbana?daverupa wrote:Leading question; I'm not sure where you're going... lack of views is not lack of point-of-view, and it is not lack of knowledge.Mr Man wrote:Why do you want a view.
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
The way to understand nibbana is to practice the path.Spiny Norman wrote:Wanting to understand something doesn't necessarily mean craving a view, it can just be wanting to understand. If it can be clearly established from the suttas that pari-Nibbana = oblivion, well OK, fair enough. But I don't think that has been clearly established.Mr Man wrote: Why do you want a view. It seems that there is a strong determination to conceptualise that which is beyond or not even related to conceptualisation, whatever side of the fence your mind tends toward.
Re: Why has annihilationism proliferated Theravada so profus
I believe the Buddha taught that eternalism and annihilationism are wrong views.
"This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed — but I could not see it."
Sn 4.15 PTS: Sn 935-951 "Attadanda Sutta: Arming Oneself"
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go... This is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life..."
Wilbur Mercer in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?