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

[Kenshou]

Well there is the world "atthi" ("it is" etc.), but I don't think we need to read notions of Existence with a capital E into that.

[retrofuturist]

[pulga]

The khandá are abstract aspects of particular lived experiences which do exist, but since all such things are impermanent and subject to change, there is nothing in experience that qualifies as a self.

An arahant might very well exist as an individual, as a "thing". But since no individual, no "thing", exists as a self would exist, the arahant -- as the puthujjana would perceive him -- is not be be found.

[tiltbillings]

If there were khandhas that truly exist, then sabbe dhamma anatta would be false.

They exist as Anicca, Dukkha, and anatta.

Which is to say, then, that they are ways of talking about experience.

I don't define an Arahant as existing in terms of khandhas.

Of course you do, every time you start going on about the cessation of consciousness, which is why I find your reading too limited.

[Alex123]

Which is to say, then, that they are ways of talking about experience.

And experience, does it exist? If aggregate is anicca, dukkha, anatta and is said by the Buddha to exist atthi vs non-existence natthī , then I go with the Buddha.

Of course you do, every time you start going on about the cessation of consciousness, which is why I find your reading too limited.

Cessation of consciousness is cessation of consciousness. It is not cessation of an Arahant because an Arahant does not ultimately exist in the first place to cease.

Please read my post in http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p121593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

Which is to say, then, that they are ways of talking about experience.

And experience, does it exist?

What do you mean by "exist?"

Of course you do, every time you start going on about the cessation of consciousness, which is why I find your reading too limited.

Cessation of consciousness is cessation of consciousness. It is not cessation of an Arahant because an Arahant does not ultimately exist in the first place to cease.

Consciousness does not ultimately exist, and you are still defining the arahant via consciousness, which is something the Buddha did not do.

[Alex123]

Consciousness does not ultimately exist,

Please find the sutta, otherwise it is just your assertion.

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling that is impermanent … Perception … Volitional constructions … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. “That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.SN22.94 (2) Flowers BB Translation

The pali word is used for exist is "atthī" from the quote that Retro kindly provided.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p122129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and you are still defining the arahant via consciousness, which is something the Buddha did not do.

Where? Please don't say what I didn't.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p121593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is so bad about remainder-less cessation?


It is not annihilation because there is no one to be annihilated in the first place.




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 possession. 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 acquisitions 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



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 DN11
In 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) Consciousness without endless comparison, and radiant everywhere, 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



=
“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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
=
"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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
=
"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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

=
[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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... 9.than.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Is consciousness that good? Lets see SN12.63 Ven. TB trans. Consciousness is like being speared 300 times per day and yet magically being alive to feel the agony. So it is a calamity, a disaster to have consciousness and such a relief when it ceases!
““And how is the nutriment of consciousness to be regarded? Suppose that, having arrested a thief, a criminal, they were to show him to the
king: ‘This is a thief, a criminal for you, your majesty. Impose on him whatever punishment you like.’ So the king would say, ‘Go, men, and
stab him in the morning with a hundred spears.’ So they would stab him in the morning with a hundred spears. Then the king would say at noon, ‘Men, how is that man?’ ‘Still alive, your majesty.’ So the king would say, ‘Go, men, and stab him at noon with a hundred spears.’ So they would stab him at noon with a hundred spears. Then the king would say in the evening, ‘Men, how is that man?’ ‘Still alive, your majesty.’ So the king would say, ‘Go, men, and stab him in the evening with a hundred spears.’ So they would stab him in the evening with a hundred spears. Now what do you think, monks: Would that man, being stabbed with three hundred spears a day, experience pain & distress from that cause?” “Even if he were to be stabbed with only one spear, lord, he would experience pain & distress from that cause, to say nothing of three hundred spears.” “In the same way, I tell you, monks, is the nutriment of consciousness to be regarded. When the nutriment of consciousness is comprehended, name & form are comprehended. When name & form are comprehended, I tell you, there is nothing further for a disciple of the noble ones to do.” — SN 12:63
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... 40#p121593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

. . .

You quote a lot but don't say much. So, if consiousness ultimately exists, how does in it exist, in what way. You have yet to define "exists."

[tiltbillings]

And don't forget, Alex, that when you try to answer the OP question by pointing to the nature of the khandhas, you are defining the tathagata in those terms, which the Buddha rejected (SN III 116-8).

[Alex123]

And don't forget, Alex, that when you try to answer the OP question by pointing to the nature of the khandhas, you are defining the tathagata in those terms, which the Buddha rejected (SN III 116-8).

I am not defining Tathagata in terms of the khandhas. All I am saying is that Khandhas cease, and since Tathagata is not found within or outside of the Khandhas, no annihilation takes place.

[tiltbillings]

And don't forget, Alex, that when you try to answer the OP question by pointing to the nature of the khandhas, you are defining the tathagata in those terms, which the Buddha rejected (SN III 116-8).

I am not defining Tathagata in terms of the khandhas. All I am saying is that Khandhas cease, and since Tathagata is not found within or outside of the Khandhas, no annihilation takes place.

Okay, then you cannnot draw any conclusion from the khandhas about the nature of the tathagata.

[Alex123]

And don't forget, Alex, that when you try to answer the OP question by pointing to the nature of the khandhas, you are defining the tathagata in those terms, which the Buddha rejected (SN III 116-8).

I am not defining Tathagata in terms of the khandhas. All I am saying is that Khandhas cease, and since Tathagata is not found within or outside of the Khandhas, no annihilation takes place.

Okay, then you cannnot draw any conclusion from the khandhas about the nature of the tathagata.

Can there be sentient existence without aggregates? If Tathagata is not found in/out of aggregates, then what difference is it from non-existence?

Flying pink unicorns are not found in truth or reality. Does it mean that they have some form of indescribable existence, or that we cannot draw any conclusion about their "nature"?

[tiltbillings]

Can there be sentient existence without aggregates? If Tathagata is not found in/out of aggregates, then what difference is it from non-existence?

Yes, yes, well. What you are doing is trying to comprehend, pin down, the tathagata in terms of the khandhas, which the Buddha rejected.

[tiltbillings]

Flying pink unicorns are not found in truth or reality. Does it mean that they have some form of indescribable existence, or that we cannot draw any conclusion about their "nature"?

And now you are equating tathagatas with flying pink unicorns. You have no argument.

[tiltbillings]

Suttas according to Alex:

And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the flying pink uniocorn as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the flying pink uniocorn — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The flying pink uniocorn exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"