On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

[Ariya Suriya]

W E W I L L N E V E R A G A I N LIE I N T H E W O M B ; )

But don't worry, the trick of parinibbana is that it can be enjoyed without conciousness, as a matter of fact, the five khandas are stressful for the arahant, so parinibbana is final release from these final burdens (the five khandas).

Anyway, I am pointing this out because apparently some famous teachers can't make peace with this fact, they just can't understand how extintion can be liberation if there is no conciousness and try to make nibbana fit into their interpretations. They are teaching BS in the name of the Buddha and misleading people on basic dhamma.

All the best,
Ariya Suriya

[Cittasanto]

W E W I L L N E V E R A G A I N LIE I N T H E W O M B ; )

But don't worry, the trick of parinibbana is that it can be enjoyed without conciousness, as a matter of fact, the five khandas are stressful for the arahant, so parinibbana is final release from these final burdens (the five khandas).

Anyway, I am pointing this out because apparently some famous teachers can't make peace with this fact, they just can't understand how extintion can be liberation if there is no conciousness and try to make nibbana fit into their interpretations. They are teaching BS in the name of the Buddha and misleading people on basic dhamma.

All the best,
Ariya Suriya

still no support then!
The Arahant has put down the burden, there is no more Dukkha, sure there will still be physical stresses and strains but these are not stressful as that would be a second dart, and extinction refers to fire, the fires of Greed Hatred & Delusion, and never again to lie in the womb refers to not being reborn.

Whether and how an Arahant exists after physical death is something put aside by the Buddha, and unless you can clearly show evidence the Buddha talked about not having any consciousness after the physical death then you are just adding to what is there.

[Ariya Suriya]

Yes... you are right...
But you yourself stated it, the arahant is not reborn after death... so after death he doesn't experience the five khandas, form, sensation, perception, determination and conciousness... The Buddha put aside the definition of the arahant after death as existence, non existence, both or neither, because such terms are improper to define the state of the Buddha after his passing away; which does not mean that the agreggate of viññana persists after death... for the one who is not reborn the five khandas are destroyed, as happens with any fabrication. Just got the feeling that many people can't deal with the idea of utter extintion... they want something to remain... of course, nibbana remains, which is supreme and IS something, but... the way I see it, there is no such a thing as conciousness in parinibbana...

All the best =)

[Cittasanto]

Yes... you are right...
But you yourself stated it, the arahant is not reborn after death... so after death he doesn't experience the five khandas, form, sensation, perception, determination and conciousness... The Buddha put aside the definition of the arahant after death as existence, non existence, both or neither, because such terms are improper to define the state of the Buddha after his passing away; which does not mean that the agreggate of viññana persists after death... for the one who is not reborn the five khandas are destroyed, as happens with any fabrication. Just got the feeling that many people can't deal with the idea of utter extintion... they want something to remain... of course, nibbana remains, which is supreme and IS something, but... the way I see it, there is no such a thing as conciousness in parinibbana...

All the best =)

What I said regarding rebirth is "never again to lie in the womb refers to not being reborn." i.e. the cycle of Dependent Arising no longer happens, not that aspects will or wont remain, no-one knows and you havn't shown otherwise.

stop adding to what is there you and no one else knows authoritatively unless they are an Arahant with the appropriate knowledges.

[Cittasanto]

Also where is your evidence that Thanissaro teaches your earlier claim about consciousness existing after death?

[mikenz66]

You want proof that in parinibbana there is no consciousness or proof that some people are scared at this fact? or proof of both?

that in parinibbana there is no consciousness.

this seemss very close to things the Buddha put aside, and I have not seen such a statement within the canon to my memory.

How about:

'This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana.'

MN 64, AN 9.36, and many other places.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

See also:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5935
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7281


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I think the disconnect between what Suriya and Cittasanto are saying is attributable to different interpretations of nirodha.

On one hand destruction, on the other quenching.

I may be wrong, but it seems that's what's happening.

Metta,
Retro.

[Ariya Suriya]

I don't say nibbana is not quenching, I say that for the arahant that has attained nibbana (quenching definition is right) after death the aggregates -viññana included- don't appear again (which is good).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Thanks for clarifying - I think it will help.

Metta,
Retro.

[Cittasanto]

no it is the making a claim that something is such a way when it is clearly not spelled out and disregarded, but I got board of it!

re - look at my initial responce, bottom of last page

[mikenz66]

Well, what I quoted can be interpreted that consciousness has ceased ("stilled"), since it is a "formation". That seems to be what Ven Nanananda is arguing in his Nibbana Sermons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katukurund ... rnal_links


Mike

[Cittasanto]

OK I'll bite
there can be ways of interpreting things which do mean that things stop being, or not

Generally speaking, the word "cease" means to do away with something which has already arisen, or the stopping of something which has already begun. However, nirodha in the teaching of Dependent Origination (as also in dukkhanirodha, the third of the Four Noble Truths) means the non-arising, or non-existence, of something because the cause of its arising is done away with. For example, the phrase "when avijja is nirodha, sankhara are also nirodha," which is usually taken to mean "with the cessation of ignorance, volitional impulses cease," in fact means "when there is no ignorance, or no arising of ignorance, or when there is no longer any problem with ignorance, there are no volitional impulses, volitional impulses do not arise, or there is no longer any problem with volitional impulses." It does not mean that ignorance already arisen must be done away with before the volitional impulses which have already arisen will also be done away with.

again the Buddha never categorically answered such a question, so saying anything does or does not exist in parinibbana is not necessarily true.

[Buckwheat]

Btw, Right / Wrong ditthis have nothing to do with conventional "self". They deal with ultimate-reality self.

This conventional self sounds like an annihilationist type of self view. The Mahayanist went into great detail creating philosophical contraptions to get around this idea. However, a simpler approach is Thanissaro's explaination of "conventional self" as a fabrication of intentional action. It is self-ing. Selfing in Thanissaro's interpretation is not inherently skillful or unskillful.

Selfing such that one claims "I demand respect" would not be skillful, only leading to suffering. Selfing such that one claims "I must practice the dhamma and purify my actions with urgency" is skillful and leads down a path toward liberation. Eventually, one stops selfing altogether and instead enjoys nirvana.

I fear that use of the phrase "conventional self" is used as an excuse to avoid facing up to the fact that there is a view of self, even if it is "conventional". It is for this reason that Thanissaro's interpretation of anatta is more broad and powerful than the no-self interpretation. This is a point I think some people miss: Thanissaro's motive for the Not-Self strategy is not to leave things open for some mystical self, or to water it down, but to make anatta more powerful and applicable to all the actions of our daily life. Am I self-ing? How? What are the implications?

That is something I can work with right here and now.