Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

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

Postby Individual » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:14 am

Peter wrote:I would bet that most rebirth-deniers you and I encounter do in fact hold a view of self.

I would bet that most rebirth proponents and deniers hold a view of self, of some sort. For a while now, I've realized that people who are opposed to "literal rebirth," seem to be subtle annihilationists and those who are opposed to "non-literal rebirth," are subtle eternalists, while for people who are beyond such views, it's really not that big of a deal, not that important of an argument.

And for people who basically agree on what rebirth means, it can be easy to get into unnecessary arguments about the proper way of describing it, making false claims of wrong views in others.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

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

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:29 am

Precisely so... yet people often falsely accuse others of being annihilationists, simply because they deny literal rebirth or feel that literal rebirth is largely irrelevant to Buddhist practice. Such accusations are often levelled by those who have heavily invested in the truth of rebirth, such as those who have taken bodhisattva vows etc.

Metta,
Retro. :)


If you think about it from Buddhistic point of view accusing anyone of "being" anything is a false accusation. Dont you think? I do not think it is correct to say that any of us unenlightened beings are "not annihilationist" either. In reality there is not even really any idea we could call literal rebirth. I would just say that every now and then we all dwell in the idea that our beings are coming to an end and at other times we dwell in the idea that we have nothing to fear and that everything will be alright. If we hold that there is no rebirth in a literal sense it is wrong in the sense that it is holding to an idea that can never "be" reality. Is it annihilationist? To say this is just as wrong.


Metta


Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

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

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:39 am

Peter Wrote
Trying to knock down a strawman with another strawman, retro? ;)

retrofuturist wrote:

Isnt annihilationism just a flase view that there is a self to be annihilated instead of seeing that there was no permanent self in the first place to be annihilated as all things are impermanent, dukkha and not-self and are dependent on conditions?

Precisely so... yet people often falsely accuse others of being annihilationists, simply because they deny literal rebirth


Are you suggesting these "others" you refer to are sotapanna? Remember, the Buddha teaches it is only with the attainment of sotapanna that one no longer takes the five aggregates as self. I would argue that just because one intellectually assents to the teaching of anatta does not mean they do not actually hold a view of self, even if they themselves may not be aware of it. I would bet that most rebirth-deniers you and I encounter do in fact hold a view of self.


Does anyone really "hold" a view? I would say that Buddhas dont see beings "holding views". All they see is stressful delusion heaped upon stressful delusion. If we think we are holding a view then we are not being mindful. If we think that others are holding a view we are not being mindful. We should all learn what papunna means. I think if we really learned what it meant we would be sotapanna.


Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

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

Postby stuka » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:48 am

Peter wrote:Trying to knock down a strawman with another strawman, retro? ;)


It is good that you acknowledge your straw man of trying to stick an "annihilationist" label on those of us who -- like the Buddha -- find the arguments "re-birth" vs. "no-rebirth" irrelevant.

I would bet that most rebirth-deniers you and I encounter do in fact hold a view of self.


There are "rebirth"-believers, there are "rebirth"-deniers, and there are those who, like the Buddha, see and know that both positions are speculative views and irrelevant to the business of the eradication of suffering. It's just not that hard to figure out.
Last edited by stuka on Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:58 am

Greetings Peter,

Peter wrote:Are you suggesting these "others" you refer to are sotapanna? Remember, the Buddha teaches it is only with the attainment of sotapanna that one no longer takes the five aggregates as self.

The fetter that has to be broken for stream-entry is the speculative view of self (either annihilationist or eternalist). I agree there's more to it than just having a think about it and saying, "OK, that makes sense"... but it certainly doesn't require the tendency to never think in terms of a self. Such habitual tendencies are only totally eradicated at arahantship when mana is eradicated.

Peter wrote: I would argue that just because one intellectually assents to the teaching of anatta does not mean they do not actually hold a view of self, even if they themselves may not be aware of it. I would bet that most rebirth-deniers you and I encounter do in fact hold a view of self.

Views of self may be explicit or implicit. I agree that eradication of explicit views on self, does not also count as eradication of implicit views.

Nonetheless, I can assure you my example was not a straw man, even if it's not one that you personally align yourself to.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

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

Postby stuka » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:09 am

Individual wrote:while for people who are beyond such views, it's really not that big of a deal, not that important of an argument.


People who are beyond such views nonetheless are sick to death of being accused by crusading fatuous dilletanti of being annihiliationists.
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:22 am

Greetings,

stuka wrote:People who are beyond such views nonetheless are sick to death of being accused by crusading fatuous dilletanti of being annihiliationists.


Yes, hence my reasons for starting this topic and keeping it distinct from the melee of the Great Rebirth Debate. Even myself, I've been accused of denying rebirth in the past simply because I find non-time-delineated models of dependent origination (a la Buddhadasa) more practical than the three-lives commentarial version. :shrug:

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

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

Postby stuka » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:38 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

stuka wrote:People who are beyond such views nonetheless are sick to death of being accused by crusading fatuous dilletanti of being annihiliationists.


Yes, hence my reasons for starting this topic and keeping it distinct from the melee of the Great Rebirth Debate. Even myself, I've been accused of denying rebirth in the past simply because I find non-time-delineated models of dependent origination (a la Buddhadasa) more practical than the three-lives commentarial version. :shrug:

Metta,
Retro. :)


All the more bizarre because the Buddha himself never once taught or alluded to the later "three-lives" eisegesis [EDIT: Please refer from the guidelines to this forum - "Feel free to attack the ideas of others, but never attack them personally, either directly or by inference. This need for interpersonal decency extends also to those who may have originally conceived the ideas being debated (e.g. the Buddha, commentators, bhikkhus, scholars). Thanks, Retro.]

We appreciate very much your efforts to clarify matters in the most peaceful ways, friend Retro. :toast:
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Postby clw_uk » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:17 pm

not sure if this ties in but where does the three tires come from? is it pali canon or commentary
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

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

Postby Dhammanando » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:22 pm

Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote:not sure if this ties in but where does the three tires come from? is it pali canon or commentary


The three tires come from Tireland.

tire.jpg
tire.jpg (39.63 KiB) Viewed 1104 times


If it was the three lives that you meant, then this doctrine is expounded in brief in the canonical Paṭisambhidāmagga and in detail in the commentarial Visuddhimagga.

From the Paṭisambhidāmagga:

    In kamma-process becoming before this life there is delusion, which is ignorance; there is accumulation, which is formations; there is attachment, which is craving; there is adoption, which is grasping; there is volition, which is being; thus these five dhammas in kamma-process becoming before this life are conditions for rebirth-linking here in the present life.

    Here in the present life there is rebirth-linking, which is consciousness; there is precipitation in the womb, which is mentality-materiality; there is sensitivity, which is sense-base; there is what is touched, which is contact; there is what is felt, which is feeling; thus these five dhammas in rebirth-process becoming here have their condition in kamma done in the past.

    Here in the present life with the maturing of the bases there is delusion, which is ignorance; there is accumulation, which is formations; there is attachment, which is craving; there is adoption, which is grasping; there is volition, which is being; thus these five dhammas in kamma-process becoming here are conditions for rebirth-linking in the future.

    In the future there is rebirth-linking, which is consciousness; there is precipitation in the womb, which is mentality-materiality; there is sensitivity, which is sense-base; there is what is touched, which is contact; there is what is felt, which is feeling; thus these five dhammas in rebirth-process becoming in the future have their conditions in kamma done here in the present life.
    (Path of Discrimination 52)

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

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

Postby clw_uk » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:24 pm

thank you very much, i did mean three lives not really sure how or why i spelt it that way :jumping:

:namaste:
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

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

Postby Element » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:11 pm

Individual wrote:I do not hold the self to be the five aggregates, but the illusion of self does manifest through them.

Any illusion manifests through ignorance. The five aggregates are neutral.
Element
 

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

Postby stuka » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:16 pm

Dhammanando wrote:Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote:not sure if this ties in but where does the three tires come from? is it pali canon or commentary


The three tires come from Tireland.

Image




ROFLMAO!
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Postby Individual » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:44 pm

stuka wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

stuka wrote:People who are beyond such views nonetheless are sick to death of being accused by crusading fatuous dilletanti of being annihiliationists.


Yes, hence my reasons for starting this topic and keeping it distinct from the melee of the Great Rebirth Debate. Even myself, I've been accused of denying rebirth in the past simply because I find non-time-delineated models of dependent origination (a la Buddhadasa) more practical than the three-lives commentarial version. :shrug:

Metta,
Retro. :)


All the more bizarre because the Buddha himself never once taught or alluded to the later "three-lives" eisegesis.

We appreciate very much your efforts to clarify matters in the most peaceful ways, friend Retro.

It's important to remember, though, that non-time-delineated models of dependent origination doesn't mean that consciousness isn't "reborn." Only that it isn't reborn according to the structure of linear or relativistic time as we currently understand it. Now, by saying that I'm not putting forth a speculative theory, creating some wacky speculative combination of dependent origination and quantum physics, just that provided that the Buddha was telling the truth, consciousness is reborn, because the non-time-delineated model of dependent origination isn't the same thing as a "one lifetime model." Indeed, with such a one-lifetime model based on materialism, you'd have to explain how the dependent origination began at birth (distinguishing this birth from jati) and ends at death (distinguishing this death from marana). This would also contradict cause & effect, but again, you might claim that cause & effect simply began once you started thinking about it and ceases when you stop thinking about it.

And yes, I'd also say I appreciate Retro's wise efforts to clarity matters in the most peaceful ways. :)
Last edited by retrofuturist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited the quotation of stuka to reflect the edit made to his earlier post
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

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

Postby Individual » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:47 pm

Element wrote:
Individual wrote:I do not hold the self to be the five aggregates, but the illusion of self does manifest through them.

Any illusion manifests through ignorance. The five aggregates are neutral.

Anything that manifests -- real or illusion -- goes through the dependent origination, of which ignorance is just a part, albeit the foundation.

When you say the five aggregates are neutral, neutral with regards to what? In making that judgment of value, what are you comparing them to, to say they are "neutral"?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

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

Postby stuka » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:55 pm

Individual wrote:It's important to remember, though, that non-time-delineated models of dependent origination doesn't mean that consciousness isn't "reborn."


"Vinnana" is not "reborn" in paticcasamuppada, or any of the Buddha's other teachings..

Now, by saying that I'm not putting forth a speculative theory, creating some wacky speculative combination of dependent origination and quantum physics,


Of course you are.

just that provided that the Buddha was telling the truth, consciousness is reborn,


Poor Sati, caught in a net of much craving...

because the non-time-delineated model of dependent origination isn't the same thing as a "one lifetime model." Indeed, with such a one-lifetime model based on materialism, you'd have to explain how the dependent origination began at birth (distinguishing this birth from jati) and ends at death (distinguishing this death from marana). This would also contradict cause & effect, but again, you might claim that cause & effect simply began once you started thinking about it and ceases when you stop thinking about it.


Who, besides you, is this "you" who is espousing a "materialist one-lifetime model"...?
Last edited by stuka on Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Postby Element » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:17 pm

Individual wrote:When you say the five aggregates are neutral, neutral with regards to what? In making that judgment of value, what are you comparing them to, to say they are "neutral"?

Individual,

The five aggregates are neutral in regards to dukkha.

The illusion of self and dukkha manifest through ignorance.

To see the five aggregates as merely the five aggregates is the essense of satipatthana & actually something quite profound.

It is one thing to anihilate one's thought processes and another thing to see the satipatthana with clear comprehension.

With metta,

Element
Element
 

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

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:19 pm

Hi Element, and Individual

Individual wrote:
Element wrote:
Individual wrote:I do not hold the self to be the five aggregates, but the illusion of self does manifest through them.

Any illusion manifests through ignorance. The five aggregates are neutral.

Anything that manifests -- real or illusion -- goes through the dependent origination, of which ignorance is just a part, albeit the foundation.

When you say the five aggregates are neutral, neutral with regards to what? In making that judgment of value, what are you comparing them to, to say they are "neutral"?


everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

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

Postby Element » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:36 pm

Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?

I say everything is not neutral. Buddha said the cause of dukkha should be abandoned and the path to the cessation of dukkha should be developed.

In other words, the Buddha recommended removing attachment out of the five aggregates rather than anihilating the five aggregates.

The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
Element
 

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

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:26 pm

Hi Element

Element wrote:
Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?

I say everything is not neutral. Buddha said the cause of dukkha should be abandoned and the path to the cessation of dukkha should be developed.

In other words, the Buddha recommended removing attachment out of the five aggregates rather than anihilating the five aggregates.

The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.


if you compare everything against everything else no it wont be, but if you let it be how it is, compare it to nothing but itself then it is neutral!
so can you be attached to anything you don't care about in any way?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ck_c and 10 guests