Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

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

Post 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.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Post 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.]
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

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

Post by Ben »

Please play the ball - not the man.
Thanks for your cooperation.

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Element

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

Post 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
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Post 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
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Element

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

Post 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?'
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Post 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
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Element

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

Post by Element »

Manapa wrote:I wouldn't say "incinerate or eradicate" rather let go of
You may not say but i say "incinerate". :guns:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Post 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:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

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

Post 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
"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
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Post by stuka »

gabrielbranbury wrote: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.
The Buddha Himself described the arising and passing away of things. For example, the arising and passing away of each of the six types of consciousness. According to your claim, the Buddha was an annihiliationist.
Element

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

Post by Element »

gabrielbranbury wrote:To conceive of any sustaining entity or quality"nomena" is eternalist.
The nomena is Nibbana. According to your claim, the Buddha was an eternalist. Thus, I disagree with Stuka, who claims the Buddha was an annihiliationist.

:toast:
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

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

Post by Prasadachitta »

Exist nor not exist
Nor both
Nor neither

:clap:
"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
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

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

Post by Cittasanto »

Element wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:To conceive of any sustaining entity or quality"nomena" is eternalist.
The nomena is Nibbana. According to your claim, the Buddha was an eternalist. Thus, I disagree with Stuka, who claims the Buddha was an annihiliationist.

:toast:
well there are a few dozen words used to describe Nibbana and a phrase "And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world"

so I will say the Buddha was what the Buddha was!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Post by stuka »

Element wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:To conceive of any sustaining entity or quality"nomena" is eternalist.
The nomena is Nibbana. According to your claim, the Buddha was an eternalist. Thus, I disagree with Stuka, who claims the Buddha was an annihiliationist.

:toast:

If we are to believe Individual, anyway...and I had always thought I was an anarchist...or an antichrist...(as dyslexia sets in...)
Post Reply