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 11:47 pm

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

If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?

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

Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.
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 11:56 pm

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

If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?


The Buddha, after Awakening, was nonetheless still composed of five aggregates.

What causes dukkha is craving and clinging brought on by ignorance.
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

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

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:09 am

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

Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.


OK, if you want to judge, compare, etc that is fine, but seeing something how it is isn't about how other things are, just how it is! and in and of themselves compared to nothing but itself it is neutral!against itself it can not be good or bad, it can only be itself, which puts it in the neutral position!
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: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

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

Postby Individual » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:22 am

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

Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.


OK, if you want to judge, compare, etc that is fine, but seeing something how it is isn't about how other things are, just how it is! and in and of themselves compared to nothing but itself it is neutral!against itself it can not be good or bad, it can only be itself, which puts it in the neutral position!

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.
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 Element » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:36 am

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:
Element
 

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

Postby Individual » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:44 am

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

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

Postby stuka » Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:05 am

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

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

Postby Ben » Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:39 am

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

Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


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

Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15944
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

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

Postby Element » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:35 am

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
Element
 

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

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:47 am

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
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: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

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

Postby Element » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:03 am

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?'
Element
 

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

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:33 am

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
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: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

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

Postby Element » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:38 am

Manapa wrote:I wouldn't say "incinerate or eradicate" rather let go of

You may not say but i say "incinerate". :guns:
Element
 

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

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:48 am

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:
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: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

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

Postby Prasadachitta » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:57 pm

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
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 » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:58 am

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

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

Postby Element » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:04 am

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:
Element
 

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

Postby Prasadachitta » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:31 am

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
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 Cittasanto » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:53 am

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!
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: 5687
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

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

Postby stuka » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:18 pm

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...)
User avatar
stuka
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests