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

[Mkoll]

I seriously doubt that Ven. Thanissaro would consider himself a "pantheist."

From my limited experience of seeing him talk once and reading a lot of his articles, I would agree.

[Lazy_eye]

I have read Bhikkhu Thanissaro's books, including The Mind Like Fire Unbound. As I mention in that article, he doesn't call it pantheism and calling it that is no doubt a stretch, but it does hint at eternalism as several other threads here on this subject have touched on.

What I'm wondering about specifically is how Thanissaro understands parinibbbana. In the "non-existence" view, when the Buddha or arahant dies, he's just dead, that's it. No more sentient than a Buddha statue.

The view expressed by Wallace (in my post above) is obviously somewhat different. I'm not sure if it is representative of Vajrayana or not (I will ask at the other forum), but it seems obviously pantheistic in nature. I'm curious as to whether Thanissaro's view is similar to Wallace's.

[DNS]

Thanks for the posts in this thread and feedback on my article. I have added this language to make it clear Thannissaro is not a pantheist:

In the case of Thanissaro Bhikkhu it is clearly not pantheistic as he notes in his No self or not self article: "If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness; one's own or that of others; impossible." However, although not pantheistic, in the description given to a fire unbound, and reference to a not self concept instead of no self; there is the implication of some kind of subtle existence in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's teachings and also in other teachers of the Thai forest tradition and others in Theravada.

"No-self or Not-self?", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html .
"Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html .

[DNS]

What I'm wondering about specifically is how Thanissaro understands parinibbbana. In the "non-existence" view, when the Buddha or arahant dies, he's just dead, that's it. No more sentient than a Buddha statue.

The view expressed by Wallace (in my post above) is obviously somewhat different. I'm not sure if it is representative of Vajrayana or not (I will ask at the other forum), but it seems obviously pantheistic in nature. I'm curious as to whether Thanissaro's view is similar to Wallace's.

Yes, I agree and you may have figured out from my article that what I am doing is a sort of skillful means. For many Buddhists especially those new to Buddhism, the orthodox view of Nibbana sounds pessimistic and nihilistic. I have heard from several people new to Buddhism who later advanced along the Path, that if they had heard about [orthodox view of] Nibbana, no-self / no soul at the beginning, that they would have given up on Buddhism right there in the beginning. Since they saw the benefits of the practice and philosophy and found about it later, they decided to stay with the Dhamma.

[Zom]

Yes, I agree and you may have figured out from my article that what I am doing is a sort of skillful means. For many Buddhists especially those new to Buddhism, the orthodox view of Nibbana sounds pessimistic and nihilistic. I have heard from several people new to Buddhism who later advanced along the Path, that if they had heard about [orthodox view of] Nibbana, no-self / no soul at the beginning, that they would have given up on Buddhism right there in the beginning. Since they saw the benefits of the practice and philosophy and found about it later, they decided to stay with the Dhamma.

In this case the skillful explanation is: nibbana = ending of greed/hatred/delusion. Saying that nibbana is some transcendental "out of space and time" existence (or smth like that) is a bad idea.

[DNS]

In this case the skillful explanation is: nibbana = ending of greed/hatred/delusion. Saying that nibbana is some transcendental "out of space and time" existence (or smth like that) is a bad idea.

I'm not saying what it is; just reporting the different views on the subject.

[Bakmoon]

I personally never looked at Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view of Nibbana as being pantheistic. I've always come away with the understanding that he teaches that at Nibbana the mind becomes indefinite or indeterminate and can't be pinned down or described rather than that he teaches some sort of oneness. I personally don't really agree with that kind of view, but I can definitely see where in the suttas he is getting that kind of understanding and I certainly think it falls within the realm of legitimate differences of interpretation of very subtle points rather than being a major doctrinal divide.

[SarathW]

I have read many books of Ven. T.
I have such an admiration for him for his contribution to Buddhism in terms of his effort in translation and writing his books.
He warned us the danger of trying to objectify the none objectified.
The same time he went on to say there is a consciousness outside the five aggregate as an explanation for Nibbana.
I think the safest bet is to leave Nibbana as it is and try to attain a one step short of Parinibbna. (sa-upadisesa Nibbana dhatu) which we all can experience in this life itself.
=============================
"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life plunges into Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it."

http://buddhasutra.com/files/cula_vedalla_sutta.htm

[Lazy_eye]

Thanks for the responses. I also don't see the question as cause for a major doctrinal divide, but it's not entirely insignificant either. Part of the reason has to do with skillful means as David mentioned above. It's not just that the non-existence view could put people off, but also that people who lack a strong belief in rebirth (or who lose that belief for some reason) may drift into annihilationism and moral nihilism.

This might be less of a risk with the "undifferentiated awareness" sort of view, as it presents the culmination of the path in more positive terms.

The different views may also be relevant to Buddhist ecumenicalism, if such a thing can be said to exist. Thanissaro's view and the Thai Forest Tradition in general seem to bear some affinities with Zen and perhaps some Tibetan schools, whereas that might be less the case with proponents of the non-existence view.

I'm not advocating any particular view, by the way. It's just something I'm interested in. I remember listening to a talk by Joseph Goldstein several years ago in which he recounted his experiences over the years with different traditions. He also mentioned the different points in his life journey where he had run into some sort of doctrinal problem that caused him difficulty. One of them, if I remember rightly, was this question. He had started out being trained by Burmese teachers but at some point engaged with the Thai Forest Tradition and found that their teachings on nibbana were quite different.

[beeblebrox]

The different views may also be relevant to Buddhist ecumenicalism, if such a thing can be said to exist. Thanissaro's view and the Thai Forest Tradition in general seem to bear some affinities with Zen and perhaps some Tibetan schools, whereas that might be less the case with proponents of the non-existence view.

Hi Lazy Eye,

It is my impression (which could be mistaken) that Ven. Thanissaro still would prefer it if his views were not associated with these. He's been critical of things like the Buddha nature, the so-called romanticism in Buddhism, etc.

[Lazy_eye]

The different views may also be relevant to Buddhist ecumenicalism, if such a thing can be said to exist. Thanissaro's view and the Thai Forest Tradition in general seem to bear some affinities with Zen and perhaps some Tibetan schools, whereas that might be less the case with proponents of the non-existence view.

Hi Lazy Eye,

It is my impression (which could be mistaken) that Ven. Thanissaro still would prefer it if his views were not associated with these. He's been critical of things like the Buddha nature, the so-called romanticism in Buddhism, etc.

Yes, that's a good point. Still, it could be true that affinities exist in some areas, even if there are differences in others.

And although I'm not enough of a logician to build this case, I have a sneaking suspicion that the notion of an "undifferentiated awareness" can be shown to imply something like Buddha nature. Because if such an awareness is possible, it must in some sense be intrinsic to sentient beings. That is, you can't simply subtract conditioned awareness, and then presto, a new kind of unconditioned awareness springs up where there was none before. The concept itself necessitates an already-existing pure mind.

That's my hunch anyway.

[Kwaingo]

Indian Buddhist wrote: "It is easy for Western people to follow Buddhism because they live in comforts of life. Here in India, there are poor people who do daily Physical labour for 12-14 hours per day lifting weights of 100 kgs behind their back for an earning of 100 Rs(2 Dollar) per day."

Hmmm....just curious, why this quote about "western people" (whatever country they come from, people of European descent I presume, or Farang as we call them...) Just a clue, most Buddhists are not westerners. Most are Asian, and most are poor(as are most people in the world btw, at least in terms of money). I am Lao. In Laos, people are poor, even more poor than what you describe. Some make LESS than the equivalent of $1 a day, so the amount you quote would be quite fantastic to most Lao people, $60 a month could be considered middle class! And we work just as hard. Do you assume that most posters on this forum are a bunch of privileged white folks living in America or Europe? Most Buddhists are poor, whether it be Thailand, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, etc. Yet many of us try to follow Dhamma. And many follow Dhamma devoutly. Many ordain as monks or as precept-keeping laypeople. How does "comfort" make it easier to follow Buddhism? I can see how it could also be a hindrance. Many poor people in southeast Asia ordain as monks to escape poverty, to have more opportunities to study, etc. The level of devotion to Buddhism in a country like Myanmar is humbling, no, their poverty, nor the poverty of Lao, Thai, Cambodian, Sri Lankan, etc. does prevents them from being Buddhist or following the teachings of Buddha, meditating, going to the monastery, doing other Buddhist things. If anything, it makes them try harder, to seek a better rebirth or even Nibbana. So I am not totally clear what your point is, and I think you are making some serious assumptions.

[seeker242]

Again and Again the Buddha talks about Noble ones seek the Deathless - One which is not subject to Rebirth.

So Nibbana has to be Permanent right?.

Conventionally speaking, yes. The Buddha could not stop being a Buddha and go back to being an ordinary person again, that would be impossible. It's a final end of suffering and rebirth.

But to ask "where does one go after?" is a misguided question to begin with because the concept of "one", it fails to take into account "Anatta".

I like this little story.

Once there was a layman who came to Ajahn Chah and asked him who Ajahn Chah was. Ajahn Chah, seeing that the spiritual development of the individual was not very advanced, pointed to himself and said, "This, this is Ajahn Chah."

On another occasion, Ajahn Chah was asked the same question by someone else. This time, however, seeing that the questioner's capacity to understand the Dhamma was higher, Ajahn Chah answered by saying, "Ajahn Chah? There is NO Ajahn Chah."

If there is "no Ajahn Chah", then how can Ajahn Chah go anywhere? If there is no Ajahn Chah, the whole question becomes not applicable.

What is the Motivation for him to follow Buddhism if all he can gain from it is UNKNOWN?

Faith that what the Buddha says is true. Faith that you can realize what the Buddha realized and find freedom, where the unknown becomes known.

I like this explanation.

If we follow through the comparison of the Buddhist discipline to a tree, faith (saddha) would be the seed, for it is faith that provides the initial impulse through which the training is taken up, and faith again that nourishes the training through every phase of its development. Virtue would be the roots, for it is virtue that gives grounding to our spiritual endeavors just as the roots give grounding to a tree. Concentration would be the trunk, the symbol of strength, non-vacillation, and stability. And wisdom would be the branches, which yield the flowers of enlightenment and the fruits of deliverance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#roots

[Lostegasa]

The first is the nibbāna experienced by a person who has attained the goal and is still alive. This is described metaphorically as the extinguishing of passion, aversion, & delusion. The second is the nibbāna after death. The simile for these two states is the distinction between a fire that has gone out but whose embers are still warm, and one so totally out that its embers are cold. The Buddha used the views of fire current in his day in somewhat different ways when discussing these two levels of nibbāna, and so we must consider them separately.

Hello Dhammakid and all, I loved this topic and the post of Dhammakid also about Nibbana and this quote.
The Fire from my experience is this power and energy of life and any effort of doing, acting, breathing, living, digging, lasting, feeling, joking (hope you got it) and this power goes upward towards Nibbana through great effort and discernment. What left is nothing of your concern and death will take it.

[dhammacoustic]

1. Once you've attained nibbana, you no longer have a fixed conception of you and no longer place any importance on whether you continue or cease, or change or whatever. But, to the point, Nibbana is not a place and no one can 'go there'. You simply cease to cling to your own existence and no longer think of yourself as eternal and unchanging, and what it is more, you have no desire for an eternal, unchanging self.

2. Nibbana has no feeling. It is not something that exists, but is lack greed, hate and delusion and all the mental states, and mental turmoil, that arise because of them. But, when an arahant reflects on the cessation of greed, hate, delusion, and all the mental turmoil, they feel pleasure. But they don't try to keep that pleasure for ever, and don't morn when it fades away.

3. No one stays in nibbana for ever. But once greed, hate and delusion have been existinguished in a human being, they don't return. So, this non-returning of greed, hate and delusion could be seen as eternal nibbana.

Hi, but I should inform you that you're knowledge about Nibbana is not really accurate. Nibbana has nothing to do with annihilation. It can't be described using conventional words, that's all. It's not a state of being or non-being - totally different than all sorts temporal individual experiences.

My questions are :-

On attaining Nibbana:-
1. Where does one go?.
2. What are the qualities of attaining Nibbana. Is it pure happiness and bliss?.
3. Does one stay in Nibbana state permanently for infinite eons?.

1. It's true that Nibbana has its unique sphere, which is beyond all samsaric and formless existence.
2. I haven't experienced it. But i know a few things about it, talked to many people and i have my knowledge on idea level still. But if you wanna hear, i'd say that Nibbana is beyond joy and pain. It's calm, cool, the point where there is no need to go any further. The point which allows you to be still and restful outside of all sorts of time/movement zones. The ultimate thing.
3. No, there is no "staying" in Nibbana. Once Nibbana is seen, the next is to experience it, and after that - you are Nibbana. Infinite eons - it's nothing compared to what is "unconditional", see?

Hope it helped.