Parinirvana

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
GnosticBuddhist
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 2:50 pm

Parinirvana

Post by GnosticBuddhist »

Didn't want to make a fuss by starting a new thread but I couldn't find the answer anywhere. Is there anywhere preferably in the suttas but alternatively in the sutras where the Buddha himself talks about parinibbana? I know there's the Maha Parinibbana Sutta but it's only mentioned briefly and not by the buddha. Knowing the Theravadins I wouldn't be surprised if in the spirit of respect they called it that when it's not quite as fancy as has been let on. Not that the reference originated with the Theravadins of course. Help?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Parinirvana

Post by daverupa »

As I understand it, the term functions as a synthetic phrase that includes "nibbana" + "attaining-it" - so, parinibbana is the act of attaining nibbana, becoming an arahant if you will, but it isn't a special sort of nibbana.

It seems to have come to mean 'the nibbana that is the case after the final body drops' these days, but this can become a wooly sort of conversation, full of unnecessary oddities & complications.

So, there's talk of attaining nibbana everywhere. Do you mean something else?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Parinirvana

Post by bharadwaja »

In my understanding attaining nibbana is the attainment of silence (literally "no-sound") i.e. silencing the rattle (dukkha) of existence in a philosophical sense. It starts when one becomes an arahant and ends at death when nibbana becomes total/complete. Until then the arahant simply strives ( as a striver i.e. sramana) to keep his kilesas "silenced" to maintain his nibbana.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Parinirvana

Post by tiltbillings »

arhat wrote:In my understanding attaining nibbana is the attainment of silence (literally "no-sound") i.e. silencing the rattle (dukkha) of existence in a philosophical sense. It starts when one becomes an arahant and ends at death when nibbana becomes total/complete. Until then the arahant simply strives ( as a striver i.e. sramana) to keep his kilesas "silenced" to maintain his nibbana.
And if the arhant stops striving, he stops being an arahant?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Parinirvana

Post by bharadwaja »

tiltbillings wrote:And if the arhant stops striving, he stops being an arahant?
Just as much as the Buddha would have stopped being a Buddha if he had given up his ideal life and gone back to the life of a householder.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Parinirvana

Post by Mkoll »

arhat,

Your view is definitely not the orthodox Theravada interpretation. So I am naturally curious and interested.

What are the sources of your views? I do recall reading that the concept of the infallibility of an arahat was a point of contention among some of the early schools...

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Parinirvana

Post by bharadwaja »

Mkoll wrote:arhat,

Your view is definitely not the orthodox Theravada interpretation. So I am naturally curious and interested.

What are the sources of your views? I do recall reading that the concept of the infallibility of an arahat was a point of contention among some of the early schools...

:anjali:
Neither was the Buddha's views the orthodox Theravada interpretation. One has to know and realize certain things on one's own to reach Arhat-hood (or Buddha-hood), realization is not an ideology (interpretation) that one can cling to. I too am my own source of knowledge... that does not mean I don't read... I am well read but I have my own knowledge as well. You would be accurate in your claim that I do not parrot the Theravada tradition, but you may be wrong if you claim that by doing so I'm misinterpreting the Buddha's words. I follow the theravada canon (if you want to call it that) but not the Theravada ideology/interpretation. Modern European scholarship is neither Buddhist nor Theravadan but rather itself an interpretation of classical Theravada. I try to therefore avoid these interpretations of interpretations of interpretations.. and consider myself closer to truth in the Buddhist sense.
:namaste:
Last edited by bharadwaja on Fri May 16, 2014 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Parinirvana

Post by mikenz66 »

daverupa wrote:As I understand it, the term functions as a synthetic phrase that includes "nibbana" + "attaining-it" - so, parinibbana is the act of attaining nibbana, becoming an arahant if you will, but it isn't a special sort of nibbana.

It seems to have come to mean 'the nibbana that is the case after the final body drops' these days, but this can become a wooly sort of conversation, full of unnecessary oddities & complications.
Yes, see here, and what it links to...
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 69#p289776

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Parinirvana

Post by mikenz66 »

Mkoll wrote: I do recall reading that the concept of the infallibility of an arahat was a point of contention among some of the early schools...
It seems that it was.

See this post and links therein... (which I posted a three days ago... :reading:)
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 78#p289778

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Parinirvana

Post by bharadwaja »

Mkoll wrote:I do recall reading that the concept of the infallibility of an arahat was a point of contention among some of the early schools...
To the extent you take in Theravadan dogmas, you may be a follower of Theravadism rather than Buddhism. A Buddhist takes in only what is right, what is rational, what is ethical, what people normally consider good. Not traditional, literary, ideological dogma repeated ad nauseum by "elders".
Sorry if this sounds rude. :namaste:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Parinirvana

Post by tiltbillings »

arhat wrote:I too am my own source of knowledge
And what exactly do you mean by this?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Parinirvana

Post by bharadwaja »

tiltbillings wrote:And what exactly do you mean by this?
It means I don't quote sources where I know something for myself. I am my own authority. I can offer a rational explanation (possibly a deeper insight into aspects of Buddhism born of my own research and knowledge), but if someone says "that's not the traditional theravada belief", it's not something I can help with because I don't deal in dogmas. Anyways, the Theravada tradition itself has changed significantly since its earliest years so clinging to a particular belief thinking it takes one closer to Buddhism is largely a fallacy.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Parinirvana

Post by tiltbillings »

arhat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And what exactly do you mean by this?
It means I don't quote sources where I know something for myself. I am my own authority. I can offer a rational explanation (possibly a deeper insight into aspects of Buddhism born of my own research and knowledge), but if someone says "that's not the traditional theravada belief", it's not something I can help with because I don't deal in dogmas. Anyways, the Theravada tradition itself has changed significantly since its earliest years so clinging to a particular belief thinking it takes one closer to Buddhism is largely a fallacy.
This explains your fanciful notions about Pali, it would seem.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Parinirvana

Post by bharadwaja »

If that makes you feel better about your preconceptions. :thumbsup:

But honestly, do you think there is no dogma in the Theravada tradition as you understand it?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Parinirvana

Post by Mkoll »

arhat wrote:To the extent you take in Theravadan dogmas, you may be a follower of Theravadism rather than Buddhism.
You've got to be more specific than that if you want to make an argument. All I see is an ad hominem.
arhat wrote:A Buddhist takes in only what is right, what is rational, what is ethical, what people normally consider good.
That is so vague as to be meaningless at best, especially the last part. What people normally consider good varies across time and place. In the United States, what people normally consider good is financial success and the material things to show for it. So by that argument's standards, the best Buddhists in the US are those who the richest and most successful. And I'm not going to even touch Nazi Buddhists!

I know this is not what you meant, but the point I'm making is that your argument is seriously flawed.

~~~

Please present your argument in a specific and detailed way such that it answers some of the many questions you've brought up.

What are you talking of when you say the following? And what is your evidence?
arhat wrote:"Anyways, the Theravada tradition itself has changed significantly since its earliest years so clinging to a particular belief thinking it takes one closer to Buddhism is largely a fallacy"

If anyone can legitimately use the term Arhat today as a self-designator, it would be someone like me. Perhaps there are a lot of arhats in this dhammawheel sangha, but only one decided to use it to identify oneself.

The arhat is one who has gone beyond duality and attained the non-dual nature (i.e. non-hypocritical integrity) of Buddhahood by slaying his own vile alter-ego.
~~~

To be frank, most of what I have seen so far from you are a lot of bold claims with no evidence backing them up. As far as I can tell, all of these claims are your own hypotheses. I don't see any theories backed up by evidence, yet.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Post Reply