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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

mikenz66 wrote:As I read it, either denying or clinging to one's ideas of an objective reality would be an error:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha wrote:"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. ...
tiltbillings wrote:And how do we know the "objective universe?" By direct experience.

Direct experience is the only thing that actually matters in terms of Dhamma practice.
:anjali:
Mike
Dear Mike

I'm loathe to take another potshot at the Not-Self "strategy" but can we be certain that the Buddha contemplated Atta to be part of the "Everything" discussed in SN 12.15? "Everything" in that sutta is "Sabba", which as Tilt pointed out from SN 35.24 is limited to phassa, and by inference, the Aggregates. In fact, other than "Sabba", SN 12.15 also uses its synonym "Loka", which the Rohitassa Suttas elucidate to be just this fathom-long body endowed its sanna and mano.

If someone were to assert that unicorns are part of Sabba/Loka, should we abstain from categorically denying the existence of unicorns?

The only utility I see to the strategy per se is that it perhaps prevents dogmatism based on faith alone, but I'm not sure if it has any other soteriological value.

:anjali:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sylvester,

Perhaps I didn't express myself well. Or perhaps I don't understand your point. I can't quite see the connection with the "notself strategy".

What I mean is that I take that Sutta as saying that:
1. It is an extreme to claim that there is no objective reality';
2 It is an extreme to claim that everything one perceives or thinks about is part of an objective reality.

I'm sure that my understanding is rather imperfect, and may well be completely wrong, but I don't see why it would gives rise to the Unicorn problem you mention. Perhaps you could explain further.

Mike
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

Dear Mike

What I was hoping to suggest was that "Everything" (Sabba) in SN 12.15 was not intended by the Buddha to refer to the totality of the contents of this cosmos. I read "Sabba" as having a more limited meaning, ie the khandhas. I think you will find Ven Thanissaro offering a similar explanation for this term here -

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

at footnote #1.

If my reading is correct, it would perhaps be more meaningful to apply the admonition in SN 12.15 to simply be a rejection of the extremes of "The Aggregates exist" and "The Aggregates do not exist".

I think the Buddha was not too concerned with the other bits of the universe that do not constitute Dukkha. The 1st Noble Truth identifies Dukkha with the 5 Clinging Aggregates, while the Culavedalla Sutta elucidates that the 5 Clinging Aggregates are called sakkayo/identity by the Buddha. All self-views are ultimately traced to some form of identification with the khandhas and I suspect that is why the Mulapariyaya Sutta lays bare those roots of self-view in their various manifestations.

If a unicorn is therefore not part of the Sabba menagerie, should we apply SN 12.15 to take a middle stance regarding its existence or non-existence?

With metta.
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Shonin »

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
- Sabba Sutta: The All
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sylvester,

Thanks for the clarification.
Sylvester wrote:Dear Mike

What I was hoping to suggest was that "Everything" (Sabba) in SN 12.15 was not intended by the Buddha to refer to the totality of the contents of this cosmos. I read "Sabba" as having a more limited meaning, ie the khandhas. I think you will find Ven Thanissaro offering a similar explanation for this term here -

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

at footnote #1.

If my reading is correct, it would perhaps be more meaningful to apply the admonition in SN 12.15 to simply be a rejection of the extremes of "The Aggregates exist" and "The Aggregates do not exist".
Sure, but I don't see how that changes the meaning I took from it. That one should neither insist that the aggregates have no reality and are just figments of our imagination (as seems to be sometimes argued), nor insist that they are completely objectively real.

Or am I missing something?
Sylvester wrote: I think the Buddha was not too concerned with the other bits of the universe that do not constitute Dukkha. The 1st Noble Truth identifies Dukkha with the 5 Clinging Aggregates, while the Culavedalla Sutta elucidates that the 5 Clinging Aggregates are called sakkayo/identity by the Buddha. All self-views are ultimately traced to some form of identification with the khandhas and I suspect that is why the Mulapariyaya Sutta lays bare those roots of self-view in their various manifestations.

If a unicorn is therefore not part of the Sabba menagerie, should we apply SN 12.15 to take a middle stance regarding its existence or non-existence?

I'm not arguing that every figment of our imagination exists... :tongue:

Mike
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

Dear Mike

Thanks for the clarification. It looks then that we're on the same page. It appears I misattributed to you the position taken by others that SN 12.15 is some form of radical idealism pertaining to all phenomena "out there".
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:Dear Mike

Thanks for the clarification. It looks then that we're on the same page. It appears I misattributed to you the position taken by others that SN 12.15 is some form of radical idealism pertaining to all phenomena "out there".
And I certainly hope your are not attributing to me a "radical idealism."
>> 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
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

tiltbillings wrote:
Sylvester wrote:Dear Mike

Thanks for the clarification. It looks then that we're on the same page. It appears I misattributed to you the position taken by others that SN 12.15 is some form of radical idealism pertaining to all phenomena "out there".
And I certainly hope your are not attributing to me a "radical idealism."
I haven't sniffed it, yet.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Sylvester wrote:Dear Mike

Thanks for the clarification. It looks then that we're on the same page. It appears I misattributed to you the position taken by others that SN 12.15 is some form of radical idealism pertaining to all phenomena "out there".
And I certainly hope your are not attributing to me a "radical idealism."
I haven't sniffed it, yet.
Yay. No radical idealist me!
>> 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
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

Perhaps an epistemological atomist (for want of a better term), if you subscribe to Kalupahana's description above?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:Perhaps an epistemological atomist (for want of a better term), if you subscribe to Kalupahana's description above?
Only if you would read D. [N.].15{II,62} in tghose terms.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Sylvester »

Heaven forbid. Nothing close to ontological atomism, if that was what you thought I was suggesting. More like propositional atomism, a la Vienna Circle.

For myself, I don't know...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:Heaven forbid. Nothing close to ontological atomism, if that was what you thought I was suggesting. More like propositional atomism, a la Vienna Circle.

For myself, I don't know...
Honesty, damdifino what that is, but I don't think I like it. <<Google>>...{{{reading, reading}}}... I don't think Kalupahana would like it, either, but then I am no expert on Kalupahana.
>> 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
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Alex123 »

Hi Nana, all,
Ñāṇa wrote:
  • Monks, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a monk who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find anything of which they could say: “The tathāgata’s consciousness is dependent (nissita) on this.” Why? A tathāgata, I declare, is untraceable (ananuvejja) here and now (diṭṭheva).
In a number of sutta-s (e.g. S iv 119, S iv 186, S iv 189, S iv 199, & M i 270) an arahant’s mind is designated as a “measureless mind” (appamāṇacetasa → being free from any sort of measuring → pamāṇa). Elsewhere it is designated as “unestablished consciousness” (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa).
Thank you for those sutta quotes. As I understand it, what all those suttas say is that what we call an Arahant's mind has no feeling of "I, ME, MINE", an Arahant is not internally being somebody or something. An Arahant cannot be said to personally cling to this, or personally reject that. From a worldling perspective an Arahant is internally almost a non-being.

Ontologically a Self is not found in truth a reality. So all we have is that there are purified 5 aggregates (from asavas) that is conventionally called an Arahant.

So unestablished consciousness doesn't mean 6th Aggregate that survives the demise of 5 aggregates at parinibbana. Rather it is consciousness that is not established by greed,anger or delusion on anything. IMHO.


With metta,

Alex
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Nibbana vs. annihilation?

Post by Alex123 »

gabrielbranbury wrote:Since this equanimity goes beyond form I assume feeling does not apply.
Equinimity regarding form, assuming it doesn't refer to some special and temporary samadhi states, still doesn't change the fact that painful events can occur.
Also everything is anicca,dukkha and anatta - that would include Equinimity regarding form.

I cannot see how one can say dukkha is applicable to an Arahant.
Bodily pains, illness & death can still occur to a Buddha. An Arahant can be brutally murdered. Furthermore an Arahant doesn't personally like anything, so we can't say that "S/he" enjoys anything. There is mental peace, sure. But bodily disturbances still occur.
Post Reply