we are conditioned to delight in things
Nirvana is a place of no delight in things
we are conditioned to delight in things
Takes 1 to no 1.
Oh dear. Another solipsist it seems.
Atthi, bhikkhave, tadāyatanaṃ, yattha neva pathavī, na āpo, na tejo, na vāyo, na ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ, na viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ, na ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ, na nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ, nāyaṃ loko, na paraloko, na ubho candimasūriyā. Tatrāpāhaṃ, bhikkhave, neva āgatiṃ vadāmi, na gatiṃ, na ṭhitiṃ, na cutiṃ, na upapattiṃ; appatiṭṭhaṃ, appavattaṃ, anārammaṇamevetaṃ. Esevanto dukkhassā
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/pli/ms
Dependent Origination ceases.
I have not presented a logic arguement at all. I have just pointed to what actually is written in the sutta....and what I said is accurate....the fact is that ud8.1 does not use the word "atthi" with respect to the word "nibbana" and the fact is that from all reports that I have seen it seems that "atthi" is not used with the word "nibbna" anywhere in the suttas.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:08 pmThen it is still referring to the same thing. The specific word “Nibbana” not being there doesn’t matter, since, as you say, other terms are used to describe the same thing. This is a terrible argument. You wouldn’t even pass high school English literature with this logic.
Thank you for bringing something which shows clearly that "There is" is applied to the words in the list which follows it and that the word "nibbana" is NOT included in the list of things given there......bottom line is that the sutta does not use the word "atthi" with respect to the word "nibbana"......and further more I have asked about this several times before and so far from all reports it seems that "atthi" is not used with the word "nibbna" anywhere in the suttas...."atthi" is often used with various worldly metaphors associated with nibbana (like in the list in the sutta you reference) but "atthi" is NEVER used with "nibbana" itself.DooDoot wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:58 amTakes 1 to no 1.
Oh dear. Another solipsist it seems.
Atthi, bhikkhave, tadāyatanaṃ, yattha neva pathavī, na āpo, na tejo, na vāyo, na ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ, na viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ, na ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ, na nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ, nāyaṃ loko, na paraloko, na ubho candimasūriyā. Tatrāpāhaṃ, bhikkhave, neva āgatiṃ vadāmi, na gatiṃ, na ṭhitiṃ, na cutiṃ, na upapattiṃ; appatiṭṭhaṃ, appavattaṃ, anārammaṇamevetaṃ. Esevanto dukkhassā
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/ud8.1/pli/ms
The quote says: "There is, bhikkhus, that base".... That base (ayatana) refers to Nibbana
Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.
If someone says the “Son of God” exists then this means that Jesus exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Jesus”, because “The Son of God” and “Jesus” are referring to the same thing. Likewise to say “the other shore exists” or whatever means that Nibbana exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Nibbana”, because “the other shore” (or whatever) and “Nibbana” are referring to the same damn thing.
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:39 amIf someone says the “Son of God” exists then this means that Jesus exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Jesus”, because “The Son of God” and “Jesus” are referring to the same thing. Likewise to say “the other shore exists” or whatever means that Nibbana exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Nibbana”, because “the other shore” (or whatever) and “Nibbana” are referring to the same damn thing.
“Atthi” not being found next to “Nibbana” is only “meaningful or very bizarre” if you don’t understand how language works. You are being extremely obtuse here. The only question is if that’s wilful or not?
It seems bhava means continuation of renewing processes where the consciousness are the seeds planted , then cravings causing it to grow in which the deeds resulting the kamma ripening into a new state . However this state of continuous existence is impermanent in contrast with the state of nibbana (in existence or of non-existence? ) which appears to be permanent and unconditioned .DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 1:23 pm
"Becoming" is defined in AN 3.76, which refers to consciousness becoming "established (patiṭṭhita)" or "stuck" in a sense object due to craving. The cause of becoming is craving & attachment; which leads to self-identity, as described in MN 44.Therefore, in brief, "bhava" appears to mean "self-becoming"; the mind creating a new illusion of "self". In short, "bhava" is one of three mental fermentations (asava); the other two being sensual desire & ignorance.MN 44 wrote:The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.
"Atthi" appears to be a generic word about the existence of something in time & space. Sometimes, the word "atthi" can refer to some wrong views about permanence, such as in the term "atthita" in SN 12.15 or "atthattā" in SN 44.10. Other times it is used to refer to a wholesome moral doctine, such as "atthikavāda" in MN 60. Other times it is used to refer to the realistic existence of something, such as Nibbana in Ud 8.1 or suffering exists (atthi kho dukkham) in SN 12.17.
In summary, "becoming" ("bhava") appears to be always unwholesome/defiled; where as "atthi" is not always a wrong view.
Yes, because atta is a synthetic a priori concept.
Whatever is impermanent cannot be self.
Please tell me why the word "atthi" is never used with respect to the word "nibbana"?....but it is almost always used with the worldly metaphores used to describe nibbana?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:39 amIf someone says the “Son of God” exists then this means that Jesus exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Jesus”, because “The Son of God” and “Jesus” are referring to the same thing. Likewise to say “the other shore exists” or whatever means that Nibbana exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Nibbana”, because “the other shore” (or whatever) and “Nibbana” are referring to the same damn thing.
“Atthi” not being found next to “Nibbana” is only “meaningful or very bizarre” if you don’t understand how language works. You are being extremely obtuse here. The only question is if that’s wilful or not?
Please tell me why the word "atthi" is never used with respect to the word "nibbana"?....but it is almost always used with the worldly metaphores used to describe nibbana?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:43 am Clearly Nibbana exists, the discussion is about how it exists.
Because the Buddha chose a different word instead to describe the same thing. It really is a non-issue.chownah wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:35 pmPlease tell me why the word "atthi" is never used with respect to the word "nibbana"?....but it is almost always used with the worldly metaphores used to describe nibbana?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:39 amIf someone says the “Son of God” exists then this means that Jesus exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Jesus”, because “The Son of God” and “Jesus” are referring to the same thing. Likewise to say “the other shore exists” or whatever means that Nibbana exists even if “exists” is never found next to “Nibbana”, because “the other shore” (or whatever) and “Nibbana” are referring to the same damn thing.
“Atthi” not being found next to “Nibbana” is only “meaningful or very bizarre” if you don’t understand how language works. You are being extremely obtuse here. The only question is if that’s wilful or not?
chownah