Unconditioned

[Coëmgenu]

You mentioned at the end

Kathāvatthu and is part of the stance recorded therein that “Nibbāna exists and retains its state as Nibbāna.” It appears to be a polemicized-against Sarvastivadin doctrine.

Does that mean that Kathavatthu really did no say that "Nibbana Exists"

No, it just means that this particular "nibbanam atthi" doctrine is Sarvastivadin as far as I can tell. The translation I'm looking at of Kathāvatthu is so old that it's not the easiest text.

Did we not once have a long thread that proved the existence of Nibbana or did not???

The thread certainly demonstrated that the classical Theravadin view is that nibbana exists as a discrete particular dhamma (phenomenon/"mental object").

I understand neither Pali nor Sanskrit, so it is nice to have an expert in Sanskriti who knows how to translate the Holy Bible accurately into Sanskrit, or find flaws in such translations.
With love

That's not my Bible translation. My Sanskrit and Pali is actually quite bad. What I have training in is general linguistics and Chinese. That Bible was translated between the late 1800s and the 1950s I think. I don't know who did the Sanskrit translation, but it was for interfaith dialogue with Hindus. It's a very interesting Bible. "The Living God" is "Siva" in it, because his title is "Deathless Lord" (Amareśvara).

[coffeendonuts]

My view is Shiva, Buddha, Atman, Nirvana...different expressions. It's the clinging that's at issue.

[ToVincent]

Some people are heavily quoting the Udāna and the Itivuttaka, and taking them as granted for early texts.
They should at least, for serious-mindedness sake, refer to some parallel in the other texts.

In Ud 8.3, it is said "There is an unborn, [unbecome, unmade, unconditioned] ,” - (atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ [abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ]).
The "existence" ("there is" ) of this unborn, (which obviously does not "exist") - [A conundrum like clicking on the "start" button on your Windows operating system to shut it - without having a philophaster endless excogitation, from the mental unsoundness it might trigger] - this unborn, was I saying, has an existing parallel in EA 38.4.
由何而 無生？— 觀此生原，有滅，生則滅。
Why is there an unborn?
If you look at the origin of this birth, there is extinction; there is a birth, and there is extinction.
EA 38.4

Both sects acknowledge the "existence" of the unborn.

"There is" - "Il y a" (lit. there has an unborn).

------

Same thing for Iti 44, where saupādisesa/有餘涅槃 (with remnant), and anupādisesa/無餘涅槃 (without remnant) can be found for instance, in EA 16.2

Both texts acknowledge the fact of two types of nibbāna.

------

However, quoting Ud or Iti without giving at least a sound parallel to the extracts , seems like lazy work to me.

________________________


Another aspect to consider is the iddle indulgence with which the concept of the "All" is broached and discussed.

Looking at the Veda for reference, and its Upanishads in particular — (probably for having failed to read what precedes) — does not imply to agree with the latter. The "All" thing is becoming quite a mess, when one knows that Buddha went particularly against those Upaniṣadic views.
One should read Veda in its entirety, and not just quote extracts to pretend having done so.
Then one should not just stop at sarva, but also look at viśva (an evident change along the way).

Otherwise, all this is going to remain pretty preposterously wussy.
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

My view is Shiva, Buddha, Atman, Nirvana...different expressions. It's the clinging that's at issue.

Different expressions, but also different things, no?

God has a "will" for instance, generally, whether Abrahamic or polytheistic. Does any form of nibbana have a "will?" What would it mean for something to be "nibbana's will?" "God" also creates the world, whether "the" god or "a" god or gods, and is thus implicated in its fallen and/or samsaric state. Nibbana does not create the world on account of its will, and is morally exempt. It is not nibbana's responsibility that there are three poisons. If God had created the world, he would be the father of the three poisons. Good for thought IMO.

[sphairos]

EDIT: It's Kathāvatthu and is part of the stance recorded therein that “Nibbāna exists and retains its state as Nibbāna.” It appears to be a polemicized-against Sarvastivadin doctrine.

Yes, it's the Theravāda position there. They use the uncontested by anyone (maybe except the Sautrāntikas) thesis nibbānaṃ niccaṃ dhuvaṃ sassataṃ avipariṇāmadhammanti (Nibbāna is permanent, stable, eternal and of the unchanging nature) to refute the Sarvāstivāda thesis that the three times exist, as far as I understand.

Regarding your conjecture that the five elements are five senses: but which sense is which? Is fire olfaction or taste? I think that for the Chinese tradition, with the Chinese five elements, it is a more natural "identification". For the Indian mahābhūtas it seems to be something of a stretch. Although I have no doubt that "cognitive blending" also occurred in the heads of Ancient Indians, and I even dimly remember some texts that identify them in such manner.

[coffeendonuts]

My view is Shiva, Buddha, Atman, Nirvana...different expressions. It's the clinging that's at issue.

Different expressions, but also different things, no?

God has a "will" for instance, generally, whether Abrahamic or polytheistic. Does any form of nibbana have a "will?" What would it mean for something to be "nibbana's will?" "God" also creates the world, whether "the" god or "a" god or gods, and is thus implicated in its fallen and/or samsaric state. Nibbana does not create the world on account of its will, and is morally exempt. It is not nibbana's responsibility that there are three poisons. If God had created the world, he would be the father of the three poisons. Good for thought IMO.

That's getting lost in the details of the poetic. One can speak of it all as achieving the state of purity before the original sin of clinging to the apple if you wish.

[Coëmgenu]

Perhaps the details of the poetry is where the poem stores its meaning.

[coffeendonuts]

when one knows that Buddha went particularly against those Upaniṣadic views.

Likely because at the time it was a tradition of metaphysical speculation ad nauseam, there was not an understanding whatever transcendent state that was the subject of their cultivation efforts and speculations merely "takes care of itself" with the cessation of clinging.

[coffeendonuts]

Perhaps the details of the poetry is where the poem stores its meaning.

We know the gnostics had vastly different understandings of these stories and terms than their literalist counterparts. It can be done.

[Coëmgenu]

Regarding your conjecture that the five elements are five senses: but which sense is which? Is fire olfaction or taste? I think that for the Chinese tradition, with the Chinese five elements, it is a more natural "identification".

The Chinese might also map their elements onto the senses, I don't know. In the medieval age in China, I wouldn't doubt that they were used to explain the senses. They were used to explain material existence, so why not also how we perceive it?

The Indian correspondences are space with sound, air with smell, fire with vision, water with taste, and earth with touch. But we want actual primary sources here, which is going to take me a while. What I am remembering is a hymn of, I think, either Brahma or Prajapati who exists in an endless void and creates space to speak (the Vedas, one presumes), air to smell something, fire to see something, water to taste something, and then earth to touch something. It is related to the folk etymology of "Bhagavān" being an acronym for bhū (earth) gagana (space) vayu (air) agni (fire) nīra (water).

I have to find the myth I am thinking about, and that is what is proving tricky.

Perhaps the details of the poetry is where the poem stores its meaning.

We know the gnostics had vastly different understandings of these stories and terms than their literalist counterparts. It can be done.

Certainly, it "can be done." But the Gnostics also have completely different stories and terms as well as shared stories and terms. There's an obvious comparison to Mahayana and Sravaka Buddhism when we are talking about Christianity, Judaism, and then their Gnosticized hybrid versions. That's a thread for "Connections," though.

This is the best book available IMO on actual Gnosticism. There is a lot of fluff out there.

https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0% ... hought.pdf

[Pulsar]

Donut wrote

My view is Shiva, Buddha, Atman, Nirvana...different expressions. It's the clinging that's at issue.

This is so true. Donut clings to the view that Shiva, Buddha, Atman, Nirvana are different expressions.
For the one who has understood Nibbana as the "Void" poetically at least, what is there to cling? Nothing.
Shiva is full of Shiva, Atman is full of Atman, Buddha never even said whether he exists or not.

Dearest Coemegnu: I find this incrediibly beautiful

Perhaps the details of the poetry is where the poem stores its meaning.

Seems like you spent enuf time looking through the details. Thanks for the comments on the Bible.
You are indeed widely read.
With love

[ToVincent]

when one knows that Buddha went particularly against those Upaniṣadic views.

Likely because at the time it was a tradition of metaphysical speculation ad nauseam, there was not an understanding whatever transcendent state that was the subject of their cultivation efforts and speculations merely "takes care of itself" with the cessation of clinging.

That is is clearly stated.
(Pre-Buddhist) Shiva will appreciate.
.
.

[coffeendonuts]

Let's put it this way. The lack of clinging to anything as a self is the true Atman, the state of Shiva. For those who cringed, I'm interested in why it caused such a reaction.

[SDC]

Let's put it this way. The lack of clinging to anything as a self is the true Atman, the state of Shiva. For those who cringed, I'm interested in why it caused such a reaction.

I doubt anyone cringed. You left the the theme of the forum is all.

[coffeendonuts]

Let's put it this way. The lack of clinging to anything as a self is the true Atman, the state of Shiva. For those who cringed, I'm interested in why it caused such a reaction.

I doubt anyone cringed. You left the the theme of the forum is all.

Ultimately it's not about names or themes.