Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 12806
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Ceisiwr »

thank you very much, i did mean three lives not really sure how or why i spelt it that way :jumping:

:namaste:
“The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.”


Visuddhimagga
Element

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:I do not hold the self to be the five aggregates, but the illusion of self does manifest through them.
Any illusion manifests through ignorance. The five aggregates are neutral.
User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by stuka »

Dhammanando wrote:Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote:not sure if this ties in but where does the three tires come from? is it pali canon or commentary
The three tires come from Tireland.

Image

ROFLMAO!
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Individual »

stuka wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
stuka wrote:People who are beyond such views nonetheless are sick to death of being accused by crusading fatuous dilletanti of being annihiliationists.
Yes, hence my reasons for starting this topic and keeping it distinct from the melee of the Great Rebirth Debate. Even myself, I've been accused of denying rebirth in the past simply because I find non-time-delineated models of dependent origination (a la Buddhadasa) more practical than the three-lives commentarial version. :shrug:

Metta,
Retro. :)
All the more bizarre because the Buddha himself never once taught or alluded to the later "three-lives" eisegesis.

We appreciate very much your efforts to clarify matters in the most peaceful ways, friend Retro.
It's important to remember, though, that non-time-delineated models of dependent origination doesn't mean that consciousness isn't "reborn." Only that it isn't reborn according to the structure of linear or relativistic time as we currently understand it. Now, by saying that I'm not putting forth a speculative theory, creating some wacky speculative combination of dependent origination and quantum physics, just that provided that the Buddha was telling the truth, consciousness is reborn, because the non-time-delineated model of dependent origination isn't the same thing as a "one lifetime model." Indeed, with such a one-lifetime model based on materialism, you'd have to explain how the dependent origination began at birth (distinguishing this birth from jati) and ends at death (distinguishing this death from marana). This would also contradict cause & effect, but again, you might claim that cause & effect simply began once you started thinking about it and ceases when you stop thinking about it.

And yes, I'd also say I appreciate Retro's wise efforts to clarity matters in the most peaceful ways. :)
Last edited by retrofuturist on Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited the quotation of stuka to reflect the edit made to his earlier post
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Individual »

Element wrote:
Individual wrote:I do not hold the self to be the five aggregates, but the illusion of self does manifest through them.
Any illusion manifests through ignorance. The five aggregates are neutral.
Anything that manifests -- real or illusion -- goes through the dependent origination, of which ignorance is just a part, albeit the foundation.

When you say the five aggregates are neutral, neutral with regards to what? In making that judgment of value, what are you comparing them to, to say they are "neutral"?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by stuka »

Individual wrote: It's important to remember, though, that non-time-delineated models of dependent origination doesn't mean that consciousness isn't "reborn."
"Vinnana" is not "reborn" in paticcasamuppada, or any of the Buddha's other teachings..
Now, by saying that I'm not putting forth a speculative theory, creating some wacky speculative combination of dependent origination and quantum physics,
Of course you are.
just that provided that the Buddha was telling the truth, consciousness is reborn,
Poor Sati, caught in a net of much craving...
because the non-time-delineated model of dependent origination isn't the same thing as a "one lifetime model." Indeed, with such a one-lifetime model based on materialism, you'd have to explain how the dependent origination began at birth (distinguishing this birth from jati) and ends at death (distinguishing this death from marana). This would also contradict cause & effect, but again, you might claim that cause & effect simply began once you started thinking about it and ceases when you stop thinking about it.
Who, besides you, is this "you" who is espousing a "materialist one-lifetime model"...?
Last edited by stuka on Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Element

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:When you say the five aggregates are neutral, neutral with regards to what? In making that judgment of value, what are you comparing them to, to say they are "neutral"?
Individual,

The five aggregates are neutral in regards to dukkha.

The illusion of self and dukkha manifest through ignorance.

To see the five aggregates as merely the five aggregates is the essense of satipatthana & actually something quite profound.

It is one thing to anihilate one's thought processes and another thing to see the satipatthana with clear comprehension.

With metta,

Element
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Element, and Individual
Individual wrote:
Element wrote:
Individual wrote:I do not hold the self to be the five aggregates, but the illusion of self does manifest through them.
Any illusion manifests through ignorance. The five aggregates are neutral.
Anything that manifests -- real or illusion -- goes through the dependent origination, of which ignorance is just a part, albeit the foundation.

When you say the five aggregates are neutral, neutral with regards to what? In making that judgment of value, what are you comparing them to, to say they are "neutral"?
everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Element

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Element »

Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
I say everything is not neutral. Buddha said the cause of dukkha should be abandoned and the path to the cessation of dukkha should be developed.

In other words, the Buddha recommended removing attachment out of the five aggregates rather than anihilating the five aggregates.

The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Element
Element wrote:
Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
I say everything is not neutral. Buddha said the cause of dukkha should be abandoned and the path to the cessation of dukkha should be developed.

In other words, the Buddha recommended removing attachment out of the five aggregates rather than anihilating the five aggregates.

The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
if you compare everything against everything else no it wont be, but if you let it be how it is, compare it to nothing but itself then it is neutral!
so can you be attached to anything you don't care about in any way?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Individual »

Element wrote: The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
Manapa wrote: everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by stuka »

Individual wrote:
Element wrote: The five aggregates are neutral. They do not cause dukkha and they do not require abandoning.
If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
The Buddha, after Awakening, was nonetheless still composed of five aggregates.

What causes dukkha is craving and clinging brought on by ignorance.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Cittasanto »

Individual wrote:
Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.
OK, if you want to judge, compare, etc that is fine, but seeing something how it is isn't about how other things are, just how it is! and in and of themselves compared to nothing but itself it is neutral!against itself it can not be good or bad, it can only be itself, which puts it in the neutral position!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Individual »

Manapa wrote:
Individual wrote:
Manapa wrote:everything is neutral, why judge it being anything other than what it is?
Like Element said too, I would also not say everything is neutral. i.e., dukkha is bad, ignorance is bad, but freedom is good, the Buddha is good, dhamma is good, the Sangha is good, and morality is good.
OK, if you want to judge, compare, etc that is fine, but seeing something how it is isn't about how other things are, just how it is! and in and of themselves compared to nothing but itself it is neutral!against itself it can not be good or bad, it can only be itself, which puts it in the neutral position!
It's not that I want to judge, compare, etc. and neither does Element I think, but that such judgment is skillful. :)

Seeing how something is means seeing how its nature is contingent on (arising co-dependently with) its surrounding factors. Apart from Nibbana, nothing truly exists "by itself". Merely comparing things against themselves (whatever or wherever these abiding selves might be), everything is neutral, and on this basis, how could any comparisons of any kind be made? Overcoming conceit (manas) and developing equanimity (upekkha) is easily confused with nihilism but clearly distinguished from it. Non-attachment to conceit doesn't mean being apathetic or ignorant with regards to value. "Equality" ("neutral") is itself a form of conceit. And so, universal neutrality is a kind of universal conceit, clearly distinguished from the clear & equanimous vision of the Buddha.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Element

Re: Ucchedavada (annihilationism) - what does it actually mean?

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:If the five aggregates do not cause dukkha, what is their relevance to the path and the goal?
The suttas state the five aggregates are to be comprehended and craving & attachment towards them are to be abandoned.

Satipatthana is the comprehension of the five aggregates as merely aggregates.

To comprehend, we must practise. :meditate:
Post Reply