From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
SarathW
Posts: 21238
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by SarathW »

The way I understand there are three categories.
Vinnana = ie Sankhara paccya Vinnana - conditioned
Nana = mere knowing - conditioned because it take as I me and myself
Panna = Nibbana - unconditioned as it does not take as self

:shrug:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm However, again, the Buddha was emphatic that nibbana is not self. Why?
[The following is not in conflict with the commentarial presentation to the best of my knowledge, but I stand to be corrected...]

A clue to the answer might lie in the notion of the "31 planes of existence", and that nibbana isn't classified as "existence" amongst them.
AN 1.329 wrote:“Monks, just as even a tiny amount of feces is foul-smelling, in the same way, I don’t praise even a tiny amount of bhava (becoming / existence) —even as much as a finger-snap.”
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote:To my knowledge, the rules are that things that are impermanent, and lead to suffering are not self, these things are literally everything but nibbana. Since nibbana doesn't fall under these descriptions, what rules it out from being self?
Because the above implied condition: "If things are impermanent and suffering, Then they are not self" does NOT guarantee the outcome: "If things are permenent and non-suffering, Then they are self". This is due to what's called the necessity and sufficiency conditional relationship in logic and mathematics. To put it simply, for a conditional of: If P then Q, P is sufficient for Q (ie P being true always implies Q is true), but P NOT being true does NOT always imply that Q is NOT true. Ex: If entity A is a doctor, then entity A is a human; If entity A is NOT a doctor, then entity A is NOT a human!!
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by zan »

Just to clearly delineate for anyone who doesn't know:

The Mahayana, Nagarjuna version of things has all things being empty of svabhava, or intrinsic nature, including nibbana:
Within the Madhyamaka school, svabhava is used to describe the concept of sunyata (emptiness). In this context, svabhava is the "essence" or "inherenent existence" that things are empty of. This concept is central to Madhyamaka reasoning, in which Nagarjuna asserts that anything that arises due to causes and conditions can have no inherent existence (svabhava).
-encyclopedia of Buddhism
Both samsara and nirvana,
Neither of these two exists;
The thorough understanding of cyclic existence
This is referred to as "nirvana"
-Nagarjuna, Sixty Stanzas, verse 6
Here is the Theravada understanding:
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…

Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…

...

...the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).

...concretely produced matter...possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.

Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260
In Theravada, dhammas exist as ultimate realities, and do have svabhava. Nibbana is a dhamma, and an ultimate reality, and is the supreme, endless reality.

Thus, there is a huge difference between the Mahayana position that all is empty, and even nirvana doesn't exist, and the Theravada position, especially with nibbana. Some have made the point, myself included (and very possibly incorrectly considering the Theravada position stated above is literally the opposite of Nagarjuna's), that since Nagarjuna was critiquing the Sarvastivadin position that all dhammas exist in the past, present and future, and not the Theravada presentism position, that his critique is irrelevant to Theravada. This, however, even if correct, does not apply to nibbana, because nibbana ultimately exists in Theravada, and, while it is empty of a self, it does bear its own intrinsic nature, and is an ultimate reality. The Theravada position is wholly incompatible with the Mahayana view that nibbana doesn't exist, and is empty like other dhammas.

It is also worth mentioning that the Mahayana understanding of "emptiness" and dependent origination is not the same as how these words are defined in the Pali Canon.
DooDoot wrote:
Similarly, the third noble truth is the truth of cessation. But inher-
ently existent things cannot cease. Empty ones can.
"Empty" is wrongly used above and is the ultimate fatal failure of Nagarguna & heresy of Madhyamaka. The word 'empty" is not synonymous with "dependently originated". Buddha-Dhamma is as follows:

A. All things are empty
B. But not all things (for example Nibbana) are dependently originated.
C. Therefore, emptiness does not equal dependent origination.
D. Dependent origination is empty
E. But emptiness is not dependently originated.
F. Therefore, emptiness does not equal dependent origination.
By reason of the cessation of one factor in the twelvefold chain, another successor factor fails to arise. Thus does this entire mass of suffering completely cease.

-MKK 26.12 ibid
If this entire mass of suffering completely ceases, this complete cessation must be an inherently existent thing. If this complete cessation was not an inherently existent thing, it would cease to completely cease and there would be arising again.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Coëmgenu »

DooDoot's logic in that quote is faulty and at variance with the classical position. He says, "If this complete cessation was not an inherently existent thing, it would cease to completely cease and there would be arising again." This is introducing a non-Theravadin notion, namely the "cessation of cessation," which is often paired with an "arising of arising." Theravadin Abhidhamma does not contain these teachings, AFAIK, them being the products of foreign Abhidharmas from different schools.

Via his logic as demonstrated in that quotation, Nibbana-with-No-Remainder would be impossible, as "there would be arising again." That is not the classical position, suffice to say.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by asahi »

zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm Nibbana is permanent,
No , nibbana is the ending of the five aggregates which is suffering . When five aggregates never arise again , suffering doesnt arise .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

asahi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:38 pm
zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm Nibbana is permanent
No … When five aggregates never arise again, suffering doesn't arise.
you are reducing it to annihilation


however Buddha was careful to not imply this
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Coëmgenu »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:47 pm
asahi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:38 pm
zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm Nibbana is permanent
No … When five aggregates never arise again, suffering doesn't arise.
you are reducing it to simple annihilation


however Buddha was careful to not imply this
You are missing context. He was careful not to imply this to Vacchagotta, arguably. You objecting to "aggregates never arise again" is not "Classical Theravada."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:53 pm You are missing context. He was careful not to imply this to Vacchagotta, arguably. You objecting to "aggregates never arise again" is not "Classical Theravada."
I’m objecting to saying Nirvana is not permanent


with the implication that would suggest
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Ontheway »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:47 pm
asahi wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:38 pm
zan wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:40 pm Nibbana is permanent
No … When five aggregates never arise again, suffering doesn't arise.
you are reducing it to annihilation


however Buddha was careful to not imply this
How is that "annihilation"?

:shrug:
When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising (uppada) of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be. With the cessation (nirodha) of this, that ceases.

— Samyutta Nikaya 12.61
When there is no 'fresh' consciousness arises, then there is no arising of mentality-materiality. Things don't arise due to absence of suitable conditions.

There is nothing here to be destroyed or annihilated.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Ontheway »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:54 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:53 pm You are missing context. He was careful not to imply this to Vacchagotta, arguably. You objecting to "aggregates never arise again" is not "Classical Theravada."
I’m objecting to saying Nirvana is not permanent


with the implication that would suggest
First, the Pāli word is Nibbāna. Theravada tradition don't take Sanskrit words.

Second, Nibbāna is necessarily to be permanent (technically) and infallible. If it is not, then people might as well say "Arahants, having attained Nibbāna, are subject to degeneration too, since that state of Nibbāna isn't permanent."

The "permanence" of Nibbāna should be understood as "Asankhata" or "Unconditioned".
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:47 pm There is nothing here to be destroyed or annihilated.
sounds like advaita to me
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Ontheway »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:00 pm
Ontheway wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:47 pm There is nothing here to be destroyed or annihilated.
sounds like advaita to me
And now you are saying Paṭiccasamuppāda is belongs to advaita?
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by cappuccino »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:02 pm
cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:00 pm sounds like advaita to me
And now you are saying Paṭiccasamuppāda is belongs to advaita?
I’m saying your view is flawed


whether or not you care to correct it
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: From the classical position only, in which nibbana is not self nor consciousness, why isn't nibbana self?

Post by Ontheway »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:04 pm
Ontheway wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:02 pm
cappuccino wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:00 pm sounds like advaita to me
And now you are saying Paṭiccasamuppāda is belongs to advaita?
I’m saying your understanding is flawed


whether or not you care to correct it
Okay, since you reject Abhidhamma Pitaka and Atthakatha. I don't bring them out.

So, I give you a Sutta reference, then you said it is wrong.

You're sus. :spy:
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Post Reply