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

[cappuccino]

the Everlasting, (Dhuva)
the Undisintegrating, (Apalokita)

[rightviewftw]

the Everlasting, (Dhuva)
the Undisintegrating, (Apalokita)

The way you post it is not at all clear to me what the heck you are talking about and this goes for most of your posts on the matter.
How about you make a coherent statement of more than 10 words about nibbana, in your own words and as you understand it.
Because if you are not willing to do that or willing to be questioned on the matter i think it you should avoid categorically calling Slander.

[cappuccino]

I'm saying Nirvana is Everlasting

[rightviewftw]

I'm saying Nirvana is Everlasting

what exactly do you mean by everlasting then? saying lasts forever here is not acceptable answer of course...

[cappuccino]

Nirvana itself is everlasting.

Nirvana, similar to God, requires faith that it exists, requires faith, requires faith.

[rightviewftw]

Nirvana itself is everlasting.

Nirvana, similar to God, requires faith that it exists, requires faith, requires faith.

I am not out to break ur balls here but you are not answering direct legitimate questions:
What exactly do you mean by everlasting?

[cappuccino]

ev·er·last·ing
adjective
1.
lasting forever or for a very long time.

[rightviewftw]

ev·er·last·ing
adjective
1.
lasting forever or for a very long time.

so you are defining the word with the word it self.

It is like saying applejuice is juice made of apples... This answers NOTHING in regards to what is juice and what is an apple, i am sure there is some word for this kind of reasoning.

lasting forever or for a very long time.

Furthermore by your own definition here it is both finite or infite, so you are also contradicting yourself.

[cappuccino]

i am sure there is some word for this kind of reasoning.

it's called language

[rightviewftw]

i am sure there is some word for this kind of reasoning.

it's called language

it is called avoiding questions man. I asked you what exactly do you mean by everlasting, you tell me it lasts for ever. That is not an answer to my question. This is not called answering a question.

[cappuccino]

you don't like the answer, it's nonetheless the answer

Nirvana is forever

[rightviewftw]

you don't like the answer, it's nonetheless the answer

Nirvana is forever

it is not an answer man, you did not even paraphase, you just took short form of "forever" which is "ever" and replaced the short form with original form, making no change but claiming that "everlasting" is defined by "lasts forever" this is not true in the world, you will be laughed at in any country for this, this is established in the world as not a proper definition nor an explaination for sure.

[rightviewftw]

Nirvana, similar to God, requires faith that it exists, requires faith, requires faith.[/i]

and this is complete heresy and nonsense.

[cappuccino]

faith isn't heresy, it's a spiritual faculty

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el065.html

[rightviewftw]

faith isn't heresy, it's a spiritual faculty, one of five

your statements are heretic and it is not good to misrepresent me.

I suspect that you fall into this cathegory;

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'

and/or eternalist but idk because you cant explain eternity. heck maybe ur some sneaky annihilationist even, it is hard to tell when you hide it like that.

Maybe i am wrong of course and you can prove by disproving this prediction;

"Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:

A.
2. Is there no world beyond?
3. Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?
B.
1. Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
2. Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
3. Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
4. Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?
C.
1. Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
2. Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
3. Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
D.
1.Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
2.Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
3.Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
4.Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?