Nirvana is the Cessation of Consciousness

[alfa]

The Buddha likened consciousness to a magic show. Probably because just like a magic show, there is nothing real about it. It is full of disorder and illogical. So wouldn't it naturally follow that nirvana is the ending of this madness called consciousness? Does it even matter if there is a self etc. Those are secondary questions. What matters is we're conscious, and wherever there is consciousness there is sorrow.

So nirvana = cessation of consciousness.

[Bundokji]

That would equate those who attained Nibbana with philosophical zombies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

[Garrib]

The Buddha spoke about the cessation of consciousness, right? It is one thing, Nibbana another (this doesn't mean they aren't related in some way according to the Dhamma).

[SarathW]

Nirvana is the cessation of craving.

[pegembara]

Parinibbana is the permanent cessation of conscious experience.

"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant... completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left."

The arahant is one who completely released through final knowledge that "sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta".

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

The conditioned sankharas are all conscious experiences arises and passes away.
The unconditioned Nibbana is that which doesn't.

There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned.

[cappuccino]

[bridif1]

Hi!

By chance I was just reading an essay on the role of mamarupa and viññana in Dependent Co-arising. There, the author seem to suggest that with the gradual destruction of ignorance and cognitive distortions, there comes the destruction of sense and designation (quoting SN 7.6).

The final result of this process was a state (for lack of a better word) where, in respect to the seen, there was only the seen, and not the assumption of external objects being seen by a "seer"; a state where consciousness does not gain footing in objects; a state where there's still fuel remaining, and where memories where still present, which allows the arahant to remember conventional classifications and entities, but not getting tricked by them, assuming them to be real and fixed entities with essential qualities.

In this sense, salayatana and phassa cease as well, because the dyad external/objective-internal/subjective dissapears. It is understood that the imputations about an objective reality and a self knowing that reality is just an inference and a assumption (which might make sense and might be a logical inference) that is not self-evident from a phenomenological standpoint.

And so, the arahant is not a philosophical zombie, because there's still the seen and there are still memories present.

I don't know if this is what actually happens, but it's thought-provoking nonetheless.

Kind regards!

[DooDoot]

quoting SN 7.6

SN 7.6 was an exchange with a non-Buddhist. The language of the conversion is the language of Brahminism.

The Buddha likened consciousness to a magic show....madness called consciousness?

It is you that has imputed "madness" upon what the Buddha taught; rather than the Buddha.

Parinibbana is the permanent cessation of conscious experience.

Its seems Gotama/Buddha searched for Nibbana & taught most often about Nibbana (rather than Parinibbana). Parinibbana is not acheiveable without Nibbana therefore why worship Parinibbana (like worshipping God)?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

So nirvana = cessation of consciousness.

I don't think so. What I understood is that it is the cessation of feeling and perception. One who is enjoying a cessation experience in this very life is not unconscious like someone who is in a coma or dead. They are fully conscious of the object of nibbāna.

[bridif1]

SN 7.6 was an exchange with a non-Buddhist. The language of the conversion is the language of Brahminism.

Hi DD!

I don't understand how is it relevant that the listener was a non-buddhist.

In SN 42.7, the Buddha says that he teaches the Dhamma to all listeners. If the Dhamma is the truth, it is independent of the ideas of the listener. While the used of some words may differ while talking to a non-buddhist, the spirit of the message will still be in harmony with the Dhamma.

I also teach them the Dhamma that’s good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, meaningful and well-phrased. And I reveal a spiritual practice that’s entirely full and pure.

Why would the Buddha teach a lie if the Dhamma is what is being taught? For the Buddha, the ends justified the means?

Kind regards!

[DooDoot]

I don't understand how is it relevant that the listener was a non-buddhist.

It is very relevant because when SN 7.6 says to end 'nama-rupa', the meaning of 'nama-rupa' is different to how the Buddha defined 'nama-rupa'.

The Buddha did not teach his Dhamma ("The Dhamma") to every person. You are quoting wrongly.

[bridif1]

It is very relevant because when SN 7.6 says to end 'nama-rupa', the meaning of 'nama-rupa' is different to how the Buddha defined 'nama-rupa'.

And was not the Buddha aware of the difference in interpretation and understanding of namarupa?

Also, remember that, in the discourse, it was the Buddha the one saying that "sense and designation are cut", not the non-buddhist interlocutor. Was the Buddha lying or being willingly misleading?

[DooDoot]

And was not the Buddha aware of the difference in interpretation and understanding of namarupa?

The Buddha was speaking to a non-Buddhist who already had their own meaning of nama-rupa. The Buddha did not invent the term 'nama-rupa'

Also, remember that, in the discourse, it was the Buddha the one saying that "sense and designation are cut", not the non-buddhist interlocutor. Was the Buddha lying or being willingly misleading?

The sutta says the "tangle" is cut. I suggest newbies stick to the four noble truths (rather than vague suttas with terminology they don't understand). The fact is, the stuff you are posting about "Oneness" is Brahminism or Hinduism.

[alfa]

So nirvana = cessation of consciousness.

I don't think so. What I understood is that it is the cessation of feeling and perception. One who is enjoying a cessation experience in this very life is not unconscious like someone who is in a coma or dead. They are fully conscious of the object of nibbāna.

I do not mean unconsciousness or a zombie-like existence. Unconsciousness is merely suppressed consciousness. Cessation of consciousness could be something else entirely.

[bridif1]

The Buddha was speaking to a non-Buddhist who already had their own meaning of nama-rupa. The Buddha did not invent the term 'nama-rupa'

The sutta says the "tangle" is cut. I suggest newbies stick to the four noble truths (rather than vague suttas with terminology they don't understand). The fact is, the stuff you are posting about "Oneness" is Brahminism or Hinduism.

Yes, I agree: namarupa is not a concept invented by the Buddha. But I was asking if you think the Buddha was not aware about the difference in interpretations between the two.
Was he oblivious to that fact?
Was he talking to the non-buddhist listener just as if he was a buddhist?

And yes, the sutta says the tangle is cut, but it also says:

Those whose passion,
aversion,
& ignorance
have faded away,
arahants, their effluents ended:
for them the tangle's untangled.

Where name-&-form,
along with perception
of impingement & form,
totally stop without trace:
that's where the tangle
is cut.

Also, I don't think the view proposed in this essay is talking about the same kind of oneness proposed by brahmanism and hinduism.

Besides, I'm not saying that this is my own interpretation. I clearly stated that I thought this was a thought-provoking idea.

Thanks for your recommendation. But as I've said to you in the past, I think is not wise to assume things about others without knowing them deeply and properly enough.

Kind regards!