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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

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

Post by equilibrium »

iti 37:
The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight.

The escape from that is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.
Ignorance:
means ignorance of stress, it’s origination, it’s cessation, and the way leading to it’s cessation.
SN 22.99:
Not understanding ~ is like being a dog tied to a post…..going round and round.
clarity1982
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:27 pm

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

Post by clarity1982 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:54 pm
clarity1982 wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 9:45 pm Personally, I think there is a greater and more intimate connection between the NIkayas and Classical Samkhya than scholars have hitherto recognized. On the Buddhism side, the confusion stems from the fact that scholars tend to reify concepts in the Nikayas into ontological statements forgetting that the texts, first and foremost, only make sense in the context of a meditation tradition and not a philosophy that was divorced from praxis.

For Samkhya, scholars with a Hindu bent, translate that mysterious concept, "Purusha," into "Self" even though neither Patanjali or the Samkhya-karika define it as such. "Purusha" is really just a placeholder term for an unconditioned "something" that can't be defined. I suspect Samkhya is an ontological version of what is being taught in the Nikayas (in broad strokes, if not in all the details).

If one looks at the Thai Forest Tradition, for example, all of the first generation monks who were direct disciples of Ajahn Mun were basically teaching what Patanjali was teaching (if one disregards the "Ishvara" teaching which seems to be a later interpolation into the Yoga Sutra anyway). Ajahn Maha Boowa's exposition, in particular, makes this abundantly clear. The "luminous mind" is the last attachment to let go of before realizing Nibbana. Patanjali and the Samkhya-karika make exactly the same claim in the teaching that attachment to the "pure" sattvic, luminous mind developed in samadhi is the last attachment to let go of before realizing "Purusha."
I'd say Samkhya was more comparable with the Abhidhamma than the suttas.

I meant more in the general scheme of the distinction between the "Unconditioned" and the phenomenal "world" and not in the elaborate enumeration, etc. In broad strokes, there seems to be agreement between the Nikayas and the Samkhya although they use different terms and the Samkhya is much more focused on creating an ontological system as opposed to praxis. Overall, they're opposed to the monistic idealism that one sees Advaita Vedanta.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22390
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

clarity1982 wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 11:37 am
I meant more in the general scheme of the distinction between the "Unconditioned" and the phenomenal "world" and not in the elaborate enumeration, etc. In broad strokes, there seems to be agreement between the Nikayas and the Samkhya although they use different terms and the Samkhya is much more focused on creating an ontological system as opposed to praxis. Overall, they're opposed to the monistic idealism that one sees Advaita Vedanta.
Gauḍapāda accepted a phenomenal world and an unconditioned reality, but as an Advaita Vedantin. He was also very critical of Samkhaya. He was critical because Samkhaya argues for causality, which he thought was an incoherent concept, and because it argues for a plurality. That there are a plurality of Purusha is a characteristic of Samkhaya thought. Now for Gauḍapāda there is in reality only one thing that exists. Because there is only one thing there is, ultimately, no arising, no ceasing, no birth, no ageing, no death and no suffering. What he is doing here is using Venerable Nāgārjuna's argument but as a means to argue for something. For Venerable Nāgārjuna ultimately there is no arising, no ceasing, no birth etc because all is empty of being. Since all is empty, ultimately no concepts apply at all. The highest truth then in Madhyamaka is a "non-implicative negation". Gauḍapāda instead argues that because there is only Being then there is no arising, no ceasing etc. He also argues that concepts do not apply, even the concepts of Ātman ultimately do not apply, because concepts are bound up with non-real phenomenal world and Being is beyond that. Yogācāra also argues that dhammas can't be said to exist, and that ultimately there is only one thing but this one thing can't be described other than "Suchness". Now Theravāda argues that there really are things. There really are two kinds of things. There really are conditioned dhammas which arise and cease in the world, and there really is 1 unconditioned dhamma which does not arise and cease. Concepts for the conditioned have real referents, but to truly know these conditioned dhammas you have to directly experience them without a conceptual overlay. For the unconditioned, the concept "nibbāna" refers to something real but apart from "exists" and "permanent" no positive description of it can be made. It can only be referred to via negation, because in it concepts do not apply.

If we just take these schools, we can break them down into three camps. Those that say ultimately there is 1 thing (Yogācāra), those that says there are two types of things with the unconditioned being beyond concepts (Theravāda) and those who say that ultimate truth is to stop thinking in terms of true existence or non-existence of things, both conditioned and unconditioned (Madhyamaka). Now Samkhaya might too say that the ultimate is beyond words, but I don't think this means that the Buddha and Samkhaya had the same thing in mind for as we have seen, other schools of thought also make similar claims regarding their Ultimate. Another problem is that even though the ultimate is beyond words there is still a plurality of this ultimate in Samkhaya. In Buddhism nibbāna is never seen as a plurality. It's always singular. From this then I would say that Advaita Vedānta is closer to Buddhism than Samkhaya. Advaita Vedānta though argues that there is really only 1 thing, and this thing is a type of unconditioned consciousness. I think we have enough evidence to say the Buddha would have disagreed with that. Why then is nibbāna beyond words? It could be because it really is some thing which is indescribable, a real dhamma or the "Suchness" of reality. Or it could be because nibbāna is the cessation of conceptual thought altogether. Or, perhaps its for another reason. Whatever the case, I don't see how Samkhaya is quite close to the message of the suttas.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:28 pm, edited 7 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

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

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:12 pm Advaita Vedānta though argues that there is really only 1 thing, and this thing is a type of unconditioned consciousness. I think we have enough evidence to say the Buddha would have disagreed with that.
Nirvana is called the Unconditioned
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Post by Alex123 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:54 pm Sounds like you are arguing for the Bhavaṅga or Ālaya-vijñāna.
Yes, I have been actually reading a bit on Yogacara. But deeper still, my question is regarding rebirth and parinibbana as its end.

If there isn't some "separate" element (name isn't important, purusha, citta, etc) that "reaches and stays" nibbana, then what prevents new "me" appearing into samsara after parinibbana?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

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

Post by Alex123 »

cappuccino wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 7:19 pm Nirvana is called the Unconditioned
Unconditioned in what way?
- Free from lobha, dosa, moha and corresponding dukkha?
Or
- Free from causality in a western metaphysical way?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

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

Post by cappuccino »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:15 pm Unconditioned in what way?
Like a blank slate
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

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

Post by Alex123 »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:24 pm
Alex123 wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:15 pm Unconditioned in what way?
Like a blank slate
What knows/perceives that "this state is blank"?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

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

Post by cappuccino »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:43 pm
cappuccino wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:24 pm
Alex123 wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:15 pm Unconditioned in what way?
Like a blank slate
What knows/perceives that "this state is blank"?
You do, just as now
wenjaforever
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:44 am

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

Post by wenjaforever »

The Buddha was an unconquered conqueror and the only thing he cannot conquer was samsara itself.
money is worthless toilet paper • the tongue has no bone (a person might say one thing but it cannot be further from the truth) • you cannot teach a goat math as in you cannot teach the dhamma to a dumb person
Mudryj
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:44 am

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Post by Mudryj »

Alex123 wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 2:10 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:54 pm Sounds like you are arguing for the Bhavaṅga or Ālaya-vijñāna.
Yes, I have been actually reading a bit on Yogacara. But deeper still, my question is regarding rebirth and parinibbana as its end.

If there isn't some "separate" element (name isn't important, purusha, citta, etc) that "reaches and stays" nibbana, then what prevents new "me" appearing into samsara after parinibbana?
There are three mistakes in your question.

1. There is no separate, real, existing "me".

2. Nothing comes from nothing. There is a law of cause and effect, and exactly the same person as you can only appear if exactly the same conditions converge that created you at the last moment before parinibbana. And at that moment you are supposed to be an arahant, without craving and ignorance. That is, you will be created in a new existence as an arahant? When you die again as an arahant, will you not be able to be reborn after death? And where will consciousness be taken to recreate the mind-matter? - after all, consciousness is one of the conditions for the emergence of a new moment of mind-matter, similar exactly to you. Nibbana by definition is the permanent cessation of such causes for rebirth. If such a cessation cannot be achieved, then nibbana is impossible, it is an empty word, a concept, nonsense, it is not reality and reality.

3. Even if such a creature is created, completely similar to you, it will by no means be you yourself (if only because there is no Self that passes from moment to moment)... and it will only be your exact clone, which is unclear for what reasons arose. And if this clone is really accurate and will reflect your individuality, then he will be an arahant - who, like you (arahant) - will not be able to be reborn. But then why did we make the extra assumption that you, being an arahant, could still create the reasons for the existence of a new being? And if these reasons are not from you, not from your mind, but from somewhere else, then all possibilities for establishing a causal relationship between you, and this clone similar to you, disappear altogether.

Thus, there is no possibility in the Dhamma for you to spontaneously arise after parinibbana.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Post by cappuccino »

Mudryj wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:09 am 1. There is no separate, real, existing "me".
Yet you’re speaking here
dhamma012
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:28 am

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Post by dhamma012 »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 5:34 pm
Mudryj wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:09 am 1. There is no separate, real, existing "me".
Yet you’re speaking here
Potentially relevant to that line of thought:
viewtopic.php?t=43404

I tried to look at anatta from a different angle.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Post by cappuccino »

dhamma012 wrote: Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:40 am I tried to look at anatta from a different angle.
Not interested
dhamma012
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:28 am

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Post by dhamma012 »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Jul 18, 2022 3:05 am
dhamma012 wrote: Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:40 am I tried to look at anatta from a different angle.
Not interested
Okay, np.
Post Reply