What experiences Nirvana?

[DooDoot]

In Buddhism consciousness only arises when external object comes into contact with the senses. If the consciousness rely on external objects and the senses, how can that be the self.

MN 148 paragraph 10

[SarathW]

What apprehends Nirvana, if consciousness and awareness are just aggregates. How can something be apprehended without sentience?

The living person experiences the Nibbana, in the same way, a sick person experience comfort after he cured of his sickness.
After Parinibbana (death of an Arahant) there is no arising of five aggregate including consciousness.
There is not birth again.

So what experiences Parinibbana? Or are you suggesting annhilationism with extra steps?

There is nothing to experience Parinibbana.
It is the word used to describe a sentient who will not experience a rebirth.
If you crush a stone it is called sand.
You can't ask where is the stone.

[SteRo]

What apprehends Nirvana, if consciousness and awareness are just aggregates. How can something be apprehended without sentience?

According to theravada doctrine it is the practitioner who experiences nibbana as demonstrated by the stock phrase that can be found in several suttas:

For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

[confusedlayman]

there is ability to not clinging to anything past present or future events

[skandha]

In Buddhism consciousness only arises when external object comes into contact with the senses. If the consciousness rely on external objects and the senses, how can that be the self.

MN 148 paragraph 10

the sutta shows that the Buddha's idea of consciousness (viññāṇa) is different from the western notion of consciousness. The Buddha's viññāṇa to me is more akin to awareness.

[Mahabrahma]

there is ability to not clinging to anything past present or future events

You are a perfect reincarnation of Confusious, I would like to say, hello to you.

[confusedlayman]

there is ability to not clinging to anything past present or future events

You are a perfect reincarnation of Confusious, I would like to say, hello to you.

I am confused layman not confusions layman

[Mahabrahma]

there is ability to not clinging to anything past present or future events

You are a perfect reincarnation of Confusious, I would like to say, hello to you.

I am confused layman not confusions layman

Well you have me confused because you say you are not "confusions layman" and I don't know what that is, and I'm not sure how I implied that. But it makes me think on a Higher Level, and that you are up there.

So I read your name as "Confused? Layman." Your Teachings elevate the Layman to ask more questions, and I have noticed you are an Emanation of Confusious/Confucius.

[sa16en]

What apprehends Nirvana, if consciousness and awareness are just aggregates. How can something be apprehended without sentience?

According to theravada doctrine it is the practitioner who experiences nibbana as demonstrated by the stock phrase that can be found in several suttas:

For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

How is it apprehended then?

[sa16en]

How is there an apprehension of the second nibbana element without sentience?

It appears there is no sentience in the second nibbana element (Iti 44; MN 140; etc), as follows:

here, all that is felt/experienced in this very life... will be extinguished.

It appears the second nibbana element is inferred rather than experienced; such as in the following teaching:

Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling.

MN 18

How is this justified? If it is not apprehended then it is tantamount to annihilationism.

The assumed meaning of "annihilationism" above is not related to Buddhism. In Buddhism, "annihilationism" means the self-view that an "existing self" will be annihilated. It does not refer to the ending of mere anatta aggregates.

I understand that an ultimate reality may be indescribable...

Nibbana is described many times in the Pali suttas; such as:

The calming of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.

MN 26

But after that it says

"With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"

SN 22.5 defines the "arising" & "ending/cessation" of consciousness to be the arising & cessation of clinging to consciousness. Any translation that includes bracketed words is generally best ignored. Most Western translator monks have a rigid attitude towards Pali. A problem with the word "nirodha".

So then what continues in to Parinibbana? If nibbana is not apprehended, explain how it is any different from a nihilist state of nothingness.

[SteRo]

What apprehends Nirvana, if consciousness and awareness are just aggregates. How can something be apprehended without sentience?

According to theravada doctrine it is the practitioner who experiences nibbana as demonstrated by the stock phrase that can be found in several suttas:

For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

How is it apprehended then?

I've been referring to the doctrine. If you want to know more doctrinal details you have to investigate the doctrine yourself.

[sa16en]

The living person experiences the Nibbana, in the same way, a sick person experience comfort after he cured of his sickness.
After Parinibbana (death of an Arahant) there is no arising of five aggregate including consciousness.
There is not birth again.

So what experiences Parinibbana? Or are you suggesting annhilationism with extra steps?

There is nothing to experience Parinibbana.
It is the word used to describe a sentient who will not experience a rebirth.
If you crush a stone it is called sand.
You can't ask where is the stone.

So you're saying that there is some form of sentience that remains in Parinibbana then?

[sa16en]

Who experiences Nibbana?
Who sees, hears or thinks?

That question already assumes there is a who and is therefore invalid. Or a "consciousness" that experience, sees or hears.
Instead, there are many kinds of "consciousness" rather than a single one(subject).
THERE IS NO CENTRE.

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html[*]

I feel this is irrelevant to my question. What apprehends nibbana if there is no form of sentience that continues, if there is none, how can you explain how paranibbana is different from a nihilistic-type nothingness?

[sa16en]

According to theravada doctrine it is the practitioner who experiences nibbana as demonstrated by the stock phrase that can be found in several suttas:

How is it apprehended then?

I've been referring to the doctrine. If you want to know more doctrinal details you have to investigate the doctrine yourself.

But the fact that this question hasn't/can't be clearly answered leads me to believe that Buddhist thought doesn't actually have a coherent answer.

[Mahabrahma]

How is it apprehended then?

I've been referring to the doctrine. If you want to know more doctrinal details you have to investigate the doctrine yourself.

But the fact that this question hasn't/can't be clearly answered leads me to believe that Buddhist thought doesn't actually have a coherent answer.

If you think you have the answer, then add it into your Buddhist thoughts, and maybe it will start to make sense.