Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Lal wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:29 pm Let me see if I can get everyone focused on the issue. My original post was to point out the following FACT.
- Translating “viññāṇa” as "consciousness" leads to self-contradiction. Therefore, there is a CRITICAL ERROR with that translation. We can discuss what the correct translation SHOULD BE after settling this issue.

I am re-wording my first post, “Contradiction 1 - Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?" below to make the case even as simple as possible. Let us focus on that first.

1. “Paṭi­c­ca­samu­p­pāda Sutta (SN 12.1)”: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.1/en/suja ... =latin#2.1 states that “Avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā. saṅkhāra paccayā viññāṇaṁ.” That means “viññāṇa” arises due to “avijjā.”
- I have pointed to marker 2.1, where the above verses are translated as “Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness.“

2. At marker 3.1 of the same sutta, the reverse Paṭicca Samuppāda process states the opposites of the verses in #1, i.e., “Avijjāya tveva asesavirāganirodhā saṅkhāranirodho, saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho”
- At marker 3.1, those verses are translated as “When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases.”
- That means there will be no consciousness when avijja is completely removed from a mind. There is no way to avoid that conclusion per that translation.

3. Now, all Arahants (and the Buddha) would have removed avijjā (cessation of ignorance of the Four Noble Truths.) That is also a fact that no one can deny.

4. But according to the translation in #2 above, the translator says, “if avijja has been removed, consciousness will cease too.

5. That means the Buddha lost consciousness upon attaining Buddhahood. Does it not?
When there is awakening, ignorance ceases. With the cessation of ignorance, formations and conciousness can never arise again. That awakening however doesn't erase the past. In the past the Buddha or Arahant was unawakened, and so there was ignorance. When there is ignorance, there is consciousness. That is what the Buddhas and Arahants experience. The result of past kamma. You are thinking correctly when you say that dependent origination ceases, but you forget that it occurred in the past. Because of that past, there are conditions now. So, there is no contradiction. Buddhas and Arahants are awakened and conscious. They experience feelings, thoughts, perceptions and so on until the end of their lives. The issue isn't in translating viññāṇa as conciousness, its just you aren't fully comprehending conditionality. That's ok though. It is hard to fully grasp conceptually, for most people.
“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.”
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:14 pm It looks like the claim that the Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages defines vijñāna as "diverse knowledge," or "divided knowing," or whatever else of such nonsense, was totally bogus and nothing but a false claim.
This idea "that the Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages defines vijñāna as "diverse knowledge," or "divided knowing,".

As far as i can recall, it is not a statement i made nor did i make any claim as to a definiton whatsoever.

I was talking about the translation and etymology.

It is you who attributed to me the claim of a "definition".

Likewise you falsely attributed to me a "making up of a new vinaya rule" which is factually not true because i never said that there is such a vinaya rule nor do i have any mechanism as to make a vinaya rule.

Here is a pattern of these strawman arguments and it's very annoying.

If i make a mistake then point it out to me and i'll be greatful but there is absolutely no need to use language like "cowardly bookworm".

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you really think it would kill me to be wrong about these trifling matters of linguistics?

I don't care if you can find fault, as a matter of fact i welcome it because it would be good for me.

However if you are going to wet your pants from joy thinking you have found a mistake then it's going to be difficult to have a civilized conversation.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Now let's clear this up. Granted perhaps i did make a mistake.

I said
According to the dictionary Pali viññāṇa is analog form of Sanskrit विज्ञान (vijñāna)

From वि- (vi-, “diverse”) +‎ ज्ञान (jñāna, “knowledge”)

This is according to Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages
To be clear
According to the dictionary Pali viññāṇa is analog form of Sanskrit विज्ञान (vijñāna)

From वि- (vi-, “diverse”) +‎ ज्ञान (jñāna, “knowledge”)
Is from
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4 ... 8#Sanskrit

I never claimed this to be a definition and explicitly quoted it as etymology in this post viewtopic.php?p=713158#p713158

Then the part of
This is according to Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages
This is a mistake on my part and i wrote that because
Wikitionary entry above references
References
Turner, Ralph Lilley (1969–1985), “vijñā́na”, in A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, London: Oxford University Press
If there is any mistake then that is the mistake as far as i can tell.

If anything i should've just said that it was according to wikitionary rather than using their reference.
Last edited by User13866 on Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
beingnoone
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:21 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by beingnoone »

"Many of those suttas also discuss “viññāṇa nirodha” that is reached at the Arahant stage"

:anjali:

But there are plenty of discourses that make it clear the arahant still has viññāṇa and that it only ceases at parinibbāna. SN22.85 is one of the clearest:
"If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?" "If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’" (Bhikkh Bodhi's translation)
As santa100 said near the start of the discussion and which was not properly addressed since, there is no problem with having the cessation of consciousness in Dependent Origination following the cessation of ignorance as long as we don't expect all the factors cease instantly. That the factors aren't meant to be instantaneous I think clear in the connection between birth and death. Death doesn't happen at the same moment as birth. And the cessation of consciousness doesn't happen the moment ignorance ceases.

....

About viññāna as separate knowing. The PTS PED dictionary kind of makes such a definition under the verb vijānāti. But this dictionary is an ancient dinosaur and itself admitted it was only a preliminary work. More than half a century ago Ven Ñānamoli already pointed out that it makes various errors and overly relies on (often wrong) etymology rather than context. The prefix vi- can mean various other things, not just 'separate'. In fact, in the Upanishads which are roughly contemporary with the Buddha vijñāna is used for the non-dual objectless knowing of the brahman.

:yingyang:
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Another mistake i made is not specifying that it is etymology being talked about here because i assumed it was a well-known fact and a given that learned people would pick up on it

When i said
Vinnana is generally taught as literally close to 'divided knowing'.
Which is obviously a reference to it's etymology because it is it's etymology that is taught like this.

Then Ceisiwr jumps in
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:15 pm Viññāṇa doesn’t mean “divided knowing”.
Now he takes my statement to be a definition rather than etymology.

This wasn't obvious to me at the time and i was confused by this because frankly i expected him to know the etymology of vinnana that i was talking about.

Subsequently i post viewtopic.php?p=713158#p713158
There it is explicit that it is etymology being talked about
Pali viññāṇa
viññāṇa
Etymology
Alternative forms
Sanskrit विज्ञान (vijñāna).
...
At this point i still assert that Ceisiwr is also arguing etymology.
Subsequently he says
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:19 pm Not all suffixes mean something in Pali, nor English.
Now at this point he is still making the same argument after i've specifically narrowed this down to an etymological discussion in the previous post.

Then he posts this
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:26 pm

What’s that based on? I’m not aware of any dictionary which defines it as “divided knowledge”. The “vi” is the same as in Vitakka, meaning it isn’t significant.
It is obvious that now he is making a strawman argument as to my etymological claim is a claim of definition.

Unfortunately i was annoyed at that point and didn't pick up on his bad form and assumed we were still discussing etymology.

Therefore i say
User13866 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:31 pm
The vi in Viññāṇa according to the dictionaries is from Proto-Indo-European *wi- (“apart, away”). Same as the prefixal form of sanskrit वि (vi).
To which he responds
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:34 pm Yes, but in any given language the suffix might not mean anything. Vitakka is an example. This is why breaking down words into roots doesn’t necessarily tell you what the word means.
Of course i assume we are still talking about the etymology of the sanskrit that i referenced.

Then i post this
According to the dictionary Pali viññāṇa is analog form of Sanskrit विज्ञान (vijñāna)

From वि- (vi-, “diverse”) +‎ ज्ञान (jñāna, “knowledge”)

This is according to Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages
And subsequently Coëm starts accusing me
Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:43 am Rather than hiding behind the alleged contents of a dictionary entry like a bookish coward, you should consider the fact that it seems you haven't actually posted the definition given in the Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, unless you're about to prove me wrong with a quotation from earlier.

Instead of the definition of vijñāna, you've copied out an etymology and an outline of what informs the principles of compositionality behind the derivation of the term.
No shit sherlock... i was constantly discussing the etymology and only that.
Last edited by User13866 on Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by Ceisiwr »

At this stage its anything to be right. There is no reasoning with such people.
“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.”
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:44 pm At this stage its anything to be right. There is no reasoning with such people.
I just want the truth. If i f*** up i want to know that i f*** up. If i didn't f*** up then let's figure out where the f*** occured.

You just posted this
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:20 pm Its a shame there is a tendency amongst some on this forum that, when their claims are pressed and shown to be dubious if not false, rather than use that as a point for growth they instead double down on the error or retreat.
Now let's get to the bottom of this.

Where is coemgenu's response... why so silent
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by Ceisiwr »

User13866 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:57 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:44 pm At this stage its anything to be right. There is no reasoning with such people.
I just want the truth. If i f*** up i want to know that i f*** up. If i didn't f*** up then let's figure out where the f*** occured.

You just posted this
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:20 pm Its a shame there is a tendency amongst some on this forum that, when their claims are pressed and shown to be dubious if not false, rather than use that as a point for growth they instead double down on the error or retreat.
Now let's get to the bottom of this.
You previously asked me not to reply to you on this thread. Can i assume that is now rescinded?
“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.”
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:59 pm
User13866 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:57 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:44 pm At this stage its anything to be right. There is no reasoning with such people.
I just want the truth. If i f*** up i want to know that i f*** up. If i didn't f*** up then let's figure out where the f*** occured.

You just posted this
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:20 pm Its a shame there is a tendency amongst some on this forum that, when their claims are pressed and shown to be dubious if not false, rather than use that as a point for growth they instead double down on the error or retreat.
Now let's get to the bottom of this.
You previously asked me not to reply to you on this thread. Can i assume that is now rescinded?
Yes of course...

I don't think you have anything worth saying and i don't want to completely ruin this thread.

However go on prove me wrong by not saying something profoundly stupid. Then you can pat yourself on the back and i'll give you a diploma if you want
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by Ceisiwr »

User13866 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:57 pm Ceisiwr wrote: At this stage its anything to be right. There is no reasoning with such people.

[name redacted by admin] wrote: I just want the truth. If i f*** up i want to know that i f*** up. If i didn't f*** up then let's figure out where the f*** occured.
The first thing I will say is that whilst I do not doubt your intention to seek truth, you do clearly also have a need to be right. This is clear, because whenever a view or argument of yours is sufficiently challenged or shown to be dubious or false you, by your own admission, react negatively. You need to be right, at all costs, because you clearly have a deep aversion to being wrong. Its ok to be wrong though. That is how we learn and develop. Having a need to always be right however isn't wholesome, as evidenced by the unwholesome mind states is brings forth. Try being more restrained, more calm, more equanimous. It's ok to be wrong, and its ok to be challenged. We are, after all, not supposed to hold on tightly even to knowledge. Have views, but hold them lightly. Now, I'm not saying this to be patronising, and I don't really like analysing people in this way, but it's something I felt should be said. Moving on
[name redacted by admin] wrote: Which is obviously a reference to it's etymology because it is it's etymology that is taught like this.

Then Ceisiwr jumps in

Ceisiwr wrote: Viññāṇa doesn’t mean “divided knowing”.

[name redacted by admin] wrote: Now he takes my statement to be a definition rather than etymology.

This wasn't obvious to me at the time and i was confused by this because frankly i expected him to know the etymology of vinnana that i was talking about.
You initially wrote the following
Vinnana is generally taught as literally close to 'divided knowing'.

In russian language there is word 'сознание' in latin alphbet it's 'soznanie' where 'znanie' means knowledge and the prefix 'so' is from the root in 'sovmestnostj' which means literally togetherness derived from 'together with in a place' denoting a plurality.

Therefore if vinnana is a 'divided knowing' the 'soznanie' has the same semantics and analogical etymology.

Similarly latin has 'conscientia' which is 'con+scientia' meaning "privity of knowledge" or "with-knowledge".

This isn't surprising because protoslavic, latin and indoaryan languages have the same indoeuropean root.

Consciousness is derived from the Latin and is therefore an excellent translation because the word has retained much of it's indoeuropean semantic structure which is the same structure used by the indoaryans.
Here you claimed that viññāṇa is "divided knowing" and used the etymologies of other words to bolster your claim. To this, I said that viññāṇa does not mean "divided knowing". You then proceeded to tell me that what I said was unsubstantiated. I replied by saying that prefixes aren't always meaningful, to which you argued that the prefix was meaningful here:

Well apparently this one does and you are making unsubstantiated claims in saying "Viññāṇa doesn’t mean “divided knowing"

You were then attempting to argue that viññāṇa means "divided knowledge" because of the significance of the prefix "vi". As has been said however, this is not the case. Prefixes don't always have meaning and you can't arrive at a words meaning by looking at the etymology, which is what you attempted to do here.

I think it's best to leave it there, lest this descend into a long and meandering meta-discussion. You did quite clearly think that the prefix was significant when it comes to translating viññāṇa, and this has been shown to be dubious at best.
“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.”
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by auto »

Lal wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:29 pm ..There are so many!
What you mean is that the consciousness is gone. And thus vinnana can't be consciousness, since arhant is still feeling(consciousness is what knows feelings).
but,
Arhant's consciousness remains(ṭhita), it is not annihilated(ucchindati) after getting rid(pahīna) of consciousness.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:This is called a mendicant who neither gets rid of things nor accumulates them, but remains after getting rid of them.
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhikkhu nevācināti na apacināti, apacinitvā ṭhito;
he doesn't grow the consciousness and inclination not occur,
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.40/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: ..
When consciousness is established and grows, there is an inclination.
Tasmiṁ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe nati hoti.
When there is an inclination, there is coming and going.
Natiyā sati āgatigati hoti.
there is consciousness albeit it is given up,
Lal, you think in terms of annihilation when pointing out your inconsistency. Similar to anapanasati, you think of the worst possible case as a leverage for your pure dhamma.
New meaning you give for the vinnana would be still based on annihilation.
Going to wait a thread about savittaka savicara.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:25 pm ...
Since no action is taken i'll respond...

Dear ceisiwr it looks to you that i am constantly insisting on being right. It is just that you are always wrong when i engage you because i pick my spots rather than trying to disprove everything you say.

Often i read your posts and think "this is correct, he explains this thing well" and i do not engage you. Other times i see you post stupid things and i engage you. As a rule i try to never engage someone if i am not sure that i am correct, generally this requires knowing their position better than they do and knowing what they don't know and exactly how to entrap them to make a point.

This not an evil strategy but merely the meta for refuting the wrong views of argumentative people.

There is one good example where i was wrong on this forum. It's about the exceptional dogs keeping their tail down as a rule, there Sam Vara showed me up and it didn't traumatize me at all. I didn't get upset about it and i didn't need to be right about it. I've since seen more of these dogs when in southern europe thinking about Sam Vara's teachings. That demonstrates that your psychoanalysis is wrong and unsubstantiated.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:25 pm ...
No diploma for you... Apparently you are confused as to what is meaning, semantics, definition, etymology, translation.

Do you really think i am stupid to the point of claiming that consciousness should be explained as 'divided knowing' because this is what follows from your argument.

You can ask me what i think is vinnana if you want to know how i define and explain this element.

This is mano citta vinnana
There are 6 classes of it
It's conjoined with 3 aggregates
It arises as one thing and ceases as another
Etc etc

If you want to know about the etymology then i will explain it as as i did analogically to the latin co-sciencia

How on earth do you think that i would confuse the two explainations.

I don't have a need to be right where i am wrong. I am constantly learning and improving my understanding.

When i am wrong then i am wrong, it doesn't bother me to be wrong. What bothers me is when people are like you here 'misunderstands something or notices discrepancy and doesn't ask for clarification, doesn't give the benefit of doubt but is trying to construe some fallacious strawman argument, and when engaged in a discussion doesn't assert the burden of proof and makes unsubstantiated claims'.

However no i am not such as you write here
This is clear, because whenever a view or argument of yours is sufficiently challenged or shown to be dubious or false you, by your own admission, react negatively. You need to be right, at all costs, because you clearly have a deep aversion to being wrong.
You don't know me at all. Your interactions with me are >90% me pointing out your not understanding the dhamma ad nauseam.

Unlike Sam Vara, who is your superior albeit merely a thorn next to rose, you have never proven me wrong on anything as far as i can recall. I understand that your perception of me is probably traumatized.

However you are wrong about this dhamma, as wrong as the most obviously wrong people here. You are getting away with it because of perceived "expertise" just like DooDoot was getting away with being perceived to be an "expert".

As a matter of fact you are simply wrong a lot and are very stubbornly clinging to this misconception of Buddhism you have.

If i make a list of top 10 posters on this site you are not on that list. If i make a list of bottom 10 you make it easily.

Therefore it's not that i need to be right and am uncomfortable being wrong. It's just that you are too comfortable being wrong and are projecting your being starved of righteousness on to me.

I am generally very happy & content and i don't need to go online to argue with newbies in order to feel good about my faculties.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by Coëmgenu »

User13866 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:57 pmWhere is coemgenu's response... why so silent
I hope that you won't mind if I steal one of what seems to be your favourite words when I say that "I went the f*** to bed." Your subsequent quibbling about how you were supposedly speaking about etymology the whole time is not necessary. You clearly were of the opinion that the entry you cited defined the word as such, but the truth of the matter was that it was merely an etymology and a compositional derivation.
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.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by User13866 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:54 pm
User13866 wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:57 pmWhere is coemgenu's response... why so silent
I hope that you won't mind if I steal one of what seems to be your favourite words when I say that "I went the f*** to bed." Your subsequent quibbling about how you were supposedly speaking about etymology the whole time is not necessary. You clearly were of the opinion that the entry you cited defined the word as such, but the truth of the matter was that it was merely an etymology and a compositional derivation.
Defined merely as in translated if you want to absolutely use the word i never used... I am kind of an expert and final authority on what i was speaking about. You can't claim that you know better than me as to what i meant lol.

Of course you can claim that i am lying but i am not, you won't be able to pin it down based on what i've written and have no incentive to lie about any of this...

You claim that i quibble and how i was only supposedly talking about etymology but it's an unsubstantiated claim.
Last edited by User13866 on Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Unfortunately for your claims to special expertise, not only do I know better than you with regards to this, but also the overwhelming consensus of the majority of experts in the field also know better than you with regards to this and disagree with your contention.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
Post Reply