Is The Result of Parinibbana Annihilation - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?
- Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel
Dhamma Wheel
Search
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the

Theravada
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Board index Modern Theravda General Theravda discussion
Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Forum rules
Post Reply
Search this topic
Search
211 posts
1
2
3
4
5

11
Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

by kc2dpt Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:16 pm
P
Byo chance I read this last night and thought
s
t
it relevant. Sutta Nipata 5.6
[The Buddha:]
kc2dpt
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009
3:48 pm
As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind

goes to an end
that cannot be classified,
so the sage free from naming activity
goes to an end
that cannot be classified.
[Upasiva:]
He who has reached the end:
Does he not exist,
or is he for eternity
free from dis-ease?
Please, sage, declare this to me
as this phenomenon has been known by you.
[The Buddha:]
One who has reached the end
has no criterion
by which anyone would say that
for him it doesn't exist.
When all phenomena are done away with,
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&p=13979[26/8/2558 11:06:56]
Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel
all means of speaking

are done away with as well.
- Peter
Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
o
p

by clw_uk Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:13 pm
P
o
Greetings
s
t
I couldnt find that on sutta but i found another good one

clw_uk
Posts: 4405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009
2:36 am
Location: Wales, United
Kingdom
On one occasion Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near Varanasi in the Game
Refuge at Isipatana. Then in the evening, Ven. Maha Kotthita emerged from his seclusion and
went to Ven. Sariputta and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of
friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven.
Sariputta, "Now then, friend Sariputta, does the Tathagata exist after death?"
"That, friend, has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata exists after death.'"
"Well then, friend Sariputta, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"
"Friend, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata does not exist after
death.'"
"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"
"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist
after death.'"
"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"
"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not
exist after death.'"
"Now, friend Sariputta, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, 'That has not
been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the
Tathagata does not exist after death... both exists and does not exist after death... neither
exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed
One: "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause,
what is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?"
"'The Tathagata exists after death' is immersed in form. 'The Tathagata does not exist after
death' is immersed in form. 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' is
immersed in form. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is immersed in
form.
"'The Tathagata exists after death' is immersed in feeling...
"'The Tathagata exists after death' is immersed in perception...

"'The Tathagata exists after death' is immersed in fabrication...
"'The Tathagata exists after death' is immersed in consciousness. 'The Tathagata does not exist
after death' is immersed in consciousness. 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after
death' is immersed in consciousness. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after
death' is immersed in consciousness.
"This is the cause, this is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Metta
Pure awareness is pure knowledge
o
p
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009
2:19 am

by Individual Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:44 pm
P
o
s
AdvaitaJ wrote:
t
Having read Ajahn Brahm's book, Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, this question keeps haunting
me. With parinibbana described as the remainder-less cessation of everything, what is the
difference between that and annihilation? I understand that as long as you're subject to rebirth,
annihilation is wrong view. What I don't understand is how the results are different when you're
no longer subject to rebirth. Everything ceases, right? The flame is extinguished, out, gone. It
didn't go anywhere, it's just gone. So, how is this different from annihilation?
Regards: AdvaitaJ
I think it's worth noting that in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha entered into and
returned from the "cessation of perception and feeling". If total cessation was annihilation,
this would not be the case.
The "total cessation" of Buddhism is the eighth liberation, which is disciplined through and
based upon mastering the previous liberations, which includes the ability to see form and
form, to see things as being "outside" of ourselves, and to see beauty. The Buddha also said
(and demonstrated) that it is possible to move freely between these eight modes of
perception.
Although the Mahayana conception of mystical worlds (i.e. Buddha lands, where Buddhas live)
beyond the three worlds (tiloka) is at best speculatory (but plausible), it would also be
misleading for a Theravada Buddhist to describe parinibbana as merely annihilationistic.
Annihilation is a means of ending individuated existence and it is not something one can return
from. But there is no such thing as "individuated" existence and the Buddha and the Arahants
were capable of returning from the death-like state of complete cessation.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
o
p

by cooran Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:50 pm
P
o
Hello
all,
s
t
Annihilation is the belief that there is a self who is annihilated upon death
and
cooran
Posts: 8183
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009
11:32 pm
Location: Queensland,
Australia
Eternalism is the belief that is a self who lives forever.

The Buddha taught that there is no self - just kammic accumulations and latent tendencies ... a
process.
What is there when the process ceases?
metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time-----Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe-----It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it --o
p

by clw_uk Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:09 am
P
o
Greetings
s
t
clw_uk
Posts: 4405
2:36 am
Location: Wales, United
Kingdom
Any definite answer given will just be one that comes from a conditioned mind that is clinging
to one or more of the aggregates since (unless one is enlightened) there will be these latent
tendencies, subtle or great
The way out of these speculative views of "what happens after" is just to see clearly,
form, perception, formations, feeling and consciousness
Their origin and their passing away
The truth of form is anatta, perception is anatta, formations are anatta, feeling is anatta and
consciousness is anatta
This applies to any speculation about death, be it eternalist, annihilationist, rebirth or
parinibbana since to say
"I will live forever"

"I will be annihilated"
And even "I will be reborn" or "there is exsistence after parinibbana" or "there is no exsistence
after parinibbana"
All involves some kind of clinging and so self identification with one or more of the aggregates
Metta
Pure awareness is pure knowledge
o
p

by Jason Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:22 pm
P
o
AdvaitaJ,
s
t
Yes, but only if you consider Theravada realist.

Jason
Posts: 471
1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
J
a
s
o
n
It has often been asserted that Theravada, particularly "classical" Theravada in which the entire
Tipitaka and its commentaries are considered authoritative, is ultimately realist. Nevertheless,
this criticism, which for the most part comes from Yogacara and Madhyamika, is heavily
disputed. For example, in his Introduction to Buddhism, Harvey explains, "'They are dhammas
because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld
by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature'
would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate
ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and
previous occurrences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique
of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada" (87).
Personally, whether or not Harvey is correct in his characterization of the Theravada position, I
believe this quasi-realistic view is the result of early Abhidhammikas attempting to reify
certain concepts that should never have been reified, e.g. dhammas, khandhas, etc.
In my opinion, the core of texts that constitute the Sutta Pitaka are not realist per se, but
there are certain concepts found within Theravada that do appear to present themselves as
such. Essentially, I think that classical Theravada, in which the entire Tipitaka and its
commentaries are considered authoritative, borders on realism depending on how you
understand the terms "dhamma" and "sabhava." All I can say is that Theravada does not go as
far as Sarvastivada, although it does push the boundaries and can easily be interpreted as
being realist, which then opens the door to accusations of nihilism.
In one of the ways that I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint explains things through
subject, verb and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint explains things through verb alone. In
essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I
think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity
view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed thereby
revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena. Nibbana would then be regarded as the
end of this conditional phenomena, or in other words, the cessation of the activity of samsara
(perpetual wandering).
This is where one can insert any claims of nihilism if one is able to substantiate that this
cessation of activity is the destruction of something real, substantial, etc. In other words, if
the five aggregates of clinging (khandhas) are real in the sense that they are concrete, existing
entities, conditioned or otherwise, then their cessation would be a type of nihilism. In
addition, within classical Theravada, the the goal is said to be the utter extinction of all
consciousness per the verse in DN 11: "Ettha namanca rupanca, asesam uparujjhati. Vinnanassa
nirodhena etthetam uparujjhati" (Here [in nibbana], nama as well as rupa ceases without
remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here) (Suan Lu Zaw).
The arguments on both sides become very complex and voluminous at this point. For example,
there are arguments that claim that everything is an illusion, i.e., perceived reality is
ultimately unreal, hence there is no actual cessation; there are arguments that claim the
complete cessation of all consciousness is only nihilistic if one takes consciousness as being
"me," "mine," or "myself," etc.
For me, "real" simply means an existing cognizable experience. Going back to my statement
concerning how I like to look at this, I understand the five aggregates of clinging to represent
things that we do as opposed to just things. In other words, there is an act of intention that
goes into our experience. In SN 56.11, for example, the Buddha summarizes stress and
suffering (dukkha) as the five aggregates of clinging. Furthermore, in MN 43 the five
aggregates of clinging are described in their verb forms, or in other words, not as things but as
activities.
Therefore, when looking at the arising of the five aggregates of clinging in this way, we are
effectively looking at the arising of [the activity of] stress and suffering; when looking at the
cessation of the five aggregates of clinging in this way, we are effectively looking at the
cessation of [the activity of] stress and suffering. Thus, all that ceases is [the activity of] stress
and suffering, not an independently existing entity of any kind. Since this cessation is
cognizable, it too can be considered "real." Moreover, since only an activity has been stopped,
there is no actual destruction of any "thing."
My view is probably not in line with classical Theravada on this point, however, so please
consider my thoughts with that caveat in mind.
Best wishes,
Jason
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
o
p

by Jechbi Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:44 pm
P
o
s
Chris wrote:
t
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
3:38 am
Contact:
C
o
n
process.
Right.
From the article Chris posted earlier:
Bhikkhus, there is an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unformed. (Ud 73; It 45)
Personally, I think it's a safe bet to assume that anything we think of as "me," anything we
regard as ourself, everything that we are in this moment, will not last. From our unenlightened
perspective, it is annihilation. Gotta let it all go, cuz it's going away any way. And then don't
worry about it.
Metta
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,

But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
o
p

by AdvaitaJ Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:55 pm
P
o
s
Elohim wrote:
t
AdvaitaJ
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009
1:17 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Therefore, when looking at the arising of the five aggregates of clinging in this way, we are
effectively looking at the arising of [the activity of] stress and suffering; when looking at the
cessation of the five aggregates of clinging in this way, we are effectively looking at the
cessation of [the activity of] stress and suffering. Thus, all that ceases is [the activity of] stress
and suffering, not an independently existing entity of any kind. Since this cessation is
cognizable, it too can be considered "real." Moreover, since only an activity has been stopped,
there is no actual destruction of any "thing."
Elohim,
A very intriguing view. If you permit the substitution of "process" for "activity" in your definition
above, this tends back to another point of anatta I'm wrestling with. Specifically, I'm to the
point of wondering why the unique collection of responses that each of us presents to causes
could not be considered the "self". Rather than seeking an individual entity as a self, why not
the very large number of behaviors that each of us responds with when triggered to do so by
causes. As has been pointed out elsewhere, we are different people in differing circumstances.
To the point, this could imply a definition of nibbana as the elimination of the inputs that
trigger the resulting output responses. No inputs = no response. Nothing was destroyed because
nothing was triggered to start.
Regards: AdvaitaJ
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. Li Bai
o
p
pt1
Posts: 415

by pt1 Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:56 am
P

2:30 am
Thanks clw, Ven.Appicchato, Chris, and all for your replies and links. Also, thanks sukhamanveti
for explaining the mechanics of your conclusion thats what Ive been really after, and I
apologise to all if I have dragged the thread towards the whole issue of self and nihilism and all
that - I was really just interested in the mechanics of parinibbana since I think we all agree
that arahat has no self anymore to worry about.
Im still unclear on how is it that an arahat keeps nibbana attainment beyond parinibbana in
mechanical terms, since my understanding of classical Theravada so far is that nibbana as a
dhamma can only be taken up as an object of citta (with help from cetasikas). So after
parinibbana, this seems to become impossible, because theres no more cittas or cetsikas to
perform that function. So, I would appreciate if someone can show where and how exactly am
I wrong in this understanding.
Once more, this is not to do with annihilationism or eternalism, self and all that, but just how
the dhammas work so that nibbana can be experienced after parinibbana (if it can be).
Thanks
o
p
pt1
Posts: 415
2:30 am

by pt1 Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:04 am
P
HioChris,
s
t
Chris wrote:
process.
Personally, I love the reference to a process. However, lately Im getting jitters if perhaps Ive
unknowingly brainwashed myself through reading a bit too many mahayana posts on e-sangha
and thus taken up all sorts of mahayana understandings of Dhamma
As Im finding out, dhammas in classical theravada are pretty much really real, as elohim also
mentions, so dhammas are not illusions and illusory as it is thought in mahayana I think.
Therefore, Im wondering about the process sayings and how relevant they are to Theravada.
I mean, does it refer to dhammas being unreal, or dhammas having the three charactersitcs, or
something else?
Sure dhammas are dukkha, anicca and anatta (except for nibbana which is only anatta), but in
classical theravada that apparently doesnt mean that they are an illusion like in mahayana.
And relevant to this thread, nibbana is a reality, and as such it can be experienced by these
other dhammas (citta and cetasikas), which are also real while arahat still has functional
aggregates. After the aggregates are gone, again this brings me to the same question how is
it that nibbana as a reality can be experienced (if it can be)?
Anyway, Im not asserting anything, just wondering about things.
Best wishes
o

by kc2dpt Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:42 pm
P
o
s
pt1 wrote:
t
Im wondering about the process sayings and how relevant they are to Theravada. does it
refer to dhammas being unreal, or dhammas having the three charactersitcs, or something else?
kc2dpt
Posts: 956
3:48 pm
As far as I know, it refers to things which we normally take as static, existing entities but which
actually aren't. Talking about "processes" is a way of making clear the teaching on anicca.
Sure dhammas are dukkha, anicca and anatta...
Are they? The teaching I'm familiar with says:

sabbe sankhara anicca.
sabba sankhara dukkha.
sabbe dhamma anatta.
Perhaps you are conflating sankhara and dhamma?
aggregates. After the aggregates are gone, again this brings me to the same question how is it
that nibbana as a reality can be experienced (if it can be)?
I don't now. Talk of what an arahant experiences or doesn't experience post parinibbana seems
to me to fall squarely in the category of topics the Buddha said cannot be meaningfully talked
about. I guess this won't satisfy your urge to know.
"When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well."
- Peter
o
p
pt1
Posts: 415
2:30 am

by pt1 Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:50 am
P
o
s
Peter wrote:
t
pt1 wrote:
Im wondering about the process sayings and how relevant they are to Theravada. does it
refer to dhammas being unreal, or dhammas having the three charactersitcs, or something
else?
As far as I know, it refers to things which we normally take as static, existing entities but which
actually aren't. Talking about "processes" is a way of making clear the teaching on anicca.
Thanks Peter, I think youre right, and my mistake was to read a bit too much into the
process meaning, ending up with understanding it to mean illusion, smoke and mirrors, and
those sorts of things.
Peter wrote:
pt1 wrote:
Sure dhammas are dukkha, anicca and anatta...

Are they? The teaching I'm familiar with says:
sabbe sankhara anicca.
sabba sankhara dukkha.
sabbe dhamma anatta.
Perhaps you are conflating sankhara and dhamma?
Possibly. Afaik, in abhidhamma all paramattha dhammas (citta, cetasikas, rupa and nibbana)
are considered to have the three characteristics, except nibbana which is not anicca and
dukkha, but is anatta. Interesting though, in the sutta you quote, does sankhara include
citta (consciousness)? Afaik, in abhidhamma sankhara stands for cetasikas and includes three
aggregates feeling, perception and volitional formations. So, from that POV, your quote
would be saying that these three aggregates are anicca and dukkha, but consciousness isnt
anicca and dukkha?
Peter wrote:
pt1 wrote:
aggregates. After the aggregates are gone, again this brings me to the same question how
is it that nibbana as a reality can be experienced (if it can be)?
I don't now. Talk of what an arahant experiences or doesn't experience post parinibbana seems
to me to fall squarely in the category of topics the Buddha said cannot be meaningfully talked
about. I guess this won't satisfy your urge to know.
"When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well."
I see what youre saying, but still it is hard to shake off the doubt the feeling that arahatship
is not the best of solutions as it seems only short-lived until parinibbana. I guess that shows
lack of faith on my side. Im wondering how do others deal with this issue considering that it
can't be meaningfully talked about.
Best wishes
o
p

by Dhammanando Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:58 am
P
HioPt,
s
t

pt1 wrote:
Afaik, in abhidhamma sankhara stands for cetasikas and includes three aggregates feeling,
perception and volitional formations.
Dhammanando
Posts: 2558
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008
10:44 pm
Location: Wat Doi Phra
Koed, Chom Thong,
Chiang Mai
I think you have it the wrong way round.

The sankharakkhandha makes up 50 of the Abhidhamma's 52 cetasikas. Vedanakkhandha and
saakkhandha make up the remaining two.
Vedana and sa are included in sankhara in any context where sankhara means conditioned
thing, but not in contexts where it means sankharakkhandha.
Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Sundrromn
Pli Romnistion
sr: i u e o
kj: k
tluj: c j j
mudj:
dntj: t d n
oj: p b m
v: y r l v s h
niht: i
o
p

by kc2dpt Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:45 am
P
o
s
pt1 wrote:
t
kc2dpt
Posts: 956
3:48 pm
I see what youre saying, but still it is hard to shake off the doubt the feeling that arahatship is
not the best of solutions as it seems only short-lived until parinibbana. I guess that shows lack
of faith on my side. Im wondering how do others deal with this issue considering that it can't
be meaningfully talked about.
I dunno. I guess I don't worry about what "nibbana" means. I think I know what "stress" means,
though, and I know what "lessening stress" means and I think that "end of all stress" sounds like
a good thing... and so I focus on that.
Hunger: the foremost illness.
Fabrications: the foremost pain.
For one knowing this truth
as it actually is,
Unbinding is the foremost ease.
- Dhp 203
- Peter
o
p


by sukhamanveti Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:09 am
P
o
s
pt1 wrote:
t
Im wondering how do others deal with this issue considering that it can't be meaningfully talked
about.
sukhamanveti
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Mar 08,
2009 7:33 pm
Location: U.S.A.
For me the issue is a pragmatic one. After enlightenment, we are told, one no longer craves
existence and one no longer craves nonexistence. At that point, then, one doesn't care
whether parinibbana is extinction or not. Right now, if there is even a small possibility that
parinibbana is not total extinction, then looking to that possibility gives me greater motivation
and encouragement to practice than the alternative. That to me is the tie-breaking argument.
Sla bala appaima.
Sla vudhamuttama.
Slambharaa seha.
Sla kavacamabbhuta.
Virtue
Virtue
Virtue
Virtue
is
is
is
is
a matchless power.
the greatest weapon.
the best adornment.
a wonderful armor.
Theragatha 614
Sabbappassa akaraa,
kusalassa upasampad,
Sacittapariyodapana,
eta buddhna ssana.
Refraining from all wrong-doing,
Undertaking the good,
Purifying the mind,
This is the teaching of the buddhas.
Dhammapada v. 183/14.5
o
p

by sukhamanveti Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:20 am
P
o
s
Elohim wrote:
t
In addition, within classical Theravada, the the goal is said to be the utter extinction of all
consciousness per the verse in DN 11: "Ettha namanca rupanca, asesam uparujjhati. Vinnanassa
nirodhena etthetam uparujjhati" (Here [in nibbana], nama as well as rupa ceases without
remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here) (Suan Lu Zaw). Jason
sukhamanveti
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Mar 08,
2009 7:33 pm
Location: U.S.A.
There is more than one way to read the Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11). Bhikkhu Nanananda, in the
BPS booklet Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought, analyzes the Pali in light of related
passages in the Tipitaka and concludes that it addresses the consciousness of a living arahant,
despite references to cessation: "It is very likely that the reference again is to the anna-phala
samadhi (the 'Fruit of Knowledge' concentration) of the Arahant... The last line of the verse
stresses the fact that the four great elements do not find a footing --and that name-and-form
(comprehending them) can be cut off completely--in that anidassana-vinnana (the
'nonmanifestative consciousness') of the Arahant, by the cessation of his normal consciousness

which rests on the data of sense experience." (pp. 65-66) He then discusses and rejects
Buddhaghosa's "after-death" interpretation. If consciousness can cease in one sense (ordinary
consciousness) and not cease in another (boundless or infinite consciousness), then this leaves
open the possibility of some form of consciousness surviving parinibbana.
Sla bala appaima.
Sla vudhamuttama.
Slambharaa seha.
Sla kavacamabbhuta.
Virtue
Virtue
Virtue
Virtue
is
is
is
is
a matchless power.
the greatest weapon.
the best adornment.
a wonderful armor.
Theragatha 614
Sabbappassa akaraa,
kusalassa upasampad,
Sacittapariyodapana,
eta buddhna ssana.
Refraining from all wrong-doing,
Undertaking the good,
Purifying the mind,
This is the teaching of the buddhas.
Dhammapada v. 183/14.5
o
p
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009
3:11 am

by nathan Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:48 am
P
o
"There
is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water,
s
nor
t heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the
base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,

nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this
world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say
there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and
no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support.
Just this is the end of suffering."
(Ud 8:1;80)
I like this one drawn from Chris' quotations from previous discussion.
There are many ways this presented more positively. The worldly incline to a view tainted by a
sense of self be it gross or subtle which is forever anxious and agitated about it's fate [nail it to
the wall and meditate on it I say : ) ]. When this is fully defeated to the root, the inclination is
to this other base instead, non-arising. Awakening to an actual non-arising Dhamma; and also,
the non-arising of any such of the former inclinations to identify with any arising samsaric
conditions as I, me or mine, samsara is emptied of self and so too of suffering thereabouts
thereafter. Some go on to say samsara is then also nibbana, say it's 'whatever man', as it is no
longer suffering the stain of ongoing kamma making and suffering. Samsara is clearly and fully
known and seen for what it is ongoing instead of a sense of lost-ness and loss. Life would linger
on but the 'penalty' for living would be gone until even the 'tally' or 'score', the result of a living
form is gone. It makes sense but not in the sense of identifying with it either, the path applies
at the end as well except that the full application is entirely realized.
Does it continue to be realized? Why not? It has no beginning and no end.
I say go for it, what do we have to loose except our pain and sorrow? It must be wonderful to
say the least!
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of
thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti
115}
o
p
pt1
Posts: 415
2:30 am

by pt1 Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:27 am
P
o
s
Dhammanando wrote:
t
I think you have it the wrong way round.

The sankharakkhandha makes up 50 of the Abhidhamma's 52 cetasikas. Vedanakkhandha and
saakkhandha make up the remaining two.
Vedana and sa are included in sankhara in any context where sankhara means conditioned
thing, but not in contexts where it means sankharakkhandha.
Thank you for the correction Bhante. Also thanks Peter, Ed and Nathan, your replies are
encouraging each in its own way.
Best wishes
o
p
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009
3:11 am

by nathan Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:16 pm
P
o
s
pt1 wrote:
t
...still it is hard to shake off the doubt the feeling that arahatship is not the best of solutions
as it seems only short-lived until parinibbana. I guess that shows lack of faith on my side. Im
wondering how do others deal with this issue considering that it can't be meaningfully talked
about.
Best wishes
Hi pt1;
Well, I don't trouble with talking about it much or even thinking about it much either anymore.
Intellectually, issues around nibbana are frustrating short of some kind of actual experience
and then they aren't frustrating at all any more. So my advice is to pour that effort into steam
entry. As I see it the question of what is what will resolve itself experientially. If the theravada
are correct then existence ends with arahatta magga, if the mahayana are correct then that is
simply one level of existence being "over" and the beginning of another kind of work. In either
case it makes sense to get that done first if one is going to provide the maximum benefit to all
beings. If theravada is correct about bodhisattas and you are one, then that is going to become
clear in the same way, through attempting to complete the work of a disciple. If the mahayana
is right then even becoming an arahat isn't an impediment to being a bodhisattva. So that is
how I am approaching it. One step at a time.
As for nibbana as a 'real' dhamma, I think that an identification with nibbana is only realizable
in the context that in the realization of nibbana, one (in a sense) IS nibbana. That is, the mind
is not arising at that moment as mind in any conventional sense but as nibbana instead - which
has no qualities or characteristics comparable to consciousness or mind. So, in theory, upon
death, the arahat does not arise as any other dhamma because there is no cause but also the
arahat does not cease to 'not arise' as nibbana (I say 'not arise' instead of 'arise' because
paradoxically nibbana is a non-arising dhamma but it is still an 'existing' dhamma, just not a
conditionally dependent dhamma).
Because nibbana has no relation to time or space or consciousness it is not a dhamma which
comes and goes, either for the arahat or in any absolute sense at all. It is entirely consistent in
the sense that it is as accessible from anywhere in time and space but it is not 'connected' to
time and space in any way at any time or anywhere. So, parinibbana, in this context, is an
escape from conditional dhammas and also an escape from space, time and consciousness.
Nibbana is therefore everpresent and unchanging but also non-arising and un-manifest
conditionally.
The mind simply cannot relate to it. Before 'being nibbana' instead of 'being mind', mind has no
clue how or why or what or where nibbana could possibly be and in a very real sense after
'becoming nibbana' mind has no clue how or why or what or where nibbana could possibly be
either, but mind does know that this is so and that it is a dhamma with no beginning and no
end, that it is timeless, space-less, condition-less and consciousness-less. Mind does
understand itself in the light of nibbana as entirely conditional and temporary in all times and
spaces and that for nibbana to arise mind must cease or acquiesce it's existence in preference
to abiding (or in a more 'real' sense, non-abiding) as nibbana instead.
So my advice is always to follow the instructions that get you there, to an actual experience of
nibbana, after that you will not have any fewer questions about nibbana but you will never
again be dissatisfied, about that inability to express the nature of these things, because you
will understand why it is that nibbana defies the conscious mind's capacities to comprehend
dhammas.
Conditional dhammas are the province of mind. Nibbana is the province of only nibbana.
This is simply the way it is. Arguments about what is actually going on, even between those
who can reference nibbana in this way will likely continue for so long as other dhammas and
sentient mind does, simply because mind cannot resolve some of these things at all.
Conditional dhammas change and change considerably (because the compounding of the
conditional dhammas allows for such vast diversities of compounded forms), the one
unconditional dhamma will never change in any way, will never arise, and will never cease
either.
I hope that helps a little.
upekkha
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of
thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti
115}
o
p


by robertk Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:54 am
P
o Pt
Dear
s
You
t do understand that there are only
robertk
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009
2:08 am
citta cetasika and rupa, no self. Upon death of the

arahat all that remains is the bone fragments, i.e. some rupa.
Thus in no way is there anilhilation as there never was a self, ever.

BTW there are some hilarious things on the internet about people talking with past Buddhas, or
searching through relics of monks to find crystals which "show" they were arahats. I used to
find these things a bit sad but it is better to enjoy a laugh (albeit rooted in lobha).
Edit to add this links. After writing this post I came across this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1096
robert
Oh I just remembered the best one yet. One article I read claims that an arhats citta or
consciousness or whatver is some special type that is unbound and floats around somehow
after death, presumably outside of samsara.
again:tantrum:
Darn now I feel sad
http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums
Display posts from previous: All posts

posts
Sort by Post
time
Post time
Ascending
Ascending
Post Reply
o
p
Go
211 posts
1
2
3
4
5

11
Return to General Theravda discussion
Jump to
WHO IS ONLINE
Users browsing this forum: Vanda and 5 guests
Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine
Board index
Powered by phpBB Forum Software phpBB Limited
GZIP: Off
DhammaWheel.com is associated with DharmaWheel.net, DhammaWiki.com, and TheDhamma.com

Is The Result of Parinibbana Annihilation - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Is The Result of Parinibbana Annihilation - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

- Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the

Board index Modern Theravda General Theravda discussion

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Search this topic

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

it relevant. Sutta Nipata 5.6

As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

all means of speaking

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

I couldnt find that on sutta but i found another good one

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

"'The Tathagata exists after death' is immersed in perception...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Eternalism is the belief that is a self who lives forever.

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

What is there when the process ceases?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

"I will live forever"

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Yes, but only if you consider Theravada realist.

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

From the article Chris posted earlier:

Bhikkhus, there is an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unformed. (Ud 73; It 45)

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Sure dhammas are dukkha, anicca and anatta...

Are they? The teaching I'm familiar with says:

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Sure dhammas are dukkha, anicca and anatta...

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

I think you have it the wrong way round.

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

'nonmanifestative consciousness') of the Arahant, by the cessation of his normal consciousness

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

I think you have it the wrong way round.

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

Re: Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation? - Page 2 - Dhamma Wheel

citta cetasika and rupa, no self. Upon death of the

Thus in no way is there anilhilation as there never was a self, ever.