I was reading the wikipedia page and there seem to be a lot of different concepts for it. So what is there in common in all of them?
>>16785253It's a band from the 90s
>>16785253Enlightenment. True understanding. Cessation of Samsara. Not necessarily the cessation of existence, but to cease existence requires enlightenment,
>>16785254And a different band from the 60's
>>16785260>Not necessarily the cessation of existenceIf you're not being reborn, how will you exist?
>>16785271You continue existence, enlightened. A "Bodhisattva"
>>16785276What?>In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (English: /ˌboʊdiːˈsʌtvə/ BOH-dee-SUT-və; Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व, romanized: Bodhisattva) or bodhisatva is a person who is on the path towards bodhi ('awakening' or 'enlightenment') or Buddhahood.[1]Wikipedia says that Bodhisattvas are not Buddhas yet, this being valid for Theravada and Mahayana. Bodhisattvas are not in Nirvana yet.
>>16785253Nirvana represents the attainment of a state of ultimate peace, transcendence and enlightenment. In Buddhism, it is the end of the cyclical existence of ‘samsara’ and its related suffering.
>>16785253We don't know and even if we knew being able to describe it would be impossible. It is beyond existence and non existence.
>>16785253Nirvana is "blowing out" of the fire, in its appropriate terms. And in Buddhism, it means extinguishing the "desire" and ending the suffering, What it means in practice is bit complex, however. In theravada, when someone reaches enlightenment, you can then "awaken" a mindset that which reaches nirvana. When you have reached enlightenment, you've reached nirvana. This means end of desire/suffering for the person at the same time. But its not a random thing, its a gradual long developed mindset that takes a long time, multiple lives, etc. In mahayana, you can reach enlightenment in any lifetime, and enlightenment can in this life even if its first time. However enlightenment can be a temporary one that which hasn't cultivated the mind through meditation and can happen on chance like "Eureka!". It can however also happen similar to theravada where you gradually train your mind to develop and be able to enter nirvana at the same time as enlightenment.There is one important distinction though. In mahayana, you stop the final process of entering nirvana and instead delay that part so they can become bodhisattva to help others in many other lifetimes as well. And the difference here is nirvana and enlightenment aren't necessarily 1=1, but a choice. Finally there is paranirvana. This is the final nirvana, in which the body dies and there is no karma affecting its next birth. While you reach nirvana in this life and continue to live a normal life, similar to how Buddha reached enlightenment/nirvana and then taught for 40 years walking along India.
This stems from the confusion of Hinduism with Buddhism.Hinduism and Mahayana, ZEN, Vajaryana are a monistic Universalism: the totality exists and nothing else. There is no multiplicity, everything is absolutely identical. THis is qualified of ''acosmatic''They mix this view with a huge amount of symbols, incantations, rituals, worship, idolatry, mantras, deities, chanting,entertainment reading with lengthy Scriptures with thousands of verses, sacrifice and sacred objects, and rules for lay people in order to create a religion.For the Hindus and mahayanists, people have the knowledge that they have a true nature, but people are misguided on what they take as their true nature. This is why the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it... The true nature of people is not the 5 senses or their objects, but the mind itself with the world [loka] itself identified with the cosmos, or their deification of this, ie their Brahma or their Buddha or non-duality, and when people realize this they are enlightened. The way to realize this is by relying on lots of sacrifice, chantings and rituals, also on material objects which magically purify the minds for them, like sounds, logic, mantras, little beads, amulets.Mahayana-Hinduism tries to make a human society, some political system too.It is only when there is a allegedly good creator [a god or just ''nature''] that it makes sense to ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' ie ''why some good god did not get people to be born directly enlightened? instead of being born unenlightened which produces lots of suffering?''So far the Hindus have no answer to this ''problem of evil''. The Hindus keep replying with their main thesis, ie ''because people do not know their true nature, which is pure primordial mind and cannot be described'' and that's their pathetic cope...
>>16785778in Buddhism, there is no non-duality, people do not have a true nature, people are not the cosmos, people are not Brahma, people do not come from Brahma, people are not nibanna, people do not come from nibanna, people are not Buddha, people do not come from a buddha, people are not their mind, people are not loka, people are not born already enlightened. In Buddhism there is only craving for pretty things and the pretty ideas of having ''a true nature'', and there is the opposite: a lack of craving for pretty things and pretty ideas. People get enlightened when they stop craving for those. The way to get enlightened is to purify the mind, however not with useless incantations and rituals nor with magical objects, nor worship, unlike the Hindus do, but with the mind itself, ie all the time inclining [with the mind] the mind towards what the buddha calls good qualities and then directly knowing the mind as it really is, which is anicca, dukkha, anatta [contrary to what the hindus say], which is the condition for dispassion, dispassion which is the condition for liberation, liberation which is the condition for direct knowledge that dukkha is ended.Buddhism doesn’t care about society. Buddhism works in feudalism, republics, empires, monotheism, paganism, whatever non-enlightened people create as political system. Buddhism doesn't try to change society at all.
>>16785253>>16785700Nirvana is the act of realizing that norse myth is correct, and that the archetype of (You) never truly dies.The suffering and pain goes away and you can now start to live life and add to the cycles rather than live as an isolated ego within a single cycle.Realizing that the Word of God is the same as being remembered by Odin, and thus live on in the tales of bards, makes you start to aim for the big leagues while also having joy in knowing you are living IN the story, rather than outside of it.Nirvana then, has it's norse equivalent in Njordr, the "Nether-Vanir" god of wind and underworld.Just another name for Baldr, as they both have the title "Prince of Men" and is technically the norse equivalents to the "Angel of Death".They're likely just 2 different instances of an individual that "channeled" that particular god and was remembered as representatives of this god due to their attributes and life stories.
Https://wiswo.org/books/niknib/
>>16785253A punk rock band from Aberdeen, Washington. Next question.
Bump so the thread is not archived and I can answer you guys
>>16785700So if you're not reborn, do you stop existing?>>16785710In your opinion it's impossible to define it then?>>16785773So in paranirvana one stops existing forever?>>16785778>For the Hindus and mahayanists, people have the knowledge that they have a true natureStrange, what about the concept of anatta like >>16785780 pointed out?>>16786063What even is the Buddhist definition of annihilation then?
>>16787921>So in paranirvana one stops existing forever?Existence and non-existence isn't a thing for Buddhists, particularly for the enlightened. Both are considered wrong views. For various reason, the question of existence requires lot of unpacking. To boil it down, the subject matter of the question asking that which is said to exists is a matter that is found to be flawed.
>>16788168So... Is there any definition for "existence" in Buddhism?
>>16788212Yes in a complicated way but also the subject matter of your inquiry into its existence is still not a valid question in this religion.
>>16785253Instead of looking what is common with all of them your should look at what is common for humanity.>>16785276>>16785290A Buddha is a bodhisattva that reached nirvana. Buddha is not a person, it is a title.Some say it is a process, others a place. Regardless it is a bunch of very old interpretation of the conscious exploration of the metaphysical realm which is ingrained in humanity. The most materialistic interpretation of it is a psychotic break involving extreme hallucinations, much more intense than DMT or NDE over a short moment, followed by a derealization process that follows. Now it sounds quite negative, as it can be, some "enlightened" have the tendency to create suicide cults , satanic and dionysian cults (the bad ones) or end up out right insane. Others live life "reborn" starting anew, taking from it what they want.Buddhism has the merit to offer a lot of support in this direction as it understands it quite well. Abrahamic religions tends to blame demons or praise angels while modern medicine treats the eventual symptoms. Hindus and Buddhists have two visions of nirvana.Gnostic sects call this gnosis.Kabbalists call it the zohar.Christian's Bible is full of esoterism.The Egyptians had a whole thing with Ra and Thoth.The Greeks with Hermes and Dionysos.The Romans less with Bacchus and probably some more.tl;dr it's about realising the illusory nature of reality through first hand experience.
>>16788231>but also the subject matter of your inquiry into its existence is still not a valid question in this religionWhy wouldn't it be a valid question? To exist is commonly defined as to partake in reality, so at least for this definition what would be the problem in asking if something is in reality or not?
>>16788377>To exist is commonly defined as to partake in realityYeah, thats everyday common/popular notion of it. However this is an invalid "common sense" here. Particularly is the notion 1) something is partaking 2) something to be partaken in as something that which has a substantial existence (common sense notion of existence)There are multiple layers of problems going in with this sort of question because there's many layers that this religion peel off, redefine/re-examine from baseline, etc.
>>16788364I'm interested in finding out whether it implies stopping existing after death of not, though. Because as the other anon >>16786063 posted, they claim it doesn't imply annihilation, but at the same time say that it implies in the "cessation of the khandhas".>>16788391But they have to admit that there is reality afterall, no? And that there are objects in this reality, no?
>>16788460see >>16788231>Yes in a complicated way but also the subject matter of your inquiry into its existence is still not a valid question in this religion.There is a reality, not that it "exists" or "doesn't exists" as those two are loaded words and have issues with this religion. But the more pressing matter is the subject matter of the original question below is what doesn't make sense is what I'm saying.>So in paranirvana one stops existing foreverHence the particular subject matter of the questioning is an invalid discourse in this religion.
>>16788460>the objectTake it from the constructivist point of view.The object only exists within the frame of human existence. Without Man's interference it is. With man it is what (we say) it is. Reality exists conventionally (material), it is undeniable we all experience it. Behind that reality is reality unbinded by conventions and the limitations of the human body.>afterlifeI am convinced there is an afterlife akin to the egyptian tribunal or abrahamic purgatory.>cessationNow about Nirvana, it is not a finality, it is not what comes after the soul is unbinded from the vessel. That anyone who claims knowledge over I wouldn't believe. Cessation is also subject to impermanence and something has to happen, call it a regression(back to the primordial) or progression(toward the ideal). While Nirvana is the highest state of cessation, the one who experiences it returns in his carnal envelope afterwards and finishes the experience back at square one.It's a spiritual awakening like what Heraclitus, Plato, Plotinus or Spinoza might have put up.From what I understand paranirvana is physical death for a buddha, one who experienced nirvana before. I'd say it's like the Judeo-Christian idea of ascending to heaven right away. I emmit some reserves on it since the buddha would have to stay upholding to his status of buddhahood until his death. This is not a guarantee.
>>16788485So what exactly is this "complicated way" in which they define existence?>>16788569>Cessation is also subject to impermanenceWhat? Why?>While Nirvana is the highest state of cessation, the one who experiences it returns in his carnal envelope afterwards and finishes the experience back at square one.But after Nirvana one stops to reincarnate.
Why am I occasionally meeting western irreligious people that emphatically insist Buddhism is not a religion and that it’s scientific but whenever I look into even the basics of it I’m seeing the most wacko “trust me bro” shit on the planet? Who sold them that meme?
>>16788870Actually it's from a theistic point of view that the idea that Buddhism is not a religion arises, since there's no God in Buddhism like in Protestant Christianity, for example.
>>16788866Well when you ask the question does one stop existing forever, you're really asking a very complicated question, that you may or may not realize. One of which might be, "does the soul or the self cease to exist?" This could be seen as a metaphysical concept of soul and self of various traditions you know of. Another way to see the question is asking whether ontologically something ceases to be for any amount of time. Another is whether anything can be made sense from our epistemological understanding. And prob few other ways to look at the question too.In the Buddhist sense, lets just exclude the question about personal sense and just go with general underlying reality itself. If we extend the question as does reality exist? What is it that you might be asking of a Buddhist? Ontological grounding? Metaphysical reality? Epistemological reality? What can the Buddhists say? There's no ontological grounding of reality in buddhism that which gives reality any causal power. There's no independence of reality from each other. There's nothing holding reality together. And in not having anything holding reality together, a nuanced sort of picture of reality emerges. A one that doesn't have a grounding but is dependent on every other. One that cannot have any independence but its identity/distinctiveness is given through dependency. Yet the distinctiveness has no quality on to its own to call its own causal powers.
>>16788899I'm asking if the entirety of a person (who achieved Nirvana) would not be there after death.>There's no ontological grounding of reality in buddhism that which gives reality any causal power.What about karma?>There's no independence of reality from each other. There's nothing holding reality together.What about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idappaccayat%C4%81 ?
>>16788917>I'm asking if the entirety of a person (who achieved Nirvana) would not be there after death.The answer is the person was never really there to begin with. The notion of "person" is a fiction/figment. So not only was this person never there to begin with, there is no way for that person that wasn't there to begin with to go anywhere or be anywhere or change from any state to state. A person as people may present themselves in context of Buddhism is what people normally recall as their name, body, memories, feelings, and/or cognitive ability. While most of them can be easily understood simply, some get confused over the conscious ability part. Conscious ability that people may typically be call as their "person"/"self" is the function of the brain that which discerns. Discernment of left/right, discernment of pink/black. Discernment of tall/large. Discernment of near/large. Thats the basic cognition ability of the brain. This discernment is an ability because it grows in ability as you get older, as you train it more and more, and loses with old age, distorts with impairments, etc. Further its got the ability to discern its own function in the process of discernment as sort of a recursive loop. So there was never a person anywhere.
>>16788917>What aboutFrom the wiki>When this is, that is.>From the arising of this comes the arising of that.>When this isn't, that isn't.>From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.Once again, it is, or it is what it is.>karma Exists within the "it is what it is" reality for the "it is" reality is monist and not dualistic.
>>16788930>So there was never a person anywhereSo is it correct to say that there were only the khandhas and that they are not there after death of an individual who has achived parinirvana? If so, how can something turn to nothing? Is it even possible?
>>16789922>it is what it isWhat should that even mean or imply?
>>16790997Conventional reality. The Buddhist use the term saṃvṛti-satya.
Parinibbana is functionally equivalent to the atheist physicalist conception of bodily death. Body stops making consciousness. Lights out. Nibbana actually means "to go out" like a candle. This is very clear from the early Buddhist texts. Like it's spelled put over and over. It's just eternalists like thanissaro try and sneak in a cosmic consciousness because the truth of the Buddha's teachings is incredibly dark and pessimistic. Also when you point this out about 50 people will screech that BUDDHA DIDNT TEACH ANNIHILATIONISM!!! which is true, hut annihilation for the Buddha was the thesis that there was a substantial self, an 'atman' that persisted through time which was annihilated at death. He taught annata, and rebirth. Parinibbana is when the body dies and there is no more rebirth. https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/Or just you know, actually read the Pali suttas.
>>16788884Atman basically is a kind of god, just a bit different to the Abrahamic god. But even then anatta Buddhism still has all kinds of crazy shit in it.Though belief in a deity is not necessary for a religion. You can have a religion about anything, it’s more about the faith based system of praxis.
>>16791571When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice. Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’>https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latinRead this entire sutta if you want to understand parinibbana
>>16791571>Or just you know, actually read the Pali suttas.Nigga that shit is 15x longer than the Bible, and that’s just the START of Buddhist canon. If I read at average reading speed for 2 hours a day it’s going to take enough time to finish a PhD. from zero college. I’m more sceptical of Buddhists claiming to have read their own texts than I am of Marxists claiming to have read Capital, because despite being dense, boring and long as fuck it is at least fit to be finished and comprehended in a reasonable amount of time.
>>16791629Tbqh, its very hard to read all of the Buddhist cannon(even just limiting to pali canon) without being a lifelong sutra reader Buddhist or a buddhist researcher. And especially trying to understand all of it. The best way imo is just just dive into the popular sutta, texts out there and then try to meditate to see the teachings. IMO, you only need handful of suttas, to get a good starting point and then its all about getting a feel for it. Even Dhammapada itself is enough to get a good chunk of Buddhist understanding for most people.
>>16791629What? Most of those suttas are just repitive monk rules you dont have to read the whole thing lol. just read the popular ones. They're on suttacentral.
>>16791571So it's not annihilationism just because there's no Self, right? But what about the khandhas that exist before Parinirvana? Even viññāṇa. I might be wrong, but that seems like a semantical question. Because ok, there's no Self, but there are still the five khandhas or aggregates. Is the Buddha saying that after death the khandhas are not there at all, or just that they are transformed into something else made from the same respective substances or materials? Because as I said in >>16790992, how can something turn to nothing?Also, curiously, I've read that the Buddha actually did teach about the Self. You can read it here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parinirvana (in the subtitle "In Mahayana literature")https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na_Mah%C4%81parinirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a_S%C5%ABtra (in the subtitle "Teachings")>>16791610>there is no return to any state of existenceAs I discussed in >>16788212, what definition of "existence" are you using? Because if there's not any existence, does that mean that the khandhas go from something to nothing? Is such thing even possible?
>>16791571I read the suttas. what exactly do you find so troubling about what they have to say? I also promise not to shout so: the Buddha never taught a concept of annihilationism. that seems to be a christian concept. did he ever use a word that the english word annihilation would serve as a good translation for? its possible, but I have yet to find it. annihilation seems like a dense word full of meaning tied to a particular school of philosophical thought.A real good question would be: why do you find the concept of annihilation so troubling?
>>16791973Nah, I don’t trust that kind of gate way drug evangelising, massive read flag. If I’m going to commit to a religion I need to know the facts, if there’s some hidden shit in there I could raise children in this having never found out about that’s an automatic no.This is literally the same pitch the Mormons gave to me only replace “meditation” with “prayer”, naturally they skedaddled when they found out I had already read D&C and Pearl of the Great Price.I can read all that shit but the Pali Canon alone is just too much of a time sink, same as the Talmud. I know there’s some shit in there I don’t like and that’s enough, the length alone is enough to justify myself not actually reading it to see if that’s fair assessment because in my experience it usually is.
>>16792602>If I’m going to commit to a religion I need to know the facts, if there’s some hidden shit in there...."...these three things, monks, shine openly, not in secret. What three? The moon, the sun, and the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata."
>>16792602to wit >>16792633 I would be more then happy to answer any questions and try to help in any way to clear the deep misconception you seem to have. not to mention a prejudice towards the Buddha's teaching, carried over as it seems from your interactions with the mormons. if it helps, I couldnt care less of you see any truth in the Buddha-Dharma. wether you do or not doesnt affect my understanding of it or wether I attain liberation or not.
>>16792602Then why not just read the core teachings and go from there? Just read the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path; if you like that, keep reading, if not, move on with your life. The only "hidden shit" will be some strange stories like the Buddha encountering talking monkeys or tree spirits, the kind of minutiae that I don't think would actually change your mind about the core philosophy. Reminds me of some dunning-krueger anon on /x/ a while back who said Buddhism can't be the religion of the future (or something like that) because a couple of suttas acknowledge a Flat Earth, as if that invalidates the idea of emptiness or impermanence.
>>16792585>Is the Buddha saying that after death the khandhas are not there at allYes. Read this essay for further reference:Https://wiswo.org/books/niknib/Also try not to think of the khandas as distinct objects that either exist or not. It's kire like everything is dependently originated and once their causal conditions are removed the process stops. If you have a fire blazing and you remove the causal condition (eg, the fuel or oxygen), does it make sense to say the flame has been annihilated? The flame once existed but now it doesn't? The flame isn't a singular thing to be annihiliated or to exist/not-exist. it's a phenomena sustained by causes. Remove the causes and the phenomena stops. Mahayana is heresy nonsense I only read the early buddhist texts
>>16792602Buddhism is not really an evangelizing religion, at least in its teachings. Originally the Buddha didn't even want to teach and had to be repeatedly convinced to share the dhamma.
>The Buddhistic assumption that the extinction of that consciousness is the highest end of human life, is untenable, for there is no recipient of results. For a person who has got a thorn stuck into him, the relief of the pain caused by it is the result (he seeks); but if he dies, we do not find any recipient of the resulting cessation of pain. Similarly, if consciousness is altogether extinct and there is nobody to reap that benefit, to talk of it as the highest end of human life is meaningless. If that very entity or self, designated by the word ‘person’—consciousness, according to you—whose well-being is meant, is extinct, for whose sake will the highest end be? But those who believe in a self different from consciousness and witnessing many objects, will find it easy to explain all phenomena such as the remembrance of things previously seen and the contact and cessation of pain—the impurity, for instance, being ascribed to contact with extraneous things, and the purification to dissociation from them.- Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh), Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣya 4.3.7.
>>16792657>If you have a fire blazing and you remove the causal condition (eg, the fuel or oxygen), does it make sense to say the flame has been annihilated?Yes.
>>16792666What’s with Buddhists and no true Scotsmaning all the time? It’s the biggest evangelising non-Abrahamic religion on the planet. Here in Montreal there’s some Buddhist operation on every corner. It literally spread all over Asia, non-evangelising.
>>16792651I’m just saying I’m not committing to a religion I only know like the bare minimum about and realistically will never achieve a complete knowledge of what it actually says. I’ve never met two Buddhists that give me the same story on what Buddhism even is and I think that’s entirely down to the utterly impenetrable canon that can be cherry picked and misrepresented at whim without anyone ever knowing any better. This goes for many religions, it just happens this one is the thread topic.>>16792654But you haven’t read the entire canon either. How do you know what hidden shit is or is not in books you have not read?
>>16792699Then the issue is semantic. Call Buddhism annihilationism then.
>>16792699So where did the fire come from? Which direction? And which direction did it go to? If you used that flame to light an identical candle, then put out that fire, is the fire perserved from death? And what about fires without fuel? They don't seem to exist.
>>16792792it maybe because they make the rookie error of mistaking the perservation, and discovery of truth with the final arrival at the truth.>20. "When he has investigated him and has seen that he is purified from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him; filled with faith he visits him and pays respect to him; having paid respect to him, he gives ear; when he gives ear, he hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it and examines the meaning of the teachingshe has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he accepts those teachings as a result of pondering them; when he has accepted those teachings as a result of pondering them, desire springs up; when desire has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizeswith the body the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom.25In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the discovery of truth; in this way one discovers truth; in this way we describe the discovery of truth. But as yet there is no final arrival at truth."26
>>16792833>But you haven’t read the entire canon either.like some anon said earlier in the thread, and I can verify having read an good number of suttas myself, alot of the suttas are identical teachings given in longer or shorter form, differnet settings, different students, in greater or lesser details.
>>16792833having said this >>16792914 :"It is fitting for you to be perplexed, O Kalamas, it is fitting for you to be in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seemingcompetence of a speaker, or because you think, 'The ascetic is our teacher.'4But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are unwholesome;these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practiced, lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them....But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are wholesome; these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness/ then you should engage in them.
>>16792872"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. "would you consider annihilation to be synonymous with extermination? if so it seems the Buddha taught against it.
>>16792879>So where did the fire come from?not 100% sure but from what I understand it may come the interplay between the physical housing of the mind and the forming of its psychological components.>Which direction?>And which direction did it go to?I dont think these are good questions. they sound more like something said for the sake of saying it.>If you used that flame to light an >identical candle, then put out that fire, is >the fire perserved from death?no. fires arent alive to begin with. but this actually sounds like a great way to explain how nibbāna works.
it's a white lie, designed to get people on the right pathlike a father who lies to his children, who are playing in a burning house but cannot see the flames, that there are toys and candy outside for them if only they leave the househe rescues them from the flames with a lie>>16785260this is the kind of person Saka Buddha lied for the sake of
>>16793056>buddha tricked his audienceMahayana mindset
Bump so I can answer you guys before the thread is archived
>>16793056Imagine having such a big tent that you can have a plurality of followers who say "our founder was actually a liar who tricked you in order to guide you to something else". At that point, what do Mahayana and Theravada have in common besides liking statues of guys with topknot haircuts.
>>16792657I get that you disagree with Mahayana, but that specific passage mentions sayings from the Buddha himself. See:" Kosho Yamamoto cites a passage in which the Buddha admonishes his monks not to dwell inordinately on the idea of the non-Self but to meditate on the Self. Yamamoto writes:[12]Having dwelt upon the nature of nirvana, the Buddha now explains its positive aspect and says that nirvana has the four attributes of the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... the Buddha says: "O you bhiksus [monks]! Do not abide in the thought of the non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure and have things as in the case of those people who take the stones, wooden pieces and gravel for the true gem [of the true Dharma] ... In every situation, constantly meditate upon the idea of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality meditatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like the wise person." "So it seems like a contradiction of the Buddha with the concept of anatta or non-Self.>>16792674I don't quite get his point... Even if the person doesn't receive the results because they are dead, what difference does that make for the moment they are still alive, before dying? That's like saying that dying well (without suffering, for example) is meaningless because no one will be there to receive it after death.>>16792936Not the anon, but even if the Buddha said this, the end of the religion is the cessation of all khandhas. The Buddha just affirms that the very craving for non-existence is a type of tanha (specifically, vibhava tanha). So still, why isn't it just a semantical question and why isn't it annihilationism?>16793056So the lie is that Parinirvana all khandhas cessate? And is this white lie made for saving people of what exactly?
>>16795646Last reply meant to >>16793056.
>>16795646*that in Parinirvana all khandhas cessate
>>16795646>Not the anon, but even if the Buddha said this, the end of the religion is the cessation of all khandhas. The Buddha just affirms that the very craving for non-existence is a type of tanha (specifically, vibhava tanha).sure. sounds about right.>So still, why isn't it just a semantical question...not sure. I may have missed the question your talking about. personally I would say about semantics what the Blessed One himself would: "it does not pertain to liberation.">and why isn't it annihilationism?because the Blessed One never taught a doctrine of seeking to annihilate this or that. unbind, sure. liberation, release, extinguishing, totally. this desire for annihlation is itself a "Wrong Desire". the Blessed One taught a doctrine of cultivating "Right Desire". the difference? One leads to liberation, the other does not.
>>16796067>I may have missed the question you're talking about.I meant question as in "subject". A semantical subject, not a theological or philosophical one.>this desire for annihilation is itself a "Wrong Desire". the Blessed One taught a doctrine of cultivating "Right Desire".What? For the Buddha any desire is bad, no? What would be this "Right Desire"?>the Blessed One never taught a doctrine of seeking to annihilate this or that.Just like I asked in >>16787921, what would be your definition of annihilation then?
>>16796332NTAAnnihilation is to make a case for something that which exists but now no longer exists. Nirvana isn't that.
>>16796332>What? For the Buddha any desire is bad, no? What would be this "Right Desire"?it would be the desire to be free from suffering. the desire to dwell compasstionately. the desire to be generous. the desire to know the truth, to know things as they are. the desire to go against the natural inclination to do things the bring us into conflict with ourselves, others, realality as a whole. why? because we come to realize that the wrong kind of desire will bring about suffering.>what would be your definition of annihilation then?same one thats in common usage. destruction, obliteration, defeat.
>>16796390nta is there a simpler way of stating this?
>>16796390>Annihilation is to make a case for something that which exists but now no longer exists.But Nirvana is exactly that for the khandhas. The khandhas were there at a certain moment and are not there after a certain other moment.>>16796393>same one thats in common usage. destruction, obliteration, defeat.So do you agree that the khandhas are obliterated after Paranirvana?
>>16796397hmm. let me go down the rabbit hole a bit.In Buddhism there are 10 fetters that needs to be undone to reach nirvana. Belief in a selfDoubt or uncertainty, especially about the Buddha’s teachingsAttachment to rites and ritualsSensual desireIll willDesire for material existence or formDesire for immaterial existence or formless realmsConceit or prideRestlessness of the mind (inability to be calm/focused)IgnoranceThis is how to train a mind to achieve a final state of nirvana. Its a mental hurdle needed to overcome to reach nirvana. You gradually get rid of these mental blockage from top to bottom in a rough order. In training the mind to be naturally attuned towards this, the final cessation of suffering is achieved. When someone asks "is nirvana just annihilation?" or "does nirvana mean you dont exist anymore and same as nihilism or non-existence?" its basically a wrong loaded question. the loaded part is the assumption that there is something that which exists prior to nirvana but then nirvana destroys that. The only thing reaching the nirvana does is get the mind attuned (trained) towards a certain way of looking at reality/things on a more fundamental/permanent level. There's no metaphysical thing like a soul/self essence destroyed. Its just a realization it never was there and then making your brain really understand/see this in all actions/thoughts/etc. So nirvana/annihilation isn't related or even touch the same base
>>16796434hmmm. not very much simpler. but right on the money.May you be happy. May you live in safety and joy. I hope someday soon you attain liberation anon.Homage to the Blessed One.
>>16796434>the loaded part is the assumption that there is something that which exists prior to nirvana but then nirvana destroys that.The khandhas.>There's no metaphysical thing like a soul/self essence destroyed.The khandhas are destroyed.
>>16796454No. The body isn't destroyed at nirvana. Nor the name. Nor the other things. You misunderstand the role and the function of the khandas. Those aren't not a replacement for self or soul. They are just basic functions of human being. The body dies at death and so do others, but name can live on for long time. kandhas carry no weight to karma either. khandas are natural functions. Its like saying you become blind at nirvana or because the eye is part of the body which is a khanda. Its nonsense.Buddha reached enlightenment and then nirvana in his lifetime and continued to trout the land for another 45 years teaching. What you're confusing is the fetters, thats the important aspect in relation to nirvana. Whats changed is atachment/desires/ignorance/etc just doesn't materialize as the mind is free and you stop identifying khandas as pseudo "self", thats the nirvana.
>>16796476Yeah, sorry. I meant Paranirvana (after death). The khandhas are destroyed after death. So yes, there is something that exists before Paranirvana and that is destroyed by the Paranirvana. I'm not saying that the khandhas are a Self by the way, I'm just saying that at least the khandhas are annihilated in the process of Paranirvana.
>>16796491No, not even that. Khandhas have nothing to do with nirvana or paranirvana. They rise and die even without nirvana/paranirvana at death.
>>16796832>Khandhas have nothing to do with nirvana or paranirvana.What? From https://wiswo.org/books/niknib/:"The idea that final Nibbāna is nothing apart from the cessation of the khandhas might seem bleak. If it seems bleak, it is only due to the false sense of having a permanent self, or more precisely, because of the view of personal identity, sakkāya-diṭṭhi.">They rise and die even without nirvana/paranirvana at death.Exactly, the khandhas cessate at every death and rises again in rebirth. But when there's no more rebirth due to Parinirvana, they cessate forever. So how isn't Parinirvana responsible for the cessation of the khandhas forever?
>>16798017>But when there's no more rebirth due to Parinirvana, they cessate forever. Its a word choice issue. You're right that no rebirth = no khandas being created. However the act of cessation requires there being something which is cessated. It doesn't sound right word usage, as kandhas never existed for it to cease being. The old kandhas cease at death, with or without nirvana. The new one just couldn't materialize.
>>16798814Also lets imagine another example.Suppose someone never had sex, and they never gave birth to a child. You wouldn't use words like "that person's cessated his unborn child" to describe a person who never had a child. In my mind, I see the word usage similar.
Sāriputta: 'And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathāgata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, "As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death"?'Yamaka: 'Previously, friend Sāriputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Teaching, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and the Teaching has become clear.'Sāriputta: 'Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: "A monk, a worthy one, with no more effluents, what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"'Yamaka: 'Thus asked, I would answer, "Form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness are inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has stopped and gone to its end."'— SN 22.85
>>16793705>>16795626yeah it turns out he actually obtained buddhahood countless myriads of kalpas ago, long before ever being called Shakamuni, and appears to us in various forms so as to preach the dharma law to all through expedient means, because if sentient beings were fully aware of the immediate presence of the One Thus Come all around them they would grow complacent and not seek after their salvation and become irreverant
>>16799243is trump buddha?
>>16799316Hes got a buddha nature, a potential
>>16799316have you never picked up on the mudras he's always showing off?>16799335bigly
>>16798814>It doesn't sound right word usage, as kandhas never existed for it to cease being.What do you mean by "the khandhas never existed"? I don't know if you're the same anon who posted "https://wiswo.org/books/niknib/", but that text (written by a Buddhist monk of the Theravada tradition) explicitly says multiple times that "nirvana is the cessation of the five khandhas". And even if it didn't say that, how could the khandhas not exist? One thing is talking about anatta (non-existence of the Self), but I think Buddhists agree that the khandhas are there once someone is alive.>>16798884Yes, except that the khandhas were there after death, different from this child who was never there.>>16798914So if I understood correctly, the idea is that the person in question (the Tathāgata) never existed, because although the khandhas existed, the khandhas were not the same thing as the person. To be honest, it seems just a matter of what you will identify with a person. If the person is a Self, then sure, in the Buddhist understanding the khandhas cannot be a person, because the khandhas exist and a Self doesn't. Now if a person is identified with the khandhas right away as in settling this definition, I wouldn't see the problem in saying that a person is its correspondent khandhas, even if it's an outrage for Buddhist doctrine. What would be the problem?Now if we do consider that a person is not its correspondent khandhas, even so something is annihilated (the khandhas). The "solution" is saying that the annihilation is not of the person, not saying that there is no annihilation at all, as seen in the last Yamaka saying of the dialogue you posted.
>>16799824>Now if a person is identified with the khandhas right away as in settling this definition, I wouldn't see the problem in saying that a person is its correspondent khandhas, even if it's an outrage for Buddhist doctrine. What would be the problem?The problem here is misidentification/misapplication. The notion of "self" must entirely be discarded, not just piggy it back on top of kandhas or some other sense. Its the first of the 10 fetters that must be discarded for there to be nirvana. An example of this comes up in the Questions of King Menandar with Nagasena. The self designation is only accepted only in so far as it is properly understood that it is nothing more than a nominal designation that points to nothing. >Now if we do consider that a person is not its correspondent khandhas, even so something is annihilated (the khandhas).Khandhas naturally rise and cease, regardless of the state of nirvana. The "something" that is gone is karma that ties the two life. Even karma isn't a thing but a mental causal chain that which the brain slowly but surely stops processing on the path of nirvana. If someone says "when you reach nirvana, the self is annihilated or something is annihilated" it is actually very much wrong. So far as we understand that annihilation means an ontological annihilation. Of there being a thing that which disappears. Suffering ceases at nirvana. When the sutta is saying this, its not saying suffering as a thing is destroyed, but rather as one of the last few important fetters of the mind changes, the functions of a mind that which cling to "things" stops trying to cling to a "things". I say things as we all know, a thing in Buddhism isn't a thing that has a permanent core, so when you cling to anything, you're trying to capture an essence of things and thats causing primal confusion.
>>16799895>The notion of "self" must entirely be discarded, not just piggy it back on top of kandhas or some other sense.But I wouldn't be supposing that person=khandhas=Self. I would be supposing that person=khandas≠Self. The Self would be discarded and the person and the khandhas would not be the same as a Self.>Khandhas naturally rise and cease, regardless of the state of nirvana.How could the khandas rise after the death of someone who achieved Nirvana?>Even karma isn't a thing but a mental causal chain that which the brain slowly but surely stops processing on the path of nirvana.What's your definition of "thing", then?>If someone says "when you reach nirvana, the self is annihilated or something is annihilated" it is actually very much wrong. So far as we understand that annihilation means an ontological annihilation. Of there being a thing that which disappears. Suffering ceases at nirvana. When the sutta is saying this, its not saying suffering as a thing is destroyed, but rather as one of the last few important fetters of the mind changes, the functions of a mind that which cling to "things" stops trying to cling to a "things".What's the difference between "ceasing" and being destroyed? And of course that during the life of someone who achieved Nirvana their brain's changing doesn't mean the destruction of anything, but what about after their death?
