2 posts were split to a new topic: Simile: Lions compared to dogs
According to orthodox Theravāda, its on coming to nibbāna there is a cessation. Its not that nibbāna is cessation itself. If Ledi Sayadaw and Mahasi Sayadaw say different, then they are simply propounding their own personal views. The commentaries etc are quite clear. Nibbāna is not a cessation. Its a real existent, but beyond all concepts. Ācariya Anuruddha positively denies what you are claiming
Moreover, because it has been called “escape” by the Blessed One. For “escape” is a name for Nibbāna. As he said: “There are, bhikkhus, these three things that are difficult to penetrate. What three things are difficult to penetrate? These three elements of escape. This is the escape from sensual pleasures, namely, renunciation. This is the escape from forms, namely, the formless. Whatever is existent, conditioned, dependently arisen, its cessation is the escape from it.” Thus it has been said. If this Nibbāna, spoken of thus, were to reach the fault of non-existence, then the first jhāna and the base of infinite space would also be non-existent. Therefore, it is improper for the indestructible Nibbāna to incur the fault of destruction. Thus, destruction is not Nibbāna.
What you are arguing for was the Sautrāntika view.
1 Like
They show, based on the commentaries, that the very quality of permanent peace (achieved by the complete cessation of defilements) is Nibbana. This quality is discoverable and real. And it can be taken by the mind as an object and even influence the body. There is nothing mystified or metaphysical in Nibbana, it is also immeasurably far from all forms of darkness and ignorance, “incomprehensibility”, which are opposed to the light of wisdom and knowledge, the clarity of the Dhamma. In short, Nibbana is not a shadow on a fence. Thus these two teachers have a positive expression of Nibbana. But without reifying it.
I advocate a reasonable synthesis of the literal teaching of the suttas and the commentarial tradition on the positive property of nibbana, proposed by these teachers. The words of Acharya Aniruddha and Buddhagossa are not dogma, but a set of logical reasoning and reasonable questions. And they are such until new Acharyas and Aryans come who answer these logical reasoning and reasonable questions and solve the problem. Without violating the requirement of the commentary. These teachers showed in what sense the Dhamma of Nibbana is an absolute property that is not reducible to simple annihilation.
If we take this literally, then this teacher and his teaching are in direct opposition to what Sariputta said, that Nibbana, the unconditioned, is the destruction of hatred, greed and ignorance. Interpretations must be in agreement with the subject of interpretation, not in conflict with it. So I think we need to grasp and understand correctly what Acharya Aniruddha meant.
The truly existing must always be considered in the context of consciousness, which will bring it into phenomenal existence.
Therefore, such a “really existing” thing borders on the proposition of the aggregate of consciousness, and therefore a latent clinging to consciousness. Thus, this view borders on sassata-vada. Moreover, taking an evasive position, without answering what it really is, asserting only uncertainty (“it is beyond extremes and descriptions”), this view borders on amarāvikkhepa-vada.
In the first case, the status of such consciousness is unclear. If it is lokuttara citta, then it ceases with the attainment of remainderless parinibbana. If these are the properties of parinibbana itself, then such characteristics and properties of nibbana-dhamma are not described either in the suttas or in the abhidhamma. Being a kind of citta (endowed with the properties of knowledge and experience), this dhamma, being constant, will immediately fall into the category of atta.
Atta (unconditioned entities) as well as dukkha (conditioned entities) do not exist in the final nibbana.
Where did anyone say it is citta? Of course it is not.
It is unconditioned, it doesn’t arise or cease.
Ācariya Anuruddha would say we can’t read these passages literally.
They show, based on the commentaries, that the very quality of permanent peace (achieved by the complete cessation of defilements) is Nibbana. This quality is discoverable and real. And it can be taken by the mind as an object and even influence the body.
Ācariya Anuruddha would argue that it can’t be a cessation because a literal nothingness can’t be an object for the path consciousnesses. I believe Ācariya Dhammapāla and the commentaries make a similar argument.
The words of Acharya Aniruddha and Buddhagossa are not dogma, but a set of logical reasoning and reasonable questions. And they are such until new Acharyas and Aryans come who answer these logical reasoning and reasonable questions and solve the problem. Without violating the requirement of the commentary. These teachers showed in what sense the Dhamma of Nibbana is an absolute property that is not reducible to simple annihilation.
Personally I’m not adverse to such a view but you have to be honest, this is also what the Mahayanists claim. Later, more insightful monks got things right. This seems to be at odds with Classical Theravāda.
I’m not discussing if it makes sense or not here. I’m simply arguing that the commentaries and Abhidhamma have x view of nibbana. That view is at odds with yours and, apparently, Ledi Sayadaw and Mahasi.
Vism
XV1 67[DISCUSSION ON NIBBÁNA]
67. [Question 1] Is Nibbána non-existent because it is unapprehendable, like the hare’s horn?
[Answer] That is not so, because it is apprehendable by the [right] means. For it is apprehendable [by some, namely, the nobles ones] by the [right] means, in other words, by the way that is appropriate to it, [the way of virtue, concentration, and understanding]; it is like the supramundane consciousness of others, [which is apprehendable only by certain of the Noble Ones] by means of knowledge of penetration of others’ minds. Therefore it should not be said that it is non-existent because unapprehendable; for it should not be said that what the foolish ordinary man does not apprehend is unapprehendable.
1 Like
Vism XVI 69
[Q. 5] But is not Nibbána destruction, because of the passage beginning, “That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate … of delusion … is Nibbána]?” (S IV 251).
[A.] That is not so , because it would follow that Arahantship also was mere destruction. For that too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S IV 252).
And what is more, the fallacy then follows that Nibbána would be temporary, etc.; for if it were so, it would follow that Nibbána would be temporary, have the characteristic of being formed, and be obtainable regardless of right effort; and precisely because of its having formed characteristics it would be included in the formed, and it would be burning with the fires of greed, etc., and because of its burning it would follow that it was suffering.
1 Like
I will say that if it’s claimed that nibbana is cessation and this cessation is real, then it’s hard to see how arising and persisting aren’t also real. That though would be a Sarvastivadin view, and would lead to an infinite regression.
1 Like
I explained. That the affirmation of a transcendental “state” presupposes “experience” and “experience” - otherwise, technically, this “state”, being unexperienced, is no different from a simple cessation, which is so strenuously denied by opponents. In this case, there are two options. Either some form of citta, cognizing nibbana-dhamma (but this form of citta is denied by tradition and suttas, and is also ideologically impossible), or endowing the nibbana-dhamma itself with these characteristics and properties of citta, self-knowledge, for example. But as you correctly pointed out - this is also not detected.
This is a mistaken and hasty conclusion, for, as I have already said, Ledi Sayadaw and Mahasi, following him, regard the peace of non-arising as a discernible real-existent (paramattha-property). And the Characteristic is essentially the dhamma itself. And this characteristic pertains to the cessation of things.
Yes, which puts them and you at odds with Classical Theravāda. Nibbana is a cessation, which Classical Theravāda denies.
If we consider that the two elements (with and without remainder) are essentially the same nibbana-dhamma, which is confirmed in the Theravada commentaries, then everything becomes not as clear-cut as you have.
They are the same, as an object of consciousness. A literal nothingness though can’t be an object of consciousness, let alone be said to exist. This is a logical contradiction.
The quality of peace of non-arising can be an object of realization, since it is a dhamma, a dhamma. Just as the mind in unstained liberation, when there are no stains of defilements, sees what is present (the six spheres of contact) and what is not present (stains) MN 121. Sariputta in another sutta says that such unstained liberation of the mind is the highest. Just a mind without stains.
If it’s a sabhava-Dhamma then it can’t be a literal cessation, since it would literally be nothing. You can’t say nothingness truly exists. You aren’t making much sense. If nibbana was just a mind without stains then it would be conditioned.
I got your point. I agree that Theravada insists that Nibbana is a paramattha dhamma. And I can understand this point of view. The question is only in the interpretation of the nature of this Dhamma. In this regard, I am on the side of the teachers I have mentioned. They also claim that Nibbana is a paramattha dhamma and the object of knowledge of the path and fruit.
The cessation of defilements is not nothing, but a fact that affects many things, and a reality that can be known. And it is also not impermanent, since nothing will make the defilements present again, since their causes are destroyed and the very possibility for their appearance is destroyed. The mind is impermanent, but not the cessation, the emptiness of defilements, or the peace of their non-arising. This truth expressed in the positive language of dhammas is quite a reality and a factor of reality.