I think the proper usage is that parinibbāna of defilements is when arahant is alive and attained to arahanthood. Parinibbāna of the 5 aggregates is only at the death of arahant.
Regardless, it’s just semantic labeling, we should understand the meaning of what is commonly referred to. So that mere changing the labels doesn’t affect any conclusions.
For common usage, we just normally say nibbāna for when arahant is still alive and parinibbāna for the death of arahant and asking what’s left if anything after that.
My position as with orthodox Theravada and many sutta central monks is that only body, corpse is left, no mind. No 6 sense bases, contacts, nothing can be said of it left, closest language we can use is nothing left. No 7th sense, no pure mind, not even just Nibbāna itself as a positive ontological thing.
I think this shows you how even this total cessation can be rejoiced in by some people. As you, @Dhabba keeps on asking how this conception of parinibbāna can be rejoiced in. I think other than the “self” quoted there, the rejoicing is also a problem. Any delight itself is fuel for further existence.
There’s 3 types of annihilationism from what I can see from these discussions.
Annihilation means no rebirth, the materalist atheist position. Definition of annihilation valid. Buddhism rejects annihilation of this type as we have rebirth as part of the core doctrines.
Annihilation means annihilation of self. Definition of annihilation valid. Buddhism also rejects that this applies to Parinibbāna as there’s no self in the first place to be annihilated. So anything else that gets annihilated, is ok: defilements, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases, all suffering. We just call it cessation, but if the meaning is clear, without causing confusion, annihilation can be used too, but since annihilation means annihilation of self, we just say cessation of all is not annihilation as there’s no self to be annihilated.
Annihilation means nothing after death. This definition of annihilation is not valid for people who holds the same position as me. It is for those who holds this definition of annihilation that they must reject the position of nothing after Parinibbāna and construe anything else, be it Nibbāna itself, consciousness unestablished, dhammakāya, or something more subtle.
So perhaps the key is to focus on debunking that annihilation definition no. 3 via the suttas and show that it’s not what the Buddha meant when he used this term.
To be fair, annihilation 1 implies annihilation 3 as nothing after death, and annihilation 2 is just different from annihilation 3 in the sense of the self concept. So it is very close, subtle difference which could mean the difference of true attainment of stream entry or not.
“All doesn’t exist” doesn’t apply only when we can see arising. When dependent cessation does it’s job and all conditioned things ceases without arising again, the condition of “all doesn’t exist” to not apply is gone.
According to the texts, khandārinibbana is the end of the world.
When you say only body remains and not the mind. This is certainly not an end of the world you are describing.
This word ‘body’ of which you speak, can not be pinned down as true & real, it is a convention used in as far as the aggregates are present.
So when you say ‘there remains a body’ you are essentially saying ‘there khandas are present’.
And so you have to take note of this because if in describing khandāparinibbana you say that the body remains.
You are essentially describing khandā after khandāparinibbāna, you are not describing the khandaparinibbana.
In other words, you are describing a world after the end of the world in asserting that the end of the world occured in the world wherein the body remains.
I think it pretty obvious that arahants like the Buddha didn’t had their bodies magically vanished when they die. So that’s the corpse left part. As to their own internal senses, without any 6 senses, there’s nothing that can be said.
I understand what you are talking about but these lines of reasoning are not based on the doctrine of dependent origination.
These lines of reasoning are based on the foremost cosmology or world-view, viz. ‘Everything truly exists’.
Having asserted that the world truly exists, one asserts that a fire burning in the world really exists. Having asserted that a fire burning in the world really exists, one asserts that the world is with fire. When the fire is extinguished one asserts that the world is without fire, only cold coals remain.
Exactly likewise
Having asserted that the world truly exists, one asserts that mind & body in the world truly exist. Having asserted that mind & body in the world truly exist, one asserts that the world is with mind & body. When the mind is extinguished one asserts that the world is without mind, only cold body remain.
This is exactly why the annihilationist who holds that khandas are atta and the annihilationist who holds that khandas are anatta, both of these, conceive & relish the same idea of non-existence of mind after death.
In general the dichotomy of mind & body, if taken to replace name & form, wrecks the formulation of DO.
One must be very careful thinking in those terms about DO.
Neither the word ‘mind’ nor ‘body’ are used in the formulation of DO.
These words are, however, a basis for the cosmology of a puttujjhanā, who conceive of extinguishment incorrectly, because they have not understood it.
Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world. Loka Sutta: The World
Whoever says that the signs /
arising from name-and-form do truly exist,
know that this person /
is on the road of death.
Perceiving in name-and-form /
emptiness and absence of self-nature
this is called to respect the Buddhas /
for ever free from the realms of existence.” - SA 217
“‘Everything exists’ is the senior form of cosmology, brahman.”
“Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?”
“‘Everything does not exist’ is the second form of cosmology, brahman.”
“Then is everything a Oneness?”
“‘Everything is a Oneness’ is the third form of cosmology, brahman.”
“Then is everything a Manyness?”
"‘Everything is a Manyness’ is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist
One can say this, it’s not wrong, my point is that this is a reference to a set of khandas which have designation ‘this world’, this statement doesn’t describe the end of the world as khandaparinibbana.
If one was not asserting the presence of aggregates in talking about something after khandaparinibbana, then who would perceive & conceive of this remnant body? Nobody and there would be nothing to speak of.
Therefore when you speak about a world after parinibbana you are talking about percipience and not the extinguishment of percipience.
As light is normally talked about in as far as there is something scattering the light, so the world is talked about in as far as there is percipience of the world.
Cessation of percipience is the end of the world. If you are talking about something after the end of the world, then you are describing another world.
Cessation of percipience is the end of the world. If you are talking about something after the end of percipience, then you are describing another percipience.
If you want to speak about the khandaparinibbana as it is, then you can not affirm of any world or percipience whatsoever, because the end is empty of these things.
Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a‘sentient being’?Māra, is this your theory?This is just a pile of conditions,you won’t find a sentient being here.
When the parts are assembledwe use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when the aggregates are present‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
But it’s only suffering that comes to be,lasts a while, then disappears.Naught but suffering comes to be,naught but suffering ceases.” SuttaCentral
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2]This, just this, is the end of stress.Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (1)
No sun, no moon, no mind, no colors, no forms, no bodies, no chariots, no up, no down, no here, no there, no darkness, no dukkha, just an end of suffering really, the freedom of emptiness & singlessness.
I think we’re on a sidetrack discussion here. Allow me to explore a more direct avenue
“All conditions are impermanent” DHP277
Everything that is conditioned (including our perception, understanding and relation to Nibbana) is Anicca, and impermanent.
Where does Buddha explicitly explain anything other than Nibbana itself as not anicca? Or what is, except for “Dispassion, Destruction, Nibbana” is ever explained to be unconditioned?
indeed. In that Sutta is pretty clear the residue are not “the aggregates” but the asavas: sensuality, becoming, wrong view, and ignorance
The asavas is the only thing mentioned like “destroyed” instead aggregates.
A lot of people repeats until exhaustion that the residue are the aggregates, and these are destroyed at death. From where arose that view?.
Where is the source inside the Suttas in where the residue are the aggregates?. I cannot find any mention
Where is that?
I only find mentions about the remainder are the five senses (and it doesn’t include consciousness):
This was said by the Lord…
"Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.
"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant… completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
“These, bhikkhus, are the two Nibbana-elements.” Itivuttaka § 44
and as anyone can check, in the first case the residue are the fives senses. While in the second case there is no mention of any destruction of the aggregates.
Is this not obvious that if a destruction of the aggregates should be part of the nibbana-element with no residue, it would appear clearly, exactly as happens with the first case and its presence?
Is this not the teaching style in all the Suttas?. We are tied of reading repetitive descriptions, in where the things are mentioned where these are present: “know that here there is 1, there is 2, there is 3… and know that there there is no 1, there is no 2, there is no 3” And so on.
Who can believe that a clear mention about the destruction of the aggregates was not included in any place inside the Suttas, still more in such important teaching on the nature of nibbana?.
Who was the promoter of such annihilationist gossip in the Buddhist History?
There is no any error in that Sutta: the nibbana-element with no residue doesn’t include the destruction of the aggregates because such thing doesn’t happen. Such destruction is just delusion, another comfortable annihilation to avoid the effort of thinking with more depth.
What is finished is what it says: “here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished”. Obviously this is referred to the five sense activities mentioned before.
And again, it doesn’t include consciousness. While it doesn’t include consciousness we can connect easily the issue of the intermediate state by means a mind-made body.
yes. Although just I would add that the “extinguishment” according Buddha is not the destruction of anything but the true Cease rightly understood; it is the the Cease of clinging-to. This seems to be the harder point for the annihilationist people who are trapped in a materialist position.
The Buddha taught a difference between the aggregates and the clinging aggregates. Not because they were different aggregates but to taught the becoming of these aggregates by means clinging without causing wrong views about annihilation.
Regarding that transcendental aspect of the of “full extinction” in the Buddha teaching, it is interesting the example of the Dhammapada 89 mentioned by Piya Tan:
"Whose mind is fully well cultivated in the awakening-factors, who, without clinging, delight in the giving up of grasping lustrous, with influxes destroyed, they have, in this world, attained nirvana."
the last phrase is te loke parinibbutā. And it really means “they in the world, attained parinibbana”.
This is pretty clear vecause parinibbutā means parinibbana, while nibbutā means nibbana. However, the same Piya Tan translate it like “nibbana”. Why he is not using “parinibbana” which is the right use for parinibbutā?.
And when we look more translations of the same phrase from Dhp 89, we check how all translators avoid the use of “parinibbana” despite the pali word request it:
B.Sujato: “they in this world are quenched”
Bhante Suddhāso: “have attained Nibbāna in this world”
Bhikkhu Ānandajoti: “are emancipated in the world”
B.Thanissaro: “they, in the world, are Unbound.”
Ācāriya Buddharakkhita: “have attained Nibbana in this very life”
Peter Feldmeier: “completely emancipated in this world”
Why they do that?. It seems like if all translators couldn’t digest what they are reading. And instead respecting the presence of parinibbutā, they put whatever other thing. They change it by “nibbana” while others use a more open word or phrase , although none is using “parinibbana” like the obvious presence of parinibutta demands.
“Here, the Tathagata passed away into the nirvana-element without any residue (of clinging).” idha tathāgato anupādi,sesāya nibbāna,dhātuyā parinibbuto
The context here clearly demands that the word “residue” allude to “clinging,” which, of course, refers >to the 5 aggregates, completely extinguished when the Buddha or an arhat passes away."
Really it is in that way?. Himself is writing that the residue is the residue of clinging; the clinging to the 5 aggregates. Therefore the residue are not the aggregates in themselves. And instead he should write this:
“The context here clearly demands that the word “residue” allude to “clinging,” which, of course, refers to clinging to the 5 aggregates.”
I like the Piya Tan papers. Here his work is just an example because this problem with the “destroyed aggregates” like the residue it is so extended that I wonder of this can affects all the translations. Probably in a similar way, the people lost the understanding about why nibbana and parinibbana were both applied to alive arhants in the original teaching. And after that point logically also the original transcendental character of the Buddha teaching could be lowered into the same Orthodoxy.
In the orthodoxy we find two ways of nibbana, two “properties” or ways to conceive it:
The first is the nibbana with the residue, with the five sense activities. We have seen are not the aggregates as previously quoted in the Itivuttaka 44.
The second is the nibbana without the five sense activity. And therefore it doesn’t mean the annihilation of the aggregates.
Why in the residue appears the five senses instead the aggregates?. Among other things because it cannot include consciousness. She is not leaved at death. And logically consciousness cannot experience the eradication of the aggregates in themselves because such thing is impossible. Here we should remember the Buddha teaching; what the consciousness can experience is the eradication to the clinging-aggregates and therefore the becoming and birth from the aggregates. And at least I understand this also is the cease of the aggregates at death. The same cease of clinging to the clinging-aggregates as happens in life for the arhant.
And then the no-difference between nibbana and parinibbana in the original teaching it can start to fit. As also the transcendence of the Buddha teaching becomes higher because the border between the delusion of live an death becomes thinner.
On the contrary, How can we understand this?
“Anyone, Ānanda, in whom the four bases of power are developed, pursued, given a means of transport, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, could — if he wanted — remain for an eon or the remainder of an eon. In the Tathāgata, Ānanda, the four bases of power are developed, pursued, given a means of transport, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken. He could — if he wanted — remain for an eon or the remainder of an eon.” Ud .6.1
I’ve read it briefly. It seems you noticed many things and in particular the point about thinking in terms of a destruction of an existant thing being the bond of annihilationism.
I’ll read more closely later but if you also understand then i won’t bother finishing my document about this stuff when this thread is already working.
I think when other people explain things it is very helpful because they might explain it quite differently.
yes, it is. That’s the utility of these places. Also I learn a lot when reading your view and others. I don’t have a fixed idea about what I say, although I believe some things are clear like in the case of the annihilation of the aggregates. Good to read your messages and your views in this point
“‘Perception should be known. The cause of perception… The diversity in perception… The result of perception… The cessation of perception… The path of practice for the cessation of perception should be known.’ Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
And what is the cessation of perception? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of perception; and just this noble eightfold path—right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right samādhi—is the way leading to the cessation of perception.
“Perception should be known. The cause of perception should be known. The diversity in perception should be known. The result of perception should be known. The cessation of perception should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of perception should be known."
“Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns perception in this way, the cause of perception in this way, the diversity of perception in this way, the result of perception in this way, the cessation of perception in this way, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of perception in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of perception.AN6.63
“Bad, unskillful qualities, mendicants, arise with perception, not without perception. By giving up that perception, those bad, unskillful qualities do not occur.” AN2.84
They understand: ‘There is this, there is what is worse than this, there is what is better than this, and there is an escape beyond the scope of perception.’ AN3.66
“Mendicants, there are these five grasping aggregates. What five? The grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. These are the five grasping aggregates.
To give up these five grasping aggregates you should develop the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.” AN9.66
“Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and does not see. For one who knows what, for one who sees what, does the destruction of the taints come about? ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away’: it is for one who knows thus, for one who sees thus, that the destruction of the taints comes about. Sn12:23
Aggregates are repeatedly mentioned as impermanent, suffering. Holy life is repeatedly mentioned as destruction of aggregates. I don’t understand how it’s a contentious topic at all.
If aggregates remain after Nirvana, why does Buddha repeatedly teach the practice of cessation of aggregates (not “clinging to”, but “cessation of”)?
Also, Iti44 mentions destruction of taints, and SN12.23 remarks aggregates in reference to destruction of taints. Something to consider.
yes, that’s right. The aggregates are dukkha. Although the end of that dukkha is at the Cease of the aggregates. That Cease exist but without annihilation of aggregates, despite this idea is widely spread. The Buddha taught the Cease like a point to be realized, without existence neither non-existence.
The issue here is when we cannot find any Sutta in where appears a “destruction of the aggregates”. We find the destruction of the clinging to aggregates, although that Cease is the cease of clinging. It is not the destruction or annihilation of the aggregates.
Although for some reason it seems the translators assume the aggregates are destroyed, although when we go to the Pali words there is not such thing.
And also we find the surprise about both words, nibbana and parinibbana, were applied to alive people. Although the translators are ignoring this fact. They ignore or change the original Pali words to impose their own idea or the idea from some orthodoxy, about the nature of live and death for the arhant.
It seems that idea was part of a later literary production of commentaries and texts, although the Suttas would show a different notion, a more transcendental notion about the nature of live and death
taints are the defilements. There are 10 fetters to be destroyed in the progress to arhanthood, although this is a different issue.
The ten fetters are:
Self identity view (sakkaya ditthi)
Sceptical doubt (vicikicca)
Attachment to mere rites and rituals (silabbata paramasa)
Sensual desire (kama raga)
Ill-will (patigha)
Desire to be born in fine material worlds (rupa raga)
How do you understand saññānirodho, saññānirodhagāminī paṭipadā except ending of perception in AN6.63?
Nirodho, Nirodhagāminī patipadā is precisely the words used for 3rd and 4th Noble Truths. Unless you think Buddha advocates “not clinging to suffering” rather than “ending of suffering” and “the path to ending suffering”
there is no possibility to “non clinging to suffering”. Suffering arise precisely because there is clinging.
There is not some no-clinging to “I like” or “I dislike”. Both are the expressions of clinging,
Suffering can be destroyed because this is not a dhamma (not a “thing”). Suffering is a psycho-physical condition with different processes involved (mind and physical). It is the result of our ignorance about the true nature of the experience.
We cannot annihilate the aggregates, the final sustenance of the clinging to the experience, because these are anatta. That annihilation is delusion.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but it’s not about “We…annihilate the aggregates.” It’s that the extinguishment of all defilements leads to the ending of rebirth – hence, the full cessation of the senses and aggregates.
So the same word used for ending of suffering (Nirodho) is repeatedly used for aggregates. You mentioned earlier “translator errors” when you’re deliberately changing how you interpret the same word used for different things.
Again, your english interpretation is at fault here friend. No reason to understand Nirodho as one thing and another somewhere else.
so we agree. However, the point here is in the understanding of the word “Cease”. Some people believes the Cease is the destruction of the aggregates instead the Cease of clinging.
