We all know words have to be used, yet the mind can very quickly reify an “absence” into a “something,” yes?
Citing a well-known example: just no flame. Is the absence of a flame an absolute void? A perpetual awareness? Or is it closer to: nothing to talk about. No dukkha. Gone. I align with that.
Gone in this sense is without birth, without death, without sun, moon, stars…
(IMHO, I prefer “without” to translate the negating prefix “a” in "ajāti, for example, since “an unborn” is more easily objectified into a transcendental “something”).
At the same time and in either case – bows, respect, and gratitude to everyone who has shared on this post.
In Mahayana, liberation corresponds to the realisation of shunyata (“emptiness”), lack of independent existence. All is conditioned.
In Theravada, Nibbana is described as unconditioned, an “escape” from the conditioned. So Nibbana is effectively exempt from Mahayana emptiness. Describing Nibbana as “absolute emptiness” is therefore puzzling.
I don’t think turiya is available to Buddhists.
Abhidhamma bhavanga might be a solution, or maybe Mahayana alaya-vijnana.
The suttas mostly discuss transient vinnana ( sense-consciousness), which only arises in dependence upon conditions, eg eye-consciousness arising in dependence upon eye and form.
That’s your HO, but also the humble opinion of the likes of K. R. Norman. See A Philological Approach To Buddhism where he translates ajata as “without birth”.
Of course that is what ajata, “no-born”, metaphyisically means in the Buddhist sense: without birth, free from birth, and so on. But with such utterances the Buddha also seems to use some Upanishadic style language, almost certainly to provoke his audience. The Upanishadic brahmins use this “Unborn, Undying, Deathless” always with reference to a Self (atta) that is the universal consciousness of Brahman. But by first acknowledging “there is no-born” and then not explaining it as a Self but simply as the escape from the born, the Buddha is first taking the Brahmins along and then actually negating them.
There’s another passage like that in MN140:
Peaceful sages will not be born, will not age, will not die, will not be agitated, and will not long. As there is nothing in them by which they could be born, not being born, how could they age? Not aging, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be agitated? Not agitated, what would they long for?
To copy paste some notes I made a while ago:
When the Buddha says that sages will not die, he at first glance seems to say they will live forever! But he then explains that sages will not die, not because they will live forever, but because they will not be reborn. In other words, they still have one death, but no more after that. The Buddha meant that they will not die again.
The initial confusion is likely intentional, as the passage seems to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to ideas found in the Upanishads which refer to an undying Self, such as: “this is that great Self which is unborn, unaging, undying, immortal, fearless, Brahman.” (BU4.4.25: sa vā eṣa mahān ajātmā ajaro amaro-mṛto-bhayo brahma.) The brahmins believed this Self was eternal, so to them “not dying” did in fact mean living forever. But the Buddha refuted such ideas. Often he challenged ideas through argument or direct denial, but sometimes, like here, by skillfully twisting them around.
A closely connected idea the Lord Buddha adopted with a twist is amata ‘immortal’ or ‘deathless’. It—or rather its Sanskrit form amṛta—is also one of the words in the just-quoted Upanishad, but it already occurs frequently in the oldest Vedas, where it describes the immortality of the gods. This braminic concept of divine immortality is also known to the suttas. In the The Great Steward Sutta (DN19) a brahmin named Jotipaala—Gotama in a past life—asks a Brahma god (whose name was Ever Young, likely not a coincidence given the context): “How can a mortal reach the immortal (amata) realm of Brahma?” But the Buddha’s path, unlike that of the brahmins, does not lead to an immortal heaven realm of eternal youth. So the Buddha used the word amata not in the sense of immortality but in the sense of ‘no more death’ or 'deathless’.
In your opinion (or others) where does asankhata element refer to? If spoken of ‘what is not seen arising and ceasing’ in the sutta’s, what is refered to in our experience?
But he did not refute an eternal unborn and unarisen state.
“What’s born, produced, and arisen, made, conditioned, not lasting, wrapped in old age and death, frail, a nest of disease, generated by food and the conduit to rebirth: that’s not fit to delight in. The escape from that is peaceful, beyond the scope of logic, everlasting, unborn and unarisen, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of all painful things, the stilling of conditions, bliss.” (iti 43)
But this has all nothing to do with living forever!
But oke, you probaly now say this is all wrongly translated or wrongly understood. These discussions become tiresome this way.
In the end, i think most important issue is not if the goal of Buddha-Dhamma,- the solution to suffering- is an utter extinguishment, but why one is attracted to that idea.
Why would the question, “What attracts different people to different conceptions of nibbāna?” be the most important issue? Why would it be more important than the question, “What is nibbāna?” ?
I think it is in general good to see what motivates us, drives us.
In what way, for example, does one not long for becoming non-existent when one sees parinibbana as ‘vanishing like a particle in Earths atmosphere’ or as ‘going out like a flame without anything remaining?’ Is Buddha-Dhamma a Path to become non-existent after death?
Or does one see oneself even as non-existent in this life here and now?
Does the end of identification and grasping really mean that one does not exist? I feel this is not truthful. One does not become non-existent.
Yes i am emotionally involved in this, because, for me it lives that strong, that i would abandon Dhamma IF i would know that the goal of Buddha-Dhamma is only to vanish like a particle entering earths atmosphere. So negative. So dark. For me. I believe Dhamma is about finding a home for oneself. Finding truth.
To put things in perspective, I think it is a relatively small group who believes that vanishing is the goal of Dhamma and the only solution to suffering. Itis not like this is a mainstream buddhism. It is a quit extreme and relatively uncommen interpretation of Buddha’s teachings and realisations. Maybe many people here are attracted to it, but i do not even see this goal in EBT.
If one believes parinibbana is like vanishing, one is fully identified with khandha’s and knows no other reality than 5 khandha’s. I do not think Buddha teaches there are only formations arising and ceasing and nothing beyond.
By the way, I also do not believe that there is some eternal personal existence.
You are confusing the question in vain. In Theravada, nibbana is described as Animitta, Sunyata, Appanihita. Moreover, Sunyata is described here not as a simple essencelessness or absence of self in dhammas, but as the absence of the conditioned aggregates themselves - that is, 5 khandhas, defilements of the mind, etc.
In the suttas this idea is presented indirectly. Basically, this is said in tradition, in the abhidhamma, visudhimagga. since we are talking about the Theravada opinion, as you mentioned, I can refer to the Theravada tradition. The word of the Buddha was well interpreted by the arahants as a collective sangha and it became the opinion of the tradition.
Where in the suttas is it presented indirectly then? I suspect you’re referring to meditative attainments rather than to Nibbana, but it would be useful to clarify this.
MN 122?
If it was good enough for KR Norman, it’s certainly more than good enough pour moi."
I know how the Buddha often offered teachings to people steeped in the Brahmanical traditions, but the information and details you’ve provided are clarifying and very helpful.
And thanks for the link on pada, I’ll look forward to reading that.
Sorry. I guess that word already got snatched up. What about calling it something like “non-manifestative consciousness” or “consciousness without feature”? I am sure someone could translate that into Pali for us.
