On nibbāna as "ultimate reality "

Discussion
41

Sorry, but you’re not giving any valid arguments, in my eyes. You’re citing a sutta talking about planes of CONSCIOUSNESS, which is conditioned and dependent upon a body, whatever form it may have. Of course, the body does not constitute a self, nor does the mind or consciousness, thus they shouldn’t be perceived as me, mine or myself.

Yeah, one understand the nature of form, or emptiness, or conditioned existence, and one transcends them. And one transcends them while still being able to experience them, meaning while in this life, while using this very body, this very mind. Which is what your quote says:

I am really not clear at this point what it is that you’re arguing so vehemently. Do you want simply to prove an eternalist view of continuation after nibbana without remainder? Sorry, but these posts are getting so long and complicated I am starting to lose track of what the topic is.

2 Likes
42

This makes me think of the teachings of Waharaka Thero and Lal Ariyaratna Pinnaduwage. Would you agree?

2 Likes
43

No clue, I’ve never heard of them before! :victory_hand::sweat_smile:

I will google and try to find out about their teachings. :slightly_smiling_face::folded_hands:

1 Like
44

But the fact remains that consciousness is totally independent from the physical body and can still operate without it.

One does not need a physical human body to be conscious, hence all those planes of consciousness beyond kāma-loka (using a physical body).

And on top of that also the mind-made body which is indeed separate from the physical body and not like the explanation you linked to.

Of course not, you must have missed the following in my post:

My point is that you claimed this:

I in turn only showed how the ”unconditioned” and ”the peaceful” are identical and have nothing to do with the physical body.

You then claimed that this goal of peace is only thanks to the physical body/brain etc. in this very life which I think is a very materialist/physicalist view.

I then pointed out that the only difference in iti 44 when it comes to ”The element of extinguishment with residue and the element of extinguishment with no residue.” is the five sense faculties (physical body). Otherwise the two elements are 100% identical and then I proceeded to mention the mind-made body since the mind is not even mentioned at all in iti 44.

Hence the physical body, dead or alive, does not matter much in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the path. :wheel_of_dharma:
:folded_hands:

2 Likes
45

Well, you merely quoted some suttas which can be interpreted, and others have pointed out the same to you. Facts are not facts simply because you say so. But then again, clearly, you have your opinions, so no need for this discussion at all. Be well

2 Likes
46

Please don’t. I only asked because those people are considered by many to be cults or cultish.

47

Do you believe in rebirth at all?

1 Like
48

I do belive in rebirth.

49

As far as past goes, the regress is infinite. And as long as there is no knowledge of asankhata dhatu, infinite future bondage is granted.

I don’t know what you are talking about. “Peace of the heart”, as synonymous with cessation of bhava here and now, “depends” on knowledge that any aspect of experience, is not self. That what is eternally present is such, and it is peaceful no matter the body is present or not. It has to be discovered.

“Depends” in quote mark since once what has no beginning, end and is changelles is discovered, as it is in the case of sotapatti, it cannot be forgotten. Buddha is Dhamma, once you see the Buddha for yourself you are part of Dhamma, and after at most seven following lives, Dhamma remains. And it is very peaceful. Cessation of time is very peaceful… Discovery of timeless is conditioned and depends on proper practice, but timeless itself is not dependently arisen.

1 Like
50

We might be looking at this from different perspectives. To say “Cessation of time is peaceful” is to assign a certain subjective quality to a concept. Peaceful to who? How is peaceful relevant without someone to experience it? The concept is not the experience.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying at all. Yes, the experience of the deathless is always peaceful. However, what our friend here was suggesting is that the one attaining nibbana, will forever abide in some kind of bliss, even after complete extinguishment. I was only addressing that idea.

1 Like
51

Re: the discussion of Nagarjuna’s MMK and Madhyamikas

I’m unaware of any living extent tradition of Madhyamikas - certainly not any of the Tibetan traditions - that regard nirvana-without-remainder as only occurring subsequent to the physical death of a realized one.

This is quite different from what Venerable @Sunyo and @Jasudho adhere to as far as I can tell. I bring it up only to be very clear that while there are many points of agreement between the Theravada adherents on this board with the Madhyamikas, the understanding of Nirvana is quite different.

You can find this distinction illustrated throughout the MMK and the commentaries of Siderits, Katsura, Garfield by way of the ancient Indian interpretators. For instance, there are many mentions of a sutta by Sariputra - probably surviving in the Chinese counterparts to the Pali suttas - where Sariputta purports to recount actualizing nirvana-without-remainder in this very life.

For Madhyamikas, the Buddha actualized nirvana-without-remainder underneath the Bodhi tree - physical death plays no part in attaining the deathless.

:pray:

2 Likes
52

The Madhyamika tradition, as I understand it, focuses on nirvāṇa as the cessation of ignorance. So do the early texts, actually. It’s primarily just these discussions that keep focusing on the nirvāṇa after death. :smiley:

As I see it, that focus of ours is in large part due to the idea (held by some) that there is some kind of ultimate reality or consciousness that is nirvāṇa, which is experienced in life and after death. Those kind of notions of continuity automatically lead us to discuss the situation after death. In my view of nirvāṇa, not only is that wrong, but it isn’t all that practical either. I would be happy if we could focus more on nirvāṇa while alive. The ending of craving and ignorance is also continually indicated to be the ultimate goal in the suttas, not some situation after death (whatever it may be), which is interesting to reflect on in and of itself.

But here we are. :slight_smile:

That said, the Madhyamika tradition does make the very same twofold distinction. (Edit: I’m wrong. see yeshe’s point below.) From Candrakīrti’s Prassanapada (519), which is a commentary on the MMK, and very influentual in the Tibetan tradition. In Sprung’s translation:

Nirvāṇa has been described by the illustrious one as twofold for those persons who lead a chaste life, who are practising the discipline leading to perfect realization, and who are committed to living according to the Truth: namely, a Nirvāṇa with a residual base and a Nirvāṇa without a residual base.

On the one hand, Nirvāṇa with residual base (sopadhiśeṣa) is conceived as resulting from the total extinction of the basic afflictions—ignorance, desire and the rest. […] Nirvāṇa with a residual base means continuing to exist conjoined with a residual base. What kind of Nirvāṇa is this? It consists of nothing more than the bare factors of personal existence freed from the deceptive afflictions such as the belief in a substantial personal self; it is like a town from which all criminal gangs have been purged. That is Nirvāṇa with a residual base.

In the second case, the Nirvāṇa in which there are not even the bare factors of personal existence [skandhas] is Nirvāṇa without a residual base (nirupadhiṣeśa). Where the residual base has vanished, it is comparable to a town from which all criminal gangs have been purged and which is itself destroyed. In this connection it is said, ‘The body has collapsed, ideas and perceptions gone. All feeling vanished, all dispositions quiescent and consciousness itself non-existent.’ […]

So it is that Nirvāṇa without residual base is attained by the cessation (nirodha) of the factors of personal existence.

From Siderits’ comment on the MMK:

For nirvāṇa is said to be of two types, with and without remainder. The former involves abandonment of the defilements, so that cessation of rebirth is assured but still involves psychophysical elements resulting from past karma, so one is still embodied. The latter comes about when one’s karma is exhausted, so that the causal series of psychophysical elements is destroyed. Both involve cessation. The former involves the cessation of false views of an existing “I,” while the latter involves cessation of the psychophysical elements.

I’ve seen people been confused about the concept of “without remainder” when this specifically refers to the defilements. In that case it does not mean no remainder of anything whatsoever. The Pali texts use such terms also; for example in MN18:

[…] the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. […] This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over [of those unskillful qualities themselves!]

The term for ‘without anything left over’ is aparisesa. This is not the nirupadhiṣeśa nirvāṇa that Candrakīrti refers to above, which he says happens when “the body has collapsed”.

It may well be true that in extant Tibetan circles this twofold distinction is no longer made. That I am not aware of.

1 Like
53

This explanation is specifically referred to as the viewpoint of the opponent or interlocutor that Nagarjuna is responding to and should not be mistaken for Nagarjuna’s own position.

One of the difficulties of the MMK is that it isn’t always clear which verses are meant to convey the opponent and which ones are Nagarjuna’s own response. The MMK is a debate made in verse and it often trips up those who are newer to trying to understand it.

It simply is not the case that Nagarjuna, the MMK, and Madhyamikas view Nirvana in the same way as the adherents of cessation on this board. I’m happy to provide abundant references and quotes from all over the tradition including Nagarjuna’s own works, but I don’t want to derail this thread.

If we’re to discuss the MMK, the Madhyamikas and what is believed on this forum I do think it important to be clear that the account related often on this board as nirvana-without-remainder or physical death playing any role simply is not what non-Theravada traditions believe.

This is a Theravada board so I don’t want to debate this unless it is explicitly asked for, but I do hope that the Theravada adherents on this board will respect that our traditions and beliefs differ quite significantly in this way. :pray:

1 Like
54

Aha. I stand corrected. :+1: Thanks for that. I should stay within my own area of expertise. :laughing: I have to say, to me it’s not even clear in Siderits’ commentary that it is the opponent’s view. But it seems you’re right.

Maybe in PM? I’m happy to learn more. But I also don’t want to derail the discussion even further.

2 Likes
55

Yes, I’m always happy to talk about the MMK and Nagarjuna. Would be happy to answer questions with the caveat that I make no claim other than meager understanding in a PM :slight_smile: :pray:

1 Like
56

Just to note — part of the point of these boards is to investigate the relationship of EBTs with the later traditions, so I feel the topic would be apt, and I would also personally benefit much from such a public discussion. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
57

Now, "subjectivity " is an ambiguous term. It may refer to subject, someone, to whom the question “Who?” applies. But experience of peace as subjective could be understood as "some have it, some don’t ", and generally it doesn’t necessarily involve the existence of the subject who experience* it.

“Generally”, since regarding the cessation of time, such cessation is synonymous with cessation of the subject, more, precisely because of bhavanirodho, or cessation of the subject, it is so peaceful.

There is also the problem with word “experience” which usually implies dualism like in observer and something observed.

But the problems on the level of description should not make us forget that the search for asanhata dhatu is actually the only reasonable and noble search. If you mean that the success in such search isn’t personal (doesn’t involve someone who enjoys it), than of course I agree. But if someone says that asanhata dhatu is a kind of licentia poetica, and not eternally present and waiting to be discovered unborn element, thats sounds like a direct contradistinction of Suttas.

1 Like
58

I’d love to see those quotes from Nagarjuna’s work especially as well :slight_smile: Preferably the MMK. I’ve seen some remarks in another work (Sixty Stanzas I believe).

2 Likes
59

I have nothing else to say other than that was a brilliant assessment. Bravo. :folded_hands::clap::raising_hands:

60

I’m late to the party, but from what I can tell, the ways in which Nibbana get “misconstrued” are in relationship to time.

One yogi thinks “I am entering Nibbana”

Another thinks “I am in Nibbana”

Another thinks “I am leaving Nibbana”.

These are all expressions of “duration”.

I think this issue of how humans are very much “hard wired” to view existence as “temporal” makes linguistic attempts at definitions of Nibbana subject to much confusion.

If we stop existing in time for a few moments, however, we can appreciate that kind of “timeless” experience which is often associated with Nature and Peace.

Without having really pushed this idea any further on my own, I would wager (if I had to) that conceptual frameworks for paranibbana fail us because we cannot comprehend life outside of time and we cannot comprehend “death” as being inside time. If we could comprehend how non-temporal death was, we’d likely be able to distinguish what “nibbana after death” appears like. But we don’t. We don’t view death as the end. We view paranibbana as the end. Hence, we allow for time to come to an end only with paranibbana. But time comes to an end with death. So that leaves our “ontology” of Nibbana and the question of nibbana’s “temporal identity” mixed up with what it actually means for time to “end” for someone.

Moreover, we don’t innately understand exactly how we “take up” a new body. Death implies the end of time *temporarily (if, that is, we accept the premise of rebirth). Time starts fresh when the sankharas “get moving”. But a bunch of questions are raised in the “bardo”.

Are we “disembodied” and then we take up a new body? Do we exist in “cessation of perception and feeling” when we let go of this body in this life? Or do we exist in the realm of nothingness - Only to assume another body because we have not settled our sankharas?

My point is that if we understood what the “bardo” was really like it might be that much easier to identify the fundamental differences between nibbana and paranibbana.

The ultimate “hang up” as i see it, when it comes to the non-proliferation of nibbanic conceptualization is our very hard-wired intuitions about time. In Nibbana, there is no time. So far as I can tell without having attained to it. When it is thus defined in positive language we fall into the error of eternalism only when we fall into the common language of duration. Nibbana is an escape outside of time. It can “last forever” when you acknowledge that it need not last even for a moment. That paradox should be acknowledged as something intrinsic to the nature of Nibbana. And clearly Nibbana has a nature. Would A thing without a nature be described in so many different ways? It’s also a question of “how do I seek that which has no nature?” Can’t be done.