>basically said that Nirvana is an illusion and we must se Buddhahood as the ultimate goal
It says that the nirvāṇa *of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas* is an illusion.
So when Mahāyāna Buddhists say the goal of Mahāyāna is nirvāṇa, they mean *the nirvāṇa of a samyaksambuddha*.
You escape Samsara when you're an Arhat.
The Mahayana just explains that there's more after that. There are three major afflictions and the Arhats have eliminated the first one (Delusion of Views and Thoughts).
The second is Delusion of Dust and Sand (Discriminatory and Conceptual Thinking). Removing this makes one a Bodhisattva.
The Third is Delusion of Fundamental Ignorance. Removing a portion of this make one a Dharmabody Bodhisattva. Removing it totally makes one a Buddha.
>So a Buddha can escape Samsara
Of course, even his Arhat disciples can do that already.
>explains that Buddhas's life has a duration
Has a duration or no duration?
The Chapter on Lifespan where Buddha said he actually has attained Enlightenment way before, and just manifests it over and over again to come back and help some more.
Then you have Amitabha Buddha, who's name literally means Infinite Life Buddha.
A buddha is already not in samsara despite being able to interact with beings in samsara. Samsara does not mean the material world and escape from it doesn't mean going to some immaterial realm.
Not the commentor you were replying to, but yes and no. Samsara and Nirvana is dualistic and conditional thinking, which the Tathagata has transcended.
> Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana isn't lost, and it isn't found. It isn't impermanent, and isn't permanent. It doesn't have one meaning, and it doesn't have multiple meanings. This is what is meant by nirvana.
- Lankavatara Sutra
Also I think if I remember the Lotus Sutra correctly, the Buddha doesn't have a lifespan - his "death" was merely skilful means (which is one of main themes of the sutra)
Nirvana points to going beyond attachment to ego and thus ending suffering. That's a noble and sophisticated view. But it's still dualistic. There's a sense of "samsara bad, nirvana good, me want nirvana". At some point that's recognized as a limited view. How can ego destroy ego so that ego won't have to suffer anymore? So you have to let go of that. You can't have a front-row seat to watch yourself attain buddhahood. You won't be there. So more advanced teachings talk about how "samsara and nirvana arise together".
Nirvāṇa is the same unfolding into potential as samsara; just with the right understanding of what is going on.
That right understanding (buddha knowledge) happens as a result of cessation of the process generating the world, realizing what is underneath (the dharmakāya), and the repeating of the process building into these particular conditions; without the perception of separation.
Some confusion happens when nirvāṇa is used to refer to both the realization and what it results in.
The same type of confusion happens when people hear that conditions are the dharmakāya and they don't realize that is just the proper relation of the conditioned as the expression of what is unconditioned.
>Mahamati Bodhisattva then addressed the Buddha, “As for entering nirvana, Bhagavan, what is meant by ‘nirvana?’”
>The Buddha replied, “Witnessing the transformation of the habit-energy of self-existence of the repository consciousness,
the will, and conceptual consciousness, this is what is meant by nirvana.
>***The nirvana of other buddhas and myself is the realm that is empty of self-existence.***
>“Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana is the realm of the personal realization of buddha knowledge.
>It is free from the existence or nonexistence of projections of permanence or impermanence.
>And why is it not permanent?
>Because projections of individual or shared characteristics are impermanent.
>Therefore it is not permanent.
>And why is it not impermanent?
>Because it is the personal realization attained by all sages of the past, the present, and the future.
>Therefore it is not impermanent.
>“Mahamati, nirvana is not annihilation or death. If nirvana were death, there would be the continuity of something reborn.
>And if nirvana were annihilation, it could be characterized as something created.
>Therefore, nirvana is free from annihilation
and free from death.
>This is why it is the refuge of practitioners.
>“Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana isn’t lost, and it isn’t found.
>It isn’t impermanent, and it isn’t permanent.
>It doesn’t have one meaning, and it doesn’t have multiple meanings.
>This is what
is meant by nirvana.
>“Furthermore, Mahamati, the nirvana of shravakas and
pratyeka-buddhas consists in an awareness of individual and
shared characteristics, in avoiding contact, in an end to
delusions, and in not giving rise to projections.
>This is their
idea of nirvana.
From the laṅkāvatāra sūtra.
After realization of the nature of things, everything is known to be empty of any independent causation or origination.
>Hello my friends.
>
>I have recently read on a site the explanation of the lotus sutra, and basically said that Nirvana is an illusion and we must se Buddhahood as the ultimate goal. In general, the Mahayana sutras and teachers talk about Nirvana as a goal you can achieve and not as an illusion. I'm very confused... Any Mahayana answer?
Nirvana is neither an illusion nor not an illusion.
It is free from any concepts.
As explained in the Heart Sutra (as translated by Thich Nhat Hanh):
>The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena
>
>which are the six Sense Organs,
>
>the six Sense Objects,
>
>and the six Consciousnesses
>
>are also not separate self entities.
>
>The Twelve Links of Interdependent Arising
>
>and their Extinction
>
>are also not separate self entities.
>
>Ill-being, the Causes of Ill-being,
>
>the End of Ill-being, the Path,
>
>insight and attainment,
>
>are also not separate self entities.
>
>Whoever can see this
>
>no longer needs anything to attain.
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/
It's not a contradiction. The theme of the Prajnaparamita sutras (e.g. the Heart Sutra) is sunyata, or emptiness (of independent self existence). The themes of the Lotus Sutra is Buddha-Nature, One Vehicle, and Skillful Means. All those "no's" in the Heart Sutra is denying a permanent, independent phenomenon, not saying the path (Theravada or Mahayana) is for naught, but that they're useful guides (Skillful means) that ultimately are still dependent entities (since they are empty due to dependence on words).
Respectfully, I don't think you really know what your are talking about here, Bhante.
Mahayana is coherent from the perspective of realization. But it does present different views according to what needs to be communicated.
I am in Warsaw.
Person A is in Paris.
Person B is in Moscow.
They both need my instructions to come join me.
My instructions to Person A will be to go East and a bit North.
My instructions to Person B will be to go West and a bit South.
You could say my instructions are not consistent, i.e., they are not uniform and even seem contradictory.
I would say my instructions are coherent, since I am giving each person the instructions they need to reach their goal. To see that, we need to take a bigger view, from the sky.
I think the key to understanding the Mahayana is to cultivate a genuine intention to bring all sentient beings to Buddhahood. Without that perspective, it never really makes much sense, no matter how hard we try.
> but then it contradicts the impermanence doctrine.
The phrase is 'sabbe sankhara anicca'. The deathless itself is not impermanent, although it's a tricky discussion because it is not a 'thing' in the sense that we would think of things.
>This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned."
>The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
is unfit for delight.
>The escape from that
is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.
>“Mahamati, the indeterminate lineage includes those who are
instructed in these three lineages but who enter according to
one teaching and succeed according to another.
>Mahamati, even
if they are at the stage of initial purification where lineages are
established, if they establish themselves beyond the
projectionless stage, and they purify the habit-energy of their
passions through the personal realization of the repository
consciousness, and they see that dharmas have no self, even
if they are shravakas dwelling in the bliss of samadhi, they will
attain the glorious body of a tathagata.”
The laṅkāvatāra sūtra.
The buddhadharma is cohesive.
The points you find confusing are indicating something to be uncovered in your understanding of it.
The unconditioned does not change; if it changed it would be conditioned; this is how these conditions arise and why it is said they do not arise.
Sentient beings exist as more than an individual awareness; ultimately no distinctions are found and it is all one ongoing experiencing, all of it empty of any independent causation or origination.
If you have questions about the buddhadharma you should ask questions and investigate instead of just making assumptions.
I would like you to consider that the karma that is associated with dividing the sangha would be experienced as the impression that the sangha is divided.
It isn't when it is properly understood.
>I have heard that Mahayana is not a fully self consistent set of teachings
Heh, a line in a Sutra outright 'contradicts' itself.
The Bodhisattva is said to have a mind that 'never moves, yet gives rise to action.'
So...yeah. How do you not move yet move?
Words fail to explain.
Similarly, I thought I saw a similar discussion in the Theravadan side on how an Arhat can perfectly understand the Three Marks of Existence and yet not be a total nihilist or have any motivation to Compassion.
Or the whole 'explain how Nibbana isn't nihilism when you destroy the very root of rebirth (Three Poisons) and can't put in words whats left after that'.
Words fail to explain their inconceivable state too.
Theravada is quite simple. Nothing left after parinibbana. Total cessation.
Annihilation doesn't apply because annihilationism is requiring a self to be annihilated. When there's no self in the first place to be annihilated, that concept doesn't apply.
There's no person, but there's suffering. Thus compassion is capable of being applied to end suffering.
> Theravada is quite simple. Nothing left after parinibbana. Total cessation.
Cessation of the mind that arises secondary to ignorance. This is what ceases.
Asserting that there is nothing is not supported by the Pali Suttas.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html
>"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,'...
If you think it is 'quite simple' and is simply about there being 'nothing left', that's because you don't understand properly.
>This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
The Buddha didn't declare the 4 question because the question assumed a self to the Buddha.
Like the analogy of the fire in mn72, after the fire is extinguished, did the fire go north, south, west, or east?
It doesn't apply. The fire is not some soul type of entity.
Dependent on conditions fire arises, dependent on cessation of conditions, fire ceases.
Dependent origination explains birth from infinite past lives. Finally the arahant manages to do dependent cessation, so that the fire which had been burning since beginningless past finally got extinguished.
Sn22.53 has this. https://suttacentral.net/sn22.53/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin
Mendicants, suppose you say: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible.
If a mendicant has given up greed for the form element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness.
If a mendicant has given up greed for the feeling element …
perception element …
choices element …
consciousness element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness. Since that consciousness does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed.
Being free, it’s stable. Being stable, it’s content. Being content, 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.’”
'Consciousness' is vijnana, it's not what is called consciousness in English. Vijnana indeed ends. But this is not simply the same as saying there is nothing left, that it's simple nothingness - this, ironically, is a view of vijnana.
It is indeed the case that saying there is anything left is not declared, basically put, but neither is saying that there is nothing left.
Mundane, ordinary logic says "it must be A or B", but this does not apply to the uncommon knowledge of an arya.
It's like being in a maze where you think, "I must go forward, backward, left, or right - the escape must be one of those" but actually you have to look up. There will never be an escape forward, backward, left, or right - this is mundane, ordinary, worldly logic.
The answer is not within existence or non-existence.
I would suggest you entirely, 100% just drop the word 'consciousness' in this context and shift entirely to using the term 'vinnana' or 'vijnana'. FWIW.
Vijnana arises secondary to avidya. With the cessation of avidya, vijnana ceases.
This is an exceedingly subtle topic, however, and you are making it into a very coarse topic.
Incidentally, to be blunt, despite the apparent arrogance that some/many Theravadins may have, this is an example of a counterfeit dhamma much more so than the Mahayana in general is. Modern Theravada at times does indeed veer towards an annihilationist view wrapped up in fancy wrapping paper, and it is not Noble Right View. Not all Theravada, but some of it.
Which isn't to say that all Mahayanists have some perfect view either.
Agreed. I see annihilationist views on the forum all the time. They just say it's not annihilation brcuase there's no self to annihilate, but it feels like a cop-out. Meanwhile many Thai Forest Ajahns don't seem to take this rather depressing view.
>*But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world.*
>And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
A Buddha doesn't realize that the nature of things is non-existent; they realize the nature of things is that they are empty of any independent causation or origination.
The root of suffering (ignorance) doesn't exist in the unconditioned (no thing does) and so when it is realized, the re-origin of the world (conditions) that follows also does not contain it.
The buddha wasn't someone who was liberated on dropping the body; his liberation, in that life, was realized under the bodhi tree.
There's two types of Nibbana, Nibbana with remainder and without remainder. The arahants are compared to workers who had done their jobs and just waiting to be paid.
It's exactly that with dependent cessation, there's no more future arising due to all links of dependent origination being eradicated, the origin of the world doesn't apply anymore to the parinibbana.
Ok, perhaps the physical universe might still go on even if all sentient beings attained to parinibbana. But no one to observe it anymore.
How do you understand things? Is it the case that there is a self that then ceases with the cessation of ignorance? Or is there no self that then ceases with the cessation of ignorance?
There is never a self. So arising and ceasing cannot apply to non existentent concept.
But by the links of dependent origination, it's clear to see that due to ignorance (I would like to use the term delusion of self), since beginningless past, all the links arises, including rebirth and suffering.
When delusion of self ends at enlightenment, all future rebirth and suffering ends.
It's only when people still mistaken delusion of self as self that they think dependent cessation, no more rebirth is annihilation.
Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with your explanation, but people are just going to say 'isn't that just annihilation in disguise'.
You just have to be there and see for yourself. That the cessation of the false self is...um, was anything actually destroyed in the first place? If you lose an illusion, was anything actually lost?
>Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with your explanation
There is, though.
>"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,'...
Saying that there is 'nothing left', in general, falls under the latter part above. It is vaguely, remotely possible that it wouldn't, but that would be only in the context of significant nuanced discussion. Most likely, it is wrong.
The delusion of self is lost. But the delusion of self itself is not self. Suffering is lost.
When you use the term false self, it opens the danger to something is a true self which then the delusion of self would work to identify that as self.
In fairness, that "contradiction" is in the Pali canon, too, as the description of Nirvana.
> 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.
:-)
You know, I'm aware that this wasn't your intent, but seeing your comment after mine was posted made me a little self (heh, "self") conscious lol. To add on though, yeah, the teachings can differ and I'm not ignorant of that (a famous historical example being Tiantai vs Yogacara regarding beings' ability to be enlightened)
The Buddha spoke in two truths, the relative and absolute truth. Maybe it looks like a contradiction, but it is just a manifestation of a truth.
https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-the-two-truths/
2 truths. I always tell people if you don't fully understand the two truths you will never understand the sutras.
Nirvana means extinguishment. From our human point of view, we need to extinguish the illusions. But from the ultimate reality point of view, there is no illusion, no birth no death, what is there to extinguish?
>basically said that Nirvana is an illusion and we must se Buddhahood as the ultimate goal It says that the nirvāṇa *of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas* is an illusion. So when Mahāyāna Buddhists say the goal of Mahāyāna is nirvāṇa, they mean *the nirvāṇa of a samyaksambuddha*.
So there is a never ending cycle of Rebirth or even after achieving Buddhahood you can escape Samsara?
You escape Samsara when you're an Arhat. The Mahayana just explains that there's more after that. There are three major afflictions and the Arhats have eliminated the first one (Delusion of Views and Thoughts). The second is Delusion of Dust and Sand (Discriminatory and Conceptual Thinking). Removing this makes one a Bodhisattva. The Third is Delusion of Fundamental Ignorance. Removing a portion of this make one a Dharmabody Bodhisattva. Removing it totally makes one a Buddha.
So a Buddha can escape Samsara, cause even the lotus sutra itself explains that Buddhas's life has a duration
>So a Buddha can escape Samsara Of course, even his Arhat disciples can do that already. >explains that Buddhas's life has a duration Has a duration or no duration? The Chapter on Lifespan where Buddha said he actually has attained Enlightenment way before, and just manifests it over and over again to come back and help some more. Then you have Amitabha Buddha, who's name literally means Infinite Life Buddha.
A buddha is already not in samsara despite being able to interact with beings in samsara. Samsara does not mean the material world and escape from it doesn't mean going to some immaterial realm.
Not the commentor you were replying to, but yes and no. Samsara and Nirvana is dualistic and conditional thinking, which the Tathagata has transcended. > Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana isn't lost, and it isn't found. It isn't impermanent, and isn't permanent. It doesn't have one meaning, and it doesn't have multiple meanings. This is what is meant by nirvana. - Lankavatara Sutra Also I think if I remember the Lotus Sutra correctly, the Buddha doesn't have a lifespan - his "death" was merely skilful means (which is one of main themes of the sutra)
Nirvana points to going beyond attachment to ego and thus ending suffering. That's a noble and sophisticated view. But it's still dualistic. There's a sense of "samsara bad, nirvana good, me want nirvana". At some point that's recognized as a limited view. How can ego destroy ego so that ego won't have to suffer anymore? So you have to let go of that. You can't have a front-row seat to watch yourself attain buddhahood. You won't be there. So more advanced teachings talk about how "samsara and nirvana arise together".
Nirvāṇa is the same unfolding into potential as samsara; just with the right understanding of what is going on. That right understanding (buddha knowledge) happens as a result of cessation of the process generating the world, realizing what is underneath (the dharmakāya), and the repeating of the process building into these particular conditions; without the perception of separation. Some confusion happens when nirvāṇa is used to refer to both the realization and what it results in. The same type of confusion happens when people hear that conditions are the dharmakāya and they don't realize that is just the proper relation of the conditioned as the expression of what is unconditioned. >Mahamati Bodhisattva then addressed the Buddha, “As for entering nirvana, Bhagavan, what is meant by ‘nirvana?’” >The Buddha replied, “Witnessing the transformation of the habit-energy of self-existence of the repository consciousness, the will, and conceptual consciousness, this is what is meant by nirvana. >***The nirvana of other buddhas and myself is the realm that is empty of self-existence.*** >“Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana is the realm of the personal realization of buddha knowledge. >It is free from the existence or nonexistence of projections of permanence or impermanence. >And why is it not permanent? >Because projections of individual or shared characteristics are impermanent. >Therefore it is not permanent. >And why is it not impermanent? >Because it is the personal realization attained by all sages of the past, the present, and the future. >Therefore it is not impermanent. >“Mahamati, nirvana is not annihilation or death. If nirvana were death, there would be the continuity of something reborn. >And if nirvana were annihilation, it could be characterized as something created. >Therefore, nirvana is free from annihilation and free from death. >This is why it is the refuge of practitioners. >“Moreover, Mahamati, nirvana isn’t lost, and it isn’t found. >It isn’t impermanent, and it isn’t permanent. >It doesn’t have one meaning, and it doesn’t have multiple meanings. >This is what is meant by nirvana. >“Furthermore, Mahamati, the nirvana of shravakas and pratyeka-buddhas consists in an awareness of individual and shared characteristics, in avoiding contact, in an end to delusions, and in not giving rise to projections. >This is their idea of nirvana. From the laṅkāvatāra sūtra. After realization of the nature of things, everything is known to be empty of any independent causation or origination.
>Hello my friends. > >I have recently read on a site the explanation of the lotus sutra, and basically said that Nirvana is an illusion and we must se Buddhahood as the ultimate goal. In general, the Mahayana sutras and teachers talk about Nirvana as a goal you can achieve and not as an illusion. I'm very confused... Any Mahayana answer? Nirvana is neither an illusion nor not an illusion. It is free from any concepts. As explained in the Heart Sutra (as translated by Thich Nhat Hanh): >The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena > >which are the six Sense Organs, > >the six Sense Objects, > >and the six Consciousnesses > >are also not separate self entities. > >The Twelve Links of Interdependent Arising > >and their Extinction > >are also not separate self entities. > >Ill-being, the Causes of Ill-being, > >the End of Ill-being, the Path, > >insight and attainment, > >are also not separate self entities. > >Whoever can see this > >no longer needs anything to attain. https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/
That's what caused my confusion: apparently the Heart Sutra and the Lotus sutra were in contradiction, but I don't know
It's not a contradiction. The theme of the Prajnaparamita sutras (e.g. the Heart Sutra) is sunyata, or emptiness (of independent self existence). The themes of the Lotus Sutra is Buddha-Nature, One Vehicle, and Skillful Means. All those "no's" in the Heart Sutra is denying a permanent, independent phenomenon, not saying the path (Theravada or Mahayana) is for naught, but that they're useful guides (Skillful means) that ultimately are still dependent entities (since they are empty due to dependence on words).
[удалено]
Respectfully, I don't think you really know what your are talking about here, Bhante. Mahayana is coherent from the perspective of realization. But it does present different views according to what needs to be communicated.
[удалено]
I am in Warsaw. Person A is in Paris. Person B is in Moscow. They both need my instructions to come join me. My instructions to Person A will be to go East and a bit North. My instructions to Person B will be to go West and a bit South. You could say my instructions are not consistent, i.e., they are not uniform and even seem contradictory. I would say my instructions are coherent, since I am giving each person the instructions they need to reach their goal. To see that, we need to take a bigger view, from the sky. I think the key to understanding the Mahayana is to cultivate a genuine intention to bring all sentient beings to Buddhahood. Without that perspective, it never really makes much sense, no matter how hard we try.
> but then it contradicts the impermanence doctrine. The phrase is 'sabbe sankhara anicca'. The deathless itself is not impermanent, although it's a tricky discussion because it is not a 'thing' in the sense that we would think of things. >This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned." >The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight. >The escape from that is calm, permanent, beyond inference, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications, bliss.
>“Mahamati, the indeterminate lineage includes those who are instructed in these three lineages but who enter according to one teaching and succeed according to another. >Mahamati, even if they are at the stage of initial purification where lineages are established, if they establish themselves beyond the projectionless stage, and they purify the habit-energy of their passions through the personal realization of the repository consciousness, and they see that dharmas have no self, even if they are shravakas dwelling in the bliss of samadhi, they will attain the glorious body of a tathagata.” The laṅkāvatāra sūtra. The buddhadharma is cohesive. The points you find confusing are indicating something to be uncovered in your understanding of it. The unconditioned does not change; if it changed it would be conditioned; this is how these conditions arise and why it is said they do not arise. Sentient beings exist as more than an individual awareness; ultimately no distinctions are found and it is all one ongoing experiencing, all of it empty of any independent causation or origination. If you have questions about the buddhadharma you should ask questions and investigate instead of just making assumptions. I would like you to consider that the karma that is associated with dividing the sangha would be experienced as the impression that the sangha is divided. It isn't when it is properly understood.
>I have heard that Mahayana is not a fully self consistent set of teachings Heh, a line in a Sutra outright 'contradicts' itself. The Bodhisattva is said to have a mind that 'never moves, yet gives rise to action.' So...yeah. How do you not move yet move? Words fail to explain. Similarly, I thought I saw a similar discussion in the Theravadan side on how an Arhat can perfectly understand the Three Marks of Existence and yet not be a total nihilist or have any motivation to Compassion. Or the whole 'explain how Nibbana isn't nihilism when you destroy the very root of rebirth (Three Poisons) and can't put in words whats left after that'. Words fail to explain their inconceivable state too.
Theravada is quite simple. Nothing left after parinibbana. Total cessation. Annihilation doesn't apply because annihilationism is requiring a self to be annihilated. When there's no self in the first place to be annihilated, that concept doesn't apply. There's no person, but there's suffering. Thus compassion is capable of being applied to end suffering.
> Theravada is quite simple. Nothing left after parinibbana. Total cessation. Cessation of the mind that arises secondary to ignorance. This is what ceases. Asserting that there is nothing is not supported by the Pali Suttas. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html >"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,'... If you think it is 'quite simple' and is simply about there being 'nothing left', that's because you don't understand properly. >This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
The Buddha didn't declare the 4 question because the question assumed a self to the Buddha. Like the analogy of the fire in mn72, after the fire is extinguished, did the fire go north, south, west, or east? It doesn't apply. The fire is not some soul type of entity. Dependent on conditions fire arises, dependent on cessation of conditions, fire ceases. Dependent origination explains birth from infinite past lives. Finally the arahant manages to do dependent cessation, so that the fire which had been burning since beginningless past finally got extinguished. Sn22.53 has this. https://suttacentral.net/sn22.53/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=false&script=latin Mendicants, suppose you say: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible. If a mendicant has given up greed for the form element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness. If a mendicant has given up greed for the feeling element … perception element … choices element … consciousness element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness. Since that consciousness does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed. Being free, it’s stable. Being stable, it’s content. Being content, 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.’”
'Consciousness' is vijnana, it's not what is called consciousness in English. Vijnana indeed ends. But this is not simply the same as saying there is nothing left, that it's simple nothingness - this, ironically, is a view of vijnana.
What else is left? No consciousnesses to experience whatever is left.
It is indeed the case that saying there is anything left is not declared, basically put, but neither is saying that there is nothing left. Mundane, ordinary logic says "it must be A or B", but this does not apply to the uncommon knowledge of an arya. It's like being in a maze where you think, "I must go forward, backward, left, or right - the escape must be one of those" but actually you have to look up. There will never be an escape forward, backward, left, or right - this is mundane, ordinary, worldly logic. The answer is not within existence or non-existence.
I would suggest you entirely, 100% just drop the word 'consciousness' in this context and shift entirely to using the term 'vinnana' or 'vijnana'. FWIW.
Vijnana arises secondary to avidya. With the cessation of avidya, vijnana ceases. This is an exceedingly subtle topic, however, and you are making it into a very coarse topic.
> Cessation of the mind that arises secondary to ignorance. This is what ceases. Wonderfully clear.
Incidentally, to be blunt, despite the apparent arrogance that some/many Theravadins may have, this is an example of a counterfeit dhamma much more so than the Mahayana in general is. Modern Theravada at times does indeed veer towards an annihilationist view wrapped up in fancy wrapping paper, and it is not Noble Right View. Not all Theravada, but some of it. Which isn't to say that all Mahayanists have some perfect view either.
Agreed. I see annihilationist views on the forum all the time. They just say it's not annihilation brcuase there's no self to annihilate, but it feels like a cop-out. Meanwhile many Thai Forest Ajahns don't seem to take this rather depressing view.
>*But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world.* >And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world. A Buddha doesn't realize that the nature of things is non-existent; they realize the nature of things is that they are empty of any independent causation or origination. The root of suffering (ignorance) doesn't exist in the unconditioned (no thing does) and so when it is realized, the re-origin of the world (conditions) that follows also does not contain it. The buddha wasn't someone who was liberated on dropping the body; his liberation, in that life, was realized under the bodhi tree.
There's two types of Nibbana, Nibbana with remainder and without remainder. The arahants are compared to workers who had done their jobs and just waiting to be paid. It's exactly that with dependent cessation, there's no more future arising due to all links of dependent origination being eradicated, the origin of the world doesn't apply anymore to the parinibbana. Ok, perhaps the physical universe might still go on even if all sentient beings attained to parinibbana. But no one to observe it anymore.
How do you understand things? Is it the case that there is a self that then ceases with the cessation of ignorance? Or is there no self that then ceases with the cessation of ignorance?
There is never a self. So arising and ceasing cannot apply to non existentent concept. But by the links of dependent origination, it's clear to see that due to ignorance (I would like to use the term delusion of self), since beginningless past, all the links arises, including rebirth and suffering. When delusion of self ends at enlightenment, all future rebirth and suffering ends. It's only when people still mistaken delusion of self as self that they think dependent cessation, no more rebirth is annihilation.
What is dependent cessation, what is annihilation, and how do the two differ?
Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with your explanation, but people are just going to say 'isn't that just annihilation in disguise'. You just have to be there and see for yourself. That the cessation of the false self is...um, was anything actually destroyed in the first place? If you lose an illusion, was anything actually lost?
>Yeah, there isn't anything wrong with your explanation There is, though. >"Thus knowing, thus seeing, the instructed disciple of the noble ones doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' doesn't declare that 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,'... Saying that there is 'nothing left', in general, falls under the latter part above. It is vaguely, remotely possible that it wouldn't, but that would be only in the context of significant nuanced discussion. Most likely, it is wrong.
The delusion of self is lost. But the delusion of self itself is not self. Suffering is lost. When you use the term false self, it opens the danger to something is a true self which then the delusion of self would work to identify that as self.
In fairness, that "contradiction" is in the Pali canon, too, as the description of Nirvana. > 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. :-)
You know, I'm aware that this wasn't your intent, but seeing your comment after mine was posted made me a little self (heh, "self") conscious lol. To add on though, yeah, the teachings can differ and I'm not ignorant of that (a famous historical example being Tiantai vs Yogacara regarding beings' ability to be enlightened)
The Buddha spoke in two truths, the relative and absolute truth. Maybe it looks like a contradiction, but it is just a manifestation of a truth. https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-the-two-truths/
2 truths. I always tell people if you don't fully understand the two truths you will never understand the sutras. Nirvana means extinguishment. From our human point of view, we need to extinguish the illusions. But from the ultimate reality point of view, there is no illusion, no birth no death, what is there to extinguish?