Nibanna and anihilation

[Unveiled Artist]

There isnt many Buddhist on this forum; and, since I am not familar with Indian Cosmology, maybe Hindus can give me insight as well.

I was reading a heated discussion on SuttaCentral on whether The Buddha taught Nibanna as anihilation since we have nothing left to attach to or they argued what is the state of being one has in the next life when there is no attachments left?

The Buddha lived his Final life when he acheived nibanna. There is no soul nor spirit in Buddhism. There is nothing fixed so no heaven or hell as a final destination. No union with god/deity as deities are also trying to gain enligthenent. The sense of self rather than self is defined as an onging means of cause and affect.

But when there is no gass to put on the fire, the fire extinguishes. Waters are calm without waves and so forth.

Why arent these states considered anihilation?

I mean, its not totally disimilar from Hindu thought (so far I learned here on Hindu DIRs) as with the words consciousness and application of different practices not to mention the role of kamma. So, is ending reincarnation (lack of better terms) be the same as a fire going out?

I am rambling on with questions....but there was no consensus on the other forum since they were fussing more than keeping to the OP. Since there is no death and no birth when on is in the state of nibanna, why wouldnt we consider it anihilation when everything is calm and no cause and affect is left?

I looked it up. The Buddha taught A LOT about nibanna. He also mentioned the nature of it isnt important. So.....

About Nibbana

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would like to understand the concept. As for experience, insight, and deep understanding isnt my goal of this post. Its from an academic perspective not a spiritual one.

 

[crossfire]

The fiery craving of tanha clings (upadana) to its fuel. You could liken this to addiction. Putting out the fiery craving of tanha means the ending of addiction. When you overcome an addiction, you are liberated from it, no longer a junkie, not annihilated.

 

[stvdv]

I was reading a heated discussion on SuttaCentral on whether The Buddha taught Nibanna as anihilation since we have nothing left to attach to or they argued what is the state of being one has in the next life when there is no attachments left?

When they have a heated discussion probably in the next life there will be some heat

I assume Buddha attained the highest state. From Advaita I know this means one realizes only Consciousness is real, all else is maya (illusion). No attachments, so no reincarnation. Also no annihilation because no identification with this illusion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When they have a heated discussion probably in the next life there will be some heat

I assume Buddha attained the highest state. From Advaita I know this means one realizes only Consciousness is real, all else is maya (illusion). No attachments, so no reincarnation. Also no annihilation because no identification with this illusion.

The last part, in Buddhism, though, there isn't reincarnation. I did read the role or consciousness but not towards for but specific to none attachment and no suffering through rebirth and "redeath".

Since there is no god (an attachment...read a whole sutta on it surprisingly), no attachment, no more rebirth, the state of mind is no longer bouncing around like fire.

So, when the fire is out and the ocean is still, why wouldn't that not be considered annihilation?

I mean, when we die that's it. Our actions determine our rebirth but after the Buddha's final rebirth, and attachment and how we define our selves now, once that's gone, no identity, no self, what's left? What is state of mind when there is no state of mind?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They were debating and quoting suttas back and forth because each other use their own interpretation on suttas. In some cases it was as if many didn't like the idea of death without rebirth and there is some grappling at finding life


I'm reading In The Buddha's Words, and the commentary intro the narrator (audio) mentioned annihilation vs heaven are two extremes that does exist in buddhism. One side he felt there'd be no episode of death was it. The other side nothing is fixed nor eternal so there is no final destination.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The fiery craving of tanha clings (upadana) to its fuel. You could liken this to addiction. Putting out the fiery craving of tanha means the ending of addiction. When you overcome an addiction, you are liberated from it, no longer a junkie, not annihilated.

My question, though, is once no attachment, there is no sense of self. No identity. No fire. Maybe annihilation is a strong word for people to hear, but when there is nothing left....there is nothing left.

What is there left of the fire when it's extinguished?

No addiction. No self to be addicted. No lust for addiction. No identity. No rebirth into addiction. Whats the state of being apart from no longer identifying with addiction?

I know the Dharma on addiction and craving and concept of nibanna. Im asking more the state of being as a result of nibanna not the definition of it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There isnt many Buddhist on this forum; and, since I am not familar with Indian Cosmology, maybe Hindus can give me insight as well.

Technically not Buddhist or Hindu but Buddhism is supposedly based upon logic. I will share my resource.

Some Buddhists say that Buddhism is based upon logic and begins with convincing yourself of its fundamental truths which they say are logically determined. I get this opinion from this site, somewhere. I forget which page. Oh, now I see it on the first page "The Buddha based his teachings on a frank assessment of our plight as humans." Personally I find the requirement to learn offensive, and so I have trouble with learning things, however I have read some good arguments on that site in spite of my annoyance. 'Therevada' is the oldest of the schools and is highly documented and argument based. I like that.

I think its term 'Rebirth' is confusing. For example this statement about Nibbana "The arahant lives out the remainder of his or her life inwardly enjoying the bliss of Nibbana, secure at last from the possibility of any future rebirth." confuses me. Surely they don't think rebirth is logical? Nevertheless it can be useful if I take it with a grain of salt and consider it to mean something like what the dread-heads say "I and I" meaning you and I are really the same person, so we should be good to each other. I am trying to remember the real name...Rastafarians. Yes, I view it like the Rastafarians who always wear dreadlocks. This for me makes the argument approachable and more logical than if it were to be suggesting that I would die, get born another time in the future and not remember my past. I guess its semantically not important to most people or else the original Buddhists were very superstitious?

Essentially Buddhism is an ancient psychological philosophy which makes many good insights about our minds. The path seems to be first commitment to morality, then strenuous mental exercise and the formation of a new powerful emotion that can be used as a hammer to make your mind into whatever you want it to be. This is likely how certain Buddhist monks are able to burn themselves alive in protest without screaming or even moving. Thus the 'Nibbana' is a practice not an attainment I think, but they make it look easy.

 

[stvdv]

The last part, in Buddhism, though, there isn't reincarnation

I did not know there was no reincarnation in Buddhism. So Buddhism seems to be the same as Advaita then; no reincarnation

So, when the fire is out and the ocean is still, why wouldn't that not be considered annihilation?

That has to do with point of view. When you identify with "Consciousness" how can there be annihilation. "Consciousness" neither is born nor dies

Birth and death only applies when one is identifying with body/mind/emotions/senses etc. Not when one identifies with "Consciousness"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I did not know there was no reincarnation in Buddhism. So Buddhism seems to be the same as Advaita then; no reincarnation

Reincarnation has to do with god. Rebirth does not. I actually havent read reincarnation in any of the suttas so far Ive read. I mean, online has huge trust issues, but Suttacentral is very distinct to theravada practitioners. The monastics (I forgot where..dont think its the states) recreated the site but the discussions and audio study groups are cool.

Thats the only difference as so far I learned on RF with Hinduism. The Buddha didnt deny there was god (not a god), he just said it wasnt important in ending rebirth.

As for the definition of god vs consciousness, I have no idea. The Buddha was Hindu, so there are overlaps.

Birth and death only applies when one is identifying with body/mind/emotions/senses etc. Not when one ide

Mind is consciousness. Train the mind to separate one from delusions. The result is nibanna, but the state of nibanna, what is that, really?

Im sure the mind isnt walking around as a ghost after its fully freed. I understand the concept of joining with god; but, in Buddhism, it isnt interpreted that way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Technically not Buddhist or Hindu but Buddhism is supposedly based upon logic. I will share my resource.

Some Buddhists say that Buddhism is based upon logic and begins with convincing yourself of its fundamental truths which they say are logically determined. I get this opinion from this site, somewhere. I forget which page. Oh, now I see it on the first page "The Buddha based his teachings on a frank assessment of our plight as humans." Personally I find the requirement to learn offensive, and so I have trouble with learning things, however I have read some good arguments on that site in spite of my annoyance. 'Therevada' is the oldest of the schools and is highly documented and argument based. I like that.

I think its term 'Rebirth' is confusing. For example this statement about Nibbana "The arahant lives out the remainder of his or her life inwardly enjoying the bliss of Nibbana, secure at last from the possibility of any future rebirth." confuses me. Surely they don't think rebirth is logical? Nevertheless it can be useful if I take it with a grain of salt and consider it to mean something like what the dread-heads say "I and I" meaning you and I are really the same person, so we should be good to each other. I am trying to remember the real name...Rastafarians. Yes, I view it like the Rastafarians who always wear dreadlocks. This for me makes the argument approachable and more logical than if it were to be suggesting that I would die, get born another time in the future and not remember my past. I guess its semantically not important to most people or else the original Buddhists were very superstitious?

Essentially Buddhism is an ancient psychological philosophy which makes many good insights about our minds. The path seems to be first commitment to morality, then strenuous mental exercise and the formation of a new powerful emotion that can be used as a hammer to make your mind into whatever you want it to be. This is likely how certain Buddhist monks are able to burn themselves alive in protest without screaming or even moving. Thus the 'Nibbana' is a practice not an attainment I think, but they make it look easy.

Ima come back later. The logic thing, personally, if it isnt logic-if it doesnt make sense-than one either can toss it as false or have faith that it is true. There is a lot of emphesis in learning but its not isolated. Practice is a huge huge foundation to Dharmic Practices in general.

But, so far I know of rebirth is observing how people come back to their addictions such as relapses. When we think of that, we may think of say achohol consumption or medical relapse of an illness, but in everyday life we always come back to our habits and a lot of times can cause us stress. In other times, going back to positive habits can make us so passionate about that said thing we take for granted of how we would be when (not if) we loose it.

Rebirth is in everyday life. Mystics aside, its simple living without believing anything: our family, our passion, our beliefs will help us once we die. The Dharmic idea is that our actions influence our future not what we believe and what we own. Its how we act.

So, thats how I see rebirth and understand it as logic. Since nothing just disapears, I dont know why it would be hard to understand the mind doesnt disappear if I related it to energy. But then many believe rebirth (and reincarnation) when we communicate with people who have already been here before. Thats what confuses me. There are studies on it but, like christianity, I dont see the need to prove something into reality. We are so into the proof and less into experience.

You can read this on your own time, of course. Ill come back and address your post more specific.

 

[George-ananda]

maybe Hindus can give me insight as well.

I'll give you my Hindu (Advaita Vedanta) beliefs on nibbana.

Brahman alone is real. Our core is Brahman consciousness currently veiled by identification with temporary forms. At the end of the game (nibbana) we Brahman-Realize or Self-Realize (self now with a capital 'S' meaning the One consciousness). So in Nibbana we are the universal consciousness, the indescribable is best described as pure consciousness in a state of sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). So, this is the opposite of annihilation but rather the return to everything and our essential Oneness. It is only the separate sense of self (lower case 's') that is annihilated.

If simple annihilation is nibbana, why strive for it?

Buddhism to me is a great practical religion but not complete or clear on metaphysical speculations as it allows many types of thought on the subject. I remember hearing stories on how in effect the Buddha was concerned with solving the problem of suffering and not metaphysical speculation. Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedanta was clarified as a philosophy a few centuries after Buddha and I have found it quite compatible with Buddhism.

 

[stvdv]

Mind is consciousness.

I was talking about "Consciousness" according to the Advaita definition. You are probably talking with the Western definition in mind

To clarify the definitions, otherwise we talk different language:
Mind is only a bundle of thoughts according to Advaita definition
Consciousness is Consciousness, so that is not mind
Buddhi is intellect, definitely not mind
Discrimination, that also is not mind

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was talking about "Consciousness" according to the Advaita definition. You are probably talking with the Western definition in mind

To clarify the definitions, otherwise we talk different language:
Mind is only a bundle of thoughts according to Advaita definition
Consciousness is Consciousness, so that is not mind
Buddhi is intellect, definitely not mind
Discrimination, that also is not mind

Consciousness is not a term we Westerners use. That does not mean a lot of us don't understand it. It means we have different terms to refer to many same experiences. We are all human so no one person's experience is alien to another. I observed a lot of "those Westerners" language. It's highly offensive.

But I use mind to refer to the seat of who we are. Everything comes from mind. Our sense of self. The Buddha mentions we don't have a soul, our sense of self is like a ball rolling down hill. The ball doesn't stop, or kamma, so it's not fixed. That continuous movement is sense of self. We are action.

I don't like the term god and soul refers to a person's personality, emotions, and thoughts. Spirit is what drives motion and mind is the source and seat of it. Body, spirit, soul, mind all work together. Nothing is seperate.

When you seperate or use seperate language, it confuses me cause I don't see life as black and white as many cultures do. No spiritual vs material, western vs easterner, theist vs atheist, ignorant vs wise. We are all growing in whatever path we choose or directed o have you to follow.

But, all what you said I'd call mind. If not mind, is it a soul? A spirit? It's not body. Sense of self as an action has no identity nor label. So what is it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll give you my Hindu (Advaita Vedanta) beliefs on nibbana.

Brahman alone is real. Our core is Brahman consciousness currently veiled by identification with temporary forms. At the end of the game (nibbana) we Brahman-Realize or Self-Realize (self now with a capital 'S' meaning the One consciousness). So in Nibbana we are the universal consciousness, the indescribable is best described as pure consciousness in a state of sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). So, this is the opposite of annihilation but rather the return to everything and our essential Oneness. It is only the separate sense of self (lower case 's') that is annihilated.

If simple annihilation is nibbana, why strive for it?

Buddhism to me is a great practical religion but not complete or clear on metaphysical speculations as it allows many types of thought on the subject. I remember hearing stories on how in effect the Buddha was concerned with solving the problem of suffering and not metaphysical speculation. Adi Shankara and Advaita Vedanta was clarified as a philosophy a few centuries after Buddha and I have found it quite compatible with Buddhism.

Hm. I notice the metaphysics in buddhism range by lineage. Pureland and Tibetan Buddhism both have mystics. Zen not so much. Nichiren Shu some Theravada concepts. Shoshu none at all. It's easy for many to see buddhism as atheistic but it's actually polytheistic. But this is just from what I read from suttas. I have good conversations with monks etc sunday evenings but the language goes by me.

What do you mean by Oneness?

I like mystic talks but without a solid foundation it sounds like poetry. Does hinduism (simple view) see sense of self as a motion and not fixed? What goes into Oneness?

 

[George-ananda]

What do you mean by Oneness?

The central idea in Advaita Vedanta is that Brahman/God is all that is. The universe is just a play/drama of Brahman/God in which he separates himself from Himself in Act I and returns himself to himself in Act II. The returning is the return to Oneness which is Brahman/God.

So in reality we are Brahman/God but thinking we are separate. The return to Oneness=Brahman/God is our goal.

That is one brief way for me to explain it (but I didn't say it would be easy to grasp).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The central idea in Advaita Vedanta is that Brahman/God is all that is. The universe is just a play/drama of Brahman/God in which he separates himself from Himself in Act I and returns himself to himself in Act II. The returning is the return to Oneness which is Brahman/God.

So in reality we are Brahman/God but thinking we are
separate. The return to Oneness=Brahman/God is our goal.

That is one brief way for me to explain it (but I didn't say it would be easy to grasp).

I honestly believe it is easy to explain but the jargon and mystics are throwing it off. Life isnt complicated insomuch spirituality need to be a mystery and complex for it to have meaning beyond the mundane.

Every religion I came across from the atheistic to the pure exotic all had one thing in common: Its beyond our comprehension. I cant think of any religious person from Pagan to Joe Smith down the hall that put some otherwordly signficance to life to even use mystic names like Oneness, Essence, Force, Holy Spirit, Daimoku, and so forth.

But I honestly believe its much more simple. But making it complex and personal makes it more sacred?

But... can you say it in laymans terms?

 

[George-ananda]

I honestly believe it is easy to explain but the jargon and mystics are throwing it off. Life isnt complicated insomuch spirituality need to be a mystery and complex for it to have meaning beyond the mundane.

Every religion I came across from the atheistic to the pure exotic all had one thing in common: Its beyond our comprehension. I cant think of any religious person from Pagan to Joe Smith down the hall that put some otherwordly signficance to life to even use mystic names like Oneness, Essence, Force, Holy Spirit, Daimoku, and so forth.

But I honestly believe its much more simple. But making it complex and personal makes it more sacred?

What simple thing do you think it is then? To me, the existence of anything is mindboggling.

But... can you say it in laymans terms?

I tried my best.

 

[crossfire]

My question, though, is once no attachment, there is no sense of self. No identity. No fire. Maybe annihilation is a strong word for people to hear, but when there is nothing left....there is nothing left.

What is there left of the fire when it's extinguished?

No addiction. No self to be addicted. No lust for addiction. No identity. No rebirth into addiction. Whats the state of being apart from no longer identifying with addiction?

I know the Dharma on addiction and craving and concept of nibanna. Im asking more the state of being as a result of nibanna not the definition of it.

Think of the state of nibbana as being the passive, abiding yin aspect of consciousness, with the yang aspect of consciousness being the active, impermanent thoughts that arise and cease. Nibbana is the liberation from the 12 linked chain of dependent co-arising. Think in terms of actions: cause and effect, rather than on objects of things. (Pay attention to the verbs, and don't let the nouns draw your attention away from the verbs.)

 

[crossfire]

The last part, in Buddhism, though, there isn't reincarnation. I did read the role or consciousness but not towards for but specific to none attachment and no suffering through rebirth and "redeath".

Since there is no god (an attachment...read a whole sutta on it surprisingly), no attachment, no more rebirth, the state of mind is no longer bouncing around like fire.

So, when the fire is out and the ocean is still, why wouldn't that not be considered annihilation?

I mean, when we die that's it. Our actions determine our rebirth but after the Buddha's final rebirth, and attachment and how we define our selves now, once that's gone, no identity, no self, what's left? What is state of mind when there is no state of mind?

Your mind doesn't annihilate itself when you stop thinking and just become aware.