Ask A Buddhist

[rinnie]

Also asked me about John Paul ll. He has a book about it. I can’t remember the name, but I am sure by the quote you can goole it and find it.

I am going out but will be back on Mon, to help you if you can’t find it. God Bless!

 

[Michael19682]

It would be foolish to pray for souls in hell, What good would it do us. The souls in hell reject God want nothing to do with him, and will never get out.

The souls in hell want nothing but evil. they will never change. That is why his question makes no sense to me.

When we ask the Saints in heaven to pray for us we are not in hell. No one in hell would want prayers from Saints anyway. They reject God.

Its like being sad that the devil is in hell!

Maybe they just pray that the devil doesn’t torture them as terribly as he could. “Even if I lay down in Sheol, You are there…” says the psalmist. God is still present, else hell would be nothing at all?

 

[Vouthon]

I’m not a Buddhist, but I think the same - even if only for their cultural and historical value. I mean look at how Bamyan (in modern Afghanistan) became under the Taliban.

My father always said that he cried the day, in 2001, he saw on TV the Buddhas of Bamiyan being demolished and reduced to rubble by the Taliban regime. He said it was a crime against humanity, given that these ancient pieces of unique Greco-Roman style Buddhist statues were the result of human genius, the power of faith and intricate talented artwork from a long lost culture.

Whatever happend too:

“…Let there be no compulsion in religion…”

(Quran 2:256)

 

[pmccombs]

Hello!

I’m something of a nihilist.

My impression of Buddhism is that the ultimate good is essentially a state of non-being, perhaps described best by Gautama Buddha:

“There is that dimension 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 stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of suffering.”

I think this quasi-nihilism would not be palatable, particularly to many of us accustomed to Western thought. In Buddhism, there seems to be a paradoxical “self-yet-non-self” philosophy that has developed in some interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbha sutras as a reaction (in my opinion) to this Western view that the annihilation of the self–this forgetfulness in limbo–is in fact something to be feared. Is there a sense, in Buddhism today, that something analogous to the “mind” continues on in a “nirvana” that is really a state blissful awareness (akin to Christian heaven)?

 

[Bakmoon]

Hello!

I’m something of a nihilist.

My impression of Buddhism is that the ultimate good is essentially a state of non-being, perhaps described best by Gautama Buddha:

“There is that dimension 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 stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of suffering.”

I think this quasi-nihilism would not be palatable, particularly to many of us accustomed to Western thought. In Buddhism, there seems to be a paradoxical “self-yet-non-self” philosophy that has developed in some interpretations of the Tathāgatagarbha sutras as a reaction (in my opinion) to this Western view that the annihilation of the self–this forgetfulness in limbo–is in fact something to be feared. Is there a sense, in Buddhism today, that something analogous to the “mind” continues on in a “nirvana” that is really a state blissful awareness (akin to Christian heaven)?

Nibbana isn’t non-being by any means. The Suttas are very clear on this point. Allow me to explicate the meaning of that quote. It is explaining what Nibbana isn’t. It begins by distinguishing it from the physical world by pointing out that it is not the four classical elements, which in this case stand for the physical world. It then moves on to describe how Nibbana is not the four Arupa Jhanas, which are very high meditative states which many people mistake for enlightenment. For example, before the Buddha was enlightened, he practiced meditation under two diferent teachers, one who taught that enlightenment was the Arupa Jhana of the sphere of nothingness, and the other taught enlightenment was the Arupa Jhana of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. It is clear from this context that the Buddha is denying that these states are Nibbana.

The rest of it is again, means of describing what it isn’t. The Buddha never explains what Nibbana is, except for calling it the cessation of suffering, and using metaphorical language calling it things like “The Deathless”, “The Other Shore”, and “Cooling”. This is because all of human language is used to describe conditional reality, and so the only way to describe unconditioned reality is by either describing what it isn’t, or using metaphor, because you can’t make a perfect analogy between the unconditioned and conditioned reality.

You ask whether there is a view in Buddhism in which the mind continues into Nibbana after death similar to to the idea of Heaven? Theravada Buddhism would say no. This not because the mind is destroyed (the Suttas are clear that the mind is not anihilated), but because the mind has moved beyond this sort of categorization upon enlightenment.

 

[Shiranui117]

Nibbana isn’t non-being by any means. The Suttas are very clear on this point. Allow me to explicate the meaning of that quote. It is explaining what Nibbana isn’t. It begins by distinguishing it from the physical world by pointing out that it is not the four classical elements, which in this case stand for the physical world. It then moves on to describe how Nibbana is not the four Arupa Jhanas, which are very high meditative states which many people mistake for enlightenment. For example, before the Buddha was enlightened, he practiced meditation under two diferent teachers, one who taught that enlightenment was the Arupa Jhana of the sphere of nothingness, and the other taught enlightenment was the Arupa Jhana of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. It is clear from this context that the Buddha is denying that these states are Nibbana.

The rest of it is again, means of describing what it isn’t. The Buddha never explains what Nibbana is, except for calling it the cessation of suffering, and using metaphorical language calling it things like “The Deathless”, “The Other Shore”, and “Cooling”. This is because all of human language is used to describe conditional reality, and so the only way to describe unconditioned reality is by either describing what it isn’t, or using metaphor, because you can’t make a perfect analogy between the unconditioned and conditioned reality.

You ask whether there is a view in Buddhism in which the mind continues into Nibbana after death similar to to the idea of Heaven? Theravada Buddhism would say no. This not because the mind is destroyed (the Suttas are clear that the mind is not anihilated), but because the mind has moved beyond this sort of categorization upon enlightenment.

I’m really interested in this bit here. Do you know of specific suttas that speak of what Nirvana is (or isn’t,) and the state of the mind or the “person” after Nibbana/parinibbana is attained? I’d very much like to read them for myself so I understand the concept better.

Currently, I’m confused on the subject, and was under the impression that parinibbana was synonymous with oblivion and the cessation of existence of consciousness/mind/personhood.

I think I’ve heard that the five aggregates are dissolved once parinibbana is attained (and you can correct me if I’m wrong). Does this mean that we as persons cease to exist, or merely the “false person,” (quotes heavily emphasized here, as I doubt I know what I’m talking about ) as our five aggregates cannot be said to truly be us? (again, correct me if I’m wrong on anything)

 

[notself]

I’m really interested in this bit here. Do you know of specific suttas that speak of what Nirvana is (or isn’t,) and the state of the mind or the “person” after Nibbana/parinibbana is attained? I’d very much like to read them for myself so I understand the concept better.

Currently, I’m confused on the subject, and was under the impression that parinibbana was synonymous with oblivion and the cessation of existence of consciousness/mind/personhood.

I think I’ve heard that the five aggregates are dissolved once parinibbana is attained (and you can correct me if I’m wrong). Does this mean that we as persons cease to exist, or merely the “false person,” (quotes heavily emphasized here, as I doubt I know what I’m talking about ) as our five aggregates cannot be said to truly be us? (again, correct me if I’m wrong on anything)

Here is a sutta. accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html

What happens to one who has fully realized Nibbana?

[Aggivessana Vacchagotta:] "But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?
[The Buddha:] “‘Reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear.”
“Does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“…both does & does not reappear.”
“…doesn’t apply.”

“…neither does nor does not reappear.”
“…doesn’t apply.”

“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears… does not reappear… both does & does not reappear… neither does nor does not reappear, he says, ‘…doesn’t apply’ in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured.”

“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
“…yes…”

“And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, ‘This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”
“…I would reply, ‘This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.’”

“If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, ‘This fire burning in front of me has gone out’?”
“…yes…”

“And suppose someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”
“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as ‘out’ (unbound).”

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.

"Any feeling by which one describing …
Any perception…
Any mental fabrication…doesn’t apply

“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.”

— MN 72

 

[notself]

Here are suttas on what Nibbana is or isn’t.

accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html

Nibbana names the transcendent and singularly ineffable freedom that stands as the final goal of all the Buddha’s teachings.

Defined in terms of what it is…

“This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana.”
— AN 3.32

There’s no fire like passion,
no loss like anger,
no pain like the aggregates,
no ease other than peace.

Hunger: the foremost illness.
Fabrications: the foremost pain.
For one knowing this truth
as it actually is,
Unbinding
is the foremost ease.

Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune.
Contentment: the foremost wealth.
Trust: the foremost kinship.
Unbinding: the foremost ease. — Dhp 202-205

The enlightened, constantly
absorbed in jhana,
persevering,
firm in their effort:
they touch Unbinding,
the unexcelled safety
from bondage. — Dhp 23

…and in terms of what it is not

“There is that dimension 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 stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.” — Ud 8.1

“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 discerned.” — Ud 8.3

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
There the stars do not shine,
the sun is not visible,
the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has known [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed. — Ud 1.10

 

[pmccombs]

Nibbana isn’t non-being by any means. The Suttas are very clear on this point. Allow me to explicate the meaning of that quote. It is explaining what Nibbana isn’t. It begins by distinguishing it from the physical world by pointing out that it is not the four classical elements, which in this case stand for the physical world. It then moves on to describe how Nibbana is not the four Arupa Jhanas, which are very high meditative states which many people mistake for enlightenment. For example, before the Buddha was enlightened, he practiced meditation under two diferent teachers, one who taught that enlightenment was the Arupa Jhana of the sphere of nothingness, and the other taught enlightenment was the Arupa Jhana of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. It is clear from this context that the Buddha is denying that these states are Nibbana.

The rest of it is again, means of describing what it isn’t. The Buddha never explains what Nibbana is, except for calling it the cessation of suffering, and using metaphorical language calling it things like “The Deathless”, “The Other Shore”, and “Cooling”. This is because all of human language is used to describe conditional reality, and so the only way to describe unconditioned reality is by either describing what it isn’t, or using metaphor, because you can’t make a perfect analogy between the unconditioned and conditioned reality.

You ask whether there is a view in Buddhism in which the mind continues into Nibbana after death similar to to the idea of Heaven? Theravada Buddhism would say no. This not because the mind is destroyed (the Suttas are clear that the mind is not anihilated), but because the mind has moved beyond this sort of categorization upon enlightenment.

So this is apophatic theology, something that Thomistic Christian theology also uses to speak of the ineffable deity; i.e. it cannot be said what God is, only what God is not.

I’m not sure if you are familiar with Dr. Malcomb Eckel. His course on Buddhism gave me the distinct impression that Nirvana corresponds to the cessation of personal existence. Since the Western philosophy is influenced by rationalists such as Descartes, we have a difficult time conceiving that any state absent a “self” could correspond to anything short of annihilation.

 

[pmccombs]

Here are suttas on what Nibbana is or isn’t.

A really interesting read. The Buddha says “reappear” or “not reappear” does not apply. The entity is unbounded. Has gone out. Is null and void. Can no longer be referenced. We have a word for that: annihilated. That’s my opinion (but I’m a nihilist!); it’s a matter of language perhaps.

 

[notself]

A really interesting read. The Buddha says “reappear” or “not reappear” does not apply. The entity is unbounded. Has gone out. Is null and void. Can no longer be referenced. We have a word for that: annihilated. That’s my opinion (but I’m a nihilist!); it’s a matter of language perhaps.

“Out” means unbound not null and void. Fire was used often in the suttas.

Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Gaya, at Gayasisa, together with a thousand bhikkhus. There he addressed the bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?

"The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

"The ear is burning, sounds are burning…
"The nose is burning, odors are burning…
"The tongue is burning, flavors are burning…
"The body is burning, tangibles are burning…

"The mind is burning, ideas are burning, mind-consciousness is burning, mind-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in the eye, finds estrangement in forms, finds estrangement in eye-consciousness, finds estrangement in eye-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful- nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.

"He finds estrangement in the ear… in sounds…
"He finds estrangement in the nose… in odors…
"He finds estrangement in the tongue… in flavors…
"He finds estrangement in the body… in tangibles…

"He finds estrangement in the mind, finds estrangement in ideas, finds estrangement in mind-consciousness, finds estrangement in mind-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.

“When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: ‘Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond…’” accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.nymo.html

Upon reaching nibbana, the fires cool. Here is more on nibbana.

Nibbuta (from nir + v.r) is often treated as the past participle of the verb nibbaayati, and nibbaana is the nominal form of that verb. It means happiness, contentment, and peace. Nibbaayati also means to extinguish, to blow out as in the blowing out of a lamp.[2] Nibbana is so called because it is the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion (raagaggi, dosaggi, mohaggi) .[3] When these fires are blown out peace is attained, and one becomes completely cooled — siitibhuuta .[4] It is sometimes conjectured that Nibbana is called cool because the Buddha preached in a warm country, where the cool was appreciated as comfortable. Had he taught in a cold climate, he might have described Nibbana in terms of warmth. But it is certain that the term “cool” was chosen to convey a literal psychological reality.[5] Anger makes us hot and restless. We use expressions such as “boiling with anger,” and they clearly express the intensity of the aggressive emotion. When such negative emotions are completely eradicated, never to arise again, the temperament has to be described as cool. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html

more to come on fire imagery and nibbana

 

[Shiranui117]

Thank you, notself. That gives me a good amount to look through.

 

[Shiranui117]

A really interesting read. The Buddha says “reappear” or “not reappear” does not apply. The entity is unbounded. Has gone out. Is null and void. Can no longer be referenced. We have a word for that: annihilated. That’s my opinion (but I’m a nihilist!); it’s a matter of language perhaps.

Actually, in one of the links that notself’s source links to, it says the following:

He solved the problem by illustrating the goal with similes & metaphors. The best-known metaphor for the goal is the name nibbāna (nirvāṇa), which means the extinguishing of a fire. Attempts to work out the implications of this metaphor have all too often taken it out of context. Some writers, drawing on modern, everyday notions of fire, come to the conclusion that nibbāna implies extinction, as we feel that a fire goes out of existence when extinguished. Others, however, note that the Vedas — ancient Indian religious texts that predate Buddhism by many thousands of years — describe fire as immortal: Even when extinguished it simply goes into hiding, in a latent, diffused state, only to be reborn when a new fire is lit. These writers then assume that the Buddha accepted the Vedic theory in its entirety, and so maintain that nibbāna implies eternal existence.

In other words, the fire does not cease to exist after it goes out, and the same applies to us when we attain nibbana. The fire just ceases to subsist off of any more fuel, and we cease to subsist off the physical universe. But, just because we are no longer burning, does not mean that we as a fire cease to exist.

 

[Bakmoon]

I’m really interested in this bit here. Do you know of specific suttas that speak of what Nirvana is (or isn’t,) and the state of the mind or the “person” after Nibbana/parinibbana is attained? I’d very much like to read them for myself so I understand the concept better.

Currently, I’m confused on the subject, and was under the impression that parinibbana was synonymous with oblivion and the cessation of existence of consciousness/mind/personhood.

I think I’ve heard that the five aggregates are dissolved once parinibbana is attained (and you can correct me if I’m wrong). Does this mean that we as persons cease to exist, or merely the “false person,” (quotes heavily emphasized here, as I doubt I know what I’m talking about ) as our five aggregates cannot be said to truly be us? (again, correct me if I’m wrong on anything)

Notself has just posted some good suttas on the subject, so I won’t try to repeat all that.

It is a common misconception that Nibbana means annihilation, and it is a misconception that existed even in the days of the Buddha. The reason why there can’t be annihilation is that annihilation assumes the existence of an identity, but identity is regarded as only existing conceptually in Buddhism, and a fully enlightened Arahat has moved beyond all concepts of identity.

 

[notself]

Actually, in one of the links that notself’s source links to, it says the following:Actually, in one of the links that notself’s source links to, it says the following:

He solved the problem by illustrating the goal with similes & metaphors. The best-known metaphor for the goal is the name nibbāna (nirvāṇa), which means the extinguishing of a fire. Attempts to work out the implications of this metaphor have all too often taken it out of context. Some writers, drawing on modern, everyday notions of fire, come to the conclusion that nibbāna implies extinction, as we feel that a fire goes out of existence when extinguished. Others, however, note that the Vedas — ancient Indian religious texts that predate Buddhism by many thousands of years — describe fire as immortal: Even when extinguished it simply goes into hiding, in a latent, diffused state, only to be reborn when a new fire is lit. These writers then assume that the Buddha accepted the Vedic theory in its entirety, and so maintain that nibbāna implies eternal existence.

I think your quote was cut off from the actual point being made. Here is a longer quote.

He solved the problem by illustrating the goal with similes & metaphors. The best-known metaphor for the goal is the name nibbāna (nirvāṇa), which means the extinguishing of a fire. Attempts to work out the implications of this metaphor have all too often taken it out of context. Some writers, drawing on modern, everyday notions of fire, come to the conclusion that nibbāna implies extinction, as we feel that a fire goes out of existence when extinguished. Others, however, note that the Vedas — ancient Indian religious texts that predate Buddhism by many thousands of years — describe fire as immortal: Even when extinguished it simply goes into hiding, in a latent, diffused state, only to be reborn when a new fire is lit. These writers then assume that the Buddha accepted the Vedic theory in its entirety, and so maintain that nibbāna implies eternal existence.

The weakness of both these interpretations is that they do not take into account the way the Pali Canon describes (1) the workings of fire, (2) the limits beyond which no phenomenon may be described, and (3) the precise implications that the Buddha himself drew from his metaphor in light of (1) & (2). The purpose of this essay is to place this metaphor in its original context to show what it was and was not meant to imply.

Any discussion of the way the Buddha used the term nibbāna must begin with the distinction that there are two levels of nibbāna (or, to use the original terminology, two nibbāna properties). The first is the nibbāna experienced by a person who has attained the goal and is still alive. This is described metaphorically as the extinguishing of passion, aversion, & delusion. The second is the nibbāna after death. The simile for these two states is the distinction between a fire that has gone out but whose embers are still warm, and one so totally out that its embers are cold. The Buddha used the views of fire current in his day in somewhat different ways when discussing these two levels of nibbāna, and so we must consider them separately.

And here is the section describing the embers are cold.

Death as experienced by a Tathāgata is described simply as, ‘All this, no longer being relished, grows cold right here.’ All attempts to describe the experience of nibbāna or the state of the Tathāgata after death — as existing, not existing, both, or neither — are refuted by the Buddha. To explain his point, he again makes use of the metaphor of the extinguished fire, although here he draws on the Vedic view of latent fire as modified by Buddhist notions of what does and does not lie within the realm of valid description.

To describe the state of the Tathāgata’s mind, there has to be a way of knowing what his/her consciousness is dependent on. Here we must remember that, according to the texts, a meditator may develop intuitive powers through the practice of concentration enabling him/her to know the state of another person’s mind, or the destination of that person after death. To do so, though, that person’s consciousness must be dwelling on a particular object, for it is only through knowledge of the object that the state of the mind can be known. With ordinary people this is no problem, for ordinary consciousness is always dependent on one object or another, but with Tathāgatas this is impossible, for their consciousness is totally independent. Because terms such as existing, not existing, both, or neither, apply only to what may be measured against a criterion of knowing, they cannot apply to the Tathāgata.

The Buddha borrows two points from the Vedic notion of fire to illustrate this point. Even if one wants to assume that fire still exists after being extinguished, it is (1) so subtle that it cannot be perceived, and (2) so diffuse that it cannot be said to go to any one place or in any particular direction. Just as notions of going east, west, north, or south do not apply to an extinguished fire, notions of existing and so forth do not apply to the Tathāgata after death.

As for the question of how nibbāna is experienced after death, the Buddha says that there is no limit in that experience by which it could be described. The word ‘limit’ here is the important one. In one of the ancient Vedic myths of creation, the universe starts when a limit appears that separates male from female, sky from earth. Thus the implication of the Buddha’s statement is that the experience of nibbāna is so free from even the most basic notions making up the universe that it lies beyond description. This implication is borne out by other passages stating that there is nothing in that experience of the known universe — earth, water, wind, fire, sun, moon, darkness, coming, going, or stasis — at all.

Thus, when viewed in light of the way the Pali Canon describes the workings of fire and uses fire imagery to describe the workings of the mind, it is clear that the word nibbāna is primarily meant to convey notions of freedom: freedom in the present life from agitation, dependency, & clinging; and freedom after death from even the most basic concepts or limitations — such as existence, non-existence, both, or neither — that make up the describable universe.

Just as the great ocean has but one taste, the taste of salt, even so does this doctrine & discipline have but one taste: the taste of release.

— Ud 5.5

 

[drfye]

wow…11 days, 48 pages, and 695 posts uch:, I’ve only read the first three or four pages, certainly an interesting topic and what would appear to be a comparison.

 

[pmccombs]

Actually, in one of the links that notself’s source links to, it says the following:

In other words, the fire does not cease to exist after it goes out, and the same applies to us when we attain nibbana. The fire just ceases to subsist off of any more fuel, and we cease to subsist off the physical universe. But, just because we are no longer burning, does not mean that we as a fire cease to exist.

So, is there some sort of “soul” concept in Buddhism? What is it that remains?

 

[notself]

So, is there some sort of “soul” concept in Buddhism? What is it that remains?

Please read my post #694

What remains is not clearly identified, possibly an unrestrained form of consciousness, some sort of field. What ever it is or is not, it neither exist nor does not exist because it is beyond all conditioned things.

There are several concepts in Buddhism that are beyond standard definitions. One is nibbana and what does or does not reach it. Another is dependent origination which is the understanding that all things in the universe are dependent on conditions. These and other concepts are beyond knowing. They must be realized. One reads instructions on how to ride a bicycle and thus know how to ride a bicycle. But one has to climb on a bike to realize how to ride a bicycle.

Knowing as in reading bicycle instructions is insufficient for some Buddhist concepts. Through practice one comes to realize these concepts. Here is an interesting explanation of realize v knowing.

To realize contains the additional connotation that your knowledge is gained by introspection, contemplation, or a change in self-awareness. If someone merely tells you something, you wouldn’t say I realized X. You would say instead I learned X or something similar. When you realize something, you assert that you’ve come to that knowledge under your own power.

english.stackexchange.com/questions/38450/how-to-use-know-and-realize-correctly

 

[Shiranui117]

I think your quote was cut off from the actual point being made. Here is a longer quote.

And here is the section describing the embers are cold.

So, to use mathematical terms, it is “undefined.”

 

[SwissGuard25]

oooooh oooooh

I have a Question!!!

How come Siddartha Gautama taught that there is no God, even though he Buddhism is considerable from Hinduism?