is cessation of perception and felling the Nibbana?What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?What is the Buddhist Way to Reform and Correct People?From the perspective of Theravada, can a Mahayana follower attain Nibbana?Consciousness in NibbanaWhat is the difference between Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca?Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana?What is the difference between Jhana and Samadhi?What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?What is the difference between mindfulness and concentration?Does any real existent or genuine person end with parinibbana?Reference for Thoughts like rain drop bubbles
If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?
I am the person who abides by rules but breaks the rules . Who am I
Issue with units for a rocket nozzle throat area problem
Was this cameo in Captain Marvel computer generated?
Why would /etc/passwd be used every time someone executes `ls -l` command?
A running toilet that stops itself
In Diabelli's "Duet in D" for piano, what are these brackets on chords that look like vertical slurs?
Use Mercury as quenching liquid for swords?
What should I do when a paper is published similar to my PhD thesis without citation?
The (Easy) Road to Code
What does *dead* mean in *What do you mean, dead?*?
Giving a career talk in my old university, how prominently should I tell students my salary?
Why does this boat have a landing pad? (SpaceX's GO Searcher) Any plans for propulsive capsule landings?
Why does a car's steering wheel get lighter with increasing speed
How do you use environments that have the same name within a single latex document?
Are small insurances worth it?
Does an unused member variable take up memory?
Should we avoid writing fiction about historical events without extensive research?
Is the differential, dp, exact or not?
Is this Paypal Github SDK reference really a dangerous site?
Help! My Character is too much for her story!
Is there a logarithm base for which the logarithm becomes an identity function?
What can I do if someone tampers with my SSH public key?
Too soon for a plot twist?
is cessation of perception and felling the Nibbana?
What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?What is the Buddhist Way to Reform and Correct People?From the perspective of Theravada, can a Mahayana follower attain Nibbana?Consciousness in NibbanaWhat is the difference between Vitakka/Vicara and Papanca?Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana?What is the difference between Jhana and Samadhi?What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?What is the difference between mindfulness and concentration?Does any real existent or genuine person end with parinibbana?Reference for Thoughts like rain drop bubbles
Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato
theravada
add a comment |
Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato
theravada
See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?
– ChrisW♦
15 hours ago
add a comment |
Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato
theravada
Furthermore, take a good person who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.”
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato
theravada
theravada
asked 21 hours ago
SarathWSarathW
2,763214
2,763214
See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?
– ChrisW♦
15 hours ago
add a comment |
See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?
– ChrisW♦
15 hours ago
See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?
– ChrisW♦
15 hours ago
See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?
– ChrisW♦
15 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya
absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that
So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:
This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
maññatī”ti.
This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
...
- to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
- to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
- to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...
... instead of atammayatā.
I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.
add a comment |
Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
add a comment |
From the context, I think what Buddha's saying is that, through not identifying with anything, perceptions will no longer cause emotional reactions.
add a comment |
Nibbana is a state that can not be described properly with the words, concepts. That's why Buddhism uses this indirect methodology to describe Nibbana or how to enter Nibbana etc. There is no perception or feeling in Nibbana in the terms of humanly, physical, mental perceptions or feelings. But ultimately Nibbana is beyond physical and mental. It is beyond form. It is the formless, unconditioned, unmanifested, timeless, deathless state. That's why ultimately it is not true to say that there is no perception or feeling in Nibbana. But because it is beyond the form, the perception and feeling in Nibbana can't be described correctly.That's why it is called neither being nor non-being. Also cessation of "perception" and "feeling" (humanly, physical and mental perceptions and feelings) is the way to enter to Nibbana. Nibbana is the birthless, deathless, timeless state. There is no beggining or end for Nibbana.
And when someone's defilements comes to an end, it is impossible to identify with anything again.
Monk Radio: What Happens at Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ntwkSWws8
Existence is momentary. One moment is one existence and it arises and it ceases. That doesn't happen in nibbana (that's really the easiest way to understand it). And since life itself is composed totally of those momentary experiences then there really is no such thing as a life that could end: there's only experiences which end every moment. And that doesn't occur, there's no more arising of those momentary experiences: of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking.
What is Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "565"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31417%2fis-cessation-of-perception-and-felling-the-nibbana%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya
absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that
So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:
This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
maññatī”ti.
This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
...
- to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
- to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
- to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...
... instead of atammayatā.
I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.
add a comment |
I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya
absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that
So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:
This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
maññatī”ti.
This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
...
- to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
- to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
- to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...
... instead of atammayatā.
I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.
add a comment |
I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya
absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that
So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:
This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
maññatī”ti.
This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
...
- to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
- to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
- to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...
... instead of atammayatā.
I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.
I don't think the sutta is saying that.
The sutta starts with "What is a good person?", and then, "Is it someone from a good family, an eminent family, a wealthy family? Is a "good" person a famous person?", etc.
And then it gives what I think is standard doctrine, i.e. that it's not because of family's status (e.g. wealth or caste), some "external" factor like that, that a monk is "good" or "better" -- instead it's for what I'd try to call an "internal" reason i.e. it's when "thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end".
And I think that's it -- that's pretty well the whole sutta. So if you're a monk, don't go thinking you're better than another monk because you came from a wealthy family.
And in fact you shouldn't "identify" like that at all. In English I'd assume that "identifying with" (as that word is used e.g. here) is part of an anatta doctrine, i.e. "Don't start thinking 'I am good because so-and-so is my family' etc." -- and, in Buddhism, also a doctrine about conceit.
Incidentally the word translated as "identifying" is tammaya
absorbed in that; identifying with that; desiring that
So maybe "don't be absorbed with that" or even "don't desire that" could be a translation. I guess I understand from the context, though, why "identifying" makes sense as a translation (or part of the translation) in this context.
To get around to answering your question I guess that nibbana is not only not "identifying" (see also sabbe dhamma anatta as a description of nibbana), perhaps also even not being "absorbed" in (e.g. because it's to do with being "unbound" or "liberated" perhaps).
Also I'm not sure whether "cessation" is an accurate or complete translation in the phrase "cessation of perception and feeling" -- you might want to study how nirodha appears, is used, in the doctrine. The dictionary says " many cases is synonymous with nibbāna", in which case "the nibbana of feeling and cessation" might be a better translation. In which case you'd be asking, "is nibbana the nibbana of feeling and cessation" in which case the answer might more obviously be "yes", whereas the word "cessation" might be misunderstood in this context.
Finally I noticed that at the end of the sutta the word "identify" appears again:
This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na kiñci maññati, na kuhiñci maññati, na kenaci
maññatī”ti.
This time, though, "identify" is a translation of maññati
...
- to think, to be of opinion, to imagine, to deem ...
- to know, to be convinced, to be sure ...
- to imagine, to be proud (of) to be conceited, to boast ...
... instead of atammayatā.
I think that, as explained in Murathan1's answer, nibbana itself doesn't "arise and cease", and that anything conditioned (which does arise and cease, including feelings and perceptions) isn't nibbana.
Even so I don't think that means that attaining nibbana is about being unconscious -- I think that feelings and perceptions continue (to arise and cease), but the arhat doesn't "identify" with them, isn't "absorbed" in them, doesn't "desire" them.
edited 15 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
ChrisW♦ChrisW
30.1k42485
30.1k42485
add a comment |
add a comment |
Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
add a comment |
Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
add a comment |
Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
Nibbana
And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is a mendicant who does not identify with anything, does not identify regarding anything, does not identify through anything.
answered 20 hours ago
DhammadhatuDhammadhatu
25.2k11044
25.2k11044
add a comment |
add a comment |
From the context, I think what Buddha's saying is that, through not identifying with anything, perceptions will no longer cause emotional reactions.
add a comment |
From the context, I think what Buddha's saying is that, through not identifying with anything, perceptions will no longer cause emotional reactions.
add a comment |
From the context, I think what Buddha's saying is that, through not identifying with anything, perceptions will no longer cause emotional reactions.
From the context, I think what Buddha's saying is that, through not identifying with anything, perceptions will no longer cause emotional reactions.
edited 19 hours ago
answered 20 hours ago
Andrei Volkov♦Andrei Volkov
38.7k331108
38.7k331108
add a comment |
add a comment |
Nibbana is a state that can not be described properly with the words, concepts. That's why Buddhism uses this indirect methodology to describe Nibbana or how to enter Nibbana etc. There is no perception or feeling in Nibbana in the terms of humanly, physical, mental perceptions or feelings. But ultimately Nibbana is beyond physical and mental. It is beyond form. It is the formless, unconditioned, unmanifested, timeless, deathless state. That's why ultimately it is not true to say that there is no perception or feeling in Nibbana. But because it is beyond the form, the perception and feeling in Nibbana can't be described correctly.That's why it is called neither being nor non-being. Also cessation of "perception" and "feeling" (humanly, physical and mental perceptions and feelings) is the way to enter to Nibbana. Nibbana is the birthless, deathless, timeless state. There is no beggining or end for Nibbana.
And when someone's defilements comes to an end, it is impossible to identify with anything again.
Monk Radio: What Happens at Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ntwkSWws8
Existence is momentary. One moment is one existence and it arises and it ceases. That doesn't happen in nibbana (that's really the easiest way to understand it). And since life itself is composed totally of those momentary experiences then there really is no such thing as a life that could end: there's only experiences which end every moment. And that doesn't occur, there's no more arising of those momentary experiences: of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking.
What is Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Nibbana is a state that can not be described properly with the words, concepts. That's why Buddhism uses this indirect methodology to describe Nibbana or how to enter Nibbana etc. There is no perception or feeling in Nibbana in the terms of humanly, physical, mental perceptions or feelings. But ultimately Nibbana is beyond physical and mental. It is beyond form. It is the formless, unconditioned, unmanifested, timeless, deathless state. That's why ultimately it is not true to say that there is no perception or feeling in Nibbana. But because it is beyond the form, the perception and feeling in Nibbana can't be described correctly.That's why it is called neither being nor non-being. Also cessation of "perception" and "feeling" (humanly, physical and mental perceptions and feelings) is the way to enter to Nibbana. Nibbana is the birthless, deathless, timeless state. There is no beggining or end for Nibbana.
And when someone's defilements comes to an end, it is impossible to identify with anything again.
Monk Radio: What Happens at Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ntwkSWws8
Existence is momentary. One moment is one existence and it arises and it ceases. That doesn't happen in nibbana (that's really the easiest way to understand it). And since life itself is composed totally of those momentary experiences then there really is no such thing as a life that could end: there's only experiences which end every moment. And that doesn't occur, there's no more arising of those momentary experiences: of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking.
What is Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Nibbana is a state that can not be described properly with the words, concepts. That's why Buddhism uses this indirect methodology to describe Nibbana or how to enter Nibbana etc. There is no perception or feeling in Nibbana in the terms of humanly, physical, mental perceptions or feelings. But ultimately Nibbana is beyond physical and mental. It is beyond form. It is the formless, unconditioned, unmanifested, timeless, deathless state. That's why ultimately it is not true to say that there is no perception or feeling in Nibbana. But because it is beyond the form, the perception and feeling in Nibbana can't be described correctly.That's why it is called neither being nor non-being. Also cessation of "perception" and "feeling" (humanly, physical and mental perceptions and feelings) is the way to enter to Nibbana. Nibbana is the birthless, deathless, timeless state. There is no beggining or end for Nibbana.
And when someone's defilements comes to an end, it is impossible to identify with anything again.
Monk Radio: What Happens at Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ntwkSWws8
Existence is momentary. One moment is one existence and it arises and it ceases. That doesn't happen in nibbana (that's really the easiest way to understand it). And since life itself is composed totally of those momentary experiences then there really is no such thing as a life that could end: there's only experiences which end every moment. And that doesn't occur, there's no more arising of those momentary experiences: of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking.
What is Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
Nibbana is a state that can not be described properly with the words, concepts. That's why Buddhism uses this indirect methodology to describe Nibbana or how to enter Nibbana etc. There is no perception or feeling in Nibbana in the terms of humanly, physical, mental perceptions or feelings. But ultimately Nibbana is beyond physical and mental. It is beyond form. It is the formless, unconditioned, unmanifested, timeless, deathless state. That's why ultimately it is not true to say that there is no perception or feeling in Nibbana. But because it is beyond the form, the perception and feeling in Nibbana can't be described correctly.That's why it is called neither being nor non-being. Also cessation of "perception" and "feeling" (humanly, physical and mental perceptions and feelings) is the way to enter to Nibbana. Nibbana is the birthless, deathless, timeless state. There is no beggining or end for Nibbana.
And when someone's defilements comes to an end, it is impossible to identify with anything again.
Monk Radio: What Happens at Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ntwkSWws8
Existence is momentary. One moment is one existence and it arises and it ceases. That doesn't happen in nibbana (that's really the easiest way to understand it). And since life itself is composed totally of those momentary experiences then there really is no such thing as a life that could end: there's only experiences which end every moment. And that doesn't occur, there's no more arising of those momentary experiences: of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thinking.
What is Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
edited 18 hours ago
ChrisW♦
30.1k42485
30.1k42485
answered 20 hours ago
Murathan1Murathan1
52436
52436
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
Ven. Yuttadhammo says, (I paraphrase) "Existence is momentary, arises and ceases. It doesn't arise in nibbana, which is why nibbana is deathless. And there is no arhat, 'arhat' is just a concept." -- I suppose when he says "existence" there he's talking about bhava, and not about perception or feeling? He also describes parinibbana as "cessation of the clinging-aggregates without remainder" -- perhaps that isn't saying that not-clinging aggregates cease in nibbana?
– ChrisW♦
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
I shared that video because Ven. Yuttadhammo says that "there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking" to describe what happens in parinibbana. And I tried to say in the answer that the "perception and feeling" in Nibbana cannot be described correctly because it is beyond form that is why it is called "cessation of perception and feeling". And I think here it is meant Nibbana's conditions. when it says "cessation of perception and feeling"
– Murathan1
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31417%2fis-cessation-of-perception-and-felling-the-nibbana%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
See also What exacly is the so-called “formless” jhana?
– ChrisW♦
15 hours ago