Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lal,
You assume that I do not understand but I do, indeed after Paribanna, there can be no Buddha nor Arahant. These distinctions can only be while alive. I just did not find this clear statement on the site although I have read most of it, perhaps I missed it.
Merry Christmas!
Hello Lal,
Let me put it this way:
There are 31 realms in which one can possibly be re-born due to Kammic energy, i.e, one’s actions past and present, in any of these 31 realms there will be some level of suffering, therefore one should strive to end the wheel of Samsara by purifying one’s mind to attain saupadisesa nibbana. At the time of one’s death, providing the saupadisesa has been reached prior to death then one will reach full nibbana.
Ok, now, let’s assume I went thru these steps, I attained saupadisesa Nibbana, I just died and attain full nibbana, obviously being dead, I ain’t going to jump over puddles or anything funny right?, I’m dead AND in full Nibbana so why am I called an Arahant and the Buddha is called a Buddha? Please don’t hold back on your answers!
Hello LAL,
You say:
“However, upon Parinibbana, Buddha or an Arahant attains the same Nibbana.”
That is my question: since they attain the same Nibbana, and Nibbana is absolutely pure, then what is the difference at this stage, what makes one a Buddha rather than an Arahant?
Hello Lal,
One more question: I saw some explanation of a buddha being “purer” than even an Arahant but this leaves me wondering.
To become an Arahant, one must purify the mind to first attain saupadisesa nibbana or incomplete nibbana, then physically die to reach full nibbana. Full Nibbana Being a state beyond ANY matter in ANY shape or form either gross or subtle, absolutely pure of ANY traces of it, absolute purity being absolute purity, what is the difference between such an absolutely pure and perfect Being (Arahant) and the absolutely pure and perfect Being that is a Buddha? A difference between the two implies degrees of absoluteness which by definition means that one of them is not absolute.
Or, Nibbana is a state said to be absolute only in relation to the degree of materiality found in the 31 realms but itself containing degrees of knowledge or understanding.
Thanks to both of you. I have already read and understood all the links you gave above. I maintain that for a difficult subject, precise wording is preferable and in this case, it can be misunderstood. Obviously (full) Nibbana implies no matter and it does not exist either, at least in the original sense of the word “to exist”. Exist comes from the Latin root ex (forth) and Sistere (caused to stand), thus existence is to emerge, to come out. Matter, including the mind, emerges, but I would not say that Nibbana exist, it just is all that is left after all “things” have been removed.
If I read the line and came to a conclusion that you were saying that there was mind in full Nibbana knowing that mind necessitates matter then others could too.
You make it very clear in other posts that in full nirvana (after arahant death), mind and therefore matter is absent, in the quote, adding the word “saupadisesa” would ensure no confusion can arise and is coherent with the other posts on Nibbana.
I admire your work and learned many things about the functioning of the mind itself so please do not take my comments as critics, I was trying to help!
As Cubibodi points out, one could read to be “burdened with a FUTURE body”, and this makes my point, precision is welcome within this particular line. Cubibodi adds “FUTURE” probably because he knows the concept and therefore has that in mind when reading the line.
Again just trying to help.
7. Thus to attain Nibbāna is to attain the perfectly purified mind, which refuses to be burden with a physical body that leads to decay and rebirth repeatedly (and thus to dukkha).
Ok, I agree with that but then the site should state it more clearly: after the mind becomes pure then it gives way to another state which is without mind. The way it is stated one reads that there is a mind before and after.
Hi Lal,
I got that but it is a contradiction to affirm that when the Arahant dies his mind will become pure (no matter) and state at the same time that “there must be a trace of matter for the mind to exist”.
I also do not understand you saying there is no soul but at the same going on describing the lifestream exactly the way I think of the soul. Perhaps were you referring to the idea of many that their soul is their personality reborn?
Hello Lal,
thank you for your reply.
I still cannot reconcile that:
There must be a trace of matter for the mind to exist AND Nibbana is pure mind beyond matter (not exactly your words but cannot find the original source at this time but the idea stays the same).
Until now, to me, Pure consciousness is the source of everything including the mind, and pure consciousness is of course beyond matter either gross or subtle, even slightly condensed energy like gati or dhamma.
Thank you Tobias, makes a lot more sense, a false concept based on bad translation, sounds just like the catholic church!!
Hello lal,
Following is taken from your posts:
The mind does not exist just by itself. There must be at least a trace of matter for the mind to exist.
7. Thus to attain Nibbāna is to attain the perfectly purified mind, which refuses to be burden with a physical body that leads to decay and rebirth repeatedly (and thus to dukkha).
8. In the 31 realms, one is born with a dense body (kāma loka), fine-material body (rūpa loka), or only a trace of “matter” in the form of “gati” (arūpa loka). When the mind becomes free of a “body” anywhere in the 31 realms, that is Nibbāna. This is another way to understand Nibbāna
if the mind requires matter to be then what exactly is pure mind?? just Hadaya Vathu?
