[Buddha-l] liturgical languages

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Fri, 13 May 2005, jkirk wrote:

> Also on Fri, 13 May 2005, sjziobro had previosuly written:
> >
> > Joanna,
> >
> > In the case of the Buddha's parinivana, would that not also ultimately
> > indicate an accomplished state, thereby subjecting the process of
> > enlightenment to some essence and, as you note, contradict the anatta and
> > anicca propositions?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Stan Ziobro
> ============
> Hi Stan,
> After I wrote my comment I guessed this question would come along :) ------
> Well, not if one considers parinirvana a transformation, ergo change
> (anicca), not stasis.
> So bodhi is not actually fnished but transformed.
> That's also how I personally view it as well.

Thanks, Joanna.  Being dense and ignorant as I am I have further
questions.  If parinirvana is a transformation something is transformed,
since there are no states without some underlying condition or conditions
effecting those states.  If we posit this underlying condition to be some
essence, and furthermore posit this essence to be dynamic rather than static
(which is probably not the normative Indian conception of essence), then
it is conceivable to have an essence that has truly attained a transformed
state while yet open to further transformations, but on a different order,
a parinirvanic order.  But parinirvana, at least in the Nikaya tradition,
is the goal or end beyond which there is nothing more to attain, is it
not?  So, if there are further transformations (since transformations are
conceivably open to continuation in accord with your notion that bodhi is
not completed but transformed), what would they be?  To posit these
further transformations would seem to indicate some transformed something
that is a non-static supposit of these transformations.  At least this is
what I would understand the matter to be.  What, in your view, am I not
understanding?

Regards,

Stan Ziobro