A paradoxical perception in the Pāli discourses?

[Sunyo]

Hi all,

@Sasha_A

Very strange choice of translation.

Ānandajoti has a similar translation: “the pollutant of craving for continued existence”. Animals also want to continue to exist, although probably on a more “subconscious” level than humans. But if you want to discuss the meaning of bhava, this (click) is a better place.

@Dhabba

very clear in that both John D. Ireland and Ven. Sujato have incorrectly translated Pañcindriyāni as the 5 senses.

As well as Thanissaro and Ireland.

I agree with Sabbamitta. And the six sense may be left out because unlike with the other senses the enlightened ones don’t feel pain through it anymore. Either way, this seems irrelevant because the discourse says the cessation of existence happens “after this life”, being opposed to the cessation of the defilements which “pertains to the present life”. And you can’t directly perceive “after this life” right now, even if you’re enlightened. That was the point I’m making.

@Green

We will never ever have a direct knowledge of the definitive cessation of suffering? That is what you say.

I didn’t say that. I called it a “direct realization” and “knowledge”. ‘Cognitive’ doesn’t just mean ‘intellectual’. So unless you think the Buddha’s knowledge that “there won’t be a next existence” is an intellectual conceiving, I don’t really understand this objection.

Noble ones can have a direct encounter with a temporary cessation of suffering, but that’s not what this perception is about. The cessation of suffering includes the cessation of perception. But Sariputta was still percipient.

[Green]

@yeshe.tenley

@Green

But why Yeshe would i not believe that the Buddha really found the deathless, the un…

I didn’t say that nor do I think it. The comment you are replying to just pointed out that the account you present and those who are arguing against it are very similar in structure.

I do not think so, because this:

@yeshe.tenley

Rebirth and death happen to the real defilements of a real unconditioned citta

This has never been what i said. The unconditioned does not get reborn in any way. It is, was and will be always beyond birth and death and nay bhava etc. Also meaning, in endless lifes we have failed to see this.

[Dhabba]

Hello,

Given the context of the Iti44 sutta and how the 5 mental factors are some of the most crucial aspects of the entire path:

A mendicant develops the faculty of faith, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops the faculty of energy … mindfulness … immersion … wisdom, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops the power of faith … energy … mindfulness … immersion … wisdom, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go. … A mendicant develops the awakening factor of mindfulness … investigation of principles … energy … rapture … tranquility … immersion … equanimity, which relies on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripens as letting go.

These 5 mental faculties would naturally have to function freely, without any hindrances, as the sutta says.

Why the 5 senses on the other hand (which have little, to nothing, to do with the path) would function “unobstructed” or “unhindered” as in is “avighāta” makes no sense.

Avighāta often refers to a state of mental or meditative absorption where the mind is free from hindrances or disturbances.

The 5 mental faculties are essential regarding the entire path that leads to the unconditioned and fully understanding the unconditioned state.

Then again this entire sutta iti44, mentions such a vastly deep topic which very few would truly understand - So I don’t claim to fully understand all that is being said in it.

@Sunyo

And the six sense may be left out because unlike with the other senses the enlightened ones don’t feel pain through it anymore.

But why does an arahant feel pleasure via the 5 senses?

Back to AN 10.7, in which plane of existence is this reflection taking place?

[Green]

@Sunyo

I didn’t say that. I called it a “direct realization” and “knowledge”. ‘Cognitive’ doesn’t just mean ‘intellectual’. So unless you think the Buddha’s knowledge that “there won’t be a next existence” is an intellectual conceiving, I don’t really understand this objection.

I believe the Buddha found the very subtle, the constant, stable, the very hard to see. This uprootes all instincts, all cravings, even the most subtle ones. For one who knows, as it were, there is no ground anymore for fear, feel lost, loniliness, feeling unsafe, unprotected. One has found home. Buddha sought home, like you know, and he found it. But not in a mere cessation. That is, i feel, cynical idea of home and a cynical idea of the end of suffering.

@Sunyo

Noble ones can have a direct encounter with a temporary cessation of suffering,

Where do you refer to? Do you refer to some state that only in retrospective can be said to exist but is never felt, perceived nor directly known? It that the encounter with the cessation of suffering? Is that direct knowledge of the cessation of suffering?

[Green]

I think the crux of this sutta probaly lies in this formula:

"Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘

He does not say, that a perception arises and the same perception ceases or that a flame arises and the same flame ceases, which is our regular focus.

What does he describe here?

Like his concentration was on more then one perception at the same time? And his field of perception was like seeing a fire in which one flames arises and another ceased. Like an overview at once without a special focus on one perception arising and ceasing?

Reflecting upon something does not seem the point here. But more like being in a special state that sees one perceptions arising and another ceasing.

Or maybe it refers to a situation in which the arising and ceasing of something are experienced as seperated moments or perceptions?

[Sunyo]

@sood

What are your thoughts on this correspondence? Does this fruition idea of the commentary make sense here?

Thanks, I forgot to consider the commentaries.

The commentary to AN10.7 calls Sariputta’s perception of “the cessation of existence is extinguishment” a ‘reviewing’ (or ‘reflection’, paccavekkhaṇā) that is accompanied by mind/thought (citta), so seems to be in general agreement with what I was saying. This aligns with the Visuddhimagga saying “bringing Nibbāna to mind”.

‘Fruition attainment’ is largely a commentarial concept. There are similar terms in the suttas but there the reference is a bit more vague. In the suttas it seems arahantship (or stream entry/once-returning/non-returning) itself is the fruition attainment, not a specific moment or insight.

Regardless, in my view the primary fruit of enlightenment stages is exactly the knowledge that existence (hence suffering) will end, whether after this life, for enlightened ones, or after a few more lives, for stream enterers. This realization is what is being reviewed by Sāriputta.

So as I read the commentaries, keeping in mind that they use different terminology than the suttas, to me the two are in alignment.

I added a reference in the opening post.

@Green

Where do you refer to? […] Is that direct knowledge of the cessation of suffering?

The cessation of perception and feeling is an example. But that state itself is not direct knowledge, because knowledge is a cognitive faculty that doesn’t exist in that state, nor after the enlightened one’s death. A few suttas also indicate this directly.

I don’t think the metaphor of the fire in AN10.7 tells us anything more than that the perception Sāriputta had was different from the other perceptions he mentions. It’s easy to infer too much from vague metaphors, because by their nature metaphors can be read in many ways.

[Green]

@Sunyo

The commentary to AN10.7 calls Sariputta’s perception of “the cessation of existence is extinguishment” , a ‘reviewing’ (or ‘reflection’, paccavekkhaṇā) that is accompanied by mind (citta),

I see this being said in the sutta:

First of all the sutta describes a state of immersion and makes clear it is no arupa jhana and there is not the perception of this world in this world nor another world. These are first of all the conditions that describe this immersion, this state. It characterises this immersion.

Then the sutta’s says:

"But at that time (in this special state of immersion, green) what did Reverend Sāriputta perceive?

He percieved at that moment: " One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: (and he knew and saw that moment , Green)‘The cessation of existence is Nibbana, the end of suffering. The cessation of existence is Nibbana, the end of suffering (green0.’"

This is all very clear.

So how can we explain that Sariputta did not perceive this world in this world at that moment, but still there were perceptions. One perception arose and another ceased.

What is this of kind of immersion? No arupja jhana, not perceiving this world in this world, also not perceiving another world?

Does it describe an immersion in which perceptions are not constructed to what we normally experience as the world? Mere a coming and going of perception?

Anyway, there is no indication that what Sariputta perceived and sees happened afterwards, reviewing his experience or something like that. It clealry describes what he perceived at that moment in that state of immersion.

Not? Still not?

[yeshe.tenley]

@Green

This has never been what i said. The unconditioned does not get reborn in any way. It is, was and will be always beyond birth and death and nay bhava etc. Also meaning, in endless lifes we have failed to see this.

The defilements are reborn, not the unconditioned in that formulation. I accept that this formulation does not represent you.

[Sunyo]

@Green

He percieved at that moment:

Of course. He did not have this perception in the past; he was cultivating it in the present. But it was based on his earlier insights, on the understanding what nibbāna is.

Either way, if it is an arisen perception, as you acknowledge, then it clearly can’t be nibbāna itself either. Because otherwise nibbāna would be dependently arisen.

[Green]

@Sunyo

The cessation of perception and feeling is an example. But that state itself is not direct knowledge, because knowledge is a cognitive faculty that doesn’t exist in that state

No Sunyo, If it is not perceived, known in any way it is also nonsense to talk about this state as ultimate happiness like the sutta’s describe this state. That is Irrational.

If it is not known…one can also NOT KNOW if perception and feeling have really ceased.

The on

Why did the Buddha call this cessation of perception and feeling ultimate happiness? You believe, like @Jasudho…because nothing is felt nor perceived…but that way one can also call narcosis ultimate happiness or any black out situation when there is no sensing going on.

It is not likely. It is much more likely that the cessation of perception and feeling is also only the cessation of perception and feeling but no cessation of mind, like also Maha Boowa teaches. It is no absence but a pure awareness reveals itself. People who fall away in jhana are sleepy.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Green

If it is not known…one can also NOT KNOW if perception and feeling have really ceased.

If I understand you correctly, what you are trying to communicate here is that “cessation is bliss” can only be known conceptually as an inference. That in Venerable’s formulation, where perception and experience truly end there leaves no room for directly knowing anything at all.

The only room that is left is a conceptual inference that “cessation is bliss.” And since conceptions are diseases it can’t be an accurate account of nibbana. Is that what you are saying @Green ?

[Green]

[quote=“Sunyo, post:30, topic:32557”]
Of course. He did not have this perception in the past; he was cultivating it in the present.

No, there is no clue at all that this sutta is about cultivating

@Sunyo

But it was based on his earlier insights, on the understanding what nibbāna is.

I rely on Bodhi. He translates …“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’

What is this cessation of existence?

That is fact explained in the first part of the sutta. One goes beyond all arupa jhana and there is not even a perception of this world in this world nor another world in another world.
This refers to cessation of existence in this very life.

So this sutta is about how Sariputta in this immersion went beyond the arupja jhana, beyond the world, beyond another word…in other words, he went beyond existence.

Had a direct experience of the peaceful and sublime character of this cessation, of Nibbana, of detachment.
In going beyond the world, and while perceiving that, Sariputta knew…the cessation of existence i have now reached, and i perceive…that is…indeed the Nibbana Buddha teaches, the end of suffering.

[Green]

@yeshe.tenley

If I understand you correctly, what you are trying to communicate here is that “cessation is bliss” can only be known conceptually as an inference. That in Venerable’s formulation, where perception and experience truly end there leaves no room for directly knowing anything at all.

The only room that is left is a conceptual inference that “cessation is bliss.” And since conceptions are diseases it can’t be an accurate account of nibbana. Is that what you are saying @Green ?

What i say is: The Dhamma leads to direct knowledge is one of the most important fundaments of the Dhamma, i feel.

“There is a Middle Way for the abandoning of greed and hate, giving vision, giving knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana” (MN3, and many)

In principle, we can see/verify all for ourselves. We can directly know it ourselves.

"“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is percipient thus: ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, …(what is This, addition by me…) that is: the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.’ (AN10.6)

So, i read here…dispassion is really perceived as peaceful, sublime, the same with detachment, cessation etc.

This is not some reflection or conceiving happening but it says that detachment is really peaceful and sublime. Stilling is really peaceful and sublime. Cessation is really peaceful and sublime. It is really perceived and known that way.

The same with the cessation of perception and feeling. If the text speak about it as ulitmate happiness, that can be really validated, it can be known as, indeed, ultimate happiness.

Now i a going in my foxhole again and see what comes my way

[Notez]

Namo Buddhaya!

Consider this

Suppose one hears about the meditative attainment of ‘perception of nothingness’.

Consecutively he becomes resolved on that attainment, he imagines & contemplates how it’d feel to be in such concentration of awareness as to perceive ‘There is nothing’.

Eventually at one time, when there is an opening the man attains a concentration of awareness based on the formless base of nothingness.

He is at that time not percipient of bodily senses, nor his contemplations, nor is he imagining & reflecting on that attainment, nor is he percipient thus ‘space is boundless’ nor like this ‘consciousness is boundless’, rather he is at that time percipient thus ‘There is nothing’.

If you ask him what were you percipience of at that time, he should say 'At that time i was percipient thus ‘There is nothing’.

The op text has the same linguistic structure.

Therefore the statement

At that time i was percipient thus ‘Cessation of existence is extinguishment’

Ought to be treated like one would the statement 'At that time i was percipient thus ‘There is nothing’.

It’d be a mistake to assert that the statement "At that time i was percipient thus ‘There is nothing’’ is a reference to one’s contemplations, imaginings & reflection regarding that attainment.
Rather it is a reference to a meditative attainment of concentration samadhi based on the ‘dimension of nothingness’.

Sariputta in turn ia talking about directly knowing that which is not experienced through the allness of the all as in becoming absorbed in dependence on the cessation principle, of which nobody has heard of much

When this was said, Ven. Sandha said to the Blessed One, "But in what way, lord, is the excellent thoroughbred of a man absorbed when he is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, heat, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed, so that to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:

‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don’t know even what it is
dependent on which
you’re absorbed.’"

It’s the noble attainment, transcending all feeling states, it is a seeing with wisdom which destroys taints in as far as there are any, and it remains a foremost pleasant abiding for the arahant.

Not all ariya have this attainment. Faith & Dhamma-Followers do not have this attainment but are guaranteed to attain the fruition of sotapatti (verified confidence) based on this. Everybody else has it, the one attained to view, the one freed by faith, the bodily witness, the one released by wisdom, and the one released in both ways, all have it at least once.

For some It begets the question is Sariputta still extraordinarily percipient?

The question doesn’t apply. He will never come back to tell about it. How do i know? Because there is no basis to talk about Sariputta going anywhere or coming back from as we can’t pin the word Sariputta down as something other than that a word.

In as far as sariputta is not without life force we talked about sariputta being percepient ordinarily or otherwise but after final extinguishment there is no ground because all that heap of referable name & form has passed, ceased, it was, is not and won’t be.

The terms was, is, will be, do not apply to the unmade element based on which sariputta attained samadhi such that he was percipient thus ‘cessation of existence is extinguishment’. It is still something that can come into play but the unmade is not sariputta and the unmade doesn’t change because sariputta attained such samadhi.

It is noteworthy that feeling-states are never the same, one can’t feel what another person feels, and you can’t relive exact same feeling, even if it is a meditative attainment. It is a new experience generated everytime as it is replicated.

The cessation attainments are different. It is literally the same not-generated element coming into play here & there, before & after, for one & for another, it is the exact same being percipient thus 'cessation of existence is extinguishment’in a way opposed to how there can’t be two comings into play of the exact same perception ‘red’ or ‘there is nothing’.

If today you enter & emerge from a cessation attainment and tomorrow you do it again, it’d be the exact same ualloyed, unsurmountable, pleasure attained twice and the final extinguishment will entail a coming into play of this pleasure with no sequel arising of name & form.

This is also paradoxical as is normal for what concerns cessation attainments.

[Meggers]

It is practically axiomatic in Indian philosophy that “nothing comes from nothing,” and I do believe this is pretty much the case in Western philosophy as well. I have yet to see anything in Buddhist philosophy to suggest it somehow differs from this most common sense position. So there is no such thing as a “dimension” of nothingness.

Commentary on TU from Ādi Śaṅkarācārya

[christie]

I don’t know whether this makes any sense or not, but I find it’s possible to let go of a sense of “self” altogether, but at the same time still being “aware.”

The best analogy I can think of is likening the mind to a computer that runs “code”. In this state, it is possible to inspect the code being run, stop it, rewind, fast forward, etc.

There is an awareness that the “code” is not the self, and indeed can be stopped completely, resulting in the mind in a state of suspension generating no thoughts.

Or, it is possible to “load” code and let the mind run. In this way, it is possible to cycle through the jhāna states, forwards and backwards.

It is even possible to load a completely different “personality” as “code” and let that run and monitor it.

The “awareness” that remains is not a sense of “self”, but an awareness that recognises the five khandhas constitute a machine, and nothing more.

I don’t think I can describe it any better. This is not nibbāna, which is something different - that is the realisation that this is the last life, there are no more rebirths.

[Meggers]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig is good for a humanist take on Mu.

[Notez]

@Meggers

So there is no such thing as a “dimension” of nothingness.

Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness.
Puna caparaṁ, āvuso, bhikkhu sabbaso viññāṇañcāyatanaṁ samatikkamma ‘natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ upasampajja viharati.

One is here talking abount making one’s percipience a certain way. The ayatana is that in dependence on which one is then concentrated and having attained that dhamma proclaimed as ayatana of nothingness.

It is not that the perception is brought from nothing, rather the feeling & percipience that is then generated is apprehended in those terms.

[Meggers]

Ayatana means seat or dwelling place. So you either perceive something non-existent, which is a contradiction in terms or your perception becomes nothingness. That I can see happening, and frequently do, all over the place.

[Sunyo]

@Green

It is much more likely that the cessation of perception and feeling is also only the cessation of perception and feeling but no cessation of mind, like also Maha Boowa teaches.

Whatever Venerable Maha Boa may have thought carries no weight for me, and neither do subjective opinions about what may be considered sukha and what not.

Based upon the suttas, it’s pretty clear the commentaries and most scholars are right when considering the perception and feeling to be a cessation of all mental aspects. For example, in SN48.40 it is said that equanimity ceases in this state. That makes no sense if it was a kind of pure awareness, unless it would be some non-equanimous (i.e. disturbed) kind of pure awareness… But it makes sense if there is no awareness at all, because then there can be no equanimity either.

Either way, pure awareness or not, this isn’t what Sāriputta could have been developing in AN10.7. He said he was still percipient, while the absence of perception (saññā) is in the very name of this state.

That said, I may not be inclined to communicate further with somebody who says my ideas (shared by many) are irrational nonsense.

@Notez

Ought to be treated like one would the statement 'At that time i was percipient thus ‘There is nothing’.

That’s not how this state of meditation is phrased, for one thing. The word ‘percipient’ or ‘aware of’ isn’t in the Pali here. So your parallel doesn’t work. It does not have the same linguistic structure.

That isn’t to say that it couldn’t theoretically be phrased the same way, but similar phrasing does not make for a similar meaning. As said, the suttas directly state that existence ceases “after this life”, at parinibbāna. To me, it’s pretty clear what this means.