You disparage the word “sutta” sir! 
1 Like
Good reason to give up getting involved in controversies or at least to see them for what they are - silly kiddies in a sandbox playfully building sandcastles - and mindfully make sure they stay in their sandbox playing happily with no adverse consequences emerging from the sandbox, eh?
We can also say, apparantly
Sujato Canon
Green Canon
Thanissaro Canon
Jasudho Canon
Neither in samsara nor nibbana can any canon be found … and certainly no lack of canons! Therefore the wise do not turn canons into cannons!
No one disputes that nibbana is the end of all dukkha.
What’s in dispute is whether it is a “something” that is already and always present and which is a sort of everlasting domain of bliss, or whether it is cessation of all experiences and all dukkha.
By the way, if you want to learn more about the “radiant mind” in the sutta you cited, you really may wish to read, venerable Analayo’s essay, “The Luminous Mind in Theravada and Dharmagupta Discourses”.
It’s quite informative. It’s also seems clear that you have chosen to ignore it, which is up to you.
I don’t see gold as a nidana in the paticca-samuppada, nor do I see it in the mahabhuta, so you’re going to have to explain how it got into my system.
And then, I would like to buy an a7iv to go with my new 85mm prime lens, so I am thinking that gold in my system would be useful to extract to pay for it. Can you suggest a way for me to extract the gold, so I can get my much desired full frame mirrorless, please?
We could also add to that, that the adamantine material in vajrayana is usually the diamond, makes much more sense than gold, since diamonds are clear and hard. Does Buddha refer to diamonds anywhere in the suttas? Thanks!
See…the post …The Peak of Peace. There is no dispute. Buddha never ever said he searched the sublime supreme peace of becoming non-existent at a last death. He did not teach such a Path.
And if one does not understand that the peace of Nibbana is not absent, but at best, not tastes due to the influence of defilements, that is, i feel, problematic.
Hi Dhamma friend, I am not worthy of the title of venerable, that title is reserved for the monastics. Please just address me as a Dhamma friend instead. 
I will try to explain in better details as follow:
First, let’s zooming in the material (form) world, how do the police identify someone? They pinpoint that person by something (form) that seem to not change (as much) during that person’s lifetime. For example: fingerprint, retina, DNA, etc.
Second, let’s zooming out a little bit, how do the computers identify someone? They pinpoint that person by asking for certain password or certain passphrase or certain knowledge (something which is not form, in other words: name). When they combine that knowledge (name-matching) with a kind of form-matching, they can pinpoint a certain person.
Third, again let’s zooming out further, how do people with psychic power of the divine eyes and the higher gods can pinpoint someone between rebirths?
If we follow all the suttas of the EBT where the Buddha did not ever declare anything (except Nibbāna) beyond name-form, then, the only way available to pinpoint anyone is through name-form. This explains the Yamakasutta SN 22.85, why it’s not possible to pinpoint an arahant: The reason is because the arahant “touched” the immersion of Nibbāna which is beyond name-form, that particular name-part is no longer visible even to the gods. All the attempts made by Yamaka during the whole sutta couldn’t include this particular name-part so he had to admit that he couldn’t find/see an arahant even in present life.
I will use an example here to illustrate this point:
-
A case with the submarine, when it can no longer be detected by the sonar, it effectively disappears on the radar of another submarine. However, somebody with good eyes and can see far enough then he can still see that submarine. So, to another submarine, the first submarine does not exist anymore. Meanwhile, to somebody with good eyes and still sees, the first submarine still does exist.
-
If we take that case further, when people trace a certain person with eyes (form) then suddenly that person disappears when going into a room. Meanwhile, a higher god, who can trace both name and form, will still be able to pinpoint that person even when that person’s form disappears. So, to a normal human being, that certain person does not exist anymore. Meanwhile, to a higher god, that certain person still does exist.
-
If we take that case further again, we have the case with Baka the Brahmā in Brahmanimantanikasutta MN 49, he couldn’t disappear in front of the Buddha because the Buddha can see from the top most - down to lowest bottom of existence but the Buddha could disappear in front of Baka the Brahmā.
This also explains right at the beginning of the EBT in Brahmajālasutta DN1, why the Buddha told us while his body (form) still remains then the gods and humans still can see (trace) him but when his body (form) is no longer there then even the gods can’t see him anymore. This also explains why in Mahāparinibbānasutta DN 16, Ven. Anuruddha with his divine eyes (and also the gods) could still discern that the Buddha only entered the cessation of perception and feeling before final Nibbāna. After final Nibbāna, because Ven. Anuruddha with his divine eyes (and also the gods) couldn’t trace the Buddha anymore, he announced by reciting verses that the Buddha has entered final Nibbāna.
So, if we follow all the EBT suttas, that’s as far as we can go and we should go, anything theory/idea beyond name-form is just a kind of proliferating the unproliferated as shown in Mahākoṭṭhikasutta AN 4.173.
Fourth, it gets troublesome when people goes against the advice of the EBT suttas by still going ahead and proliferating something beyond name-form, in this case, with the idea about [the citta/mind that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses]
Whatever below will be discussed within the framework of that idea (which has been presented in the first post of this thread):
If you follow the first, second and third part I presented above, I hope you see for yourself the progression of the pinpointing process for any being not fully enlightened, [except an arahant].
Furthermore, because “not fully enlightened” = “not fully realize anatta”, getting “pinpointed” also means: not fully realization of anatta.
In the same way, an arahant in that proliferating idea, if he is pinpointed by this citta/mind, he will not be able to truthfully declare that he has fully realized anatta. However, an arahant must have fully realized anatta. So, to keep that proliferating idea floating, we must find a way to not let an arahant getting “pinpointed”.
Taking the case where people’s fingerprints are all the same, then, it will be not possible to pinpoint people by fingerprints. That’s why I said earlier, in order to be not possible to pinpoint people by citta/mind (to preserve the anatta attribute in the citta/mind idea), each citta/mind must be the same.
If you ask me how to pinpoint that citta/mind which is beyond name-form, I must proliferate too by proposing that: The Buddha and the gods can easily read name-form so they can also easily read the citta/mind indirectly via name-form. The reason is: for anyone supposedly enlightened by realizing that citta/mind, that realization is still through name-form. That supposedly enlightened being must maintain the distinction between citta/mind which “knows” and Nibbāna which is “being known”. That distinction itself is also a kind of “know” that still remains within name-form and therefore, can be read by the Buddha and the gods. Of course, if each citta/mind is the same, the distinction will be also the same and the pinpointing process can’t happen.
2 Likes
Mind is not a problem because the nature of mind is peaceful empty, desireless, uninclined. The gold is there. It is just the inner peace. And because the gold is there we can make an island of ourselves and be a light for ourselves.
Your funny
Like the Buddha says: end all possessiveness, what else?
One must not even want to posess peace.
No, you didn’t misunderstand the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is to present a contradiction in the idea about [mind/citta that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses].
I showed a contradiction after presenting that idea as closely as possible to what I have seen so far.
So, for people who supports that idea, they can either modify the presentation that I have given for that idea, or they will present ways to resolve the presented contradiction, or they can simply say that they themselves have not fully understood that idea enough to resolve such contradiction, or they might be convinced that the idea is not good and discard that idea.
For other people who does not support that idea, they can also present other angles that show other kinds of contradiction to that idea.
Back and forth, hopefully we will have a good discussion in a good manner.
- “Bhikkhus, this supreme state of sublime peace has been discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the origination, the
disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact. Bhikkhus, that is the supreme state of sublime peace discovered by the Tathagata, that is,
liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact.” (MN102, Bodhi)
What do you think that is meant by …understanding, as it actually is, the escape in the case of the six bases of contact?
Now, that I understand your point better I think it might be closely related to Nagarjuna’s refutation of a similar idea; mind/citta that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses; a self-knower. I’m not positive that is what you have in mind, but it seems a decent hypothesis.
1 Like
I have presented as neutral tone as possible the citta/mind idea in the very first post of this thread. Please kindly read through it again and pointing out any part that you think is a misunderstanding.
I presented in my first post that citta/mind is anatta and also presented a few reasons why it is anatta. I presented a contradiction while trying the fairest ways possible to preserve this anatta attribute for citta/mind.
Anyway, if you insist on explicitly cutting all whatsover ties with individuals for this citta/mind to preserve anatta attribute, we will then get 2 dhamma:
- Nibbāna: beyond name-form, anatta, “being known” by citta/mind
- Citta/mind: beyond name-form, anatta, “knows” Nibbāna
Citta/mind will get no lesser status than Nibbāna because we see from SN43.12 to SN 43.44 (and in all EBT suttas), there is no such attribute as “knows” or “illuminates” given to Nibbāna.
Could you kindly let me know, did you mean the above?
I am sure that A. Einstein will be able to explain to a 7-years old child Special Relativity without using complicated mathematics but just relations. We have seen arahant at 7 years old, we also have seen arahant liberated by wisdom. On the other hand, we also have seen complicated mathematics throwing at ether theory, we also have seen people exiting deep arupa meditation who still gets stuck in sensual desire.
As I have said, contradiction leads to doubt, doubt leads to wrong samādhi. The Buddha always resolves any seemingly contradiction during his teaching. The handwaving strategy approach can be overly abused by other meditation teachers in other religions and therefore should not be recommended to resolve contradiction.
Please kindly share what you found too. I am not too familiar with Nagarjuna’s work which is regarding a self-knower and its usage to make refutation toward the citta/mind idea.
As my understanding, that’s how the Buddha declared his fully enlightenment: how he “tasted/discovered/awakened to” Nibbāna. The note #968 from Ven. Bodhi also mentions DN1 about the same method in transcending all views.
There is no trouble when the citta/mind of an arahant is still within name-form because there is only Nibbāna which is beyond name-form according to EBT suttas. The trouble only arises when people tries to “upgrade” that citta/mind of an arahant also to the status beyond name-form.
I don’t think that follows. If the All is aflame, then how can the cool of Nibbana exist underneath it?
The All must be extinguished in order to bring about the cooling.
From Nagajuna’s MMK, Chapter 3 - The examination of the Senses. The commentary/errors/explanations are my own and hence should be taken with large grains of salt.
3.1
Seeing, hearing, smelling,
Tasting, touching, and mind
Are the six faculties.
Their spheres are the visible objects, etc.
The chapter starts out with an assertion (verse 3.1) made by those objecting to Nagarjuna. They assert truthfully that the Teacher taught the six sense bases. From this they infer the existence of sensed objects. If sensed objects don’t exist, then how could the six sense bases exist in their absence? Hopefully, you can already see this as a corollary to your presentation above where the existence of the knower is inferred from the known aka nibbana.
3.2
That very seeing does not see
Itself at all.
How can something that cannot see itself
See another?
This is Nagarjuna’s reply. He turns the statement around on its head and points out that the sense base of seeing cannot see itself. Not seeing itself; upon what can the inference that seeing exists be based? When seeing tries to analyse (or see) itself it comes up empty. The ways of knowing - the six sense bases - are not able to verify themselves. A sword cannot cut itself. A fingertip cannot touch itself. The six sense bases cannot know themselves.
3.4
When there is not the slightest seeing,
There is no seer.
How could it makes sense to say
That in virtue of seeing, it sees?
Without establishing seeing or the other ways of knowing how is it possible to establish a seer or a knower? In the absence of knowing how can a knower be known?
Furthermore, what is this “it” that sees? This “it” is also maintained to exist in the absence of seeing - due to the dichotomization of the six ways of knowing - so it is not appropriate to establish the existence of “it” by virtue of seeing, even if seeing could be established. This is a powerful refutation to my mind.
3.5
Seeing does not see.
Nonseeing does not see.
Through seeing itself
The analysis of the seer is understood.
The word seeing describes an action. The eye is posited as the agent of this action. The agent has neither the nature of the action nor the absence of the nature of the action.
If it has the nature of the action, then “it” (the eye) cannot be known by virtue of seeing; if it could, then two actions (one for seeing itself and another for seeing the other) would be necessary and hence two agents which leads to infinite regress. If it doesn’t have the nature of the action, then what’s left is an eye that is void of the nature of seeing. If what is void of the nature of seeing could see, then even fingertips could see. Neither is appropriate; this is another way of understanding that, “in virtue of seeing, it sees” is not appropriate.
We can understand, “through seeing itself, the analysis of the seer is understood” as a poetic refutation of the seer through verse. ‘Seeing itself’ has been refuted. Through analysis proving so, the seer (or lack thereof) can be understood.
3.6
Without detachment from vision there is no seer.
Nor is there a seer detached from it.
Without a seer
How can there be seeing or the seen?
Either a seer can be posited to exist in dependence upon seeing or independent of seeing. A dependent seer cannot be said to exist in the absence of seeing. An independent seer cannot be posited to exist merely on the presence of seeing. A dependent seer that cannot see itself can thus not be said to exist. An independent seer can only be known to exist by seeing itself. Neither is found. If neither a dependent seer nor an independent seer can be posited to exist, then how can seeing be posited or the seen posited?
3.7
From the nonexistence of seeing and the seen it follows that
The four—consciousness, etc.—do not exist.
Since this is the case, how could such things as
The appropriator exist?
The same difficulties we have positing the existence of the seer, the seeing, and the seen can be applied to all of the six sense bases and their objects. The appropriator of the six sense bases also runs into the same difficulties and cannot be posited to exist.
3.8
Through the explanation of seeing,
Hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and mind,
Hearer and sound, etc.,
Should also be understood.
All of the above analysis applies equally well to the rest of the six sense bases. Undergoing this analysis it can be seen that all six sense bases are void, hollow and completely insubstantial just as the Teacher has said.
‘Empty village’ is a term for the six interior sense fields. If an astute, competent, clever person investigates this in relation to the eye, it appears vacant, hollow, and empty. If an astute, competent, clever person investigates this in relation to the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, it appears vacant, hollow, and empty.
SN 35.238
2 Likes
Hi,
What do you think this means:
“Bhikkhus, this supreme state of sublime peace has been discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the disappearance in the case of the six bases of contact.
Do you think this understanding refers to some intellectual knowledge of the disappearance of the six bases of contact, or do you think that this describes something that one can really directly know and see , in the same way one can know and see for oneself the cessation of thoughts, for example, or anger. What do you think?
That would imply that the sa-upadisesa Nibbana is not possible, the sublime supreme peace in this very life.
I believe, the All is only aflame due to defilements. Aflame is a great way to present the effect of defilements on the mind. With passions, one is aflame. Dispassionate All becomes cool.
Nibbana is the extinguishment of flames which is described as an sublime supreme peace.
That is what Nibbana really means. Extinguishment is the same as peace.
Agitation is very nice way to compare with being aflame, with fire. Nibbana is the peace in which is no agitation, no flames.
I personally believe that while alive, and alhough not in flames anymore, there is still always a certain burden. The burden of aggregation. That is why i believe that the full Nibbana, anupadisesa Nibbana, the cessation of all burden, is arrived at when the khandha’s cease, in this life, and after death and all becomes cool.
Case 1: If you meant “intellectual knowledge” as “knowing something only by reading, by hearing, by faith, by inference, by logic” then my answer to you would be: In my understanding, the Buddha didn’t awake to Nibbāna via intellectual knowledge.
Case 2: If you meant “intellectual knowledge” as “knowing something by reading, by hearing, by faith, by inference, by logic or by the mind consciousness” then my answer to you would be: In my understanding, the Buddha did awake to Nibbāna via intellectual knowledge.
As you explained further in “one can know and see for oneself the cessation of thoughts, for example, or anger”, it seems to me that you referred to “intellectual knowledge” as in case 1 and you reserved “directly know and see” for “knowing by mind consciousness” as in case 2.
You can find more about this “mind consciousness” as “directly know and see” in MN 76 Sandakasutta.
“But Master Ānanda, when a mendicant is perfected, would the knowledge and vision that their defilements are ended be constantly and continually present to them, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking?”
“Well then, Sandaka, I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said. Suppose there was a person whose hands and feet had been amputated. Would they be aware that their hands and feet had been amputated constantly and continually, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking? Or would they be aware of it only when they checked it?”
“They wouldn’t be aware of it constantly, only when they checked it.”
“In the same way, when a mendicant is perfected, the knowledge and vision that their defilements are ended is not constantly and continually present to them, while walking, standing, sleeping, and waking. Rather, they are aware of it only when they checked it.”
It’s very much just a normal viññāṇa belongs to the 6 senses which is well within name-form.