SuttaCentral
The reponse given by Puerh in post 59 (and also 51) is how I understand this also. It is a good description of what I was presenting in the essay I wrote on this topic.
As a result of that essay, I have come to learn that there are those here that have a very different understanding of the suttas. People are free to have their own views and of course their own experiences, it is after all, a big elephant I hear tell.
That’s about all I can say.
Myself I don’t know about that. How do people read the Bhūmijasutta (SN 12.25)? Meaning, I am not sure that it’s an appropriate means to destroy ignorance by saying, it’s nothing but a big elephant after all.
Namo Buddhaya!
As i see it, there is actually very little corruption in as far as definitive proof of corruption goes.
There is some discrepancy in who said what & the exact version of events, sometimes a brief statement might contradict another but these are very obvious minor things.
When it comes to text critical studies, what do you expect but scrutiny of the texts? But does this scrutiny actually prove anything beyond doubt?
I think this is unfair too. Where the translators deviate is in but a few terms and they will tell you all about it if you ask.
For example sujato probably doesn’t think that choices is a literal translation of sankhara like thanissaro knows that extinguishment is closer to nibbana than is ‘unbinding’.
The real pali controversies are very few. As with the word papanca and even for this you can figure out a couple viable interpretations.
Even tho there is no master-consensus-edition of a most close literal translation, generally you will find that there is agreement on what is closer if you take a word or a line of verse out of context.
Because translators have variant interpretations they disagree mostly on the context and therefore translate differently but they are all generally taught the same things as i don’t know of there being much schism in pali studies.
This i think is a fair statement and you can learn about the discrepancy as to make up your own mind.
In other words i think that if you ask the 5 forrmost translators to translate everything literally, set aside invested interest & bias, then they will probably come up with something which is very close to one another’s rendering.
Yes, this is how it is. My point is that this is good and not bad. We actually know what the texts say and can make up our own minds. What more can a person of our generation ask for?
There is no need to become a pali expert to figure out how pali translations developed as the sets were published. It’s a small group of people translating the same body of text over 4-5 generations and it is all rather well documented.
If there is attachment, grasping to arising vinnana’s, mind tends to be seen as a stream. Under influence of defilements, knowledge of what mind is, very much circles around coming and going, stream, movement, i believe.
But when mind gradually is purified, the knowlegde of what mind is also changes. Knowledge of mind changes from a stream to non-movement, from inclined to this and that, to uninclined. From burdened to taking up no burden. From in fire to cooled or extinguished. From restless to peaceful. From seeing signs everywhere to signless. From passionate to desireless.
Mind is not the problem but the solution to the end of suffering. Our understanding of mind, THAT is the problem. If mind would be the problem, then it would be irrational to teach that we must make a refuge of ourselves, an island and not seek refuge in something external.
The problem is, i feel, people believe that the sublime supreme coolness or peace of Nibbana is some house that one can build up with much effort. No, that is wrong, i believe. The peace of Nibbana is arrived at when the mind is released from such building up and constructing activity.
But because people see Nibbana as something that is build-up, constructed over time, whit much effort, like a huge house, stone by stone, with a lot of sweat, they also feel it will cease. They treat it as sankhata, as something seen arising, ceasing and changing. A Nibbana building consisting of building blocks with much effort put in place. I feel this is wrong.
Suppose you walk in nature. There is someone who has a loud radio. He shuts down the radio. Do you really believe that this person has now made, created, produced the stillness that now reveals?
Likewise, the removal of defilements does not create in any way the peaceful, uninclined, signless, desireless unlimited nature of mind. It only reveals it. That is very different from produces, makes and creates it.
Buddha is not a creator of Nibbana. He re-discovered it. That is what all Buddha’s do.
Nibbana is for free, a state of Grace and a birthright.
I read this and i very much recognise this, from Ajahn Pannavaddho:
“In Buddhism, we are not aiming to become saints or to attach labels like “arahant” to ourselves. We are simply aiming to become normal people who have straightened out the crookedness in our hearts;
people who have tamed those inner demons we call the kilesas, allowing us to lead ordinary lives happily, instead of at the dictates of a mass of emotions, sensations and other influences all tangled up inside our hearts. Surely this is our birthright, so to speak, rather than some exalted special status such as the word “saint” brings to mind. It is what we ought to be, a state of normality. But to reach that state we will have to fight and defeat the demon properly”
Beautiful. So true, i feel. I have always felt it exactly like this.
It is also not that we must earn Nibbana. Or that Nibbana depends on our morals or behaviour or wisdom or skills, our intelligence, our merits, our religion, our Path, the teachings, that Not at all. Those are only things that are conducive to discover and reveal Nibbana but not things that condition Nibbana like fuel and oxigen conditions a fire. It is not like that. But apparantly that is what most people here believe.
Nibbana is revealed and never made, produced, created by anyone. One must not see Nibbana is some constructed house. Precisely because it is not like that, it was what Buddha sought and in which his search came to an end.
Sounds Catholic to me.
Namo Buddhaya!
I can give an analogy
For example in a video game like mario there is a narrative about the princess & whatnot. One might ask ‘what happens to the princess when you turn off the game?’
Here one can answer similarly to how one answers whether the arahant exists after death by counter questioning ‘but what do you take to be the princess?’.
Are the pixels a princess? Is the visible form a princess? And so on demonstrating inability to pin a pincess down as a truth & reality even when the game is on, nevermind having turned the game off.
And so one only uses the convention ‘princess’ when certain things are present like the perception of visible form being thus described & narrated.
If the realities pertaining to the game was all there was to reality in general then it would be impossible to turn the game off but because the realities pertaining to the game are but a subset of reality - the game can cease and a different reality can be discerned.
The narrarive of a person is similarly talked about.
If the realities pertaining to the six sense fields was all there was to reality in general, then there could be no cessation of the six sense fields as the constructed would be the only element. But because the constructed is but a subset of all elements there is also the asankhata in dependence on which the sankhata ends.
However these elements have no interaction like the narrative of a video game does not go beyond describing the game.
It’s foolish to discuss things like whether the princess really exists or not, whether she knows that the game ended and whether she discerns when it’s on.
As my understanding: there are conditions (air, electricity, working radio, speakers, working radio station, antenna, volition of listening, etc.) for a loud radio. When these conditions are there then a loud radio is there. When these conditions are not there then a loud radio is not there.
Note that, I didn’t say [stillness reveals]. Instead, I said [loud radio is not there]. In the similar way, I can say [Mount Everest is not there] which can be very much a truthful and verifiable statement.
However, when I say [stillness is there], that means: I must also understand somewhat the conditions for stillness and I must also have the common understanding with the listener for a definition of stillness.
Now, using the same approach for stillness. If we settle for a common understanding for definition of stillness such as “no audible sound can be heard by an average human’s ear”, then, there are conditions for such stillness: working ear, air, perturbations under certain limit, consciousness, etc. When these conditions are there then such stillness is there. When these conditions are not there then such stillness is not there. So, under such approach and under such definition of stillness, when a person shuts down the radio, he has actually made the condition “perturbations under certain limit” for stillness.
In other words, contrasting to what you thought, I have just explained to you why and how that such kind of stillness is produced, not revealed.
I understand you are trying to use “stillness” to point to an unconditioned dhamma (Nibbāna) but such “stillness that can be disturbed a loud radio” is still very much a conditioned dhamma. In EBT suttas, only “this is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.” can be considered as “stillness that reveals”. Any other type of stillness is still a conditioned dhamma which requires conditions to exist.
Here, you are giving another type of stillness: “removal of defilements from the mind”. As I have said in the above paragraph: Any other type of stillness (beside “stilling of all activities”) is still a conditioned dhamma which requires conditions to exist. Therefore, the result of stillness for “purified mind” is a conditioned dhamma which requires conditions to exist.
However, it seems to me that you have declared that such type of stillness to be as much unconditioned as Nibbāna by saying “does not create” and “only reveal”. Such citta/mind fits the idea about citta/mind which is beyond name-form. The word “beyond” here means: such citta/mind is not anicca, not dukkha as name-form is but such citta/mind is still anatta. The word “beyond” here also means: such citta/mind is an unconditioned dhamma (not created, not requires conditions to exist), unlike name-form which is conditioned dhamma.
As I have said in this thread to you before: there is no trouble about the idea of “purifying the mind to realize Nibbāna”. The trouble is only when people “upgrades” that “purified mind” into the status of an unconditioned dhamma which is beyond name-form.
There are 3 instances in only 1 of your post that I have highlighted in bold above that you criticized people in this forum to believe Nibbāna to be sankhata.
That’s very strange for you to invest so much effort in so many critics toward such idea because I do not have such understanding and I don’t see any sutta that supports such idea. Also, I don’t really see anyone around in this forum who supports such strange idea that you are criticizing.
As I see so far, a possible reason to explain why you keep bringing up and criticizing people in this forum to believe Nibbāna to be sankhata (but in reality, almost nobody in this forum really believes Nibbāna to be sankhata as you thought) is:
Other people (including me) was actually telling you that such purified mind/citta is sankhata while you have made for yourself an implicit declaration “purified citta/mind itself is Nibbāna” or “purified citta/mind to be in Nibbāna”. Because of that implicit declaration, you thought that other people was telling you Nibbāna to be sankhata; meanwhile in reality, almost nobody in this forum really believes Nibbāna to be sankhata as you thought.
Is that the actual reason for your many critics so far?
This is well said. Many people do this saying that arahant’s mind is ‘beyond namarupa’ meaning only that they are dispassionate towards namarupa.
I had Ud6.4 in mind.
Interesting. Which part? It reminded me of the Dhammapada:
House-builder, you’re seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole dismantled,
immersed in dismantling, the mind
has attained to the end of craving.
Familiar with Raymond Carver? Definitely not a Catholic.
I put in windows with arches. I drew flying buttresses. I hung great doors. I couldn’t stop. The TV station went off the air. I put down the pen and closed and opened my fingers. The blind man felt around over the paper. He moved the tips of the fingers over the paper, all over what I had drawn, and he nodded. “Doing fine,” the blind man said.
I took up the pen again, and he found my hand. I kept at it. I’m no artist. But I kept drawing just the same. My wife opened up her eyes and gazed at us. She sat up on the sofa, her robe hanging open. She said, “What are you doing? Tell me, I want to know.” I didn’t answer her.
The blind man said, “We’re drawing a cathedral. Me and him are working on it. Press hard,” he said to me. “That’s right. That’s good,” he said. “Sure. You got it, bub. I can tell. You didn’t think you could. But you can, can’t you? You’re cooking with gas now. You know what I’m saying? We’re going to really have us something here in a minute. How’s the old arm?” he said. “Put some people in there now. What’s a cathedral without people?”
My wife said, “What’s going on? Robert, what are you doing? What’s going on?”
“It’s all right,” he said to her. “Close your eyes now,” the blind man said to me. I did it. I closed them just like he said.“Are they closed?” he said. “Don’t fudge.” “They’re closed,” I said. “Keep them that way,” he said. He said, “Don’t stop now. Draw.”So we kept on with it. His fingers rode my fingers as my hand went over the paper. It was like nothing else in my life up to now. Then he said, “I think that’s it. I think you got it,” he said. “Take a look. What do you think?” But I had my eyes closed. I thought I’d keep them that way for a little longer. I thought it was something I ought to do.
“Well?” he said. “Are you looking?” My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn’t feel like I was inside anything. “It’s really something,” I said.
No, but I used to have a bomber jacket back in those days just like his. Horse hide I think it was. Probably from the fifties. Great jacket. Not sure what happened to it.
Let me say three things:
Even the Lord Buddha could not exactly define Nibbana. He realised the limitations and futility of language when it came to explaining Nibbana - especially when asked about His own existence or not after the disintegration of the Khandha. So, not a single post on this thread can be one hundred percent accurate. All the ideas expressed have one or more flaws.
We can pinpoint each individual with their corresponding citta as: Person A with citta A, person B with citta B, etc.
Anyone who starts this subject with the notion of Person A and Person B will have difficulty in understanding concepts involved because there is no such thing as Person A and Person B. This is what Anatta refers to. As I have said previously, the whole of Lokadhatu is Sankhara. There is no Person A with Citta A, only Sankhara.
So now you are going to say, “Well, what knows?” This is the real conundrum, and the question you should have asked. The Vinnana of the five Khandha is the “One Who Knows” right up to the point of the Arahant Maggasamangi moment when the Khandha are abandoned. At this point, the Vinnana of the Khandha, which are define by their Ayatana, are seen as Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta and attachment to them is severed. However, the reality that is non-conditioned has a “knowing” nature and, at this point, it “knows” itself. It is singular, peaceful and still. This “Knowing” is no longer the Vinnana of that Khandha and it has no external object. This is a point most fail the get.
This “Knowing” is not part of anyone or anything. It is void. This “knowing” never was a part of an individual. It was never a Sankhara. It is beyond the control of anyone. It always was and always will be Anatta. IT IS PURE DHAMMA and anyone who sees the Dhamma, sees the Buddha.
Hmm.
And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: ‘That which is called “the eye”, “the ear”, “the nose”, “the tongue”, and also “the body”: that self is impermanent, not lasting, transient, perishable. That which is called “mind” or “sentience” or “consciousness”: that self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.’ This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.
…
The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’DN 1
What’s interesting to me is over and over again in this sutta the Teacher doesn’t seem to refute the views so much as point out that holding on to them and attaching to them as “the one true view!” isn’t advisable.
And this view itself may be mistaken.
You start off talking about the indescribability of nibbāna and then give a description of it.
This is a supposition, perhaps based on deep meditative attainments, but still a supposition with respect to final nibbāna.
In your post, there appears to be a conflation of nibbāna while alive, in which there is no attachment or identification with any experience, and final nibbāna as the dissolution of the senses and aggregates at death, without rebirth.
There appears to be a projection of “knowing” that is present while the senses and aggregates are still manifesting during life into a persistence of “knowing” after the senses and aggregates utterly cease.
In the Nikāyas, the Buddha consistently uses words like nirodha, bhavanirodha, nibbāna (going out, cooling, extinguishment) to point to this. Never a “knowing” with respect to final nibbāna.
When pañña, abhijānāti (knowing, understanding) and their synonyms are used regarding nibbāna it’s with respect to the experience of awakening while alive, such as in AN3.130:
"He understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to any state of existence.”
“Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā”ti abbhaññāsi."
Declaring a “knowing” that persists beyond the senses and aggregates is “proliferating the unproliferated”, AN4.173.
Declaring a “knowing” that utterly ends with the senses and aggregates is “proliferating the unproliferated”, AN4.173.
I kidd, I kidd @Jasudho You know my fondness for ya 
Hi Yeshe -āvuso,
Consider a bunch of monkey’s all with their hands in a trap. Their fingers curled around something firm and hard in their grasp. The monkeys argue and quarrel with each other debating about the precise taste of the delicious morsel in their hands. Some claim it tastes of chocolate. Some claim it tastes of delicious fruitiness. It smells amazing whatever it tastes like. All agree that whatever it tastes like it must be absolutely scrumptious and delectable. They argue and fight about the nature of the hidden gift in their hands if only they could get their hands out of the trap! They yearn to devour that amazing morsel and settle once and for all the debate about what nibbana/freedom tastes like.
You’ll have to back this up with ample sources from the suttas please.
Hi Yeshe,
I agree that the debates can go on and on and can become a distraction for our Dhamma practices if we’re not careful.
At the same time, how we view and understand these issues can have profound effects on how we practice and how we understand various meditative states and insights.
I’ll leave it at that, without going into further details.