Suci, how would someone come to understand an ultimate reality beyond nibbana? Do they use logic or …imagination?
Neither one. I would advise to just stick to what Buddha said.
One could use these two things for instance:
- the fact that Buddha did talk about the asankhata (the unfashioned nibbana,) and the avyakata (the undeclared ultimate reality).
- Occurences in the EBTs of such concepts; in our case, the latter one (avyakata, aka the unthinkable & unutterable).
In the Parayanavagga (the path to the last resort,) you have this interesting passage:
Upasīva’s Questions
Thanissaro’s translation:
The Buddha:
One free from passion for all sensual pleasures
relying on nothingness, letting go of all else,
released in the highest emancipation of perception:
He stays there unaffected.
Sabbesu kāmesu yo vītarāgo,
Ākiñcaññaṃ nissito hitvā maññaṃ;
Saññāvimokkhe parame vimutto,
tiṭṭheyya so tattha anānuyāyī
Upasiva:
If he stays there, O All-around Eye, unaffected for many years,
right there would he be cooled & released?
Would his consciousness be like that?
Tiṭṭhe ce so tattha anānuyāyī, pūgampi vassānaṃ samantacakkhu;
Tattheva so sītisiyā vimutto,
cavetha viññāṇaṃ tathāvidhassa
The Buddha:
As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end that cannot be classified (cf. sankhā - fr. sāṃ+khya ),
so the sage free from naming activity goes to an end that cannot be classified.
Accī yathā vātavegena khittā Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ;
Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto, atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ
Upasiva:
He who has reached the end: Does he not exist,
or is he for eternity free from dis-ease?
Please, sage, declare this to me
as this phenomenon has been known by you.
Atthaṅgato so uda vā so natthi,
udāhu ve sassatiyā arogo;
Taṃ me munī sādhu viyākarohi,
tathā hi te vidito esa dhammo
The Buddha:
One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn’t exist.
When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.
Atthaṅgatassa na pamāṇamatthi, Yena naṃ vajjuṃ taṃ tassa natthi;
Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu, samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbeti.
Anandajoti’s translation:
“He who is passionless regarding all sense pleasures, Upasīva,” said the Gracious One,
“who is depending on nothingness, having given up all else, intent on the highest freedom which still has perception—
he will remain there without going away.”
“If he remains there without going away
for a great number of years, All-Seeing Visionary,
will he become cool and free right there,
or will the consciousness of such a one fall away?”
“As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind, Upasīva,” said the Gracious One,
“goes to rest and can no longer be discerned,
just so the Sage free from the mental body
goes to rest and can no longer be discerned.”
“The one who has come to rest, is he then nothing?” said venerable Upasīva,
“or is he actually eternally healthy?
Please explain this to me, O Sage,
for this Teaching has been understood by you.”
“There is no measure of the one who has come to rest, Upasīva,” said the Gracious One,
“there is nothing by which they can speak of him,
when everything has been completely removed,
all the pathways for speech are also completely removed.”
Fausbøll’s PTS translation
Buddha:
‘He whose passion for all sensual pleasures has departed, O Upasīva, having resorted to nothingness after leaving everything else, and being delivered in the highest deliverance by knowledge, he will remain there without proceeding further.’
Upasīva:
‘If he remains there without proceeding further for a multitude of years, O thou all-seeing one, (and if) he becomes there tranquil and delivered, will there be consciousness for such a one?’
Buddha:
‘As a flame blown about by the violence of the wind, O Upasīva, goes out, cannot be reckoned (as existing), even so a Muni, delivered from name and body, disappears, and cannot be reckoned (as existing).’
Upasīva:
‘Has he (only) disappeared, or does he not exist (any longer), or is he for ever free from sickness? Explain that thoroughly to me, O Muni, for this Dhamma is well known to thee.’
Buddha:
‘For him who has disappeared there is no form, O Upasīva, that by which they say he is, exists for him no longer, when all things (dhamma) have been cut off, all (kinds of) dispute (theory) are also cut off.’
Seeing that this undeclared reality, this unthinkable & unutterable, is all over the early & late Vedic philosophy, and even in Buddha’s philosophy; it is just something that you can’t just sweep under the rug. Can you?
Wishful thinking is not the actual reading of the suttas.
The fact that Buddha never truly engaged the āstika आस्तिक (ultimate principle or reality) issue, and was, for that matter, excommunicated as a nastika school, does not mean that he did not believe in such a principle. The above sutta extract shows that he did not deny it, as the Cārvākas did, for instance. He just didn’t think it was useful to worry about the issue, as far as unbinding from dukkha was concerned.
I think that the Brahmins were deadly afraid that someone could conceive something outside the range of Brahma (or whatever name and quality this god could take). And that, out of doubt, they excluded him from the astika-mata.
As I wanted you to remark in my previous post, things like putting manaso-मनस (mind) in the saḷāyatana; and wanting to get rid of any kama-काम (desire,) was quite a little revolution. That was not too “orthodox”.
Anyway, I don’t really want to get into that endless & useless debate. However, I think that it is good to remind the readers about the narratives - and also to remind them that Buddhism is not Cārvākaism, nor some “Protestant buddhism”, as Robert Sharf (previously linked above,) amusingly qualified it.
Now, what concerns us particularly in this thread is dyana (duality - the same word in Skt and Pali).
For instance, how saṅkhāra is considered, in Indian philosophy at large, as the the generative force born of this duality. Duality of consciousness is, before all, the knowledge of the duality of the pairs, that brings forth saṅkhāra.
How Buddha did consider all this.
Stuff like that.
Metta
suci.
Here’s a succinct essay on Buddhist meaning of the word sankhara.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_43.html
Greetings @Mat,
I suppose we could go on diverging for ever. However, it is not so much about saṅkhāra that we should talk about, but duality.
Then again, let’s try to cover both.
Here, I am talking about saṅkhāra as the active force; not the things produced by them.
Saṅkhāra (Skt: saṃkara,) is not a Vedic word.
The meaning of saṅkhāra has therefore to be found conceptually; neither lexicographically or etymologically, as far as influenced are concerned.
For instance, we can equate it with this instance in the ŚBr:
1:6:3:23. Twofold, verily, is this, there is no third: to wit, the moist and the dry; and what is dry, that relates to Agni; and what is moist, that relates to Soma. But (it may be objected) if this is twofold only, why then this manifold performance:–the two butter-portions for Agni and Soma, the low-voiced offering to Agni and Soma, and the rice-cake for Agni and Soma,–when by means of any one of these he obtains all, why then this manifold performance? [The answer to this objection is that] so manifold is the power, the generative force of Agni and Soma.
Dvayaṃ vā idaṃ na tṛtīyamasti | ārdraṃ caiva śuṣkaṃ ca yacuṣkaṃ tadāgneyaṃ yadārdraṃ tatsaumyamatha yadidaṃ dvayamevāpya kimetāvatkriyata ityagnīṣomayorevājyabhāgāvagnīṣomayorupāṃśuyājo 'gnīṣomayoḥ puroḍāśo yadata ekatamenaivedaṃ sarvamāpnotyatha kimetāvatkriyata ityagnīṣomayorhaivaitāvatī vibhūtiḥ prajātiḥ.
It is the duality (dvaya,) that is empowering the generative force - the active force - (think about the vital air - Assāsa/Passāsā).
That active force, that took the name of saṃkara (saṃkṛ,) later on in late Vedic (post Buddhist) time, took also the meaning of confusion, and of pollution.
Was it the same conception in Buddhism? - A generative, confusing & polluting force?
Are the impermanence of formations (the things produced by this active force,) dependent on the nature of the force itself?
How could we go further than this litany of common grounds served by Thanissaro & C°, or the Abhidammic crowd? - Déjà vu (and quite dubious for the latter).
It could be interesting to talk about all that - But here again, it is duality that concerns us. And more precisely, the duality of consciousness.
Note that I am not going to complain about diverging a bit, if this is interesting. And it is.
Sleep well, dream well; and tell me about that tomorrow. 
Metta
suci
The generative ‘force’ (if you like) is ignorance (avijja). It generates everything including this world, the cosmos and the next existence wherever that is, in samsara. When ignorance fades, that which arose from it fades. There isn’t a sense that it is duality that powers it. Ignorance is considered a negative thing and the opposite of which is insight (panna, yatabhutha nana -the knowledge of the way things really are) is considered positive. Wisdom is gained by ‘lending an ear’, contemplation and vipassana (insight meditation).
As for duality it is discussed here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.12.than.html. It sounds different from what you described and doesn’t play an important role in EBTs, possibly as it has no clear conceptual role in how suffering arises or how it is removed.
With metta
Mat
A little more about Eastern philosophy.
The original void gives rise to Tai Chi, which differentiates into Yin Yang, which give rise to the relation of the five elements, which generate the ten thousand things.
According to traditional Chinese cosmology, the original emptiness gives rise to Tai Chi, which differs in Yin Yang, which gives rise to the relation of the five elements, which generate the ten thousand things (ten thousand have for the Chinese the sense of infinity).
The process of the Tao Yin meditation is in the opposite sense, of the ten thousand things returning to the relation of the five elements, recovering the balance of Yin Yang returning to Tai Chi, from which again it becomes integrated into the original void, the origin of existence.
2 Likes
Greetings @Mat,
I wish snp3.12 could be an EBT.
There are many dyads (dvaya) in the EBTs.
- Notion of existence & of nonexistence SN 12.15
- (External) name & form SN 12.19
- Eye & forms, the ear & sounds, … mind & phenomena SN 35.92.
- Pleasant and painful SN 35.94
- Etc.
But as far as consciousness is concerned, only the cosmic knowledge of the duality of the three pairs in saṅkhāra nidāna, and the wordly knowledge of the duality of eye/form, ear & sounds … mind & phenomena, are of a concern.
I agree that everything comes from ignorance. Starting with the duality of the three pairs in saṅkhāra nidāna.
Ignorance has definitely the seed of duality.
Bodily duality (body as organs = spirit-bodhi, breath-prāṇa; later on ego-asmi, eye, ear,…, mind-mano) - Mental duality (saññā/vedanā) - Verbal duality (vittakka/vicāra - thought/concretism).
Note:
Often in Pali the Skt ava becomes the Pali o - as in Bhavanti becoming honti = they are. But the “are” (or “is”) in honti (hoti), retains the underlying meaning of [u]becoming[/] that comes from the Skt root √भू-bhū.
- Arise, come into being, exist (RV.)
- To be transformed into (RV. - AV.)
Therefore, because of ignorance, these dualities (the pairs) have become - Ignorance has been transformed into this particular duality.
And such is the “experiential” cosmic knowledge of consciousness. Namely the pairs. Namely the knowledge of a combination (transformation,) again through saṅkhāra, of the three pairs. And that is all that consciousness knows at inception.
We could say that consciousness is dual in its essence - yet in its transformation, it is the knowledge of all the combinations from these three pairs. Consciousness is the result (what has become,) of the kāya/citta/vacī saṅkhāra. It is “knowledge” of that.
Was that enough to actualize, and satisfy ignorance?
Later on, in the chain of causes and becomings, consciousness is brought to experience the wordly duality of the pairs eye & forms, ears & sounds, etc. And the combinations become infinite.
And here come yathābhūtañāṇadassana, whose definition is not about “insight, from knowledge according to things as they really are”; but “insight, from knowledge according to what have become”.
It can still carry the meaning of “things as they really are”; but should, imho, always retain the underlying meaning of things as they have come to exist.
As far as pañña is concerned, its first meaning in the Pali is “discernment” - (Skt: discernment, distinction, discrimination (RV. - ŚBr.))
Discerning (within) things, phenomena or dhatus; and having the insight, from knowledge, according to how they have come to be.
Starting from ignorance.
Metta.
suci
N.B.
The question is:
Are we able to understand cosmos if we aren’t able to understand the world. Isn’t Buddha telling us to use some “trick”, like the ānānāpasati sutta, to somewhat reenact Paṭiccāsamupāda.
Like an old Vedist would reenact Prajapati’s sacrifice through the ritual sacrifices.
Ignorance wouldn’t work like that in Buddhism because that would mean when there is Wisdom (devoid of duality) there would Oneness. There is no such Oneness, apart from intentionally created mental fabrications of the mind. These fabrications (like the sphere of infinite consciousness/6th jhana) are perceived as brahma etc but those are just the labels we put on such states. The states themselves don’t have such labels- and don’t behave like brahma either. They are created by the yogi, and brought to an end by the yogi. Hence, they are impermanent, doesn’t last and therefore unsatisfactory and beyond our control -not fit to be considered Self, or even ‘mine’.
Ignorance in Buddhism- to use a particular formula- is thinking that which is
-impermanent as permanent
-unsatisfactory as satisfactory
-not Self as Self
-foul (asubha) as Pleasant
with metta
In Buddhism, the world and the cosmos is being created …now.
It arises and passes away …every moment.
Therefore the act of creation is captured now- not in a text book, but with our senses now.
I agree 100%. But this is another flaw in forums. The need to scatter concepts all over the Nikayas (when it is not all over the Canon).
Let’s stay with the duality in consciousness; will you?
Nowhere did I say that avijja had the seed of dualism and that vijja was therefore devoid of duality.
Maybe the avyakata (ultimate reality) is. But that is not of my business as a Buddhist.
There is however a definite move towards oneness in calming the saṅkhāras.
What I say is that cosmic consciousness inherit, so to speak, the seed of duality of ignorance in a certain form (the pairs). And that we find another form of duality in the wordly consciousness (eye &form, etc).
N.B. It is not because of the above context of the ŚBr (moist vs. dryness) , that duality means that the pairs have to be opposites.
Also, I don’t see what Brahma has to do with this. There is no Self or self in paṭiccasāmuppada and jhānas.
Abhidhammic nonsense to me.
I don’t think that Buddha conceived that exactly that way.
See below the mundane consideration of impermanence of the body and mind (we also know that every atom in our bodies are replaced every 7-10 years. Does Your Body Really Replace Itself Every Seven Years? | HowStuffWorks)
It would be better, bhikkhus, if an uninstructed ordinary person regarded this body, made of the four great elements, as himself rather than the mind. For what reason? This body is seen to continue for a year, for two years, five years, ten years, twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years, and even more. But of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises and ceases as another continually both day and night.
— SN 12.61
Noting impermanence as a powerful practice:
The perceiving of impermanence, bhikkhus, developed and frequently practiced, removes all sensual passion, removes all passion for material existence, removes all passion for becoming, removes all ignorance, removes and abolishes all conceit of "I am."SN 22.102
Noting impermanence in ultimate reality (paramatta sacca) - in terms of the five aggregates (aka vipassana):
The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha, unsatisfactory; whatever is dukkha, that is without attaa, self. What is without self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Thus should it be seen by perfect wisdom (sammappa~n~naaya) as it really is. Who sees by perfect wisdom, as it really is, his mind, not grasping, is detached from taints; he is liberated.
— SN 22.45
Paticcasamuppada is possible because causes are impermanent so that effects can arise. A permanent consciousness would perceive a permanent object, endlessly. Life is possible because things are impermanent.
2 Likes
Greetings @Mat,
Again this need to hit with some commonplace truisms.
We are not here to review the Nikayas, (which I recall pretty well,) but to canvas some deeper features or meaning in them.
In our case, the relationship between the nature of the cosmic consciousness and the wordly consciousness. Relationship that occurs, for instance, in practices like ānāpānasati.
Ajahn Paññāvaddho saw a divided consciousness. But he restrained it to the subject/object realm. And I believe this to be a bit reductive.
Note: Cosmic does not mean the stars and galaxies; like some sort of acid trip - but a “formless realm”; if that can be a summary of its simplest, yet not inclusive meaning - a formless realm in which stars and galaxies have no more relevancy anyway.
What, for instance, do we use, when building a phenomena, from body to feeling to citta, to dhamma in ānāpānasati?
Do we use the wordly consciousness, or some kind of cosmic one?
What are the saṅkhāras involved? Is it assasa/passasa - feeling/perception - vitaka/vicāra - the three united? Or do we use the saṅkhāras “inherited” from the wordly consciousness? eye/form, etc?
Consequently, how do we calm the saṅkhāras involved, so as to score this duality out, to the best of possible?
What is the true nature of this duality? Black & white, or something else?
We’ve seen, more or less, how consciousness was conceived in Indian early and late Vedic philosophy; and how it was conceived by the Buddha. At least where this consciousness stands in the process. That is to say at the beginning of the process for the Vedic sages; and within the process, for Buddha; of which two natures can be clearly distinguished: cosmic and wordly.
We saw that that consciousness “inherited”, so to speak, the duality of the saṅkhāra nidāna.
So it is dual. But how dual is it? - And how do we apply that in our mindfulness (recollection of the Teaching)?.
SN 12.61 to which you gladly refer as a proof of your abhidhammic creed, seems to me exactly the opposite of what you want to prove.
If the body (as conceived by Buddha) can have a span of more than a 100 years, and that the body (conceived by science) a more or less 10 years span; what is to be considered as “now”? What is a “moment”?
Some sort of quantic wave function collapse - which wave would encompass all possible future and past and present possibilities - with the “moment” as the collapsing actualisation? Maybe, maybe.
But certainly not the “moment” and the “now” of the abhidammic crowd anyway.
Do we mean body as somewhat the “organs” of Indian philosophy here; which can be extended as far as the “mind” (spirit) called bodhi? A body that has, (as consciousness does,) a cosmic and wordly nature.
Anyway, it sounds like the “moment” of the body, restricted to the body made of the four great elements (aka wordly body,) is definitely more than a mere “now”.
But again, I don’t want to get in the endless discussion of the “now” and “moment”, elaborated later on, by the clergy of what had become a religion, and not a philosophy anymore.
And yes, impermanence is the key word of Buddhism. So what?
Another commonplace out of the blue. Does it make your argument truer? - Do we have to rely to whatever true concept we can pick-up in the Nikayas, to systematically ponctuate our doubts or dubious conceptions?
Note: paramatta is, again, called “ultimate reality” by the abhidammic crowd - and has nothing to do with the ultimate reality - avyakata - we are talking about. You are mixing up everything; wondering if this is not on purpose?
Moreover this paramatta appears only in the EBTs’ Thig 5.12, with the simple meaning of a higher goal.
Viewing the abhidammic (confusing,) & “vipassanic” (also confusing,) turn that this conversation is taking; I think that I will stop here, if you don’t mind. No offence. It is just that I like to discuss; but not to argue on different grounds. I find it useless & stressful.
Each one its kamma, I suppose.
Notes:
- A definition of vipassana is given at the end of the EBT’s (almost comprehensive) relevant suttas here:
- “Life is possible because things are impermanent,” you say.
“Life & death are the results of the impermanent nature of paṭiccasamuppāda,” I’d reply. And I would add: “and the attribute of those who haven’t yet stilled the saṅkhāras; and brought that duality to a middle-ground”.
Whatever happens next.
Metta,
suci
Hi Suci,
Consciousness arises at the five senses bases as well as the mind (the sixth sense base, according to the Buddha). Any mental ‘object’ will be cognised by consciousness arising at the mind sense base. When the 6th jhana with its mental object of Infinite consciousness arises, consciousness arises at the mind (mano-vinnana) to perceive it. There is no special cosmic consciousness here, apart from consciousness of the mind. I would like to clarify this before discussing duality with you.
With metta
Matheesha
Mano in jhana VI - hum.
If you add empiricism to the abidhamma & “vipassana” list of your creeds; then this is not only a mere discussion, turning into a useless argument; but a bare pathetic deaf’s dialog to be.
A forum is not a place for social harmony. You would join a lodge of bigots to find that. Whatever harmonious their bigotry means.
Each point of view should be taken into account. However, people should have, at bare level, the same basis of creed to discuss some point. Harmony is found in discussing different points of view, among people of the same creed.
In other words, I am glad to read you talk and explore with your abidhammic, “vipassana” and empiricist peers. I learn a lot on your frame of view.
Note: Discussions that are done in the open air; as the name “forum” meant to be - so we can really share something in common.
Again, I pass; no offence - sorry.
Metta
suci
1 Like
I’m not here to argue with anyone 
. My apologies if you were looking for that. But I can discuss concepts with you so that we can mutually benefit. It’s a much more pleasant way to learn from each other!
Now, duality I know very little of. It’s not used much in EBTs - it’s not an important concept like say, the Four Noble Truths. Why is it important to you/your understanding?
With metta
Matheesha
As I say, @Mat, I see neo-forum (the new concept of the old concept of a public place where people used to debate,) as a place where different opinions are discussed by people of the same creed.
In other words, not a place where you argue; but a place where friends of the same creed are discussing openly in front of people of different creeds.
It is pretty strange that you are asking me if what I wanted was to “argue”, after all I said!?!
Nevermind.
Metta
suci
Note: If someone is having a more rationalistic view on Buddhism, (without having to get lost into rationalism vs. empiricism,) I’d rather. I once read the old Alasdair MacIntyre fairish, (& quite Buddhistic) rationale on the uselessness of arguing, to get in that trap anymore.
1 Like
Here’s what I see as rational impermanence:
If I am physically and mentally different from what I was when I was 10 years old, the change would have taken place gradually (and not suddenly). For gradual and progressive change to occur everything must be changing in this very moment. In fact there is no such delimited thing as the present moment. All there is, is change. To the spinning of atoms (to collapsing quantum waves?), to the electrical bursts in nerve cells there is change. However at a macro scale we see people, objects, trees etc looking permanent and fixed. This is an illusion.
With metta
2 Likes
Very well said. I am with you all the way.
With Metta
Maybe this could be rational causality:
We are all living in the past- consciousness is conscious of what has already occurred milliseconds in the past, due to how the brain functions. This means ‘we’ already made the decisions we think we are making now. This can only happen if everything happens automatically, not needing our conscious input. So consciousness becomes a false mediator, pretending to make changes, but only present after the fact. The DO is also unmediated- it doesn’t need a self to operate. It works well enough entirely on its own, without the need for a ‘being’. We can understand then, that we are nothing but causes and effects, giving rise to one after the other.
with metta
Mat
3 Likes
