SuttaCentral
Hmmm people state I am ”wrong” by just linking to the thread/essay - but when I clearly show the grave mistakes made by @Sunyo in the essay - I get zero replies.
So you see, I am not wrong and the actual essay has mistakes - which I have now pointed out.
Got it. We know you think you are right and Venerable @Sunyo and others think they are right. There is disagreement. I fail to see how repeatedly pointing out the disagreement over and over with this and other threads actually ends the disagreement or benefits anyone or anything. BTW, from what I can tell you have a reply from Venerable @sujato in that thread that attempts to directly address your reply.
Well it benefits so much that the essay in question can’t be used for the cessationist view any more, due to the mistakes I pointed out. 
The point is simple ”mere cessation” is 100% wrong.
One proliferates the unproliferated when claiming ‘Nothing else exists’.
If you think it ok that venerables with hundreds of thousands of followers on Youtube and who also get to travel the world and lecture should be able to have their preference regarding Nibbāna being the ”true” one, that is perfectly fine. 
But I don’t think it is ok, and have no problem debating and showing the flaws in their view.
Not really, just mentioning how bad Baka the Brahma is.
Nothing about the formless etc.
Not a single person has stated why I am wrong. 
Essentially anybody who holds they can feel or think themselves to a removal of taints are foolish, because no objective truth about existence can be derived by means of subjective existence.
This is a razor, a principle rule to “shave off” unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, as to avoid unnecessary actions.
There is no point in talking about other interpretations which derive removal of taints by means of things felt & perceived, hammered out by logic, etc
People are wrong on the internet. News at 11.
Venerable points out your argument rests on an assumption: that Baka is a reliable narrator. If you don’t grant that assumption, then everything Baka says can be regarded as suspect. The conclusions that follow necessarily inherit that suspicion of Baka being a reliable narrator.
To be clear, I don’t know whether you are wrong or not nor do I state that you are. I do know that others disagree with your conclusions - rightly or wrongly - and that you’ve had very little success convincing them that you are right.
Apparently it bothers you that, “it ok that venerables with hundreds of thousands of followers on Youtube and who also get to travel the world and lecture should be able to have their preference” but repeating the same points over and over here doesn’t appear to have the power to change this fact.
Maybe it will give Dhabba motivation to further develop the five bases of power, will be so mighty & powerful.
It’s good that monks are comfortable, i want this for all monks, i don’t mind it at all, let’s not argue over trifles like who has what position of relative advantage.
I used to listen to a bunch of Ajahn Brahm’s talks with my ex-gf, it was the only type of dhamma talk she would be interested in. And i couldn’t learn what i know without Ven. Sujato’s line by line pali. Another famous monk was my first acariya, taught me as well as he could and kept me from falling off. All this i got as a gift.
We should express gratitude to all who pushed this boulder uphill for humanity, to this point of understanding the texts. The suttacententral is a tremendous help to all of us.
Even the opponents of ours who push us to become better, to understand better, to explain better, thank you all.
Sujato wants it to be Baka saying: ”Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round” - that is why he replied that Baka lacks integrity.
So now we know it is The Buddha saying it.
Not Baka.
And to further prove that the Brahma gods like Baka are not narcissists full of ego who lacks integrity, quite the opposite, please read this:
From the same sutta MN 49:
”So I understand, O Brahma, your coming and your radiance: “Brahma Baka is truly powerful, truly mighty, truly skilled.”
And a whole lot more praise.
So imagining that Baka lacks integrity, like he was a liar, and is full of ego is nowhere to be found in the suttas.
Now that we got that out of the way, if one can’t teach dhamma in the formless, how can one do it from the formless? One can’t, impossible
So nothing in the sutta MN 49 has anything to do with the formless dimensions, in any shape or form.
MN 49 = Buddha speaking about Nibbāna.
linking with what Dhaba wrote about the Buddha and his teaching to Baka, there is a related issue with nibbana/parinibbana. This is very clear in the sources although it seems that nobody deals with it. Instead, the rule is the spreading of some concrete images on parinibanna after death.
In the common explanations of parinibbana after death, we hear about a fundamental difference regarding nibbana: the arhant will leave the remainder of the body, and then he will be “fully extinguished”.
Commonly, with that explanation many people builds images of some annihilation ambit. And this will be filled. Sometimes there is a nothingness image, in where “nothing exists” or a similar thing. Other people try to remain “orthodox”, and they try to fill the mind-images with the unconditioned characteristics of nibbana.
In previous messages in this thread, we can check how in many Suttas the alive arhant also was named “fully extinguished”, exactly as happens with the parinibbana case. And also we have checked how the word “parinibbana” was also applied to the alive arhant. However, in these cases many translators changes the pali word parinibbana with nibbana. And without giving any explanation to the reader!!.
Maybe they do that in unconscious ways, or maybe according his own beliefs, or maybe to be in agreement with some orthodoxy. In whatever way, the result is that most translators are changing “parinibbana” with “nibbana”. And it reinforces the belief about the parinibbana as some fundamental difference with nibbana rooted in the body.
Well, the issue is that we know the Buddha and arhants eradicated ignorance and any wish for a new existence at the event of their Enlightenment. And with that eradication already fulfilled, we can check in many Suttas how they go to other realms, to visit other beings, to teach… For different Dhamma purposes.
And maybe we have never realized a simple fact: these visits existed when they were already “extinguished” and without any wish to get a new body or a new existence. However, they used a created mind-made body to visit other realms and to interact with those beings.
These actions cannot be attributed to the existence of the “remainder” of five senses. Neither to the ignorance or the wish for a new body or existence. We only can say that these events were part of an enlightened activity after the goal was fulfilled, with the ignorance completely eradicated.
And if one thinks with some depth, in fact this is the only image inside the Suttas about parinibbana. An image of nibbana in where there is no physical body and this world is absent. However, it seems to be very opposite of what we are hearing.
How do you fit that enlightened activity developed without a physical body, with the spreaded images on Parinibbana after death?
I don’t know if my English is enough.
The Buddha and arhants were fully enlightened, and they developed that activity without a physical body and without ignorance
What could be the orthodox reason to claim that after leaving their physical bodies, that activity cannot exist anymore?
What could be the orthodox reason to claim only a mystified ambit of nibbana with the annihilation of the Wheel, instead its anatta nature and pure nibbana freedom without birth and decay?
Hi Dhabba,
Sorry, I don’t feel like discussing anidassana vinnana again. Out of all the suttas there are, why do you always keep returning to this one? Anyway, in short:
I have shared three different ways to interpret MN49, either based on the grammatically broken Burmese reading that attributes the quote to the Buddha (which you rely on) or based on the reading of the Singhalese, Thai, and PTS version that attribute the quote to Baka. The Chinese also attributes a similar quote to him. Aside from relying on unique and broken reading, your argument only focuses on one of these three interpretations. One that I don’t necessarily hold.
It is also based on assuming we can know what Baka the Deva is like and know what he knows and can’t know, assuming we know what is possible in the formless realms, such kind of metaphysical assumptions. This does not take into account that the whole encounter between the Buddha and Baka could be a literary device—a myth in other words. That seems not unlikely, given the context and considering the fact that the Chinese text is very different.
There is a reason vinnana anidassana is one of the most argued about passages in the Pali canon: exactly because it is so vague and surrounded by mythical ideas.
I don’t think it a good idea to derive very solid conclusions from such mythical texts, which moreover are different in different editoins. Which is why I didn’t do that. My interpretation of anidassana vinnana is based mostly on the Kevaddha sutta.
Your other arguments I did address before. Taking anidassana as a synonym for ‘formless’, it is an attribute to both the formless states and nibbana, which is also without form.
But we were discussing AN10.6–7, not MN49. If we equate the samadhi discussed there to nibbana, as you did, then we are saying nibbana is something that arises; hence it would be dependently originated.
Analysis of AN10.6–7
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment. The cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease.
The perception which ceased is of existence
The perception which arose is of cessation of existence
must be tied to
"Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, ‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’” mn.059
As you can see Buddha describes both cessation of perception & cessation of feeling as a pleasure. If we cross analyze these texts and the designation
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” SuttaCentral
We can do some paraphrasing
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is pleasant.
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is the removal of taints.
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘Pleasant is the removal of taints.
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘Pleasant is the nibbana.
It’s predictive power to wit
There he said to the monks, “This Nibbana is pleasant, friends. This Nibbana is pleasant.”
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, “But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?”
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.
Now as to the analogy
Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease.
The point of this analogy is to say that one can be not percipient of existence but still be percipient.
This analogy has nothing to with whether the principle in dependence on which one is then said to be percipient arises or not, it merely affirms that one can dwell sensitive to annaloyed pleasure where nothing is felt just as one can dwell sensitive to feeling states, not at the same time, one ceases as another comes into play.
Has nothing to do with whether the principle which makes it possible arises or not.
The point is to affirm that he was not not-percipient even tho having excluded the entire scope of existence. This analogy is meant to directly address Ananda’s question as to whether one can still be percipient, he did not ask about what makes this possible namely the element which doesn’t arise.
In think this is most likely how one should read it.
I studied vinnana a while and i believe it is very helpful to understand the difference between sense-vinnana’s that establish in the mind, and that do not. Also for this threat.
For sense- vinnana’s to establish there must be some element of engagement, meaning, a certain interest must we awakened subconsciously for the mind to be pulled towards the sense-door. Without this initital engagement, a sense-vinnana cannot establish. Establishes means: it lands, it takes root in the mind, as it were.
You can also see this difference between arising sense-vinnana’s and establising sense-vinnana’s
in real life. We can see things without eye-vinnana to establish. These are the moments that we see but the eye and mind are not caught by what is seen. The moment eye- and mind are caught by what is seen, only then eye-vinnana’s establishes. Now a certain engagement is there between mind and visual. This engagement (caused by anusaya) is a requisite for vinnana to establish (MN28). In practice, if mindful, one will see the differences between eye, ear- mind being caught by something and not. This is never the difference between seeing and being blind, or hearing and being deaf. No, the only difference is…attached or not attached seeing, hearing etc.
If senses-vinnana’s establish in practice that refers a situation in which awareness has now landed upon something sensed, as it were. It has become engaged and in contact with it, leading to or a pleasant, painful or neutral sensation. In fact, established senses-vinnana’s in this way also represent a load to the mind, a burden, and for that reason established vinnana’s and vedana’s, whatever ones, always represent an element of dukkha.
But in fact it is nothing else but awareness, the knowing, pulled towards senses or directing upon the senses, connecting with it. I
Some believe, this is all Buddha describes as mind. No, this is how defiled mind functions.
Awareness does not have to engage with senses and sense-vinnana’s do not have to establish to see, hear, smell etc. That is called a secluded and pure mind. It has not habitual drifts anymore to become engaged with sense-objects. It knows all what appears but does not become engaged.
It does not really matter if one speaks of mind or consciousness or awareneness, the point is that knowing can out of habits drift towards senses and change from being unloaded and unburdened into a loaded and burdened mind. Cause…engagement and establishment of vinnana’s.
I am sure you cannot trace this mind, awareness, consciousness that has lost its tendency to drift towards the senses. Impossible. I think this is refered to as anidassanam. If one would try to seek a mind without clinging, a consciousness without clinging, an awareness without clinging, a knowing without clinging, one cannot trace it, because it is like a total open emptiness that cannot be grasped and found.
I believe, in arupa jhana of endless vinnana the opposite happens because then one sees the mental-conscious base. One is at that very moment a body wittness of the base of mind-base.So, in arupa jhana vinnana is not invisible but becomes visible! and at that moment experienced as endless.
The heart-base is still something different!
Maybe this is helpful.
Still, the suttas describe that (true) knowledge is the counterpart of avijja. MN44
And how did the Buddha arrive at this (true) knowledge according legend,
Via 4th jhana (MN4, MN36, M112)
Not via sannavedayitnirodha. These are scriptural facts.
Also, for example SN22.89 does teach that most deep defilements are removed gradually when one remains seeing the rise and fall of the khandha’s…‘this is vinnana…this is how it arises…this is how it ceases, this is the Path (and so for other khandha’s)’
Also, definitive knowledge is not arrived at at once says the Buddha (i do not have the reference at this moment but am sure it is said). The idea that sotapanna comes with same definitive knowledge at once seems to be not realistic. The knowledge of a sotapanna is not yet perfect. Still limited.
Texts say that even understanding of the four noble truths is not the same for sotapanna and arahant. Also understanding of the four noble truths gradully deepens from sotapanna to arahant stage.
I read this.
I am also very sure that if someone is really able to enter svn at wish, in a skilled way, this person has allready an extremely high development of abilities. For sure one is already a sotapanna. No doubts about this.
Sutta’s clearly say that those praticing to becomes sotapanna all are connected to anicca. They have faith or some understanding that whatever sensed, and arises upon what is sensed (intentions and cravings), is liable to cease too. They have allready a strong sense for the fleeting character of all that is being sensed and its inablity to remain the same. When this deepens one enters the stream.
We assume for the moment the described state is nibbana.
The moment the meditator emerges from the experience the mind will cling to it, since it’s sublime and peaceful and whatever more. The mind will long for the state to return, since what’s experienced outside the state is a disturbance and thus stressful.
This is how the person emerging from the experience knows the origin of stress, being the wanting of this state.
In other words, the wanting of this feeling.
Here we come to the non-self teachings, where the practitioner is told to view feelings (and the other aggregates) as non-self. The moment there is acquisition stress will arise.
If you don’t think of anything
as belonging to yourself or others,
not finding anything to be ‘mine’,
you won’t grieve, thinking ‘I don’t have it’
We can now answer your question:
why at the death of the body, a very trivial thing, can’t an arahant attain this peaceful, sublime state of immersion?
There is no desire to attain this state. The state, which you called nibbana, is conditioned, just as any other state of immersion.
Someone skilful can go through the motions to attain a peaceful state such as Jhana, knowing it’s conditioned. That’s similar to going to the forest to escape the noises of the city. But knowing the end (and having seen it countless times in this life already) the mind can be at peace in the forest as well as in the middle of town. There is no need, no desire, to attain the meditative states in the final moments, knowing what’s beyond it (all grows cold right there, which is known to be peaceful based on the immersion you described).
That’s my understanding on this question.
In Buddhism it is about the Four Noble Truths, as you know. In short: mind is since long defiled and due to that defilement it is ignorant about her own true nature, that is extremely subtle, peaceful, unburdened, open.
Because beings do not know this they seek happiness and peace in a wrong way, via a Path that even more defiles the mind and even more takes them away from the natural peace of mind.
The more one progresses on the Path the more one starts to see mind is not the problem, formations are not the problem, and the element of stilling, peace, dispassion, cessation is never absent, asankhata dhatu. One does not have to be able to enter svn to see this. No being does NOT naturally abide in it! An ariya can make all beings see this.
Nibbana is also not an absence of formations but of clinging. It is very tricky to set beings on a Path to extreme stilling because then they tend to see formations as things that must be absent. Not conducive to the goal. It is better to learn beings have wise attention for formations and then they will naturally more and more taste the element of dispassion, stilling, peace, cessation.
Thread temporarily closed for moderator deliberation.