In other words i say there are two elements, equally real but categorically different
- the made is changing as it persists
- the unmade not changing as it persists
The unmade is also apprehended as the altogether cessation of the made. And one can’t say that one comes after another or that one is nothing where another is something.
In certain context, one can’t speak of a world after parinibbana because all constructed ceased. So there is then no basis to speak of something constructed after the cessation of the constructed.
- That which ends is something
- The end is something
- That in dependence on what the end occurs is something
- The end is not a sequel of what ends
- That which ends is neither the end nor that in dependence on what the end occurs
There are two contexts to wit
One can essentially speak of parinibbana as an occurence/attainment, as something occuring in the constructed world, and one should take note when doing so for one describes a change in the constructed.
On the other hand one can speak of reaching the end of the world, as the asankhata, then there is nothing further to the world.
For clarity i can offer a thought experiment/analogy
Suppose you are dreaming for very long time, so long that you now only know the dream world, can’t remember anything before.
Suppose everybody in the dream are the same but there is a doctrine of awakening that can be trained. And people meditate as to gain samadhi based on awakening-principle as to see a different reality for themselves.
Suppose the course of training goes like this.
- You develope dispassion towards the dream
- You gain temporary awakening as samadhi release and by this seeing with discernment you become completely disenchanted with the dream.
- When your lifespan runs out in the dream, the dream will end.
Now think about this.
From your point of reference, Is that dream world something that goes on after your pariawakening?
It is only from the point of reference pertaining to the beings that you saw in the dream that you can conceive of a context where they speak about you after your pariswakening. But how foolish is that? Because it was but a dream, those beings can’t be pinned down as a truth & reality and in as far as you are concerned there is nothing further to that world and a release was discerned based on an equally real albeit categorically different reality.
Of course in this analogy i speak of one subset of the constructed reality ceasing in dependence on another constructed reality but the structure of reasoning is exactly the same describing the constructed ceasing in dependence on the unconstructed.
Imagine now if someone you met in a dream was teaching ‘pariawakening is like the atheist’s idea of death and this world will persist without aggregates’. Wouldn’t that be entirely foolish?
It looks to me like the sutta method of expression is basically based on these analogies hence words like awakening are used but it’s not made explicit.
I can add one more point
You know howvin some sense humans tend to divorce themselves from nature? Eg distinctions between what is man-made & what is natural, notions of man vs environment, things like this.
On the other people also realize that they are it, maybe not all of it, but they are part of a whole and having delineated a difference one can’t separate one from another.
The unmade reality is otherwise, it’s not whole for it has no parts and when one thinks of the cessation of aggregates one should think of the cessation of both man & nature, hence end of the world as if waking up from a dream, but one does not wake up to another first-person-perspective, as a part of a whole, but one awakens to something better for lack of a better word.
Maybe those with little dust in their eye can see if i explain it like this.
On a general note i’ll add that i am not impressed with Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s explaining things. It’s only clear that he doesn’t think of parinibbana like the atheist’s idea of death. But does he think it’s like some kind of first person experience, not 6 senses but maybe a 7th sense you know, like crabs have senses humans don’t have so maybe these venerables conceive of some extraordinarily pleasant & stable first person experience without body or normal perception. I don’t know.
Did you notice that he asserted that the stilling of all fabrications is apprehended as signless? This stands out to me, because i assume this is based on the commentary take on what makes contact as one emerges from cessation of perception & feeling but afaik comy doesn’t draw parallel to the stilling of all sankhara as directing the mind to deathless for the removal of fetters.
It’s noteworthy because if it is laid out like this then he suggests that commentary teaches that cessation of perception & feeling is required for the removal of fetters but afaik this is not alluded to in the comy nor is it stated explicitly and the vsm asserted that only anagami with all formless jhana can attain cessation samadhi.
I am curious as to how he would address this.
see you sooner or later!