This is a good point. I want to note that this doesn’t apply to parinibbana as it does to someone in sannavedaniynirodha.
AN10.6 is about immersion and the contemplation of nibbāna, as the suttas states. So, it’s possible that it’s referring to a temporary suspension of all defilements and in that sense is “perceiving” the undefiled, etc…
This does not prove or disprove final nibbāna as being full cessation. Why? Because the mendicant is still alive and at least the mental faculty is still present.
Whether one trancesnds various planes of existence or not is not relevant to me in this discussion, since we’re sharing about our understanding of final nibbāna, parinibbāna, being a timeless “dimension” or not.
Because, again, they were involved with pondering about “I, me, mine” – quite clearly so, in the sutta.
See the “I”?
When one experiences various degrees of cessation, it becomes clear, even by inference ( anumāna, a valid form of knowledge according to the Buddha), that progressive letting go, leading to further cessation, leads to complete letting go = full cessation.
The cessation of all conditions, all dukkha.
Even before full awakening, contemplating ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ can lead one to the knowledge and perception of “fading away, cessation.” Meaning the cessation of attachments and activities, as the line states. Why wouldn’t the absence of these be peaceful and sublime?
And, notice how in this sutta and others, no direct mention is made of cessation being a timeless "dimension’ or “knowing.” It stops at cessation.
This is beyond whatever is experienced or perceived in immersion, as in the suttas AN10.6 and AN10.7.
You may also wish to have a look at my last post to @HinMarkPeng – if only for a brief-ish summary of the issue we’ve been discussing.
You can have the last word. I’ve enjoyed the discussion but hope to give this topic a rest for a while.
It doesn’t.
Immersion
Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
“Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this? They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.”
“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.”
“But how could this be, sir?”
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.”
Let’s tie this to Mn64
Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints.
The things you claim these texts say is an entirely interpretative reading not based on any textual reference but on your conjecture.
You propose that
The samadhi perception: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints.
You can assert that it is a contemplation but this is not what the texts say.
You are making many assumptions to interpret it in this way and it is not based on the texts.
Therefore you need to use other texts to substantiate this proposition because these excerpts alone are not explicitly saying what you claim.
When you use your words loosely like you did in summarizing this text, this is not the sutta method and you need to draw these theories out from the texts beyond reasonable doubt.
Otherwise you are just interpreting out of context to fit you presuppositions.
You mean:
What’s interpretive about this?
And BTW, did you read the thread about “Paradoxical Perception” I placed in a prior post? You seem to not have. If you did, you haven’t offered comments about it – since it relates to this discussion.
And
What’s misinterpreted here? I mean the suttas make it quite clear.
AN10.6 is about immersion and the contemplation of nibbāna, as the suttas states. So, it’s possible that it’s referring to a temporary suspension of all defilements and in that sense is “perceiving” the undefiled, etc…
This does not prove or disprove final nibbāna as being full cessation. Why? Because the mendicant is still alive and at least the mental faculty is still present.
Meanwhile, I’m no longer sure what your main point is, what interpretation you’re trying to express in this thread.
When a discussion gets into ad hominem criticism and negative judgments like this I lose interest.
Be well.
People might willing to entertain your interpretation of an10.6-7 & mn64 but why would they? Is there any way to draw out from the texts that this is warranted? Show me that the texts direct us to do this, warranting the use of your method of expression.
Note how you went from the statement
AN10.6 is about immersion and the contemplation of nibbāna
To
Now let’s get to the bottom of this.
Do the sutta literally say anything about
the contemplation of nibbāna
The answer is no.
Now you say it is ‘quite clear’ to you, meaning you are convinced of your way of reading it being correct.
I am sure it is quite clear to you, i can also read it as you do, and i imagine it is quite convincing. But it is not something you can draw out from the texts.
What you are doing here is taking a portion of the canon and insisting on an interpretation not inferred from other texts.
Ok. I concede this point in a literal sense.
But it does speak of immersion and directing the mind towards immersion, yes? And it speaks of "….when a mendicant perceives:
‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
So one way to interpret this perception is via experiencing it and, as mentioned in other suttas, one later reflects on the samadhi or jhana experience and contemplates it. So that’s where I was coming from.
Notice that this is about cessation – here, of the defilements.
The point I’ve been discussing on this thread is to distinguish this, including full cessation at parinibbāna, from the view of parinibbāna as a sort of "timeless awareness, or “knowing”, or whatever.
Clearly, saññāvedayitanirodha, for example given the complete cessation (temporarily) of all experiences, including consciousness, might be called nibbāna -in-this-life and a foretaste of full cessation, parinibbāna.
So the suttas we’re discussing of course “deal” with nibbāna, but in terms of practices that are conducive to the contemplation and temporary experiencing of “versions” of final nibbāna.
they’re not ontological definitions of nibbāna.
Does this clarify things a bit?
Meanwhile, it’s your choice of course to decide what to read or not, but the post I’ve recommended does help to clarify the points about perception that we’re become involved with.
Also, I’m still not clear in what your main point is in all this. that nibbāna is a non-perception perception? That nibbāna is “something” beyond full cessation?
Maybe you could summarize your position on these points? I mean the OP is about whether nibbāna is a kind of “conditional reality” and not about perceptions in immersion.
Undirected knowing, one can also call it. I think this is what Maha Boowa refers to when he talks about the citta.
Vinnana is knowing forced into a direction towards a specific object. But undirected knowing is not. Undirected knowing in EBT is describes as the uninclined, undirected, desireless, signless, emptiness.
But Ud8.3 and Iti43 are in the Canon, i believe, just to guide practioners who tend to see no other escape of suffering then to cease without anything left at a final death.
These sutta’s adress that and teach that the escape is not to cease but the escape is there because there is the unborn, unmade, unproduced, etc.
Such things are specifically said, i believe, to speak to those hearts that see no other escape then to cease and vanish.
I understand that this is your interpretation of these and other related suttas. And I know there are many practitioners who share your understanding of final nibbāna being an “unborn-something” in the most general sense of the words.
The discussion on this and several other threads reflects the fact that there also are practitioners who see final nibbāna as full cessation.
With respect to Ud8.3, as has been posted before, translating the Pāli as “the unborn” and “the unmade” indicates nibbāna as a “something”, especially with the word “the.”
But KR Norman and several Venerables who are scholars of Pāli understand the Pāli to be better translated a “without birth” or “free of birth”, etc. In this way, there is less of a linguistic suggestion that the sutta points to nibbāna as “a timeless something”, and leaves the question more open.
And for many, full cessation – being utterly without any conditions, any dikkha, any thing at all - is certainly “without birth”, “free of birth”, etc. So this understanding, too, is consistent with the sutta.
These are the two main ways folks appear to express their views and understanding of final nibbāna. The discussions tend to go around and around as many people are resistant to changing their minds about this, one way or the other.
And these discussions, imo, cannot categorically prove either side of the debate.
But, at their best, they can potentially open doors to new and deeper considerations and understandings, to be confirmed by ongoing practice, deep meditation, and deep insights. Yes?
This is not my position. I believe that the mind freed of defilement cannot be said to be something because there is not a form, shape, colour, boundaries to it. Nor can it be said nothing.
But are this translators unbiased or do they first have a certain understanding of Dhamma (mere cessation for example) and then start to re-translate all the sutta’s to align the Pali with this understanding?
No, there is no sutta that says that Buddha teaches a path to mere cessation or becoming non-existent at a last death. It must be read between the lines. But even then one must just apply all intellectual force and flexibility to come to a mere cessationlist view. Often one also must re-translate sutta’s as you are aware of.
In the end it is just weird to believe that Buddha sought the peace of becoming non-existent at a final death and even talked about this as an imperishable state (Snp1.11) or as a stainless state, or a state beyond logic. All quit madness. Why would one talk about a flame gone out this way? That just does not exist anymore. Point. End of discussion.
Well, it is also not a small thing that you believe that there is no ohther way to escape samsara and its suffering then to become non-existent at a last death. You believe Buddha’s message to beings is: dear beings, it is better not to exist and feel and perceive nothing then to exist. Please strive diligently to erase oneself from life. Cease as lifestream at a last death. Please do yourself a pleasure!
Ofcourse people feel this is not oke. How can one ever see the goal of a holy life to cease without anything remaining. Your idea that only suffering get lost is untrue. There goes much more lost then suffering. be real about this.
In theory, but in practice people rely on teachers such as Sunyo, Brahmali and Brahms who seem to be very convinced that Dhamma is a Path to mere cessation. So convinced that it is suggested that if one does not delight in mere cessation and does not see this as the goal, one must be very defiled.
And because those teachers are so convinced, the students like this seemingly certainty, not having doubts. And they feel this must be a sign of realisation and their true understanding of Dhamma.
But is it?
It all starts with the teachers. If teachers are not honest and 100% transparant about what they really know and not really know, all goes downhill. I feel, honesty, uprightness, sincerity about what one really knows is so important and especially for those who teach. I believe it is a violation of all rules to lie about what one really knows and pretend knowledge where there is no real knowledge.
I feel we all have a responsibility in this, but especially teachers because they are venerated and seen as trustworthy.
Other teachers are sure that Dhamma does not lead to mere cessation. Well…
It is quit a mess. There is no unity in the Sangha.
This is playing with concepts and words. “Something” is not meant to imply any kind of form. But to say “mind” or “knowing” or “nibbāna” is ever-present is to assert a “something.” You have said you do not believe in full cessation. Ok, then in some way there remains “whatever you wish to call it.”
Perhaps. Same for those who hold other beliefs, like “timeless mind.”
Your opinion.
See SN48.53:
“Furthermore, a mendicant who is an adept understands the six faculties: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. They understand: ‘These six faculties will totally and utterly cease without anything left over.”
Your opinion, stated categorically.
There are different understandings and interpretations on this point. So maybe best to not be categorical about it.
Also, from the Buddha, see the 4NTs – all about dukkha and its cessation; DO – all about rebirth and dukkha and its cessation; and MN22.
Agree!
Who says they’re lying? Are they “liars” because they don’t align with your view?
Not really. There have been debates and discussions about these and other aspects of the teachings since antiquity.
The practice leads to greater clarity, understanding, insight, and purity of Right View up to enlightenment, when all the defilements are extinguished. Yes?
Until then, we may choose to recognize and acknowledge the presence of hindrances (like any being who is not an arahant) and try to remain humble about these topics. – willing to discuss and learn. No agitation-dukkha required.
1 Like
It is not strange, not weird, right?, to see Nibbana as a pure awareness that is signless, undirected, empty, uninclined, dispassionate, a pure and bare knowing. If lobha, dosa, moha are removed from mind, does mind suddenly become a non-mind? I believe not. Mind is now in its orginal state like water that is purified. What is the orginal state of mind without defilements? A pure and bare awareness. This is peaceful and unburdened, a sublime state of supreme peace, also called Nibbana.
If one is of a contemplative nature, i believe one will see that there is a knowing situation that is not yet directed towards anything, and a knowing situation that becomes directed upon something.
I believe in practice this varies.
One cannot say that if mind is not engaged with some sense object, there is no knowing. Or that one is unconscious or non-existent or absent, right?
Maybe the kind of knowing of vinnana one cannot distinguish from feelings and perceptions but knowing that is undirected is different. Nibbana is different. A pure and bare awareness is not felt like a sense object is felt.
The anasaya, asava, the floods, the yokes, asava’s, the fetters, they all are ways to speak about a mind that becomes unvoluntairy directed and engaged with something seen, heard, etc. In this contact/meeting feelings arise that were not there before. But one cannot say that knowing now arises…knowing of something specific arises, but that is something different!, right?
I believe the Buddha teaches that mind is not the problem but not understand the original state of mind THAT is the problem. That leads beings away from Nibbana. They have no trust that the solution for their suffering is their own mind. They seek it elsewhere. Mind is the refuge. Mind is the island. And no person, no being can arrive anywhere else then at original mind, minds undefiled nature of a pure or bare awareness. For every being this also is the same.
But this bare awareness is not something we possess or own.
Indeed, where are such statements in the suttas?
1 Like
This is weird. Since Buddha said that everything that exists positively must arise (in order to exist), and if it arises, then it will cease. In Nibbana (asankhata) there is no anything existing, therefore it did not arise, and therefore will not cease. When there is “pure knowing,” then there is also that which is cognized. This means that your “pure knowing” is conditioned by the content of knowing. Thus it is conditioned, formed, sankhara-dhamma. Every sankhara is anicca, everything that is anicca is dukkha. Considering nibbana as dukkha-dhamma is very strange.
This is your clinging to the mind. And since the mind is impermanent, your clinging to and constructing the mind again and again will inevitably bring suffering. It would be much better if you left this view for yourself, but you also sow it around and earn even more negative kamma.
I believe i am unto something, but probably that means, as always, it will meet a lot of resistance.
Still i believe it is helpful and makes sense. I still want to share this:
There is a kind of mind or knowing that is directed upon something. Via engagement connected with a sense-object. Buddha called this sense-vinnana’s. The mind or the knowing that unvoluntairy connects alternately with smells, tastes, visuals, feelings, ideas, thoughts etc that is the usual situation of an impure mind.
But this does not mean that mind or the knowing is always directed upon something, not even for a worldling. Mind becoming directed upon something is the result of instinctive engagement (MN28) via 7 anusaya. This is always something that arises. This is not some constant state of the mind.
When mind is not yet engaged and directed upon something, there is also knowing, but not the knowing of vinnana. There is a bare awareness. When all that leads to unvoluntaire engagement, directing or drifting of mind, is gone ( all anusaya, all asava), mind functions as a bare awareness, a bare knowing. Bare knowing does not rely one something cognized. It is not an awareness of something like vinnana. It is not a type of engaged ad directed knowing.
Bare knowing, or bare awareness is, i believe, the nature of a totally purified mind. Its taste or quality is peaceful, stable, Nibbana. Perceptions still arise and cease but all in a non engaged way. This Mind never really connects to it, in the sense it does not become caught by it in a unvoluntairy way. It does not drift. There are no floods.
One cannot really grasp this bare awareness. One cannot see it as something nor as nothing.
It is more like a contact with the empty, desireless, uninclined that someone has who comes out of sannavedayitanirodha experiences, i believe (MN44)
“They experience three kinds of contacts: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.”
(MN44)
I believe, these are not the regular sense contacts. It does not describe the kind of contact that is the characteristic of sense-vinnana!
I believe this fragment in MN44 means: they now contact the bare awareness, the mind that is empty, signless and undirected. This mind is also dispassionate and uninclined. A sublime state of supreme peace, Nibbana.
It is called an imperishable state in Snp5.9, Snp1.11, SN22.95
Buddha talked about the purified mind, mind without lobha, dosa, moha, as extinguished in defilements but ofcourse not as absent. He also refered to it as uninclined, empty, undirected, desireless. It is arrived at via uprooting of defilements, all clinging. A way to talk about clinging is direction. I mind is directed towards something. That is the grasping, that is the clinging.
Mind is just another word for knowing. And when knowing is directed upon something that is called a moment of sense vinnana. That situation comes with feelings. The mind that unvoluntairy directs and connects to this and that, is called fettered. This can all be seen. It is called restless. It is not at ease and is burdened. That is also why vinnana comes with a burden. That lies in the nature of sense contacts that are always like a collision.
But the contacts that a pure mind has are not like that sense contact of vinnana’s. (MN44)
Does the Buddha teach that there is only the knowing of sense vinnana’s or knowing via senses? I believe this is a mistake. This is a unique kind of knowing, engaged and directed upon something, but there is also undirected and not-engaged knowing, very hard to see, only seen by the wise. And this is arrived at when all grapsing and clinging is gone.
Yes, i believe this makes all sense, and also aligns best with EBT and experience.
I hope we can discuss this without blaming. I feel it makes sense.
Hope people do not become angry.
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”
Nowhere in the suttas is there a distinction between sensual polluted consciousness and pure consciousness not associated with the 6 senses. But on the contrary, consciousness as such, any consciousness is reduced to the consciousness of the six senses. It is always defined as six types of consciousness. The Buddha criticized the monk Sati and once again emphasized that consciousness arises only on the basis of causes and conditions and nothing else.
But consciousness is unthinkable without content, without cognition, otherwise we could say that “Nothing is cognized at all,” and this is precisely what is essentially “the cessation of all awareness,” that is, bhava-nirodha. And so, the cognitive faculty by definition cognizes something and it is therefore by nature conditioned by the object, that is, saṅkhata-dhamma. Unconditioned consciousness does not exist, this is nonsense.
Knowing something: oneself, the inexpressible, everything at once, or simply being. But cognition necessarily has an object, a content on which it depends, without which it would not exist, that is, there is a necessary, inevitable, natural conditioning of consciousness. Not to mention the fact that the process of cognition is not conceivable without time, without acts of cognition from moment to moment, that is, being in time.
But this is not the teaching of early Buddhism and not the teaching of the Buddha from the suttas and agamas. This is your personal idea, which is similar to most eternalistic teachings about the existence of the soul (the eternal, pure, blissful mind/subject/knower) - this was completely denied by the Buddha, he transcended it. Perhaps this is also “Mahabuvism”, but not Buddhism, not Dhamma.
This is exactly what I’m talking about! After all, what arises and ceases is a constructed, formed dhamma. This is not Nibbana, in which there is no arising and no cessation.
Yes, this happens in the meditation of experiencing the fruit during the life of an arahant. But when there is no body and mind, this samadhi also does not exist.
This is your opinion and faith based on nothing, that is, only on your own desire and clinging. There are no suttas that confirm this, but at the same time there are suttas that refute it: that is, the Buddha directly stated that there is only consciousness of the six spheres and no consciousness arises without causes, moreover, he did not teach any such “eternal pure mind” , there are no such statements anywhere in the canon.
I always refer to the sutta’s. The distinction between;
-vinnana, q knowing moment via engaged sense contact, a knowing that has become directed upon something specific, and
- a pure undistorted and undirected awareness is all over the EBT.
It is always about mind. Mind that functions still in a defiled way constant engages unvoluntairy with sense-objects. The mind tends to become directed then on this, then on that. Like a monkey that grasps this branch and then that branch.
This is how a defiled mind functions. You meditate, follow the breath, and after some time mind has grasped a thought. It is not under control. This refers to unvoluntairy engagements. Inner floods, streams, winds, passions, tendencies rule and make this happen.
A purified mind functions differently, without unvoluntairy engagement and grasping. Buddha’s way to talk about this mind is that it has become undirected, ininclined, dispassionate, empty, peaceful, not restless anymore. It does not go from eye, ear…mind catching moments to new eye,- ear—mind catching moment. It is not seen moving, coming nor going.
The mind that does not engage unvoluntairy via anusaya with sense-object has no like, dislike, and does not regard nor see anything as me, mine and my self. It is refered to as in a sublime state of supreme peace, called NIbbana. Nibbana is the extinguishment of defilements but not of mind or knowing ofcourse. Nibbana is said to be an imperishable state (Snp1.11, Snp5.9, SN22.95) and also everlasting (Iti43).
I believe, many here, have decided that they know the pure mind. They know the mind without any engagement. They have decided that they know it is mere a vinnana or stream of sense moments that come and go? Is that true? Are you sure?
Bare awareness is as pure mind or undistorted knowing as described in Ud1.11, i believe.
“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train like this: ‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’ That’s how you should train. When you have trained in this way, you won’t be ‘by that’. When you’re not ‘by that’, you won’t be ‘in that’. When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.”
So this bare awareness as the end of suffering is exaclly without any idea of self. One cannot have a bare awareness with a sense of me, mine, my self towards what is seen, felt, known etc. Bare awareness is never about the existence of a self, soul, atta but about bare awareness. The mind that projects not a me, mine, my self upon anything. Only that is bare awareness. Bare awareness is just purified mind or knowing. Undistorted. No defilements distort it anymore.