Is there a sutta that teaches that Nibbana is known as an object of one of the 6 senses? Or that Nibbana is felt?
Is it mental vinnana that knows Nibbana?
If not, what is this vinnana that knows Nibbana? Is that vinnana that knows Nibbana mentioned in the EBT?
What i do not understand is why people buy the idea that such a Big Mind as Buddha, such a rich teachings as the Dhamma, really only comes in the world erase all beings, all lifeforms, all streams of vinnana’s from existence without anything remaining. Buddha as the Big Eraser. The Dhamma that reduced all to nothing?
I do not understand why people buy this as some holy goal or holy task for themselves. I really do not.
That is an interesting response. It gives me a lot to chew on. Do you think the same could be said for the practitioner who starts with the view there is nothing after parinibbana? They will find their “cessation” but it’s not the real thing? There are some interesting implications to the idea that views will condition the experiences of nibbana.
Given DN 1 there are tons of ways to ground ones truth of nibbana. From jhanas, tradition, mere reason and so on. That makes me wonder, how do we know what the right view really is? As a hypothetical how do we know the Buddha, with his three knowledges, truly had the correct view? How is this proven correct against hindus’ Brahman or the Jain Moksha?
I ask out of a sincere faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha.
AN 11.7 It should be obvious that since nibbāna is not materiality, it’s only the mind sense which sees nibbāna.
Because you do not understand the first noble truth, you also don’t understand no self. It’s best not to interact in the forum as a teacher tone as I have seen you done with others as it can lead beginners astray.
If you wish to learn as a student, it’s easier for us to teach when you have the humility to learn.
One thing I thought of is the person who has the skill of tapping skull to tell the rebirth destination of that person who died. When tapping the skull of an arahant, he couldn’t give an answer. The Buddha offered to teach him if he ordains, then he became an arahant and is no longer living the holy life to find out this magic trick which stumped him.
So that’s one neat way if we can find someone with that magic in the world. It shows that the right view works.
Anyway, part of it then is indeed just faith until stream winning. It’s really hard to ask people to justify choosing Theravada over Mahayana, or this particular teacher over other teachers due to views. At some point, the suttas as tradition, and logical reasoning helps to support the faith. However, one can also go the hard way of trying it with wrong view, get their level of seeing nibbāna=samsara or something like that, and then purposely adopting right view that nibbāna is cessation of existence and see if one can go deeper.
And the other way around would be impossible, as a stream winner is not able to take another as a teacher.
Just that if someone really deluded themselves into thinking that they attained stream winning with wrong views, then they might adopt the same stance of impossible for them to adopt nibbāna is cessation as it is to them wrong view, and stream winners are attained to view, cannot be wrong. They might have to check if that comes from their own reasoning of self ego reflection: I am a stream winner, therefore I must be this or that quality.
Instead of the reverse: I find this quality in me, could it be that I have attained? Maybe? let’s observe more.
To act due to the conceit of being a stream winner, might mean a self view that one is a stream winner, and thus likely actually not.
It’s all very deep stuffs indeed. And it might be clearer if one really can meet with people who really are stream winners, not just those who believe themselves to be one. Listen to their teachings and opinions on dhammas, and ask them what is right view.
Indeed those types of magic tricks are pretty convincing. Faith does lead one all the way to the deathless.You won’t know the truth is the truth until you know it for your self. It does just make me curious as to how exactly one knows right view, as described in the suttas, is right? Could it be the Buddha makes the same mistake as an ascetic believing the first Jhana is liberation?
I don’t really believe he did make a mistake, but what is right view to you, sir? How can you say for certain it’s cessation and not “something”? I hope me asking you a question as loaded as that doesn’t create any issue with the monastic rules you follow. If so feel free to pass over it.
If anything is leftover, given that parinibbāna is permanent happiness, whatever is leftover could very well be taken as the true self.
Even if say someone really consciously don’t think of it as self, nevertheless, one has to be careful about subtle delusions which underpin all of these.
Just read all the arguments that says nibbāna is cessation.
I don’t see how one can go beyond nibbāna. See from perception of the formless realm of nothingness, only nothing remains. And then neither perception nor non perception, then cessation of perception and feeling. With nothing left to cease, for the arahant after death, what is beyond?
So, you also believe one can directly perceive cessation? But what does perceive that if vinnana has ceased?
Thanks for your concern. Appreciated!
I agree with you about that teacher tone. I always get the message…you do not understand this and that.…but why do people never doubt about their own understanding? Like there is no reason for that? Is that honesty? Is that sincerity? Is that an integer way to relate to eachother?
I accept what you say and ik appreciate that you take this effort. It is indeed not good that i pretent to be a teacher but i also feel, if you allow me, it is not oke that others pretent they know all and they never have to doubt their understanding. I do not feel that is a sincere way to relate to eachother.
But i will work on the imperfections in my own mind .
My understanding is that khandha’s are really suffering because as aggregations they always represent a certain weight on the mind. I also believe the khandhas cease for an arahant. Maybe there is a possibility that one can choose for new rebirth to help others. But that is for me not a huge theme at the moment. But i do not really doubt that when taking all togheter, the sutta’s teach that there is a weight of khandha’s even without grasping. Grasping gives even more weight.
Unlike others, I believe in the reality of the weightless.
The weightless does not cease.
It’s different from the cessation of perception and feeling, which is basically the closest a living arahant and non returner can get to Parinibbāna while still alive. Since mind ceases there, it’s reasonable to say there’s no experience of cessation of perception and feeling.
And for the attainment moment, if I am not wrong, classical Theravada does talk about knowledge of the fruition attainment. It’s within the consciousness aggregates and thus the knowledge is impermanent, lastest at the death of an arahant.
And many sutta did said, “when he is liberated, he knows that he is liberated, the holy life has been lived” etc…
" And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”
I feel this sutta introduces a kind of knowing or perceiving that has no object. It does not have the elements as object, not the formless dimensions, not this world, not the other world, nothing seen, heard, known, attained, sought or explored by the mind.
This cannot be a vinnana., or one must accept that vinnana can be without an object.
I feel this describes a bare awareness, not of something, but, probably as later buddhist and also Maha Boowa teaches of itself. The Citta.
Yes, for me this clearly describes how cessation, extinguishment is not a mere cessation but a bare awareness. This is not a formation.
i also believe this is what Sariputta refers to when he says that it is happiness when nothting is felt or perceived. Meaning the same.
The logic used here is exactly the same as used by the Teacher in SN 22.86. The only difference is the subject of analysis. In SN 22.86 it is the Tathagata whereas here it is just consciousness. Supposing the logic is valid for the former, but not for the latter is the view of the substantial aggregates which utterly cease at death to my limited mind. The view of the substantial aggregates utterly ceasing at death is inappropriate according to what I understand the Teacher to have said. I have confidence that what the Teacher said is correct.
It is cessation. But the question is cessation of what? You believe it is the aggregates. That the aggregates are the self or belong to the self and are hence extinguished with nibbana whereas others believe the self is extinguished and that it is inappropriate to view the aggregates as the self that is extinguished. I think this is the point of this thread: Bhikkhu Bodhi and many other learned masters in the Theravada do not subscribe to the view that the aggregates are the self and it is the aggregates which cease with nibbana.
Either something truly substantial ceases with nibbana or nothing truly substantial ceases with nibbana. So what is truly substantial? Is it the self? Is it the aggregates? If nothing truly substantial can be found in this very life, then how is it appropriate to say that something truly substantial ceases with death?
If nothing truly substantial ceases because nothing truly substantial can be found even in this very life, then what if anything at all can be said to cease with nibbana? The answer is the view of the substantial existence of the self, the view of the subtantial existence of the aggregates, the self-cherishing attitude, individual (but not substantial) existence; these can be said to cease with nibbana.
These two ideas about nibbana are remarkably different. One supposes true and real parts of the self that the path somehow unwinds through passion for their utter and true cessation. It envisions the path as some alchemy for unwinding and unbinding true and real parts of the self by denying these true and real parts make up any kind of self at all; no self.
The other does not suppose true and real parts of a self and sees the path as unwinding passion for anything that can be labeled “I” or “mine” through seeing the completely void, hollow, and insubstantial nature of anything one would wish to label the true self. The unwinding of passion leads to abandoning identification with any notions of an individual self or anything that can be said to compose parts of a real individual self; non-self.
So what is the fate of the aggregates after death? The first view of nibbana regards the goal of the path to be the very cessation of these aggregates. It identifies these aggregates as truly worthy of care and concern for the fate of these aggregates. It views the path as taking up the goal of eliminating these particular individual aggregates from existence altogether. Which particular aggregates? The ones that compose the (supposedly totally non-existent) self.
To the other view, the fate of aggregates after death are of no concern. They’ve long ago laid down any care or passion whatsoever for the fate of the mere aggregates. They’ve seen the aggregates as utterly unworthy of any passion at all; not for their continued existence and not for their cessation of existence. The aggregates fate are not the fate of the self. Why? Because the aggregates don’t belong to the self and they do not compose the self.
Again, the two views are remarkably different and I think Bhikkhu Bodhi and others in the Theravada tradition take the latter as correct and believe the former which is so involved with the fate of the aggregates as inappropriate.
Of course, I can’t really speak to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s mind as Venerable’s mind is likely far far beyond my own. I’m just a Buddhist patzer with very little to no actual knowledge. Here I just relate my feeble understanding of what is going on within this debate and everyone should please feel free to ignore.
I’ve yet to find anything that can be found as substantial when subject to analysis as the Teacher prescribed. Whatever is put under examination and carefully looked at appears insubstantial. The more carefully one looks the more it appears completely insubstantial, void, and hollow. At least that is my experience.
The Teacher described that it is beneficial and conducive to our long term happiness to analyze phenomena in this way. The Teacher prescribed that we should analyze the self to see if it is substantially existing. The Teacher prescribed that we should analyze the five aggregates in this way to see if they are substantially existing. The Teacher prescribed that we should analyze the Tathagata in this way to see if any Tathagata can be found on which to say the Tathagata is substantially existing.
It is to our long term benefit and happiness to look and see for ourselves; can any phenomena stand up to such analysis? Can any phenomena be said to substantially exist in the way the self cannot be said to exist? Can any phenomena be said to substantially exist in the way the aggregates cannot be said to exist? Can any phenomena be said to substantially exist in the way the Tathagata himself cannot be said to exist?
If such a phenomena anywhere in the world can be said to substantially exist in the way none of the above can be said to exist, then I’ve yet to find it.
As this is largely a continuation of wrestling with Nibbana wrt Thannissaro’s writing, I feel it would not be off topic to propose an examination of Mind Like Fire Unbound.
Im just finishing it and it seems to me that it might provide for a good anchor for a fresh thread and a “big tent” if properly considered. As had been noted, Bhikkhu Bodhi has limited his exposition regarding the topic where as, AT has addressed it explicitly.
This is true, but that doesn’t mean these phenomena aren’t experienced.
In this sense, they are real – not in the strong ontological sense but as felt experiences.
When we’re injured, from an experiential standpoint, it hurts!
Phenomena are empty but a broken leg hurts!
The hurt and the pain are also empty of any intrinsic essence but: it hurts!
In this way, even when not grasped, the senses and aggregates which cannot be controlled are forms of dukkha.
Just because “things” are empty/void, doesn’t mean in experience they’re not different in their characteristics or dukkha.
It’s like saying a perforated ulcer is insubstantial and hollow. Ok, but still: pain and dukkha!
Even when there’s no ignorance or craving about them, still: sheer pain and dukkha.
I think we agree that seeing into the emptiness and fundamental unreliability of phenomena is not an end in itself, but the wisdom that naturally leads to letting go → nibbāna.
If there is cessation of all this then how could there be dukkha?
Well, that depends upon one’s definition of real but I can happily concede that for some definitions phenomena like a paper cut are real
That’s true! It does hurt when I get a paper cut I can attest wholeheartedly.
Ah, but here is where we part ways as I’m sure you knew we would. It is only through grasping that pain can be understood as dukkha. Pain is just pain. It isn’t dukkha incarnate. It is possible to merely feel pain without any suffering arising. Certainly it is possible to feel pain without any sense of “my” pain arising isn’t it? Can we agree on that?
To really settle a dispute on whether felt pain is inexorably bound up with suffering requires practice. Is it really true that whenever pain is felt that suffering necessarily arises? Even if one unfortunately hasn’t ever had the experience yet of feeling pain without the arising of suffering, isn’t it possible to imagine that one might in the future?
Why is it supposed that felt pain is inexorably bound up with the arising of suffering? Couldn’t it be that this is so because of grasping and with the letting go of grasping that one might have the experience of felt pain that is not inexorably bound up with the arising of suffering?
Certainly, it is beyond the reach of most sentient beings that when the body feels pain they do not suffer. They usually feel both physical and mental suffering from the experience of bodily pain. Some sentient beings with wisdom are able to overcome the mental suffering that comes from the feeling of mere bodily pain. An awakened one who has completely given up any idea of appropriation of the body; who has laid down the burden of individual existence; how can it be possible that they suffer from any feelings that arise depending upon contact with “my” body?
If something subjected to analysis is not capable of withstanding the puny analytical mind what chance has it of withstanding direct insight? Surely if something were substantially existing, then it would be able to withstand analysis by the puny conceptual mind.
I agree though; if something were able to withstand conceptual analysis that does not necessarily mean it is substantial. To know for sure - and verify a substantially existing thing - one would need direct and non-conceptual insight.
As I’ve yet to find something that can withstand even puny conceptual analysis I can’t say I’ve found anything that can stand up to direct and non-conceptual insight
What exactly do you find difficult? Maybe PM me and I can try and help, but I don’t want to derail this thread. The benefit or drawbacks of conceptual analysis versus direct insight does not seem to me germane to this thread.
Why not? It hurts, as we agree. Anything that is painful is dukkha, as well as all conditions, which can’t be controlled.
The Buddha said in AN 6.99:
"It’s quite possible for a mendicant who regards all conditions as suffering to accept views that agree with the teaching. …” sabbasaṅkhāre dukkhato samanupassanto …pe… ṭhānametaṁ vijjati”.
Mental/psychological distress, no.
Pain itself as nonetheless painful, yes. Dukkha.
Because we agree that pain is painful. Not theoretically, but in direct experience. So: dukkha, just as itself, even without added mental aversion, clinging, etc.
For arahants, this is true in the sense of being without defilements and identification with anything – but, the point is: pain. Dukkha.
Not to experience any pain or any “thing” is why the Buddhapoints to final nibbāna as the true exit from all dukkha in any form, including physical experiences.
