@Vaddha what do you make of this ‘conditioned absence of conditions’? 
1 Like
If I were to make something of it, it wouldn’t be ‘unmade’. Let’s not make unreasonable requests, Yeshe! 
2 Likes
I mean, emptiness as it’s told in mahayānā (generally as a way to explain DO and sometimes anatta, correct me if I’m wrong; so yes it’s not an alien subject, and it’s all based on pāli) is not the same as why emptiness is used in the teaching:
MN121
"‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’
‘suññatāvihārenāhaṁ, ānanda, etarahi bahulaṁ viharāmī’ti.
Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of elephants, cows, horses, and mares; of gold and money; and of gatherings of men and women."
This sutta goes on and on how the base of meditation is empty of other stuff.
Ps2.10 is a very thoroug analysis on a similar theme:
https://suttacentral.net/ps2.10/en/nyanamoli?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false
"Because it is void of self or of what belongs to self, therefore ‘the world is void’ is said, Ānanda. And what is it that is void of self or of what belongs to self?
(…)
What is voidness of formations?
There are three kinds of formation: the formation of merit, the formation of demerit, and the formation of imperturbability.
The formation of merit is void of the formation of demerit and of the formation of imperturbability. The formation of demerit is void of the formation of merit and of the formation of imperturbability. The formation of imperturbability is void of the formation of merit and of the formation of demerit."
~
So again, suñño is used in Pāli suttas to explain “X is void of Y” rather than a general anatta or DO sense of the sunyatta.
1 Like
Ah, but it isn’t unmade! It is explicitly declared to be made. It arises due to a cause. The claim is that this conditioned result - the absence of conditions - is then made permanent.
Yes, it is void of essence, substance, a core, a soul, a self, right? Do we agree that it is void of all these that we expect to find when we analyze?
Again, I suspect that you will acknowledge that it is void of the self of persons, but that it is not void of the self of phenomena. Am I right?
Again, not if we apply suñño properly: it’s not made; there’s just no more things made to speak of. There’s even removal of all sense of speech as in Snp5.7:
“One who has come to an end cannot be defined,
They have nothing by which others might describe them.
When all things have been eradicated,
eradicated, too, are all ways of speech.”
“So yadeva tattha hoti rūpagataṁ vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ, te dhamme aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassati.
They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.”
AN 9.36
“Sir, they say that ‘the world is empty’. What does the saying ‘the world is empty’ refer to?”
“Ānanda, they say that ‘the world is empty’ because it’s empty of self or what belongs to self."
SN 35.85
“Form is like a lump of foam; feeling is like a bubble; perception seems like a mirage; choices like a banana tree; and consciousness like a magic trick: so taught the kinsman of the Sun. However you contemplate them, examining them carefully, they’re void and hollow when you look at them closely. … Such is this process, this illusion, this lament of fools. It’s said to be a killer, for no substance is found here."
SN 22.95
1 Like
Something that arises due to a cause is made. You disagree? The “absence of conditions” aka cessation of a process you acknowledge is conditioned. It is caused and based on this cause it arises, right?
That joke was my way of not engaging in the debate! Not an affirmation 
3 Likes
Not really; when we put out a fire, extinguishment isn’t made; it just refers to cessation of fire. Extinguishment isn’t a process, but absence of a process.
What are you denying? You acknowledged that the cessation of a process is conditioned, right? Do you wish to take back that acknowledgement?
Yes, Buddha felt clearly superior in Knowledge and Vision and his pupils must also see him like this, and not accept other teacher or teachings.
He critized existing views, rejected them, and also a lot of religious practices he called base arts and not worthy of nobles. Buddha was the most intolerant person in the world, in a sense. He did not tolerate what is not true, fake news. No view of a contemporary teacher was oke. Not materialism. Not religious views of a Creator God. Not eternalism. Not the view that beings are without power. Not Jainism. Many rituals were not worth of the nobles. Such as fire rituals, honouring Sun, honouring a Creator God, bathing in holy rivers, offering animals, etc etc. How would we look at this when such a person would live nowadays? Would we not think that this person feels superior?
Imagine a Buddha that would tell religious people that the Creator God they honour does not exist?
And even explain to them why they believe he exist? What would happen? Would we be able to have faith in such a person or would we see him as a madman?
BTW, I’m actually trying to answer your question in this OP where you asked me specifically. I’m trying to show you that if I follow the logic you lay out and what you define to be nibbana… it follows that nibbana - just like you say the Brahmavihara are - is dukkha 
I acknowledge that my logic may be in error, but I am sincerely trying to follow it as I understand it and show you why I reject it and in so doing also reject that the Brahmavihara are dukkha.
1 Like
This is what I disagree with. There’s conditionally arisen and conditionally ceasing things (thanks @NgXinZhao). This is how Buddha explains cessation of Suffering (SN22.104), World (Iti112), Kamma (SN35.146), Aggregates (SN33.3). These things cease, and they can cease without remainder, without giving birth to new conditions for the perspective of mendicant’s inner sense base:
“Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.”
So you keep your acknowledgement that the cessation of a process is conditioned, but you deny that it is caused?
Please explain to me what you mean by ‘caused’ then? Do you believe rebirth is caused? Do you believe that birth arises? Do you believe that which is conditioned is said to ‘arise’ and ‘cease’?
It seems like you’re telling me that there are processes that arise due to conditions. And that there are the cessation of processes that arise due to conditions. The first is caused and the second is not. Is that what you’re saying?
You treat nibbāna as if it’s something that arises. It’s merely how we metaphorically refer to cessation of dukkha. It’s not an arisen state, process, continuum, object or a place. It’s a conventional way to refer to the absence of these things, because at this point, it gets progressively harder to talk about it, which is why Buddha thought people wouldn’t be able to understand it.
"When all things have been eradicated,
eradicated, too, are all ways of speech.”
“But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness, cessation of name-and-form; with the cessation of name-and-form, cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact; with the cessation of contact, cessation of feeling; with the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; with the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”
Cessation doesn’t arise. It is still conditioned. Cessation is the ending of arising, not another arising in itself. This is the basis of our soteriology. To suggest otherwise is to suggest Buddha endlessly suffers ignorantly in samsara forever.
1 Like
You acknowledge that nibbana is the cessation of a process. You acknowledge that the cessation of a process is conditioned. I asked you “what about the unconditioned” and you said that nibbana isn’t really “the unconditioned” but rather the absence of conditions. You then object that although it is conditioned that it should be thought to arise or thought to be caused.
This leaves the problems:
- Some which is said to be conditioned arises
- Some which is said to be conditioned doesn’t arise
- Some which is said to be conditioned is caused
- Some which is said to be conditioned is not caused
- Some which is said to be conditioned is impermanent
- Some which is said to be conditioned is permanent
- Some which is said to be conditioned is dukkha
- Some which is said to be conditioned is not dukkha
I point out these problems and then it sounds like you wish to say all of this is just the inadequacy of speech. I don’t think that is the case. I think you’re interpretation has logical problems.
I think nibbana refers to the unmade, the unconditioned, the uncaused and the unarisen. I don’t think my interpretation has these same logical problems.
I don’t think that is the case.
I think it would be helpful if @yeshe.tenley provides a clear explanation of a view which
(1) Does not entail the logical problems proposed
(2) Does not suggest that the Buddha endlessly suffers ignorantly in samsara forever
That could provide a basis for discussion and reflection. Right?
3 Likes
Jeez jus going to put me on the spot like that
2 Likes
I think with this you refer to how nibbāna being the result of a conditioned process, should be dukkha as per “Sabbe sankhata dukkha”.
However, that’s also an error of treating nibbāna as a sankhata-dhamma. What’s conditioned is the cessation of dukkha.
Let me put it this way:
- Cessation of dukkha relies on conditions, you agree? If this is sankhata in itself (as you treat nibbāna):
- Sabbe sankhata dukkha.
- Therefore, cessation of dukkha is forever dukkha.
This is an error in treating what I describe as nibbāna as a sankhata. Conditional cessation of a conditioned process isn’t a “sankhata dukkha”.