Y’know, they say it’s always much easier to find fault in someone else’s solution than to provide one’s own!
4 Likes
It is much easier! You’re asking me to fix my own faults rather than pointing out others?? Probably good advice 
I can try and present an interpretation that doesn’t run into the same logical errors, but no guarantee that it is free of my own logical errors. I’m also willing to acknowledge I’m just a limited being who is talking a big game and does not have it all figured out. Personally, I’d much rather here @Vaddha’s solution but if I’m pressed to taste my own medicine… I’ll do it. What’s good for the goose… 
2 Likes
Whatever is the case and (non)result of our argument, for what it’s worth I think you’re a skilled logician and it’s still a delight to discuss these with you. 
I’ll even give you a cheat code: What you need to do is to provide a soteriological explanation for cessation of dukkha that is (1) both conditioned (I mean, if it’s not, why bother with anything at all?) and (2) doesn’t run into a problem with “Sabbe sankhata dukkha”.
Put it very bluntly: Is there a hope to freedom from dukkha?
1 Like
The result of a conditioned process is conditioned. That’s how I define those words at least. As I declared to @Vaddha in a past life I think it important to make a distinction between conditioned and dependent:
- That which is conditioned arises and ceases
- That which is unconditioned does not arise and does not cease
- That which is conditioned is said to be caused
- That which is unconditioned is not said to be caused
- That which is conditioned is impermanent
- That which is unconditioned is permanent
Now, something being dependent is not necessarily conditioned or unconditioned. To posit “small” we depend upon “large”, but “small” is not caused by “large” and so on and so forth.
- The cessation of a conditioned process is conditioned
- The cessation of a conditioned process is not unconditioned
- The unconditioned can be known by the mind
- The lack of essence in a thing is unconditioned
- The lack of essence in a thing does not arise
- The lack of essence in a thing does not cease
- The lack of essence in a thing is permanent
- The lack of essence in a thing can be known by the mind
- The lack of essence in a thing is dependent upon that thing to be known by the mind
Ariya beings in meditative equipoise know this unconditioned lack of essence. They achieve the perception of the unconditioned. This is referred to as “Nibbana without remainder.” When they rise from meditative equipoise this is referred to as “Nibbana with remainder.”
As for Nibbana and Samsara and the suggestion that the, “Buddha endlessly suffers in samsara forever” I’ll refer to Nagarjuna’s exegesis on the lack of true distinction between “Nibbana” and “Samsara” and the lack of true distinction of “the Buddha” … insist there is soteriological purpose!) … refer to the thread on “What is Dukkha” and leave it at that.
Time for my medicine!!! Ahhhhhhhh…
There is. And I believe your insistence that there be a soteriological goal to all this philosophizing is spot on. If I can’t explain that soteriological purpose well enough or you can’t conceive of how what I say could arrive at it then it is probably best to ignore me in friendship
I do not have any recollection of this! I am not able to recall past lives.
Perception is conditioned, impermanent, arises and ceases. Meditation is conditioned, impermanent, arises and ceases. Objects of mind are conditioned, impermanent, arise and cease.
2 Likes
Where does cessation of dukkha fit in this matrix? Is cessation of dukkha conditioned? If so, being sankhata, is it dukkha?
Which is why, while I respect Nagarjuna greatly and find it an interesting foray, I think he runs into logical errors, which I can demonstrate such:
- There are two glasses.
- Glass A is empty (Nibbāna)
- Glass B is full of orange juice (Saṁsara-Dukkha)
- I say “There’s absence of Orange Juice in Glass A”
- Nagarjuna says “There’s no distinction between Glass A & B”
At this point I’m ???.
This is why I was insisting on the Pāli Emptiness discourses, to explain that Emptiness of things as understood by lack of a substantial characteristic is not the same emptiness of Glass A being empty of Orange Juice.
However, if the counterargument is “Well Glass B is empty of orange juice as well, because Orange Juiceness is just an empty process!” or such, I think you yourself have refuted this view with the metaphor of drowning in Nile.
So, either there’s a difference between Dukkha and Absence of Dukkha, or else all our discussion and books are moot.
1 Like
It was a silly joke. I was referring to where I responded to you in another post on this forum in our favorite thread
Ariya beings are conditioned too! But objects of mind… hmm. The unconditioned can be an object of mind, right? The unconditioned cannot be conditioned. The lack of essence of a thing is unconditioned and can be known by the mind so if you refer to this as an ‘object of mind’ it follows that not all objects of mind are conditioned. They depend upon the mind to be known… that is true.
Now my turn…
Brahmā ca lokādhipatī sahampati …
I’d like to hear @Vaddha’s exegesis of this
Sometimes (and most of the time), when a provision is of moral and understandable nature, it leads us to higher and higher truths until we can finally grasp the Jewel at the top of the mountain. The ladders to get there are made up of all kinds of Dhammas, some that even don’t make sense, sometimes there’s even Enlightenment in the guise of illusion–something you least expect. But it is morality that brings one to Realization. That is the founding factor behind the Noble Eightfold Path, the reason in the Four Noble Truths, and the driving force behind Buddha Teaching.
I deliberately didn’t go there because to answer would invoke the disagreement we have over “What is dukkha?” and I didn’t think it necessary to rehash or at least I didn’t think it likely to be fruitful?
The solution to this question requires to understand what is meant by a non-affirming negation and an affirming negation. It took me years to even begin to think I had a glimpse of what this means and studying all kinds of esoteric Tibetan translations. I began to believe I had a small glimpse after studying so long and then I started looking at the Law of the Excluded Middle and western logic. It occurred to me that perhaps what they were on about had only recently been discovered in the West - like less than 100 years ago? - and which was a great shock to a lot of modern logicians and mathematicians. It resulted in what is now called “constructive logic” and it turns out that it is the basis for much of computer science, algorithms, an alternative foundation for mathematics and on and on. It is extremely deep and subtle to my mind. Anyway, I think it provides a way of understanding what is meant by an affirming negation and a non-affirming negation and it is my belief that understanding this can lead to a way out of the logical puzzle you perceive above.
Without understanding that, you can still approach the problem above by noting what it means to be empty of orange juice versus what it means to be empty of essence. Empty of essence means to try and break down to find the truly distinctive essence of a thing that makes it different from another thing. To do this you have to pick apart and analyze the thing using as powerful a reasoning microscope as you can. When we say ‘empty of essence’ it means an inability to find that truly distinctive thing that is true in all conceivable reference frames by all conceivable observers.
That lack of an ability to find some truly distinctive quality that is universal and applies to all observers is why Nagarjuna - and I believe the Teacher - conclude that there is no true distinction between A and B. It isn’t that there is no distinction… it is that if we look and analyze that distinction - subject it to powerful analysis - it breaks down and disappears like a mirage.
I think we have to go there. All Buddhist discussion is about Dukkha and Cessation of Dukkha.
I don’t really care what it means to be empty of essence - only dukkha!
Dukkha doesn’t have to be substantial to be undesirable. In fact, the very nature of its unsubstantialness is the reason it’s called dukkha. If something was substantial, it would only be sukkha.
Let’s stick to Orange Juice. Is there a difference between Glass A and Glass B in how they’re absent of Orange Juice or not?
Orange Juice, is not a metaphor for a substantial essence. It’s a direct metaphor for dukkha.
We can even raise the bar. Let’s say there are two rooms: One is on fire, the other one is absent of fire. If you think there’s no truly distinctiveness between them, you go to fire. If you admit that there’s a difference between fire and absence of fire, you go to the safe room. What do you choose?
Grounding our discussion on dukkha is very important.
This is true. We can’t find anything that is true in all conceivable reference frames by all conceivable observers - that’s why it’s called dukkha, because it’s anicca and insubstantial.
2 Likes
Is it possible to experience a Brahmavihara while Enlightened or in Nibbana?
If you insist on Nibbāna = saṁsāra, then explain how unconditioned = conditioned.
1 Like
Ayyy!
But I know yeshe’s argument already : Samsara in their view, is unconditioned, since it’s without a discenable beginning and no discernable end.
But then this makes this illusion of samsara permanent.
And it also treats samsara as different from all the sankhata processes. So samsara has possessions: it contains sankhata, so samsara is something more than the sum of all sankhata processes, etc…
Yeah, N=S runs into some hard logical errors.
Alright, fair enough. You are right to be focused on the soteriological goal and that is the ending of suffering. No sentient being wishes to suffer. All sentient beings wish to be free from suffering. This is the goal.
I also respect that you say, “we have to go there.”
But in the hopes of keeping the discussion fruitful and avoid arguing over what is dukkha let’s try a different tack…
Even if we disagree about what dukkha is we agree on the path to get rid of it, right? To end craving and desire. If we get rid of craving and desire we end dukkha. We both agree that this was the clear instruction of the Teacher, right?
It is in that light why I say it is important what it means to be empty of essence. Dependent upon understanding the non-substantial nature of phenomena, dispassion towards those same phenomena arises. With dispassion comes a lack of craving and a lack of attachment. This is straightforwardly taught by the Teacher in the Phena sutta and I’ll remind that he said we should practice like this as if our hair was metaphorically on fire.
Sentient beings have a very deeply etched habit of substantial thinking and it is on this basis that craving and attachment take root. To give up this craving and attachment requires understanding the non-substantial nature of things. That is why the Teacher emphasized no-self after all. So that beings would give up craving after and attachment towards the insubstantial and conditioned.
That is why you should really care about what it means to be empty of essence. Because it facilitates the ending of dukkha regardless of what dukkha is or is not. You should care because it is conducive to leading the spiritual life.
No! Samsara is not unconditioned! That’s definitely not my argument. However, it remains the case that you can find no true distinction between nibbana and samsara. Both lack essence. If you go and look you will not be able to find any truly distinctive distinction because when you go and look you’ll come up empty.
Nagarjuna said that you could find no true distinction between nibbana and samsara precisely because they both lack essence. Nothing whatsoever has essence. No absolute distinctions can be made that are true to all observers at all times because to have such a distinction exist would require essence.
I’ll refer back to the unconditioned: it is a lack of essence. The lack of essence in things is not conditioned. It does not arises nor cease due to causes. It is permanent. It can be known by the mind. But it is dependent.
BTW, I’m a bit mystified that @NgXinZhao hasn’t challenged me on the speed of light. It is the same for all observers in all reference frames, right? 
Why not? I only speak in suttas.
Aggregates are suffering:
“Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Feeling is impermanent…. Perception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’" SN22.15
Birth is suffering:
“Rebirth, friend, is painful; non-rebirth is pleasant. When, friend, there is rebirth, this pain is to be expected: cold and heat, hunger and thirst, excrement and urine, contact with fire, contact with punishment, contact with weapons, and anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. When, friend, there is rebirth, this pain is to be expected." AN10.65
Do you have a problem with these expositions?
“And what is the cessation of suffering? It is the remainderless fading away and ceasing, the giving up, relinquishing, letting go, and rejecting of that same craving. This is called the cessation of suffering." MN9
Correct!
“What is impermanent is suffering.” SN22.15
It is because of this emptiness of essence is why it’s called dukkha. This is what is dukkha.
So which room do you choose? Room on fire or Room absent of fire? Is there no difference between them on a phenomenological fashion? 
No, not any more than I have a problem with the Teacher saying the aggregates are burning chaff
It is easy to acknowledge that the aggregates are not literally burning chaff, but it is very hard to acknowledge the aggregates are not literally dukkha. Why? Because of a substantialist belief … at least that’s my contention
Once you acknowledge it is at least possible that the Teacher did no more intend to say that the aggregates are literally dukkha than he intended to say that the aggregates are literally burning chaff, then this opens the mind to the question… “well, hey, what on earth is dukkha then anyway??”
But if you insist that the Teacher definitely intended to mean the aggregates are literally dukkha but definitely did not intend to mean the aggregates are literally burning chaff… then it becomes near impossible for the mind to entertain… "well, hey, what on earth is dukkha then anyway??
Not really, again: The fact that aggregates are insubstantial is why they’re dukkha to begin with, that’s what defines a dukkha.
Why does the Buddha teach the way to cessation of kamma, aggregates?
Why do you not answer the burning room question?
Well, with N8P comes the end of rebirth and end of dukkha. Do you agree with this at least or is this too contentious?