In order to perceive them there must be mind, the mental phenomenon, and mental awareness. Then there also will be feeling (vedanā) and perception (saññā) as well as attention (manasikāra) and intention (cetanā) accompanying that mental awareness. If someone has a perception of emptiness, that’s a perception. How can a perception be unconditioned? If the perception can arise and cease, as you claimed it can, then how can it be “without remainder”? Another perception could replace it. Moreover, the perception itself, as well as the mind, mental awareness, etc. would be remaining and could all be replaced, arise, or cease, given that they are temporary conditions, right?
Are you positing that there is an unconditioned thing which exists in-and-of-itself but at the same time can be a condition for a conditioned process (mental awareness)? How can the unconditioned be a condition? If it is a condition, how can you deduce from that that it is unconditioned? Sounds like building up substantial existence out of sand castles. Perceiving true water in a mirage. Crystal in a bubble.
If the unconditioned is a sense object, why not a star? Those are nice. Or if it must be mental, why not a mental image of lightning?
Perception can only perceive perceptions. Perceptions are conditioned, temporary, dependent. To extrapolate beyond them is called to formulate a view, to my mind.
There is an unconditioned which serves as conditions for perceiving it. It is nibbāna. The following is from classical theravada.
It is absolutely true that nibbana is not conditioned. However, that does not mean it can’t be a condition…
Nibbana as a paramattha dhamma is an arammana paccaya - object condition - for the lokuttara cittas. It can only be experienced through the mind door. There are many details about the mind-door process involved in this in the Commentaries.
It may seem strange that this element that does not arise or cease can be a pacccaya dhamma, a conditioning factor but that is just as it is.
If there was no nibbana then samsara would go on forever. So the Bodhisatta was able to reason that if there was this cycle of arising and ceasing then there must also be an end to it.
It should be noted that nibbana as a paramattha dhamma cannot be on object for clinging . But nibbana as concept certainly can be - and often is.
Nibbana can also be a paccaya by way of arammana adhipati-paccaya - object predominance condition. It is esteemed by the kusala cittas which arise instantly after the attainment as well as for the lokkutara cittas that experience it.
It is also a condition be way of decisive support condition, upanissaya-paccaya:
Nina Van Gorkom Conditionality of life p. 50:
we read in Patthana Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, Conditions, Positive, Classification Chapter, Strong Dependence, paragraph 423), that nibbana is related to the eight lokuttara cittas which experience it and also to maha- kusala citta accompanied by panna and maha-kiriyacitta (of the arahat) accompanied by panna, by way of decisive support-condition of object.
Thanks for sharing, Ven! It looks like you, classical Abhidhamma, and @yeshe.tenley have found a point of mutual agreement, and about ‘Nibbāna’ of all things! Wow!
Bhante , you posits nibbana is perceivable ?
For example , the blowing out of a candle flame ie nibbana , witnessing that flame extinguished is not an equivalent with nibbana though .
SN12.68 too. Nibbāna is the water in the well analogy and stream winners until path to arahanthood sees the water, but arahant touches with their body (personally experiences) nibbāna.
You might have to enable pāḷi to see the word nibbāna.
I think one should separate the seeing of dhamma of cessation per the sotapanna and the extinguishment of asavas per the arahant .
According to the agama , for the sotapanna when bhava ceased there is cessation there is nibbana / extinguishment . Not that when seeing bhava ceased it is equivalent to attaining nibbana .
It seems this has no parallel . But it does say “sees freedom from death and lives having realized freedom from death” . A sotapanna can be said seeing the dhamma is seeing freedom and realized from death , however not equivalent to attaining nibbana . Nibbana means eradicating the asavas altogether .
Sotapanna sees arisen dhamma being ceased ie cessation of bhava processes which is at first turning but that is not seeing nibbana .
Arahant isnt immerse in nibbana but eradicated the asavas which is equivalent to attaining nibbana ie extinguighment . When arahant aggregates disperse that can be said as parinibbana .
Having these six qualities the lay follower Sāragga is certain about the Realized One, sees freedom from death and lives having realized freedom from death.”
Imehi kho, bhikkhave, chahi dhammehi samannāgato sāraggo upāsako tathāgate niṭṭhaṅgato amataddaso amataṁ sacchikatvā iriyatī”ti.
amataddaso seems very clearly to mean see nibbāna. And these lay followers are not on arahant level.
The well analogy already made a difference between seeing Nibbāna (the water in the well) vs tasting it, why are you insisting on stream winners does not see Nibbāna?
Then perhaps if bhante could explain why Buddha has clearly said sotapanna as seeing the dhamma ie the paṭiccasamuppāda but that is not equivalent to seeing nibbana . It seems probably you might have some misapprehension .
Hello Venerable! Interesting!! You don’t think it possible the unconditioned can be directly known by the enlightened mind? To my limited mind this seems in contradiction with what the Teacher said, right? Do you think the Teacher erred when he said he knew the unconditioned? How do you explain?
I’m not sure if your refutation is aimed at what I say is unconditioned - lack of essence - or whether it is aimed at the unconditioned no matter how it is known … aka aimed at the mere hypothesis that it can be known by an enlightened mind? Can you clarify?
We must see the big picture, i believe. Buddha understood very well that there is no protection, safety, refuge in whatever is liable to arise and cease. In the end such is unreliable. Buddha understood that he must find that what has opposite characteristics: Not arising, not ceasing, changing. Stable. Constant. Not desintgrating. That is real protection, real safety, real home.
I think you have no faith that it is possible that there is such like that. I feel that is all. The core is: lack of faith in Nibbana, in the reality of asankhata. Somehow people stick to the strange idea that Budda teaches that there is only samsara, only conditioned arising and that only khandha’s are the reality.
But why? How can one come to this idea, studying the sutta’s. There is no sutta that says such?
According to what little I know of the Pa Auk system, the Vipassana path includes first to know name and form. Then dependent origination, then see the 3 universal characteristics, then there’s the knowledge of the danger, then equanimity towards all formations. From there, one could glimpse Nibbāna as the cessation of all conditioned phenomena and its causes, without arising again. That’s the stream winner path, followed by fruit.
Before that, since there can be profound deep understanding of dependent origination and not self, one could be mistaken of being a stream winner, but it’s not yet there until one sees Nibbāna. And thus the right understanding of nibbāna is important in order not to see the wrong thing and got the wrong knowledge and wrong liberation (not liberated thinking one is liberated).
Wisdom alone doesn’t a stream winner make, but seeing Nibbāna, cutting of the fetters, having the characteristics of stream winner appear automatically is much more secure.
Namarupa is in the dependent origination ?! Where does in the sutta described contemplation of namarupa through dissection ? I am afraid that is a path alien to what the Buddha has taught .
4 elements are in the suttas. It’s in the satipatthana sutta, as well as contemplation/observation of mind, of 5 aggregates. To fully understand dukkha includes to fully understand the 5 clinging aggregates, which includes name and form.
Bhante , but sorry to say namarupa taught by venerable Pa Auk are quite different from what the suttas described . FYI if you are not aware of , the 4 elements practices might be influenced by the teachings of Six Heretical Teachers at that times .
My feeling is that Metta is not really the same as what Christians refer to as Love.
I like the idea that without Love nothing is oke, there is always much desire, craving.
i feel this is also really true. Lack of Love is almost like a lack of everything. How can one be at ease?
In that sense i have feeling for the idea that only Love can really fulfill.
I think without love, life is dukkha.
I think buddhism puts wisdom on the first place, but i am not totally sure yet. Maybe there is not that much difference. do not know.
I think you are misunderstanding me Venerable and I don’t know what math has to do with it.
Take the Nile river or any river for that matter… can you draw a distinction between the banks of the river and the river itself? Of course you can right? The river is the river and the banks are the banks.
However, if you inspect, ponder and carefully examine the river and the banks and metaphorically zoom in it will become harder and harder to so distinguish until you can draw no distinction whatsoever. There is no true distinction between the river and the banks.
A true distinction cannot be made because the Nile river and the banks of the river lack essence and are not substantial. There are perspectives from which it is not even possible to draw any distinction between the river and its banks. There are perspectives from which “river” does not exist. There are perspectives from which “banks” does not exist.
Ofcourse, when you zoom in all distinctions will disappear because distinction are on a certain level.
Ofcourse you cannot find the stone in the atoms. But does this proof a stone does not substantially exist?
I feel Yeshe substantially exist…i see him…hear him…sometimes smell him
Those are nice. Or if it must be mental, why not a mental image of lightning? 
