Hmmm, how come? In the last sentence it precisely talks about cessation of consciousness…
6 Likes
I read the suttas to know my folly and delusions.
I would not seek proof in the suttas. Kurt Goedel was much smarter than I and he proved that there are unprovable truths. Pursuing proof is therefore unsatisfactory.
For certainty, I meditate.
DN34:1.2.23: What one thing should be produced?
DN34:1.2.24: Unshakable knowledge.
5 Likes
Yes I think you are right here but if this is the case then cessation of consciousness itself Is nibbana because that state is higher than consciousness
This is the sutta that base my assumption
Snp3.12
athāparaṁ etadavoca satthā:
This is what the Buddha said. Having said this, the Teacher, the Sublime One, said further:“Yaṁ kiñci dukkhaṁ sambhoti,
Whatever suffering arises in the world,Sabbaṁ viññāṇapaccayā;
All is caused by consciousness.Viññāṇassa nirodhena,
With the cessation of consciousness,Natthi dukkhassa sambhavo.
There is no arising of suffering.
Remember that some suttas conflict with each others in that case we need visuddhimagga to know which sutta the visuddhimagga sides with
I have found no suttas that conflict with each other.
I have found suttas that conflict with me, so I gave up me.
9 Likes
Consciousness itself is not nibbana. We can talk about ignorant consciousness and consciousness that has reached nibbana. Ignorant consciousness attaches and clings to name-form, but consciousness that has reached nibbana has gained freedom and is described as non-manifestative consciousness (it does not cling to name-form because it has clearly seen the three characteristics of everything).
2 Likes
In the discourses, there are better ways of describing non-self than the statement:
For example, in the Phagguna Sutta (SN 12.12), someone asks the Buddha (in reference to feeling), “But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?” and the Buddha says: “This question is not proper," "I do not teach that there is one who feels. If I were to speak of one who feels, then it would be fitting to ask who feels. If however the question is put thus: ‘What is a condition for feeling?’ And a fitting answer to this would be: ‘contact is a condition for feeling.’
This issue is relevant to ALL five of the aggregates (as explained in the above sutta). All aggregates happen due to causes and they arise and pass away – i.e., there is no unchanging entity to be found in any of the constantly changing aggregates (and this includes the continuously changing observer). In other words, there is no owner for these constantly changing aggregates. Further, in the discourse Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59), the Buddha describes how the aggregates cannot be taken as self because if it were self, we could compel the aggregates and wish them to be like this and not that, etc.
Here, it is also important to take into consideration the differentiation of conventional and ultimate truths. Conventional truth is about the agreed upon ways (conditioned ways) we jointly talk about the world (regarding existing people and things). Ultimate reality however, is about the deep dhamma teachings and includes things like how the five aggregates manifest moment-by-moment, the three characteristics, etc.
Finally, regarding clinging to nibbana – in the Alagaddupama (MN: 22), the Buddha compares the practice to a raft that one can use to “cross the river” (to reach enlightenment) – one needs to cling to the raft at the beginning, but needs to let it go after finishing the practice.
4 Likes
SN 12.13-14 and SN 12.71-81 (= SA 352-354) mention these words: “Dhamme, dhammānaṃ samudayaṃ, dhammānaṃ nirodhaṃ, dhammānaṃ nirodhagāminiṃ paṭipadhaṃ (= 法，法集、法滅、法滅道跡)” (SN ii, pp. 14-16, 129-130).
So, nibbana is also described as the cessation of dhamma “dhammānaṃ nirodhaṃ” (法滅).
1 Like
For example mn111 said you can do vippassana while in cessation of perception and feeling while mn64 said that the highest state which you can do vippassana is the dimension of nothingness
Mn111 is in conflict with dn9 too which said that knowledge arises after perception arises, in cessation attainment there’s no perception at all not even perception of perception exists there, so it’s impossible that knowledge can arise there but mn111 said while in cessation attainment sariputta gained insight/knowledge
Furthermore mn111 is in conflict with mn44 which stated that one is not aware when they emerge from that state while mn111 said one mindfully emerges from the state
Furthermore mn111 is in conflict with mn74 which stated that sariputta gained arahantship while hearing buddha’s dhamma while mn111 stated that sariputta gained arahantship while in cessation of perception and feeling
Mn74
Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā sāriputto bhagavato piṭṭhito ṭhito hoti bhagavantaṁ bījayamāno.
Now at that time Venerable Sāriputta was standing behind the Buddha fanning him.Atha kho āyasmato sāriputtassa etadahosi:
Then he thought,“tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no bhagavā dhammānaṁ abhiññā pahānamāha, tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no sugato dhammānaṁ abhiññā paṭinissaggamāhā”ti.
“It seems the Buddha speaks of giving up and letting go all these things through direct knowledge.”Iti hidaṁ āyasmato sāriputtassa paṭisañcikkhato anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimucci.
Reflecting like this, Venerable Sāriputta’s mind was freed from the defilements by not grasping.
so it’s not one but four suttas that mn111 is in conflict with, note that even bhante @sujato said that mn111 is suspect I don’t know whether his view have changed or not, I hope he out of compassion can shade light to us regarding this serious problem his non presence in this thread actually makes me sad and increases my suffering
Because I don’t find a way to solve this I resort to visuddhimagga and Ven buddhaghosa said there that not even you do vippassana in first jhana, this means the visuddhimagga sides more with the four suttas instead of mn111
Yes I think nibbana with effluent is a state of mind(freed mind) while I think we can call nibbana without effluent as a state of where mind don’t arise for eternity because mind arises and falls every single day if there’s a state where mind falls and don’t arise again forever we can call it nibbana without effluent so nibbana without effluent is a permanent state of no mind or permanent non arising of mind I think mind will continue to arise and cease for eternity as long as the fuel exists and that fuel is craving
This is the sutta which I base my assumption
Sn12.61
But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements is seen to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night. It’s like a monkey moving through the forest. It grabs hold of one branch, lets it go, and grabs another; then it lets that go and grabs yet another. In the same way, that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.
This means your mind now is radically different from your mind yesterday notice that buddha said not even the same mind ceases each day which means or implies that not only mind ceases and arises every single day the mind also undergoes radical changes in that very day so it becomes completely different before it ceases in that very day
So body A arises then that very body A ceases and it arises again in future life as body B after say 70 years or whatever but mind is very different than the body, mind A arises then it changes to mind B before it ceases and it arises as mind C the next day
Another insight I get from the sutta is it seems to me that the body can’t sustained radical changes body always disolves before it completely changes itself yes DNA mutates but it never mutates into a completely different entity on the other hand mind can sustain radical changes into a completely different mind before it ceases
So not only body last longer than mind they change slowly too compared to the mind and body can only say undergoing 99% change before it ceases while mind always undergoes more than 100% change before it ceases
And the change rate of mind is much higher than the body, the mind undergoes more change in an hour than the body in a year
They have this notion of lower self and higher self and lower self can suffer due to the decision made by higher self and whatever the higher self did it’s good on long term basis for the lower self even though it suffers the lower self
I think it’s obvious that all dhamma are conditioned, isn’t it ?
Yes, all dhammas are conditioned phenomena, not ultimate realities and entities.
1 Like
If that’s true why did the buddha refuse to call nibbana as self ?
I just want another perspective
Am I wrong to say that self is dhamma too ?
I think self (atta) is a conditioned phenomenon (dhamma), according to SN/SA suttas.
Self, being not real, arises by conditions; having arisen it ceases completely by conditions. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer.
Cf. SA 335: “Emptiness in its Ultimate Meaning”.
Pages 95-6 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (155.3 KB)
1 Like
Yes I think I start to find the whole truth here, thanks friend, am I wrong to say that it’s the self that craves or do you think if self can still exist without craving at all ?
Thanks
I think this SN 12.15 = SA 301 sutta may be useful for your question: “Everything exists” (such as self, craving or dukkha), this is one extreme. “Everything does not exist”, this is the other extreme. Not approaching these two extremes, the Buddha teaches the middle way.
Pages 192-5 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (274.5 KB)
Self (atta) has quite particular implication in Suttas. It entitles a different notion than Nibbana.
Self implies an ownership of, or being a thing which is pleasant or permanent.
I am not sure how to give one label to two complete different notions, would be sensical, except it brings you the burden to have to constantly explain yourself.
2 Likes
Am I wrong to say that self is something that grasp something while non/not self don’t grasp anything at all ?
Is self and being the same thing ?
1 Like
DN1 may be helpful. It points out all the traps of grasping at notions of self.
DN1:3.72.4: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.
DN1:3.73.1: The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off.
Getting caught in these traps leads nowhere.
SN12.70:16.3: You should truly see any kind of perception at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all perception—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
4 Likes
Regarding ‘suttas conflicting with each other’ – I think this is a matter of the separation of conventional and ultimate realities. Some of the suttas describe in terms of conventional reality and others talk in terms of ultimate reality. For example, the Buddha did not deny the existence of a person when considering conventional reality but stated that this existence can be understood as an illusion by “seeing things as they are” (the three characteristics, etc) – this needs to be seen through the practice (understanding within oneself) rather than through arguments relating to different sources.
If we set these philosophical debates aside (especially the ones that relate to Jhana practices – many of which you have identified), the Buddha’s teachings CAN be understood. I also think it is best NOT to rely on commentaries (e.g. visuddhimagga) – ideally one should look at the sutras as a guide. In fact in the Mahapadesa sutta (link: SuttaCentral ) the Buddha emphasizes the importance of doing just this.
The phrase:
This is incorrect. If the mind has reached nibbana, then all effluents have been eradicated.
Regarding:
The mind arises and ceases every micro-moment. In the abhidamma (you can check Bhikku Bodhi’s book), an ‘instance of consciousness’ is described as being millions of times smaller than the flicker of an eyelid. The sutras describe how we identify these arising and ceasing states as a “me” (“my” feeling, “my” perception, etc – for all the aggregates in different ways). Self perception (the me feeling) also happens as the perception aggregate that arises and ceases in the ‘here and now’ – so there isn’t a “me” there either.
Further, even the physical body is continuously changing: thousands of biochemical reactions are happening and even at the atomic level it is constantly changing – according to physics, subatomic particles constantly change from wave to particle states. Elements are also constantly being exchanged from the outside to the inside of the body – i.e., material elements that make up the body are constantly moving to and from the environment as a result of our eating, etc. So, no part of this body can be grasped as a “me.” Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta (MN 140) explains how there is no difference in internal and external elements.
So, if we take person A, B, etc., this is changing every micro moment. In the conventional sense, we talk about the same person, but ultimately, it is about micro moments of thoughts as well as physical changes happening internally and externally.
Regarding:
I have never heard of this notion – where did you see it? Whatever way in which you take to be a “self” is just an idea in the mind; a perception that also arises and ceases due to causes.
1 Like
Thank you @Brahmali for the answers!
I’d like to offer some suttas in this topic:
Ven. Ananda has been asked what seems like a similar
question in Sutta SN 51.15. Which looks the same as the simile of the raft in Sutta MN22
“In the same way, I have taught how the teaching is similar to a raft: it’s for crossing over, not for holding on.
By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.”
2 Likes
I think self (atta) is craving (tanha), which is the main cause for the arising of dukkha. Craving shown in the SN/SA suttas is about attachment (upadana) to each of the five aggregates as ‘this is mine’, ‘this is my self’, ‘I am this’. Self is an idea or concept in the mind (i.e. feeling, perception, mental formation, and consciousness) that arises and ceases due to causes.
Nibbana in the SN/SA suttas is about the cessation of dukkha/dhamma, and should not be regarded as “true, real, or higher self”.
1 Like