Definition of Ignorance

Thank you for the honest answer! In that case how about only focusing on viññāna in that reflection.
The following people seem to have translated it as follows:

Venerable Ajahn Sucitto: “discriminative mode”
I.B. Horner: “discriminative consciousness”
Venerable Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde: “discrimination”

It may too be hard to comment on it as it would require rereading the suttas with such interpretation to see if they makes sense - but in case in future you’ll find if it does make sense for you or there is an apparent contradiction, I’d be glad to hear your opinion on it.

It also refers to the point you have made:

Such translation might also address the above problem in some different way.

1 Like

Thanks.

We agree.
But that doesn’t mean conditional phenomena/experiences are not dukkha.

It’s not about being fixed on “intrinsic” – it’s just a word-pointer.

Perhaps rephrasing the assertion that all hollow and void conditions/experiences are dukkha may clarify the point.
:pray:

Yes, I think that is much preferable phrasing and I think I understand your point when making it. I would prefer this phrasing, “Depending upon clinging to hollow and void conditions/experiences, dukkha arises.” However, this meaning is different from yours in a subtle and important way and I know we respectfully disagree about this. :pray:

1 Like

We do agree to disagree on that last point. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

No, but the author has written this book:
The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sūtrāṅga portion of the Pāli Saṃyutta-Nikāya and the Chinese Saṃyuktāgama (Series: Beitrage zur Indologie Band 32; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2000).

In pp. 150-205, Chapter 6. Causal Condition, it is about the Nidana Samyutta of SN and SA; e.g.:
Pages 150-1 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (140.0 KB)

I believe you always forget, or more or less ignore, that EBT does not teach that there are only formations that can be known to be arising and ceasing (sankhata). It also teaches asankhata. That what is not seen arising, ceasing, changing and can be known to…must be known too!

This also means…absence of conditional processs does not at all imply absence of asankhata.

In other words, Buddha in EBT teaches there is a base for dispassion, peace, the constant, the stable, the not-desintegrating, the stilling of all formations, bliss. That is asankhata. Moreover…Buddha teaches the Path to Asankhata! (SN43)

There is no sutta that even suggests that asankhata is the state after the last death of an arahant (in your opinion a mere cessation). That is also impossible because that can never be known, and asankhata MUST be known to awaken according EBT. One cannot be skilled in the elements if one does not know and see this stable, constant, not-desintgrating element in ones life (MN115)

Everything that arises due to causes and conditions refers to the sankhata, it has that element of arising, ceasing and changing. But EBT does not teach that this is all there is to know!
Not at all. EBT also teaches asankhata.

You all the time suggest that there is no base for peace, for stability, for the constant, the not-desintegrating and the end of suffering, but Buddha never ever teaches this.

I also believe that it is, in general, a mistake to believe that the stilling of all formations, cessation, peace , Nibbana can be absent. There is always this element in our lifes. I also see this here:

Knowing the escape from sensuality,
& the overcoming of forms
—ardent
always—
touching the stilling
of all fabrications:
he is a monk
who’s seen rightly.
From that he is there released.
A master of direct knowing,
at peace,
he is a sage
gone beyond bonds. (Iti72)

The point is, i believe, even if formations arise, the nobles always touch stilling of all formations.
They do not exclude eachother because this base of stilling is never really absent.
In other words, mind can be completely at ease and stilled with formations arising.

I do not believe we must turn this debate into an ontological debate about elements but it is quit obvious that EBT do NOT teach that only formations seen arising and ceasing can be known.

The message of the Buddha in EBT is not…all there is, is khandha’s… but wrong view and samsara spins around them, spins around identification, seeing formations as me, mine, my self. And the cause of that is that asankhata remains unseen. That is, i believe, the clue.

Its not saying “us” being ignorant. It says the mind has ignorance.

The mind is ignorant before consciousness. If you become conscious of something for the first time and don’t know anything about that thing; the ignorance preexisted the consciousness of it. As an example, you visit Mexico City for the first time and don’t know your way around; don’t know where the bus stop is or public toilet or opera house. The ignorance of these things already existed before you visited and became conscious of Mexico City.

Ignorance comes first. Ignorance is there before any notion of self occurs. New born children don’t have thoughts of self but their minds are already ignorant.