In the 5 aggregates of clinging. In SA 259: Sāriputta said: “If a monk, who has not yet attained comprehension of the Dharma, wishes to seek comprehension of the Dharma, he should energetically give attention to the five aggregates of clinging as a disease, as a carbuncle, as a thorn, as a killer, as impermanent, as dukkha , as empty, and as not self. Why is that? Because it is possible that a monk who energetically gives attention to these five aggregates of clinging in this way attains the realization of the fruit of stream-entry.”
SN22.48 makes a distinction between aggregates and clinging aggregates. This suggests it is clinging to the aggregates which is the problem, and not the aggregates per se. So the goal of practice is cessation of clinging and craving (Third Noble Truth), and not cessation of the aggregates. Cessation of the aggregates would mean the cessation of experience.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html
1 Like
Nice point; thanks for the reference!
A very interesting sutta that I’m not entirely sure how to make sense of. Perhaps this is merely an issue of translation, but the sutta describes the clinging-aggregates as that which is “clingable.” This makes it sound like the difference is not whether you actually are clinging to the aggregates. but whether the aggregate has the potential to be clung to. I’m not sure how a khandha could ever not be “clingable.”
Also I’m not sure where you’re getting this from
Cessation of the aggregates would mean the cessation of experience.
I think it not unreasonable to suggest that the aggregates all cease upon parinibanna but the suttas make clear that that isn’t a state of total annihilation. Thanissaro’s Mind Like Fire Unbound has some good analysis into this issue.
I’m saying the Arahant wouldn’t still be clinging to the aggregates, because the Arahant has eradicated craving.
I’m also saying the aggregates continue for the Arahant, because otherwise the Arahant wouldn’t have any experience at all. No sense-consciousness, no perceptions, etc.
1 Like
I belief it is reasonable to say that not all visuals, smells, sounds, ideas, tactile sensations, odours trigger craving (tanha) and upadana to arise. Also not in a worldling. Certain ones do. That is the upadanakhandha part of the khandha’s.
For example, you see many things during a day but it is not that all those visuals lead to craving and attachment. But you might see something, a nice house, car, woman/man and craving immediately arises and you are hooked to that visual. You start daydreaming and feeding that initital attachment.
Fortunately this does not happen with all we see, hear, smell etc. So many things during a day are not prono to clinging but some are. Some lightly, some heavily.
I think a visual, smell, sound etc. is not clingable if it is of no interest or value at all for the unconscious mind. But some things are of great interest. For example, the smell of smoke. The moment you smell this, mind almost immediately gets a sense of urgency and is alarmed. But many smells do not have this strong effect.
1 Like
Yes, quite a lot of of what we experience doesn’t lead to kama-tanha (sensual craving), usually because of neutral vedana. So while the aggregates are always capable of producing tanha, they don’t necessarily produce it.
There is also the “background” craving of bhava-tanha, the craving for continued existence, or continued experince, which the Arahant has presumably also eradicated.
2 Likes
Yes. I also feel the state of body and mind is important in the way it reacts. A relaxed body and mind reacts differently from a tense or tired body and mind. A traumatised mind reacts different. A mind that feels lonely can not find peace. It longs, it seeks. A body and mind that has slept to little over many days or weeks or even longer also starts to react abnormal. I think these kind of things are important to acknowledge.
Yes, according theory the arahant has eradicated all three tanha’s: kama tanha, bhava tanha and vibhava tanha. Tanha is often translated as craving and i have seen it explained as the initial attachment which happens unvoluntary and very quickly. Upadana, the next phase, would be a more conscious and voluntary phase of attachment, in which one feeds this initial attachment with conscious ideas, dreams, wishes, thoughts.
For example: it is not really a voluntary act to become attached to the visual of the nice form of a man/woman. Is it more our biology to get obsessed, our disposition as man or woman (AN).
But once we notice this initial attachment (tanha) we can choose to follow and feed it with our thoughts and ideas (upadana) or just let it go. The second phase of upadana is a more conscious and voluntary phase. There in that phase we can practice and not feed the initial obsession.
I do not know if any sense contact in a wordling must always also trigger defilements, for example asmi mana and avijja. In other words, is any sense contact in a wordling always defiled with lobha, dosa or moha?
The way I see it is that the “mind” (with a variety of Pali words as equivalent) can be experienced in multiple different ways. Examples:
“vinnana” can be clinging or non clinging; sensory or boundlessly formless
“citta” can be concentrated or not concentrated, released or not released, etc (per Satipatthana)
“mano” can be pure or impure (per Dhammapada 1).
Etc.
So I guess I’m more focused on differentiating the mind by its qualities rather than trying to exactly define each word for mind (since there is so much overlap and interchangeable use).
The “debate” is a complex issue when approached wrong.
The luminous/radiant mind is the result of a meditative state where the hindrances are not present or removed. Radiant consciousness is also related to a meditative state.
That’s not the issue and should never be. Ven. Boowa was clear about his delusion about this mental state.
The issue is that there is the experience of the ending of greed, hate and delusion and the lack of these thereafter. In other words: the experience of release and the released mind.
This however can be somewhat assessed if we look at Ven. Mun’s “Ballad” where he explains his experience of “mind-source” and “mind-movements”. Ven Boowa had different ways of describing it this mental state. I don’t get the impression that the luminous/radiant mind discussion is about this state of mind, so I leave it with this remark.
I like to compare this discussion to the experience of tasting a durian.
Perhaps you’ve read about them. You might know that some hotels ban them due to the stench. You might even have smelled one yourself. But up to the moment you eat one you don’t know the taste. And if you take one bite, gag and never eat again, you might never know the sweetness of the fruit.
You will easily argue that it’s a disgusting foul tasting stinking piece of shit while someone else (me) will tell you about the rich flavour and sweetness of the fruit. Yet if I’m honest I also tell you that I can only have a few bites before it turns far less pleasant on me as well.
That’s three different kinds of knowledge. One based on theory, but not experience. The other two on experience, yet different knowledge based on different experiences. You can’t easily say right/wrong without fully understanding why someone says foul or rich flavour.
Which exact kind of consciousness do the “unconditioned” people refer to?
And what does unconditioned mean to them?
Because there is an experience where the mind is not influenced by “movement”, which we might argue is a “conditioned” meditative state, but the experience itself is experienced as unconditioned (without something else present, what’s there to condition it?).
Mind you that in this case greed, hatred and delusion cannot be present in that meditative state, but at the same time the mind might afterwards turn it into something else (making signs, measuring/sizing the experience [MN43]), which means complete liberation is not yet experienced.
Is that meditative experience nibbana or something else?
Let me apply the durian experience to it. We would err when we state that the one considering it a foul taste didn’t experience durian. We would also err when we state that the once considering it a rich sweet taste is right and only he (she) is right.
Yet if we know both (at least, when we’ve eaten durian and experienced both foul and rich sweet taste) we understand that both are the experience of tasting durian, but the rich sweet taster has a far broader understanding of the taste than the person having experienced only the foul taste so far.
The issue at hand, as far as I can tell, might be just as simple as being the simple word “attainment”.
If we replace “attainment” with experience the issue is likely done. One might experience release in a meditative state, leading to direct understanding that release is possible , yet the mind wraps itself around the experience, turns it into something else (attainment of release) and greed, hatred and delusion (although greatly reduced) prevent further experience of release.
You’ve tasted durian, concluded that it’s foul, and stopped eating. But here you tasted the meditative state, concluded that it’s sweet, and stopped eating while the job is not entirely done. Your job was to investigate, not to indulge…
Are those who state “meditative state” correct? Yes, the radiant mind/consciousness is the result of a meditative state.
Are those who state “experience of nibbana” in meditation correct? While harder to assess I’d say yes as well. Greed, hatred and ignorance have disappeared, although temporarily, in such a meditative state.
But to state that the job is done with such meditative experience? That’s not what I get from Ven Boowa and Ven Mun (his “ballad” is rather explicit about this).
I don’t get the debate.
I know durian, I’ve eaten durian. I can tell you that I didn’t enjoy the first bite. But nowadays I can - although only for a few bites - enjoy the rich sweet flavour. I won’t argue with you about the taste of durian, but if you tell me your experience I can relate to it.
About meditative states I’m rather limited. I know what I know, and how easy it is to misinterpret a meditative state. The mind will so easily turn it into something else once emerging from it. And then - perhaps after a while - start dictating that “this is how it should be”. It’s extremely subtle.
Yet I won’t argue nibbana/no nibbana on such a meditative state. If you tell me: it’s nibbana I will nod. If you tell me it’s not nibbana I will nod. It’s views and perceptions, that’s what I know beyond doubt.
The sad thing about such debates (although I’m not sure how much of a debate is really present) is that it distracts people. They read about durian and think it stinks and tastes foul. Or that it’s not that worse and actually tastes sweet. They read about meditative experiences and think it’s this or that, nibbana or something else. They are so distracted that they keep contemplating what it’s like, or should be like, instead of just picking up the fruit and eating it.
This brings me to the end of my writing, but first a final remark:
I keep wondering how to see this. I see the durian and want to taste, I reach, grap, put it in my mount and I know how it tastes. Apparently you do something else, because somehow you stop far short of tasting.
Then what are you doing? Reading about durian? Watching the durian? Smelling it? Feeling the texture?
I don’t know, but the moment you aim for tasting it will happen sooner or later, but you might still have to go through the steps of finding one, feeling it, smelling it and finally tasting it.
The same goes for the (meditative) practice. Why are you stopping far short of what should be done?
Perhaps no arahant, but at least you could put all effort there to experience it. Don’t be the ladle which can’t taste the soup it’s in, but claims to know all about it since it’s immersed in it.
That’s my advice towards practice, and if you get to the point where you can clearly see the right and wrong of perhaps the “TFT” or “scholars” or neither or both (and the same about my statements above as well) you know the answer yourself, beyond doubt.
1 Like
Yes, it dangerous, because it forms a wrong view and as a result carries away of the aim. There is high significant of the karma hoarding in sake of the liberation. If we imagine the goal in a wrong way than we would accumulate a strong karma with intantion shaped by this image that would lead on wrong direction.
I don’t think sense-consciousness has qualities, since it is the basic function of cognition.
This is the primary definition of vinnana in the suttas, both as an aggregate (“it cognises sweet and sour…”), and as a nidana in DO (using the standard definition of 6-fold sense-consciousness).
For example, the suttas tell us that eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and form.
They also say that mind-consciousness (mano-vinnana) arises in dependence upon mind and thoughts, another example of the functional separation between mind and consciousness. Here the mind is treated as another sense-base, with consciousness arising in dependence upon it and mental objects.
I make a distinction between mind and consciousness because it seems like a useful one to make, practically speaking. Conflating mind and consciousness leads to confusion, IMO.
If Nibbana is the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, then presumably it can be experienced temporarily in meditation. Perhaps a glimpse of Nibbana?
As a nidana i think vinnana does not refer to sense-vinnana but kamma-vinnana, i.e. a vinnana which has grown upon abhisankhara’s. The vinnana has incorporated strong emotionally laden sankhara’s like lobha and dosa and has become kammically active. It is ready to act. It has the energy we call motivation.
Suppose vinnana as nidana would refer to the 6 sense-vinnana, this would mean that the mind without avijja, - that of a Buddha and arahant-, does not have the function to see, think, hear, touch, smell. The lack of avijja would imply the lack of vinnana, sense-experience. This cannot be true.
When the mind is free of avijja no more abhisankhara’s such as (a)lobha, (a)dosa and (a)moha are produced and therefor no kammcially acitve vinnana’s arise anymore. So one does not accumulate kamma anymore. The 6 roots who cause rebirth are also gone. Senses still function.
The kamma-vinnana has a certain energy, a potential to act, it has accumulated this in the javana stage of a citta vitthi. The sense-vinnana’s do not have this yet. They are not kammically active.
So, vinnana can refer to different kinds of consciousness. In practice vinnana is seldomly only a seeing, hearing smelling etc. moment. It is almost any time loaded with asava, anusaya, tanha’s, kilesa’s. Because this goes very quick. Cetasika’s are incorporated very quickly in the vinnana.
Abhidhamma treats it this way that vinnana is a defiled end stage of a cognitive proces. During the time it is very quickly defiled. For example: there is pain and almost at the same time aversion to pain or some dislike arises in that moment. So the vinnana that feels that pain is not only sensing. It is a kamma-vinnana. It is also motivated, inclined, with desrire, ready to act.
My understanding is based on the suttas, rather than on the Abhidhamma. I regard the Abhidhamma as a commentary, and therefore not as a primary source.
In the suttas, nidana “definitions” are provided in SN12.2 and MN9, where vinnana in DO is straightforwardly described as 6-fold sense consciousness. It’s that basic function of cognition, and therefore nothing to do with kamma or asavas, IMO.
Unfortunately most DO interpretations aren’t consistent with the nidana definitions in SN12.2, and are therefore suspect, IMO.
Note that SN12 is the main treatment of DO in the suttas, so the SN12.2 definitions are pivotal.
Oke, i did it that way too but did not manage to understand Paticca Samuppada. I think it is very helpful to see and understand there are more than one Paticca Samuppada cycle: a Akusula Mula, a Kusala Mula and also PS in real time and over more than one life.
I think we can agree that the ending of avijja is possible in this live, right? Then it is clear that this would also mean that the sense-vinnana end in this live for a Buddha and arahant and that is not true.
They still see, hear etc.
So that needs more explanation, right?
I haven’t seen an interpretation of DO that is both internally coherent and consistent with the nidana definitions given. I suspect that the standard 12-nidana sequence has been corrupted at some stage, possibly by merging two different sequences.
IMO it does make sense if you remove the nidanas from formations through to feeling, which basically leaves an elaboration of the Second Noble Truth, ie:
ignorance > craving > clinging > becoming > birth > aging, death and the whole mass of suffering.
The set of nidanas from formations to feeling looks quite different, and may have been added in later. It includes all the aggregates, and seems like an attempt to describe how experience develops.
@Martin Mano-Vinnana can be experienced as the formless attainments, which imho doesn’t seem like “sense-consciousness.”
In the 3-lifetimes model, it just means the consciousness of an arahant doesn’t proliferate at death. Not that the consciousness of an arahant literally ceases at the moment of awakening.
2 Likes
Mano-vinnana is consciousness of mind objects, like thoughts. Are the formless attainments mind-objects?
I suppose they could be. Like, consciousness could take itself as an object, without any other object, leading to “boundless consciousness.” So I guess I don’t have a problem with saying that Vinnana deals more with the facet of mind that takes an object (which could be itself). Citta, on the other hand, is more like a vessel for qualities (e.g., radiance, samadhi, etc). I don’t think that makes vinnana a different “thing” or “phenomenon” than citta, though, just a different way of studying it.