If you do remove all causes for noise have you now literally created the stillness? ofcourse not.
Of you remove all that burdens the mind, have you no literally created that unburdened mind? ofcourse not.
1 Like
Someone born into a bright class gives rise to extinguishment, which is neither dark nor bright.
Thanks, that’s very interesting! It speaks about ‘giving rise to’, ‘producing’ or ‘giving birth to’ (abhijayati) nibbana. I think that also indicates nibbana isn’t some pre-existing, unconditioned “thing” that we discover, but something that only comes about through the eightfold path.
If you come across any other references like this, please let me know. 
2 Likes
Is ‘Nibbana’ always used in the same sense in the Suttas, which the heading question seems to imply? Perhaps a more nuanced question or questions are needed?
1 Like
Sorry, this is, in my opinion ofcourse, only conventional language, like we also say that ‘the sun rises’ or like we also say that ‘an arhant has a pure mind’ (as if there is a mind and seperate an arahant). Such wordings are nonsense, ofcourse, but it are conventional ways to express things.
I do not know why this theme of this topic seems so complicated for many. All is said in AN1.51. This sutta’s clearly says that all defilements must be seen as only adventitious. This aligns with all the teachings. Also those who use the simile of purifying gold.
Defilements in the mind are like defilements in water (or gold). They do not belong to the essence or nature of water (or gold). Never. They are never ever really mingled. The atoms of water, and atoms of defilements are seperate things. If those defilements would not be seperate from water, then they cannot be removed from the water. Defilements and water do not really mix and thats why defilements can be removed.
The same with mind and defilements. Defilement are never ever really mixed up with minds pure nature. Never. They do not belong to the nature of the mind. This is why they can be removed and mind can be empty, signless, uninclined, desireless, dispassionate.
It is not like one creates the water atoms that is the pure water when one removes defilements. The same with mind. Just for sake of analogy, the pure mind atoms are not created while purifying the mind. One does not really create the pure mind. One only removes defilements and the natural result is purity.
Like anger. If anger ceases one has not created the taste of the angry free mind.
The purified mind that now taste this freedom of defilements, this unbuderdeness, this openess, emptiness, signless, uninclined, peace, detachment is, ofcourse, not made, not created. It was there, ofcourse, in the first place.
Dhamma practice is more like uncovering, revealing what is there allready. When defilements are gradually removed what one start to taste, what starts to reveal, is the natural freedom, unburdeness, clarity, wieldiness, peace of the pure nature of mind. That pure nature starts to reveal itself more and more, but is, ofcourse, not made or created. One does not create or make the sky when one would remove clouds.
I do not understand why this is not clear. What is not clear about this?
Also about the Path there are misunderstandings, i feel.
The Noble Path
There is no difference between the Noble Path that leads to the end of suffering, the end of rebirth, and the pure nature of mind. They are the same. Seeing purity is seeing the Noble Path. Seeing the Noble Path is seeing purity. The Noble Path is always ones own inner and inherent purity. The Noble Path is, ofcourse, not in a book. It is, ofcourse, also not a doctrine. It is also no Buddhist thing. It is universal. All beings have the Noble Path. I do not doubt this. Buddha did re-discover this Noble Path but did not invent it.
It is also impossible that this Noble Path can disappear. It can only get lost, covered up when beings are not in touch (as in intuitive understanding) anymore with their inherent purity. They have lost the taste of purity of the mind or totally unaware of it. The taste of that purity, which is the end of suffering, peace, no hunger for anything, wieldiness, etc. can get lost when beings become defiled more and more but it can never disappear. Impossible.
The mundane noble eightfold Path
The mundane noble path Buddha teaches is something completely different. This about merit. Not purity. Purity, the Noble Path, is always beyond merit and demerit. The goal of the mundane noble eightfold Path is to accumulate the merit to guide beings to the Noble Path, to a moment that one enters the stream of purity or of what is beyond the world, beyond merit and demerit, undefiled. MN117 and others try to explain this difference.
Who am I? Just a lay person.
Anyway, may this be helpful
1 Like
Except in AN5.32 the N8FP is explicitly called conditional – the best of all conditioned things.
1 Like
Note the words that leads to the end of suffering …… even though the N8FP are conditioned things, it’s meaning here it represents a raft so one use it to reach the other shore.
Per your highlighted text therein contains the following : an 5.32:
Fading away is said to be the best of all things whether conditioned or unconditioned. That is, the quelling of vanity, the removing of thirst, the uprooting of clinging, the breaking of the round, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. Those who have confidence in the teaching of fading away have confidence in the best. Having confidence in the best, the result is the best.
So it’s not all for nothing… is it?
1 Like
It’s for the complete and final cessation of all dukkha. 
So the conditional is used to finally end all conditions, so to speak.
I think we’re really on the same page here.
I was addressing what appeared to be a conflation of the N8FP and “the pure nature of mind” in a prior post.
1 Like
Namo Buddhaya!
Going back to the analogy of a man lost in a forest, where by following a river he would arrive at a village and become saved.
We can say the village is his safety.
We can say his effort produced safety but he did not produce the village.
If there was no village he would not have become saved.
Finding the village is being saved.
Village is a thing, a refuge, it is that in dependence on what the state of not being lost is discerned.
Likewise there is a dhamma discovered by the Truth Finder, reached with difficulty, not easy to comprehend.
For mortals the Deathless is the salvation and the safety
The Deathless is something, a thing if you will, if there was no deathless then the end of dukkha wouldn’t be discerned.
Just like the lost man didn’t create the village
So do mortals not create the Deathless
Just as the lost man by means of his effort created his not being lost
Just so do the mortals, by means of their effort, create the end of dukkha
There is nothing extraordinary in the way that these things are spoken of but if one doesn’t comprehend the ways of speaking in context then it seems contradictory.
Just as we can say, without contradicting ourselves
A)the man’s efforts produced his salvation
B)the man’s efforts did not produced the village
C)the village is the salvation for the one looking for safety
We can say
A) the man’s efforts produced extinguishment of dukkha
B) the man efforts did not produce the unconstructed
C) the unconstructed is the extinguishment of dukkha for the one looking for safety
1 Like
This is a view, an assumption.
A number of others understand final nibbāna, “without death” to be cessation. There is no “village” or “refuge-thing”, however ineffable, previously existing, just as there is no dark before the light goes out.
There is just cessation, and utter absence is not some “thing” that can be arrived at.
Nor is it constructed. Nor is there any possibility of birth, death, etc.
As per a number of prior threads, “the deathless” and “the unborn”, when translated in this way, can easily lead the mind to reification.
Whereas, as KR Norman wrote, “without death” or “freedom from death” are accurate translations and less prone to make these into ineffable “some-things.”
What utterly ceases is just the aggregates/experience and dukkha when there is no rebirth.
Final cessation is not “filled up” with anything, and is not a destination or any thing at all in the understanding of final nibbāna as final extinguishment. Any way, that’s how a number of practitoners and teachers understand it.
Iti44: “This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over.”
1 Like
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. How is anything i said a view?
Is there some mistake in the logic of my post?
Does any of what i said contradict the scripture?
Do you want sutta references for Deathless being a something to be attained?
I am not sure what it is that you are trying to communicate here.
I also understand final nibbāna to be cessation, an end of dukkha.
This you will not argue with.
Now what is the end of dukkha?
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of dukkha.
Now what needs to be for there to be an escape from dukkha?
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
Now when i say that the made is something. This you agree with. But when i say that the unconstructed is also something, this you disagree with?
But did the Buddha not say that there are two elements the constructed and the unconstructed?
There are these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When once he knows and sees these two elements, in that way he is worthy to be called skilled in elements.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.
“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”
When i say that the unconstructed is something and a thing in dependence on what the cessation of the constructed is discerned. Just this is exactly what i am talking about.
This is not some view that i hold, this is scripture.
I am not interpreting these texts.
Are you saying that the village doesn’t exist before the man finds it, just like darkness doesn’t exist before light goes out?
I don’t think that you do, but you are mixing analogies that are not related to make some obscure point.
In regards to this cessation that you speak of.
If i ask an atheist
What is after death? Is there perception & feeling?
He would answer ‘nothing happens, your perception & feelings just cease to exist’
What is the difference between this cessation and the one that you describe?
1 Like
Yes, to reveal the unconditioned! …… permanent, unborn, …… The deathless: MN 140: … the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.
Nea …… oceans apart actually.
…… then you really have not understood the real meaning behind the usage of the words.
It’s a classic typical case where one is trapped in the text / words ……
1 Like
If one was to question annihilstionists who do not reify the unmade it goes like this
Is there an unmade? Yes there is
Is unmade something? No it is not
So there isn’t an unmade? No there is an unmade
So there is an unmade but it’s not a thing? Yes there is an unmade but it’s not a thing.
Give an analogy
Fire ceases, the cessation of fire is just the absence of fire, cessation it’s not a thing like fire is a thing.
If you question further you can show flawed logic it in several ways;
Is the burning of fire discerned or not discerned?
It is discerned
Is the absence of fire discerned or not discerned?
It is discerned
So both are equal in that respect? Yes both are equal in that respect.
Then what you said first contradicts what you said last.
Another way to refute
You say that fire is a thing but it’s cessation is not a thing.
Now what is the fire, can you pin it down?
Is it the fuel? No
Is it the flame? No
Is it the heat? No
Is it the light? No
So there is no fire? There is a fire but you can’t pin it down.
Give an analogy
Just as with the assemblage of parts there is the word “chariot”. Just so with the assemblage of parts there is the word “fire”. What there exists is but a heap of constructs.
Then the fire doesn’t exist? It exists
Can you pin it down? I cannot
Then it exists but it’s not a thing? Yes
Then you have contradicted yourself saying that fire is a thing whereas it’s cessation isn’t.
1 Like
So we’re not in agreement after all.
I’m not sure then what your point is.
You still seem to adhere to nibbana being a “something” which is fine. I offered examples from the suttas that point otherwise.
Whether one agrees or not, citing the suttas imo is not being
That’s often a convenient dismissal used when one does not interpret or understand the teachings in the suttas the same as others. But it’s not a convincing position in itself.
1 Like
Hi,
Thanks for your comments.
The citations you cited can be interpreted in different ways. From what you wrote, I’m assuming you’re placing emphasis on words like “atthi”, “āyatana”, and “dhatu.”
Fair enough, but as in my prior posts, these words have a range of meanings and are context-dependent. So others like KR Norman, Venerables Sujato, Brahmali, and Sunyo and others translate “unborn” etc. as “without birth” in the sense that final cessation – not being anything at all – is free of all birth, death, etc.
So if there’s just nothing at all, there’s no “place” or “village” or anything to “arrive” at – like there’s no arriving at a universe that was never created in the first place or not arriving to a universe that has completely winked out and utterly ceased in every aspect.
But these are just examples – none of which can be pushed too far.
There are varying views about this and people are free to decide.
1 Like
Just a general note in regards to reification of words in general.
The whole idea of a fire being somehow more real than it’s cessation is fundamentally flawed because neither the ‘fire’ nor it’s ‘cessation’ can be pinned down as a truth & reality.
The whole argument hinges on identifying the word ‘fire’ as a thing but words are not things in that sense.
Burning exists in as far as perception & feeling exists. If one wasn’t percipient then one wouldn’t discern fire.
Absence of burning exists in as far as perception & feeling exists. If one wasn’t percipient then one wouldn’t discern the absence of burning.
So what one is talking about in as far as talking about a cessation of a fire is only the discerned changes in the constructed element.
1 Like
I must censor myself but i’ll comment on the teachings found in those suttas in general.
First of all the exact translation doesn’t matter because it’s not difficult to learn the relevant pali.
As to context, obviously context is the foundation for communicating the information which was intended to be communicated, and the context is evident from the texts themselves and it’s not a subject to debate or interpretation.
I personally think that it is rather obvious that there are these two groups around
- Annihilationists
- Eternalists
The buddhist-annihilationist will say that parinibbana is just the end of perception & feeling. Exactly like atheist annihilationists do.
The buddhist-eternalist will essentially talk about parinibbana as a meditative attainment, like some super advanced meditative state that one enters into. Much like the outsiders talking about ‘mahasamadhi’.
Neither of these positions are difficult to understand. As a matter of fact most children can understand these two positions and it is all that most people can conceive of, either this or that.
Therefore behind all of the fluff, there are these two rather childish views for most people, and some are undecided as to which one they adhere to.
The dhamma is the crown jewel of intellectual pursuit, it is incredibly subtle & deep, it’s far more sophisticated than these silly positions.
There are many fine & beautiful things that are difficult to understand in the world and this dhamma is the most subtle & extreme thing that there is. It is simply mindblowing in light of this annihilation/eternalist dichotomy and is incomparably sophisticated.
1 Like
I say the same. I feel to read and understand the sutta’s one must be able to see what relates to conventional truth and ultimate truth,and also what relates to the mundane noble eightfold path and the supramundane Noble path. The last are called those teachings connected with emptiness, deep, transcendent. Buddha predicted that those will not be listened to.
The mundane noble eightfold path is conditional. It consists of right views like: there is rebirth, there is kamma and fruit of kamma, there is an after life, there are humans who have direct knowledge of this, etc. It consists also of right intentions, good will. It consist of right speech etc.
It is connected with merit. It is not connected to purity! It also does not lead out of the world. It is also still based upon avijja. This meritorious Path deals with bright kamma with bright results. It leads to a relative happiness in this life and after this life (higher rebirth). But these ripenings will also end.
This merit is still a bond. This Path is karmically loaded.
The supramundane Noble Path is different. It is not like that. It is connected with purity, grounded in purity, based upon purity, meaning, not even ego is involved. It is beyond bright kamma.
The supramundane Noble Path is not buddhist. It is not bound to any time, culture, religion, gender, place, specie. Buddha was not a buddhist. The Noble Path cannot be found in books. One must find it in mind, right?
It is not really difficult to understand the difference between what is connected to purity and what is not.
For example…if you give a monk some food with a mentallity of a businessman, expecting something in return, rebirth as deva, that is the mundane noble path, and just mundane giving activity. Mundane paths are the paths of the businessman. Always with an intent, with a goal, a reason, expecting something in return. It is like trading.
But perfectly pure giving is different. Also taught in the sutta’s. Pure giving, or giving that is connected to purity, based upon purity, is never business. It is a mere giving without expacting something in return. This giving is no investment and there is also no intent or goal or reason behind it.
It is not a strategic act.
Sometimes actions arise straight from the heart, from purity, not strategical, not loaded with even good intentions, not an investment. You just give. This the real goodhearteness, connected to purity, to emptiness (non-ego).
For me this is not theoretical. I immediately understood that such a calculated, strategical way of living, like a businessman, is, ofcourse, not pure and really noble. Ofcourse not. Such ethics are also not pure. But i also agree with the Buddha that impure is not the same as bad, evil, immoral.
I have struggled with this a long time. Because, at first, i saw this strategical behaviour as really evil, as immoral. As crimimal almost. Crafty, slick and sly. I think this is my inner child, my inner childs rejects the kind of wordly wisdom of the adult life.
I have cooled down a little bit. Buddha made me see that impure is not really the same as evil, and i think, like Buddha says in a sutta, that one can also make use of ego and all his/her desires in a positive way.
I also want to share that the world, the society, contacts, it will become really stressful, really problematic, hell-like when people always do something with an intent, goal, aiming at a certain result.
And even love, compassion, wisdom, friendliness is a strategy. Really imagine this world. This social climate is making everyone sick, no doubt about this. Dhamma will go under. It is just a huge mistake that one is really practicing Dhamma when one becomes more and more strategical, crafty, a trademan.
1 Like
Hi,
I don’t know how you came to this view, but folks who believe that final nibbana is a “timeless” something have never stated in my experience that this is a meditative attainment. They recognize final nibbana as the end of the khandhas, but believe there is “something” left over as a kind of timeless bliss beyond time and space – and beyond meditative attainments/states.
In the suttas annhilationists are those who hold to a mistaken view of any kind of self that they believe will cease with death.
True, the final cessation at death for those who incline to a cessation-understanding of final nibbāna is similar to death described by the materialists/annihilationists – with the important exception that the annihilationists and materialists ignore rebirth. Not a small matter, this!
And there is none for an arahant after death.
BTW, we’re free to express ourselves as we wish. However, statements that appear to impugn the understanding of those you’re in dialogue with, such as:
and
and
are judgmental and do not convey useful information that might help to clarify the issue.
3 Likes
Consider this.
If parinibbana is like the atheist’s idea of death.
Then the attainment of cessation of perception & feeling is like the unconsciousness due to fainting.
If there is no discernable truth & reality other than perception & feeling states then the cessation of perception & feeling can be no different to unconsciousness.
If it was true then it would be right to say that people lose consciousness in dependence on the unconstructed.
One won’t be able to delineate the difference between unconsciousness and the attainment of the cessation of perception & feeling having asserted that parinibbana is like the atheist’s idea of death.
1 Like
Except those who have attained the temporary cessation of of perceptions, feelings, and consciousness, reflect and understand in the context of their Dhamma practice the significance of the cessation of all this – as Sariputta said in AN9.34: " …take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end.
1 Like