How can nibbana be achieved if it is causeless and unconditioned?

Enough with trying to explaining it, it is tiresome for me.

Perhaps someone else can explain to you why the six categories are called everything and why it is not possible to describe anything repudiating the allness of the six.

Until then you can either reject it or take it on faith.

For example, the eye in this schema cannot see trees. It can see forms, colours but it cannot see trees. But i feel this does not mean there is no material structure outside. It is not that perceiving creates the tree. An oak does not arise from my mind but from an acorn.

The length of this discussion and the confusion that arises is dependent on treating “nibbana” as a noun subject to the verb “being” consider:

  • Nibbana is …
  • Is nibbana … ?
  • Can nibbana be … ?

I don’t have much to add to the discussion at this time other than to say it’d be wise to be very careful when treating “nibbana” as a noun subject to the verb “being.”

It’s like a sharp double edged blade, where one edge cuts the eternalist and another cuts the annihilationist, to properly handle one must avoiding grasping the edges.

1 Like

Namo Buddhaya!

I’ll explain this a little more, just for the record.

It is really a matter epistemology

The arisen thought is agreed upon as being real because it’s essentially the epistemological measure of truth.

This is not the case for that which one thinks about.

That which one thinks about may or may not be as real as the thought.

If that which one thinks about was as real as the thought about it then unicorns would be asserted to be as real as the thought verbalized as ‘unicorn’ and this isn’t true. The thought ‘unicorn’ is real but the ‘unicorn’ isn’t as real as the thought.

That which is called & thought about as thinking is equally real as ‘thought’ because these are conjoined and one can’t separate them. In as far as there is thinking there is thought, and in as far as there is thought there is thinking.

It follows that what is called & thought about as seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and sensing, these are equally real to thinking because these are also self-evident. Thinking is a truth & reality because there is thinking and seeing is a truth & reality because there is seeing.

This is radically different from Decartés '‘I think therefore ‘I am’’ because here ‘Thinking is because there is thinking’ or ‘thinking is therefore there is thinking’.

This is kind of like a case being ruled upon in the supreme court. The final ruling of the supreme court is effectively the justice not because the ruling is justice but because there is no higher court where the ruling can be overturned.

Therefore just as the supreme court establishes the measure for justice, so does thinking about truth & reality establishes the measure for truth & reality.

Further it’s all about inference of truth from what is truth.

The eye is equally real as seeing & that which is seen because this is demonstrable in that seeing depends on mind, eye and the visible form.
The nose…
The tongue…
The ear…
The body is equally real as sensing & that which is sensed because this is demonstrable in that sensing depends on mind, eye and that which is sensed with the body.

Everything else that can be inferred from this will be included in either of the six categories
Eye & forms
Ear & sounds
Nose & aromas
Tongue & tastes
Body & sensations
Mind & dhammas

non-inclination to & non grasping of every conditioned thing

Hello Venerable,

I would like to come back to your comment. Indeed, MN 5 says that the “cause and reason” for the fact that a “defiled person who is aware of their own defilement is superior to a defiled person who is unaware of their own defilement” is that it can be expected that the “defiled person who is aware of their own defilement” will remove their defilement.

Thus, if the word “hetu” meant “cause” in the sense of “anterior thing leading to a posterior effect”, MN 5 would make little sense. Indeed, saying that “the fact that it can be expected that the ‘defiled person who is aware of their own defilement will remove their defilement’ produces the fact that the defiled person who is aware is superior” is very strange, and surely not what the Buddha meant. It seems to me that “hetu” does not necessarily mean a cause in the sense of production.

Therefore, perhaps in the suttas saying that nibbana has a “cause and reason,” we should not understand “hetu” in the sense of “production.”

What do you think, Venerable ?

Thank you in advance.

Put out the fire and it will stop burning.