How does one really know if an ineffable dhamma exists? Or…
What argument/proof could someone use to prove the existence of something ineffable?
The Dhamma is evident as true based on the success of the attainments of it’s students and proprietors. From Stream-Entry to Arhatship to Supreme Perfect Enlightenment, this has shown us to be true by those who follow the Dhamma. The Water that comes from the Well has been shown to quench our thirsts. I may not be Enlightened, but something in my capacity to get there, which all will always have, tells me that Shakyamuni Buddha is already there.
Sitting at the root of a tree or an empty hut and seeing for oneself?
Well it would depend on your definition of “ineffable dhamma”.
If by that, you mean nothing that can be ultimately spoken of, then I guess it applies to all dhammas, because all descriptions are only conventionally so, and are ultimately wrong.
If you mean a dhamma that can’t be even conventionally spoken of, I don’t think such a thing exists. We do have a word for it - ineffable - so it resolves into a paradox.
I think a healthy way to view the concept of ineffability as “I’m not able to talk about it right now” for things we don’t have a conventional ability to talk about (for example, a child tasting something for the first time and unable to talk about their experience). And ultimately, all realities are beyond the logico-linguistic parameters, so all realities are ultimately ineffable.
I believe that the history of philosphy can show with some stringency that the full nature of reality is out of reach for human perception.
Arguably, the paradoxes that quantum physics face since almost a century point to the same conclusion.
With our cognition limited, it follows for that same cognition that there must be things beyond it. Of course, this leads into a circular argument which merely confirms the hypothesis again.
So in short: We cannot objectively know whether there is an Ineffable or not.
As for ancient Buddhism, I believe that the Dhamma is inferred to by the phenomenon of deep meditation: A state of complete disattachment possible for human beings without physical death. This is enough for the pre-scientifc mind to conclude the existence of a spiritual reality or unconditioned element.
Following Harivarman, an ineffable dharma would be a dharma that is not graspable by any of the six consciousnesses. There is no way to establish the existence of such a dharma. In other words, what reason would anyone have to believe in such an ineffable dharma?
Perhaps someone who’s been Awakened to something Higher than the six consciousnesses and has been in a Transcendental state that is beyond anything we can describe, such as the Buddha, has confidently inspired this Dhamma in many people, and there have been many results and similar Awakenings along the Way as Buddhism unfolds.
I don’t see any reason to believe in another type of conciousness. Do you see?
Beyond consciousness is Nibbana as far as I understand it.
How could nibbāna beyond consciousness be known in any way if there is no consciousness?
It’s beyond the Saha World, those experiencing it are in a place, Spiritually, that fulfills them beyond what we call or understand as consciousness.
Imagine everything you know and experience now is gone. But let me try to explain it in words: you go somewhere Higher, Spiritually. Those are simple words, but I believe the fear in abandoning Samsara has to do with the attachments we are still holding onto here.
Buddha describes the 6 sense-vinnanas as moments of sensing something. Sensing a sound, smell, idea, emotion, tactile cessation, volition, a feeling etc. Being aware of something. That is the nature of the knowing of the 6 sense vinnanas. A knowing that is sensual of nature.
A condition for such sense moments to arise is the presence of awareness or a knowing element that is itself not a sense vinnana. Sense vinnanas cannot arise in vacuum, space, or only based upon the rupa-body.
We can call this basic element of knowing, the basic receptivity of the mind. There is a very basic ability to detect raw sense info, and know that something is present.
Before this info is interpreted, or leads to this and that reactions.
The absence of sense vinnanas does never imply the absence of this basic ability to know, which is very subtle. It is also not true that there is no ability to know under narcosis, in deep dreamless sleep or in the absence of all 6 sense vinnanas. It is just not tenable.
Is all knowing sensual of nature? I feel it is not. There is a deeper more subtle kind of knowing at the base, a bare receptivity. And i believe also this fragment must be understood that way:
All things are preceded by the mind,
surpassed by the mind, created by the mind. (dhp1)
Nothing of what is sensed, perceived, felt, known via the senses, is not preceded by a very basic form of knowing, a pure receptive aspect. There it all starts as it were.
The suttas do not suggest that there is only that kind of knowing that is sensual of nature. That would also make it insupportable.
And from here we can continue the discussion, not assuming that all knowing relies on sense vinnanas but that sense vinnanas rely on an element of knowing that is, unlike sense vinnanas, constant present.
In the classic list of qualities of the Dhamma (see AN 11.11 for example), the sixth and final quality is: “to be personally experienced by the wise.” This means that it can only be known by oneself and can’t be proven to others. I haven’t known Nibbana for myself, so I take it on faith that it is as the Buddha described. A good way to think about faith is as a working hypothesis. Faith is also something that grows. It starts out fairly blind but gradually strengthens as one directly sees the results of practice.
I think Ajahn Jayasaro describes the right attitude toward things that can only be taken on faith in the video below (it is linked to start at the correct point of a Q&A section). He is answering a question about past Buddhas, but the attitude applies to all “unknowable” things such as rebirth, Nibbana, etc. The suttas he references or alludes to are SN 56.31 (when he mentioned leaves) and MN 95 (when he speaks of the attitude of caring for the truth—I think this is one of the most important suttas in the Canon).
Hi,
But that’s what the question is: how can there be an “experiencing” in any way if it’s beyond (I take you to mean without) consciousness of any sort?
It’s one thing to express metaphysical beliefs…
yet how do you assert an “experience,” however ineffable and indescribable, without consciousness?
It’s like saying, " A peaceful and beautiful heaven is experienced while completely unconscious and unaware."
That is your interpretation.
And yet…what does the entire verse say?
This verse as a whole is not about some metaphysical “mind or knowing” outside of mind, but about kamma.
This is the context of the entire verse as the next lines clearly state:
If one speaks or acts
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena,
with a corrupted mind,
bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Then suffering follows,
Tato naṁ dukkhamanveti,
As a track follows a wheel.
cakkaṁva vahato padaṁ.
The verse, and the next one, are about speaking and acting ( via cetanā/kamma) and the sorrowful or happier effects (vipāka) depending on whether the intentions/speaking/actions are corrupted or pure.
It’s not an ontological teaching but is a description of practical import regarding kamma. Context matters, yes?
Also, if you understand mind here to be beyond the senses etc., how can it be corrupted?
The verse says:
"Manasā ce paduṭṭhena,…" corrupted mind. It doesn’t say “inherently pure mind covered by defilements.”
We can all believe as we wish, but why add views that are not in this particular teaching?
All best
Even when you feel that my reference to dhp1 is wrong or does not support the presence of a knowing element before sense vinnana’s arise, still science and common sense support this.
Because there must first be something that receives or detects the raw sense info. That is itself not a sense vinnana. Then this raw info is processed, given a meaning, interpreted and this we experience as sense vinnanas.
On a deeper knowing level there is no greeness of grass but the greeness of grass is the result of a proces, an interpretation of raw sense-info. They eye-vinnana gives this magical impression that grass is green.
But without that basic receptivity or knowing ability, there is just no base for the arising of 6 sense vinnanas.
Different buddhist sects seem to have developed different ideas about this.
By the way, you also know that Dhp1 is heavily debated in buddism. That it is not an ontological teachings is your interpretation. I have seen bhikkhus for which it is.
But lets focus on a knowing element that precedes sense vinnanas and needs to be there otherwise sense vinnanas cannot arise. Do you agree that sense vinnanas arise as interpretations of raw sense info?
some people insist that …only vinnana knows… or. … that there is only knowing due to sense vinnanas… or…only a sensual knowing. They always assume that when the 6 sense vinnanas cease there must be some absence, blacking out, absence of all knowing. …and this idea needs to be adressed. Also in this topic.
Buddhist meditation masters share that it is not the case that knowing ceases when there is no sensing happening. But if you insist that all knowing must be gone when there are no sense vinnanas’ that is also irrational, because sense vinnanas themselves do not arise without a preceding element of knowing. And this is never absent in sleep, during day, under narcose etc. If one has no yet the discernment of this knowing, oke, then one probably blacks out but great buddhist masters tell something else.
Hi,
Science is not common sense or, better, is not limited by it.
Common sense has lead some spiritual teachers to espouse doctrines that the Buddha refuted.
You’re making declarative statements about consciousness when consciousness has not even been defined; there are feedback loops and levels of consciousness – which is a process or set of processes, not a “thing.” This applies to both the sciences and the Dhammna.
Agree.
Some schools of the Mahayana teach about a formless, timeless, Buddha Mind or timeless everlasting/everpresent awareness like rigpa in the Dzogchen tradition.
But these are not directly attested to in the Pāli Nikāyas.
The teachings in the suttas that folks cite to support a timeless “whatever” tend to come from verses that are metaphorical, and/or few in number compared to clear and direct teachings that are otherwise, and/or at the least, very open to different interpretations.
It’s not that anyone has to believe someone else’s interpretations or understandings.
But imo it helps to check in with what the Buddha taught over and over again to see if there’s alignment.
So explain saññāvedayitanirodha. As in SN48.40:
It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sabbaso nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṁ samatikkamma saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ upasampajja viharati,
That’s where the faculty of equanimity that’s arisen ceases without anything left over.
ettha cuppannaṁ upekkhindriyaṁ aparisesaṁ nirujjhati
But that’s your speculation and interpretation. Ok.
Where is this clearly taught by the Buddha?
My impression is @Jasudho that some people just resist any esoteric understanding of Dhamma or even what might have such a flavour. I think to understand that this is because of certain sentiments, bad experiences. That is what i think to see. They insist a certain pure rational interpretation of the suttas. Well, i do not have this bad experiences or antipathy. I feel that rational is to coarse of an understanding, and for me it feels like one does not get to the heart of Dhamma this way.
But probably we also must accept that some people will not meet from heart to heart and will always understand things differently.
Sure, but it is also not like this that when people over and over again read the suttas they come to the same understanding.
Without anything left over refers here to that faculty of equanimity that is now totally ceased with anything left over it. It does not mean that all has ceased. Such is also impossible. Even in sannavedayitanirodha not all ceases. And asankhata dhatu, of course, cannot even cease.
Well, if Buddha can speak of this dimension:
“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (ud8.1)
You can be 100% sure, i feel, that there is knowing beyond sensing. Of course sense vinnana cannot know this dimension.
To think this dimension describes the situation of the ceased khandhas of the arahant with nothing left over, is, i feel extremely weird. That is not a dimension of course, and to even speak of it in terms as above is absurd.
Buddha is clearly describing something transcedental. But people resist, i feel.
And if Buddha was able to discern the cessation of perception and feeling you can also be 100% sure, i feel, that he knew this state directly. Because we can also discern the cessation of perception and feeling every day after we wake up and remember afterwards there were no perceptions and feelings for a great part. But such cannot, of course, be the cessation of perception and feeling the Buddha knew and taught.
Also Nibbana is taught as directly known and is described as everlasting peace, so if this can be known it is surely not known by sense vinnanas.
Probably you think this about peace refers to the end of all, a mere cessation, nothing left over after a last death. I feel also such is really a very weird irrational interpretation. As if Buddha would really talk about mere cessation as peace. There is of course nothing peaceful in cessation of all. Is a flame gone out now peaceful? Buddha would never talk this way about peace. A peace not known is mere an idea.
This insistence on nothing transcedental, leads to the most weird ideas about Dhamma i feel.
But we have had this meeting many times before. I am apparantly not able to reach you and you not me.
But now i stop this debate and stop for a while and take some rest.
To further enhance Ud8.1 that you quoted, I’ll just chime in with MN 115:
There are these two elements:
the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements, they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.”
I just wanted to add to my response because I feel now that it was incomplete.
The Dhamma can’t be proven to others in the sense of a scientific proof or shared reality. For example, I can show a child how when I grab an object, hold it out in front of me and then drop it, it falls to the ground. It will happen every time. This is a shared reality that can’t be argued with. The Dhamma can’t be shown in this way.
But the Dhamma can be shown in a way that requires the right set of conditions in an individual to see it. When you read or hear the Dhamma or see well-practicing monastics, if the conditions are right (i.e. you has sufficient wisdom) you will have a sense there’s something profound underlying that. Pursuing that for oneself, one’s conviction in this sense of the ineffable becomes stronger. In that way, the Dhamma encourages investigation (the 4th quality of Dhamma) and leads inward (the 5th quality). Essentially: Though the Dhamma can’t be proven, it can be shown for those with eyes to see.
For that reason, I think it’s of utmost importance for a Buddhist or anyone interested in Buddhism to spend time around well-practicing monastics in person. Reading books, listening to talks, or watching videos can’t replicate this. You can see for yourself human beings who have an aura of peace and happiness about them that you have never seen in others before, despite their living an austere and disciplined life. And you can learn the Dhamma from them, seeing the wisdom there. You think, “Maybe there is really something transcendent there, something that can be brought into lived experience, something worth striving for.” Then you practice the Dhamma and through a gradual process, confirm it more and more. I believe that, eventually, the ineffable Dhamma is realized. And on the way there, happiness occurs more and more often—it’s important to remember that Buddhist practice is a path of happiness for both oneself and others.*
*EDIT: Just wanted to add that this happiness arises gradually. Ajahn Jayasaro has a simile about progress on the path (I recall him saying he heard it from a Thai master). My paraphrase: It’s more like going out walking in the fog instead of the rain. When you go out in rain, you immediately feel the wetness. But when you go out in the fog, you don’t notice yourself getting wet. However, as you walk more and more, you come to find your whole body soaked.