"I declare ONLY suffering and its cessation." — The Buddha, indeed

[Jasudho]

@Green

You have explained why you believe the uncondioned does not refer to the unconditioned but to the conditioned. You believe it refers to a temporary state that has arisen

Never said it. Never meant it.

@Green

So you find reason to call the conditioned the unconditioned.

Sorry. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

@Green

The unconditioned is not described as something that is seen arising and ceasing.

Trumpets are blaring. We agree.

@Green

how do you think that one can know for sure that lobha, dosa and moha have been totally eradicated in this very life?

Because it says so in hundreds of suttas.

@Green

How do you think the arahants know for sure defilements are really eradicated to a point they just do not arise anymore.

I don’t because I’m not an arahant. This is one of the aspects in which saddha, faith in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is important and relevant.

But also, importantly, we can validate this in ever deepening ways as we practice.
See SN12.23

“Rebirth is a vital condition for suffering. Suffering is a vital condition for faith. Faith is a vital condition for joy. Joy is a vital condition for rapture. Rapture is a vital condition for tranquility. Tranquility is a vital condition for bliss. Bliss is a vital condition for immersion. Immersion is a vital condition for truly knowing and seeing. Truly knowing and seeing is a vital condition for disillusionment. Disillusionment is a vital condition for dispassion. Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom. Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.”

Finally, I don’t think it’s helpful to try to pin down “unconditional”. There’s freedom from dukkha to the extent that this can be while the aggregates and senses remain, and final, complete, cessation of dukkha at the death of an arahant.

I think this is more clear than getting into the weeds with abstract terms like “unconditional”. I mean, it’s used a lot in the suttas, but the term itself appears quite prone to many interpretations and varying views.

The cessation of dukkha, however, being the purpose of the teachings, is more clear and less prone to speculation.

[Green]

@Jasudho

Finally, I don’t think it’s helpful to try to pin down “unconditional”.

Buddha explains the unconditioned as: not seen arising, ceasing and changing in the meantime.
For me the most reasonable interpretation is that one will never ever be able to see dispassion, cessation, emptiness, the uninclined, the stilling of all formations, Nibbana, the end of stress arising. Like something that is made, caused. It is not like that.

It always reveals itself as being present. Like noise and silence. When one removes the sounds it is not that one sees stillness arising. Or, when formations cease one does not see the stilling of formations arising. It is like it was always there.

I believe the Buddha in this context used words like unmade, unproduced, not constructed, unborn, unconditioned.

Am i again wrong?

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@Green

It always reveals itself as being present.

This is an area in which debate remains, even amongst long-term practitioners.
In general, one group tends to view nibbāna as an ineffable ever-present “something” (even though they say it’s not a thing), while another group tends to understand nibbāna as cessation – so, not ever any kind of “thing” or “presence.”

@Green

I believe the Buddha in this context used words like unmade, unproduced, not constructed, unborn, unconditioned.

But KR Norman and others have translated this as “without birth” or “free of birth” which are less likely to be reified into a “something”. Cessation is then without birth, without death…etc.

K.R. Norman on the "unborn" and "deathless"

The Collected Papers of the late K.R. Norman by and large address linguistic issues which have little to no relevance to the practicing Buddhist. But here and there we find some interesting reflections, which may change the way we look at some of the Buddha’s teachings. One is the paper Mistaken ideas about Nibbana. Even it goes into some nitty-gritty stuff, but I thought the following section is of most interest, because the subject has been discussed with relative frequency both here and elsew…

There’s been a lot of discussion about these points on the forum, which you can find via the Search function, if you wish.

[Green]

Yes, i know.

Anyway, i refuse to see the Buddha as the teacher that wipes out every lifestream (vinnana stream) from existence without anything remaining. The Buddha as the Big Eraser.
I refuse to take refuge in this Buddha.

At least about something i feel no doubts at all. This is not my Buddha Jasudho.

So whatever all those Pali words mean, i am not gonna put trust in the Big Eraser.

If this is buddhism, i really turn away from it. It is fine with me that Brahmali and other think this is because i am utmost deluded as beginner, or as myself, and do not see the great worth of ceasing with nothing remaining. Well, fine, good luck with your holy project to cease finally without anything remaining.

Hmmm…no, i do not really mean this. What my heart really says, almost cries, please stop…do not do this. Do not see the holy life like this. Do not see Buddha-Dhamma like this. That is what i really feel but you know that.

[Jasudho]

Hi,

I think you mentioned that you were exploring and not necessarily practicing the Buddhist Path.
In either case, the good news is that the Dhamma has many forms of skillful and beneficial meditations, contemplations, and ethical ways of conduct.
You may wish to read, contemplate, and practice whatever aspects of the Dhamma appeal to you and which lead to greater peace and happiness.
Things will unfold as they do.

Meanwhile, I don’t recall anyone labeling you as:

@Green

utmost deluded as beginner

Nor should anyone.

We’re all on the Path, learning as we go.

[Vaddha]

@cdpatton

In the Sarvāstivāda’s Saṃgītiparyāya, there’s a passage that defines the five aggregates and the five upādāna aggregates, and provides a lengthy commentary on both.

Yes, this is in SN 22.48 / SA 55.

I agree there is a distinction being made here, and I think what you’ve pointed to makes sense. From one perspective I think it is also just a didactic distinction being made for the sake of contemplation and clarity. So, the “grasping-aggregates” are the ones of the non-arahant which are the constituents of existence which are grasped at and result in mental affliction and perpetual samsāra. The ‘plain’ aggregates are just those constituents seen from the phenomenological lens, as you say, i.e. categories for classifying our experience. In both cases, the suttas are clear that the aggregates are characterized by anicca/dukkha/(suñña)/anattā, whether they are grasped or not. But the distinction made here is pointing to how one can be psychologically liberated in regards to these things by setting them down.

Personally, as @Sunyo mentioned, I find this text somewhat Abhidharmic. The Theravādin Abhidhamma apparently interprets these words in very formal and, well, Abhidharmic ways (like the idea that an arahants form can provoke afflictions in other people and is therefore upādāniya, etc.). The language used is relatively unique, it seems, and is not a major theme occurring elsewhere. So I do not want to dismiss the text, and when something seems strange to us that’s usually a sign that it was significant and relevant to others from a different perspective. I just need to give it a little thought.

@cdpatton

So, I personally suspect as I think about it more, that the concept of upādāna kandha was an attempt to describe what exactly āsava is as a psychological process.

This may be, yes. If you have further ideas about it feel free to share! I think that the point may also be, like above, practical, in that it is focusing on the aggregates from the angle of beings who are caught up in them and seeking liberation. Like “these aggregates, which are grasped at and taken up life to life, drawing you in to trap you into suffering.” As opposed to just a dry list of categories. IDK.

@Sunyo

However, it does seem to me that SN22.48 is pretty much an exception. Usually upādānakkhandas just means khandhas in general.

Yes, I’d agree. I think this sutta is using words in a creative way for teaching and explaining details of our experience that is intended to be either helpful or maybe solve/explain some concept that became relevant within the Sangha. To me it’s similar to SN 22.79 for example, where ‘rūpa’ is explained as ‘ruppati’: it does not mean that rūpa is limited to just the body affected by say cold, but it is pointing out specific concepts relevant to contemplation with language as a medium.

@Sunyo

(By the way, another eva (‘only’), to get back to the topic, haha! It’s the same idea again, basically. Magandiya will realize that whatever arises at birth is only aggregates, no self.)

Ah yes, such a delightful passage! I agree with you here, I just don’t think this is sufficient reason to interpret ‘upādānakkhandha’ as ‘upādinna-,’ but I don’t think you are arguing for that either way. I do think that it highlights how ‘upādāna’ is referring to these being what are grasped at throughout samsāra, as in the ‘taken up/acquired’ reading. But I also think it has to do with identification as self, as you’d probably agree. I’d say it’s the identification with the aggregates that is the taking them up in the present and which leads the mind to not be able to let go of them and hold to them through existence after existence (upādānapaccayā bhavo). When the aggregates are seen as non-self via letting go, one understands that it is this process of ignorance with no discoverable beginning which has driven the mind to cling and take up the aggregates by appropriating them, and that they will come to an end with the end of that process (i.e. they won’t be taken up again for further existence once they cease for good at death). In brief, I think this passage includes both normal senses of the word, but you may be saying the same thing

@Sunyo

I would suggest “khandhas, which are taken up, …”, instead of the restrictive ‘that’

Thank you Ven., good suggestion! :)I hadn’t thought about that.

@Sunyo

‘Taking up’ itself already isn’t the most aesthetically pleasing and clumsy at times, although I do think it’s most accurate so I opted to stick with it. I think “taken up khandhas” can also be interpreted as taken up in the past, as well as now. Or not?

I also agree here. Personally, I wouldn’t use ‘taking up’ as of now. I think it’s very accurate, but it’s just too clunky most of the time for me. But I’m not currently doing any major translation so I don’t have to think about it too much. I like ‘appropriate/appropriation’ because it covers both senses of taking up + identification. And it has the connotation that one is taking ‘what is not yours’ by continuing in samsāra. It can be a bit technical sounding though and less immediately clear sometimes, perhaps.

‘Taken up khandhas’ can be read both ways, yes. It’s ambiguous in English, just as the Pāli is. I still think it can be (mis)read as the khandhas when taken up, which is what I pointed out before. But at the end of the day, we really can’t solve people misinterpreting things. This is a central doctrinal term in major doctrinal contexts, so people should come to understand it not just with one translation but with the larger context and explanation. So I don’t think it’s too much of a concern.

Always a delight to correspond Venerable @sunyo ! Thank you for your time and answers Hope you are doing well!

[Green]

@Jasudho

I think you mentioned that you were exploring and not necessarily practicing the Buddhist Path.

What does it mean, practicing the buddhist path? When one delights and aims at a mere cessation? I do not think that this is a buddhist path. And many with me. If you ask buddhist what it means to practice the buddhist path you will hear all kinds of different answers based on a different understanding of what Buddha taught. There is no consensus about anything in buddhism. Not about the goal, not about the means, not about fruits, not about what is taught. About nothing.

At best there is consensus among people with almost the same wishes, disposition, goals, inclinations. They form their own Sangha’s. And often feel they know and teach the one and only true Dhamma.
This lack of consensus is not really different from other religions.

@Jasudho

@Green

utmost deluded as beginner

Nor should anyone.

We’re all on the Path, learning as we go.

You always seem to think i am just saying things without any ground and reason. But fact is, @Brahmali uses the kind of reasoning that people who do not delight in a mere cessation do so because they are utmost deluded in their very strong believe in a self that ceases. They fear that, while one should delight that all ceases. I even read that one must not teach a mere cessation to beginners to not scare them away. Tja…lets not talk about the goal because then people will not become buddhist??

[yeshe.tenley]

Something I am still learning to accept is that I cannot change the views of another through my own power. Even if my motivation is one hundred percent pure and blameless; motivated only for the benefit of others and not at all to promote my own ego and reputation; I don’t possess any power over the views of another. Not even the Teacher had this power; how conceited of me to think I could possess a power the Teacher himself did not have.

[stu]

@Green

I cannot help it…sorry…darkness it is. My heart says: it is oke to seek Truth, to seek the end of suffering, but it is not oke to wish to cease and vanish like a particle entering Earths atmosphere like @Stu said to me and still bothers me.

Hey @Green You’ve mentioned me and this a few times now, and you seem to be perplexed by this simile. At the same time you seem to be misrepresenting what I have stated, so I thought I would address it for you. What I actually said is:

@stu

Why do we say ‘mere’ cessation, when perhaps we should be using a term like ‘spectacular’. I’ve heard it likened to a shooting star. After traveling far across the universe, these tiny (insignificant) specs of dust burn up far above Earth’s surface as they plunge at terrific speeds into the upper atmosphere, making the air around them glow as they pass by, thereby giving a wonderful display to all who witness the spectacle.

What is pessimistic about that? They’ve completed their journey, done what needs to be done, and have gone out leaving a spectacle in their wake - and what’s more, very often they lead more of us (insignificant specs of dust) on to that spectacular cessation.

So this is not about a “wish to cease and vanish” as you put it, it is not about a desire, a craving, a thirst to end existence as in sn56.13, but it is rather about an appreciation, an understanding that all that comes to be ceases.

The simile shows that this process that we are involved in started a very long time ago, so far that we can’t see it’s beginning and it has delusion (avijjā) as it’s sustaining feature. Despite what we desire it will come to an end after that delusion is removed. The Buddha gradually helps us to remove that delusion and the removal of that delusion is most wonderful. While we are still deluded, we will think that there some corner of existence; some lovely realm, where we can exist blissfully and not harm ourselves and/or those around us. You are not alone in wishing that. But it’s the wishing (whether wishing for continued existence or for existence to end) that is the problem.

[yeshe.tenley]

@stu

The simile shows that this process that we are involved in started a very long time ago, so far that we can’t see it’s beginning and it has delusion (avijjā) as it’s sustaining feature.

This is a factor of the path and aligned with right view. It affirms rebirth, kamma, mother and father, the fruits of action and so on. However, it is also a substantialist view believing a self can be found amongst the aggregates. Believing the mere aggregates truly cease as substantial entities necessarily entails a view of true self somehow embodied by the aggregates that truly ceases with nibbana. The image of ourselves as figurative particles burning up in the atmosphere is a beautiful illustration of this frame of reference. Thank you for that!

“I’m goin’ down in a blaze of glory”

– Bon Jovi

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

it is also a substantialist view believing a self can be found amongst the aggregates. Believing the mere aggregates truly cease as substantial entities necessarily entails a view of true self somehow embodied by the aggregates that truly ceases with nibbana.

May I ask how you see this fitting into Dependent Origination? All the causes or “links” are selfless processes.
As in DN15, SN12.11, and SN12.64.
Where do you see a self or any “I, me, mine” in these teachings?

Wood (selfless processes) + spark (selfless processes) → fire (selfless processes with ever-changing appearances)…
…lack of wood/fuel (selfless processes) → fire (selfless processes) goes out/ceases.

Where’s the fire god (any self) in all this?

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

May I ask how you see this fitting into Dependent Origination? All the causes or “links” are selfless processes.
As in DN15, SN12.11, and SN12.64.
Where do you see a self or any “I, me, mine” in these teachings?

I don’t see a substantially existent self in those teachings. I am not sure what you mean by “fitting in” or why you think what I said might be in tension with these teachings.

But I also don’t say that people don’t exist at all or beings don’t exist at all; that they are utterly non-existent. Same with the aggregates.They don’t exist substantially, but they do exist.

Unfortunately, people believe that beings exist substantially and they also believe the aggregates exist substantially. Yet under analysis, neither people nor aggregates can be found.

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

I also don’t say that people don’t exist at all or beings don’t exist at all; that they are utterly non-existent. Same with the aggregates.They don’t exist substantially, but they do exist.

We generally agree, as long as “people” and “aggregates” and “beings” are known as conditional processes.

At the same time,

@yeshe.tenley

neither people nor aggregates can be found.

“Found” meaning what? Just because there is no ongoing essence, can’t your hand be found in your sense experience?

My response, which I’m not sure you addressed was to your assertion that the ending of the aggregates involved

@yeshe.tenley

a substantialist view believing a self can be found amongst the aggregates.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

We generally agree, as long as “people” and “aggregates” and “beings” are known as conditional processes.

Awesome! But then as you have pointed out I have not done a very good job of defining what I mean by “substantially existent” nor am I totally sure what you mean by conditional processes. How about this? At some point I’ll try and open a new topic devoted to fleshing this out or we can do it in PM if you like as I don’t want to hijack this thread further than I already have

[Green]

Hi @stu

Yes, Stu, your words have really had great impact on my heart. Thanks for responding. You are not to blame ofcourse. That is not what i mean. This mere cessation thing just touches my heart. I feel it touches at the core of Dhamma.

Yes, you depart from the idea that Buddha taught that we are dust particles, while that is exactly what he does not teach, i feel. It is only because of identification that we believe we are a dust particle that will come to some imagined spectacular cessation. Fully identified with 5 khandha’s that will cease.
I believe that is the delusion Buddha is aiming to drive away.

Reading the sutta’s, practicing dhamma, i became aware of the total empty open limitess nature of mind which cannot be described or objectified. I have feeling for this element or dimension in my life.
This meaning has the Dhamma for me. It is what makes me know that all i believe about myself, all i think i am, all my self-views are merely the product of grasping and conceivings, mental stories due to grasping.

But when the mind does not conceive, it is sure for me, it is open, empty, limitless and it cannot really be described as this nor that. What is the mind without grasping?
There is an openess when there is no grasping. This empty openess is the result of removing all defilements but one cannot say that one really creates it, or that it is made due to ones effort. It is not like that.

I feel, a Buddha makes us see this empty openess. He opens the gates to the Deathless. Not the gate of mere cessation, but the gate to this empty openess. This openess is what is most familiar to all beings, and this is the reason that they ignore it. It is so self-evident that it totally escapes attention. It is hard to turn to mind away from formations and turn it do this Dhamma that is peaceful, stilled, empty, this openess.

What gets attention? Formations. That is what the mind often only sees. Formations arising. It does not see that what is not seen arising. But the Buddha opens this door. I feel.

When we enter this door we get a taste for the escape of suffering because we see that stilling is never absent, peace is never absent, openess is never absent, dispassion is never absent.
This open dimension becomes our teacher, our guide.

By seeing the domain beyond Mara (Mara is the domain of the conceived) it is like one has found a natural remedy for being trapped in all those mental stories and conceivings. The world is really totally involved and based upon grasping and conceiving.
But seeing the domain of the unconceived is a cure to relativize all this. Also all these positive, negative, neutral ideas about ourselves and others.

Often conceivings rule us.

@stu

While we are still deluded, we will think that there some corner of existence; some lovely realm, where we can exist blissfully and not harm ourselves and/or those around us. You are not alone in wishing that. But it’s the wishing (whether wishing for continued existence or for existence to end) that is the problem

I do not wish this. I have always felt that Buddha teaches that we always have failed to see that when we lived as animals, we were never really animals, and now we live as humans we are not really humans. Only in a conventional way. From a perspective of grasping and identification.
It is mere due to identification with khandha’s that such identity views arise. Mere conceivings due to grasping. It is like thinking one is really a jew, a buddhist, a muslim. Such ideas are mere ideas.

Your true nature, mind without grasping and conceiving, cannot be called human but is also never absent in your life. That is what i believe. It cannot be given any name. It cannot really be described as this or that, and is free of any suffering, from time without beginning. This is our escape, i believe.
This openess is already desireless. It is already dispassionate. It is allready peaceful and unafflicted.
I believe that great masters have dived into this openess which is unfatomable and deep as the ocean.

I stop now participating for some weeks. Wish you all well.

[Jasudho]

Sure. Whatever works for you.

[stu]

@Green

It is like thinking one is really a jew, a buddhist, a muslim. Such ideas are mere ideas.

And of course we can also include thinking that…

@Green

Your true nature, mind without grasping and conceiving, cannot be called human but is also never absent in your life.

is also just a mere idea… loads of meditators have that one! It’s par for the course. I’m sure that you’ll be able to let go of that identity as well. And then you’ll have to watch out for the identify of no-identity. These pesky identities

@Green

I stop now participating for some weeks. Wish you all well.

Cool. Sayonara and good luck with your down time. May it be fruitful

[Green]

I believe…Anicca, dukkha, anatta, ‘this is not me, not mine, not my self’ are merely skillful means to guide us home. That is also what the Buddha sought. A home for himself. He did not seek a mere cessation. There is no sutta who teaches this.

The world around was hollow ,
all directions were in turmoil.
Wanting a home for myself,
I saw nowhere unsettled. (Snp4.15)

I think we can all relate to this. We feel unsafe, unprotected, especially seeing this turmoil, this violence, this suffering, this uncertainty, the helplessness, the reality of becoming, sick, decaying, the dying, deception etc.

So Buddha wanted a home for himself amids all this turmoil. Not that he wanted to cease for ever.

He realised at the end of his search that home is the mind without limits, detached, ultimate protection, safety, reliable, stable, unburdened. A total openess which is impossible to describe with words because there is nothing to objectivy it. This openess cannot be hurt, it cannot be afflicted, it can be wounded, it cannot improve or worsen. It remains unaffected. He found what he sought.

Now he started to guide others to home. He taught…‘please Green, do not seek shelter in what is not you, make no home of impermanent formations or of any impermanent state such as jhana or some other conditioned state. Please Green, do not make it your home. Please, it is not stable and will cease. That nature is never home. I know Green, you have the tendency to seek refuge in things, or persons, or doctrines that are impermanent, like others, but stop feeding these instincts’

He told me, i saw it is true but my body and mind do not yet really know it

Buddha was sure that nothing of this nature to cease is worth seeking and grasping.
Not that he saw life really all as negative, dark, pessimistic and suffering, He taught beauty in life, satisfaction, delight, great happiness, almost endless long happiness, but it is all temporary and the peace, anxiety-free reality if home is even greater.

It is not that a Buddha teaches that existence only means suffering. He teaches that all aspect are present…arising, ceasing, the danger in things, the satisfaction in things, and the escape. He was not a pessimist. He had no view that life is only suffering. When he teaches that all formation are suffering, that is only to guide us home and stop feeding the instinct to seek happiness, protection, refuge in what is unreliable of nature. So, he show the Path to the Unconditioned, that what is not seen arising, changing and ceasing, asankhata.

He met in the place Central people who believed that there is nothing stable and nothing not liable to cease. They did not long for home but they longed to cease without anything remaining. They saw this as the highest goal of the holy life. To them he taught the inspired verse of Ud8.3. He told them…there IS an escape of suffering, there is a home, really, the unmade, unbecome, unconditioned, the stable.

Buddha found home as the end of suffering and the end of suffering as home. So he guides us home which he also himself sought and found. At death only what has never been our home ceases. That knowledge is the knowledge of an arahant and Buddha. I believe

@stu

Cool. Sayonara and good luck with your down time. May it be fruitful

Sorry i felt the need to do something

[stu]

@Green

Not that he saw life really all as negative, dark, pessimistic and suffering,

@Green

It is not that a Buddha teaches that existence only means suffering

@Green

He had no view that life is only suffering.

Well, maybe but on the other hand … an1.328 and 329-332

“Just as, mendicants, even a tiny bit of fecal matter still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”

“Just as even a tiny bit of urine, or spit, or pus, or blood still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”

[Green]

Ofcourse, that is all to guide us home. To show us the Path.

Our usual obession with anything that is impermanent, like nice feelings, nice mental states, nice existences, our usual drift to seek our happiness in that, our safety, our protection, our future, does not bring us home but away from home. That is what Buddha teaches, i feel.

I have never ever said that i approve of continued existence. Because that is also the same as approving of a mere cessation. Dhamma is not about both, for me.
Home is not like continue to exist as animal, deva, humans etc. Home is the end of rebirth, but, i believe it must not be seen as a mere cessation nor as some eternal state of atta.