You can say that “anatta” is real.
Arising-ceasing is both anicca and anatta.
1 Like
“But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would the view arise: ‘Winds don’t blow; rivers don’t flow; pregnant women don’t give birth; the moon and stars neither rise nor set, but stand firm like a pillar’?”
“No, sir.”
Then, understanding his own giving up of the concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions, on that occasion the Buddha expressed this heartfelt sentiment:
“There is no proliferation remaining in them,
the reins and bar are escaped;
the sage who lives without craving
is never scorned by the world with its gods.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.248/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
“Bhikkhus, ‘I am’ is a proliferation; ‘I am this’ is a proliferation; ‘I shall be’ is a proliferation … ‘I shall be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’ is a proliferation. Proliferation is a disease, proliferation is a tumour, proliferation is a dart. Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will dwell with a mind devoid of proliferation.’
https://suttacentral.net/mn11/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
‘But, friends, is that goal for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation, or for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation?’ Answering rightly, they would answer: ‘Friends, that goal is for one who does not delight in and enjoy proliferation, not for one who delights in and enjoys proliferation.’
“Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and disputes, of accusations, divisive speech, and lies. This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.”
2 Likes
Thanks for the sutta quotes about the cessation of proliferation.
What I find puzzling is that your earlier quote from AN4.173 seems to say that proliferation is inevitable, unless the 6 fields of contact cease.
I think “proliferation” is a translation of papanca?
1 Like
Actually it is not puzzling!
Existence = proliferation
Non-existence = unproliferated or not proliferation
Existence = self (believing that ‘I’ exist)(you and me)
Nonexistence = anatta or absence of self
Here in above paragraph stated by venerable…whenever you are saying something you are pointing towards existence which is not the characteristics of nirvana. I think Nirvana is between existence and non existence.
See you, me, venerable or evey single person here and in the world and every single thing here and in the world is characterized by ‘existence’ for people like you and me. Now when you try to understand nirvana from this existence or to be more precise, when ‘you’ try to understand nirvana(successfully), it will point towards nonhexistence. Because this self of you and me which is trying to understand nirvana, cannot understand or accept something which is in between existence and non-existence. Existence is arising, non-existence is ceasing. Now nirvana is not characterized by either existence or non-existence.
This means there are two things only, 1st is existence and 2nd is non-existence(utter annihilation)(not death)(for person who is not arhat it is same as death).
So whenever we discuss nirvana we are talking in terms of existence. Hence when we say, “When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else exists” we are still talking in terms of existence or proliferation, hence it is like proliferating the unproliferated. When we say, ‘‘nothing else exists’’, we are still proliferating the unproliferated. When we again say, “both something else and nothing else exist”, we are still proliferating the unproliferated. When we again say, “neither something else nor nothing else exists”, we are still proliferating the unproliferated.
So whenever we try to define nirvana or ultimate truth in concepts, it will be like proliferating the unproliferated. Only reason being ‘we’ as selves are ‘trying to understand nirvana’.
Now our conclusion which is not contradictory to anything in sutta can be, nirvana is something which is in between existence and non-existence but it is not ‘something’!
Having said that nirvana is something which is not characterized by both existence and non-existence, nirvana is that which is in between them, the normal people like many here when they have read some sutras and have little understanding will conclude that nirvana means ‘non-existence’. Reason for this conclusion is that, whenever we will point(successfully) towards nirvana from existence, we will point towards non-existence only. As nirvana is towards non-existence but is is not ‘non-existence’.
In simple words nirvana is outside ‘existence’.
What is outside the existence? Answer is ‘non-existence’.
But in reality nirvana is not characterized by ‘non-existence’ as well. Hence for ordinary person like YOU and ME who is not arhat nor non-returner nor once-returner nor sotapanna, nirvana is ‘non-existence’.
When venerable said above …
Now this scope of existence is actually the scope of six fields of proliferation and it will point to non-existence only till we will try to understand nirvana through these six fields of existence/proliferation. So if you ask what is nirvana to arhat, so to make sure you don’t misunderstand, arhat will answer pointing towards non-existence.(in reality arhat will answer neither in terms of existence nor in terms of non-existence, but it is you who will understand it only as non-existence). So for us it is non-existence but for arhat it is neither existence nor non-existence, because for arhat there is no one to understand it in any terms.
Yes it is puzzling for you (and me as well) because we are not arhats to find that non-puzzling! 
Sadhu to you @Martin for reaching this understanding. Because you find this puzzling shows that you are very close to right view regarding nirvana the ultimate teaching of lord buddha.
Correct me plz venerable if I am wrong somewhere.
@NgXinZhao
3 Likes
Not me, see, I quote suttas, you should read the suttas to find that it’s not my wordings. Fine, I shall make them into quote blocks.
I think this is proliferating the unproliferated.
2 Likes
I meant that only sir.
Yes sir i I ubderstand that it is like proliferating the unproliferated…but I used that as convention only to answer Martin only. Not as ultimate saying. Because using words in any way will be like proliferating the unproliferated. But I tried to use proliferated here to point towards unproliferated.
1 Like
We need to be quite careful with these comparisons. There are two uses of the term impermanent in Tibetan Buddhisms, and even different Tibetan traditions clash and talk passed each other because of this. One usage refers to nothing being static. The other use refers to something that has no beginning or end. Some, in conversations about whether Buddha Nature is permanent of impermanent, for example, will say it is impermanent because the mind of a Buddha is not static and frozen in time, and another, will say it is permanent because it has no beginning or end and is ever present (remember that Buddhahood is not extinction of the mind stream for Mahāyāna). These are not necessarily contradictory things, and even Tibetans can get confused by sectarian differences in semantic use.
3 Likes
I think when we look at arhats it seems extinction to only those who are ordinary people like us, who are not even stream-enterers hence many misunderstand it. Arhat is said to have given up all the concepts, so there is high chance that extinction is also one of those concepts!
2 Likes
It is totally possible. But I am speaking in technicalities here. I am someone who sees a lot more agreement between Buddhist schools than some others, with a bit of a Mahāyāna eye. But in terms of technicalities, some theravadins or EBT followed will see Mahāyāna goals as clinging to permanence and orthodox Mahāyānists will say that the Arhats just think they are attaining their goal of extinction but will wake up in a pureland where they now have to start the Bodhisattva path. I mean to me a lot of this sounds like sectarian gibberish on both ends and playing a semantics game with a failure of contextualizing how the teachings work as a whole in each system, but also, I am not one to also just discount the differences completely either.
2 Likes
Yes I am also one of those! I actually believe that there is agreement only. I have read many Mahayana suttas, many EBT. So I don’t see any contradiction anywhere because I believe if we see contradiction, then we are misunderstanding something definitely.
It is degree of perfections which is different, but perfections are important for all the three vehicles.
One can be Bodhisattva only if one is qualified to be arhat. So all those who think they are Bodhisattva that they are embarking on grand pathway different than arhat…are having beautiful wrong view.
Lord Gautama Buddha also said, he became Bodhisattva at the feet of Lord Dipankara…only after that he was called Bodhisattva! So how can person with many defilements call himself Bodhisattva!
So I think it is appropriate to wish to be Bodhisattva…but to say I am Bodhisattva would be definitely wrong view!
Buddha never told his disciples to be Bodhisattva! It’s everyone’s own aspiration.
My understanding is it’s actual harder to become arhat than to become Bodhisattva, because it’s easy to do practice generosity, limited morality and limited virtue while living with family while wishing to be Bodhisattva but to renounce the entire samsara is hardest thing!
There is one abstract from text called The Great Chronicle Of Buddhas…where it is said that why venerable sariputra when serving the Lord Anomadassi one asankheya and one hundred thousand aeons ago, as a person named sarada failed to become arhant!
Here it is…
Sarada’s Aspiration for Chief Discipleship
It may be asked: Why did he fail to attain arahatship though he was a great teacher? The answer is: Because he was then distracted. Expanded answer: Since the time when Nisabha the Chief Disciple(of Lord Anomadassi Buddha), the Right Flanker, started preaching, Sarada had been repeatedly distracted by the thought: “It would be well if I should gain the same position as this Chief Disciple’s in the dispensation of the Buddha to come.” Because of this distraction, Sarada failed to penetrated and gain the knowledge of the Path and Fruition. (He was left behind with no acquisition of the magga and phala)
So it can be said, wish to be Bodhisattva, would be biggest distraction for achieving nibbana which is the ultimate goal of every person!
Buddha also entered nirvana in the end, great arhats also entered nirvana. So in the end, whatever path you follow, you will enter city of nirvana only and in nirvana there is no distinction!
I can refute any orthodox mahayanist, but I never got to have conversation with such one yet. 
1 Like
Well from a Mahāyāna perspective, any contradiction is a question of skillful means. Emptiness suggests that different and seemingly contradictory truths spoken in conventional language are just that and necessary because people are all different with different needs. Where I disagree with the mahayanists, even though I am one in terms of tradition, is that there is a hierarchy—the mahayanist arrogance, so to speak. Instead I see the differences to be historical developments that speak to the questions and needs of their time. And those differences matter. Claiming they don’t is just the flip side of that arrogance, they are all true under the Ultimate Mahāyāna Truth. Whereas, I rather approach the texts and teachings as being more or less important in how they speak to me in a particularly given time and place in my life.
1 Like
My understanding is this…
Nirvana is same as dhamma. Dhamma means ultimate reality, which is not created nor destroyed it is there already, we just can’t see it. And buddha said, one who sees dhamma sees me. Also nirvana is deathless and uncreated, dhamma is also deathless and uncreated, it is just rediscovered! So dhamma is itself nirvana. So when we see dhamma, we see tathagata. So tathagata is dhamma which is itself nirvana. One who wants to experience tathagata, tries to walk Bodhisattva path and one who wants to go where tathagata dwells(he is in nirvana), one should go to nibbana straight which is highest blessing!
1 Like
The Pali suttas say about Tathāgatās:
Mendicants, whether Tathāgatās arise or not arise, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles:
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
AN 3.136
New Concise Pali English Dictionary
uppāda
masculine
- an unusual or startling event, taken as a portent; the interpretation of portents
- (masculine) coming into being, appearance; production
anuppāda either “not coming into existence”
The Pali suttas say about Dhamma Law (dhammaniyāma):
Mendicants, whether Tathāgatās arisen or not arise, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles:
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṁ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṁ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
AN 3.136
New Concise Pali English Dictionary
ṭhita
past participle adjective & neuter
- standing; being, staying (in any state or condition, often with absolutive); remaining, existing, present; firm, steady
- standing
4 Likes
do you think nibbana is outside of “the all” ?
If by ‘the all’ you mean existence…then yes nirvana is outside the all. I would say that, the all is in nirvana, and everything outside the all is also in nirvana.
I have an analogy…
See whenever arhats passed in parinibbana, they(even Lord Buddha) went from 1st jhana to 8th then from 8th to 1st, then again 1st to 4th…then after reaching 4th one they vanished right there…
Point is that, form realms are till 4th jhana, formless ones are above/after 4th jhana…so we can clearly conclude that, nirvana is something between form realm and formless realm. That’s why I said above that, it might be between existence and non-existence.
If nirvana was above formless realms, then those arhats(their mind continuum)would have vanished after going to 8th jhana(highest formless jhana)…but that’s not the case! They came down step by step…till first again…and then again went up …but till 4th only! The highest form jhana…and then vanished.
So it is neither arising, nor persishing…hence it is deathless. That’s how I think it is…
Although this is just speculation 
which can be wrong as well
1 Like
I mean as how Buddha explained in his fire sermon discourse
sn35.28
“Mendicants, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?The eye is burning. Sights are burning. Eye consciousness is burning. Eye contact is burning. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact is also burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Burning with rebirth, old age, and death, with sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
The ear … nose … tongue … body …
The mind is burning. Thoughts are burning. Mind consciousness is burning. Mind contact is burning. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact is also burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Burning with rebirth, old age, and death, with sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, I say.
so you see it as outside of the all ?
mn49
“‘Having directly known liquid as liquid… fire as fire… wind as wind… beings as beings… devas as devas… Pajāpati as Pajāpati… Brahmā as Brahmā… the radiant as radiant… the beautiful black as the beautiful black… the sky-fruit as the sky-fruit… the conqueror as the conqueror…“‘Having directly known the all as the all, and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn’t the all, I wasn’t in the all, I wasn’t coming forth from the all, I wasn’t “The all is mine.” I didn’t affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.’
“‘If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.’
“‘Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,has not been experienced through the earthness of earth… the liquidity of liquid… the fieriness of fire… the windiness of wind… the allness of the all.’
the Buddha above explained that consciousness without surface is outside of the all
an4.174
“If you say that ‘when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘both something else and nothing else exist’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. If you say that ‘neither something else nor nothing else exist’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated. The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact. The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”
I am bit confuse here as I think when Buddha said consciousness without surface is outside of the all I think he too proliferated the unproliferated, what do you think ?
of course this topic is very related to mahayana’s Buddha nature, luminous mind, non duality, etc but please don’t discuss those
1 Like
I am also confused because:
- We have different translations regarding the term consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ): simply look up the translations from Venerable @sujato here and compare with the translation from Venerable Ṭhānissaro.
- I am not sure that the claim about viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ is from the Buddha. It seems to me from the Pali that such claim actually came from Brahmā Baka. If you look at this section here, such claim really looks like coming from Brahmā Baka, not from the Buddha at all.
Of course, if it turns out that such claim about came from Brahmā Baka then we won’t have to be confused anymore.
1 Like
of course
that’s another way to solve that contradiction
but Buddha is the one there who claims to know something that is beyond the all, is knowing proliferation too ? if it’s then Buddha still proliferate the unproliferated, wdyt ?
I don’t think so. Why do you think that knowing is proliferation?
I think Off course we can say he too proliferated, but in order to teach us…he has to do that. For example…the goal is to go to other shore…and there is raft created by buddha. Well who knows (maybe)when we will get to the other shore, we will realise that ultimately there is nothing as raft. But to have this understanding or experience, we have to use the raft! I feel one can get lost in speculating too much if one doesn’t sit and practice.
We can say that he too proliferated the unproliferated…because he has to do that…because we are unaware of reality. Hence he has to use proliferation to teach unproliferated. Maybe that’s how it is!
Yes…I see it… thank you for citing sutta and correcting my words!
1 Like