Important controversies in short

Discussion
42

Thanks Yeshe. I know you meant it this way. I think 15 years ago i asked someone on a weekend retraite on the life of Naropa in the pause to show me a tree. So, he walked to it and touched it and he said…here, this is the tree. I said…no, that is not the tree, you show me the stem. This went on some while from different angles, pointing to different things… In the end he admitted that he was not able to show me the tree.

I figured out that there is huge difference between what can be a direct object of the senses (direct knowledge) and what cannot. A tree can never be a direct object of the senses or a terrorist or the world or an eternal atta or eternal creator. There is huge difference between direct knowledge and conceiving.

We call something a tree…IF…it is made of certain organic material, has as certain form and height (we distinguish tree from bush). All these things we automatically judge and have learned. We are not born with this info. But some moment in time we start to confuse concepts with what is directly perceived.
We start to think we see concepts. This becomes our world.
So it is completely logic that concepts, like a tree, or the world, cannot be perceived by the senses.

I also had a time that i was intent on determinating flowers in nature. But at some moment i realised that my ability to just walk in the nature, freely, openly decreased. In stead of seeing, i was thinking. I stopped immediately this determination business. All these signs are burdensome to the mind, i feel.
It is nice to abide in the signless. That is peaceful, open. That is also not something very exotic and only for enlightend persons.

43

Is this all really relevant?

44

Ah yes, but how would I include that which is not locatable?

1 Like
45

That is right but still this river Nile has certain characteristics that distinguishes from the river Amazone or Donau such as a certain location, form, a source from which it springs. There is really something that makes it the river Nile and not the Amazone. In this sense the river Nile can really be found as an existing thing after analyses. This river Nile is really different from other things and other rivers.

1 Like
46

I have learned: There is the Dhamma of Realisation and the Dhamma of Teachings.

The Dhamma of Realisation is the definitive removal of all defilements which results naturally in the Peak of Peace called Nibbana. Only when temporary states lead to the uprooting of all defilements they are conducive to the goal. But if jhana only strenghten rupa and arupa raga, for example, then even those jhana’s are not conducive to the goal.

The most excellent dhamma is not sannavedayitanirodha nor any jhana but Nibbana which is not some volitionairy produced state nor a samadhi nor a building that can desintegrate any moment.

47

Distinguishing characteristics exist between the Nile river and the Amazon. However, when we analyze these distinguishing characteristics we come up empty. No core or substance of any distinguishing characteristic can be found when subject to analysis. Those distinguishing characteristics are themselves empty of true existence.

This goes too far in my mind or at least I don’t think these words are skillful. Your use of the word really here is really revealing (pun intended) :joy:

It sounds like you are positing the true existence of distinguishing characteristics based upon an inference. The inference being that sentient beings are generally capable of distinguishing between the Nile and Amazon. This inference does not support your conclusion of really existing. When we look for the distinguishing characteristics with analysis they cannot be found. Rather, the distinguishing characteristics have a mere illusion-like existence. Ephemeral, insubstantial; like gossamer; utterly unworthy of any passion.

Again, this sounds like you are positing the true existence of the Nile river even though no such thing can be found when subject to analysis. This is inappropriate to my mind. Why? It is this habit to reify things based upon flimsy inference that gets us into trouble.

We mistake illusion-like existence for true existence. We then grasp at and crave after this existence. Or we have aversion towards this illusion-like existence believing it to be true existence and this leads to beliefs that we can utterly end some true existence. Both are problematic because depending upon views like this, dukkha arises. Seeing this mere illusion-like existence for what it is, clearly, with no doubts, and with direct insight can quell these defilements of grasping and craving and aversion.

Understand that ‘dukkha’, ‘illusion-like’, ‘defilements’, ‘direct insight’ all of these are themselves completely empty and none of these things can be found under penetrative analysis. Just so, ‘penetrative analysis’ can’t be found. Understanding there is no ‘nibbana’ nor is there ‘attainment of nibbana’ that can be found under analysis, just that leads to nibbana and attainment of nibbana. Of course, I’m must play acting like I understand something here. I know nothing. :joy: :pray:

48

Namo Buddhaya!

Note here you define samadhi as a produced state.

In short,

  • Pertubable samadhi is sankhara, a produced state attained in dependence on something constructed
  • Impertubable samadhi are sankhara, a produced state attained in dependence on something constructed
  • Cessation samadhi is a cessation of sankharā attained in dependence on the unconstructed.

Cessation samadhi as a cessation of sankharā attained in dependence on the unconstructed is however not the final goal of the training because this attainment is a means to an end of taints.

There is also the notion that attaining any samadhi & the narrative of doing anything at all describes a living being with name & form, of such or such family, etc.

Therefore whatever is attained by a mortal is in a sense impermanent as it is an event of him attaining it. Even if it is a cessation samadhi attainment.

However the talk of samadhi is one thing and that in dependence on what the samadhi is possible is another thing.

So all the talk of beings attaining things is a description of the inpermanent which ceases and that in dependence on what the cessation is possible, it is not impermanent.

Therefore when you say

The most excellent dhamma is not sannavedayitanirodha nor any jhana but Nibbana which is not some volitionairy produced state nor a samadhi nor a building that can desintegrate any moment

You should keep in mind that sannavedayitanirodha occurs in dependence on the asankhata, if there was no asankhata then sannavedayitanirodha wouldn’t be possible.

When you talk about beings attaining cessation samadhi you are essentially talking about approaching the unmade rather than the unmade because one who attains nirodha comes to know the unmade but this knowing & attaining is not the unmade as their knowledge & attaining is impermanent.

It is like if you go to a supermarket, the achievement of getting there is dependent on there being a supermarket and it is not the same thing as your approaching it. Albeit here the supermarket is a constructed thing.

The goal of the training is not this cessation samadhi, rather it is arahantship. And purpose of arahantship is dukkhanirodha. And parinibbana is the ultimate dukkhanirordha occuring in dependence on the same nibbananirodhadhatu as sannavedayitanirodha and so it’s all about the end.

Attaining sannavedayitanirodha is analogical to turning off everything at the end of a movie. The emergence from sannavedayitanirodha is then like starting to watch a sequel movie. This attainment removes taints and with the breakup of the body there is no sequel.

Another analogy is a rather famous one

Attaining sannavedayitanirodha is like a flame going out due to a gust of wind but where coals remain hot. And emergence from sannavedayitanirodha is akin to the coals blazing up again. And final extinguishment is where both the flame & the coals become completely cool.

Third analogy i can give is to seeing a mirrage.

The person attaining sannavedayitanirodha is like coming to after seeing a mirrage . Then emerging from sannavedayitanirodha is like seeing the mirrage again. And parinibbana is never seeing the mirrage again.

It’s a necessity.

  • First a person has to take on faith that his predicament is that of being stuck in a persistent mirrage empty of substance.
  • Furthermore he understands & comes to agreement through pondring that he finds himself being stuck in a persistent mirrage empty of substance.
  • Furthermore he cultivates this perception of drawbacks & does not welcome being stuck in a persistent mirrage empty of substance.
  • Furthermore there comes to be a cessation of the mirrage due to disinterestedness & dispassion. This is called ‘an awakening to the truth’.

Further he either emerges as an arahant or has to keep seeing the truth by repeated attainment until his taints are removed by the seeing with wisdom as development of these qualities is a final attainment of truth.

49

Hi Yeshe, if you zoom in with the microscope of analytical mind to a sugarcane, and zooming in it vanishes, and does not seem to have substance, a core, does this really mean that a sugarcane is now prooven to be not truly existent. Why?

Maybe you use truly exist in the meaning of inherent existent, absolute existent? Then we agree.
But i see a sugarcane as truly existent even when it is composed of molecules, atoms, and even more subtle things.

Finding no core in an union, pealing of layers, and ending up with only layers of unions, does, for me, not mean at all that an union does not truly exist. things do not have to have an atta, a core, to truly exist.

50

Yes. I am here using ‘truly exist’ to mean something that stands up to analysis. If you can find it with penetrative analysis, then it truly exists. If you can’t find it with penetrative analysis, then it does not truly exist.

Of course, you can define ‘truly exist’ in any way that you like, but this is the way I choose to define it and it is in accord with how the Teacher talked as found in SN 22.85 and SN 22.86. If it was good enough for the Teacher, then it is good enough for lowly ol’ me.

:pray:

51

For me asankhata refers to the sublime supreme peace refered to as Nibbana.
Do you agree?

I believe the peace of Nibbana is not constructed.
I also do not believe the Path is like this A–>B–>C–> D
No one never leaves A
One will never ever arrive anywhere else then one allready is

I cannot really relate to the necessities you describe. For me personal there is just the suffering of a closed heart, a heart that has seen sickness, decay, death, loss, violence, conflicts, no control, uncertainty, harshness of life. Lost that natural faith in life. Awakening to the truth of suffering is like becoming afraid, anxious, feeling unsafe, unprotected. One now seeks a refuge.

52

But how can you expact to find a sugarcane on the level of atoms or quarks?

53

You can’t! But you also cannot find atoms or quarks. You can’t find anything that ultimately holds up. It isn’t that sugarcane doesn’t hold up but atoms or quarks do. Even atoms or quarks don’t hold up. It is thoroughly empty. Also even trying to find a boundary of the sugarcane doesn’t hold up.

Just like a mirage disappears when you inspect it. Just like an illusion does not hold any reality. It is all gossamer and ephemeral because what you’re looking for doesn’t exist: an independent true existence of some thing. What exists is thoroughly dependent.

:pray:

54

So, you believe that nothing truly exist?

55

I certainly can’t find anything that truly exists. :pray:

56

Ofcourse a sugarcane truly exist as something we see, taste, put in the coffee. That a sugarcane becomes invisible when zooming in to a level af atoms does not say it does not exist on its own level.

So what? It truly exist.

57

Yeshe…i know you truly exist :heart_eyes:

58

Namo buddhaya!

I want to write something generally pertaining to talking about the attainment of sannavedayitanirodha.

Suppose you see s monk meditating, you see what you call ‘a world’ in the world that you see.
This is a statement about your percipience.

Now if the for the monk there is mental activity then one with superability could know that mental activity with his mind.

However if for the monk there no mental activity then nobody can know in dependence on what they are concentrated in this way because menral activity can only beget more mental activity.

And for the monk without mental activity there is no conception & perception of the world.

The conception & perception of the world that ceased for him did so not in dependence on something conceived & perceived and so nobody else can cognize this because cessation of his percipience does not describe another man’s percipience.

Now the same logic goes to describing what pertains to parinibbana.
There is nothing further to the world conceived & perceived for the arahant and any further talk about something happening after parinibbana describes another world based on someone elses percipience.

For example you might see a relic of an arahant, a tooth, now this a description of something you see and thus of your percipience. And if you were to attain parinibbana this world & percipience that you talk about would’ve ended too.

59

You are misunderstanding me again. I have defined ‘true existence’ for you and what it means when I use those words. You are either ignoring or forgetting my definition and then saying I’m denying mere existence, but I’m not so denying. Is it because you ignore or you don’t like my choice of words/definitions or because or are you forgetting? Perhaps it is because you can’t see the difference between mere existence and true existence and you mistake mere existence for true non-existence? In order to see what I’m getting at you have to get beyond the extremes of true existence and true non-existence to see the middle between. It seems it is difficult to see even conceptually. :pray:

60

Not even the Tathagata can be said to have truly existed in his very life. So sayeth the Tathagata himself. If the Tathagata said it was inappropriate to say that even the Tathagata truly exists, then how much more inappropriate to say that mere Yeshe truly exists. Don’t insult the Tathagata by putting him lower than mere Yeshe in terms of existence. :stuck_out_tongue: :pray:

61

In my mind, you use the analytical mind as a microscope that zooms in. You call thise penetrative analysis. And when the microscope zooms in, it is like all vanishes, and it comes to a point that it only sees empty space or emptiness… and then it concludes…“see, nothing truly exist…”

I just have accepted that things also truly exist when they exist in a dependend way.