Important controversies in short

Also i want to draw attention to texts like this

Four or five times
I left my dwelling.
I had failed to find peace of heart,
or any control over my mind.

I approached a nun
in whom I had faith.
She taught me the Dhamma:
the aggregates, sense fields, and elements.

When I had heard her teaching,
in accordance with her instructions,
I sat cross-legged for seven days without moving,
given over to rapture and bliss.
On the eighth day I stretched out my feet,
having shattered the mass of darkness. SuttaCentral

Now this is describing the attainment of arahantship but what about the seven days prior? What bliss exactly?

Now we know that this must have occured

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. SuttaCentral

It follows that she definitely did do jhana and or arupa before

Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’

Now the question is what exactly is this.

One proposition is that this is the same type of samadhi as described here

'Now, I — without moving my body, without uttering a word — can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night… for two days & nights… for three… four… five… six… seven days & nights.Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta: The Lesser Mass of Stress

If one asserts that this unalloyed bliss is a reference to the highest pleasure then both are definitively sannavedayitanirodha. And one’s taints are then removed by this seeing with wisdom, awakening to the truth, realizing the four noble truths by direct knowledge.

1 Like

:star_struck:

Yeshe is much higher for me because i know he truly exist :grinning:

Regarding that sutta…lets talk that way about a car and see if a car can be found.

Green to Yeshe

Is the car, the wheels? No, says Yeshe. It is the motor? No. Or the breaks? Or the steering wheel? or as the chassis? (5 khandhas) No, Green,we cannot say that these things apart are the car. Great Yeshe.

Oke. Is the car IN the chassis, IN the motor etc? No green, makes no sense. Oke Yeshe

Or can we see the car as something distinct from the chassis, motor (khandha’s)etc? No!

Or, is the car the thing possessing a motor, wheels, chassis? (khandha’s) etc? No, that way one cannot talk about the car.

Or is the car without motor, chassis etc? (khandha’s). No, says Yeshe.

Or is the car all those things taken together (wheels, motor, breaks etc)?

Yeshe takes some time…

Normally people would answer here Yes. And yeshe also inclines to do this but still hesitates.
All those parts together, assemblied, functioning as a whole, normally we call a car.
But yeshe wants to make a point to Green and plays as if he is totally confused about what a car is.
So he answers…No, all these parts together are also not the car.

Now he has made his point to Green that the car cannot be established as truly existent in this very life and drives away in his car making a lot of noice, hoking and making funny faces to Green while passing :crazy_face:

Green finally accepts the wisdom of Yeshe and drives away in his own car that he knows now as not truly existent.

This is another controversial thing. How exactly did the bodhisatta attain awakening. As i understand it, n short

  • First as a child he one time attained the first jhana.
  • Later in his early 30s he left home to do yoga
  • He first learned from Alara Kalama who proclaimedhe the dimension of nothingness and taught him how to enter & dwell in that dhamma. He was dissatisfied and sought further release.
  • Later he learned from Uddaka Ramaputta

Uddaka Rāmaputta had this view and taught like this, “Existence is an illness, a tumour, a thorn. Those who advocate nonperception are foolish. Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception.” - MĀ 114

  • After this he left Uddaka to push on his own practicing austerities with other yogis thinking ‘pleasure is attained through pain’
  • When his painful striving failed to produce a superior dhamma he recalled his attaining of jhana as a youth. At this point he was indiscriminately fearful of all bodily pleasure but realized that there was no reason to fear pleasure born of seclusion and gave up his view ‘pleasure is attained through pain’ realizing that pleasure is attained through pleasure born of seclusion. He renounces mortification practices and looks to nourish the body for a final push relying on pleasure born of seclusion.
  • So he left the group he was with, took nourishing food and went at it developing the jhana in the sitting posture, looking for the unsurpssed release.
  • At this point it is a bit confusing for me but he certainly went through the jhanas and directed his mind to knowledges of the various rebirth of beings, recollection of past lives and finally to knowledge of the destruction of taints.

“When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two… five, ten… fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus I recollected my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

“This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose—as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute.

“When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw—by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human—beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: ‘These beings—who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views—with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. But these beings—who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views—with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a good destinations, a heavenly world.’ Thus—by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human—I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

“This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose—as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute.

“When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental effluents. I directly knew, as it had come to be, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the way leading to the cessation of stress… These are effluents… This is the origination of effluents… This is the cessation of effluents… This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.’ My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the effluent of sensuality, released from the effluent of becoming, released from the effluent of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, ‘Released.’ I directly knew that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

“This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose—as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. MN 85  Bodhirājakumāra Sutta | Prince Bodhi

I think it is very reasonable to assert that the proclamation

This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna

Is a reference to that very dhamma he was looking for as surpassing the dhamma proclaimed by Uddaka

Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception.

And we know what meditative attainment surmounts the attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception, namely sannavedayitanirodha.

Basically he dveloped equanimity towards the jhana, realized cessation, his taints were removed by the seeing with wisdom, knowledge of their removal he attained, and proclaimed the asankhata in dependence on which he was in samadhi

*There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (3)

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (1)

It follows from this interpretation that here is another reference to samadhi in dependence on the asankhata

"He is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:

‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don’t know even what it is
dependent on which
you’re absorbed.’" Sandha Sutta: To Sandha

And this ties to what brahma doesn’t know of regarding vinnanam annidassana, describing what is not experienced through the allness of the all and that pleasure not being felt.

There are hardly any controversies left if one can weave it like this.

All that is left is explaining that this samadhi in dependence on the asankhata is apprehended as signless, empty & undirected.

One can be puzzled by so many terms being used to describe these attainments but it’s hardly unexpected because one has to in many contexts be able to delineate things like one who attains, that which is attained, that in dependence on what it is attained, the variant fruitions of attainment, the variant aproaching of attainment and the apprehending of attainment in relation to variant systems of explaining progression.

1 Like

When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘car.’ To believe those parts are a truly existing and independent car that holds up under analysis is to fall into the view of form existence. This is the view for which Mara was rebuked by the nun Vajirā.

It was then that the Bhagavān addressed the monks, “There are two kinds of views. What are the two? They are the views of existence and the views of inexistence. Of those, which are the views of existence? They are the view of desire existence, view of form existence, and view of formless existence.

“What is the view of desire existence? This refers to the five desires. What are the five desires? They are forms seen by the eye that are extremely desirable, esteemed, and thought about. Having never abandoned forms, worldly people revere them. When the ear hears sounds … nose smells odors … tongue tastes flavors … body feels tender touches … mind cognizes notions … These are said to be the views of existence.

“What are the views of inexistence? They are the view of permanence, view of impermanence, view of something being destroyed, view of nothing being destroyed, view of being limited, view of being limitless, view of having a self, view of no self, view of having life, view of no life, view of other selves, view of other lives … These sixty-two views are called views of inexistence and unreal views. These are said to be the views of inexistence.

“Therefore, monks, you should abandon these two kinds of views. Thus, monks, you should train yourselves.”

EA 15.2

You are of course welcome to believe what you wish, but there is danger in this view of form existence. Luckily, it is possible to dissolve this view if you wish. Thank you @cdpatton for the translations!

:pray:

Consider this, one asks another

Do you ever go from a to b?

Yes i do

But before you go to b, do you first go to the halfway point between a and b?

Yes i do

But before you go to the halfway point between a and b, do you first go to the point measuring ⅓ of the distance from a to b?

Yes i do

But before you go to the ⅓ point between a and b, do you first go to the point measuring ¼ of the distance from a to b?

… measuring 1/5th of the distance from a to b?
… measuring 1/6th of the distance from a to b?
… measuring ⅛ of the distance from a to b?

Yes i do

And so on indefinitely, 1/9, 1/10…

One can then exclaim

You say you go from a to be but having to do an infinite amount of things first, so how could you ever get even to the halfway point.

A similar thing is happening in the dialog you have.

Essentially language is merely a means of communication.

If i say show me a car. This is a statement about how i want my percipience to become. It has nothing to do with what is a car exactly and whether a car exists.

The question is can the listener rightly identify my intention and facilitate my percipience being thus described ‘i see a car’

So when my percipience is described thus ‘i saw a person go from a to b’ this too has nothing to do with there truly existing or not existing ‘distances’ and ‘beings making their way across them distances’. It has to do with describing the evolving percipience and nothing else.

When i say ‘yesterday i saw a car’ this is just for you to narrow down how my percipience was & wasn’t in the past. Has nothing to do with cars existing or not existing.

So when the changing aggregates are present these linguistic conventions are used to delineate a difference between the variant states in agreed upon terms.

Therefore even tho i can’t pin down things like beings and distances as true & real i can use these terms to classify my percipience as being being truly describable in certain terms and not in other terms.

So you might describe your percipience as first hearing me say that cars can’t be pinned down before describing your percipience in terms of what you call ‘seeing’ what you call ‘me’ do what you call a ‘get into’ in regards to what you call ‘a car’. Your percipience could be like this and describable in these terms, this it is possible but again this has nothing to do with whether things exist or not but is merely a classification of one’s aggregated percipience.

Fwiw In regards to distance & motion paradox. One should’ve answered like this

  • do you get to this certain point before you get to that point?
  • But what is that point, come show me? If you can’t pin it down then i can’t answer it.

One should not go along with asserting a crossing of unmeasurable distances as it is foolish because if i can’t perceive the distance then i can’t perceive myself crossing it.

It’s like are you moving when standing still? How do you know if not actually moving albeit immeasurably slow?

If moving immeasurably slow then no matter how long you move you can never have any evidence of it. So this is asking if I know something which I cannot know.

Therefore only in as far as there is percipience we use communicable terms of space, time, beings, chariots, etc

This is one form of crude analysis. There are many more that are more powerful and sophisticated. They all share in common that the result is void. :pray:

Sorry, I made a mistake on Burgs. On closer reading, Burgs is same as Ajahn Brahm. On the issue above. I corrected in the quote above. And will delete the old post.

1 Like