I’d say that that nibbāna is simply the absolute absense of the suffering due to the complete uprooting of all the Taints/Fetters (saṃyojana/āsava), and that metaphorically, it problobly reassembles having been on fire, from head to toe, for lifetimes, only for the fire to be put out by large buckets of fresh water.
It is nibbana when one does not decrease even if one does nothing. It is nibbana when one is freed from all conditioned phenomena. It is nibbana when one is freed from oneself. It is nibbana when nothing can relate to oneself (even with one’s own state of mind). Therefore, it is not a place, it is not a thing, it is not a state of one’s mind. It is nibbana when “I, me, my, mine” forever does not exist. When “I, me, my, mine” does not exist, how can “I” increase or decrease? Where can “I” go? What can bring suffering or happiness to “me”? When we cannot find “I” in nibbana, how can we fill nibbana up when “I” attain nibbana? Of course, it is not an annihilation!
Attainment, and realization of nibbana happens in an instant. But the lead up to it takes longer. The EBT simile is one of the sea bottom sloping but then suddenly deepening. Knowledge of the DO, of the dependently arisen nature of phenomena, inclines the mind towards nibbana. It shows the lack of inherent existence, showing the dance of phenomena to be an illusion, allowing the mind to let go at the deeper and deeper levels. With repulsion, dispassion and cessation the sea deepens steadily until a bottomless sea trench hits.
with metta
I think this is an attempt to non-objectifying the Nibbana.
Because Nibbana is not an objective reality.
But Buddha had back pain.
Just came across this sutta- had to share it here. This shows clearly that the stream entrant understands causality (translated here as condition) -if not the entire DO.
“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple thus understands the condition (paccayam pajanati); thus understands the origin of the condition (paccayasamudayaṃ pajānāti); thus understands the cessation of the condition (paccayanirodhaṃ pajānāti); thus understands the way leading to the cessation of the condition (paccayanirodhagāminiṃ paṭipadaṃ pajānāti), he is then called a noble disciple who is accomplished in view (diṭṭhisampanno), accomplished in vision (dassanasampanno), who has arrived at this true Dhamma (āgato imaṃ saddhammaṃ), who sees this true Dhamma (saddhammaṃ), who possesses a trainee’s knowledge (sekkhena ñāṇena), a trainee’s true knowledge (sekkhena ñāṇena), who has entered the stream of the Dhamma (dhammasotaṃ samāpanno), a noble one with penetrative wisdom (ariyo nibbedhikapañño), one who stands squarely before the door to the Deathless (amatadvāraṃ āhacca tiṭṭhati).” SN12.27
with metta
1 Like
Perhaps, though I then wonder about confirmation bias, ie we find what we expect to find, given a particular set of assumptions and views. And of course different approaches to practice will lead in different directions.
Could you provide some sutta references to support that position? I don’t think it’s clear.
Thanks.
1 Like
See MN 18. As Sn 4.14 points out, the root of the classifications and perceptions of objectification is the thought, “I am the thinker.” This thought forms the motivation for the questions that Ven. Maha Kotthita is presenting here: the sense of “I am the thinker” can either fear or desire annihilation in the course of Unbinding. Both concerns get in the way of the abandoning of clinging, which is essential for the attainment of Unbinding, which is why the questions should not be asked. >
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html
Thanks, but this is really about an approach to pratice, and I don’t see how it supports your position of Nibbana not being an objective reality.
The Udana passage I posted in the OP ( Ud 8.3 ) seems more on point, though I do think it’s ambiguous.
There is also Ud 8.1, which describes Nibbana ( again rather ambiguously ) in terms of a dimension or sphere:
“There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.”
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html
He is referring to the cessation of perception and feeling.
I don’t think so.
Then why he did not mention it there?
I’m not sure, but looking at the title and final line of Ud 8.1, I thought it was describing Nibbana ( rather than the preceding meditative state of cessation of perception and feeling ).
Sure, and there seems to be the idea of moving away from the conditioned ( the aggregates ) and towards the unconditioned ( Nibbana ).
Another way of expressing the OP is to ask whether “conditioned” and “unconditioned” are nouns or adjectives.
Nibbana is where no perception and feeling hence there is no mind in Nibbana.
So you’re saying an Arahant doesn’t “have” the perception and feeling aggregates?
Arahant is not the five aggregate.