Nibbāna is NOT self

Discussion
, , ,
35

Maybe I misunderstood your comment when I said: The purified mind-base is not Nibbana and you replied it with:

I thought that you want to say that we cannot separate the purified mind with Nibbana. That’s why I tried to show you that the purified mind does not always come with Nibbana. If it sees itself as Nibbana or in Nibbana or realizes itself in Nibbana or as Nibbana then it does not realize the true Nibbana. It may realize something else.

The whole point is to show that the purified citta is not Nibbana and it cannot become Nibbana.

When you said “they must arise *together”, even if I replace “arise” with “appears or realized” as you asked, it becomes “they must appear together” or "they must realize together. " I personally do not see they must be so. Nibbana is not a thing or a place to do so. The purified citta if it is still clinging to the “I, my” will not see Nibbana even if Nibbana is always available there.

Even if the purified mind that no longer cling to “I, my” and has attain Nibbana, it is not Nibbana and it also does not become Nibbana. It still can be changed since it is energy.

However, that’s all I can think. Sorry if I misunderstood your questions.

36

Maha Boowa also says, in ones practice one must only aim at weakening and removing defilements and not worry about the nature of Nibbana or parinibbana. In fact, speculating about it, or even thinking one knows its nature, is itself defilement (oeps)

The answers must not be fabricated by logic nor reasoning. Dhamma is beyond that. It is not really possible, as we proove here all that time, that doubts can be erased by logic and reasoning. It also does not lead to the kind of knowledge that liberates. Answers will be revealed while one does the work of uprooting those defilements. That seems to be the idea.

If one sees parinibbana as mere the cessation of the khandha’s, then one also gives priority to logic and reasoning. This is not Dhamma, i believe. I think one can better start from not-knowing.

Also if one sees parinibbana as a mere cessation of existence, the definitive cessation of any perception and feeling ever, without nothing remaining, and one sees this as happiness or even bliss, that is also an idea, a prospect. But why would one ever say that cessation of any perception and feeling is ultimate happiness or even bliss, while there is no happiness and bliss because all has ceased.

sorry, i can not let go this. It troubles my mind to much that people believe that Buddha-Dhamma has no other goal then going out like a flame without nothing remaining. I read the essay of Ajahn Brahmali on this topic. I will read it once more. I want to understand why people believe this.

Reading that essay i do not get much further than the impression that this makes sense, that does not make sense. It can be seen that way. It cannot. But what remains is that in fact nothing is attained, nothing is realised, there is no home, nowhere. There is no safe place. There is no refuge. There is only ceasing without anything remaining.

So the Buddha, while searching a home for himself…protection…safety, the other shore, realised at a certain moment is it not there? The other shore is not there. There is no place to arrive. There is only cessation?

37

Maha Boowas uses the word citta in a special way.

I think you know the sutta’s talk about Nibbana as the removal or destruction of lobha, dosa and moha. Do they not arise in the mind?

38

I seem to recall that Nibbana is a mind-object, something known to the mind. I’ll try to find the sutta.

39

It is good if we could understand what is that special way? I am not familiar with his teaching.

Lobha, dosa and moha (greed, hatred, delusion) arise in the mind because of the “I, my.” “It is so pleasant, I want more of that. It is so painful, I hate it…” The mind without “I, my” sees thing the way it is. “It is a pleasant feeling, it is an unpleasant feeling.” It turns away from all of those and stays in Nibbana.

40

I would like to use this post to clear some common wrong understandings.

1. Wrong understanding regarding a purified mind:

People with their imagination has fantasized a purified mind as something similar to:

Pure water with impurities. Or pure gold with impurities. Or like a diamond in a box and only that box is covered with impurities. Or like a mirror only reflects what shines upon it. Or like a moon always shines but only temporarily got covered by dark cloud. Or like a man with good eyes but his eyes got covered by a pair of bad spectacles.

In other words: They fantasize that the purified mind is always there inside each of us, separated from the impurities, not affected by the impurities. The purified mind only needs to know, that’s all.

So, people with such fantasy starts to see such a purified mind as NOT impermanent, pure, safe, NOT suffering. Then, people with such fantasy starts to consider such purified mind as themselves, shouting “Yay, that’s has been always me!” or “That’s belongs to me forever” or “That’s always inside me, timeless.” Then, people with such fantasy starts to consider such purified mind to be the same as Nibbāna.

The important thing is: We need to realize “to know” is a verb. A verb means: it’s a process. And a process means: it’s conditioned, it can NOT happen without supporting conditions. So, when the supporting conditions are not there, what happens? Answer: the process stops.

Now, when the process “to know” stops, the purified mind also stops being a purified mind. It becomes “a purified mind that does not know.” There, now anyone in their right mind can see for themselves, purified mind is impermanent. So, a purified mind can NOT be considered as self. There, of course, anyone in their right mind can also see for themselves, purified mind is NOT Nibbāna because Nibbāna is NOT impermanent.

For anyone still has doubt and still cannot abandon the fantasy idea that there exists a purified mind inside himself that always knows without supporting conditions, maybe they should ask themselves: Can they know anything without coming into contact?
For those people, my suggestion is: MN38 and MN14 are of very good help here.

In my opinion, it seems to me that such fantasy coming from a mind that is lazy. The reason is: with such fantasy, people all over the world no longer needs to practice the Noble Eightfold Path, their purified mind has always known and experienced Nibbāna, for all time, without any interruption.

2. Wrong understanding regarding reading secondary sources outside EBT:

There is also a misunderstanding when some teachers say something like “Nibbāna can be found inside you” or “Nibbāna is already inside each of us.”

I think the original message should be: “the capacity/potential to realize the Nibbāna, that specific capacity/potential is inside each of us.”

That message seems to be misunderstood when presented in another shortened form: “the capacity/potential to realize the Nibbāna inside each of us.”

3. Wrong understanding regarding faith toward favorite teacher/guru:

There is also a misunderstanding that you can place certain teacher/guru in a place higher than the Buddha. Then use their words to override the words of the Buddha in the EBT. We don’t have high confidence that such teacher/guru is really at arahant level but we DO have very high confidence that the Buddha and his disciples are at arahant level and their words are recorded in the EBT. If anyone does such thing, he/she is putting an unverified pupil above the verified teacher. I don’t think people will agree that such action is wise.

4. Wrong understanding regarding Nibbāna as nothing at all:

There is also a misunderstanding that Nibbāna is nothing at all or it does not even exist. It’s a Dhamma, a Reality, a real and verifiable state. Nibbāna was declared by the Buddha in the 3rd Noble Truth. However, it does not exist as the way a run-of-the-mill person so far has always imagined.

The difference with the neti-neti school (coming from tát tvam ási (That thou art - That you are)) is: The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path to guide us to Nibbāna, which is not Self. Meanwhile, the neti-neti school holds a view even from the beginning that what remains after negation is the Self, before their practice of meditation. Side note, the following is my personal opinion so I am not open for debate right now on this: At the highest, with their meditation practice, anyone with such view will only be able to reach the formless realm of the Nothingness sphere.

5. Wrong understanding regarding logic and reasoning:

There is also a misunderstanding that we don’t need logic and reasoning. Logic and reasoning help us to choose the correct path, to separate the wholesome from the unwholesome, to separate the fool from the wise. I suggest anyone has such unhealthy doubt to look up in dictionary to know how people defines a person who denies logic and reasoning; or a person who denies solid evidence presented to him. I don’t see anywhere that the Buddha encourages us to abandon logic and reasoning while listening to his teaching.

Closing:

If after reading this post, anyone got questions pop up in their mind such as: Hmm, so now I am not too sure, do I have a self? So, you are telling me, I don’t really have a self? Do I actually currently exist right now? So, after all, do I got illusion, am I dreaming, do I not currently exist? Or putting up such question like: does the Buddha exist before/after his parinibbāna? Then I suggest that person please read again MN2 very carefully and thoroughly many times.

Thank you for your time reading this post. :pray:

Note: Please kindly only give comments with focus on the EBTs, without including what are considered later sources. Also, I presented my points in a coherent logic that can be backed up by EBT, so normally, I expect other people to kindly do the same without relying on personal belief or appealing to feeling/emotion.

41

Sounds very logic. I wish you happy.

42

The mind “turns away from all of those (feelings) and stays in Nibbana”.

Sounds good, but could you elaborate on what you mean by the mind staying “in” Nibbana?

43

You say Nibbana is a “real and verifiable state.”

That sounds reasonable, but a state of what, exactly? A state of mind?

44

Nibbana is NOT a state of mind. Because Nibbana is NOT impermanent while even a purified mind is impermanent.

Nibbana is a Dhamma, a Reality, a so called “thing” that can be experienced by a purified mind. That’s why I said it’s “verifiable” in this life.

Maybe an example can help here: the light can be experienced by eye but eye is not light. The color, brightness, texture, etc. are verifiable by eye. So similarly, all the characteristics of Nibbana like not impermanent, safe, home, not suffering, not self, subtle, stable, deathless, not profiling, etc. are verifiable and experienced by a purified mind.

45

1.49–50. Luminous

“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.”

“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.”

https://suttacentral.net/an1.41-50/en/thanissaro?reference=none&highlight=false

So you are saying when the defilements quench/cease/extinguish (nirodha), the Nibbana element is not pervading somewhere inside of the mind/brain/neurology/wherever? Therefore where exactly is the Nibbana element if it is not always inside of the mind-body? Are you saying the Nibbana element flows into the mind-body from outside of the body-mind when the defilements cease; similar to the Holy Spirit of God descending upon Jesus like a dove?

The above sounds reasonable but what makes you think we personally can completely understand the words recorded in the EBT?

Where is Nibbana mentioned in the 3rd Noble Truth in SN 56.11?

Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned contemplation, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after consideration, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’

Etha tumhe, kālāmā, mā anussavena, mā paramparāya, mā itikirāya, mā piṭakasampadānena, mā takkahetu, mā nayahetu, mā ākāraparivitakkena, mā diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā, mā bhabbarūpatāya, mā samaṇo no garūti.

AN 3.65

Holy spirit dove

1 Like
46

So Nibbana is a mind-object?

47

I don’t know what is the current understand of Nibbana. However, this is my own understanding.

Nibbana is the refuge, the ultimate refuge from sufferings. It is the cessation of the experience (the sufferings). When the mind turns away from those feelings (as examples), it no longer receives those objects, mind-consciousness ceases, feelings cease. It is in its resting mode and stays in that cessation. When it receives its objects, it sees them as they are without “I, my.” Knowing the danger, it will not cling to them and turns away from them as soon as it could and goes back to its resting mode and stays in that cessation (refuge.)

English is not my language. it is not easy for me to choose precise words to express this complex meaning. However, I hope that you could see what I am pointing to.

1 Like
48

OK, I am back after a brief colonoscopy break (aka: the direct experience of emptiness).

Thanks for the clarification. I think where we may be talking past each other is around the term ‘purified mind’. You wrote:

Now, as I understand this term, it can only refer to the mind of the Arahant. As the Arahant has totally transcended any notion of ‘I am’ how could there be any clinging?

So question: what do you mean when you use the term ‘purified mind’?

Regarding the part in bold: I don’t understand how something that is purified could still be subject to change? How can we define it as energy or anything at all? I think the awakened mind as well as what it knows can no longer be defined as separate, one, etc. Which leads to:

What I was saying there is that the direct or experiential knowing of anything (for example as you read this, you know that you are reading this) appears with what is known (the text). That’s all I was saying. I am not implying that you are the text or inseparable from the text. In this sense, as long I am aware of something then I know I am aware of it.

49

As I understand, purified mind is the mind with no unwholesome states such as anger, greed, envy,…However, it is not the arahant’s mind if it still cling to “I, my” or if it still has underline tendency of conceit.

If you experience anger, you feel hot. If you are scare, you feel cold… What we call mind is just those feelings, perception, mental volitions, consciousness. From there, we can infer that it is energy. However, this is just my view. If we take this view, and from science, we know that energy can change from this state to another.

Agree, since your response was for my statement “the pure mind-base is not Nibbana.” I just want to clarify that the pure mind-base and Nibbana are not the same and the pure mind-base cannot become Nibbana.

50

Nibbāna is NOT like anything a run-of-the-mill person has ever known.

The reason is: Nibbāna is unconditioned dhamma while a run-of-the-mill person has only ever known or experienced conditioned dhamma for his/her entire lifetime so far. (At the moment such a person knows or experiences nibbāna, he/she is no longer called a run-of-the-mill person, he/she has become a noble discipline)

So, trying to describe nibbāna “to be like” or “similar to anything” to a run-of-the-mill person, it becomes an unprecise attempt and must be taken with much care for deviation.

Now back to your question about nibbāna and mind-objects, my answer to you is: mind-objects are conditioned while nibbāna is unconditioned.

I will try to give another example here but as I have just explained above, please do not cling to example.

Let’s see an example between a tadpole and a frog:

A frog can try but can not fully explain what it’s like an experience so called “out of water” to a tadpole. Meanwhile, a tadpole can try its best with fantasy, imagination, speculation, etc. but in the end, a tadpole who is deeply submerged in water won’t be able to fully know or experience the so called “out of water” land.

Any tadpole who is near the water level will have a chance to be able to have a glimpse of the land and know there is such a thing so called “out of water”. Such tadpole is no longer a normal run-of-the-mill tadpole, it has known and it has faith in what the frog said. But only until a tadpole completes its metamorphosis process to become a frog, it still does not experience yet the “out of water”. Note of humor: In the nature, a tadpole won’t need to follow the Noble Eightfold Path taught by a frog. So, you see here the limitation of an example.

2 Likes
51

I don’t think AN1.49-50 gives contradiction to my statement about what a run-of-the-mill person fantasizes about a purified mind. Here is what I said in my post, this time with highlighting for helping to clear the confusion:

Let’s look closely at what the Buddha said in AN1.49-50: “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.” and “Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.”

Those statements instead directly negated what a run-of-the-mill person fantasizes about a purified mind that is ALWAYS completely separated from defilements. The Buddha said the mind can be defiled and can be freed, it is NOT completely separated from defilements when it is defiled. So, conclusion is, a purified mind CAN NOT be ALWAYS completely separated from defilements. This proves such fantasy from a run-of-the-mill person is untrue.

I do NOT say such things at all. Please kindly look again my first post for a list of wrong views, such views you mentioned above are considered as wrong views. Your picture would be good support if it were relevant, however, it came to support a confusion.

From the beginning, I have highlighted that part about the potential/capacity in my post to help preventing any confusion. Let’s format this way: [The potential/capacity to realize Nibbāna], that specific capacity/potential is within us. Hopefully, it clears out any remaining confusion.

My point was: When there is direct contradiction between EBT and what a favorite guru/teacher says, we should take what EBT says because it is a wise choice between an unverified pupil and a verified teacher. After that, we need to study that part of the EBT carefully. It is a wise choice, it does NOT matter whether we personally understand fully what the EBT recorded as you demanded as a prerequisite.

Please look at the Pali version of SN56.11 and search for the keyword “nibbāna” with your browser, you will find 3 of them.

I hope you at least agree with such statement as “garbage in, garbage out” or “mango tree can only come from mango seed”. When fantasy input is given to logic and reasoning, it will always give us fantasy output. When truthful input is given to logic and reasoning, it will always give us truthful output. That’s the power and utility of logic and reasoning. Standing alone, logic and reasoning won’t be enough to realize the final goal of nibbāna. You need both truthful input and logic/reasoning (and other factors in the Noble Eightfold Path) to realize the final goal of nibbāna.

We need to look at the context of the sutta in AN3.65, the Kālāmas people did NOT have truthful input yet. They are currently in confusion with the wrong views by other teachers. Coupled fantasy input with logic/reasoning, the Kālāmas people will only arrive at bad destinations. That’s the reason the Buddha gave them first the truthful input and then coupled with logic/reasoning too. Please just look again the sutta AN3.65 and read further to see how logic and reasoning are used in his talk for them.

I must emphasize again, the Kālāmas didn’t abandon logic and reasoning while listening to the Buddha. Also, the Buddha didn’t abandon logic and reasoning while giving them the talk. He gave them truthful input TOGETHER WITH logic and reasoning.

1 Like
52

The Buddha said in both cases the mind is luminous. :sunny:

Possibly but the above gives the confused impression Nibbana is conditioned, that is, dependent upon the potential/capacity to experience it.

Yes but not in the 3rd noble truth, which arguably is about the cessation of suffering via the cessation of craving, which sounds like a conditioned process. The 3rd noble truth includes many conditioned sounding words, such as: “giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not adhering to it”.

Contrary to your anti-guru doctrine, your inferring nirodha & nibbana are exactly synonymous sounds like the doctrine of run-of-the-mill Buddhist gurus, commentators & scholars (rather than an explicit teaching of the EBTs).

You previously refused to discuss with me the possibility nirodha may be conditioned and nibbana is unconditioned. You have not yet provided any evidence from the EBT to refute my theory that nirodha may possibly be conditioned in contrast to Nibbana which we know is unconditioned.

The EBTs use the term “yoniso manasikara” (example, in SN 45.62 & AN 10.61) rather than the secular “logic & reasoning”. :slightly_smiling_face:

53

I don’t see why Nibbana can’t be an unconditioned mind object.
Maybe analogous to the sky - it’s always there, but we’re not always paying attention to it.

54

Well, for me, I don’t see why a mind object can still be there when the mind ceases. And if you consider Nibbāna as mind object, it will happen like this: Nibbāna (as NOT impermanent) will have to cease when the mind ceases. This is self-contradictory.

1 Like