The Buddha said in both cases the mind is luminous.
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”.
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.
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.
As I see, you have presented your interpretation of AN1.49-50 that the purified/luminous mind is always luminous and I also presented my interpretation of AN1.49-50 that the sutta points out instead that the purified mind is impermanent.
Firstly, such interpretation of something (besides Nibbāna) is permanent is not coherent with the rest of the sutta, a direct contradiction can be seen in sutta SN22.96 and SN22.97
Secondly, the wrong understanding about purified mind that I warned in my post will still apply to your interpretation of AN1.49-50 as “the mind is always luminous”. Please look again my post to see what I said about the event when “the purified mind that does not know” and the consequence when “the purified mind has no need to practice the Noble Eightfold Path.”
I don’t follow your logic and reasoning to see how you get such a confused impression. Please explain in more details why do you think from such statement as “[The potential/capacity to realize Nibbāna], that specific capacity/potential is within us.”, a logical conclusion can follow to declare that “Nibbāna is dependent upon the potential/capacity to experience it.”
As also stated in SN56.11 for the 3rd Noble Truth: “This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.” and for the 4th Noble Truth: “This noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering should be developed.” I don’t see how you can come to a conclusion that the 3rd Noble Truth (which is to realized) can be a “process”. Meanwhile, we can see clearly that the 4th Noble Truth (which is to developed) is the one that can be considered as a “process”. So, I don’t think that your suggestion that “the 3rd Noble Truth is a process” is valid.
Also, those words that you thought sounds like conditioned words are attributes of Nibbāna. You can read again my post about the example of a frog and a tadpole above. If instead of saying “Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not adhering to it.”, we say now like this: “Now this is the verifiable truth of the cessation of water. It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with no water left over; giving water away, letting water go, releasing water, and not adhering to water.” Will such statement be wrong when used to describe a land’s attributes?
As I told you in my post that, in contrast to what you originally thought that the 3rd Noble Truth is not about Nibbāna, the word Nibbāna is indeed mentioned 3 times in SN56.11. You are still not convinced that the 3rd Noble Truth is not about Nibbāna because you thought that the 3rd Noble Truth sounds like a conditioned process. It turns out to be untrue, the 3rd Noble Truth is not a process but a noun to be realized, as stated in SN56.11.
Now, let’s look again SN56.11, this statement from the Buddha clearly says what is goal of the practice: “And what is that middle way of practice? It is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. This is that middle way of practice, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.” So, the Buddha explicitly said the practice of the 4th Noble Truth leads to Nibbāna (Pali word is explicitly with the word Nibbāna while it was translated as extinguishment). I don’t see how we can’t come to the conclusion that the practice of the 4th Noble Truth leads to the result (a noun, not a process) declared in the 3rd Noble Truth. Can’t we come to conclusion yet that the 3rd Noble Truth is about Nibbāna?
I must emphasize here that I have never said such thing as anti-guru doctrine. You are mistakenly creating obstacles for yourself when saying something that I have never said. Please read my post again what I said. How did you manage to jump to the conclusion that I go for anti-guru?
It seems that you are bringing up this topic. Actually, I have already answered your theory but you didn’t understand me, you ignored my comment about difficulty you will meet to translate the Pali word “yadidaṁ”; so, I chose to move on.
I will say here in other words then: Such possibility from your theory must first stand the acid test of reasonable translation. That means: you firstly must get an approval from someone like Ven. @sujato or Ven. Bodhi to verify whether your translation/interpretation can really be twisted or squeezed out from the original Pali words. Before such process, I don’t see how your “theory” can even be called as a theory. We didn’t even have a theory on the table so I don’t see a need to oblige to your requirement to refute it.
Please read what the Buddha said (and gave definition) about “yoniso manasikara” in MN2. In contrast to what you originally thought, let’s see how the Buddha appreciated very highly in Ud1.3:
“When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
“Iti imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti, imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati,
When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.
imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati;
I don’t see how anyone in their right mind can deny that the above sentence by the Buddha does not look like logic and reasoning. It is very subtle but it’s still logic and reasoning.
By the way, I am not sure about your motivation to associate word as “logic and reasoning” to the adjective term “secular”???
If the luminous ends with the ending of life, unlike Nibbana, it is impermanent. The impression is your personal ideas about “impermanence” sound like Abhidhamma; asserting the mind must always be constantly “flickering”. Whether something lasts for 1 micro-second or whether it lasts for 1 billion years, it is still impermanent.
Not in the 3rd Noble Truth. If nirodha is a necessary condition to experience Nibbana then nirodha & Nibbana are not the same thing. If opening a window is a condition to experience the wind, the opening of the window remains a different phenomena to the wind.
Yes but the Path leads to many things, such as dispassion. Dispassion is a conditioned thing. Dispassion (viraga) & nirodha may both be requisites for experiencing Nibbana. For example, MN 118 says the factors of enlightenment depend on nirodha, How can nirodha here be Nibbana? How can the Path to Nibbana depend on Nibbana?
And how are the seven awakening factors developed and cultivated so as to fulfill knowledge and freedom?
It’s when a mendicant develops the awakening factors of mindfulness… and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go.
With due respects to Venerables Sujato & Bodhi, I have my doubts they consider themselves to be my personal approval Master or Guru or the official arbitrators of Buddhism.
The EBTs offer us contextual descriptions to help understand words. For example:
In SN 36.11, the words nirodho, vūpasamo & paṭippassaddhā are used in exactly the same way.
In SN 22.32, the words nirodho, vūpasamo & atthaṅgamo are used in exactly the same way.
In SN 22.5, SN 12.44 & AN 4.41, the word atthaṅgamo is used in the same way as nirodha is often used (e.g. in SN 56.11 & MN 9), namely, as the opposite or inverse/counter process of samudaya. Therefore, it seems probable the words atthaṅgama & nirodha are close to synonymous.
SN 22.5 uses atthaṅgama for “when a mendicant doesn’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging”.
If atthaṅgama & nirodha are synonymous, it seems both are conditioned phenomena.
For example, when reflex action removes my hand from a burning fire, it is the burning of the fire that causes my nervous system to “let go” of the fire. This process is conditioned and sounds like the process described in the 3rd Noble Truth.
Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not adhering to it.
SN 56.11
To conclude, as I already hypothesized, in the 3rd Noble Truth, the words “giving it away, letting it go, releasing it and not adhering to it: cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo” sounds like conditioned/mental phenomena. If they are conditioned/mental phenomena they cannot be Nibbana.
If Nibbana is experienced by the mind that has completed the 8-fold gold path, then Nibbana is a mind-object, right? And presumably an impersonal mind-object, not “me” or “mine”.
The only other option I can see is to describe Nibbana as a state of mind, as per the third frame of reference in satipatthana (see contemplation of citta in MN10).
I don’t know if it this makes sense, but it occurred to me that the Buddha describes Nibbana as the ‘non arising’ of greed, hate and delusion. Since this occurs due to the cessation of craving, the path to Nibbana is conditioned. For the living Sage, though contact with the world continues, it falls away at the level of just feeling, with no subsequent processing, ‘I, me or mine’ making, or Self based responses… hence no more making of kamma.
When we empty out a crammed attic, Emptiness becomes evident. This space was always there, it was only obscured by the objects in the room. In the same way, we cannot strictly say that Nibbana has been brought into being by the Sage, we should rightly say that the Sage has removed and made a final end to the defilements/taints/ poisons. The ending of the defilements is conditioned, their non arising, viz Nibbana is unconditioned.
What arises for the Sage is the knowledge of Nibbana - they know ‘greed, hate and delusion has been made like a palm-stump, obliterated, unable to arise in future’ (AN3.35) and ‘this liberation is unshakeable, this is my last birth’ (SN56.11). It is this knowledge that can be said to be the mind object, not Nibbana itself. Sounds reasonable?
Just sharing some thoughts, still working on making sense of it all …
Purification is based upon the principle that there is an essence (that what is purified) and there are adventitious things to that essence (defilements). With water, water is essence. Salt, metals, mud the non-essential defilements that can be removed because they are not the essence.
Essence, the nature of mind, and not-essential defilements like lobha, dosa and moha , are not mixed in a way they cannot be removed. Defilements are like mud adventitious. Those sutta’s around AN1.50 refer to this, i believe.
We have to acknowledge, and practice in a way that the essence, or pure nature of mind, is allready present and will reveal itself. It will be tasted gradually more and more, when adventitious defilements have been weakened and removed by the noble Path. This pure essence of mind will not be created by the Path, nor formed or constructed but will reveal itself as something that is not seen arising (corrected this a little bit).
I personally think Buddha is the one teacher that totally purified mind to its end. And he tasted the quality of the pure nature of mind as ultimately cool, pliant, peaceful, unburdened, free, very capable, whole, complete, lacking all kind of emotional needs, boundless, unagitated.
Most people, most buddhist too (not only run of the mill…) do not taste this yet. Due to lack of real taste of purity they suffer and start looking outside for solution. They do not recognise the unburdened nature of the mind yet. This is not knowing the four noble truths.
This pure nature of mind cannot really be reckoned as a khandha, also not a vinnana. Vinnana is here unestablished, meaning, it does not grow. All is sensed but it does not grow further upon tendencies, desires, mental proliferation like in ordinairy mind. Here mind is also detached from vinnana. In AN10.81 Buddha says: “Bāhuna, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives unattached, liberated, his mind free of limits". Vinnana is one of them.
Having faith in the qualities and presence of the pure nature of mind is, i believe, having faith in Buddha and Dhamma. Tasting, knowing this are the four fruits. The full taste is arahanthood.
It is the other way around. The capacity is not always present. For example, animals probably have not the capacity. But it is also said of certain humans with mental disabilities, handicaps.
In the texts Buddha also says that one has to have a certain character that suits Dhamma.
I do not think that those teachers misunderstand it, but one does not have to jump to the conclusion that Nibbana as something inside would mean it is a phenomena inside us.
The teachers i sometimes refer to, do not override the words of the Buddha in EBT, i believe. This is a slanderous statement, at least it tends to that.
Probably they do not understand those words the same way you do. I think that’s all.
Maybe they also use different words to describe Dhamma and their own realisation. Maybe some people cannot handle that.
In general, I think it is not realistic that in the way we each come to our personal understanding of EBT there is a total lack of desire, biase, defilement, need, influence of past, subjective bagage etc.
Yes, one would recognise that the mind is free from craving, aversion and ignorance, as per the third frame of satipatthana (MN10).
But is Nibbana merely an absence?
There are also many positive descriptions of Nibbana in the suttas, so maybe it can be directly known by the mind? A presence, rather than an absence.
It is very normal to ask questions like 'who am I’ or being involved in these kind of identity questions.
One must be a strange person if one does not ask such questions while relating to the world, others, own emotions, ideas, character etc.
If one does never ask such questions as….who am I… that probaby will be because one is in the grasp of fixed identity views (sakkays ditthis). Probably one will live with answers….i am such and such person with such and such personality. Stuck in that.
People who ask: who am I and are unsure are not really stuck. Great quality.
People who are sensitive for truth question their identity . One has a certain feeling for what a constructed and artificial me is, a conceived and conceited Me, and what is not conceived and conceited me, in fact one is more wise then others, but often also more confused.
One might also be sensitive to the inherent suffering of a conceived and conceited me, a fabricated me. Its agitation, its arising and ceasing, it fabrication, its temporay existence.
What does the Buddha teach in MN2 about this? Does he say it is not wise to be confused about your identity? No. Does he teach that it is abnormal to ask such question about identity? No. He has something very great to say; in my own words: The problem is, when the mind is defiled, those defilments start to determine our view and perception and answers of who or what we are. So, that is why the Buddha teaches that we first and all must aim at purifying the mind, so that our insights become undistorted by those defilements. Then we will see and know.
It is like a frog in a small pool. Asking it, ‘what is the world’ it can only relate to the pool. Likewise, if our mind is not purified our self-knowledge will also be conditioned and limited to this situation of defilement. Our defilememts will determine the answers and that is not a good approach.
But ofcouse the issue of identiy is very related to the issue of suffering. In essence suffering is about identity. About how we perceive ourselves and others. What we think we are. Very much about sakkaya ditthi and asmi mana. Especially not seeing that ego is adventitious to the nature of mind., to us. This delusion keeps feeding tanha. And while tanha is being fed, the delusion of an inherent ego (atta) remains strong. It is hard to break.
Let me summarize here what I have presented in my post for the common misunderstanding about purified mind: At the beginning, I put the assumption to be true that: the purified mind is always purified and NOT impermanent. From there, it leads to contradiction. So, the conclusion must be: the assumption from the beginning is untrue.
In logical and reasoning, this is called “proof by contradiction”. Anyone attempts to bring any further arguments for “the purified mind that is always purified and NOT impermanent”; their effort becomes futile (because it’s already assumed to be true from the beginning) and only shows their lack of familiarity with logical and reasoning.
Now, I have an opportunity to address another common misunderstanding:
Wrong understanding regarding “the pure nature of mind”:
People even fantasize about the existence of something so called “the pure nature of mind” within themselves that is DETACHED FROM the 5 aggregates (khandhā): 1) the corporeality aggregate (rūpakkhandha), 2) the feeling aggregate (vedanākkhandha), 3) the perception aggregate (saññākkhandha), 4) the mental-formation aggregate (sankhārakkhandha), 5) the consciousness aggregate (viññānakkhandha).
Well, let’s just suppose that their fantasy is true and proceed from there:
Because the 5 khandhā are impermanent, suffering and not self while the teaching of the Buddha only leads to Nibbāna via the Noble Eightfold Path. Therefore, Nibbāna (not impermanent, not suffering while still being not self) is detached from the 5 khandhā.
At least, these dreamers still agree that all the 5 khandhā are impermanent, suffering and not self. But now, these dreamers have in their hands both Nibbāna and “the pure nature of mind”. Both of which are detached from the 5 khandhā.
Two options here: 1) They can rename Nibbāna into “the pure nature of mind” so in the end, they have only 1 Dhamma that is detached from the 5 khandhā. 2) They can fantasize about 2 different Dhamma that are both detached from the 5 khandhā.
With option 1: Because this is simply a change of label, logical conclusion is still the same: “The pure nature of mind” is NOT self (and of course: not our true self, not ourselves, not within ourselves, not ours, etc.). This has been already presented in my first post of this thread.
It also brings up obvious questions: Why does anyone with their right mind even attempt to relabel Nibbāna, a term that the Buddha has already declared? Does it not originate from conceit?
With option 2: Because the Noble Eightfold Path as already declared by the Buddha only leads to Nibbāna, these dreamers have no other choice. They have to fantasize the 2nd time. This time they have to fantasy another completely different path to lead to their fantasized “the pure nature of mind”. Still not enough, they still have to fantasize the 3rd time. This time, they have to fantasize that THEIR fantasized path is superior or at least equal to the Noble Eightfold Path declared by the Buddha. Now, they are trapped in their conceit while they still have NOT YET even understood about Nibbāna or the Noble Eightfold Path.
Conclusion: Fantasizing about such thing called “the pure nature of mind” that is detached from the 5 khandhā only leads to redundancy and growth of conceit (then inevitably craving, clinging and suffering.)
Reading through your long post but I am still not sure what you meant here, do you mean in MN2, the Buddha encouraged such questions? or do you mean we should ignore what the Buddha said because it’s “normal” to do so?
I don’t see how you can come to this conclusion, please explain in more details.
Another option is already stated in my post above. Nibbāna is an unconditioned Dhamma. So, making a comparison or an analogy or an example to an unconditioned Dhamma by any conditioned Dhamma can only at best a very crude approximation.
The Buddha already taught us the practice to experience Nibbāna in this life. He also gives many descriptions of Nibbāna here so that we won’t mistake Nibbāna for something else. I think that’s plenty enough for us already.
I think this post should give you a clearer reply to get out of this confusion about purified/luminous mind.
I have never said anything has meaning similar to the word “flickering” so I am not sure how you can come to such conclusion.
Of course, I agree to this statement. What do you meant when you put forth such statement? How does it affect the Nibbāna anyway? The 3rd Noble Truth is a statement about Nibbāna. And it says that Nibbāna is to be realized as the result of development of the Noble Eightfold Path mentioned in the 4th Noble Truth. [A mind at arahant level experiences/realizes Nibbāna] does NOT make Nibbāna impermanent.
Then you need to look again my post. The so called nirodha (or cessation) is an unique attribute of Nibbāna. Because there is no other Dhamma with such attribute, the Buddha can mention such unique attribute as equivalent to Nibbāna without any ambiguity or confusion.
If you can agree that nirodha (or cessation) is an unique attribute of Nibbāna and so the Buddha can mention such unique attribute as equivalent to Nibbāna without any ambiguity, then you will no longer have such confusion. The delicate part here is: cessation (nirodha) and dispassion are not simply normal cessation and dispassion, in SN56.11, they are mentioned as cessation of All Cravings and dispassion to All Cravings. Those are among UNIQUE attributes of Nibbāna.
You missed my point. Please read again my post, I was telling you to get an approval of a translation because you twisted/squeezede/stretched out the original Pali message, especially with the term “ yadidaṁ” in AN4.34:
Fading away is said to be the best of all things whether conditioned or unconditioned. That is, the quelling of vanity, the removing of thirst, the abolishing of clinging, the breaking of the round, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.
To conclude: Your hypothesis only give rises to confusion where there should not be confusion. I repeat here: cessation of All Cravings and dispassion to All Cravings are among many UNIQUE attributes of Nibbāna, so the Buddha can use those terms without ambiguity to mention Nibbāna. Because they are unique attributes, not as conditioned process as you originally thought, there should not be any confusion.
