You say Nibbana is a “real and verifiable state.”
That sounds reasonable, but a state of what, exactly? A state of mind?
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.
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
1 Like
So Nibbana is a mind-object?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
1 Like
How is Nibbana experienced, if not in/by the mind?
And what do you mean by the mind “ceasing”?
Nibbāna is experienced by the mind that completed the Noble Eightfold Path.
The mind is a conditioned Dhamma, it arises and it ceases depending on conditions.
1 Like
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”???
Even if you have to carry me around on a stretcher, there will never be any deterioration in the Realized One’s lucidity of wisdom.
Mañcakena cepi maṁ, sāriputta, pariharissatha, nevatthi tathāgatassa paññāveyyattiyassa aññathattaṁ.
MN 12
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.
“Everything that has a beginning has an end.”
“yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti.
SN 56.11
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.
upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṁ bhāveti vivekanissitaṁ virāganissitaṁ nirodhanissitaṁ vossaggapariṇāmiṁ.
MN 118
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).
Super interesting discussion! 
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 … 
1 Like
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.