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.
Yes, Nibbana is obviously a mind-object, which is why the word “dhamme” is used for mind-objects in relation to the mano sense sphere. However, the translation “mind-objects” does not mean the object is created by the mind. All it means is the object is experienced by the mind sense organ.
I do not think there is someone here who hold this weird view. It is more like this:
“Ajaan Paññā’s sacred duty to his students was to clearly describe the coarse and grasping conditions constricting the human heart, while at the same time making them aware of the pure nature of mind lying dormant and stifled within” (uncommon wisdom, ajahn pannavaddho)
I feel, no i know, Buddha does the same in EBT. The pure nature of mind is already there, but we do not taste or know its qualities because of incoming defilements which distort and keep hidden the pure nature of mind.
Those incoming defilements have a strong influence on how we perceive, taste, experience the nature of mind. But like AN1.51 says, defilements are never a inherent part (of the empty) and clear nature of the mind. It is not like defilements remove the clear and empty nature of mind. It is more like they cover it up.
A Buddha teaches that what we hold for the nature of mind is not truly the nature of mind. For example, duality of observer (I/self/ego) and observed (object) is not the nature of mind but is a distorted perception of the nature of mind caused by defilements as avijja and asmi mana.
Asmi mana gives a strong impression that the nature of mind is an ego, some mental entity.
What the qualities are of a mind without defilements we have to see for ourselves. There are texts that describe it as free of limits (AN10.81).It is evident that it cannot be reckoned as khandha’s.
I also believe that the following is an important statement (from: uncommen wisdom, page 107/108):
"Tan Paññā realized intuitively the importance of that stable unchanging essence. It was evident in his practice that mental phenomena came and went—arising and ceasing continually—at almost electric speed. If our awareness of these phenomena were to arise and vanish simultaneously at the same speed, there would be no stable “platform” from which that mental activity could be known or perceived. The mind in its entirety would be nothing more than a chaotic sea of random mental events, with no reliable continuum of awareness to connect them into thoughts, concepts and emotions. For the mind as a whole to function as it does, that platform must exist independently of all the changing phenomena that constitute mental activity"
I feel, people become anxious when something stable is introduced into the teachings. I think I see that happen. Because they see it as the introduction of a soul, an abiding unchanging entity, a self into the teachings. But this is a non-issue. I believe Buddha refered in EBT to it as the unconditioned element. That which is not seen arising and ceasing unlike formations. And is also no soul or unchanging entity or self. So, a stable element in the teachings of the Buddha is no perversion, i believe.
Where in EBT does the Buddha say there is nothing stable? There is no home? I feel, it is the opposite. What he says is that if there would be nothing stable it is useless to seek for a refuge and there would be no escape (Ud 8.3)
Why can’t you see and admit, using your skills in logic, that if anything about us would be fleeting and unstable, we can never ever arrive at peace. We can only be in total chaos. Why are you not in total chaos?
And, is it not your experience that there is a stable element ? Is it really true that you see only arising and ceasing formations?
Maybe we can meet eachother here in a more open and respectful way? Maybe you can trust, believe, at least try to believe that i am like you studying EBT and Buddha-Dhamma. And i also do not want to misinterpret the Buddha. The last thing i wish is to phantasize my own Dhamma and present it as Buddha-Dhamma. Really it is like that. I am sincere in this, maybe even more than you. Maybe you can trust, believe, at least try to believe it. You are really not the only one.
For the sake of gain, sentient beings all strive for whatever they desire. The desire for gains, the wish for happiness: if people strive with strong effort they will attain what they seek Once the goal is attained, patience is supreme, therefore one should practice patience.
Actually this so called “weird” view is shared by people with great status like a bhikkhu Sāti in MN38 and such Jain leader Nātaputta in MN14. I think you are quite overestimate here when saying that such kind of view can no longer be found since the Buddha time.
Please kindly take note that I have previously politely request 2 times that we should stay within the EBT source and leave aside the other sources considered as secondary later source.
Of course, I understand it will be difficult for people to adjust their own habit of referring to sources outside EBT. So, whenever anyone here brings up sources from outside EBT, please note that I will put the priority as lowest to response to their argument.
Please do NOT take my temporary silence as my approval of any arguments from outside EBT. When their priority is due, I will disprove those misunderstandings in a clear manner by a separate post (as I have done so up until now).
Well, I hope you can see thoroughly this thread, I only confirm that Nibbāna as a reality to be realized by a mind at arahant level. I have never said something that you suppose that I said above. Is there any chance that you have been so far mistaken me with somebody else?
Well, I think it’s much more productive to leave aside such so called loaded question as highlighted in your above quote. I think it’s quite unfair when people becomes upset when the original loaded questions were reflected back to them.
Maybe you haven’t seen that I have already trusted, believed. That’s the way of the proof of contradiction. I took what you said about “the pure nature of mind” as true and go from there. I don’t think anyone can ask much more trust and belief than what I did.
However, afterward, it is shown to everyone to see that the consequence of such view about “the pure nature of mind” detached from 5 aggregates is only conceit, inherent contradiction, craving, clinging and suffering.
Well, I think it should not be too much to ask from you now: Maybe it’s your turn now to try to believe and to trust in what I said?
Suppose you accept what I said are true (1. Nibbāna is NOT self - and of course: not our true self, not ourselves, not within ourselves, not ours, etc. 2. “The pure nature of mind” (and anything else besides Nibbāna) detached from 5 aggregates is just a fantasy), then go from there.
Will it lead you to craving, clinging, suffering afterward OR will it lead to freedom, peace, safe, home, quench of craving afterward?
Even an anāgāmī has not yet experienced of a stable element (Nibbāna), he only knows about the existence of Nibbāna and the path leads to Nibbāna. Talking about experience of a stable element (Nibbāna) is only applicable at arahant level.
Sorry to disappoint you but I do not declare personal attainment even for the purpose of a listener to gain faith. That kind of faith is only artificially established compared to the case when people can see, know and experience the teaching by themselves.
I do not recall any sutta where it starts by the Buddha’s declaration of his supreme perfect awakening then immediately the listener can attain any stage of enlightenment (even at sotāpanna), afterward the sutta ends as such.
