I want to point out that about 30 texts have been cross referenced here by now.
It should be obvious that we can tie in 30 more and keep adding until we have tied together most of the texts in having found answers to most questions.
There are no texts to contradict the proposition. I would know if there were, because i’ve read them many times and learned them quite well. And i’ve read most of public discourse on these topics over the last eight years because i have no social life other than this.
There is not much to say. People don’t like it for obvious reasons, but in as far as drawing out the meaning from the texts, id bet my life that this is about as comprehensive as it gets in our days.
I am not interested in convincing anyone really, this is for the vibhajjavadins of theravada, it’s not for people who cling to things like belief & opinion, relationships to teachers, friends or tradition. It’s for the most radical wing of fundamentalist zealotry with little dust in their eyes.
It’s for people willing to look wherever the teacher says to look, willing to submit to truth, even if it’s psychologically disagreeable & inconvenient, even if one feels commited to one’s ways.
This also not for people who have contempt for the texts, for the conservative reading of the texts, or for me as a speaker. For one who holds these in contempt is unable to understand due to having judged hastly.
I am most interested in seeing whether there are any vibhajjavadins left in this generation.
Makes me no nevermind either way but i have to check.
This method is also not for people who want to be popular, to get along with the group, to align themselves with popular teachers & hype. Oh no, this is the wrong thing to study for that.
If you want to belong to a theravadin group, you better put away the canonical texts altogether, listen to their dhamma-talks & read their books, lest instructed to learn a particular text, as to not risk learning something which contradicts the works of disciples held to be true.
If you learn texts better than your teacher then he will disagree and send you away lest you can teach him and he can understand. And so by extension if you pursue the learning of the sutta you will distinguish yourself and be alienated from the lesser nerds.
I imagine It is very scary if one is not confident in one’s ability when the world gaslights you.
I do not really know yet what you mean but it is certainly not like this that EBT teaches that one must be able to enter sannavedayitanirodha (svn) to uproot defilements and arrive at state without clinging, the personal attainment of Nibbana.
I have discussed such things so many times. I know all these texts and its boring and burdensome to use them to convince people like you. If you just read all texts you also know that EBT does not teach one must be able to enter svn.
But i agree with you IF you mean that EBT teaches that one must be connected with the wisdom that knows dispassion, the signless, the uninclined, the empty. But that is the wisdom of an ordinairy mind. For this one needs no special meditative skills or samadhi like abilities.
Ordinairy mind often abides in dispassion, the signless, undirected, wishless. It often experiences three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts. But while the mind starts to engage with sense-objects (it is not always engages) it contact pleasant, painful and neutral. Sense-contacts.
There is no ordinairy mind that does not know the signless, dispassion etc. but that does not mean we realise it.
All beings know the signless, the desireless, the uninclined, the undirected much better then anything else. It is much more common than desire, signs, formations, inclinations arising.
But this commoness is also the reason it is being ignored.
I will dismiss this without any further ado, for it has not a single substantiation for the many claims contradicting my propositions, and so i can dismiss it freely, for what is freely asserted is likewise freely dismissed.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
Your feelings & opinions are not a substantiation for the truthfulness of your claims. You have to explain how you draw things out for your claims to be relevant.
At this point you would have to point out the mistakes in my logic or find texts which are not reconciliable with my proposition to illegitimize my deduction.
And if you have a claim to a competitive interpretation of the texts then you are by all means welcome to show how you managed to draw it out too.
One can come here and say ‘Notez is obviously wrong, because turning the mind to the deathless clearly means thinking about enlightenment, and parinibbana is in the texts obviously non-existence, and the cessation of perception & feeling is clearly a nonsensical corruption of the texts, and of course devas don’t exist and there is no rebirth’.
Whether they say it or not doesn’t make it true. It’s not interesting to me because billions of people have variant opinions and there are few opinions i care about when it comes to these texts.
By the way, many thousands of people have read this thesis by now, it was on reddit for a while before i posted it here, nobody has pointed out any mistakes and nobody will find any mistakes, because it’s basically self-explanatory & locked in like this, there are no texts left to be used as refutation.
Any competing interpretation of a single text will be scrutinized in light of all the texts referenced. Nobody can meet this bar because these are the most difficult texts to explain, let alone explaining all of them in cross reference.
I’ve understood this for many years and i’ve known most of the texts for many years too. But it is only when my friends here asked the right questions and taught me the remnant texts that i tied it together like this.
It’s not an easy thing to do. Learn most of the texts by memory, know the variant translations, learn the necessary pali, answer 10000 questions and you are good to go.
If i come off as arrogant, i am just speaking frankly at this point because i have earned the right as i see it. Also am very tired, it’s been a study grind for the last 8 years and much in the last 6 months since i signed up here, i need to calm down.
It’s not entirely wholesome i agree teacher. I am not rid of conceit & aversion but i do hope people can see past my obvious shortcomings.
This is what the texts say, i didn’t write them, i just took a peak, and am showing you all what i saw, so you can see for youself, if you want to look.
If they don’t reach enlightenment in this very life, then, surpassing the company of gods that consume solid food, they’re reborn in a certain host of mind-made gods. There they might enter into and emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling.
No ce diṭṭheva dhamme aññaṁ ārādheyya, atikkammeva kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkhānaṁ devānaṁ sahabyataṁ aññataraṁ manomayaṁ kāyaṁ upapanno saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpajjeyyāpi vuṭṭhaheyyāpi—
That is possible.”
atthetaṁ ṭhānan”ti.
Dittheva dhamme - Having seen dharma or accomplished in view(dharma)
If they haven’t seen dharma, they are not Sotapanna much less Anagami.
I don’t think there is ground to assume one accomplished in samadhi & sila is Anagami. I would like to see if other texts refer to perfection of Samadhi & Sila as Anagami.
There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, he is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of woe, certain, headed for self-awakening.
"There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, he is a once-returner, who — on returning only once more to this world — will put an end to stress.
"There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, wholly accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of the five lower fetters, he is due to be spontaneously reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world. Sekhin Sutta: One in Training (1)
Thank you @Notez for your hard work in assembling this set of sutta extracts. I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions.
I would like to add another angle - how does one know and see Cessation in order to be liberated through wisdom rather than the path of the meditative attainment of Cessation. I feel this is also important to understand just why does the wise contemplation/ achievement of Cessation free the Mind ie. what does Cessation prove about who or what ‘I’ am such that it frees ‘Me’? (possibly this deserves a separate thread)
SN 22.72 with parallels in SN 22.71, SN22.91. Also see elaborations in SN 22.82 , MN 109 and MN 72
“Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, the mind is rid of I-making, mine-making, and conceit, has transcended discrimination, and is peaceful and well liberated?”
“Any kind of form…feeling … perception … volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—having seen all consciousness as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self,’ one is liberated by nonclinging.
“When one knows and sees thus, Suradha, then in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, the mind is rid of I-making, mine-making, and conceit, has transcended discrimination, and is peaceful and well liberated.”
The simple assumption that comes to mind is that seeing consciousness cease, one is no longer attached to the view “I am Observer” or “Consciousness is eternal”. Perhaps seeing the cessation of perception one will also let go of attachment to perceptions. Same goes to feelings.
Notez, if I misrepresent you please tell. I think Notez basically differs from the more commonly accepted views in the following way:
He thinks cessation of perception and feeling doesn’t need formless attainments to be reached.
That cessation of perception and feeling is needed for even stream entry.
That it is the same as the signless immersion.
That it’s the same as not being perceipient of anything worldly, but still perceipient of Nibbāna is the cessation of existence.
No. 1 is objectionable due to no passage ever indicates that it can be reached without gradual letting go via the formless attainments. Is there anywhere in the sutta where that attainment is not reached after the formless attainments?
No. 2 is objectionable in that AN9.36 already said even first Jhāna is enough for liberation.
No. 3 is objectionable in that in MN121, although the signless immersion is also after neither perception nor non perception, it is different from cessation of perception and feeling by having six sense bases:
their mind becomes eager, confident, settled, and decided in that signless immersion of the heart. so evaṃ pajānāti: they understand: ‘ye assu darathā ākiñcaññāyatanasaññaṃ paṭicca tedha na santi, ye assu darathā nevasaññānāsaññāyatanasaññaṃ paṭicca tedha na santi, atthi cevāyaṃ darathamattā yadidaṃ—‘here there is no stress due to the perception of the dimension of nothingness or the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. imameva kāyaṃ paṭicca saḷāyatanikaṃ jīvitapaccayā’ti.there is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
no. 4 is objectionable as the state of perceiving nibbāna still has perception whereas cessation of perception and feeling has no perception.
It is likely this mix up to see signless immersion etc the same as cessation of perception and feeling that causes the identifying of nibbāna before and after death of arahant to be the same. thus denying that the is nothing after parinibbāna. This is a common theme for many who denies nothing after parinibbāna.
Further objections that cessation of perception and feeling is needed for stream entry. In particular, stream enterer doesn’t have direct experience of nibbāna, but has direct seeing of nibbāna. The above quote is for the arahants. Below is for the trainees.
SN12.68
aññatreva, āvuso paviṭṭha, saddhāya aññatra ruciyā aññatra anussavā aññatra ākāraparivitakkā aññatra diṭṭhinijjhānakkhantiyā ahametaṃ jānāmi ahametaṃ passāmi:“reverend saviṭṭha, apart from faith, preference, oral tradition, reasoned contemplation, or acceptance of a view after consideration, i know and see that ‘bhavanirodho nibbānan’”ti.the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.”
Seyyathāpi, āvuso, kantāramagge udapāno, tatra nevassa rajju na udakavārako.suppose there was a well on a desert road that had neither rope nor bucket. Atha puriso āgaccheyya ghammābhitatto ghammapareto kilanto tasito pipāsito, so taṃ udapānaṃ olokeyya.then along comes a person struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. Tassa ‘udakan’ti hi kho ñāṇaṃ assa, na ca kāyena phusitvā vihareyya.they’d know that there was water, but they couldn’t physically touch it. Evameva kho, āvuso, ‘bhavanirodho nibbānan’ti yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya sudiṭṭhaṃ, na camhi arahaṃ khīṇāsavo”ti.in the same way, i have truly seen clearly with right wisdom that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. Yet i am not a perfected one.”
It is likely that Notez underestimated the heights and depths of the cessation attainment to reach his conclusions.
Consciousness, perception and feeling all arises and falls together. Without consciousness, consciousness cannot be seen as ceased. Only after emerging from cessation of perception and feeling that one can reflect that there was no mind for some time.
Yes. I’ve become convinced that signless immersion, emptiness immersion and undirected samadhi, are distinct ways of approaching cessation of perception & feeling.
I believe the commentary here
According to the commentary, they color one’s first apprehension of Nibbana: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Nibbana as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness
Is half right. It is right in that they assert that the difference is in how they are approached but it haa not to do with the delineation by characteristics but rather by one’s theme of reasoning in turning away from the aggregates.
I believe it’s talked about as both one and many according to the specific manner in which one touches cessation.
Yes
Right there is no text like this that i know of.
In regards to this
1a) Does there need to be a text like this? It is not obvious to me that there needs to be an expression like this.
This is because i don’t see enough of the nuance to understand how exactly they reasoned about this. I assume that they didn’t speak random words in explaining these things and so asking for an exact expression might be asking for an oversimplification of the method.
There are questions i don’t know the answer to and these things are for people to figure out.
1b) This why it’s important to tie the cessation of perception & feeling to signless, emptiness & undirected. The sutta are explicit in that there is an association and there is then more to be drawn out from this connection.
1c) The idea of a linear progression through the 9 principial classes of meditative attainments is alluring for it’s simplicity. However there are problems arising from this which will require making assertions not easily substantiated.
For example
Did the Bodhisatta develop the 4 jhanas before attaining the base of nothingness?
Did the Bodhisatta develop the perception ‘Space is infine’ before developing the impertubable perceptions?
And what about this monk
“There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) ‘It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon’ — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound.”
“Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?”
“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
It’s not disagreeable because that very sutta goes on to explain not that “jhana is enough for liberation” as you put it but thus
‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to freedom from death: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
And this then requires further explanation of what exactly is this
‘They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to freedom from death: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
I think the meaning is different to what you suggest
I read it having asserted that a difference is delineated between
Emptiness samadhi as one thing
Emptiness element as another thing
For example i would say One enters emptiness samadhi by directing away from that which has come into existence as empty & void and towards the element of emptiness.
And so the phrase in question
‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by formations and intentions.’ They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by sankharas and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’
I think it is a reference to clinging associated with higher fetters, where one identifies as the attainer of the supreme samadhi attainment and delights in such existence.
As i see it, this is not really an objection but an interesting observation.
From this observation we can start to understand what prompts the need to delineate a difference between the principial cessation and the samadhi attained in dependence on it.
This ties to how there are no texts which use the compound ‘cessation of perception & feeling samadhi’, and how the signless/emptiness/undirected samadhi are never classified apart from cessation of perception & feeling.
Further your observation, ties to the question whether you think perception truly exists?
And how exactly is cessation of perception & feeling extremely pleasant if nothing is felt?
I am relatively new in this training myself, some of these things i fugured out long time ago, some more recently in thinking much about the suttas which Dhabba has been obsessing about, and more recently in re-reading Ceisiwr’s old posts.
It’s a group effort. I can’t explain everything but some things i believe we have figured out even if things can be explained better yet.
This is a fertile field of things to be learned, cultivators needed.
I want to draw attention to one circumstance which not many people think about
Buddhas know the complete method of expression & meaning because of their direct experience and remembrance of past Buddhas.
In the early formation of the sangha very few people know anything other than the general instruction.
It would take a while until the gist classification of attainments would become widely known and the method is revealed to his students for as long as Tathagata teaches but nobody learns it fully, it’s impossible.
Another thing i want to say is in regards to my own limitations.
There are some texts i’ve pondered very much and others not so much, and some texts i don’t even know of.
And so, if people ask me to explain a text which i am not much familiar with, i can probably explain it enough to at least make the question go away, but if i learn it well & examine it in light of other texts which i know well, then my understanding of all these texts can evolve significantly still.
If people expect me to explain every sutta in detail & as intended, it’s too much to ask of me.
But i welcome more suttas to be presented here for examination nevertheless.
