That’s wonderful for me to keep in my mind and heart.
I have that situation in a group I practice with, and now the appropriate response is clear.
Thanks very much for posting.
Be well 
1 Like
Nibbana is “the unconditioned.” How can we reach this unconditioned? By dropping all conditions. When all conditions are dropped, we attain Nibbana. Nibbana is that empty of all conditions, and when we attain Nibbana or that unconditioned state, we are no longer what we think we are. Since it is impossible to refer to “we ‘’ in this state, the Buddha called that as “Tathagatha’'. Therefore, saying the goal is Nibbana or Tathagatha is the same goal, because Nibbana “triggers” that Tathagatha. However, Nibbana is not Tathagatha. “Trigger” may not be the best word to describe that, but I just temporarily use it just to explain the idea.
It is not easy to use normal language to explain this. Moreover, English is not my language, so it is not very easy for me to pick correct words to explain the ideas. However, if you understand the concept, then you will get it even if the words are not very precise.
When I said “to find the Tathāgata.” I was speaking to the religious seekers who were looking for the ultimate self. Instead of looking for that “self, ” let’s look for the “Tathagatha.” They may feel more comfortable than looking for Nibbana.
If we still cling to self view, we will think that when we reach our final goal Nibbana, we are Nibbana or become Nibbana or we are in Nibbana, or we will enjoy Nibbana. If not, what do you think we will be?
No, I don’t think so. The Buddha has done away with any theory of “self” and he declared nibbāna as unconditioned.
No, I don’t think so. Claiming on nibbāna without a trace of referring to it as “nibbāna is my self” or “nibbāna is mine” or “I am nibbāna”, etc. then I don’t think it’s a doctrine of self.
As my understanding, there is only nibbāna that can be considered as unconditioned. Therefore, other people can choose other label/name for nibbāna but they still have to explain it very well so that the listener won’t have the impression that there is another different thing than nibbāna that is also unconditioned. I don’t see any sutta telling me otherwise but maybe I was wrong?
I kind of agree what you have said above.
However, we don’t have agreement in the above paragraph. In the sutta, the Buddha have already given us a much better explanation as something like this: We follow the 8FNP, we realize nibbāna, also, we become arahant.
Note that Tathāgata is already used to address the Buddha, I suggest you better to use “arahant” to convey your idea because although the Buddha is arahant, yes, but he is the first arahant that appeared and due to his many qualities and merits.
“Trigger” is very problematic word, it implies nibbāna is the condition for arahant, or, arahant is the condition for nibbāna. I also suggest you change your wording to “the goal is to realize nibbāna, or, the same goal, to become an arahant”
It’s not easy to be a Dhamma teacher. Especially, when the power to understand people’s tendency is not developed, straying away from the sutta easily leads to misunderstanding for the listener even when the teacher has correct understanding.
I agree with you here, as already declared by the Buddha in MN1.
So to conclude this discussion, you and I seem to have similar understanding when you phrase it like this “the goal is to realize the ultimate happiness, nibbāna, or, the same goal, to become an arahant”. The other things like “look for the Tathāgata” or “Tathāgata is the label for the new goal or new self/atman” or “triggering the condition for Tathāgata”, I will have to put aside as your difficulty in using words efficiently that easy to confuse people and will require a lot of explanations.
Maybe you still have anything else to add?
It is not easy to let go of self view. Because of self view, we think we will become arahant and enjoy nibbana. The Tathāgata is the Buddha, so the arahant is not the Tathāgata. The person that is speaking is the Tathāgata. Tathāgata is the person that teaches us the Dhamma. Thinking this way, you obviously can pinpoint the Tathāgata, and can conclude that the Tathāgata exists right here and right now, the Tathāgata is the person that we called the Buddha. If this is so then we can describe and identify the Tathāgata when we could see him.
When the Buddha refers to the Tathāgata, he refers to the unconditional, indescribable state that he has realized for himself. However, I do not believe he thinks that state is “I, me, mine.” Tathāgata is not a person or belongs to a person. If the Buddha said that the Tathāgata is deep, unfathomable, immeasurable, beyond logic, then he does not refer to a person that we can see.
Stream Enter, Once returner, Non-Returner, Arahant, Buddha… are terms to indicate level of realization of a person. They do not refer to “that” which is unfathomable, immeasurable, beyond logic. Once they reach the goal, all of them will realize “that.” I do not think Tathāgata is a title or a different name for the Buddha because if it is so, why does the Buddha say that title, that name is immeasurable, unfathomable, beyond logic? What does he refer to?
However, I think I have explained enough about this point. I cannot cover all the details. You do not need to agree with me. It is OK to disagree. This is my current understanding, and it may change.
I understand that English is not my language, so I will have a lot of trouble explaining this difficult and abstract concept using English. That’s why I said I cannot use precise words, but if you pay attention to the meaning, to what I pointed to then you will not see my ugly fingers.
I do not try to convince anybody with my new understanding. Out of compassion to the world, I share what I have. If this may be somewhat helpful, I do not want to keep it to myself. When asked, I try to respond as much as I can. If not, it is OK. Some people may find this interesting, some don’t. Since I am not a Dhamma’s teacher, people will not believe in what I say. They will tear it down and scrutinize it; therefore, I do not think that they will blindly follow what I said.
It seems like you understood all of these concepts, so I do not need to explain further. Good to see that we have some agreements.
I tend to agree with you. It would also be a bit strange, i feel, when there would be no real base or ground for stability, for inner peace.
According the texts Buddha did not teach that all that can be known is conditioned and is seen arising, ceasing and changing in the meantime. He also talked about what cannot be seen arising, ceasing, and changing in the meantime. That cannot be the khandha’s or any fruit (sotapanna-arhant) because this is seen arising.
Saying or thinking that there is nothing that cannot be seen arising, ceasing, and changing in the meantime (which is not what the sutta’s teach (AN.3.47), and all there is to know and see is change, i feel, this comes down to saying that there is no real ground for any inner peace of mind, any stability.
In what must inner peace or stability be grounded if everything about us is changing all the time? It means that inner peace is a delusional state, it must be grounded in delusion , right?
So, I feel there must also be some real ground for inner peace, for stability, detachment to make sense of all this.
Buddha also teaches that there can be no involvement in the khandha’s, what does that even mean if
we are only five khandha’s? How can one be not involved in something one is?