Pierced by the Dart

Discussion
21

But that simile is about a Tathagata and I don’t think it is the pertinent simile in that sutta is it? Instead the key simile here is a burning fire. The Buddha is saying something quite different from what you suggest here I think. Or maybe you are suggesting that an ‘extinguished fire’ lies deep within a ‘burning fire’? That seems quite strange to me, but maybe that’s a valid interpretation?

I’ll just expand that quote that you have given a little bit…

What do you think, Vaccha? Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know: ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”

“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”

“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire burning in front of you: what does it depend on to burn?’ How would you answer?”

“I would answer like this: ‘This fire burning in front of me burns in dependence on grass and logs as fuel.’”

“Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you know: ‘This fire in front of me is extinguished’?”

“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”

“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?”

“It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”

“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.

22

Anyone is free to interpretate it in its own ways but i feel it is something else to say i do not stay within EBT. To make this clear:

I have seen the Buddha says that two things must be directly known:

DN34: "What two things should be directly known? Two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element".

Those are characterised in this way:

AN3.47: “Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”

Characteristics of the Unconditioned
“Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”

Both these elements or aspect of reality must be directly known the Buddha says.

So, this means, i belief, we must have an eye for:

  1. what arises, ceases and changes. For what is compounded, disintegrates, is formed, made, born, liable to change, liable to cessation, is not stable, becomes, not reliabe (sankhata element)
  2. what does not arise, does not cease and change, the unborn, that what is not compounded and does not disintegrate, not liable to cease, stable, unborn, unbecome, reliabe (asankhata)

Like Udana 8.3 says: if there is not 2. there is no escaping the unstable, unrealiable, there is no safety and no protection.

EBT teach the sankhata and asankhata and both must be directly known. If we do not know something that does not change, is reliable, stable, and which cannot be seen evidently as arising, ceasing, changing, than we clearly do not directly know the unconditioned, asankhata.

EBT are very clear on this point: one has to directly know something that is different from the sankhata and not liable to arising and ceasing and change.

23

That is exactly the ‘Something’s missing’ that everyone is in search of. :grinning: Fruitlessly, if I may say so!

The Buddha taught us a way to find this Unconditioned, Unmade, Deathless element.

It begins by excluding everything in one’s experience which is Conditioned - which is Anicca, Dukkha… and therefore, not it.

Do let us know when you find it!

1 Like
24

@Stu, i belief in MN72 the Buddha illustrates that the nature of a Tathagata in this life and after this life cannot really be described in terms of the 5 khandha’s but the Buddha talks about his own nature, as he understands/knows himself in these terms: …They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean…

I belief, that is true for us too. Also our nature is immeasurable, hard to fathom, deep but we do not see this when we only have an eye for what arises, ceases, changes and are very much involved in those formations. It is like asking …what is an iceberg ?..and only refering to the top. So is also our understanding of ourselves , i belief, when we only have an eye for what arises (sankhata).

What can be exstinguished is, i belief, the sankhata, all the formed, all what arises conditionally, all what is liable to change but this is not true for what is called Tathagata, the deep.
If a tathagata would really be extinguished after death he just does not exist anymore after death. This is no EBT teaching.

25

Yes, by stop searching and taking refuge in the conditioned. If we stay obsessed by the sankhata element, and stay seeking protection in it, seeking safety, seeking happiness in what is fundamentally unstable and unreliable, we are involved in an ignoble search, says the Buddha(MN26) That we have to see first and we have to have some faith in the Buddha that ending search will have good results.

So we must open our eyes and see in what impossible mission we are involved.
But Buddha certaintly does not teach we are hopeless, without protection, without refuge. Indeed he shows us the way: stop searching saftey, protection, refuge, happiness in what is itself liable to arising, ceasing and change. I think we can agree on that?

I do not belief there is a difference between seeing the arising and ceasing of formation and seeing the stable. The same eye that sees arising, sees non-formation.

Like one sees a plane moving against a background that does not move, the sky, so one can only see arising formations against a background that does not move. I feel this background does not change during life. If one becomes aware of the presence of this empty and silent background, which one cannot see arising, ceasing, and changing like one can with anger, greed etc, ones view becomes more balanced.

26

Yes, agreed. ‘A tathagata does not exist after death’ is not an EBT teaching.

The Buddha deals with that just before in that same sutta that you quoted. It’s not that the Realised one exists or doesn’t exist after death. Rather the conviction one way or the other (or inbetween or neither) is a thicket of views, a desert of views, a trick of views, an evasiveness of views, a fetter of views.

“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One exists after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”

“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”

“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”

“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”

“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”

“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”

“Then is this your view: ‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are silly’?”

“That’s not my view, Vaccha.”

“Master Gotama, when asked these ten questions, you say: ‘That’s not my view.’ Seeing what drawback do you avoid all these convictions?”

“Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views. They’re beset with anguish, distress, and fever. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.”

“But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?”

“The Realized One has done away with convictions. For the Realized One has seen: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling. Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all identifying, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.”

“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”

“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Well then, are they not reborn?”

“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?”

“‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?”

“‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Master Gotama, when asked all these questions, you say: ‘It doesn’t apply.’ I fail to understand this point, Master Gotama; I’ve fallen into confusion. And I’ve now lost even the degree of clarity I had from previous discussions with Master Gotama.”

“No wonder you don’t understand, Vaccha, no wonder you’re confused. For this principle is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. It’s hard for you to understand, since you have a different view, creed, preference, practice, and tradition.

1 Like
27

Yes, indeed.

Your concept is similar to the citta (aka The Knower) described by many in the forest tradition, Ajahn Maha Boowa being one. He is reputed to be an Arahant. Very good company!! :grinning:

Consider though, can the Background be known without the Foreground? In other words, how can something which depends on something else arising and ceasing be itself Unconditioned?

If there was no Contact and nothing to know, could this Background Awareness still exist? In what way?

Moments of Knowing occur based on contact and are conditioned. IMO, the unchanging Background you speak of is an illusion, created by craving which stiches moments of knowing together. Much the same as the illusion of continuity produced by the quick flashes of individually different frames in a cinema reel.

I leave you with the enigmatic words of Ajahn Pannavaddho, who was Ajahn Maha Boowa’s chief western disciple…

That which Exists is Impermanent (it is marked by the tillakhana).
What is Impermanent is not Real (in the sense of having a permanent, unchanging essence).
What is Real does not Exist.

1 Like
28

My perception is that the Buddha lived in a culture filled to the brim with seekers of all types, many with well thought out and practiced methods of seeking the truth and/or nibbana. In the Suttas we find many earnest and devoted people who just couldn’t fathom what the Buddha was trying to convey. Your quote is a perfect example of what a difficult task the Buddha took on when he decided to teach!

Then it occurred to me, ‘This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. But people like attachment, they love it and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. And if I were to teach the Dhamma, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.’

And then these verses, which were neither supernaturally inspired, nor learned before in the past, occurred to me:

‘I’ve struggled hard to realize this, enough with trying to explain it! This teaching is not easily understood by those mired in greed and hate.

Those besotted by greed can’t see what’s subtle, going against the stream, deep, hard to see, and very fine, for they’re shrouded in a mass of darkness.’

So, as I reflected like this, my mind inclined to remaining passive, not to teaching the Dhamma.

29

It is very clear to me that in EBT Buddha teaches the sankhata element and asankhata element. That with the characteristic of arising, ceasing and change, and that in which such characteristics are not seen. And both need to be directly known. Now i like to withdraw because i think we will not come together.