Proof For Mere Cessation

The Watercooler
63

I do not think we use the word ‘mind’ in the same way. I do not speak of mind as a “stream of sense vinnana’s”.

I believe in mind as a treausure, a refuge. Real safety, real protection is in the mind. The worldy stream does not see this. Beings seek no protection and safety in the mind, but see mind as a problem. They have no trust that the home they live in is amazing. They live in a defiled hurting home. Like hoarders do. They do not want to be there, although they can never escape mind/their home. Trying to escape the foulness of their home, they never will come in touch with the beauty of their home. If we keep hoarding foulness…We will never see and have faith that mind is not the problem. But the problem is we have, and still defile our home.

My Buddha teaches that we should not see mind as a problem. It cannot be escaped. Whereever we go, we cannot escape the mind. We must see it as a treasure, and see it as our home, because then we take care of our home. We cleanse it with the lather of Dhamma. Home becomes a nice place. And if we start to feel this, the need to search for an escape route, descreases. Great masters show that even while sick, decaying, with great pains, home is excellent.

My Buddha talkes about the purified mind as 'the amazing, the state of grace, the sanctuary, the shelter, the haven (SN43).

I believe it is extremely subtle, and hard to see what this purified mind really is.
Some imagine this to be mere a purified cognitive process. I do not think so. That is a theoretical approach of mind, part of conceiving. But direct knowledge of pure mind is different. I do not yet know what it is.I believe it is indeed amazing, a haven.

I see Buddha talkes in different ways about the mind in EBT
One way is for example: mind is signless, dispassionate, desireless, uninclined, undirected, empty, still, unconditioned. I believe here the Buddha refers to minds essence, its bare awareness, which is yet without inclinations and direction and passion.

Nibbana is explained as the absence of clinging, and where else would that be absent but in the mind?

Nibbana is explained as the removal of the fires of hate, greed and delusion (extinguishment) and where else is this removed from, but from mind?

Nibbana is explained as the cessation of bhava, and where else wouldthe cessastion of a proces of becoming and birth take place but in mind? Not grapsing, no clinging to formations…then there cannot be states produced, but mind remains in an unconstructed state or emptiness. Cessation of bhava in this life.

Nibbana is also desribed in the suttas as a sublime state of supreme peace…that is, i believe, the suchness of a purified mind.

Nibbana is also described as; imperishable and everlasting in the sutta’s.
I am not gonna refer to sutta’s because i have done this many times and makes no difference at all.

Although we speak of mind as peaceful, one will not be able to trace this peaceful mind with senses.
Mind is empty is said. I believe that is true.

64

This is what I’m trying to understand. Your conception of this mind that is your house is of a mirror that reflects nothing. What use is a mirror that reflects nothing? To even define a mirror we rely upon its function: reflection. A mirror that does not accomplish this function might as well not exist at all. It serves no purpose and does nothing.

You apparently conceive of nibbana as the state where this mirror forever and ever afterward reflects nothing whatsoever. Just a dead mirror that reflects nothing. How is that more comforting to you as a refuge than say Venerable @NgXinZhao’s conception of nibbana? Why is it comforting to think of a mirror that reflects nothing as a refuge versus just no mirror at all?

Maybe the two of you are misunderstanding eachother? Maybe mere cessation is just a mirror that no longer reflects anything at all? Mere cessation of reflection. Maybe splitting hairs and arguing over whether a mere (pun?!) that reflects nothing actually exists or if there is no mirror/mere is to proliferate the unproliferated? Maybe I’ve just solved the problem and found that in truth and reality Venerable @NgXinZhao and @Green have been talking about the same thing and there is no need to argue anymore about it :stuck_out_tongue:

:pray:

2 Likes
65

Yes, awareness itself ceases in parinibbāna.

What Burgs would call Dhammakāya doesn’t get manifested. Seriously I think @Green would benefit a lot from reading Burgs.

P.S. It’s actually a bit different now that I think of it. Dhammakāya is different from nibbāna. When alive, one can perceive Nibbāna (cessation of conditioned phenomena) with dhammakāya. After parinibbāna, there’s no awareness to even perceive the cessation of all conditioned phenomena. But @Green doesn’t recognize the difference, taking the dhammakāya which sees nibbāna as Nibbāna itself. So perhaps in Abhidhammic terminology, it would be lokutarra citta all the way after parinibbāna for green.

66

I haven’t seen @Green using the word dhammakāya. You’ve attributed the word to his view, but has he acceded? If not, it would be charitable to use the words he chooses to describe his view in order to understand, wouldn’t it? Unless you are directly aware of his mind that is.

This is the kind of categorical statement that makes me cringe and I’m afraid acts as a condition for ill-will and arguments to arise. I can’t understand how one would know that @Green doesn’t recognize the difference without having the ability to know his mind. Perhaps it is your hypothesis that he doesn’t know the difference?

OTOH, perhaps you know his view, see it as wrong, and are trying to help him change his view. This is the impression your words leave on my mind; that you are certain that you’ve pinned down Green’s view in all its particulars and know his mind and know it to contain a faulty view with complete certainty.

Speaking for myself, I can clearly say I don’t know his view and that is why I’m asking him questions. I have hypothesis about what his view might be; a mental model if you will. But this mental model is not complete to my limited mind and so I have questions, because I find Green’s view fascinating and at odds - from what I can surmise - with my own. Even if I had no more questions and my mental model seemed complete with no inconsistencies or contradictions I still could not be sure that my mental model is complete as I do not have the ability to know his mind.

I wish to understand more about his view so I can discover whether it really is at odds, whether I’m wrong in my views, to clarify as a friend and with respect the differences between us so as to be beneficial towards one another and the world.

:pray:

67

Thank you venerable! :pray:

I just hope you see what I’m getting at, namely that ”When these six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over” is enough.

But when ”mere cessation” is claimed, the nothing else exist has been added to this.

I do understand that sutta study and logic can lead to the conclusion of ”mere cessation” but if you check this again:

This above equals the view of ”mere cessation” 100% - but since this is proliferating the unproliferated, ”mere cessation” can’t and should not really be claimed.

That is the whole issue and why there are disagreements, and this has nothing to do with a self or no self and is not some special interpretation.

When claiming ”mere cessation”, one is proliferating the unproliferated.
:pray:

1 Like
68

I think it is great when one is able to see the moments in which things are not yet labled, named, have not a sign yet, are not yet recognised, conceived etc. I am not gonna defend this or that position on mind anymore because that only makes me vulnerable for you to attack me.

But i feel, and maybe we can discuss this, that Buddha used asankhata as here and now visible. He did not use asankhata to refer to mere cessation (nothing left) after a last death.

Such is not in line with the sutta’s. Nibbana and conditioned phenomena do not exclude eachother.
Nibbana is attained when all causes and condtions for clinging are gone. But this does not mean there can be no seeing, hearing, smelling etc.

I agree

69

What do you think about asankhata. MN115 says it must be known. But what must be known?
Asankhata is defined as the opposite of sankhata. It has not the characteristic to arise, cease and change. SN43 teaches the Path the Buddha teaches is the Path to Asankhata.
Well, where are we talking about? I seem to be the only one interested in the Path, in Asankhata and willing to discuss its meaning. What do you think about asankhata? I know you do not like to take position because that makes vulnerable, but is this not a bit lazy too? Not at all making up your own mind about all this? Is that also not investigating Dhamma?

Views? I have no views :heart_eyes:

Yeshe, do you feel mind can be traced? If you would from your experience try to describe mind, how would you describe it…(please forget some moment all you learned).What are we really talking about when we talk about mind? For example, if mind ceases…what does cease?

70

Hello @Green,

I don’t want to attack you. I was hoping to try and elicit answers because I want to understand you :slight_smile: You’ve asked me here about asankhata and probably the best I can come up with to give you is what Nagarjuna says here. :pray:

71

I don’t know. I guess describing it according to its function - bare awareness - seems functional :stuck_out_tongue:

Bare awareness? I don’t think we can find and pin down what we’re really talking about. At least I don’t know how to do that and I know you see this as a failure or that I’m not being honest about something that is just manifest, but when you ask “what are we REALLY talking about?” I think you’re trying to find some ultimately existing thing that is independent and permanent. I can’t find any such thing.

Bare awareness? Again, I can’t find any what as some ultimately existing thing that is independent and permanent. When I try and find something like this I come up empty. I can’t find mind with mind. The best I can do is infer that it exists, that’s it. But this inference is not direct knowledge.

:pray:

72

That does not do Yeshe. I want your opinion.

73

No really not. I only want to investigate this in a open and honest manner regardless of any theory of mind. I agree with the Tibetans teachers that teach that when one tries to find mind one cannot find it.
But like they say, that refers to its empty essence. Mind is empty.

74

My opinion is:

Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nibbana. Nibbana is not the slightest bit different from samsara. Whatever is the limit of nibbana, that is the limit of samsara.

The letting go of all distinguishment and the letting go of illusions is peace. No dhamma was taught by the Buddha at any time, in any place, to any person.

:pray:

75

Oke…hmmmm…i am not gonna comment…but i appreciate it.
But what do you think asankhata refers to?Can we focus on that? Have you investigated the sutta’s dealing with asankhata?

76

I don’t believe asankhata refers to a thing. If it referred to a thing, then that thing would have the characteristics of aging and death. No thing exists without ageing and death.

I have investigated suttas dealing with asankhata.

:pray:

1 Like
77

There is a vast world out there outside of Samsara and the Saha World. The Saha World is contained in a little coconut shell, trapped, outside the Stream in a larger World that many are yet to explore that understands the actualized meaning of infinity.

78

Do you know this? Have you visited? :pray:

79

We all have. We just forgot. :heart:

80

So you remember? :pray:

81

Where does it refer to?

82

I don’t know even that it is a where as generally where refers to a thing and I don’t believe it refers to a thing. :pray: