Relationship between vedanā and citta

[nibbanakamo]

@Deeele

This is Dependent Origination rather than Satipatthana. Satipatthana is the path to purification rather than the mental turmoil you are describing.

If you take only the first part of my posting then you would come to this conclusion.
But this should not be ignored:

@nibbanakamo

These are moments of different meditation objects (Kaya, Vedana, Citta, Dhamma). Sure. But you can come back to Kaya (when you for example relax the tension) and discern that there is no tension anymore. The Feeling (Vedana) is pleasant and Citta (emotional process) is calmed by the thought: “relax the tension and don’t think furthermore about what he did to me”.

@Deeele

The Buddha defined the ‘citta sankhara’ as ‘feelings’ (vedana). Refer to MN 44.

@Deeele

It is not “interpret” as sanna & vedana in MN 44. It is actually defined as sanna & vedana in MN 44.

It is a difference to define citta sankhara as feelings or as sensations and feelings ( or as it usual is translated as perception and feelings)
But in MN 118 it is clearly seen that vedana is meant as the main part.
Maybe i misunderstood you and you don’t mean the complete calming of the meditation objects Kaya, Vedana, Citta, Dhamma then the changing of the meditation object (as help for calming, beneath relaxing etc.) is that what i also told before.

@Deeele

For me, the Buddha used the term ‘citta sankhara’ because the 7th step of MN 118 is to experience how the pleasant feelings ‘condition/influence’ (‘sankhara’) the citta, such as make the citta greedy for , infatuated with or simply lose composure due to the pleasant feelings.

But for me Vedana should be experienced and then calmed. But how do you practically calm Vedana? You can let loose the attention on Vedana and change the attention to another object. In this case it is Citta (emotional process). Only when you experience Citta (how it is affected) then you can discern from what it is affected (Vedana). But this comes in the Cittanupassana. In Vedananupassana you observe and calm only Vedana (citta sankhara). You can not see it there how your Citta is affected because your observation can not have multiple meditation objects at the same moment of time.

@Deeele

The reverse direction is ‘dependent cessation’ rather than ‘dependent origination’; just as the 3rd noble truth is called ‘cessation’ rather than the ‘origination of nibbana’. I have personally not read any suttas that call the reverse direction ‘dependent origination’.

It is clear that the second way to see it (If this is not then that is not) should be called Dependent Cessation but it is also possible to see this in the Dependent Origination:
In DN 15 (Mahānidāna Sutta):

It was said: ‘With contact as condition there is feeling.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no contact of any kind anywhere—that is, no eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, or mind-contact—then, in the complete absence of contact, with the cessation of contact, would feeling be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for feeling, namely, contact.

and so forth with the other links.

@Deeele

My view is my view is not a wrong view. Please refer to SN 12.3 & MN 149 (below), which support my view that my view it is not a wrong view.

I wrote: [quote=“nibbanakamo, post:22, topic:3591”]
If you see it like this you interpret the Dependent Origination as a temporal order. But this is a wrong view.
[/quote]
and you quoted a part of MN 149
But you can see at:

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up (accumulate) for oneself in the future

that accumulation takes place in the future.
But in Dependent Origination the links happen in this moment at the same time.
They show how suffering comes into being. (But you can also see in the arising if there were not this that would not be. See example above)
In short: the part of MN 149 show what happened when the Dependent Origination happened again and again.

@Deeele

But the sutta definitely states it is a sphere or sense object. Please re-read the sutta & consider again. Also, if Nibbana was not a sense object, how could the Buddha have known or described it?

@Deeele

MN 148 describes ‘ayatana’ as two-fold

It is the context too what gives the meaning. (Same as Dhamma has different meanings in different context). Buddha called the spheres beyond the forth Jhana Ayatanas.

In Ud 8.1 Buddha described what is not in this sphere. Even there is no object and there is no world, that is created by your senses. But could you see he described what is in the sphere? Sure, it is the end of suffering.

Greetings
Erik

[Deeele]

@sandundhanushka

vacchagottha

Generally, suttas to Vacchagottha do not contain the true dhamma because it was the bewildered & confused Vacchagottha that established the terminology used in the discussion.

For example, based on suttas with Vacchagottha, many people try to argue the Buddha did not teach not-self.

@sandundhanushka

Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed

How is this related to Nibbana? It seems all that is being discussed here by the Buddha is “describing” a Buddha. The Buddha has said: “description” of him is cut (rather than the aggregates that comprised of his life).

@sandundhanushka

With full liberation five aggregates are not going to arise in the future.

A Buddha has five aggregates. Please refer to SN 22.85. However, the five aggregates are not ways to describe a Buddha, that is all.

@sandundhanushka

If nibbana is another existence it remarks the presence of the 5 aggregates.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Nibbana is of two kinds according to Iti 44: (i) Nibbana experienced by the mind in this life; and (ii) Nibbana that occurs at the termination of life.

Nibbana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion. It is experienced by the mind and stated in many suttas, such as MN 37: “When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.”

@sandundhanushka

not being dogmatic but my friend you’re mistaken.

Again, I am not mistaken. Instead, you are not not being dogmatic & you have not considered the following logic:

1. Iti 44 describes two kinds of Nibbana: (i) Nibbana experienced by the mind in this life; and (ii) Nibbana that occurs at the termination of life. The Nibbana described most often in the suttas is the Nibbana experienced in the here-&-now.

2. If Nibbana cannot be known by the mind while being conscious, it cannot be known or assured that Nibbana will occur at the termination of life.

Let me ask you: "How can you know Nibbana will happen at the termination of life if you cannot know Nibbana (the destruction of craving) has occurred while being alive?

@sandundhanushka

Please discuss this with other scholars (who believe in Kamma and rebirth e.g. bhikkhu bodhi, bhikkhu analayo,bhikkhu sujato, Ajhan brahmali.) [/quote]
If one wants to attain Nibbana, the suttas state the mind must end craving. Therefore, any mind that ends craving will attain Nibbana regardless of its beliefs about rebirth. For example, in Ud 1.10, Bahiya was not instructed on rebirth when Bahiya attained Nibbana. It is not believing in rebirth that will attain Nibbana but ending craving that will attain Nibbana.

An analogy is being sick. Believing you are sick will not cure the sickness. What cures the sickness is taking the medicine.

[quote=“sandundhanushka, post:26, topic:3591”]Perhaps the 33 nibbana sermons by ven. Katukurende nanananda thero might help you to figure this out.

Thank you but the suttas are clear (as posted below). It is you that must show the Pali suttas do not teach there is a Nibbana known by the mind as a sense object (ayatana). It is you that must repudiate Ud 8.1, which seems to literally state Nibbana is an ayatana.

However, since you seemed extremely displeased with my answers here, I will certainly ensure to not answer your questions again in the future.

With metta

He too directly knows…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because the Tathāgata has fully understood it to the end, I say. MN 1

These two Nibbāna-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stableand unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being.

Iti 44

MN 37: “When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.”

Since he does not form any condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or non-being, he does not cling to anything in this world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. MN 140

And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna. If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and that would be wearying and troublesome for me.’ MN 26

[Deeele]

@nibbanakamo

In Ud 8.1 Buddha described what is not in this sphere. Even there is no object and there is no world, that is created by your senses. But could you see he described what is in the sphere? Sure, it is the end of suffering.

What is described is what is not in this sphere or what this sphere is not. But it does not state the sphere is not known by the mind sense.

Again, how can a Buddha know & describe Nibbana if it is not experienced by the mind?

Dhp 154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving.

Regards

[nibbanakamo]

@Deeele

What is described is what is not in this sphere or what this sphere is not.

As i wrote also.

@Deeele

But it does not state the sphere is not known by the mind sense.

But does it state that it is a sense sphere?

@Deeele

Again, how can a Buddha know & describe Nibbana if it is not experienced by the mind?

For example: The sphere sanna vedayita nirodha (the cessation of sensations and feeling)
is a sphere where the activity mind completely stops. There is no sense here, but how does Buddha know that “he experienced” it or better that the experience was there or even that the sphere was there?

@Deeele

And it is hard to see this truth, namely, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna. If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and that would be wearying and troublesome for me.’ MN 26

So it is possible to describe what is not in this sphere to take a glimpse of understanding that it is a sphere where you can not describe what it is of, or what is in this sphere or that you can experience it with senses. Because if there were something what can be experienced with the sense mind in this sphere, it would be possible to describe that there is something. But i don’t know where Buddha said what is in this sphere. I only know that Buddha described what is not in this sphere.

Greetings
Erik

[sandundhanushka]

@Deeele

A Buddha has five aggregates. Please refer to SN 22.85. However, the five aggregates are not ways to describe a Buddha, that is all.

Reply;

sure buddha has five aggregates . i agree.but do you agree that after parinirvana the five aggregates are not going to arise?

@Deeele
Generally, suttas to Vacchagottha do not contain the true dhamma because it was the bewildered & confused Vacchagottha that established the terminology used in the discussion

Reply:
how could you say that buddha preached untrue dhamma to another and true dhamma to another? if your’re going to say that vacchagotta sutta contains "untrue dhamma " you gotta prove that it is a later addition to MN.

@sandundhanushka
If nibbana is another existence it remarks the presence of the 5 aggregates.

@Deeele
I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Nibbana is of two kinds according to Iti 44: (i) Nibbana experienced by the mind in this life; and (ii) Nibbana that occurs at the termination of life.
Nibbana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion. It is experienced by the mind and stated in many suttas, such as MN 37: “When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.”

Reply:

iti 44 : “What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left.

“Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

“These, bhikkhus, are the two Nibbāna-elements.”

These two Nibbāna-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stableand unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

sure, nibbana is experienced in the very life ( sopadisesa nibbana ). unlike dependent origination nibbana is “unconditioned”. the nibbana ( sopadisesa nibbana ) is the nibbana that is attained while still, the aggregates existing . but with anupadisesa nibbana the aggregates will no longer arise.the arising of aggregates itself leads to rebirth,sorrow,suffering . an arhant is having the aggregates in his present life but,the causes for it’s arising in the future is destroyed with the attainment of nibbana. with the attainment of nibbana the probability of being reborn is null. if nibbana is another sense sphere it remarks that the arhant will be reborn in the plane named " nibbana". with the attainment of full liberation there is a common utterance: " the holly life has been established,there is no existence after this , what had to be done has been done." if your suggesting that nibbana is another sense sphere your also suggesting that the arhant is being reborn. the purpose of attaining nibbana is to put an end to the samsara. samsara is the cycle where beings are reborn continuously unless the causes for rebirth are destroyed. so how can you say that a person who is not going to be reborn is going to be reborn in another plane?

ud 8.4:“When there is no passing away and rebirth,
there is no here or hereafter or in between the two—
just this is the end of suffering.”

ud 8.3:“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.

@Deeele
However, since you seemed extremely displeased with my answers …
Reply:
i wasn’t “extremely displeased” but rather, i was trying to explain you that nibbana is not the heavenly state or swargha which is considered as the ultimate state of bliss in other religions. this itself is the difference between Buddhism and other religions. don’t remember where buddha stated this but buddha has declared that there is no existence where there is supreme and everlasting happiness in this universe.
@deeele
An analogy is being sick. Believing you are sick will not cure the sickness. What cures the sickness is taking the medicine.

Reply:
at least, if your’re believing that your sick you will consult a doctor. but if you still deny that your’re sick you will never be able to cure your sickness since you’re not going to consult a doctor. you will neither identify the sickness nor you will be able to take medicine to cure yourself if your’re not accepting that your’re your sick.

I am not trying to prove that my personal views or interpretations are accurate , since i haven’t attained nibbana yet my opinions may have faults but please, without accepting or rejecting my interpretations you may discuss this with other contemporary scholars. but i’m sure of this; whether you know the nature of the destination or not as long as you travel in the “right path” you will finally reach your destination

with metta.

[raivo]

Since I’ve argued about the same thing with @Deeele in the past, I may be able to clear up the source of confusion here.

Please correct me if I’m wrong Deeele, but as far as I know, you don’t believe that Nibbana is some sort of unconditioned eternal realm experienced by arahants after their death but you are merely pointing out that an arahant can experience Nibbana (the cessation of greed, hatred and delusion) with the mind sense while still alive.

What was confusing for me and perhaps to others also was that when I say Nibbana I mean Nibbana without residue but when Deeele says Nibbana he means Nibbana with residue because that is the Nibbana most often mentioned in the suttas (because people who were still alive were talking to other people who were still alive).

To make an analogy, let’s say there’s a white shirt and two kinds of it - a white shirt without stains and a white shirt with stains. So perhaps there’s a bunch of texts talking about cleaning white shirts to utter perfection and they mostly mention white shirts with stains on them. When I say ‘white shirt’, I mean just the white shirt, not the stains that may or may not be on it. When Deeele says ‘white shirt’ he means a white shirt with stains on it.

Again, correct me if I’m wrong but hopefully this comment was on the point and helps avoid further miscommunication and arguments.