The above is from the favour of liberation by Burgs, he trained under pa auk, but has some wrong view on Dhammakaya as the thing leftover after enlightenment.
Anyway, this part is quite interesting.
It could explain why some people who has wrong view about the nature of parinibbāna still overestimated themselves as stream winner or above. Could it be that seeing no self alone is not enough for it, but these people see clearly no self, but not yet nibbāna, the cessation of existence, thus they got stuck at nibbāna=samsara or some similar stages?
Only ariyas have a direct knowledge that nibbana is the cessation of being here and now, and abandoning of sakkayaditthi is a necessary condition for arising of such knowlede. So seeing things as aniccā sankhatā paticcasamuppannā and as anatta is the same thing.
But most certainly you are able to observe that there is some disagreement about what does it mean that all things are not self, and what does it mean to see dependent arising
It is not really a thing left over after enlightment but more like a thing that is never absent.
. I think it is based upon wordings like….the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea (MN72)
Why would one talk about the khandha’s this way?
Knowing Nibbana is the way to cross the flood
“I will not be able to free anyone in the world who is having doubts, Dhotaka, but knowing Nibbāna, the best thing, in this way you can cross over the flood.(Snp5.6)
This corresponds with the text you refer to that Path Knowledge is indeed seeing Nibbana.
That’s the wrong view to think of any awareness or anything that can survive parinibbāna. Dhammakaya is just reifying consciousness up another level above the 5 aggregates for the delusion of self to park itself there as yes, still surviving parinibbāna, thus the true self.
But anyway, there’s enough topics out there to debate about this. Let’s focus on no self vs nibbāna as a possible reason why some people mistaken themselves as attained to stream entry for seeing no self, but actually not, because they don’t know nibbāna.
Yes, people always speak about consciousness but later buddhist do not speak that way about the nature of mind.
Vinnana just refers to the movement aspect, the coming and going aspect we notice in our lives.
Sound moments coming and going, visuals, tactile sensation, ideas, plans etc.
That is the stream of vinnana’s we notice.
This must not be seen as me, mine, myself. It is not mind. I do not know why people are so unwilling to admit that the absence of sense moments is not the same as the absence of mind.
The illusion starts with thinking about ourselves as vinnana’s or a stream of vinnana’s.
Grasping this stream as me, mine, my self.
Indeed, this gives rise to a wrong impression of who we are. In this context this wrong impression of self can, indeed, be distinguished from true self, the kind of sense of self that a detached mind has
I believe there are many buddhist who believe that they have (some) insight into anicca, dukkha and anatta aspect of formations or temporay states, but no insight in the nature of mind, in that what knows. That is still very much perceived as an ego, a me.
They feel possessors of this insight in anicca, dukkha and anatta and based upon that grows the idea…my dhamma eye has opened, i have entered the stream". At least, i have seen this with people i met via internet.
For me this always feels dissatisfying because i feel when the Dhamma eye has opened and someone has entered the stream, one really sees and know there is no ego, no possessor. One knows that the nature of mind is not an ego. One does not give oneself some special status. One has really understood that there is no possessor. One knows that such ideas of special status, me possessing wisdom, insight, are expressions of defilements. Ofcouse this is all not immediately uprooted but at least one has right view about the egoless nature of mind. And that right view guides one.
In stead of starting to feel a special person, i believe, someone who enters the stream becomes more and more simple and looses all feelings of being a special person which are so normal for the deluded mind.
Thinking…i am a sotapanna, a sotapanna i am…are the expressions of a still fettered and deluded mind. One cannot have seen the truth of no ego, and cannot know what conceit is , if one keeps developing and holding on to such views about oneself or even uses them to distinguish oneself from other or even uses it to feel superior. How can that even be noble?
I do not think that one will immediately drop all conceit and all ego-desires to be a special one, but someone who has entered the stream has seen enough to know that this is all normal humane habits but still delusional, and gradually also abandon this.
The Path turns us into the Nobles we have always been because the nature of mind was never an ego in the first place. And our minds were never really intrinsically defiled in the first place.
Hello Venerable, you seem occupied with viewing nibbana as death. You’ve taken the view that the path is about seeking a final death for the real parts of a non-existent self. I’m not sure who you are referring to as overestimating themselves as stream winners, but it seems those not so occupied are seen by you as possessing wrong view. As for the passage, it could be it is referring to people who define no-self as regarding a totally non-existing self, but refer to the parts of the self as actually existing in a way that the self itself does not. Pun intended
Sakkaya ditthi is the first fetter to be cut off on the path to enlightenment.
But only the arahant removes the more persistent fetter of māna, the conceit of ‘I am’.
Seeing “no self” is most of the time intellectual knowledge.
Knowledge of nibbana (signless state, cessation) is the result of a specific mental state which is achieved by a specific process. It’s not intellectual knowledge, it’s even hard to impossible to describe this state in terms which the intellect can grasp.
It could explain why some people who has wrong view about the nature of parinibbāna still overestimated themselves as stream winner or above
I do not see the connection between the two.
Ven. Maha Bua had a view on parinibbana which is not shared by many.
But to state he’s not a stream winner (or above), or those others who do not share his view are not stream winners, that’s a huge step.
I consider that ven Bua, when asked about the peace of nibbana, would answer in line with what’s known by many: that the end of the aggregates marks the highest pleasure.
It’s just that his view on the citta deviates fundamental from that of others, and it’s not to me to judge about that (I do not consider his view in line with the sutta’s, but then I don’t claim full liberation, something ven Bua did).
Sometimes it’s best to realise views for what they are, and leave them be, instead of turning them into sources of discussion with winners and losers (and with that further stress) as result.
I find it interesting that we are comparing here anatta and nibbāna, with no thought whatsoever to the two-wise pairing of samudaya and nirodha.
These are the 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths, and they are inextricably embodied in the realisation of idappaccayatā, that is outlined in the Suttas as characteristic of the awakening of stream-entrants.
I don’t remember any Suttas saying of the newly minted stream-entrant, “I have seen no self!” or “I have attained nibbāna!”.
If not there, then why here? Am I missing something here or just getting straight to the point?
MN 91, MLDB page 753-754): Just as a clean cloth with all marks removed would take dye evenly, so too, while the brahmin Brahmāyu sat there, the spotless immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in him: ‘All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.’
The dhamma eye is more about nibbāna. As Nibbāna is the cessation of existence.
SN12.68 Friend Saviṭṭha, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘Nibbāna is the cessation of existence.’ ”
When conditionality is seen like that and that all can cease, no self insight really is mature as nothing at all can be clung to as self.
I suspect that those who overestimated themselves, but still view nibbāna as samsara or some eternal consciousness or dhammakaya or something else, anything else but total cessation might subconsciously still identify with whatever is leftover after parinibbāna as self. Or if they don’t recognize the death of arahant as significant event, then whatever they now see as Nibbāna, they subtly identify that as true self. Hence the common saying, “if you know your true nature…”, commonly found in mahayana circles.
They may have dropped the self view in many things, but not yet to everything.
No disrespect intended, but you have pretty much just made my point.
[quote=“NgXinZhao, post:10, topic:32496”]
All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.’[/quote]
All the best.
Metta,
Retro.
P.S. I’m not really au fait with the formatting conventions yet. If any moderator should like to fix the quote formatting above it would be appreciated.
Also the second quote. Nibbāna is cessation of existence, thus seeing the true nature of nibbāna is important as well. Because I have seen those who declared stream entry, but has wrong view about parinibbāna, still claim profound understanding on dependent origination. Just that their understanding is not complete yet if they don’t see nibbāna is cessation.
Sorry, correction, I think Burgs didn’t say dhammakāya is leftover after parinibbāna, but it is just consciousness seeing nibbāna for the living arahant. Misread his book.
I want to answer in brief, even if this has been talked about much recently & old thread.
I don’t know what is dhammakaya but even modicum understanding of things being not one’s self is a powerful realization with profound psychological effects.
It helps people come to terms with their predicament and it is psychologically pleasing because it obsolves one of much guilt, fear, shame and feelings of inadequacy, in that it obsolves one of responsibility for past development.
It is almost certain that a person will think they are attained to profound insight and it’s not wrong.
This newfound sense of irresponsibility for the past is then balanced & restrained by a sense of responsibility for future development.
One’s future behavioral development will depend on one’s conception of the end-goal and one will feel responsibility in regards to it’s pursuit.
If a person like this thinks that only this is enough for stream entry and also practices jhana & develops a good measure of dispassion towards sensuality, then he will probably go around pondering whether he has become an anagami yet, let alone sotapanna.
It will be difficult to convince them as they relish this identity & views for having become entangled & commited much.
