SuttaCentral
I belief some things in Buddha-Dhamma are not a matter of interpretation such as: what is the real experiential nature of the 1-8 jhana’s, or what is the (experiential) nature of sannavedayitanirodha?
I do not belief sannavedayitanirodha is different for a Thai Forest teacher, Mahayana teacher, Zen teacher, theravada teacher, me or you. Sannavedayitanirodha is sannavedayitanirodha.
You are idealist, but this is a world of dukkha, and a time of confusion. I wish you good luck.
I think it’s not appropriate to be so much exacting regarding explanation towards someone if we cannot understand what he said, especially while having text message as only medium of conversation!
Maybe we lack merits and required pure conduct to understand these things easily, well if not today, tomorrow we will understand them definitely! 
Just to tell you what it means when you put it like that.
If this forum is only having lay people participating, then there’s less of an issue.
However, monastics have vinaya codes on not to lie about attainments if one doesn’t have it, and not to reveal to lay people if one has it.
So your quoted message above is telling those who don’t have attainments to not contribute to discussion, even on quoting suttas. And those who contribute would be assumed to have attainments. This reply doesn’t count as I am explaining the Vinaya implications here.
Thus, by that message, you’re sort of blocking good Vinaya observing monastics, whether they have attainments or not to not continue to contribute to the discussion. Unless they happen to skip reading your demand, and this explanation. Or just ignore your demand.
Do take note of this tendency for such demand in the future, for other topics.
Very well put sir!
Yes such monastic code is there for monks who come in contact with those laypeople(for example I am one of them:sweat_smile:) who are not established in right view/right understanding nor in right speech and all the remaining parts of noble eightfold path! One of the reason for Vinaya is there, is to prevent misguiding, those laypersons who are not established in noble eightfold path when they have discussions with those who are almost or completely established in noble eightfold path. I believe if someone really/exactly wants to understand these terms on experiential level then he should go and study under qualified teacher and invest some time into that, instead of trying to understand them through text messages here! I am gonna do the same. Because if one doesn’t understand these things here, he might misunderstand and blame others for inability to clarify, I am talking based on my own such experience where I was corrected by some good people here! 
This above saying puts it perfectly 
It is known by inference, anvaye ñāṇa in sutta terminology.
The faculties “are purified”. The Pali has a past participle, vipasanna. The attainment of cessation purifies the faculties, and you experience the result when you emerge.
The Tathāgata not existing after death is annihilation. The problem is always that the sense of self distorts our perception of what actually happens. The Tathāgata is “deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the great ocean” precisely because he has seen through the sense of self. (This is a description of the living Buddha, not of the most-mortem state.)
Well yes, the ending of the sense of self has to be experienced. We are like fish in water. We have always been swimming in the sense of self, and for that reason we are incapable of seeing it clearly. We have some sense of an ego, but the full comprehension is by definition beyond our grasp. If you see it, you are an ariya.
Oke, i will take that into account. My intent is not that monastics break precepts ofcourse, but who does not enjoy and long for a teacher in who one can taste that their words really rely on personal experience, direct knowledge, attainments. For example, the nature of the jhana’s, the nature of sannavedayitanirodha, the nature of a egoless and pure mind etc.
Oke, so you belief it is not correct translated?
Sujato and Suddhaso Bhikku translate…faculties are very clear.
Horner translates, like you, sense faculties are purified.
Thanissaro translates…& his faculties are exceptionally clear.
Hmmm…
Thanks, Venerable @Brahmali. By the way, my wife and I really enjoyed and benefited from your recorded sutta retreat last year. I think I listened to each recording twice.
with metta,
“Wrong” is perhaps too strong a word. But misleading, yes.
Yes, dukkha, but it does not help to long for the end of dukkha, is my experience. It took some time but then i realised that i have to accept the reality of sickness, decay, death, pains, troubles. Accept the world how it is. Accept this is part of the human condition too. For everybody.
In that sense i am not idealistic anymore but i used to be so idealistic that i really felt that suffering does not belong to this world. That it is abnormal. I cannot say i have totally abandoned this idea yet.
I think it is very great what Buddha taught about the vanity of youth, health, life. That is so true.
There is not really much more in the world than those vanity.
Buddha realised that he was no different in nature from a sick, old and death person. But this is very unique because many many people think that sickness, pains, decay, old age, death is not really theirs. I used to be so. Not that i was blind for the reality of suffering but in some strange way i felt protected. “That does not happen to me”. That idea.
Anyway, longing to end all troubles that does only come with great despair and the mind keeps trapped in the duality of hope and despair, liking and disliking, always judging: ‘oh this suffering i now experience is bad and unwished for’ or ‘oh this happiness i experience now is great and wishes for’.
And due to that emotional judging of what one experiences one cannot find a way beyond. A non-judgemental Path. That is my experience. It is very difficult to find a non-judgemental way, a way beyond like and dislike when one longs for the end of suffering.
Oke thanks, for me this is new info.
Still, i am not convinced yet that everything ceases in sannavedayitanirodha.
What’s the all? SuttaCentral
“And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.
“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”
Since (all 6 sense) consciousness ceases in cessation of perception and feelings, what else is used to know the all?
I belief some teachers teach from experience, direct knowledge, that there is a way of knowing and seeing, an original wisdom, non-dual, that does not have the world ( the objects of the 6 senses) as it object, but itself.
For this unborn reality or element to reveal itself all personal or subjective perspective must disappear from mind. This perspective of a self/subject who perceives objects is due to defilement but not the nature of the mind, it is said. This non-dual wisdom is the nature of mind. It is also expressed as the unity of emptiness and clarity, or the unity of emptiness and original wisdom. This wisdom cannot be developed it must be discovered. It is not conceptual. It is the nature of the mind. It cannot be known from the perspective of a perceiver who perceives something.
I do not belief that in sannavedayitanirodha senses are active. It is said there is no cognition, i.e. no processing of sense info, but there is also no bhavanga, it is said. No citta vitthi, not even bhavanga, so this is a total break with what in normal circumstances is present.
Does it mean there is nothing? I doubt that. I think one has the most direct experience of the unborn element.
I hope that if this is really all nonsense, someone with real expertise, will correct.
I feel it is important, because it is also about the goal of Buddha-Dhamma. Can you really go out like a flame, vanish and that way escape samsara and suffering, like some seem to wish? Or is it even impossible to vanish and go out like a flame? Is it only possible to see ones real nature and in that way, by seeing with wisdom, end all tanha, asava, anusaya? I feel it is huge difference.
Instead of asking around to find the perfect answer that suits the present “you”, maybe you can put aside those “advanced” issues related unborn, undying things, and start the search by yourself from the basics. Brahmacariya is that kind of starting point, you may live like a hermit, give up sense pleasures, use all your free time to purify yourself with meditation and study. At certain point of the future, when you are ready, the answer you are seeking now may come to the new “you” naturally.
In MN43 there’s a nice dialogue between Mahākoṭṭhita and Sāriputta. Here’s a little snip:
Saying “Good, reverend,” Mahākoṭṭhita approved and agreed with what Sāriputta said. Then he asked another question:
“They speak of ‘a wise person’. How is a wise person defined?”
“They’re called wise because they understand. And what do they understand? They understand: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.’ They’re called wise because they understand.”
“They speak of ‘consciousness’. How is consciousness defined?”
“It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. And what does it cognize? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.”
“Wisdom and consciousness—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them?”
“Wisdom and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you understand. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”
“Wisdom and consciousness—what is the difference between these things that are mixed, not separate?”
“The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.”
To be honest @stu , and i said this before, i do not belief anymore that texts can be decisive regarding our/my understanding of Dhamma. Maybe you want to disproove what i said but i feel it does not.
The wisdom i refered to is not panna as mentioned in the texts but it refers to the clear light nature of the totally purified state. It’s luminous aspect. This natural clarity refers to the aspect of knowing or wisdom. This is sometimes also called ‘original wisdom’. It is just a natural aspect of the pure state and this clarity, which is a kind of knowing, does not have to and cannot be developed.
The wisdom that can be developed is needed to purify the mind from defilements. But it does not create the clear peaceful pure nature. It only reveals it, like removed clouds do not create the sun but only reveal it’s presence. I very much belief that the pure is never absent, it is only veiled by defilements. Nibbana is not created, formed, made, result of effort, not produced. It is in no way a result of (re-)conditioning. Then it would be sankhata, formed, impermanent, dukkha etc.
I do not have that capacity to practice in such an intense way. Yes, it would be great if i could but i cannot, i know. My body and mind are to much defiled.
Maybe not for others but for me it is important to know:
-is it really true Buddha teaches the Dhamma for beings to vanish for ever and go out like flames and becoming non-existent? This does not feel good for me.
Or is this a mistake? Has the Buddha discovered one cannot even go out like a flame and vanish because or:
No. Not at all.
This is a forum dedicated to people who are interested in what the EBTs have to say. The subject of ‘wisdom’ came up, and so all I wanted to do is to point out one of the things that the EBTs have to say on the subject.
What EBT term were you referring to?
Out of compassion, may I suggest to you the following Mālukyaputtasutta regarding a very old bhikkhu named Māluṅkyaputta?
Also, there is also another one, bhikkhu Subhadda at 120 years old.
Finally, in my opinion only, I find that the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta is especially suitable for you because it does not give rise to any current conflict in your understanding.
So, don’t lose hope.
About your question: Is it really true Buddha teaches the Dhamma for beings to vanish for ever and go out like flames and becoming non-existent?
My answer is: No, it’s not true. The Buddha only teaches the Dhamma for suffering to vanish forever. My answer also makes your other questions invalid (Has the Buddha discovered one cannot even go out like a flame and vanish because or: 1. one wil be reborn. 2. or if one becomes enlightend one will see that aspect of oneself that is never born in the first place and can also not cease?)