My understanding (fwiw) is that nibbana is a gradual process (rather than an event) which includes cessation of craving and cessation of suffering (and a whole bunch of other things). It starts at sotopanna (possibly before that as there’s an inevitably with faith followers and dhamma followers too) and ends at the passing away of an arahant. But I have this notion of samsara-ing and nibbana-ing which might not be very accurate in terms of suttas or useful for some.
2 Likes
Purification is a gradual process but not Nibbana.
Think about purifying water. Gradually defilements are removed by certain means suitable for certain defilements. And gradually the true characteristics of water reveals. These characteristics are not made, nor created but were always hidden due to defilements. Maybe mud hindered that we saw the true clarity of water.
Maybe salt made us believe that water has a salty taste. Maybe contamination with pigments made us believe water is red. etc. All wrong perceptions of the true characteristics of water. All due to the fact we are ignorant about the true characteristics of water and do not understand the role of defilements.
With mind the same. It is not and never that mind has not the true characteristics of being stilled, empty, signless, dispassionate, but defilements yet hinder us to see these true characteristiscs of mind. Gradually they become more and more apparant while removing defilements. This is the Path of Purification. But these true characteristics of mind are never created nor made or produced.
Maybe peace of mind remains practically hidden for one easily inclined to greed, hate, delusion but still the true nature of mind is peace. Like the true nature of water is never murky or coloured.
It is not that the Buddha created Nibbana. It is also not a constructed reality, a sankhata, ofcourse.
Nibbana is asankhata. Not constructed. Not like a mental building build up. Not like a mental state that will cease and desintegrate. Not a mindset. Not an attitude.
I believe…People all the time make of Nibbana sankhata, something produced, made, constructed, liable to cease too. It makes no sense. This really does not match the sutta’s.
It seems that it remains unclear for some what purification actually means. I think this needs more attention. Never think about purification as a proces of creating, making, producing the true characteristics of…water, gold, mind. Those only reveal when defilements are removed. One does not create them? Right?
This is not some language issue, purification does not work that way. I regret people do not give some feedback upon this. I believe it is crucial to see and understand that we do not create, make dispassion, peace. This is really not some play of words.
I agree with you. Wow! I wasn’t expecting that. There is a departure for us however. For me, after the superficial impurities like mud, salt, pigment etc., are removed, and we arrive at that beautiful purified stillness, we also get to the deeper impurities that seem to be integral and appear to be unchanging. In water these would be the impurities of Hydrogen and Oxygen. When these disappear, water and the concept of the nature of water disappears. That is where we depart from each other’s view I think, but it’s not a big deal as the direction of travel is the same.
1 Like
And this is where I potentially depart from you as this to me sounds like you have found a core or essence of impurity to all existence where I do not think a core or essence can be found to any existence. It is precisely because they lack essence that they can be purified to my understanding.
Incidentally, in water the atoms of Hydrogen and Oxygen can also be broken down into parts and those parts broken down into parts and in terms of some scientific theories those parts exist dependent upon an observer and a reference frame and all the counterfactuals that are possible and an instrument to measure them. No independent, partless, core or essence has yet been found, but scientists keep looking 
1 Like
They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness manifests in them—genuine, undistorted, pure, and supreme. MN121
No ignorance, this is referring to the arahants already. Yet still the 6 sense fields are deemed as dukkha and that dukkha only ceases at parinibbāna completely, without remainder.
1 Like
For me the concept of existence and non-existence gets undermined. The ideas of ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ no longer apply. But we’re in the same ball park I think.
1 Like
One day…
Hydrogen and Oxygen are not impurities of water, ofcourse, but together they more or less define water in a chemical way. Like gold is chemically made up of atoms of Au.
You know i am not a diplomate. I believe it is not correct to think about this as impurities because these atoms and molecules form the substance or base of what we can call water and gold. Without this molecular base we would not even talk about water and gold. It would be non-existent.
Likewise, without the stilled empty peaceful essence of mind there is no mind at all to speak of. H2O molecules, Au atoms in a molecular structure, minds empty stilled essence are not concepts. They are part of nature.
Ofcourse molecules and atoms they can be reduced to smaller parts but that does not mean they do not exist, right @yeshe.tenley ? If one in deeper analyses finds no substance that does not mean that there does not exist a real molecular/atomic base for water and gold to exist. Likewise the mind.
The sutta’s never speak about impurities, like you do stu. The most subtle impurites of the mind as describes in the sutta’s, are things that relates to ego, for example our wishes to be respected.
This is describes in AN3.101
Minds essential empty, uninclined, peaceful, signless nature is never spoken of as an impurity but as the refuge, the island, dispassion, peace, Nibbana.
Love that sutta. It’s about samma samadhi, right?
But there comes a time when that mind is stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. That immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression. They extend the mind to realize by insight each and every thing that can be realized by insight; and they are capable of realizing those things, since each and every one is within range.
When the mind is stilled, that’s where we have the necessary tools for the work to start
If they wish: ‘May I realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life, and live having realized it with my own insight due to the ending of defilements.’ They are capable of realizing these things, since each and every one is within range.”
I also love that sutta. I also like the part that a purified mind is easy to apply, pliant, and defilements make mind rigid, not easy to use. This describes the true characteristics of mind. It is free.
In an sense a defiled mind uses us. And when mind is purified we can use mind. This is not meant as a statement about atta.
But what is essence? If there is something that makes water water? Does that meet the idea of an essence of water? Then it is H20, i believe. If one breaks up H20 in H2 and O2 then water stops to be water. So that more are less says that H20 is the essence of what water is, independ of how this water is experienced by a being. Or must we say substance? What is exactly essence?
1 Like
@yeshe.tenley I was using water like the chariot in sn5.10. When Hydrogen and Oxygen come together we call it water and the ‘essence’ of ‘water’ is probably something like wetness. When the aggregates come together we say it’s ‘me’ and it’s ‘essence’ of ‘me’ is dukkha.
@stu and @Green there is no essence of water. Although there appears to be and we have a deeply ingrained feeling there is, in actuality when we go searching for it we come up empty.
What do you expact to find when you search for the essence of water?
I was using essence in the common definition rather than any esoteric philosophical definition, so Essence: ‘the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character.’
When I go searching for wetness in water I always find it. When I go searching for dukkha in me I always find that. These essences are immediately apparent and that’s what I always find
What you seen to be saying is that ‘essence’ is a redundant word for you. That’s OK, but I’m not sure why you would attempt to have a conversation about it?
Hi @stu,
The wetness in H20 is dependent upon temperature. If you go searching for wetness in H20 below a certain degree you will not find it 
Also, you can find “wetness” in liquid mercury too.
Hi @Green,
We expect to find some fundamental and independent core that always is present and that cannot be reduced further.
1 Like
Yeshe, i feel your search is not about what water essentially is, but your quest is more something general: Is there some irreducable substance?
I wonder, how can we ever be sure about this? Even if we cannot find it what does such mean? Maybe our means to know this are limited?
But anyway: I do not see what this has to do with the essence of water.
It isn’t just about the inability to find an irreducible substance of matter. Far from it. Immaterial things also lack essence. Are you familiar with the story I have related about the God, human and hungry ghost?
i have heard of the story/simile that human perceive water in a certain way, God as nectar, preta’s as pus, hell being as acid or some burning liqued, and Green is to foolish to perceive anything.
I feel this story shows howl beings have a different perception of something that exist in a realistic way…water, molecules of H20. Without this, these beings would not have a different perception of water.
There are insects that walk on water. If we would ask them what is water like, they would describe something like concrete. But these different perceptions of water are merely due to their different dispositions, i believe. But water remains water. H20. It remains a perception of something that exist independ of the observer. I have no doubts about this.
Perceiving something is not the same as creating something. It is not that chicken arise from my eye, mind, brain but they are really born from an egg. The simile only shows how subjective and intersubjective perception is.
I agree with the general message of this simile of different percetions of different beings of the same thing, that it makes no sense to discuss which perception is correct, or who knows truly water.
But still you do not answer what is the reason, what is the cause that you think there is no irreducable substance? Why are you so sure about this? Have you never heard of God, Brahman, the One 
What if the world changes, natural laws change because of some immense phenomena, and water won’t always be wet even in it’s “original form”?
And certainly water already has different degrees of wetness. Right? 
