I agree. Pure knowing, or the pure nature of mind, is not an I too. That is what Maha Boowa also teaches. But when the knowing nature is connected with a body with its senses, a personal perspective, local, private starts to arise. And from this private perspective seen it feels like this knowing is itself also local, personal, private and that is felt as if an I knows. If one has a direct knowledge of mind, which Maha Boowa describes, then one really directly (without thinking or reasoning) knows and sees that it has never ever been an I or me, or ego who knows. At least that is how i think that it is.
It like to share that Buddha does not teach that there is attachment to a self. What is possible is that there is attachment to a doctrine of self, not a self. We need to get rid of this attachment to a doctrine of self not to the self, i believe.
There are these four [51] kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self (MN9, Bodhi)
Maybe you are right. For me it feels very natural that pure heartedness is real self in the sense also that if you loose every defilement you feel not a different person than before, from within. For example…if Saurabh is with anger or without, does he feel that with anger he has transformered into another person? Suppose you would really see it this way, would that not be madness, sickness? Can you really be held responsible, accountable this way?
I talk about Purity as something that is beyond good and bad. It has no desires too. It is complete.
For example, if you want to do something good, and you give some food to a monk, that giving is good, but as long as you have expactations (for example, rebirth in heaven) it is not pure.
I believe Buddha teaches defilements exist in an active way and inactive or latent way. In a latent way they exist as anusaya. I do not think those anusaya are triggered with any sense-contact.
Yes. I agree. We must treat it with careful or wise attention.
I think it boils down to the various views on what the self is and more importantly what ”suffering” actually is.
The Buddha mention in AN how some devas, we humans and others in the lower realms have mixed experiences with both pleasure and pain but the luminous form brahma gods ONLY have pleasure and nothing but pleasure/bliss.
So the only reason the higher realms are really dukkha is because of anicca and eventhough these realms will last for hundreds of millions of years the beings there will eventually die and be forced to take rebirth.
Rebirth is the sole reason of Anatta.
While conditions still remain, there is still a ”self”.
Others might disagree but it is way healthier to say that the current self (and past & future selves) are/were conditional instead of flat out rejecting any self at all, that to me is ”jumping the gun”.
How could one otherwise remember past existences?
How could Sariputta see into the future regarding the Sangha?
How could the current Buddha know about the next Buddha coming after him?
One can only truly say Anatta thanks to Nibbāna.
If Nibbāna is a blank unconscious state I don’t understand how the Buddha could be so sure about the three characteristics and somehow apply them to all worlds?
Then he must have investigated the three characteristics while being conscious in Samsara, right?
Which would be a pretty much impossible thing to do because he would most likely fall into any of these traps/views from Sabbasava Sutta MN2:
When they attend improperly in this way, one of the following six views arises in them and is taken as a genuine fact.
(1) The view: ‘My self exists in an absolute sense.’
(2) The view: ‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’
(3) The view: ‘I perceive the self with the self.’
(4) The view: ‘I perceive what is not-self with the self.’
(5) The view: ‘I perceive the self with what is not-self.’
(6) Or they have such a view: ‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
And just looking from a purely psychological point of view and the Buddha as a teacher it is kinda unwise to say to human beings & devas that could have bliss 24/7 and 0% sorrow/pain in the luminous and formless realms for hundreds of millions of years that it is somehow better to just end existence completely (as in being 100% annihilated) due to there being death and rebirth, hundreds of millions of years from now…
Does blissful feelings cause craving? Yes!
So if someone practices not to relish in these blissful feelings in the formless and start to instead cool down until nothing is felt at all, does that really mean one is annihilated and unconscious? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
And why would the brightest, most wise and most superior kind of being of all beings, the Buddha, who was very precise when it came to explanations say himself that Nibbāna is atakkāvacara?
Atakkāvacara = beyond logic, too profound and difficult to be understood through common knowledge
You don’t even have to be a meditator to know what deep sleep/being unconscious is like. Everybody experiences it regardless, probably even animals…
I also think a major flaw in modern buddhism is the catering to the atheistic/scientific world view when spreading the teaching. What I mean by that is that a theistic or meditative person would find many things in the suttas that are already in their current religion or sect. But an atheist/materialist or scientist would not find a shred of anything supporting their current world view(!).
Studying the Buddha’s teaching would demolish every single idea found in their world view.
I can’t recollect a single sutta where the followers of Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gośāla or Ajita Kesakambalī convert to buddhism, but plenty of religious people and meditators from different sects did in fact convert to buddhism. There’s a reason for that!
So in essence buddhism is a religion, yet there seems to be a tendency to downplay all the ”supernatural religious nonsense” found in the suttas by reducing unseen beings, higher dimensions and everything else in common with other religions to nothing but mere mental states, namely in favor of the scientific world view.
I’m pretty sure all these Ajahns come from a materialist/scientific/atheist background, which is a little strange given that in previous existences they ought to have been seekers, just like the rest of us, who have tried and practiced many different spiritual paths…right?
Buddhism is really for all the spiritual seekers who have tried it all, have had plenty of experiences (high & low) and who have finally, thanks to the Buddha, found an escape.
And what that escape REALLY implies, is not something we can act like we know about or even talk about since it is beyond logic, too profound and difficult to be understood through common knowledge.
Unless we ourselves give up everything and only focus on the Buddha’s teaching in complete solitude.
Ok sir I agree that one has to let go of or get rid of this attachment to doctrine of self. But I don’t understand how one can get rid of only doctrine of self and one do not have to get rid of self? I personally feel that, getting rid of doctrine of self/clinging to doctrine of self is the start of process and final stage or its ultimate stage is of getting rid of this ‘self’ itself…because if this is not true then it suggests that, one’s self will stay there forever permanently…I feel this is kind of wrong view mentioned in DN1 under the title of eternalism numbered 3.1.1.
Also I don’t understand what difference do you see between ‘doctrine of self’ and ‘belief in self’ can you explain? Because as you said buddha does not teach that there is attachment to a self but instead it is possible (as you implied above) that he teaches that there is attachment to doctrine of self instead of self. To me it sounds same as clinging to doctrine of self. It would be good if you could explain.
So are you implying that even if one gets rid of all the defilements then one won’t feel any different from before when he was yet to get rid of his defilements? I will wait for your answer here.
If you are implying that, then don’t you think it will support the statement that, “If I get rid of my defilements I will stay the same from within, then it’s not necessary to get rid of my defilements, because I am already pure within”. If one follows and holds this statement to his heart, then I believe it will be hard to abandon defilements.
I didn’t exactly understood your question here but I’ll answer anyway.
If I am right now without anger, I am ‘Saurabh without anger’ and if the next moment, I am with anger, then I am ‘Saurabh with anger’. I personally believe that yes it is different for me. I don’t feel the same.
If I am free of anger I am a different person which I aspire to be always, but if I am with anger then I am again different person, which I wish to not be again.
I don’t consider it madness if I am saying I was a different person in both scenarios. Also in both cases I am the only one responsible to be that way, I am the only one to be held accountable. Because the result of actions performed by me in both cases, will be experienced by nobody else but me only!
Sir let me ask a question in return to you, what do you think, 10 years old ‘sir green’ is same as ‘present sir green’? If you say they are different yes you are right, if you say they are the same then IMO you are wrong, and if you say they both are different but both of them was me then you are actually right because whatever actions both ‘sir greens’ will do, the results (both good n bad) will be experienced by ‘sir green’ only although in future but essentially by only yourself. Thats why I feel this sense of self is tricky.
Ok sir agreed but still one has to purify oneself till that purity of our understanding/view becomes reality in our experience! I believe if one gets rid of one’s ‘self’, only then purity will be the ultimate experience.
I actually don’t agree with you sir here. I will try to explain why.
These anusayas which you mentioned are called latent as they have the tendency to remain dormant in the mind life after life until they are completely eradicated by attaining the state of Nibbana through the cultivation of the Noble Eightfold Path. They are like the sediments that lie quietly at the bottom of a container of water until the water is stirred when they will come up and make the water cloudy and dirty. In response to sense objects received through the sense doors, the latent tendencies initiate obsessions at the conscious level and unwholesome verbal and bodily actions at the gross level. While doing so, they themselves get reinforced and continue to accumulate strength from those very actions.
I don’t see why anusaya won’t be triggered with any sense contact, contrary to that. In fact that is their definition I believe, they can be triggered only with the sense-contact, if not how else will they be triggered?
I believe anusayas are like dormant volcano, which erupts when conditions are right. As long as they exist as dormant dispositions they are actually able to negatively influence our behaviour and the way we respond to stimuli that we continuously receive through the sense doors.
I believe that 5 khandas are what we mde up of. If we want to get rid of ‘Sakkāya-ditthi’ completely, we actually need to get rid of all khandas as final stage.
I think you believe that, there is reality which exists irrespective of cessation of khandas and khandas not need to be ceased for it to be in our experience but(assuming you believe that) I don’t belive that, I believe that, for that reality to completely come into our experience (in order to be one with that) final stage is to get rid of khandas.
For example in Iti49, Iti49
: "Some, becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with existence, delight in annihilation (vibhava): ‘When this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death: that is peaceful, that is sublime, that is reality.’ "
Sir I believe the craving for vibhava(so called complete annihilation) is based on a sense of self. Which is a 3rd kind of tanha, the vibhava tanha. But the path is about abandoning the sense of self. These two are actually different things. So I don’t think that when cessation is talked about/being praised, it’s not the complete annihilation that is talked about/being praised. It’s not vibhava tanha when one is talking about cessation as in suttas I believe. It’s hard to see but I believe it is there.
Many people here simply did not understand the meaning of the Buddha’s teachings and continue to invent their own religion and try to adapt the Dhamma to their desires. In reality, absence of Self = Paticca-samuppada. The truth of emptiness from the Self = paticca-samuppada. Paticca-samuppada describes how, under the influence of ignorance and defilements of the mind, the six senses come into contact with six types of objects, from which pleasant, painful and neutral sensations are born, which are reacted with volitional actions, which gives rise to karma, which forms the consciousness of rebirth and new six spheres of contact in new life. And this process of dependent arising moves the flow of mind and matter further and further and there is no Self, higher Self, higher reality, soul, purified consciousness, etc. There is only this mind, which is produced by past karma. There are present actions under the influence of ignorance that produce the future body and mind. If there is no ignorance, karma is not produced. This is Nibbana. Nibbana is a mental phenomenon. When there is greed, anger and ignorance in the mind, it is a mental phenomenon. When there is no craving, anger and ignorance in the mental continuum, the mental phenomenon “Nibbana” is present, the characteristic of which is peace. This mental phenomenon determines behavior, brings happiness, calms the body and mind. It does not arise and does not cease, it is constantly present and always exists (for “nibbana” to cease, it is necessary for extinguished greed, anger and ignorance to arise, but they are destroyed forever). To maintain it, no reason, effort, or practice is needed - it is unconditional. When the mind no longer produces new birth, it experiences the happiness that there will be no more new births, no new aggregates. Peace will become perfect, nibbana will be perfect, without residual aggregates. Understanding emptiness presupposes seeing paticca-samuppada. He who sees the paticca-samuppada sees the Dhamma. One who does not see Paticca-samuppada does not see Dhamma, does not see anatta, does not see emptiness and does not see nibbana. If you have the idea of the eternal citta or the higher self, which is identified with the “false self,” then you simply do not know and have not understood the central teaching of the Buddha about paticca-samuppada.
Exactly!
Without Paticca-samuppada we would ALL come to the same conclusions as Sāti did in MN 38
“As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
‘This self of mine is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms. This self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
I don’t know why most would disagree. But if it implies that there is ‘unconditioned self’, the. Don’t you think it will come in the category of wrong view?
I completely agree with the first part where you say, “it is way healthier to say that the current self (and past & future selves) are/were conditional(conditioned)” but i don’t agree when you say that flat out rejection of self is wrong. (You implied that it is wrong hence I am assuming this)
Going along with your point, my understanding is that, if it is ‘unconditioned’ then it does not have to be ‘unconditioned self’.
In other words, the only part that was ‘conditioned’ about the 'current self(and past & future selves) is actually ‘self’ itself! Abandon this ‘self’ and then there is only that which is unconditioned!
Because one has abandoned ‘conditioned self’ which has characteristic of ‘not able to know more than it can’. And let me be clear…the opposite of ‘conditioned self’ seems ‘unconditioned self’, which is wrong and misleading, here we are talking about abandoning the ‘self’ itself and not about reversing it.
I believe it is again because of being one with ‘unconditioned’ without the ‘self’. In other simpler words, when sariputta is seeing into future about sangha, it is not sariputta talking, but it is ‘unconditioned’ element. When buddha is talking about future buddha, it is actually dhamma talking and not any ‘self’.
I am just stating my understanding ok.
I don’t think ajahn is implying that nibbana is blank unconscious state, rather it’s my fault if it seems to me that he is implying that.
Offcourse I am on the same page with you here.
Annihilation I don’t think conveys the proper meaning. Abandonement sounds more correct to me. I believe the reason you are disagreeing with ajahn’s words quoted by you above is this, not having better word than ‘annihilation’. I believe when ajahn is talking about cessation, by cessation he does not mean complete annihilation, rather he means ‘complete abandonement of that which is prone to coming and going, taking birth and dying’.
Nope. I also feel that it doesn’t mean that one is annihilated and unconscious. See suppose you are dreaming in sleep. During that time you are not aware that it is dream. Even if somebody told in your dream that you are dreaming, you will just accept the fact on surface and won’t awaken(you need to cease in order to awaken). Suppose in that dream you are with your friend chatting about something. Now you suddenly awake. Now to that friend of yours in dream, you are actually dead. But only you know that you are not dead and there is no way that you can go to that friend in your dream and convince him that you are not dead. Just as that friend of yours in your dream thinks that you are dead, in the same way when an arhat attains cessation, to us puthujanas, it seems he is dead but in reality he has awakened to reality. That’s why Only way to end this birth forever is cessation of khandas.
My understanding is that, again the previous analogy… Explaining nibbana using logic and concepts is just as explaining the reality to your friend in your dream. He simply cannot understand. The very fact that he is there in yout dream proves that he does not understand that and if he understands that, he will cease from your dream while you are still in the dream and you will know that he attained cessation only if you are familiar with this ‘cessation’ otherwise to you also he will seem to just die. The point of my citing this analogy again is that, yes nibbana is ‘atakkavacara’ = beyond logic. I guess here also we are on the same page.
Yes exactly!
I also feel the same.
I can understand your lashing out on ajahn bexause he said,
“If cessation seems undesirable, it is only due to false sense of permanent self - unavoidable to all puthujanas” and
“final nibbana is nothing apart from the cessation of the khandas”.
I think you have main problem with 2) rather than 1). I’ll happily stand corrected if that’s not the case.
I assume you will agree with the statement, “final nibbana is attained after conversion of impermanent khandas into permanent khandas or going beyond khandas”.
The problem with above statement is that, khandas= impermanent. If it is permanence, then it is not khandas, but it is without khandas. In other words, permanent khandas simply cannot exist. Because khandas and impermanence are not two different things, rather it is one and the same thing. Also one cannot go beyond khandas(without cessatio because one can go anywhere only with and based upon the khandas. Because one is khandas and nothing apart from khandas If one really wants to go beyond khandas, cessation is the only way.
What I mean to say is that, one can argue that final nibbana is total cessation without actually adopting materialism.
Sorry to sound confusing.
In simpler words, cessation is not annihilation even if it seems like that
I have a reference to prove that cessation is not annihilation.
TIPITAKA Volume 25 : PALI ROMAN
Sutta Pitaka Vol 17 : Sutta. Khu. khuddakapāṭho-dhammapadagāthā-udānaṃ-itivuttakaṃ-suttanipāto
[221] Vuttaṃ hetaṃ bhagavatā vuttamarahatāti me sutaṃ
(as have heard…this is Buddha said, )
atthi Bhikkhave – Monks, there is the existence of …
ajātaṃ – no born
abhūtaṃ – no be come
akataṃ – no action
asaṅkhataṃ – no condition
no cetaṃ bhikkhave abhavissa — if there is no existence of…
ajātaṃ – no born
abhūtaṃ – no be come
akataṃ – no action
asaṅkhataṃ – no condition
nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa
nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha .
(then, there will not be able to escape from the nature of…
to be born
to be existence
to be action
to be condition)
yasmā ca kho bhikkhave atthi
(BUT, because of there is the existence of)
ajātaṃ – no born
abhūtaṃ – no be come
akataṃ – no action
asaṅkhataṃ – no condition
tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa
nissaraṇaṃ paññāyethāti
(Therefore, there is the way to escape from the nature of…
to be born
to be existence
to be action
to be condition)
(END OF REFERENCE).
So I believe my understanding boils down to belief that, Cessation is not annihilation but it is necessary to go beyond khandas(impermanence).
Again agreed.
Exactly, and if someone tries to talk about it, he is bound to be misinterpreted just as ajahn was misinterpreted by you(IMO). But still that doesn’t mean one should not talk, because someone at the position of ajahn has to talk inevitably. I would say to you to have mercy on ajahn.
(Just trying to make a joke and sry if I sounded rude anywhere, my English is not that good and sorry for such a long post, its my inability to explain in few words)
(Also sorry if I assumed you wrongly anywhere, kindly forgive me and I will correct myself).
Yes, but isn’t it simply because annihilation implies something (sense of self) is going to stop existing, when in reality the sense of self is just an illusion.
Therefore, cessation is simply the ending of the khandas, and since khandas are suffering, the ending of khandas is the ending of suffering.
Perhaps it’s because all logic by the common person generally begins with the foundation that the self exists, and therefore we will always see cessation as annihilation unless you have right view?
Yes sir. Thank you for reminding me of word ‘illusion’. I wish I had used that in my earlier post.
I am trying to say the same thing literally!
If this sense of self is ‘illusion’ then cessation cannot be complete annihilation (if we go by the words only).
I have an analogy, @Dhabba might find it interesting…
Suppose I am acting in a movie(living my lif, or I am a character in a movie. Now I don’t know that this is a movie and I am just doing what I am supposed to do under the guidance and control of director(director being, craving, ill will) and producer(producer is ignorance). If movie ended(when I die in real life) I will feel that it is complete end of me. It’s specifically because I think that is complete end of me(due to not having right view), once the movie ends(once my life ends), I again start acting in another movie(I again take another birth after this life).
In this analogy word ‘movie’ can also be replaced with word ‘dream’.
Specifically because this movie is in reality my illusion and ‘mara’, the embodiment of craving or desire itself is using me for (his) gratification.(just as director and producer is using me as a character to create whatever (movie that) gratifies them, profits them and I am being stupid(filled with ignorance) enough to just go along with them!
So my conclusion is, if this sense of ‘I’ is an illusion then, if I abandon it(by complete cessation of khandas as final step), rather than it being end or complete annihilation (as word goes) of me, it will be my ‘awakening’ and I’ll actually completely awaken to reality of nibbana, reality of truth, the ultimate truth which is unborn and undying, the greatest happiness which cannot be equated by happiness of any realm of happiness whether it be heaven free from strife, heaven of joy(tushita), nimmanarati, paranimmanarati or rupaloka(form realm) or any arupaloka(formless realm)!
I wonder how marvellous it will be . Looking forward to reach there ASAP.
Mental phenomena are 1. vedana’s, 2. sanna’s, 3. sankhara’s, 4. vinnana’s. Is Nibbana such a mental phenomena? Is there a sutta that describes Nibbana as mental phenomena?
In the suttas, which say that nibbana is the cessation of greed, anger and ignorance, nibbana is spoken of as a mental phenomenon, that is, a special state of mind. This state is not conditioned by will, practice and the process of construction (there is no need to make efforts to maintain it), it does not arise and does not cease every moment. Nibbana is not included in any one aggregate. But it can be classified as an object of the mind and an unconditioned state of mind. Mind (citta) is conditioned, nibbana (state) is unconditioned. Mind (manas) is conditioned, nibbana (dhamma-aramana) is unconditioned. In the case of an arahant, the aggregates and the mind certainly achieve cessation. But Nibbana does not achieve cessation, since it is the complete extinction of greed, anger and ignorance, suffering and future births; the nature of this is peace. Since the three fires, suffering, rebirth and restlessness do not arise, Nibbana does not cease, that is, it is constant and stable.
I believe that the practical effect of any doctrine of self is that body and mind become or stay rigid. Not pliant, not wieldy, not free to use. This is felt as suffering. Any belief in ‘this I am, this is me, this is my self’, hinders flexibility. Nibbana is, i believe, an ultimate flexibility.
So, i think we can approach this issue of doctrine of self also from the practical point of view that a doctrine of self makes the body and mind rigid, inflexible. Getting rid of defilements, also asmi mana (ego-conceit) from a practical viewpoint is, i believe, getting rid of our usual rigidness, inflexibility.
Many persons feel they must always be and act the same. I was like this very long. Otherwise they feel not as a consistent Me or can be criticized. This is an example, i feel, of being attached to a doctrine of self. This makes one rigid and also judgemental. It leads to an imprisonment. There is nothing wrong, i believe, with admitting and seeing that one has many sides, many selves as it were, many ways to express oneself.
Living with a doctrine of self means that one does not do what is skillful, what must be done in a situation.
It is hard to explain because i believe a lot has changed: body, habits, views, ideas, tendencies, but i cannot say that i have become a totally different person. In a sense i feel i have not changed a bit regardless all the change. But i do not feel that this feeling of no-change relies on a doctrine of self.
I dare to say, every being has this. It is this no change an illusion? I do not think so.
For example, you travel by train and see a lot outside. But nothing really triggers any specific interest.
Then, suddenly, you see a very nice house. Your eyes and mind get caught for a moment. You start thinking ‘well if i would have that house, that would be great. I will work hard to buy it some day’.
Here you see an example that many visuals do not trigger greed. But this visual of the house did. It is not that any sense contact triggers lobha and kama raga anusaya nor dosa anusaya.
Also, what is triggered is for a huge part also personal. Maybe someone else in the train sees the same house but does not care at all. His mind is not catched, hooked via greed. Via the anusaya the mind gets hooked/caught and we do not choose this to happen. We can choose to feed this initial attachment. That is the upadana stage of attachment. Here we can do something.
For me, those things like becoming disgusted with existence, with body, is only skillful means to turn the mind toward the Dhamma and make it possible that the kind of will that is represented by asava, tanha, and anusaya stops ruling our lifes and we can find and rediscover the great qualities and freedom Buddha re-discovered when all this was gone. For me this is the real wonder of Dhamma.
I believe those qualities are great and very helpful for all beings. I
I have selected some points to comment on. I hope you do not feel dissatisfied with this. It becomes a bit overwhelming otherwise, for me.
Apparantly Nibbana is according you a special state of mind that does not cease. Its nature is peace.
Mind ceases but this special state of mind does not, according you. Oke. I have always thought you believed there is not such a thing as a special state of mind that does not cease and is constant.
In what way is your interpretation different from what Maha Boowa teaches?
In his view, there is a permanent, transcendental citta that resides in this state. In my view, all types of citta, even the most sublime ones, are impermanent, unsatisfactory in nature and impersonal. With the cessation of the conditions of arising (craving and karma) they do not arise again.
Exactly sir and that’s why I think it won’t be wrong to say that, there is nothing that hasn’t changed and all of them are different ‘sir greens’.
How n why do you think like that I wonder. Because feeling of no-change inevitably points to the belief in ‘unchanging self’… it kind of points to ‘eternalism’ IMO. It’s fine if you don’t want to respond to that.
In my understanding It’s only because this belief in ‘no-change’, rebirth occurs. It’s because this illusion of ‘no-change’ is considered reality, rebirth occurs.
It seems to me that you are denying the fact that anusayas/latent tendencies are stirred because of contacts with objects through senses and implying that we have complete control over greed. I don’t agree with that sir. In my understanding, I actually don’t have control over my greed, nor over my hatred and it’s a struggle for me and this struggle will be reduced to much extent only after I become stream-enterer or above. I believe this is the case for most of humans.
I feel I have addressed this when earlier I said that, setting goal of ‘pure heartedness’ directly is same as trying to cultivate greater good without getting rid of all defilements first. My stand is still the same.
Haha, it’s alright sir. Since I was child I was infamous for asking lot of questions and I can understand my questions are bit overwhelming because I believe they directly target/challenge the understanding of person.
I don’t feel dissatisfied that you didn’t answer but again I wonder why you chose to avoid them.
What you did describe earlier is that Nibbana is a special state of citta that does not cease. And now you say all types of citta cease? How to understand this?
I think it is really not healthy if one looses all sense that one is the same person as yesterday.
It leads to very strange ideas such as…no, "it was not me that took a shower an hour ago, i will take a shower again’. Or. “No it was not me who murdered that person, that was someone else”.
Such ideas are madness. And it is clear to me that ‘clinging to a doctrine of self’ has nothing to do with this.
No, with that example i tried to illustrate that only certain sense-contacts lead to stirring of certain anusaya’s. Many visuals do not stir greed, but some do.
I do not choose that. What issue shall we discuss in more detail. Lets focus on that. Otherwise we jump from subject to subject.
I feel it is sounding strange because you are taking 2 steps ahead, try taking only one step ahead, I believe it won’t sound strange.
Try this, “it was me that took shower an hour ago, but now its a different me, that will take shower again” (it’s me only just different me)
Also, “no, it was not me who murdered that person, it was past me” (it’s me only just different me)
In these sentences I took only one step instead of 2 like you took. Now I don’t think these sentences/ideas are strange and madness. This is what I was trying to convey.
