Lets go back to our own personal experience. Do you really feel, sense, that you change from moment to moment? Probably not, right? Without relying on all kind of theories why must this be a wrong impression? Why must this be an illusion? Forget all you have read, heard. Lets investigate this openly, without us being forced in a certain direction. How can we explain this feeling that we do not change?
I do feel that I am changing but because my mind is not enough clear, I am unable to see the change that happens moment by moment…and that is actually a problem…if I could see change moment by moment, it would be easier for me to let go but precisely because I cannot see the change in me that happens moment by moment or even faster than that, I am more inclined to not let go(of dissatisfactory emotions). As I become more unable to observe the change happening moment by moment, my illusion of ‘unchanging self’ becomes stronger and stronger and I go further away from that which is ‘unchanging’.
I believe buddha teaches us to see this momentary change so that, we may be able to successfully let go of this ‘I’ made up of all khandas, in order to see the ‘unchanging’ or ‘unconditioned’, which is beyond khandas…or more precisely where khandas cannot reach…or even more precisely, where this ‘I’ cannot reach using khandas.
Alright sir.
If we do not change then how can we achieve anything in life? But the mere fact that many people do tasks, which were impossible for them previously, as a result of ‘change’. Offcourse I don’t think I need to cite any example for this, I guess.
If there wasn’t change in our feelings then why those people who were in madly in love with each other, are now going to get divorse? It is precisely because their feelings have changed. I believe reason for existence or samsara is ‘change’. I can cite many examples if required.
Also if we were not changing, then why is there an old age? why is there a death?
Till one is alive and kicking, one can keep on saying I don’t change or I am not seeing myself changing because I am still there in my mind, but when I will die, I don’t really think I can hold this feeling that we are not changing. Because ‘death’ is the ultimate proof (atleast for me) which proves me wrong if I feel I am not changing. If the feeling that I do not change were truth then I should never die, but that’s not case we see, is it?
Thats how atleast I see it.
Why do you think your mind is not clear enough? I mean, has someone told you this or do you know this?
Do you think this is possible? For example: If i see change in the sky, sun, clouds, rainbows, birds, colour, i see at least a background that does not change. Is this different when we look inside ourselves?
Sir, I always keep high expectations from myself. There are situations where I feel if I was much wiser and if my mind was much clearer, I would have came out a bigger winner instead of just winner or just winner instead of failure. In other words I believe I can always be better version of myself, and offcourse compared to my better version I am less wiser and have less clear mind.
As you also know, one should aceept the fact that one does not know or atleast the fact that one knows very less. So whenever I start thinking/studying/reading/understanding I always start from remembering the fact that, I am insignificant and I don’t know. Because I start from this, I can actually think/study/read/understand in better way than normally I could. In this context I feel my mind is not clear enough.
And nobody told me this sir, I faithfull believe in ‘I don’t know’ and I also believe in the fact that, if one becomes very less of oneself(instead of full of oneself), completely empty of oneself, one can literally receive the whole universe (I have actually send you a personal mail about an answer given by someone to my question, it is somehow related to this receiving whole universe thing, but I guess you haven’t read it as I haven’t received any response from you sir)
Yes sir. It is possible I believe. There is the emptiness behind all of this, we can call it ‘Akasha’ or ‘space’(in this specific context only), which does not change, instead which causes/supports everything to exist. This element of ‘emptiness’ or ‘unconditioned’ is always there, when everything comes into existence (universe come into existence for example), it comes from and based upon this emptiness and when everything dies/ends it returns/goes again into this emptiness.
Well to be precise, I don’t think it is different when we look inside, but I believe we cannot look at it, because looking is based on khandas, one actually needs to become empty of oneself in order for this ‘unconditioned’ to come into one’s experience, otherwise it’s just theoretical concept.
Thats how I see it.
Thanks. I understand what you say about my mind not being clear. I can relate to this.
But i also feel that one can make such judgements because one always has a kind of ideal in mind about how one must talk, act, think etc. You call this, i think, better version of myself.
I understand and i also feel this is tricky. Because i think that this is quit similar to wanting to shape your body in a certain way. Likewise one can want to shape ones mind in a certain way. But why? What is this drive? I think we have to look into that. What do you see when you see this drive to be a better version of oneself? What instigated this?
Oke, but now suppose that your sense of being alive, being present as Saurabh, relies on this. Can’t we say now that there is a stable sense of self rooted in this emptiness, which is not based upon conceiving and grasping? Like a kind of egoless sense of being present. Presence.
Does one become empty of oneself if one becomes empty of greed, hate and delusion, empty of thoughts, emotions,? Can one become empty of oneself? What does that even mean? Absence? Black-out?
Yes sir.
I will try to answer this as directly as possible. I believe reson for this drive is what I have read in Buddhism for the most part. I saw a very great discrepancy in the life I am living and the life of happiness, life of very long years. Texts say, let’s say for example ‘chakkavatrhi simhanada sutta’, it says lifespan of total humanity depends on the total overall virtue of humanity. I observe that, if I just talk about myself, only 70-80-90 years of lifespan for me…and its actually asamkheya’th part of universal time scale…further truth of life is impermanence as taught by lord buddha. So there is a great room for improvement for me if I compare myself to for example anathpinidika the chief male disciple of Buddha or the first chakkavati king from chakkavathi sinhanad sutta.
So reason for my this drive, I would say, is just "a will to experience better version of myself untill I attain nibbana". I sincerely know this comes under the ‘craving’ category or ‘bhava tanha’ but Thats my answer to your question, when you asked me about my drive.
This is what I believe a problem is, atleast in my case. I also used to think earlier that, there should be sense of self but as I studied further, I felt that this sense of self which you are talking about here about it possibly being existent, I believe that even if it’s true, it will be only true till I am alive and kicking! What after that? Where will this sense of self go? You can’t answer that, neither I nor anyone I believe. The answer would be this - “dead”. Thats right even if we say there is a stable sense of self rooted in this emptiness, this self actually dies once it’s time is over, in other words, reality is that, you or me will die one day. Thats harsh reality but truth.
I believe, based on the reasons I cited above, answer to this question is, NO, no we can’t actually say that there is a stable sense of self rooted in this emptiness, however much I feel tempted to believe that, at the time of death I will be proven wrong if I believe that there is such stable sense of self rooted in this emptiness.
I believe yes, if one becomes free of greed, hatred and delusion then one becomes empty of ‘self’, suttas call it ‘Arhat’. The highest achievement, only 2nd to Lord Buddha. Regarding what that mean, well I believe one is no longer bound to cycle of birth n death, cycle of pleasure-pain, cycle of meeting loved ones then parting from them. Just as we read in suttas.
NOPE. It cannot be that. See this is the problem, if it is black-out then it’s as good as sleeping/coma. But it cannot be that. I believe ‘dying’ and ‘being freed from dying’ are both different things! In other words, one thinks this is ‘black out’ or death is ‘end’, that’s precisely what causes another birth!
I’ll try to give an analogy here based on a dream.
You can agree that, people can experience almost all sorts of dreams right?. So you can agree that somebody may have had a dream of dying. Suppose I slept and I am dreaming now. In that dream, I am on my deathbed and because of certain illness the next moment I see myself falling dead right there. Now suddenly I woke up from my dream and I feel very relieved that it was just a dream.
Now when I died in my dream…it was an illusion, which was real for me only in the dream.
But I found out that it was a dream only after I woke from that.
So if you say that, If one becomes empty/free of greed, hatred & delusion, then one becomes ‘absent’ or ‘black out’, you are actually wrong I believe. It would be same as believing that I died for real when I died in my dream!
Again I’ll give you another example. It’s my childish analogy ok. So plz forgive me if it sounds stupid. But that’s how I understand it.
I believe we are actually dreaming (when we are alive like right now). And we are filled with ‘false sense of self’, because of which we think, when one dream ends(when one life ends and we die), we actually die. It’s specifically because we think we die, we start another dream(we take another birth and start another life). This cycle goes on till we awaken from this cycle of one dream after another. We keep on chasing objects we see in our dream, which results in another new dream.
Only way to stop this cycle of dreaming is to stop believing in this ‘false sense of self’. When one becomes ‘stream-enterer’, it is said he will take maximum 7 human births again, and then he will finally attain nibbana(awakening). I believe to the one who just became stream-enterer, he actually realised for himself that, “There is no ‘self’ at all, and because I thought there is ‘self’ or special ‘I’, which kept on dying and taking birth, I kept on dreaming one dream after another(taking births again after dying again, doing this again n again)”. Are you getting what I am trying to say? In other words, this is the difference between ‘complete annihilation of self’ and ‘abandoning the idea of self’. To you it seems that cessation is the ‘complete annihilation of oneself’ means it is as good as blacking out or becoming unconscious, but I think that’s not correct, I believe it’s the 2nd part which is nearer to truth, nearer to what actually happens in cessation. ‘Abandoning this idea of one’s self existing while alive and one’s self becoming non-existing when one dies’, this is what I believe is nearer to truth, and I am sure ajahn would also agree to this, maha boowa also would agree to this and most of the people here on forum will also agree to this. (Still I am not realised person so it’s just a speculation)
I know what I am saying is not easy to digest/agree for you. Offcourse you may have your reasons. But that’s how I see it. And I don’t think this is contrary to what suttas say. If it is contrary then I’ll correct myself but I don’t think I am wrong.
Thanks for sharing. Appreciated. I find this difficult. One can also become very unnatural, in a fabricated way friendly, loving, caring. For myself i have concluded that real friendliness, warmth, love, wisdom lies in being simple and unfabricated. I do not support the idea of: fake it till you make it.
That is not how real wisdom, love, compassion works because that is not a habit.
For myself i have seen that all these ideas that one must practice this and that while meeting people, relating to people, it creates a mess. The problem is, the quality of being simple and being without plans, intentions, goals is overlooked. The Noble Path.
I do not know. For me, Dhamma is about the question what mind really is. What is the nature of mind. I start to get some feeling, sometimes that the nature of mind has nothing to do what happens in our heads, or with the mental sense. The mind seems to be something different. It has nothing to do with thoughts, ideas, emotions, passion, inclination etc.
Before i really know all this i will not develop some fixed opinions about this. Also not about the nature of nibbana or parinibbana.
Do you believe that an Arahant has no sense of being present in the world in a personal way?
I see no such clues that even a Buddha has lost all that sense. For example, he would not teach because he understood that would be tiresome for him. I believe that show that even a Buddha has not lost the sense of being present in the world in a personal private way. I feel this is also not the same as ego-conceit. Probably an animal without any self-awareness will also have a sense of being present in a personal way in this world.
Hi all,
The term atakkāvacara isn’t a statement on the ontology of nibbāna. It’s epistemological. In other words, it’s not about what is or isn’t, but about how to arrive at knowledge. It opposes the Buddha’s empirical Dhamma to the theoretical doctrines of others, who have come to their conclusions (partly) through speculation/reasoning (takka). The Buddha’s insights are not based on such speculation, that’s why they are ‘beyond the scope of speculation’, atakkāvacara. To illustrate, in DN1 the Buddha’s view is said to beatakkāvacara, and are especially opposed to the views of the speculators (takki), who use reasoning to come to their conclusion.
This doesn’t in any way refute the view of (pari)nibbāna being the mere cessation of the aggregates, because you don’t arrive at that based on logic or reasoning. (Well, you could, of course, if you only understand it theoretically and not through insight, but the same can be said of any other view of nibbāna, including the eternalistic ones.)
One of the speculative views in DN1 actually is that there is a permanent mind or consciousness (which in the Buddha’s days was called an atta). This is a speculative view, I would argue, because the conclusion that any type of consciousness/mind/experience is permanent, is always speculation added to the bare experience. Unless you live forever, it can’t ever be directly understood to be so.
In contrast, despite the comprehensiveness of the sutta, the mere cessation of the five aggregates (or six senses) isn’t described as a speculative view. In fact, the way to go beyond speculation, the sutta says, is by understanding the arising and passing away of the six senses. It’s not explained as experiencing some kind of awareness or transcendent reality.
"When, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands as they really are the origin and passing away of the six bases of contact, their satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, then he understands what [right view] transcends all these [speculative] views.
5 Likes
I believe I have sent you personal text related to this, again that is my response.
Even about this my response I have included in personal text.
I believe one cannot actually understand nibbana, conceptually or with reasoning or by using mind.
Contrary to that, one can only understand what is not the nibbana if one used logical reasoning and conceptual understanding. Even with this way one will keep on understanding this is not nibbana, even this is not nibbana, and this way one will keep on speculating without end I believe.
I think(IMO) why there is discrepancy in what you are thinking, nibbana is and what many others think (cessation of khandas and all, those who are annihilationist from your POV), is only this, you are trying to understand what nibbana is, instead of trying to understand what nibbana isn’t. I believe we cannot ever understand it with the mind, with the mind, we can only (try to) understand what it cannot be, even that is wrong in its ultimate meaning I believe because it is said to be atakkavacara.
I hope that also includes that, you will not think even on the road of both annihilationist & eternalists. (Just saying ok).
I always start from the fact I believe firmly which is, ‘I cannot know for real because I am using this mind which is based on khandas hence I cannot arrive at nibbana, with that’. Still my answer would be, yes, arhant has no sense of being present in the world in a personal way because he is beyond this and we will always mistake when we start from ‘he’. But if this implies to you that, arhat is senseless, unconscious being, then I believe that will be wrong because it is still a conclusion based on khandas.
Even about this I have responded in personal text to you.
I can only hope you read that text.
I don’t think so. Because if that would be the case then, we could say that animal’s sense is forever there, which is scary news for me, as it will imply that, the animal can never change from being animal and he never has any hope of becoming human or God at all. Turns out he can become human in next birth, but still if his sense of animal remains in a personal way, then he would be animal in humans body. How scary that will be! 
Also, if by “animal without self-awareness, still has a sense of being present in a personal way in this world”, you are talking about ‘latent tendencies’ which are karmic in nature and go from this life to another mostly, but essentially also impermanent and remain as hidden impurities as kleshas/defilements as anusayas, then I might agree with you.
Anyways, Thats all I had to say. I actually go with and completely accept what venerable @Sunyo said above.
Have a nice day sir.
Exactly sir. I also feel the very fact that we don’t live forever though one has normal mind or supramundane mind or even mind of Buddha, proves that, it will be wrong if one says, mind is permanent or some part of it is permanent. Mind can be permanent only if the one having such mind would be living forever. Hence saying that, permanence is literally beyond khandas, would be true statement I guess.
One can figure out that fire needs oxygen, wood (or some other fuel), ignition. One develops insight in the conditions in which fire arises and ceases. At least one can experiment with it. Test this knowledge. And the experiments can confirm what one assumes. Than one can trust this knowledge. It is tested and confirmed.
In the same way one could possibly start to see and know the conditions for rebith and the cessation of rebirth. But, unlike the conditions for fire, one cannot confirm this knowledge by experiment. Not test it. How can this knowledge be confirmed? The sutta’s teach that an arahant really knows that rebirth is ended, but how?
Yes, but this is the kind of logic, reasoning or perspective of the normal usual mind. But the deathless is not a normal experience. It is not and never an object of the 6 senses. All what can be an object of the 6 senses is also perceived, felt, but Nibbana is not like that.
On page 31 Maha Boowa says: I saw with unequivocal clarity that the essential knowing nature of the citta could never possibly be annihilated. Even if everything else were completely destroyed, the citta would remain wholly unaffected. I realized this truth with absolute clarity the moment when the citta’s knowing essence stood alone on its own, completely uninvolved with anything whatsoever. There was only that knowing presence standing out prominently, awesome in its splendor. The citta lets go of the body, feeling, memory, thought and consciousness and enters a pure stillness of its very own, with absolutely no connection to the khandhas"".
Now we can say and comment….how is this possible Maha Boowa? How is it possible that it can be directly seen that this citta cannot be annihilated? This must be an addition, a speculation…
But is it? Or is the problem maybe that we try to grasp all this from the perspective of the usual mind?
Is our critique really valid or do we apply wrong means to be critical here?
What Maha Boowa decribes here, i believe, has nothing to do with an eternal atta, eternal soul nor with a union with Brahma. What he, for me, describes, is that we are deluded about the real nature of the mind. And the most important condition for this delusion seems to be the cognitive process itself.
While brain, senses, cognition function, and things are seen, smelled, felt etc. there is always the world seen from a perspective, local, time and space bound. That is also how one experiences oneself and others beings.
But apparantly, cognition can become so subtle (last jhana’s) and even cease. Now, people believe this is like absence. I believe buddhist teachers teach that is not absence but Truth about the nature of mind reveals itself. This is beyond any realm. Maha Brahma does not know it. It is not local, time bound, supra mundane. One also sees that is has always been this way.
When normal mind comes back again, when cognition restarts, one does not loose all awareness of what is seen and happened.
Transcendental reality is, i believe, all the time assumed in Dhamma. If there is no transcendental reality it is impossible to go beyond the world, go beyond samsara and suffering, beyond merit and demerit, beyond kamma. There would be no refuge. But Buddha does not teach that.
I also feel it is not true that one can really have a bare knowledge of impermanence. This does never ever rely one 1 moment of vinnana or cognition but always many, which are compared. In fact the idea of impermance suggest a doctrine of self. Meaning, that it is the same thing that arises and ceases. Without such ideas there is only transformations. I also feel this is more subtle. A cloud is not really impermanent, it is just a manifestation of water and that water does not disappear, only its state, its aggregationstate changes. That is like rebirth of beings.
So:
That is true for impermanence too, i believe. There is no bare experience of impermanence possible. It is conceptual knowledge, thinking.
sorry, in my view about parinibbana as not a mere cessation i do not represent a kind of minority and am not at all exceptional nor exotic. With the view parinibbana is not a mere cessation I represent almost all Buddhist teachers and world wide sangha’s. This idea of the goal of Dhamma as a mere cessation is rare in Sangha’s. It is not at all shared with many. Ofcourse that does not mean it must be wrong.
Oke, we disagree here. Take for example the Buddha…he did not like noisy Sangha’s. That is, i feel, a sign he was present in the world in a personal way. It is also said that enlightment does not destroy personal strong character characteristics. It is not that every person now is the same. Those buddhist masters have still differences in personality. For example, Maha Boowa was after his enlightment clearly still a strong personality, intense, acute, sharp. Other are not. It does not matter. Personality is not totally destroyed. Probably when i would attain enlightment i will still be a fool 
That is not suggested.
I would like to share that we must be very careful to critizise experiences and knowledge we do not know. Maybe from our pespective seen it must be wrong, must be mistaken, i feel we have to be careful to judge things we do not know.
I experienced some day chakra’s. That is in no way any sign for realisation my teachers said. But i shared this with someone on internet. And he became mad. Who was i to claim that chakra’s are not fake, exist. They are new-age nonsense…and i am very deluded and sick when i experienced them…oke…easy, easy…relax…if this is how someone judges, i feel, we are lost. Many people judge the same way when buddhist teachers talk about their contact with deva’s or beings we do not see. Such people are also judged as sick. Maha Boowa shed tears when he felt deeply devoted to Dhamma and shared his experiences, but even then people see this shedding of tears as a bad sign, as a sign all must be fake, mistaken, and he cannot be a real realised one etc. I think it is better to be careful with such judgements.
Agree, in terms of clinging to views and opinions about what has not been directly experienced or known.
But then you categorically declare:
Just saying…
Also, in in AN9.34, SN36.11, MN26, AN4.173 and others the cessation of perception, feelings, and consciousness, saññāvedayitaniroda, is said to end the defilements and to be the highest bliss.
No mention is made in any of these suttas, as would have otherwise been most helpful and suitable, to a transcendental reality outside the six senses or the aggregates.
Rather, again and again in the suttas, the teachings are about the cessation of all that being the final end of rebirth and dukkha without mentioning “timeless knowing.”
Of course this doesn’t prove the point either way.
But it would have been very easy to simply and directly say “Nibbāna is unchanging knowing” in these or other suttas and, given the importance of this point, to have have stated this clearly and repeatedly. But it isn’t.
Yet, this is the case with many other clear and repetitive teachings about anicca, anattā, DO, and… cessation, nirodha – including the temporary cessation of the six senses, including consciousness, with the only difference between this and final nibbana being that the “life force” āyusaņkhāra, is still being present in a being who enters saññāvedayitaniroda.
This may be true. Doesn’t prove the point.
Nevertheless, not getting stuck in a particular view leaves the mind open to unexpected and new possibilities.
1 Like
Yes, but how can this cessation end defilements if there is nothing that knows this cessation?
Does the cessation of vinnana in deep dreamless sleep or under narcosis end defilements? Does it lead to enlightment? No.
So, for me, it seems most likely that what is seen or what reveals in sannavedayitanirodha, is so powerful and so revealing that all rests of I making, me making, survival instincts etc. just cease. There is just no support anymore for it. It is erased by what is seen. For me this is most likely.
For me it is very unlikely that sannavedayitanirodha is an absence, a black out, as it were.
For me it is not that exotic too that there is a kind of knowing that is not a feeling and not a sense-vinnana.
Is there not a sutta that also teaches that there is some state that one is not not percipient when the senses are silenced?
Sorry, i am just not able to see the goal of the holy life as a mere cessation. If this means i am not a real buddhist, oke, then i am not a real buddhist. My heart has never longed for a mere cessation. I also still feel uncomfortable with the idea that people see it as the highest goal in life to cease forever.
Yes. Attachment to views is an obstacle, except …when one views it like this…‘this Green is right, he is always right, how did i not see that’
The transcendent is taught, those teachings that are deep, connected to emptiness, supra mundane.
The Buddha also predicted they would be ignored.
I think we never come to some agreement because even when the sutta’s teach there is: 1. the supra mundane Path, the transcendent, or 2. an unborn, undying, unbecoming without there would no be an escape from what is born, dying. 3 the asankhata element, that what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing, etc…that is also turned into something that is: or. 1 wrongly translated…(tiresome, really), or 2. is also reduced to something that will also cease, or one must not take it literally, or one starts to denie that in Dhamma there is the supra mundane Path because this would be mentioned only once…endless…
But what is not clear about this?
“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Ud8.1)
There is nothing transcendent?
Or what is not clear about this?
“There is, mendicants, an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned. If there were no unborn, unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned, then you would find no escape here from the born, produced, made, and conditioned. But since there is an unborn, unproduced, unmade, and unconditioned, an escape is found from the born, produced, made, and conditioned.” (Ud8.3)
It is very clear but apparantly it does not fit in peoples ideas about Dhamma. So they use all intellectual power to make them fit.
So, these discussion are really never anymore about the texts. It is just an illusion that all these debates can be ended when we just study the texts. Never ever.
It is always about us. I reject any claim on some objective reading, also my own.
But this appears to be the same view as that held by Sāti the fisherman
“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.” “Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
“Sir, he is the speaker, the knower who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”
“Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and create much wickedness. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”
or by people who ask about the possibility of rebirth when there is no entity that is reborn.
The answer to your question is in SN 12.23
So ignorance is a vital condition for choices. Choices are a vital condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a vital condition for name and form. Name and form are vital conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are vital conditions for contact. Contact is a vital condition for feeling. Feeling is a vital condition for craving. Craving is a vital condition for grasping. Grasping is a vital condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a vital condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a vital condition for suffering. Suffering is a vital condition for faith. Faith is a vital condition for joy. Joy is a vital condition for rapture. Rapture is a vital condition for tranquility. Tranquility is a vital condition for bliss. Bliss is a vital condition for immersion. Immersion is a vital condition for truly knowing and seeing. Truly knowing and seeing is a vital condition for disillusionment. Disillusionment is a vital condition for dispassion. Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom. Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.
It’s like when it rains heavily on a mountain top, and the water flows downhill to fill the hollows, crevices, and creeks. As they become full, they fill up the pools. The pools fill up the lakes, the lakes fill up the streams, and the streams fill up the rivers. And as the rivers become full, they fill up the ocean.
In the same way, ignorance is a vital condition for choices. … Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.”
Knowing is a characteristic of the mind. The Noble ones have seen the conditionality and therefore the cessation of the mind, how then can an eternal knowing make any sense in this context when the mind itself is impermanent. There is no hidden entity sitting behind the links of dependent arising or dependent cessation, for example in SN 12.12 it says
“But sir, who contacts?”
“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha.
“I don’t speak of one who contacts. If I were to speak of one who contacts, then it would be fitting to ask who contacts. But I don’t speak like that. Hence it would be fitting to ask: ‘What is a condition for contact?’ And a fitting answer to this would be: ‘The six sense fields are a condition for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling.’”
1 Like
Because the āsavas and defilements are not truly extinguished in deep sleep, just dormant. So this is not cessation.
Also, it’s known while the arahant is still alive and the consciousness aggregate is still present.
This is speculative.
Ok. Appreciate your honesty and willingness to share.
My point here is not to talk you, or anyone, into anything. Just suggesting we have an open mind about aspects of the Dhamma not yet clearly seen or experienced.
Otherwise we can close ourselves to unexpected possibilities.
1 Like
No, and i leave it by that. It is tiresome.
Please explain how it works that cessation leads to the end of defilements?
For me it is. But i have heard from teachers that it is not at all a mere cessation.
Is your opinion that it is a mere cessation not speculative?
I feel there is a huge difference between this
which is like i also see it, and when we meet and start to discuss and debate. Then suddenly you seem to know it all. Not to offend you.
What led you to the conclusion that ”in reality the sense of self is just an illusion”?
If something has been experienced, it has actually been experienced by the experiencer, right? Experiences and memories are very important things.
The current self has a duration that is conditional but the ”self” we happen to be right now is of course real, until we die and take rebirth.
There is a responibility for our deliberate actions and so on that determines what kind of rebirth.
I think people take it way too far with this ”not-self” thing, almost to the extreme point that the Buddha specifically warned about, namely the wrong view:
‘My self does not exist in an absolute sense.’
I disagree and the fact that Sāti, who even met the Buddha in the flesh, still came to his conclusions are NOT based on speculations.
On the contrary, his conclusions are only based on actual experience.
If one start to go through previous existences, ”here I was like this, then I died and arose there and was like that and so on and so on” you have a real actual experience of being an ”permanent self” - the only remedy for this is Paticca-Samuppada.
Mundane right view: ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment. - Every religion has all of this.
Supramundane right view can be summarized as wisdom:
“And what, monks, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
The problem is that I made a whole thread about this but even got private messages telling me that I’m wrong and that all the groups mentioned in the sutta SN 22.81 are just puttujhanas and have nothing to do with buddhism.
Yet all these groups mentioned in the sutta do adhere 100% to NOT regarding form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self.
They all obviously have mundane right view and can enter rupa loka and arupa loka.
Funnily enough in SN 22.81 the Buddha mentions how some reject eternalism but still hold on to this wrong view:
Perhaps they don’t regard form or feeling or perception or choices or consciousness as self. Nor do they have such a view: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ Still, they have such a view: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine.’ But that annihilationist view is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source of that conditioned phenomenon? … That’s how you should know and see in order to end the defilements in the present life.
But no ”cessationalist-buddhist” seem to understand that he is talking about their specific wrong view. The sutta is about Nibbāna, as in ending all the defilments in this very life - which is what Nibbāna truly is since you don’t greedily relish the blissful feelings and perceptions in arupa loka but instead cool down.
Anyhow, cessationalists still claim all the things said in the sutta are only about puttujhanas. What makes one a puttujhana?
Not having the wisdom only found in the Buddha’s teaching.
The fact that the Buddha praises outsiders with exactly the same formula he now tells monks to give up, if they want to end the defilements in this life, says a great deal about how wrong it is to imagine one will somehow vanish 100%.