What is the Arahant?
What is Nibbana?
What is Anatta?
“If it changes it isn’t real.
If it doesn’t change it can’t be known.”
Luangpow Punyavaddho
1 Like
During first read of one of his talks, my mind went into a focused state and picked up a specific hard practice of itself (mentioned in the talk). The training went on for i don’t now how long, but one day I noticed it had stopped, and in the same instant or maybe a little later the improvement on my own ability to stay constantly mindful and focused had improved without doubt, and it didn’t disappear.
Luang Ta Maha Boowa told his disciples not to listen to his words, but take the words into heart and let it resonate - so maybe my listening abilities was specially strong and the heart/mind(citta) open, and the resonance of words from an Arahant came into being and resulting in positive progress … dont know, just sharing ups and downs 
Just don’t get attached to results, they are annica. Very much a paradox, to hang on to results is to let go of them: to let go of them is to keep them going, albeit in a changing maner.
I am not talking about a special nice meditation session, but some results of doing a long and hard daily practice.
The practice I 've done is a basic practice for many monastics, and the results are well known, but at that time it was unknown to me. I found this experience a bit special because the whole process seemed to run on autopilot and during those weeks there were several times I wondered why “we” did this training. But fortunately I was able to trust my own heart and let the process run its course till the job was done.
There is too much ‘me, my, I’.
All there is, is changing Dukkha, nothing lasting.
Is that so
You seem to think I don’t have already, time and time again
I don’t get the last sentence, because if he says citta is “not anicca, dukkha & anatta” then that means it is not anatta. How is that ok?
This also seems precisely an atta doctrine, no? He seems to b saying that citta = atta. So now we have 5 aggregates and citta as the eternal soul.
How widely is that doctrine held in today’s Theravada?
Doesn’t this sound more like a ‘peak experience’, rather than attaining stability in the awakened state? Like the experience of stream entry for example, or some other kind of temporary experience?
See how he continues:
Really sounds as if he felt he experienced (past tense) a natural state. Past temporary experience. Seems to have left a lasting impression, perhaps changed him, but nevertheless, that seems a temporary experience he is recollecting.
And so he was having speculative thought in this experience also.
Did this experience make him proud? Could be skillful means perhaps, depending on his culture etc. But does sound possibly proud. We also see some Advaita people getting awakening experiences and then going on teaching and gathering as many students as they can, convinced they are enlightened. Could this be similar?
Just to clarify, the quotes are from the link I presented above. 
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Maha_Boowa_The_Path_to_Arahantship.htm
1 Like
Hi Senryu,
When Deeele said:
and you replied to that with:
That prompted me to scroll all the way back up the top to find the bit Deeele was referring to (in bold) in mickenzz66’s post where he quoted directly from Maha Boowa:
After reading what Maha Boowa says there and after some reflection, I find it to be consistent with my understanding of the the Buddha’s descriptions of the mind state of nibbana as being amata or deathless, that there in no final annihilation, even upon the death of the body.
Or maybe I’ve just listened to too many of Ajahn Chah and Maha Boowa’s translated recordings and I have misunderstood, but I don’t really see anything he said that goes against my understanding, for if the mind cannot transcend annica, dukkha and anatta without continuing to exist then it would appear that the mind state of nibbana could not exist either or Arahants would die instantly upon awakening. Nor would nibbana be referred to as being ‘amata’ or ‘the deathless’ by Maha Boowa, Ajahn Chah, Thanissaro Bhikkhu and other Buddhist scholars who seem to use the term so often in english translations of the Buddha’s teachings.
So I tend to agree with what Maha Boowa has said in the quote above and take his words to mean that nibbana is a deathless state of mind that is not self in the way we normally perceive self to be.
I don’t necessarily take it to mean there is a self or soul or some type of a universal consciousness in the Hindu tradition, neither Maha Boowa nor the Buddha actually say what nibbana is, but the Buddha does say once you enter a state of nibbana it goes on after the physical death and disintegration of the body, that nibbana is not annihilation.
I don’t try to fully understand what that all means - I have wasted hours and hours trying to figure it out and have come to peace with it. I don’t know if we can truly understand what nibbana is without actually experiencing it, but if we want to try and understand it, I think that we have to think outside terms of self and not self and undying souls when trying to wrap our unenlightened minds around the idea.
cheers
2 Likes
If nibbāna is ‘not anattā’ then this implies, or even means, that nibbāna is attā. Does the Buddha say that? Does the Buddha even say anywhere in the canon that arahants ‘transcend anattā’?
Does the Buddha say that a person consists of 6 things - the 5 khandhas and citta, “the nucleus of existence—the core of the knower”, which is the attā?! If he did, then Maha Boowa would seem to be speaking in conformity with the Buddha’s teachings. However, I am unaware that the Buddha ever taught such a doctrine.
To be clear, we have in this discussion the proposal that there is something which is permanent, unchanging, defined as a ‘nucleus’, and “the core of the knower”. Remember, attā is defined as something which is the ‘core’, and which is permanent. Those are precisely the defining characteristics of attā, which the anattā doctrine refutes.
And on top of that, this doctrine is explicit in saying this ‘core’ is ‘not without attā’, i.e., it is attā.
To quote Wikipedia (since I’m short on time) referencing Peter Harvey:
[the Pāli sutta collection] directly denies that there is anything called a self or soul in a human being that is a permanent essence of a human being, a theme found in Brahmanical (proto-Hindu) traditions
By the way I have heard also that the Dhammakaya Movement teach that nibbāna is the attā.
Now, going back to your statement:
What is this idea of ‘transcending anattā’? Do we ever come across such an idea in the suttas? I have not seen anything like that - can you give even a single reference to such an idea in the suttas?
And how is the idea even logical? Let us give an example of someone who does not transcend anattā, but rather realises anattā. Transcends the mistaken assumption of attā. What would happen?
Accesstoinsight’s (as I have it handy) SN 22.59:
"Form, O monks, is not-self
[and so on through the 5 aggregates]“O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: ‘birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.’”
He doesn’t say that when you realise the 5 aggregates are anattā, you then realise citta is attā and are liberated. He actually implies that you are liberated because you realise those things are anattā. Are we really to assume that he was keeping the last bit a secret? Maybe, but where is the textual evidence for that?
And why on earth would an arahant realising that those things are anattā, “die instantly upon awakening”? Why would nibbāna have to be attā in order that that arahant not instantly die? If there is no attā, why on earth would realising there is no attā cause instant death? I see no logic in that assumption at all.
And besides all of that, how will Maha Boowa tackle the issue that the Buddha teaches of uprooting all conceit of ‘I am’, while he claims, basically, ‘I am my citta’? That’s what he’s saying is he says citta is attā - that citta is his ‘true self’, his ‘core’.
Another sutta quote - sn22.102
“Mendicants, when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated it eliminates all desire for sensual pleasures, for rebirth in the realm of luminous form, and for rebirth in a future life. It eliminates all ignorance and uproots all conceit ‘I am’.
[sabbaṃ asmimānaṃ samūhanati.]
It seems to me that the Buddha made the system of the 5 khandhas to cover anything that people might consider an attā, whether they consider one of them to be attā, a combination, them to be attā or, attā in them, or them in attā. It seems he tried to cover every base. And denied it all. It would have been very easy for him to say “All that is anattā, but the citta is attā.” So, why didn’t he, as Maha Boowa has apparently done?
Let’s see the Brahmajāla Sutta (Bodhi):
- "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?
[…]- "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?
"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called “the eye,” “the ear,” “the nose,” “the tongue,” and “the body” — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called “mind” (citta) or “mentality” (mano) or “consciousness” (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.’
"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case.
This seems to be exactly the view Maha Boowa has apparently taught. And the Buddha says this about it:
- "This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: ‘These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.’
Also the section in that sutta on Doctrines of Nibbāna Here and Now (Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda) seems to attempt to cover all possible views on ‘the self attaining supreme Nibbāna here and now’. And refutes them all. And since Maha Boowa must agree that nibbāna is the extinguishing of the 3 fires, and since he apparently gives citta as the attā, the “the nucleus of existence—the core of the knower”, then that knower (I am now referring to the core of them as ‘the knower’), and thus the attā, attains nibbāna by definition when those 3 fires are extinguished. In which case, his view appears to be Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavāda, on top of being Partial-Eternalism (Ekaccasassatavāda).
1 Like
Since when has someone simply saying that something is not something automatically mean they are saying it is the opposite? There are many possibilities, simply saying that something is not one thing does not mean it has to be some other idea by mere default.
Did you fail to read this statement I also made:
So no, if you had actually bothered to actually read what I clearly wrote in my reply I am quite clearly NOT implying that nibbana is atta.
To use the words from your own quote from wikipedia, I clearly made the point that there is no claim made by Maha Boowa OR myself that there is a ‘permanent essence’ or atta residing within a human being. At no stage do I make the claim that transcending annica, dukkha and anatta means that the mind or citta is atta. Nowhere.
So where you have stated:
Simply NO. That is NOT the proposal and NEVER was. That was quite simply never said or claimed by myself nor to my knowledge does Maha Boowa ever make such a claim, you claim something has been stated when it quite clearly has not.
You yourself are just assuming that is what is meant when that has neither been stated nor claimed.
Does the Buddha not teach that the cause of suffering is attachment to worldly objects that are annica, dukkha, anatta?
Does transcend not mean to surpass, to overcome, to go beyond the limits, to rise above? My, my, yes indeed it does.
Does the Buddha not teach that to attain nibbana one must overcome, surpass, rise above or transcend ones attachment to that which is annica, dukkha, annata in order to attain or as you prefer ‘realise’ nibbana?
What I was referring to was the non-existence idea that many people have that because the Buddha said there is no self, that the citta is anatta, that therefore upon awakening the citta is obliterated or annhilated and that nothing remains.
Clearly the citta does remain and is not annhilated after awakening or the person would die or at best become a living vegetable.
I could not find any truth to your claim that Maha Boowa states that the citta is the ‘true self’. That is simply not true or correct on any level. If Maha Boowa does state this then please show me where he does, because I could not find him making that claim anywhere in the statement that you are referring to.
He merely talks about what he says is the ‘true nature’ of the citta, at no point does he say the citta is self, or the ‘true self’ you are quite incorrect and have made a claim that is simply not supported by any evidence whatsoever, when one reads what was actually written by Maha Boowa it simply does not confirm any of your claims or assumptions.
cheers
When it’s a double negative. 2 - -1 = 3.
Anatta means that it does not have certain qualities (being the essence/core of a person, and being permanent). ‘Not anatta’ means that it does not does not have those qualities, which means it has those qualities. And we have support that indeed that is what Boowa means, by his own words:
Some double negatives don’t make a positive. But not note having a certain quality, does mean that it has that quality. So nothing can both not have the quality and not not have the quality. For example, if water is not not hot, it cannot also be not hot.
I doubt he would go so far as to come straight out and say it is ‘atta’, because that would be heresy so plain that he would have no leg to stand on, and even the most unedicated lay people would be able to see the contradiction. However, it seems he has said this with the meaning of his words already, albeit that he may have refrained from taking that last one step of saying it in the most direct way, knowing that that would be so risky.
Here is another quote from him ( http://www.forestdhammatalks.org/en/ajahn_martin/dhamma/Ajahn%20Martin_Is%20the%20citta%20atman%20or%20anatta.pdf ):
If the Citta has still not seen anything from itself in a time of necessity, it still has not seen the importance of itself, and so it will always take refuge in other people. In the Dhamma that the Lord taught, the saying: “Attahi attano Natho” — “Self is the refuge of self” is still not accepted in the heart. But whenever something happens that thing is completed in a satisfactory way, one will then believe the Dhamma saying — “Attahi attano natho” — in a way that truly impresses the heart.
That’s from Dhammapada 160. He’s taking atta there to mean the true self! The technical meaning of atta. Which he here clearly identifies as citta.
But atta is not always used in that technical sense. Sometimes it just means yourself, in the conventional sense that even a non-soul-believing modern atheist can still say ‘me’, ‘myself’ and so on in everyday speech, as the Buddha also did.
Here is Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thero’s version - with explanation and Pali:
attanō attà hi nàthō parō kō hi nàthō siyà sudantēna attanà ēva dullabhaü nàthaü labhati attanō: to one’s own self; attà hi: one’s own self; nàthō: is the saviour; parō kō hi: what other person; nàthō siyà: will be (your) saviour; sudantēna: well disciplined; attanà ēva: one’s self only; dullabhaü: difficult (to be attained); nàthaü: help; labhati: will receive
The saviour of one’s self is one’s own self. What other person could be your saviour? This is a difficult kind of help being your own saviour. It can be achieved only through self discipline.
Sorry, bad OCR but hopefully you get the idea. Here is the Pāli (seems slightly different version) from suttacentral:
Attā hi attano nātho,
ko hi nātho paro siyā;
Attanā hi sudantena,
nāthaṃ labhati dullabhaṃ.
And here is Narada’s translation:
Oneself, indeed, is one’s saviour, for what other saviour would there be? With oneself well controlled one obtains a saviour difficult to find.
Let’s take this in context. Here is preceding verse, again Narada:
As he instructs others so should he himself act. Himself fully controlled, he should control (others); for oneself, indeed, is difficult to control.
Attānañce tathā kayirā,
yathāññamanusāsati;
Sudanto vata dametha,
attā hi kira duddamo.
It is clear that the ‘self’ that is being discussed is the conventional one, which we use in every day language, not the atta of technical psychology which Boowa apparently is interpreting it as. Boowa seems to be manipulating the meaning in an attempt to persuade us to take refuge in citta, as atta! I do not think that is at all what this verse is saying in this context.
Having seen the “Ajahn Maha Boowa Weeps with pity for all us” video, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. At 2:45, he begins to talks about the hazards of the citta. He’s certainly not advocating seeking refuge in citta.
A key quote beginning around 2:53 → “right now it is the citta that is the real danger. So don’t only think of how precious the citta is, for danger is lurking there. If you look at it this way, you will see the harmfulness buried deep inside. Do you see what I mean? So long as you continue to hold the citta in high esteem, you will remain stuck.”
Around the 5 min mark, he talks about how Avijja duped him into thinking that the citta was so amazingly radiant and transcended Samsara.
He goes on to talk about being duped by the center point of the radiance.
7:19 → “but it never occurred to me that the center of that radiant citta could be the ultimate danger.”
7:33 → “Although I had been warned it was the ultimate danger, it still cast a spell on me, making me see it as the ultimate virtue.”
Around 8:30, he talks about investigating the citta. There are many aspects to citta. There are variations in the citta, even though they are subtle (9:30).
At 13:00, he talks about how the citta is still because it realizes everything is Anatta. The citta “has no interest in atta or anatta” (13:13). The Citta remains in supreme mindfulness and wisdom. Then at 13:50, he talks about how all is “reduced to Anatta.”
3 Likes
OK so he uses the term anatta, which is not surprising since it’s one of the most important terms in Theravada. But still, that quote I gave you from him does seem to have him calling citta atta, no? But perhaps more ot the point, saying citta is permament and is the core of the person and all that, is exactly how atta is defined, right?
I gave above two examples of the categories of view the Buddha refuted that seems to fit Boowa’s assertions. Is there any reasoning you habe to suggest that analysis is wrong?
Well, that’s not quite how I understand Boowa. On one hand, yes, he does seem to acknowledge the critical role the citta plays in rebirth. Around 19 min, Maha Boowa talks about how good and bad karma can pull the citta up towards heaven or down towards hell. But that’s not out of line with what the Buddha taught at SN 55.21.
However, it’s important to note that Booa emphasizes the inconstancy of the citta, as well as its dangers. So I think it’s wrong to conclude that he thought citta = atta. Sure, we could try to “read between the lines” and conclude that Boowa really believed in an atta but didn’t want to say so explicitly, but we could do the same with the Buddha (in fact, some people argue this, such as the Dhammakaya nutters).
4 Likes
If he sees citta not only as a permanent core of the person, but also that core which travels from life to life, then sure, that’s atta doctrine. But, even if he doesn’t say that’s what travels from life to life, it is already an atta doctrine due to being permanent, and the core of the person. Is there anything you can suggest which would counter this argument?
Either he is there refering to a) a different citta, or b) citta + conditions.
If it is a), that means he is calling one citta impermanent, conditioned and so on, and making the other citta atta, the unchanging core.
If is is b), then he is directly contradicting himself, since he said citta is permanent (and did he mention also unconditioned?)
Yes, but based on what evidence? He was teaching for… 45 years? And we find not a single example of him calling citta atta, or saying it is the core of the person. In the whole wealth of his teachings. So that will be a very hard case to make!
We are interpreting the meaning differently and obviously have differing views on the subject.
In MN72 the Buddha is responding to questions from the wanderer Vacchagotta about what happens to someone when they attain nibbana. Right toward the end after the Buddha has responded to all the various possibilities put to him by the Wanderer Vacchagotta about what happens, Vacchagotta states that he is befuddled:
"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?”
“‘Reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”
“In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear.”
“‘Does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”
“…both does & does not reappear.”
“…doesn’t apply.”
“…neither does nor does not reappear.”
“…doesn’t apply.”
“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears… does not reappear… both does & does not reappear… neither does nor does not reappear, he says, ‘…doesn’t apply’ in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured.”
And the Buddha responds:
“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
“…yes…”
“And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, ‘This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”
“…I would reply, ‘This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.’”
“If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, ‘This fire burning in front of me has gone out’?”
“…yes…”
“And suppose someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”
“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished—from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other—is classified simply as ‘out’.”
“Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.
So the Buddha here describes the mind of the monk having attained arahantship as being like a fire that has ‘gone out’ or been extinguished.
Then the Buddha asks Vacchagotta where has it gone?
Here the Buddha is subtly saying that the citta has not gone anywhere, it just that the fire, sustained by the asava’s - the taints - are no longer staining the citta but the citta is still there, it has not died or ceased to exist. It is just that fire has gone out because the fuel for sustaining it (the asava’s) has gone.
Like Maha Boowa above, he is not implying that the citta is self, but rather that he is saying the citta has been freed and released from the bondage of desire, is no longer bound by desires of the physical world, as Maha Boowa also describes.
Thus I see no inconsistency between Maha Boowa’s words above and the descriptions given here by the Buddha - both describing the exact same thing, the citta of an arahant, both descriptions consistent with the other with neither implying that the citta is atta.
cheers.
4 Likes
I do not see that. Can you please quote which part you believe says that?
You seem to be saying that the fire in the example does represents asavas which are staining citta. But that “the citta is still there, it has not died or ceased to exist.”
But look at the text. The guy asks if a bhikkhu is an arahant, where is the bhikkhu reborn.
Then the Buddha gives the analogy of fire burning. He says the fire is dependent on fuel, and when the fire is extinguished, you’d know it’s extinguished, but it woudn’t make sense to ask “where has it gone, which direction?”
This makes it clear that the fire represents the bhikkhu. The question was where does the bhikkhu go (bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī”ti?), and he says the question doesn’t apply. Then gives the fire analogy, and said the question would not apply to the fire which has gone out either.
That fire can’t appear or reappear or not reappear or anything - it cannot [insert verb here] because there is no fire. It has been extinguished. He is saying the same for the bhikkhu.
He then clarifies it even more, by listing the 5 aggregates and saying of them that they have
been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future.
And again concluding:
‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”
I see absolutely no mention of anything permanent, including any mention of citta continuing at all.
How did you come to the conclusion that you did on this sutta?
1 Like
Sure Senryu, I already did in MN 72 so here it is again for you:
I’d be interested to see what Bhante @Sujato has to say here. I have tried to come to my own understanding and use my own words and obviously my use of those words does not align with how you understand them. You say the Bhikkhu has gone out, I tend to think of it more as the burning hot coal of desire for sensual gratification has gone out.
When the Buddha states as I quoted above:
and you quote part of it and say:
From your quite selective quote above I understand that you are claiming that the Buddha, having entered nibbana, is saying that the five aggregates then cease to exist.
I have come to this conclusion because you have directly stated "He then clarifies it even more, by listing the 5 aggregates and saying of them that they have they have been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future… "
Is this correct? Do you actually believe a Bhikkhu exterminates the five aggregates upon awakening? Cuts them off at the root? How does that happen? Do they just sort disappear somewhere into the ether?
Because in actual fact the Buddha does not list the five aggregates in that sutta as you have claimed - If you don’t believe me check for yourself - that part of the sutta reads:
It simply goes from Vaccha speaking to the Buddha stating “Even so, Vaccha…”
There is no listing of the five aggregates at all. The Buddha simply does not make it clear that the aggregates are ‘gone’ or exterminated as you have claimed. In actual fact it is not even clear he is actually even referring to the five aggregates, as he does not in fact even mention them.
From the way that you have cut out the first part of that section of the sutta which does not list the five aggregates as claimed, it would appear that this is an attempt at deliberate falsification on your part in order to alter the meaning of the sutta section to fit the interpretation you prefer which does leave me disinclined to engage in further discussion with you.
Furthermore, quite obviously, The Buddha’s body or form still existed after his awakening. No?
To wit, he did not immediately enter parinibbana upon awakening so his form or physical body and mind or citta had to still exist in a direct physical sense, it didn’t suddenly disappear into thin air as far as I can tell. I have never heard of any such claim being made by anyone as far as I am aware.
So when you read the full text in it’s actual context you can see that the Buddha is actually stating that his clinging to physical form has gone, been abandoned, let go of.
That by “any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump…”
So as even a momentary analysis shows, the Buddha is not saying he does not have the five aggregates or a body or form anymore, he is not saying he has no citta or any of the five aggregates, as you have clearly stated.
What the Buddha has actually said is that he has abandoned his clinging to physical form - which includes the aggregates obviously.
Or do you really believe the Buddha went pfft! and suddenly had no body and no mind after he became enlightened?
If that’s the case how did he manage to talk to his Bhikkhus without his body or form? How did he construct his sentences and use words, make sound without a physical body and citta?
That the citta and form and all the rest of it still continues to exist after awakening is obvious. It really is, if they didn’t continue to exist an arahant could not exist on the physical plane.
The physical body is one of the five aggregates, if the aggregates themselves were actually exterminated or went out like a fire, then upon awakening then the Bhikkhu would have to cease to exist, so that plainly cannot be true.
However, realising the fact that the aggregates exist after nibbana does not imply that the citta is permanent or that there is a soul or atta.
Saying the citta still exists after awakening is just common sense, whether it exists after parinibbana is another question altogether. At no stage and in no comment have I made the claim that the citta or soul or atta exists after a Bhikkhu enters parinibbana.
Where have I ever stated there was ever anything permanent? Where did I conclude that the citta was permanent?
In fact I have directly stated previously within this very discussion the EXACT opposite:
So yet despite my saying this very, very clearly - you continue to falsely claim that I am saying there is a permanent atta or soul (or citta now) when I very clearly have not done so at any stage.
So let me be very clear.
At absolutely no point in this or any other conversation have I claimed that the citta is permanent or that there is a permanent soul or atta.
It would appear that I have to be very obvious - and direct - as you continually choose to ignore what I have actually stated and make false claims to the effect that I have said things that are the opposite of what I actually did say.
It is unfortunate that you have chosen to make these false claims regarding my statements. One only has to read back over the discussion thread for proof. Where I come from untruthful statements such as these are called lies and falsehoods. Furthermore you have acted in a somewhat deceptive manner by trying to make it appear the Buddha made statements about the five aggregates in MN72 when in fact the aggregates were not listed as you claimed in what appears to be an attempt to alter the meaning of the sutta to conform with your own preconceptions.
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from such behaviour in the future or I will find it difficult to continue to engage you in discussion.
Good Day.