It may be useful to link to your (@DeadBuddha) earlier thread about this:
We discovered there that nibbāna is said to be “produced”.“given rise to”/“given birth to” (AN6.57, DN33) It is also specifically said to have a condition (paccaya) and cause (hetu) (SN35.118). So it is not unproduced and uncaused at all!
The problem is with the translation ‘unconditioned’ (or even ‘unfabricated’) for asankhata. Nibbāna—which in the discourses is consistently defined as the ending/ceasing of the defilement or as the ending of existence (aka parinibbāna), which is not some sort of pre-existing state—is caused by the practice of the eightfold path. So it has the path as condition. It is produced and given rise to by the path.
Asankhata means “without (a-) anything produced/created/fabricated (sankhata)”, not “unconditioned” and also not really “unfabricated”. Hence Norman translated asankhata as ‘without formed things’. Unconditioned would be something like apaccaya, but as said, nibbāna is said to be dependent on a paccaya.
The prefix a- in asankhata merely indicates the absence of sankhatas, not the presence of some unconditoned/unfabricated something. Just like asoka means ‘without sorrow’.
So arahants have escaped the defilements, but not by attaining some “unfabricated” pre-existing state, but because they are without (a-) defilements. In other words, they caused/produced the absence of those things.
That is indeed a great discovery🙂 But it may be dependently arisen on not-knowledge of what is nicca.
With ignorance as condition… If so it is also impermanent, determined (conditioned)
What is eternal (nicca)? Only non-arising, non-passing-away, non-changing of what is present.
Yes, I know, it can be said that my sceptical approach to your “discovery” itself is dependantly arisen on ignorance.
I’m not sure what you mean by nibbāna may be dependently originated dependent upon “not-knowledge”. Those suttas say nibbāna is produced/generated by developing the seven awakening factors (aka the eightfold path) and caused by letting go of clinging, not by “not-knowledge”. (Not my “discovery”, by the way.)
It is not that if one purifies gold, one really creates the qualities of pure gold. No, those are part of the gold and are uncreated, unmade. it is not that purification creates, or makes the qualities of gold. Those original qualities of the gold do not become apparant, do not reveal themselves, when gold is still defiled. Thats all.
The same with mind. Mind has orginally certain qualities which are: no burden, peaceful, stilled, undirected, signless, dispassionate, empty (no ego), peaceful. But as long as mind defiles these qualities do not reveal itself and do not become apparent for us. But if mind gradually purifies due the Path, the qualities of mind become more and more apparent. They are not causes, not created, not made, but they were always the qualities of mind. They reveal.
One must not think of the Path in terms of producing peace of mind but revealing minds peaceful nature.
So, there is part that is produced (removal of defilments) but the original and natural qualities of mind are not produced.
What I said is that someone’s ideas about what nibbana is, most likely are dependently arisen upon not-knowledge what nibbana is. Since I don’t understand your ideas at all it could be precisely because my ignorance prevents me to see that consciousness liberated from name-and-matter isn’t synonymous with nibbana, or that before the death of the body there is no such thing as cessation of bhava and so on.
Thank you very much Venerable, you are right to point out that the Buddha speaks of a cause of nibbana. That’s very interesting.
So if I understand correctly, for you sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā is not about nibbana because “being the effect of a cause” does not mean “being a fabrication”. Is that correct?
I also have a comment to make about Ud 8.3. In it, the Buddha says:
But since there is that which is free of rebirth, free of what has been produced, made, and conditioned, an escape is found from rebirth, from what has been produced, made, and conditioned.
This seems to say something like “even concerning suffering beings, there already exists nibbana and therefore they have an escape from fabrications”. If this is the case, it implies that nibbana has no beginning, and so it would contradict the sutta talking about a cause for nibbana. How do you understand this ?
Sorry, I’m not sure if I understand this question fully. This line is about dukkha, and therefore not about nibbana. I would agree that “being the effect of a cause” (which nibbana is) is not the same as “being a fabrication” (which nibbana is not).
Causes and fabrications aren’t the same thing. The cessation of fabrications also has a cause. Otherwise, why practice? Our practice causes the extinguishment (nibbāna) of the fabrications.
That is a good point, which has been made by various scholars also. But I think that would be reading too much into the verb atthi (‘there is’). Elsewhere the Buddha also says “there is (atthi) a complete cessation of existence (bhava)” (MN60) and “there is a cessation of fabrications (sankhāras)”. (MN102) The cessation of bhava and sankhāras is not something that always existed, so when the Buddha says “there is” (atthi), he just means it is possible, that it is real and not just an illusion.
It’s a bit like we say “is there an end to this movie?”, we don’t mean that end is already here as an existing phenomenon, but that it “exists” in possibility. At the very least, these passages indicate that we can’t overburden the word atthi, and therefore also not in the passage you quoted.
The quote of MN102 continues: “The Tathāgata, knowing that there is this [cessation of fabrications], sees the escape from that [which is fabricated].” This escape is exactly what the passage you quoted describes, hence the verb atthi refers to the “existence” (i.e. possibility) of cessation in that passage too.
In that passage also, when the Buddha explains what the “asankhata” is, he says it is the escape (i.e. cessation) of the “sankhata”. Iti43, which also includes explanatory verses, explains the asankhata it is “the stilling of sankhāras”—that is, the cessation of sankhāras, not some “unconditioned/unfabricated” something.
Notice also that Venerable Sujato translates asankhata here as “free from what is conditioned”. Although I still don’t like ‘conditioned’ for sankhata and prefer something like ‘fabricated’, I think this is at least better than unconditioned.
Buddha taeches there is that element of what is not seen arising and ceasing, the stable, the constant, stilling, dispassion, the not constructed, not made, produced. This is it arrived at when passion is uprooted. But one must not practice like this, that one must make, produce a state of dispassion or peace, but practice like this that one must remove all causes and conditions that cause passion and unease. One must never practice like this that one must construct peace, like the peace of Nibbana would be some mental state or house. No, one arrives at Nibbana when construction is abandaned. That mind without clinging does not construct, and is stable.
there is that element of arising and ceasing, formations, khandha’s. This must be seen as suffering, anatta, anicca, not me, not mine, not my self…to remove passion for that and arrive at dispassion.
I believe it is a serious mistake to think one can or must make, create or produce dispassion.
Dispassion and peace of Nibbana is not some house one gradually builds.
It is arrived at when building and constructing processes in the mind cease.
The idea that one must construct Nibbana is really a huge mistake.
Asankhata is explained in AN and points to that what has not the characteristic to arise, cease and change in the meantime. SN43 talkes about it as the stable, the constant, the truth, the not-desintegrating etc.
AN3.47 and MN115 says that both the aspect or elements of what is seen arising and not seen arising, must be known. Also MN26 speaks about two truths that must be known,: 1. the truth of depend arising and ceasing, and 2. the truth of stilling, cessation, dispassion. The first truths point to…knowing the element or aspect of sankhata…the second Truth refers to knowing the element or aspect of asankhata.
I think that’s misunderstanding the point. I didn’t mean to say one must “construct” nibbāna. By “produced/given rise to” I meant it is “produced/given rise to by a cause”, so to speak, not that it itself is something fabricated or constructed. I was just quoting the dictionaries for abhijāyati, which is said with respect to extinguishment in AN6.57. You can pick whatever translation you prefer that doesn’t create this problem. Perhaps “bring about” is better, though less literal than “produce/give rise to”.
Either way, the point of that sutta clearly is that there is no extinguishment (nibbāna) without practice of the path, hence the path causes it, or, so to speak, “produces/gives rise to” it. It is the path that causes the end of constructing.
[…] They truly develop the seven awakening factors. And then they give rise to extinguishment, which is neither dark nor bright. That’s how someone born in a dark class gives rise to extinguishment, which is neither dark nor bright.
It’s just like the extinguishment (nibbāna) of a flame is something that is brought about by a cause, yet itself is not some existing thing that is brought about.
On the supposed nibbāna “element” I have written briefly before:
On a related note, similar claims of transcendent existence have been made based on the word dhātu, but these can be questioned in a similar fashion. Venerable Brahmāli explained: “Sometimes nibbāna is called nibbānadhātu […]. The word dhātu is often translated as ‘element’. Basing one’s understanding on this translation it is natural to conclude that nibbāna must be ‘something’. However, this would be to ignore the range of meanings of the word dhātu.” Dictionaries include under dhātu, “a principle […] sometimes a very general abstraction: -hood; -ness” and “condition, principle, property”. As an illustration of these meanings, there is the nirodhadhātu, ‘the principle/property of cessation’. In a discourse specifically called the Dhātu Sutta, this nirodhadhātu is a synonym for parinibbāna. So in this context the word dhātu simply refers to cessation, just like āyatana in the inspired utterance. It too does not refer to a state of existence.
Your conclusion that Nibbana is caused by the Path is, i feel, to bluntly stated.
Better is to say, i feel:
The Path does not cause, create or produce or make the natural qualities of a pure mind, which are: unburdened, free of fires, signless, desireless, peaceful, empty, uninclined. It only removes the defilements that hinder us to taste these original qualities of the mind.
A Buddha tastes the qualities of the mind without defilements.
There are aspects of the mind like Clarity (Clear-Light) and Buddha-Nature (a natural tendency to have Metta and Compassion) that give rise to Nibbana that I believe are not separate from the Stream’s peaceful and calm intensity.
Removing the furniture from the room causes space to become apparent. The space is not produced by the act of removal, it was always inherently there… one simply didn’t notice it because of that pesky furniture! Without removing the furniture one cannot discern the space… the act of removing the furniture is the cause, discerning the space is the effect. Said yet another way, space is the absence of furniture. In yet another way, space is there when the room is empty of furniture. Still again, the inherent nature of the room is to be empty, its I who filled it with furniture due to my ignorance and craving for the approval of bad friends who gave me bad advice about whats hip and whats not!
Nibbana is inherently there possibly for someone who was attained in a past life, like a powerful Buddha, and they could spend their time provisionally attaining again with Empty and provisional Skandhas that are not really there (from a higher point of view they aren’t there at all). The purpose to attain again would be to lead others into the Path, instead of starting our claiming they’ve already “got it all”, this isn’t as easily related to by the completely unattained.
However fauj, I think your metaphor is beautiful and perfect. But there’s a contrast. Some say “we’re already all Buddhas.” Like in the Mahayana.
But until one is truly attained, they’re actually missing something, not the marks of quintessence, all phenomena have these. They actually need to fully awaken these marks to Nibbana and Arhatship. That means that one cannot stay in the same room for the rest of their life, even if it is Nibbana, because there are also higher things than even that. I think this is an internal realization.
Yes I understand, I should have specified that I was asking this question not to raise a difficulty with your thesis, but I ask it because I find that it does not fall into a contradiction (unlike the thesis saying that during parinibbana there is a conditioned realization of nibbana, so that this realization is dukkha because of sabbe sankhara dukkha).
And your answer answers my question very well, thank you.
Thank you for these suttas. I think your arguments are really very good Venerable, thank you very much for the quality, clarity and pedagogy of your interventions.
Who holds this thesis? Never seen it in the suttas or heard anyone say it but you.
I think you’re confusing the Dhammakāya “attainment” with Nibbāna. There’s no such thing as can attain again once done for each of the 4 stages of enlightenment. There’s no such thing as a future life for an arahant. I recommend that you read what Burgs have to say about this:
In order to know Dharmakaya, you have to recognise awareness. It is not just a concept for the lower mind to contemplate. It is a meditative experience. So you still have to have a support for awareness. Are you with me? You have to have the manifest to know the unmanifest. If you want me to give my opinion, I do not believe you will have a genuine experience of Dharmakaya until you have seen cessation. Others say that you can see it once you have reached equanimity to formations. This is the ground for the whole Bodhisattva path: the argument that you don’t need to take cessation, but can remain so that you can liberate others. But the problem that I have with this argument is that in order to liberate others you need to know the way to the cessation from suffering. For this you have to be willing to go there yourself. But this is a big debate and not one I wish to get too involved in.
So, instead let’s bring it back to this – prior to your Parinibbāna the universe is experiencing itself as you, and prior to my Parinibbāna the universe is experiencing itself as me. There you go. In order for the universe to experience itself it has to come into being as something to be experienced. It is the same universe experiencing itself as you, as me or as all things. When you see this you see the cessation of that suffering that is caused by perception of separation, by the unwise attention that creates perception of and clinging to self. How does that sound to you?
Q: Okay, well that’s fine. I just needed some direction on this…
A: But I did say this in my book, Beyond the Veil. I said quite categorically that knowing Dharmakaya is not the same as knowing the causal cessation of suffering. But I know what you are saying. I am not overlaying these two things as the same but they do exist within each other. People will work this out for themselves once they see cessation.
All the beings that know Dharmakaya will continue to come into being knowing Dharmakaya until they come to suffering that they can’t bear on account of residual clinging, or until they grow tired of coming into being, and then they will take Parinibbāna. It’s like that. So, knowing Nibbāna completely is the result of the relinquishing of all desire for a renewed becoming. Knowing Dharmakaya doesn’t constitute that.
The Arahant doesn’t pass away with his mind going, “Maybe in my next life I will come back knowing Nibbāna.” He just passes away. There is no grounds for renewed becoming, no desire for renewed becoming. There are lots of beings with all sorts of desire for renewed becoming who take Dharmakaya as the basic ground. Every being that comes into being has Dharmakaya as the basis of its existence.
Otherwise the Buddha wasn’t the Buddha, was he? The Buddha is what? - The one who breaks the cycle so that there is a way out. If it wasn’t that, then he wasn’t breaking the cycle and he wasn’t the Buddha.
And the point is, if you don’t want to bring the argument to cessation you just say, “Well look, there you go, if you take refuge in the Buddha, it’s because you are taking refuge in his Dhamma. Who was the Buddha, what was the Buddha? What is the significance of the Buddha? It’s this. What’s his Dhamma? It’s that which points to this. If you don’t take refuge in his teaching then you don’t take refuge in the fact that he was the Buddha. And that is absolutely fine.
Maybe at the tail end, there are lots of beings who will flirt with these ideas for extremely long periods of time. I think that I have talked about this in another discourse.
When insight is complete enough, then it will see that there is no difference between incarnating in the pure abodes and being here right now. When you see Dependent Origination in one thing you see it in all things. You realise that in a moment of beholding a flower and seeing it as it is you are actually, actually already seeing what needs to be seen. Then you might choose to take Arahant Path Knowledge in this very life.
Some beings may still reflect, “Now hold on a minute, what about beyond this, I want to see that.” So they won’t take Arahant Path Knowledge.
They will still play and want to investigate states further. And there’ll be a point where either they fall out of that and get themselves into a muddle or they have enough Path Knowledge and then reflect that that’s enough and then they will attain up there, as a Deva, as a Brahma, in the Pure Abodes. So it all depends on the individual’s aspiration.
Both Samsara and Nibbana are Experienced Within the Basic State of Awareness
So both Nibbāna and Saṁsāra are experienced within the basic state of awareness itself. When nama (mind and mental states) are seen to come to cessation, what remains as the witness to that? Awareness witnesses cessation. If awareness also came to cessation at that point there would be nothing left to witness the unconditioned state of Nibanna and so there would be no Path Knowledge and no awakening. Those who try to break awareness down and fit it into the bundle of mental states labelled nama are not recognising this. And yet it is obvious. Sure mind cannot experience of be witness Nibanna because by definition Nibanna is the cessation of mind. But awareness remains as the witness. This is the whole basis of the teaching I give at the very beginning asking you to recognise mind as one thing and awareness as another. Mind is merely one aspect of the conditioned states that appear within awareness. Another problem arises if someone thinks that Nibbāna is something that exists. It is merely a term used to describe the non-arising of conditioned states. What is Nibbāna? It is where conditioned states have come to cessation.
There is what arises within Dharmakaya, yes, and then there is what doesn’t arise within it. Saṁsāra is that which arises out of Dharmakaya as the expression of causes and their effects. And Nibbāna is the cessation of this expression of causes and their effects. Dharmakaya is the basic ground of all things. Saṁsāra is the conditioned round of appearances that arise (as Sambhogakaya/ causes and Nirmanakaya/their effects). Nibbāna is the cessation of this process.
Dharmakaya rests within itself as the basic space of pure potentiality. But it is the coming to cessation of that which arises and the seeing of it which is Nibbāna and Path Knowledge. Only that which has arisen has the capacity to know Dharmakaya. And it also has the capacity to know itself. Whilst coming to know ourselves as we truly are, we come to ask the question, “What is the cause for it?” And in time we realise that the answer to the question is that Dependent Origination is the cause for it. Then we make reflection, “Let’s watch the cause of it and let’s bring the cause of it to cessation.”
So it is from this point that you see Nibbāna, while watching the five aggregates and their causes come to cessation. At that point saṁsāra comes to cessation. Not before. Nibbāna doesn’t exist as something in the background. It is the coming to cessation of conditioned states. When do you see it? While watching things come to cessation.
All that is left is Dharmakaya. But you can’t say that you know Nibbāna just because you know Dharmakaya.
Just some translations I should make for I have read his books up to volume 3.
Mind= 3 mental aggregates (feeling, perception, volitional formations)
Awareness=dhammakāya=consciousness
dhammakāya is left at the lokuttara citta which has nibbāna as object. Basically it is the supramundane consciousness. It doesn’t mean after parinibbāna still got dhammakāya. He has a picture at the end of the book which clearly shows it.
Then eventually, at the end of the life of the Arahant, Sambhogakaya (kamma) comes to cessation, and its manifest expression, Nirmanakaya, also comes to cessation. At that point, there is Parinibbāna, and there is no cause for renewed becoming. Dharmakaya remains unmanifest, unexpressed as anything. Dharmakaya is the basic ground from which all formations arise. Even the Arahant arises within the basic ground of Dharmakaya until the point of Parinibbāna.
Q: Where does Dharmakaya fit into all this? What is the difference between experiencing Dharmakaya (the basic ground of awareness) and Nibbāna?
A: Oh dear! Too clever for your own boots! Let’s look at it like this then – seeing Nibbāna functions in a way that seeing Dharmakaya (the basic ground of awareness) doesn’t function. Awareness itself is empty, there are no formations inherently in it, in the same way that a mirror doesn’t contain any of the objects it reflects. But when we are experiencing that awareness, that awareness is not seeing the cessation of formations that the lower mind clings to. So when the lower mind appears again from this state it appears still with its remaining capacity to cling; it only doesn’t cling for as long as we rest in awareness and pay no attention to formations. This leaving everything as it is, is, of course, a deep equanimity but it is only a momentary cessation of suffering.
When you see Nibbāna through watching formations come to cessation, your lower mind is now seeing that that which it clung to can’t be clung to, and your lower mind relinquishes its clinging to that which it previously clung to. Since that clinging was the cause of suffering, relinquishing that clinging is seen to be the cessation of suffering. Can you see why you have to go through that way? That’s why seeing Nibbāna is one thing and knowing the Buddha-Nature, as it’s called, is another thing. Even seeing awareness as empty is not the same as seeing Nibbāna. Why? Nibbāna is the non-arising of conditioned states of Mind and Matter. Dharmakaya is the basic ground from which these states arise. Now at one level you might think that these two things are the same. But in the process by which we come to know Dharmakaya, through the abiding in awareness itself, we haven’t actually seen formations come to cessation. It is the function of watching formations come to cessation, and then coming to rest upon their non-arising that we call Path Knowledge, and this is the knowing of Nibbāna.
It is possible that with deep enough meditative stability, that we can come to rest upon Dharmakaya as the basic ground from which formations appear, but in doing so we haven’t seen the passing away and coming to cessation of those formations. At a view level this feels like, “Aren’t they the same thing?” So you will have to inform yourselves from within your own practice. You will have to see for yourself how these two experiences function differently within you. But let me repeat. Seeing Nibbāna is seeing formations come to cessation and stopping upon that cessation. Literally nāma and rūpa come to cessation and you know they have come to cessation.
Awareness itself is the basic state of mind and is itself mirror-like. It can take conditioned states as its object, or the unconditioned state of Nibbāna as its object. This is why we say that Nibbāna and saṁsāra both appear within the basic space of awareness itself. Dharmakaya is the Basic Ground from which all formations arise. Seeing it and abiding in it, is not the same as seeing formations themselves come to cessation even though coming to rest upon Dharmakaya itself is a very deep level of meditative stability.
I am sure clarifying these things satisfies the mind but really we need to reach the definitive experience. It might be better if I didn’t explain any of these things to you but just asked you to practise until your experience verifies these things, and only then explain to help you clarify.
Anyway, are you all satisfied with your meditation? Are you satisfied with your progress? That’s important. Because how far we will need to go to cessation, and how much Path Knowledge we will need to feel totally satisfied is different for everyone. It depends upon our previous virtue and what kamma we may still have to forbear.
The Dharmakaya is Transcendental to Nibbana, because it is a complete body of the Buddha, but the Dharmakaya contains Nibbana, because one of the attributes of the Buddha is Cessation. However, to say we fully experience the Dharmakaya would mean to be saying we are fully experiencing the body of the Buddha. And to say we are partially experiencing the Dharmakaya would be to say we are partially experiencing the body of the Buddha. But because of Emptiness we can know that in the Buddha’s fullness, the parts contain the whole, that is infinity, that is His Enlightenment. But I see that Burgs makes some interesting points, however, so thank you very much for sharing!
Question: I know this is the truth in many cases, as stated in the Pali Canon. But in the life of every Arhat is this the case? If they want to be reborn to preach the Dhamma, or take up a longer Path of a Bodhisattva, what’s to stop them?
Also what about the philosophy that “rebirth has ended, Samsara’s grip has ended” meaning that Arhats, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas don’t take rebirth, but can instead Emanate if they choose to?
After all, a great fetter to cross to the pointway of Enlightenment is the fear of suffering. Howevermuch cessating our pain has lead us on the Path.
Given that there’s no self, no soul, after the dismantling of the 5 aggregates at death of enlightened ones, what exactly is emanating what? How can we tell apart, oh this is from which Buddha?
Also, Bodhisattas are not even at stream-winners level in Theravada and EBT. EBT doesn’t even recognise Bodhisatta as a path, but just to refer to Buddha before his enlightenment in his final life.
Whatever causes for rebirth there is, all that has been eradicated by the arahant. If not, they are not yet arahants. Without causes for rebirth, it cannot happen. That is why I ask you to read Burgs. He clearly pointed out that Dhammakāya is not the goal, it stops short of it. That’s a good explanation also on how the bodhisattvas in Mahayana are able to take rebirth and have so much capacity to endure the suffering of samsara. Burgs clearly said, either beings take the path knowledge and become stream enterer onwards, or one day they fall from the Dhammakaya, and really suffer.
I think Gautama took a very powerful Path in Tusita and had many attainments. It was not a Path of chance. I think He was beyond Stream-winner and even beyond a non-fully-attained Bodhisattva. I think He was fully attained in the Tusita Heaven, and He just came down to be the Buddha of our Era to restart the Path for many.
What’s left after Nibbana? There is no coming and no going, even in the Saha World. There’s no person even now, there’s no self to be found, no soul to be Eternally clung to. All is temporary, therefore for a fully Awakened One, even in Nibbana with residue, Death is not the gateway for the Higher Stream. I think those searching for Death are attached to form. They can also gain the Higher Stream in this life, and attain what is called the Deathless, without passing. This is my opinion.
Our practice causes the extinguishment (nibbāna) of the fabrications.