We cannot escape what is produced and conditioned?

The Watercooler
61

It’s the other way around. Those who refuse to recognize that Nibbāna with remainder is not the same as Nibbāna without remainder, but posit that Nibbāna without remainder is the same as Nibbāna with remainder. What is that remains? 5 unclung to aggregates. But those who think that these 2 nibbāna are the same clearly do not have right view and thus are not even stream winners yet. So to them, the 5 aggregates are clung to.

What’s more comforting? To have the 5 aggregates still there, after the death of arahant. So there can be a very subtle part of the mind with self-delusion hidden somewhere there to identify with the 5 aggregates thinking that they are enlightened and doing great work to save sentient beings from suffering.

It is actually those who cannot admit or even consider that parinibbāna, nibbāna without remainder is total cessation, without anything leftover, who are very attached to the remainders (5 aggregates).

62

I understand all this different. Again? Yes.

Purifying mind makes mind free. Free from usual fetters, from its strong ingrained patterns, drifts, tendencies, conditionings build up in endless lifes.

In practice this means: usually conceiving rules us…but after awakening we rule over conceiving. Usually arising volitional formations like plans, intentions, drifts, tendencies rule us but after awakening we can use the will freely. Usually me and mine making of body and mind happens totally instinctive, out of forces of habit, but after awakening we can freely see body and mind as me and mine, and drop that just easy. There is no attachment.

Usually rebirth takes place unvoluntairy, compulsive, but why can’t it take place freely? I believe Buddha also took freely birth on Earth.

What about asankhata? Buddha does not teach only aggregates. he teaches also asankhata.
Asankhata must be known. What does that mean for you?

I believe they are true to Buddha-Dhamma. They do not denie, ignore, reject asankhata, the stable, the constant, not-desintegrating, the unborn etc.

63

As I told you before, you mistook dhammakāya which is actually the consciousness aggregate as the asankhata.

Burgs already explained above that Dhammakāya is not Nibbāna. Anyway, I don’t think I can change your mind if Burgs cannot. Just read him.

64

That makes sense. But I am not saying Nibbana without remainder for an Arhat doesn’t leave behind residue. I’m saying that for an Arhat, defilements have ended, and that they don’t have Skandhas outside of the provisional ones they may have Skillfully projected on a Path to teach many others on the Noble Eightfold Path. An Arhat doesn’t have to suffer in any way, but they often provisionally choose to, to bring others into the Path. This exemplifies the altruistic nature of an Arhat, much like a Bodhisattva. And like a Buddha, an Arhat can choose to cease all suffering or even pain, thus they are so skilled, and they can even attain Parinirvana at will, like a Buddha! But they choose to stay and teach others. Thus I believe there is a purpose to living life in this world in Buddhism, given such great examples by those that have attained.

65

I do not understand that sentence. I consider the conscious aggregate as arising and ceasing. Cannot be considered asankhata. Impossible.

My world is simple:

  1. there is the element of formations arising and ceasing, there is the element of change; sankhata.

  2. there is the element of peace, stilling, emptiness, dispassion, not seen arising, changing, ceasing. Not a formation.

Both elements or aspect are present in my life. I feel they do not exclude eachother.

But it makes me see, that it is useless, senseless, and wrong view to believe that the element of peace and dispassion must be created or made. Maybe for others this is all useless but not for me.
I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that all in Dhamma must be created, formed, made.

But what is your opinion on asankhata? Where does that refer to?

66

Maybe the Buddha made it for you, or some Super Duper Deva, and you just have to jump in it and hang out in His Cool River. :sunglasses:

67

Triple negation here, so it means you’re saying that Nibbana without remainder leave behind residue.

From the rest of your post it seems that you’re mapping this to while arahant is still alive.

Actually Nibbāna with remainder is the arahant from enlightenment to death.

Nibbāna without remainder is after death of arahant, we call it parinibbāna for short. Technically it’s khanda parinibbāna, complete cessation of the aggregates.

Certainly great for arahants to come out and teach. But just that they are limited to the end of their lifespan. No more.

Arahants suffer physical suffering.

Whatever that is aware of that peace, it has the function of awareness. That I call consciousness. That Burgs call Dhammakāya.

I would say this is Nibbāna. And perhaps best is parinibbāna, without any conditioned phenomena, the end. Or also good is to follow Ven. @Sunyo analysis above. I don’t have a bone to chew on this.

Whatever it is, it is not the experience of peace etc that you are so fond of pointing to. Any experience is impermanent.

68

I think there is a full Way to Transcend this while still alive, without passing away. Is it such a hard route?

69

It’s clear that it is not possible, there’s no immortal arahants around.

If you want to identify dhammakāya or sambodhakaya as the true self, aren’t you introducing a self concept there already and it blocks stream winning?

70

It is not like this. Even not aware of peace there is an element of dispassion, peace, stilling that provides stability to ones life. Also under narcosis this element is present.

What i refer to as peace is no experience but what gives rise to all experiences. The ground for any experience. If peace is grasped then the mano-vinnana has peace as mental object. That is not the peace i refer to. Peace that has become an object of senses, is painful, a burden, is not real peace.

It is like stillness. The moment one becomes mentally aware of stillness is totally different from just abiding in stillness. That moment of mentally becoming aware of stillness is grasping! Look at it, it is true.

If one mentallty grasps as peace, only then peace becomes an experience, something sensed.
But without grapsing peace is something very different. Not theory. Ehipassiko.

71

There may be some.

But preferred to be related to in other traditions, like the Tibetan Canon, such as White Tara who decided to attain an immortal body, and the plethora of other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who don’t ever have to die. I believe there is a Way to be in full Nibbana and live, and it’s certainly possible that “all is Dukkha except for Nibbana” is part of an early paradigm of the Buddha’s Teaching in the Buddhayana, and He wanted to progress His works for those others. But since we are holding the Early Buddhist Teachings the most valuable here, I will respect your views, as I would nonetheless. Though I think that Nirvana is certainly a large aspect of the Deathless, an aspect of Transcending mortality, and it’s possible to walk through the Saha World as if it were a Pure Land, even while those caught in Samsara’s grip perceive it to be alight in flames. Namaste.

72

Just like how Burgs described Dhammakāya. Seriously read him. He said it’s not nibbāna.

You kept on asking why people don’t recognize it, because dhammakāya is not a trivial thing to get to recognize. Burgs teaches how to recognize it and thus if anyone you should trust, it is those with experiencial knowledge of the things you keep on alluding to.

Also, the other reason is that your interpretation of nibbāna is different from the orthodox one, thus people cannot take you seriously.

73

But Abhijayati could also be translated as “attain” and Nibbana could be translated not as “extinguishment” but “free from suffering”. If these words were substituted for the translation you quote then the meaning becomes somewhat different. Instead of Nibbana having “cause”, it is the “attainment” or Nirodha that has cause.

I realise that this interpretation does not suit the notion of Nibbana being “cessation”, but it is entirely in keeping with the Thai forest tradition. Luang Dta Maha Boowa (widely regarded as an Arahant) says,

Whatever is real and in its natural state, will not cease. That is, this pure citta will not cease. Everything else ceases, but the one who knows these cessations does not cease. The one who knows that all of these things have ceased does not cease. That is just the way it is.

and

But the truth principle itself is unchanging. That state of purity always remains to be the state of purity, both during the time when one is still alive, and when one has finally passed away into Nibbāna. This is the absolute truth.

1 Like
74

You like Luang Dta Maha Boowa, so here is his comment on the matter,

My behaviour is purely for the conventional world and follows whatever
conventions are acceptable in that world. I practise the behaviour that the
world finds acceptable. If I’m wrong, then I admit that I’m wrong. I don’t
allow the behaviour that I maintain to be in the wrong. If I’m right, I
acknowledge that I’m right. This behaviour continues to follow what is right
and proper, something which is habitual to these Khandhas.

75

I do. I have teachers i trust.

I do not interpretate Nibbana. Nibbana is described as the sublime state of supreme peace. Imperishable and everlasting. I do not fabricate these ideas myself. I always fully relie on the sutta’s.
Nibbana is also described as state of not-clinging. A coolness. Peace of Heart. Home. Cessation of 3 fires. The uprooting of all defilements. No sutta describes it as mere a concept nor as nothing.
Nibbana is personally attained.

MN11 says it like this: Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'" (Bodhi)

This is how i see Nibbana. It refers to the mind without clinging. That is, in practice, the same as peace of heart or a sublime state of supreme peace or just dispassion. This peace does not rely on grasping some views, belief, thoughts, conceivings. No it relies on detachment due to vision, seeing things as they really are.

The ground for this attainment is the element or aspect of dispassion, stilling, cessation, asankhata, the stable, the constant, not-desintegrating, the amazing, the state of grace, the truth that is never absent.In every life this was present but remained unseen. It is not created by our efforts or the Path.

Nibbana is also described as bhava nirodha which means, i believe, a mind without grasping and clinging does not construct any mental state nor new existences, at least not in a fettered way.
Without the momentum of passion how can there be bhava, a proces of becoming due to clinging to some formations?

76

Both quotes seems to contradict each other. Only one can be true.

From my perspective, you’re just clinging to the remainder part of the Nibbāna with remainder to be Nibbāna itself. Why is it so hard to let that remainder go? Because the self cannot survive in absolute cessation without anything leftover. The clever mara will do their best to delude people to cling onto anything, even the positive interpretation of nibbāna itself to survive and thus preventing people from seeing actual nibbāna.

77

I do not see why? The sutta’s really describe that if clinging is gone, Nibbana is personally attained, right? And clinging happens in the mind. So we talk here about a mind without clinging. Or do you think that when clinging disappears from mind, mind turns into something else?
If you look into other sutta’s you will also see that Nibbana is directly seen and can be directly known and is always related to peace of mind or heart. That is not my view or interpretation.

I totally agree that any clinging is not conducive. I also agree that emptiness, dispassion, stilling must also not be regarded and conceived as me, mine, my self. The clue for me is: with clinging lost, nothing but suffering and burden gets lost.

Yes, and i also think that is a pitfal. But at the same time, to think about Nibbana as mere cessation, i feel… that is really aiming at becoming non-existent as lifestream after a final death. That cannot be rejected. For me this is like seeing no other escape from samsara and suffering then to cease completely.

I feel such is really adressed in many suttas and seen as wrong because there is really the unmade, unborn, not desintegrating etc. Mere cessationalist do not believe this. That is what i see. They do not accept asankhata. They insist all is subject to arising and ceasing, while that is not what sutta’s teach.
And also this is not my interpretation.

I also believe that no person in the entire world can really claim that in life there is nothing stable, constant, not seen arsing, ceasing and changing, without claiming to be All-knowing. I believe it is pretention.

78

This is not supported in several dictionaries, including M. Cone’s A Dictionary of Pāli and DPD.

From Cone:
pr. 3 sg. [S. abhijāyate], is born; is born for or to; becomes ; D III 251,1 (ekacco kaṇhābhijātiko samāno kaṇhaṃ dhammaṃ ~ati; cf Sv 1038,3 : ~atī ti kāḷakaṃ dasadussīlyadhammaṃ pasavati karoti) ≠ A III 384,23(Mp III 394,13 : ~atī ti kaṇhasabhāvo hutvā jāyati nibbattati kaṇhābhijātiyaṃ vā jāyati); Sn 214 (yo ogahane thambho-r-ivābhijāyati … taṃ vāpi dhīrā muniṃ vedayanti); — absol. abhijāyitvā, Sv 1038,4; — pp abhijāta, mfn. [ts], 1. born; well-born, of noble birth; Abh 1074 (~o kulaje); M I 414,31 (nāgo … ~o); S I 69,12*(khattiyaṃ jātisampannaṃ ~aṃ yasassinaṃ); Ja IV 233,20* (nāgā ~ā mātito ca pitito ca); Ap 115,2 (~o va kesarī; Ap-a 390,11 : abhi visesena jāto nibbatto); Mil 236,6 (~aṃ udiccaṃ jātivantaṃ … brāhmaṇaṃ); — 2. learned, wise; Abh 1074 (budhe ’bhijāto); — caus. 3 sg. abhijaneti, produces; Bv 2:128 (na tattha rāgaṃ ~eti); Mil 139,30 (viriyaṃ ~eti); — absol. abhijanetvā, Mil 384,19; — fpp abhijanetabba, mfn., Mil 412,18.

DPD:
“Gives birth to, produces, generates”

79

“The one who has come to rest, is he then nothing?” said venerable Upasīva,
“or is he actually eternally healthy?
Please explain this to me, O Sage,
for this Teaching has been understood by you.”

“There is no measure of the one who has come to rest, Upasīva,” said the Gracious One,
“there is nothing by which they can speak of him,
when everything has been completely removed,
all the pathways for speech are also completely removed.” Snp5.7

The problem is, Buddha while offering positive epithets to Nibbāna, never describes it beyond the scope of it being peaceful, sanctuary, bliss, and so on; he never went so far ahead to compare it to a function of the mind, he categorically teaches that nibbāna is beyond semantic explanations and categorical descriptions, a significant point you seem to repeatedly ignore.

Peace can not be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist, and so on, and so forth. It is a category beyond the conceptualization of existence or non-existence, a category beyond categorisation.

The word peace is not the peace. The peace needs no words to describe it, no experience to relay it, no concepts to frame it. You’re attempting to semantise the non-movement, which is not even the word non-movement.

Orthodox Theravāda position is to demonstrate the limitations of language, conceptualisations, forms and to point to a place where these things do not matter. You refer to passages repeatedly trying to conceptualise the unconceptual.

Ultimately, all speech and descriptions of Nibbāna is conventional, because arahants need tools to explain the inexplicable to non-enlightened beings.

Imagine this: I ask an arahant “Venerable Moggallana, are you hungry?” and he replies “Moggallana can’t be discerned, can’t be said to exist, can’t be said to not-exist.” Holy shoes, alright but is there hunger or not?

Likewise, the word nibbāna is not the nibbāna. The word asakhanda is not asakhanda. Yet they’re useful fabrications to help people understand the hard-to-understand, so that the arahant can ultimately drop relying on words, concepts, ideas, experiences, perception, will, feelings, and so on.

This is what we mean by “cessation of everything”, perhaps you should understand it as “cessation of language” because that’s what it is. We refer to a (non-)place where mental formations, our smart analogies, our desperate clingings no longer matter, no longer are useful, just burden and suffering, and everything we could hope to speak is useless and pointless.

Imagine such a peace, that experiencing peace is NOT the Peace.

Silence would explain nibbāna better than words, and even the word silence is not the silence.

80

What the Buddha does is that he does not speak about the status of one who has ended rebirth, that’s all. Also in the sutta you refer to. This is about parinibbana. Not about a personally attained Nibbana which is a mind without grasping and clinging, without defilements and causes and conditions for future rebirth.

Tja…i do not know why non-movement is such a taboe here. As if all people here only experience movement as part of their mind. Well, if this is true i am a rare bird, because for me non-movement, asankhata, what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing is just a very normal part of my life. That is also not making any claims.

I do not understand why other people protest that much to an element oraspect in their lifes that is really stable, constant. People seem to be inclined to immediately reject something stable, constant because they associate this with delusion and a sense of self. But it is asankhata what gives stability to our lifes. How can we ever be peaceful and stable if we are only formations coming and going?

Why can we talk about greed arising, hate, conceit arising, and why can’t we talk about stilling not sees arising, peace not seen arising, dispassion not seen arising?

Not true, the only thing i do is not ignore asankhata. yes i see asankhata as that element or aspect in our lifes that is not experienced as a formation coming and going.

Those are very different things, right? If thinking ceases , if conceiving ceases, if all mental proliferation ceases not all has ceased. Asankhata is there. How can asankhata cease while asankhata is defined in Dhamma as what is not ceasing.