We cannot escape what is produced and conditioned?

The Watercooler
81

Because whatever we can talk about is suffering, and disturbs the non-movement. We talk about things we want to remove, and delight in the result. Even talking about stillness is not stillness and is suffering.

I don’t think you understand the perspective here.

Saying “asakhanta in my life” is a semantic error. In peace, there’s no need to formulate such ideas.

Neither here, not there, not both, not either. If you can define it, you fail to understand it. If you say it exists, that’s not asakhanta. If you say it doesn’t exist, it isn’t asakhanta.

82

To add my humble 5 cents, I think there are two different ways of looking at Nibbana that are held by different lineages of Bhuddism.

One, possibly held by Buddhadasa, Tinch Hat Nanh and others, is that the Arahant’s suffering completely ceases once Nibbana is reached. These schools are mostly, but not always, interpreting the 12 nidanas of dependent origination as a “one life model”. Once all attachment is severed, the suffering indeed ceases, and even obvious small sufferings like an illness lose their significance, are to some extend “ignored” and though do not represent suffering for the “individual” anymore. These schools usually repeat the doctrine of annata ad nauseam.

It is a tragic irony that both of the teachers mentioned personally had a very tough way to Parinibbana.

The other more orthodox approach interprets dependent origination with three or more lifes, and with this, some amount of suffering indeed remains also for the Arhat. It is only at Parinibbana that the remnants of suffering cease.

I personally think that the teachings as present in the EBT allow for both interpretations, and that there is unfortunately not much that would allow us to tell the teacher’s original oppinion.

One thing is that with the first approach, life conditions of human beings would not necessarily have to be interpreted as inherently flawed. Positions like Antinatalism are less implicit than in the first.

:pray:

83

Like i said, i do not ignore asankhata. I know asankhata cannot be grasped. I have said also many times that asankhata cannot be described in terms of location, time, existence. Please do not treat me this way as you do.

Some seem to believe that the whole idea of asankhata, what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing, introduces in Dhamma:

  1. eternalism…which is, i believe not true.
  2. comes down to a doctrine of atta…which is, i believe, not true.
84

Then you shouldn’t be afraid of the orthodox theravāda view “There is nothing that is stable and not subject to perish.”

Asakhanta defies such sentences. It’s not stability in any sense language can express - it can only be a convention. It is not stable as it is described outside of stable/unstable spectrum. It it not even the word bliss even though Buddha refers to it as bliss. Because the word bliss is an approximation of the bliss, the word is not the reality.

I think this is the main point of your friction with the orthodox perspective. Orthodox Theravāda defines all (that can be explained) and explains nibbāna as removal of all (that can be explained). Whatever else is left, or not, is beyond linguistic proliferations, but we recognise it as peace, both you and I. So there it is.

1 Like
85

Ofcourse, because that does not align with what Buddha teaches. Buddha really teaches asankhata: what has not the characteristics to arise and cease and change. And this also must be known. Please read the sutta’s.

Please read SN43. Asankhata is a synonym for the not-desintegrating, the stable, the constant…
Buddha teaches a Path to what is stable, constant, not-desintegrating. So, people who reject there is something stable have a problem.

Asankhata must be known, that is the point. It is impossible that one can be skilled in the elements if one has only an eye or knowledge of what is arising and ceasing. One must also have an eye or knowledge of what is not seen arising and ceasing (MN115)

How do you reconcile asankhata with mere cessation after a final death?

No. Mere cessation can be very wel expressed. There view is simple: there are mere impersonal processes, khandha’s, formations coming and going, forming temporary states. There is nothing else.
The Dhamma makes an end to all this. After a last death this all this mess ceases. Formations and states do never arise again anymore. There is nothing remaining. Like a flame exist because of fuel but without fuel it just stops to exist. And that describes perfectly mere cessation. The fuel of tanha ceases and with this all ceases at a final death.

86

I have, and whenever I quote passages that describe the end of proliferation and conventions, rightly using them to express the unexpressable, you seem to ignore these to cling to descriptions instead.

I don’t think you’re looking to integrate your understanding and find a common ground, but on the contrary, seeking dispute and unresolution.

“Looking to nothingness, and being mindful, Upasīva,” said the Gracious One,
“depending on nothing, cross over the flood.
Having given up sense pleasures, abstaining from talk,
day and night you must look for the end of suffering.” Snp5.7

I shall follow the bhagavan’s advice and refrain from speaking, depending on nothingness. Namaste.

1 Like
87

In all sutta fragment below you see how Nibbana is described as a function of mind

  • Nibbana is the peak of peace (MN143) This peace is ofcourse known.

  • The middle way leads to peace (MN3, MN122, Mn139)

  • The supreme noble peace, namely, the pacification of lust, hate, and delusion.(MN140) This pacification is called Nibbana and happens in the mind

  • The Blessed One is tamed and he teaches the Dhamma for taming oneself. The Blessed One is at peace and he teaches the Dhamma for the sake of peace. The Blessed One has crossed over and he teaches the Dhamma for crossing over. The Blessed One has attained Nibbana and he teaches the Dhamma for attaining Nibbana.'" (MN35)

  • Bhikkhus, this supreme state of sublime peace has been discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging. (MN102) That is called personally attaining Nibbana

  • 'This, monks, the Tathiigata understands: These viewpoints thus grasped and adhered to will lead to such-and-such destinations in another world. This the Tathagata knows, and more, but he is not [17] attached to that knowledge. And being thus unattached he has experienced for himself perfect peace,
    and having truly understood the arising and passing away of feelings, their attraction and peril and the deliverance from them, the Tathagata is liberated without remainder. (DN1)

  • "Having conquered the army of the pleasant and agreeable, Meditating alone, I discovered bliss,
    The attainment of the goal, the peace of the heart.

  • SN8.2 Proficient, long trained in concentration, Honest, discreet, without longing, The sage has attained the peaceful state, Depending on which he bides his time. Fully quenched within himself."

  • He is the vanquisher of all,the wise one who has untied all knots. He has reached the supreme peace, nibbana, inaccessible to fear. (AN4.23)

  • For a bhikkhu of peaceful mind, one completely liberated, there’s nothing further to be done,
    no [need to] increase what has been done. [AN6.55)

  • There is no fire like passion, No loss like anger, No pain like the aggregates, No ease other than peace Dhp202

  • Crush your sense of self-allure, Like an autumn lily in the hand,Nurture only the path to peace., Nibbana, As taught to the One Well Gone (Dhp285)

  • Such a Bhikkhu who has turned away from desire and attachment, and is possessed of understanding in this world, has (already) gone to the immortal peace, the unchangeable state of Nibbâna. Snp1.11

  • Sallasutta. He who has drawn out the arrow and is not dependent (on anything) will obtain peace of mind; he who has overcome all sorrow will become free from sorrow, and blessed . (Snp2.8)

There are many more. Nibbana is in many sutta’s related to mind/heart and positively described as peace of heart, peace, peace of mind. This peace is special. Because this peace is not arrived at via constructing but deconstructing. Not via attachment but via detachment. Not via building up but via the cessation of building up. Not via grasping but via letting go. It is arrived at by removing all causes and conditions for clinging, attachment, involvement, engagement.
And in this sense it is very different from peace that one arrives at due clinging to views, sense-pleasure, belief in God, rules and rituals, Dhamma, or whatever.

That might be true, but can still be known and arrived at, and that is what counts in Dhamma.

88

Let’s try to view it in terms of Parinibbāna, because most of the time, you guys just ignore the difference that death to an arahant brings to the table.

MN143 doesn’t have whatever you posted there, I find this instead:

‘I shall not grasp whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by my mind, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on that.’

Therefore even Nibbāna is not grasped at for arahant while alive. What’s more after death, there’s no need to posit a mind which knows parinibbāna. The mind ceases at parinibbāna.

‘I shall not grasp the other world, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the other world.’

After death, there’s no mind/consciousness which is dependent upon anything, even Nibbāna.

In MN122:

But you should expect that a mendicant who lives alone, withdrawn from the group, will get the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of awakening when they want, without trouble or difficulty. That is possible.

This refers to Nibbāna with remainder. Without remainder, there’s no experience. Or if we can extend to cessation of perception and feeling where nothing is felt but still is happy, then it’s clear that happiness doesn’t need a mind to be called happy. Same with peace.

MN139 is the one with

For this is the ultimate noble peace, namely,
Eso hi, bhikkhu, paramo ariyo upasamo yadidaṁ—
the pacification of greed, hate, and delusion.

This refers to the defilements parinibbāna, but not khandaparinibbāna at the death of arahant. khandaparinibbāna is where mind also ceases, as greed, hatred and delusion are the drivers of rebirth and produces new mind for next life. When these causes for renewed becoming are not there, there cannot be new mind for next life. To posit a mind which is not affected by this causation is to posit something eternal within us, in other words, a soul. This contradicts Buddha’s teaching.

I don’t find the word “peace” in MN35, anyway I dunno what’s the point of you quoting that, there’s no contradiction I can find with my view of parinibbāna here.

MN102

Understanding this and seeing the escape from it, the Realized One has gone beyond all that.
iti viditvā tassa nissaraṇadassāvī tathāgato tadupātivatto.

But the Realized One has awakened to the supreme state of sublime peace, that is,
Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, tathāgatena anuttaraṁ santivarapadaṁ abhisambuddhaṁ yadidaṁ—
liberation by not grasping after truly understanding the six fields of contact’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.”

Well, I dunno your point also, but here’s a tackle. The ending of all six fields of contact, their escape is known. So even contact with Nibbāna itself is ended at parinibbāna. No mind sense to even sense nibbāna. This sutta is quite profound and describes very sublime states.

I don’t find in DN1 whatever you quoted there, please be more careful in citation.

What I find is this:

The Realized One understands this:
Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti:
‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’
‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti,
He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself.
tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti; tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā.
Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping.
Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato.

These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things.
Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ.

You have taken the translation from here: DN1 Brahmajāla Sutta: The Supreme Net

Which has this additional phrase which I think is your key point here: Tathāgata is liberated without remainder.

But check the Pāḷi, it’s not there. So we have to conclude that whoever translated that is in error.

89

I used Bodhi’s translation: "Sariputta has reached the peak
In virtue, peace, and wisdom’s ways;

90

the sage has reached the state of peace;
Santaṁ padaṁ ajjhagamā muni paṭicca,
and because he’s extinguished, he bides his time.”
Parinibbuto kaṅkhati kālan”ti.

SN8.2

First line is nibbāna with remainder.

AN4.23 also peace while alive.

AN6.55

For that one, rightly freed,
Tassa sammā vimuttassa,
a mendicant with peaceful mind,
santacittassa bhikkhuno;
there’s nothing to be improved,
Katassa paṭicayo natthi,
and nothing more to do.
karaṇīyaṁ na vijjati.

Also, nibbāna with remainder.

Dhp202

no suffering like the aggregates,
This tells us that nibbāna without remainder, without aggregates is better than nibbāna with remainder, as the remainder is gone. Thus there’s a clear difference between parinibbāna and nibbāna while still alive.

Snp1.11

has found the peace free of death,
Ajjhagā amataṁ santiṁ,
extinguishment, the imperishable state.
Nibbānaṁ padamaccutaṁ.

From nibbāna with remainder to nibbāna without remainder, what changes is the remainder, not nibbāna. Thus this statement shouldn’t be misused to posit that nibbāna with remainder is the same as nibbāna without remainder.

Snp3.8 Your citation has error

With dart plucked out, unattached,
Abbūḷhasallo asito,
having found peace of mind,
santiṁ pappuyya cetaso;
overcoming all sorrow,
Sabbasokaṁ atikkanto,
one is sorrowless and extinguished.
asoko hoti nibbutoti.

Refers to nibbāna with remainder.

91

What does that really mean? The mind ceases…please explain in detail what has ceased when the mind ceases?

Probably you did not read Walshe? I used Walshe

Sorry i am not going to do this. These translation issues are really bad. For me it is very clear that there is bias in the choices. And i do not that trust that anymore. I do not accept Pali expertise anymore.
I am very disappointed to see how translators force their own Dhamma understanding upon translations. I see so much different choices. Also Dutch Pali experts make different choices then English speaking. I have no trust in all this anymore.

92

I know it does not refer to parinibbana but as you may have noticed that i commented on:

93

It’s higher than any possible experience you can have or imagine. But what is it? The answer will come once you “get there,”, right?

94

When the mind ceases, there are no 4 aggregates of the mind. No knowledge, no experience, no concepts, no language, no place for any conception of self to reside in. No time, no space, no conception of them. No mind base, no feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness. No change, no suffering. No dhammakāya, no possibility for the mind to rearise (unlike the Brahma realm of unconsciousness), because the underlying tendencies are all uprooted and there’s no living body. No conditions for rearising. No possibility of rearising. Nothing to refer to a person anymore, as there’s no soul and the 5 aggregates are broken up. The person is undefined. Cannot be found literally. Not even conventionally after the corpse is totally gone. Like Mara cannot find the arahant after he passed away.

95

What makes us think we can “find” the Arhat even when He is standing right in front of us? The whole purpose of Buddhism is the uprooting of identity, and explanation of non-being, for liberation. Once liberated, the Arhat is free. Those stuck in conventions will still struggle, but I think deep down inside those that are Enlightened do not worry over this world, they are concerned with the liberation of others, realizing the temporary and illusory nature of this entire dream-like world, which is without any substance.

96

To be able to say this at all implies you are using conventional speech to refer to the 5 aggregates we label as the arahant.

Of course ultimately there’s no self to be found.

Conventionally, we can point to a living arahant, and then to their corpse after their death, but no more. Conventionally we don’t regard the corpse as the arahant even.

Of others who take rebirth, we can conventionally point to the next body as that person. Ultimately no self is found.

97

Do you believe in something beyond the self (hence no self), or do you believe in nothing beyond either? Do you see phenomena as Sunyata, Emptiness, that there is a confirmation in the fact that all is Empty, that these phenomena are Empty from a transconventional point of view, and Anatta, as there, before and after Enlightenment, in the same way? Because this is simple, in Anatta, there is no self for the person perceived (I am speaking conventionally, there really isn’t a “conventional person”), and after Enlightenment, there is also no person. That is why it is called Awakening, Realization, Enlightenment, the person doesn’t have to achieve something they don’t already have, though of course there is more to Enlightenment than just Anatta and Sunyata. But, I think the Realization aspect is why it is taught that the Buddha was a human being, accomplishing the extraordinary, and so He decided to come in a human form.

98

Nothing.

Yes, before, after all are not self.

I doubt you will find this even in mahayana teachings.

one shouldn’t mix up the ultimate with the conventional. Ultimate truth is no self. Conventionally we can label things to refer to as a self. Without a conventional label of self, morality cannot stand. Mix them up, you screw up morality.

See this for a very clear picture of what it means for no self and after enlightenment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/OpKqbkQ2tf

99

There is no need of a conventional self at any stage, there is no need for conventions that have to do with perception and volition, people simply have them because they are unable to let go of the concept of ego, as well as the perceptual conventions of the Skandhas, which are also such conventions. We should always dwell in Emptiness.

So there being no self, there being only Empty Skandhas, one can say that the Skandhas are illusory as well, hence their provisional introduction. It comes down to how deeply you accept Anatta. You bring up a good point though, and I will think about it. Thank you.

100

However, I think that morality is not dependant on any factor other than what Emptiness has to offer. You really have to have it in you to be good. This is probably the primary teaching and test of Buddhism. Morality stands before any other Teaching.