Yes, mind is progressively stilled and then one starts to see that the nature of the mind, as the one who knows, does not change. Although the content of the mind changes, this does never lead to the experience that the one who sees and undergoes all this changes. It is like a mirror. In the mirror can arise all kinds of mirage-images, reflections, but the mirror itself remains uninvolved and does not change too. Its nature is merely to reflect. That is what is seen how the mind is too.
See for yourself.
You can fancy that it is an illusion that the mind, as the one who undergoes and knows all this, does not change, but i believe that is merely based upon a theory. Not based upon experience. Not in daily life and not in jhana too.
If this progressive stilling would at some moment lead to a state of being unconscious, an absence, aa lack out what can one learn from this? One cannot even establish that the moment of absence that all has ceases, right? Because in the absence of sense experiences and the notion of I am, in the absence of vinnana’s, in the absence of conscious experiences, we know there are still mind and mind processes going on.
Also, when there is an absence one probably has not entered cessation but bhavanga.
What does it mean that everything is gone? Gone? Or not aware of? Absence can never establish that everything is gone. At best it can establish that vinnana ceases, but we all know that. It happens every day.
Perhaps you are one of those who has personal experience of this pure mind or whatever it is, then it is super hard to get you to change your mind. So I give up. All the best in your journey to end suffering.
Perhaps, but I have had a Theravada practitioner confirm the same understanding of the emptiness of self. It is clear we have a disagreement about anatta. I can also accept that I may be wrong and you may be correct about anatta. But the disagreement is not about Mahayana versus Theravada to my mind. Of that I am more confident as again I have met Theravada practitioners who understand anatta in a similar way to what I am describing and Mahayana practitioners who describe it as you do.
To my mind it seems by statements such as this as a response to an understanding of anatta that you are viewing the six sense contacts as the self or as the self appropriating the six sense contacts. That it is your mission to end your own six sense contacts utterly because you view your six sense contacts as suffering. You view those six sense contacts as substantial entities that need to cease to end substantial suffering.
This is a necessarily a personal view. A view of an individual composed of aggregates who experiences the world through the six sense contacts; doomed to migrate through samsara until she finds a way to utterly end her perception through six sense contacts.
Again, I think this is a very common understanding in all extant traditions. It aligns with right view; believes in fruits and deeds; there is a mother and father; rebirth; this world and the next; and is a factor of the path.
I think i see some people here have a deep resistance towards any notion of no change and stability.
While i believe any being experiences this. We do not all the time feel like we have become a totally different person or me.
Our stable sense of self is clearly not based upon the content of our minds and changes of the body too. Because that can change very much while our sense of being alive, present does not change.
I believe one must not resist ones own experiences, and denie this nor judge this immediately as wrong view but try to understand it, penetrate it. One must in penetrating this, not rely on any doctrine or theory but see directly, in a non theoretical way, what is going on here? I believe that is the best.
If one in advance believes or thinks…‘any sense of stability must be wrong and must be delusional’…that is not a truthful, honest, sincere way of investigating things and is also not what one really knows.
You don’t directly know this, you infer it. Check your sense experiences and see.
This doesn’t mean the inferences are necessarily wrong – just not based on direct experience through the senses.
I agree with you in a common sense way, that external things and reality exist when we’re not looking. This aligns with other teachings of the Buddha as in a sutta in DN.
My prior post about the rocks was to point to what can be experienced through the senses, not to reality from an ontological perspective.
But all we can work with on the Path is what we experience via the six senses – which does not mean they’re “mine” in terms of the I-making delusion. They are what they are as selfless processes which are grasped due to ignorance.
In this sense, what we’re not aware of cannot be practiced and let go of. That’s my point, and it aligns with the teachings in the suttas I cited.
You continue to make points from a common-sense realist viewpoint, which is fine, but not what the suttas regarding this topic are pointing to. Unless I’m misunderstanding you.
No. See above and prior posts.
However, the teachings in the suttas I offered do come close to Idealism and some forms of Phenomenology.
A discussion regarding this with several Venerables can be found here:
With more here:
Agree. But whatever the world may be and how it goes on in spite of us is not what we can directly experience, see into, and let go of. That’s my point here, which I take from the suttas I cited.
How do you see this and the other suttas cited in terms of Dhamma practice? You’re not addressing these points.
These are issues I’m not addressing and neither are the suttas cited.
What can you directly experience – anything beyond the experiences via the six senses? (This includes your thoughts and analyses).
If you answer yes, how with respect to the Buddha’s teachings in the cited suttas?
If you answer no, then that’s my point here. Because that’s all we can work with for liberation.
In this sense, it doesn’t matter whether a body “out there” continues to exist or not or in-between, or whatever.
What matters is how we practice with the six senses/aggregates in our direct experience through the six senses.
I’m not and hope this has been clarified.
But it’s not clear you’ve taken the teachings in that sutta and the others as foundational for practice.
After all, did all war and greed in the outside world end when the Buddha fully awakened or at final nibbāna?
If we all needed to do this, there would be no chance for liberation from dukkha.
What can be extinguished are the six senses and aggregates, hence all experiences , with the ending of rebirth.
Hope the distinction is clear, even if we still disagree.
In support of this, regarding AN4.23:
"The origin of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has given up the origin of the world. The cessation of the world has been understood by the Realized One; and he has realized the cessation of the world. "
How could this be if we have to practice with the “real world” as you keep pointing to? How could the origin of that and its cessation possibly be known?
Rather, it’s the world as the Buddha defines it in terms of Dhamma practice: what we experience and know through the six senses. That is what the Buddha says is kusala, skillful, for leading to the ending of rebirth.
Also, the sutta is not poetical except for the ending verses.
With regard to this point, see SA404.
They perceived it in their sense experience. Although, Sariputta passed away before the Buddha so there was nothing to sense or talk about.
My point in these posts is not to get into philosophy, views of epistemology, etc.
I used that example only to point to the six senses as being all we can experience and know, and that the Buddha called this the “world”.
It’s not meant in an ontological sense about whatever the “real world” out there may or may not be.
Rather, it’s about defining the world in terms of what can be directly experienced (only via the six senses), and how that can be seen into, seen through, and let go of → nibbāna.
That’s how “the world” can cease (AN4.23), irrespective of whatever still goes on or not outside of the six sense experiences.
Incorrect. I’ve checked and can confirm that corpses do not disappear from existence when I’m not aware - or at the least they seem to end some state of ‘non-existence’ whenever someone observes them - and that I can directly know this from my sense experience. How? I’ve checked and seen a dead corpse at time A. I’ve then gone away and the dead corpse left my experience at time B. I’ve then returned and saw the dead corpse again at time C. The corpse at time C was existent not non-existent. It is correct, that I cannot confirm that in the times between A and C that the corpse - when not observed - was existent. However, I can confirm that at time C it was existent. So if at any point between A and C they became non-existent, then this non-existence was impermanent and not the kind of total non-existence that you seem to contend happens to the corpses of awakened ones where the non-existence is permanent.
Awesome! I hope we can dispense with the conversation that contradicts this common sense understanding unless and until it becomes apparent why would we so contradict.
Yes, we know the world through the six sense contacts. This is also a common sense way of understanding things. The two common sense understandings:
That things exist even when we’re not aware of them.
That we only know the world through the six sense contacts.
Are not in any tension or contradiction. Most common people understand and accept both #1 and #2 with no problem whatsoever; no tension. These are not deep insights, but rather just common sense understandings that can be verified by asking the common person on the street. That common person on the street also has no understanding of anatta so #1 and #2 are orthogonal to the doctrine of anatta.
Well, then you have to detail in what way your understanding of the suttas are pointing to and how they are in some tension with these common sense understandings. I do not have a view that they are in tension or have any contradiction with the suttas.
Only if you presuppose some form of idealism on top of them. Again, if you view some sutta as necessarily idealistic and in tension with the common sense understandings above, then please point this out.
The six sense fields are our way of knowing the world. That is all we have for ways of knowing the world. We directly experience the six sense fields. We directly experience a way of knowing the world. We directly experience and verify with our own eyes, nose, ears, mind and so on that corpses of awakened ones do not go poof out of existence when we are looking with our six sense contacts. We directly experience and know that when we go away for a time from the corpse and come back we again see the corpse manifest in a state of decay and it does not go poof out of existence when we are aware of it. If you wish to contend that it might be the case that the corpse goes poof when neither we nor anyone else is looking you can make that contention, but I don’t see how it helps the case of the point I’ve been making; that the form aggregate of an awakened one does not disappear utterly from the world and never return. How do we know this? Directly through our senses that whenever we return to the corpse; there it is. Existing just the way it was when we last left it, but decayed further.
No, but again this is a common understanding and not a deep insight. The common man on the street understands that we experience the world directly only via our six sense contacts or the analogous modern interpretation that was previous. It isn’t in tension or does not appear to me to be in any tension with anything I’ve said.
Sure. I’ve answered no and agree that all we can work with for liberation is what we can know from our direct sense experience. One of those things we can directly know is that whenever we return to the corpse of an awakened one; it exists in further and further states of decay. Whether it poofs out of existence when no one is looking I’m happy to confirm I cannot directly know this. What I can know is that it does not utterly cease and go poof at some point where when anyone tries to observe it they don’t find it.
Never in the suttas do we have any reports from of the Mendicants that say the Teacher’s body could not be found when they went back to look for it. It decayed just like a normal body, but with relics that are purported to be passed down to this day. Regardless, of the authenticity of those relics they are viewable to anyone who seeks to view them with their own six sense contacts.
What do you mean by “out there?” Again, I’m happy to confine our conversation to what can be confirmed through the six sense contacts as I have done above.
On what grounds do you say this?
Manifestly not!
If we all needed to end war and greed before attaining paranibbana? The Teacher could not and I don’t propose lowly I could do anything the Teacher could not. Yet, I still maintain that the Teacher did achieve paranibbana. If our beliefs point to the idea that the Teacher could not or did not achieve paranibbana I agree it is our beliefs which must bend. Fortunately, I don’t see any such tension. As I’ve said, I think the Teacher achieved paranibbana the night of his awakening under the Bodhi tree.
What can be extinguished utterly is ignorance. Which is the root of dependent arising. That link extinguished the others do not arise.
We have to practice with the real world as made known through our six sense contacts. We have no choice about this.
The grasping of the form aggregate utterly ceased with the awakening of the Teacher underneath the Bodhi tree never again to arise. How? Knowledge replaced ignorance as the first link in dependent arising. With no ignorance as the first link, the rest could not arise again. The mere aggregate of form in terms of what we call the Teacher’s body never utterly ceases because no matter/energy cease in this manner. The Teacher contended that we too can achieve such liberation and I hope that we all one day achieve it.
Well, we seem to be in agreement in some areas, but it also appears we’re talking past each other quite a bit.
A number of your responses don’t align with what I was trying to express, but that may very well be due to my expressing my points unclearly.
In either case, my point is not whether corpses continue to exist when we look or not – I mean, who cares?! What I was trying to point out was – and I think we agreee on this – that we only know and experience our lives through the six senses, that this its all that can be worked with for liberation, and that, contrary to your points about “not being a deep insight” unless this is internalized completely, we’ll be stuck in conditions.
To continue to argue in favor of whether corpses, or anything, still really exist when we’re not aware of them indicates a continued preoccupation with whatever reality “out there” is.
My point is that it doesn’t matter in terms of Dhamma practice and liberation.
But again, maybe we’re talking past each other.
I understand your point but if you apply this on suffering, is it really your direct experience that all you sense and perceive is suffering? Do you really rely on direct experience when it comes down to what you directly know as suffering?
I do not know if one can really say that the wisdom eye, the divine eye, heavenly eye are really senses but still they inform us in a deep way about the world.
But surely it is also like this that what humans experience can very differ. Some experience chakra’s , some have mystic experiences, BDE, some have great intuition, but people are also judgemental.
If it is not a Buddha who shares about experiences with other beings, probably one would run away from that person and judge he is ill. And when i shared ones that i something experience chakra’s, well, there was a person that was really mad because that is impossible. He knew for sure that they do not exist. I know they do, for sure. People become judgemental about what they do not experience.
Especially on mystic, esoteric ones. If it does not fit in their rational world they become judgemental.
I have seen this so many times.
I also know for sure that the six sense are really not the only portal to knowledge. But we are all connected in a huge web and are, in some way, able to attune to info that does not arrive via the senses.
Our ‘body’ is also bigger then the physical one. Some moment you might experience this. There is so much going on Our lives are really a mystery. Life is really a deep mystery.
Some moments one might taste it for a moment, and those are very inspiring moments, i feel.
there are of course pleasant experiences. But of course they’re all impermanent and related to the conditional aggregates and senses, so in that sense the Buddha says they are dukkha.
Dukkha does not only mean “suffering.” If we limit its definition to this we can limit our understanding of the broadness of what it points to in the Dhamma. I wouldn’t say eating ice cream is suffering – but related to the above point, it’s impermanent and fundamentally dukkha and any grasping of any impermanent experience, of any sort, does not lead to the ending of rebirth and dukkha.
If you wish, see SN14.34, SN 18.11, SN22.10, SN22.13, SN22.19 and others.
My quote was about what we can work with on the Path to end greed, anger, and ignorance.
Agree. We each experience the particularities of our kammavipakā and whatever else life may bring.
This is an assumption, (which is made through your six senses).
If this motivates you to give up ignorance and craving then…
Yes, @Jasudho , but it is not like this, or is it?, that we just define change as suffering? Then, i feel, all becomes irrational. If we begin to see growing nails as suffering, because there is change, i feel we are becoming philosophers. We totally leave the domain of experiential knowledge. I feel it is just irrational to say change or impermance is an sich suffering.
When the sutta’s say such things that all formations are suffering or must be considered as suffering, i believe that is only to cure our usual obsession with them. To cure our usual search for pleasure, happiness, safety, protection in what is not reliable, stable and will cease. This search creates a future and keep the ball rolling.
The sutta’s teach: Do not aim at, and invest in a future. Not a future of happiness and pleasure, nor a future of eternity nor a future of cessation. Just leave all this grasping behind and then your heartwishes will be fulfilled.
I believe the qualities of a Buddha are really because of his endless goodness, his wish in many lives to do good, and work for the welfare of beings wishing nothing for himself in return. Real goodness.
Very pure hearted. I very much believe in this pure heart all beings have for sure because all defilements are adventitious. .
Oke, life situations can ask from us that we become strategical and self-centered. But it is, i feel, a corruption of the heart. One deed of pure goodheartedness, wishing nothing for oneself, is endlessly more fruitful then biljons of strategical friendly deeds wishing something i return for oneself. All strategy is a corruption of the heart and can never free the mind. Buddha also does not teach this!
The stream has no strategy but leads in a natural way to the cessation of suffering. It is, i believe, a wrong idea of the stream that it is rooted in self-centered desires like longing for eternal life, longing for pleasure, longing to cease. See for yourself if such longings are really not self-centered.
Sorry, but I disagree that the Buddha cared about corpses and whether they exist or not in"external" reality. Whether they do or not is beyond our sense experience and has nothing to do with the practice of liberation. Do you think they do?
While the verses appear to confirm that the Buddha acknowledged a reality outside the six senses, as I’ve also cited before, what have these verses to do with "caring " about it? If anything, to me the verses point to a kind of “good riddance” to the body.
Similar to this is what the Buddha said in SN22.1:
“For this body is ailing, trapped in its shell. If anyone dragging around this body claimed to be healthy even for a minute, what is that but foolishness?”
If this applies to the body before death, how concerned and caring should we be about it after death?
What I meant by not “caring” was not that reality outside the six senses, whatever it may be, didn’t exist. It was that it can’t be accessed and directly experienced – and that only reality experienced through the six senses is all we can practice the Dhamma with.
In this sense, why care about whatever a corpse in a reality outside the six senses may or may not be?
Yes, I agree that dispassion with regard to the body is what the Teacher was pointing toward and in this sense saying the Teacher “cared” about the body was quite inarticulate on my part.
Rather, the point is the Teacher acknowledged the standard common sense understanding that corpses become food for others and used this as a basis to point toward dispassion. I acknowledge my error.
