Yes. Nibbana is referred to as ‘the unconditioned. ‘
1 Like
Nibbana is not described as a conditioned/determined thing (sankhata) in the suttas, so it does not fall under the same criteria of things that directly appear as a result of the six sense base, which is what the threefold description applies to: things that support the self and that they cannot resist the change. That is not to say that nibbana cannot be experienced, but it will be directly known, not directly perceived (MN 1).
Isn’t ‘knowing’ and ‘perceiving’ happen at the same time?
The above does not exclude the function of language, thought and conceptual cognition in navigating life; but makes a point to discern the difference between the notion of some ‘thing’ and the thing in itself.
Although not in the Pali Canon, the Flower Sermon illustrates this suchness. The idea of picking up a flower as compared to the action of picking up the flower. Ultimately, ‘doing’ is non-conceptual, but the mana, is that which ‘knows, perceives, does’ vis a vis the 5 senses. Mind, manas, and mindfulness is sixth. That is what can become lost within abstract thought, the stress and dissatisfaction that can come from this, leads to the blossoming of the contemplative mind.
The map is not the territory, the finger that points to the Moon isn’t the Moon itself, the idea of a thing is not the thing in-itself. Yet, maps have a function, especially if they aid in helping bringing about learning and realisation. Language/conceptual abstraction has a function but through through natural ignorance one can go down all sorts of rabbit holes, mazes and become lost within the thickets of views. It is important to know the difference between the map and territory. Knowing when to use one, and when to put jt down, And sometimes you may even forge a map for others. Sometimes one may stumble in unforeseen territory without a map.
Words are line pinning the tail on the donkey. Each word has a corresponding phenomenon. The word ‘fire’ came to be to express that which was witnessed through one of the sense faculties, and through need, some being came to forge the term for sake of communication.
I am in agreement with you.
Not necessarily according to MN 1, but let me qualify it. The experience for the sekha and higher, as compared to the ordinary worldling, shows a sharp distinction; that as a result of not conceiving, he directly knows the nature of any perception, which is to say there is no redundancy that requires “mine”: there can be knowledge that is discerned as a result of what has appeared without the knowledge itself appearing directly.
Simplest example, a person who is young and wise can discern the knowledge of their own immediate liability to death without having directly perceived it. Sure, he may perceive an object of the mind that represents an idea of death, but knowing it as a fact and feeling the weight of it (resulting in dispassion), is a result of discernment on account of perception. On the other hand, someone with little wisdom won’t discern it deeply enough to feel to the extent that dispassion develops. Sure, they may have that same image of death as the former person, but their discernment is weak and that truth cannot fully apply. Same perception, different discernment.
Since all we experience are dependently originated things there is then nothing substantial in experience. The atta, which is a substance, is then denied. Rationalists might then argue that the atta is beyond sense experience, but the Buddha in the Sabba sutta said it’s foolish to speculate on things apart from sense experience since you can’t know about them. The Buddha’s teachings on dependent origination and on sense experience are criticising the substance theory and Rationalist ideas which were very commonplace at the time. Dependent origination also corrects the mistaken view that freedom from suffering is to be found in some state, either that of eternal existence (the eternalist goal) or eternal death (the annihilationist goal), since any state is always arrived at via intention and so cannot last. As ever his teachings were to correct a mistaken view.
1 Like
What does happen when we experience imagined objects?
“Dependent origination also corrects the mistaken view that freedom from suffering is to be found in some state, either that of eternal existence (the eternalist goal) or eternal death (the annihilationist goal), since any state is always arrived at via intention and so cannot last. As ever his teachings were to correct a mistaken view.”
I get you. That is the answer I was seeking to set things into perspective. In regards to dependent origination negating substance view, I do not take a stance, but just hold fast to causation with the context of identidying stress and its cessation. Dependent origination can be used in other modalities outside of the nature of suffering, like discerning ‘the means or method’ that leads to originating a fire or some effect.
The experience of imaginary things is an experience that has occurred due to conditions.
Sometimes, it’s hard to understand how things really are, and not what our mind is fooled into thinking.
That depends on your relationship to the imagined object, I’d assume you are saying, a thought or some idea.
Let’s say there is a memory that you reflect upon that causes anxiety, stress and strife when reflecting on that. There may be a reason as to why that is happening when is up to the individual to discern why especially if they are interested in overcoming their suffering as to fare well.
Not all objects are mental objects. The word fire is a mental object but what the word points to is not a mental object.
Yes, but what about the object of that experience? I mean “imagined object”?
Yes, but how about the conditionality of pure imagined-objects?
The mind is a sense organ in Buddhism.
1 Like
What of the imaginary object?
I don’t follow you, I’m afraid.
(‘Mind-objects’ can be conditioned too. Sometimes a sip of tea or a bite of cake can trigger a whole stream of memories. )
Mind precedes all knowables,
mind’s their chief, mind-made are they.
If with a corrupted mind
one should either speak or act
dukkha follows caused by that,
as does the wheel the ox’s hoof.
Verse 1 of the Dhammapadda.
Maybe that will shed some light on it. Are you asking how imagined objects or thought comes to arise? How they are conditioned to be and become? The effects that holding on to particular thoughts can have?
That verse refers to wholesome or unwholesome states of mind.
Indeed, an attachment to certain mind born views, opinions, memories, habits and so forth can give rise to either of those states. I am trying to get a gauge for what Anderson means by his question.
Because they are not this:
And what is right view? Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi? Knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering. Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe ñāṇaṁ, dukkhasamudaye ñāṇaṁ, dukkhanirodhe ñāṇaṁ, dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāya ñāṇaṁ— This is called right view. ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi. (SN 45.8)
1 Like
Neither of them because the teachings are “transcendent”…… the middle-way.
Not between the two but right through them.
…… hence…… conditioned and the unconditioned.
I’m only on day 9 of Ajahn Brahmali’s course on DN1 Brahmajalasutta, so my understanding is embryonic, but this is as I currently understand…
In addition to the ‘self’ discussions upstream in this thread, the other problem with ‘eternalism’ and ‘annihilationism’ (and the other 60 views in DN1) is that they all have feeling as a condition. There’s at least two problems with that: [1] feelings are annica therefore unstable and unsatisfactory. When we’re happy-happy-joy-joy, we want to believe in eternalist views. When we’re all dukkha’ed up, we want to believe in annihilationist views. (If ‘I’ am Eternal, then so is my suffering) Problem [2] is that feeling → grasping → misery and grief → around we go again.
3 Likes
This is my most recent development.
Mindfulness is something that is cultivated over a period of time. Have you heard someone describe another as lacking conscience, described as mindless or even soulless?
This points to the phenomenon I speak of.
This is why views of eternalism and annihilationsim are faultt views and not the way it is. Life presents itself as the natural middle way or solution to a dilemma.
The reality is that the strong endure,
And that the weak are blown away,
Only to pop up again when they are strong enough to endure.
Hence the mention of the Tathagata as being beyond coming and going.
This is why it makes no sense to reference eternity or annihilationism. One only endures when they are strong enough. One only partakes in the everlasting consciously when they have developed the strength to everlast.
Mindfulness is the path to the Deathless and the mindless are as if already dead.
The present flow of nowness is the deliverance that one seeks, but during the bodhi process, one can become disassociated from that flow by becoming stuck in the conceptual abstraction faculty of mind which can lead to disassociation or even intense states of stress, fear, terror and panic which overwhelm and overtake oneself.
Life, the middle way, is what clothes you and grows you.
Verse 21: Mindfulness is the way to the Deathless (Nibbana); mindlessness is the way to Death. Those who are mindful do not die; those who are not mindful are as if already dead.
Verse 22: Fully comprehending this, the wise, who are mindful, rejoice in being mindful and find delight in the domain of the Noble Ones (Ariyas).
Verse 23: The wise, constantly cultivating Tranquillity and Insight Development Practice, being ever mindful and steadfastly striving, realize Nibbana: Nibbana, which is free from the bonds of yoga; Nibbana, the Incomparable!
Nibanna as: peace, security, release, understanding, unbounded freedom born of comprehending the noble way.
Additional musings: If you aren’t strong enough, one perishes, and that shows that one’s existence is conditional and not necessarily eternal or guaranteed to endure. Only when one arrives at the present moment which stands free of time does one come to true total rest.
All that I can conceive of is what arrives through the senses. In deep rest, I am unable to receive what is occuring to other people as I am not aware - there is gaps in wakefulness.
This is why I find the focus on infinity, finity, eternalism and annihilation to not be a fruitful focus. One cannot get their head around it. One can only be as they are in the present and that isn’t an idea or a view. Life and the flow of life itself is not a view. The mind becomes fixed and attached & hung up on views. This is natural though and is apart of the awakening process.
The great body of truth is that of the numerous elements. One’s physical body is an amalgamation of that greater body. From one’s physical body comes the mind, and from mind comes the sense of self which may or may not cause difficulties dependent on whether or not one understands or sees what it is in actuality. One’s conscious awareness is thus conditional.