Why are the Arahant aggregates suffering due to impermanence?

[Green]

@Nikolas

If he teaches the preservation of citta, then being in the form of that citta is being born in the form of that citta. The essence of birth is the acquisition of a new form of being.

People can refer to sutta’s that describe citta as changing rapidly, arising, ceasing. Oke, that can.
But this only proofs that Maha Boowa describing his realisation used the word citta in a very different context and meaning.

He used it here in a very specific context, namely: the unique, personal, local perspective, a private perspective on the world, a perspective from which we see beings, houses, moutains etc, can totally collapse. It is anicca too. It is caused. It is produced, a result of many conditions. It can cease while one does not cease. If this local perspecive collapses, he teaches, then the citta reveals itself. A totally different perspective on what knows now reveals itself. As i read it: knowing reveals itself as being everywhere present, not local. It cannot be seperated from emptiness too. Then there is no this world or another world, no coming and going etc.

So, i think it means: what we experiences as local, as arsing, ceasing is not really local, arising and ceasing. But this remains hidden for us being trapped in a time and space bound perspective.

Anyway, i do not know all this, but what i know it that it is useless to compare the sutta’s use of the word citta with how Maha Boowa uses this word it in this very specific context of realisation and the collapse of a personal and local perspective.

[Nikolas]

@Green

Oke, that can.
But this only proofs that Maha Boowa describing his realisation used the word citta in a very different context and meaning.

Sorry, I’m not interested in the religion “mahaboowism”, suggest it to someone else.

[Nikolas]

@Green

As i read it: knowing reveals itself as being everywhere present, not local. It cannot be seperated from emptiness too.

Yes, limitless consciousness, that’s right. This is exactly how they imagined Brahman, the one who knows; unlimited by form and place.

[Green]

@Nikolas

Sorry, I’m not interested in the religion “mahaboowism”, suggest it to someone else.

Interested in Buddhism one cannot do without interest in what advanced practioners have to tell.

[Green]

@Nikolas

Yes, limitless consciousness, that’s right. This is exactly how they imagined Brahman, the one who knows; unlimited by form and place.

Now i am gonna be serious

The sphere or jhana of unlimited vinnana does not rely on a total collapse of the personal local perspective, i have understood. What Maha Boowa describes does.
What Maha Boowa describes is a cessation of perception and feeling. It is very different from any jhana.
This cessation is not a jhana.

Maha Boowas uses a great simile to explain the difference between knowledge that relies on a personal perspective and that which does not. The simile goes like this, in my own words:

suppose there is someone in a large empty space or room. Whereever he sees, he sees emptiness. So he concludes that he has knowledge of emptiness. Maha Boowa says, this person is mistaken because the space or room is not really empty. The observer himself is in the room. His idea of emptiness is still wrong.

In my own words…one can experience a progressive stilling of formations and make a descent into emptiness, such as in jhana, and this can give insight, but one does not transcent the world while doing this. And one does not really arrive at complete emptiness because in jhana the observer stays present. The observer observers the progressive stilling of formations. It is able to describe the experience in all jhana. Otherwise we would never know about it. The observer observes ‘there is nothing’ etc. The observer also observes a endless vinnana.

But there can come a moment that this observer, i.e. this personal perspective can collapse too.
That moment, and only then, one will have direct knowledge or understanding of ultimate emptiness, the deathless. One becomes it, as it were. Then there is an emptiness and knowing without observer perspective.

I have done my best but you also are not interested in greenism

It is oke. We will all have to see for ourselves. I have never experienced what maha boowa teaches. But i have seen teachers of other traditions also describe similar things. This is why i have also trust in it.

It is, ofcourse, very unlikely that the cessation of perception and feeling is discerned as something that really happens, if there can be no direct knowledge of this. If one can only have knowledge of this afterwards, when arriving out of it, one can also call this just abscence and this can happen to persons with epilepsy. I do not believe that absence is the nature of cessation.

[Nikolas]

@Green

Interested in Buddhism one cannot do without interest in what advanced practioners have to tell.

I found such practitioners for myself; I have already listed their names. Their experience does not match what you describe.

If the opinion of a practitioner does not agree with the opinion of the Buddha, for example, he redefines concepts, contradicts the word of the Buddha, then this practitioner establishes his own religion. I have nothing against it, but personally I’m not interested in it.

[Nikolas]

@Green

But there can come a moment that this observer, i.e. this personal perspective can collapse too.
That moment, and only then, one will have direct knowledge or understanding of ultimate emptiness, the deathless. One becomes it, as it were. Then there is an emptiness and knowing without observer perspective

Yes, this is called phala-samapati. In phala-samapati, all constructed phenomena cease completely and this emptiness is taken as the object of perception. Also in this state there is no perception of oneself/personal perspective/and the observer. Since it was already said above that all constructions cease in this emptiness, and the observer is one of the constructions. And this emptiness is contemplated. It is contemplated by lokuttara-citta, the supramundane mind.

But this mind is conditioned and dies away at the moment of parinibbana. And that makes a big difference.
If Maha-Boowa did not have 1. Analytical knowledge of the dependent arising and cessation of all types of mind; 2. Knowledge of the emergence and cessation of formations, - knowledges that must be trained separately; he might not know the nature and destiny of this citta. You cannot take the presence of this citta during life as proof of its eternal nature after death. That is, you cannot imagine it as an atta

[Green]

@Nikolas

I found such practitioners for myself; I have already listed their names. Their experience does not match what you describe.

Can you show me how their experience does not match with what maha boowa describes? Have they experiences this collapse of the personal perspective Maha Bowaa describes? If not… you, and slo they, cannot say anything about it. That is absurd. You cannot judge about something you have never experienced, and i am quit sure this is what is going on. But tell me if they have experienced the collapse of the personal perspective?

[Green]

@Nikolas

But this mind is conditioned and dies away at the moment of parinibbana. And that makes a big difference.
If Maha-Boowa did not have 1. Analytical knowledge of the dependent arising and cessation of all types of mind; 2. Knowledge of the emergence and cessation of formations, - knowledges that must be trained separately; he might not know the nature and destiny of this citta. You cannot take the presence of this citta during life as proof of its eternal nature after death. That is, you cannot imagine it as an atta

What i often have seen stressed by teachers, also Maha Boowa: The deathless can only be seen or known with the eyes of the deathless. You must not see this as an object of the mental sense nor the five physical senses.

The deathless sees itself. It is not a temporary or local mind, a mind with a perspective, that has the deathless as object. That is what Maha Boowa tries to explain with his simile of one who is in a empty room (see above). From a personal perspective one cannot see the deathless, because it is not an object of the senses.

In other words, what is theoretically refered to as the supra mundane Path or mind and emptiness or the deathless are not different things. Those are the same.

@Nikolas

If Maha-Boowa did not have 1. Analytical knowledge of the dependent arising and cessation of all types of mind; 2. Knowledge of the emergence and cessation of formations, - knowledges that must be trained separately; he might not know the nature and destiny of this citta. You cannot take the presence of this citta during life as proof of its eternal nature after death. That is, you cannot imagine it as an atta

In my opinion Buddha teaches exactly the opposite. He teaches that you cannot take the usual understanding of the nature of mind as a Me, as arising and ceasing, as local, as proof that it really is a me, and really is arising and ceasing and local.

From a personal perspective the nature of mind might seem a Me, local, arising and ceasing. This might seem true, but also only from a personal perspective . But for one who knows this is not ultimate true anymore. The Tathagata is deep, unfathomble, like the ocean.