Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
If we must eliminate the "Self" to reach Enlightenment, then what is Nirvana like?
The experience as it is conceptualized is stamped by the 3 marks. But when grasping ceases experience is just experience. It is as it is clear open and sensitive. Nothing graspable and thus it cannot be established that things are composed of parts.
Is there such a thing as full enlightenment? If someone waterboarded the Buddha, would it induce the eons-old panic reaction to water in the bronchi? And if so, how is that reaction not dukkha?
I would guess that it would be possible to not experience dukka if it was seen and already known, by the Buddha, that he was not being waterboarded, but rather just his body was being waterboarded. So the end result would be that he is not panicking, but rather simply his body is panicking. I think the 2nd noble truth displays that the aversion to the body panicking like that, would be the cause of dukka in a situation like that. If there is no aversion to the body panicking like that, then where can dukka come from? If there is no aversion to the body panicking like that, then there is no disturbance of the mind as a result of the situation, since the aversion is what causes the disturbance of the mind to begin with. And if it is seen that this is just a body and not him, then there would be no real reason to have aversion to an inevitable situation like that to begin with, theoretically speaking.
Suffering is also a mental formation (coupled with various feelings and sensations) that dependently originates without agency or self
This topic is elucidated in the anattalakkhana sutta)
Xabir
This topic is elucided in the teachings on Dependent Origination, where suffering is a mental formation that dependently originates due to ignorance, as follows:
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form.. feeling... perception... fabricating... consciousness to be the self.
That assumption is a fabrication.
Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?
To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
So the fabrication of 'self' may originate without agency/self but the origination creates the illusion/delusion of agencey/self.
This topic is not elucidated in the Anattalakkhana Sutta.
When the Anattalakkhana Sutta speaks the following words, it is not discussing the dependent origination of dukkha. It is discussing how the five aggregates are subject to decay. The Pali word translated as "affliction" is not 'dukkha'. It is 'ābādhāya', which means 'illness' or 'disease'.
"Mental formations, O monks, are not-self; if mental formations were self, then mental formations would not lead to affliction [ābādhāya] and it should obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my perception be thus, may my mental formations not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since mental formations are not-self, therefore, mental formations lead to affliction and it does not obtain regarding mental formations: 'May my mental formations be thus, may my mental formations not be thus.'
For example, when Ajahn Chah suffered from dementia in his old age, his sankhara khanda was afflicted with disease.
As for controlling the mind so it is free from psychological dukkha, although Ajahn Chah had dementia, he never once demonstrated his sankhara khanda was capable of concocting the dukkha of dependent origination.
Regards
Ābādha
Ābādha [ā + bādh to oppress, Vedic ābādha oppression] affliction, illness, disease Vin iv.261; D i.72; ii.13; A i.121; iii.94, 143; iv.333, 415 sq., 440; Dh 138; Pug 28; Vism 41 (udara -- vāta˚) 95; VvA 351 (an˚ safe & sound); SnA 476; Sdhp 85. -- A list of ābādhas or illnesses, as classified on grounds of aetiology, runs as follows: pittasamuṭṭhānā, semha˚, vāta˚, sannipātikā, utu -- pariṇāmajā, visama -- parihārajā, opakkamikā, kammavipākajā (after Nd2 304i.c., recurring with slight variations at S iv.230; A ii.87; iii.131; v.110; Nd1 17, 47; Miln 112, cp. 135). <-> Another list of illnesses mentioned in tha Vinaya is given in Index to Vin ii., p. 351. -- Five ābādhas at Vin i. 71, viz. kuṭṭhaŋ gaṇḍo kilāso soso apamāro said to be raging in Magadha cp. p. 93. -- Three ābādhas at D iii.75, viz. icchā anasanaŋ jarā, cp. Sn 311. -- See also cpd. appābādha (health) under appa.
Yes anattalakkhana sutta is about anatta and not much mentioning about d.o. Tho they are related as the only way things can arise without agency (I, the observer, heard the sound) is via d.o. (Hearing arise due to ear and sound)
And the illusion of an agent is not the same as there being an agent causing the suffering. Therefore no sufferer only suffering is true (but there is an illusion of self, yes) Just like the illusion of santa claus made the child excited on christmas, which is not at all saying that a real santa claus making the child excited. All along there is just illusion (of self), ignorance, never a real self or santa claus. Santa claus which never existed to begin with thus cannot cause a child to be excited. It is that illusion that excites him. It is a mental fabrication. Just like the illusion of a self or agent.
There is practise via the 4NTs, where the cause of suffering is ABANDONED. This is ending suffering via "control". This is the path of the stream enterer.
Sure. Then there is the ending of suffering via insight. But this is a higher level.
As for your rotten smell example, a rotten smell is not suffering. You are confusing unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana) with the real dukkha of attachment.
The Buddha said an arahant free from greed, hatred & delusion still experiences pleasant & unpleasant feelings.
Also, you seem to be stuck on there is "no control". The mind controls the mind; wisdom controls the mind. An "agent" is not required for their to be "control".
Whether selfview and realisation of anatta can coexist is besides the point. Anatta is a dharma seal which applies to afflicted mental formations (e.g. Suffering) as well as liberated experience.
Sure. I do not dispute this. I said this in my original post.
I was just challenging any unrelfective acceptance of the original quote (of Buddhaghosa)
I have never read the Buddha said: "There is no sufferer".
Such statements are nihilistic & too broad. They are not conducive to clear seeing.
Whilst ultimately, "self" is just a misinterpretation of reality, where suffering exists, a "sufferer" must exist
And the illusion of an agent is not the same as there being an agent causing the suffering. Therefore no sufferer only suffering is true (but there is an illusion of self, yes) Just like the illusion of santa claus made the child excited on christmas...
Good example
However, as i said in my last post, to me, statements like that of Buddhaghosa are nihilistic, too broad & not conducive to clear seeing
Happy to be corrected, but although the Dhamma explicity states "all things whatsoever are not self", I cannot recall reading any (Pali) words of the Buddha stating "becoming" is not-self.
Most suttas state the elements & five aggregates are not-self; and the sense spheres, including the associated consciousness, feeling & even craving, are not-self.
But I cannot recall the Buddha ever saying "becoming" is not-self.
Whilst "becoming" certainly is not-self, my opinion the Buddha's intention was that practitioners clearly understand & see the process of becoming & suffering.
The Phagguna Sutta is a good example, where the Buddha stopped the "who" questions at attachment and exhorted: "clinging is the condition of the process of becoming. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering".
If we or a person are suffering but we think: "There is no sufferer", this is not clear practise. Imo, this is a kind of denial or nihilism. The Buddha's intention, imo, was for us to see there is suffering due to 'self-view'.
@Cloud and @seeker242, body/mind duality seems implicit in your responses. However, the panic reaction to water in the bronchi is encoded in the amygdala. It's a mental process. And panic seems like an intrinsically aversive reaction, so how is it not suffering?
Dhatu, I listened to your talk on the first NT. I thought it was very good, and agreed with most of it. But I don't see how the panic induced by waterboarding is not suffering. E.g.
At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.
There is practise via the 4NTs, where the cause of suffering is ABANDONED. This is ending suffering via "control". This is the path of the stream enterer.
Sure. Then there is the ending of suffering via insight. But this is a higher level.
As for your rotten smell example, a rotten smell is not suffering. You are confusing unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana) with the real dukkha of attachment.
The Buddha said an arahant free from greed, hatred & delusion still experiences pleasant & unpleasant feelings.
Also, you seem to be stuck on there is "no control". The mind controls the mind; wisdom controls the mind. An "agent" is not required for their to be "control".
Regards
Yes I do know that arhats experience pleasant and unpleasant feelings I was just making an analogy that there can be remedy to situation but no agent is involved
I am curious about what you mean by control is all that is necessary for sotapanna. As a sotapanna has attained insight into the nature of dhamma and gained the dhamma eye I don't think it is appropriate to comment that insight is only for a higher level
Even abandoning arises due to dependent origination and has no agency
"The knowledge of ending in the presence of ending has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is the prerequisite for the knowledge of ending? Release, it should be said. Release has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is its prerequisite? Dispassion... Disenchantment... Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present... Concentration... Pleasure... Serenity... Rapture... Joy... Conviction... Stress... Birth... Becoming... Clinging... Craving... Feeling... Contact... The six sense media... Name-&-form... Consciousness... Fabrications... Fabrications have their prerequisite, I tell you. They are not without a prerequisite. And what is their prerequisite? Ignorance, it should be said.
And the illusion of an agent is not the same as there being an agent causing the suffering. Therefore no sufferer only suffering is true (but there is an illusion of self, yes) Just like the illusion of santa claus made the child excited on christmas...
Good example
However, as i said in my last post, to me, statements like that of Buddhaghosa are nihilistic, too broad & not conducive to clear seeing
Happy to be corrected, but although the Dhamma explicity states "all things whatsoever are not self", I cannot recall reading any (Pali) words of the Buddha stating "becoming" is not-self.
Most suttas state the elements & five aggregates are not-self; and the sense spheres, including the associated consciousness, feeling & even craving, are not-self.
But I cannot recall the Buddha ever saying "becoming" is not-self.
Whilst "becoming" certainly is not-self, my opinion the Buddha's intention was that practitioners clearly understand & see the process of becoming & suffering.
The Phagguna Sutta is a good example, where the Buddha stopped the "who" questions at attachment and exhorted: "clinging is the condition of the process of becoming. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering".
If we or a person are suffering but we think: "There is no sufferer", this is not clear practise. Imo, this is a kind of denial or nihilism. The Buddha's intention, imo, was for us to see there is suffering due to 'self-view'.
To some of the earlier comments. Awakened practitioners do have personalities, hence why Honoured Arhats like Sariputra prefers to propagate the Dharma, and Honoured Arhat like MahaKasyapa prefers aesctic practices in the wood.
Attachment to self is the problem, not personal styles.
Well, basically you remove any notion of an inherently existing separate self. When you do such, there is pure EXPERIENCE as opposed to subject object interaction.
Well, basically you remove any notion of an inherently existing separate self. When you do such, there is pure EXPERIENCE as opposed to subject object interaction.
well said. But it should be noted that the bond of duality ad the bond of inherency (due to view of duality and view of inherency) are two different bonds.
You can realize nonduality and dissolve the sense of seperate self and the subjectobject dichotomy. Yet the view of an inherent awareness remains.
Therefore the realization of nonduality (stage four) is not the same as the realization of anatta (stage five) and anatta is not the same as the realization of sunyata (stage six)
Comments
Yes anattalakkhana sutta is about anatta and not much mentioning about d.o. Tho they are related as the only way things can arise without agency (I, the observer, heard the sound) is via d.o. (Hearing arise due to ear and sound)
And the illusion of an agent is not the same as there being an agent causing the suffering. Therefore no sufferer only suffering is true (but there is an illusion of self, yes) Just like the illusion of santa claus made the child excited on christmas, which is not at all saying that a real santa claus making the child excited. All along there is just illusion (of self), ignorance, never a real self or santa claus. Santa claus which never existed to begin with thus cannot cause a child to be excited. It is that illusion that excites him. It is a mental fabrication. Just like the illusion of a self or agent.
I doubt we can see eye to eye.
There is practise via the 4NTs, where the cause of suffering is ABANDONED. This is ending suffering via "control". This is the path of the stream enterer.
Sure. Then there is the ending of suffering via insight. But this is a higher level.
As for your rotten smell example, a rotten smell is not suffering. You are confusing unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana) with the real dukkha of attachment.
The Buddha said an arahant free from greed, hatred & delusion still experiences pleasant & unpleasant feelings.
Also, you seem to be stuck on there is "no control". The mind controls the mind; wisdom controls the mind. An "agent" is not required for their to be "control".
Regards
I was just challenging any unrelfective acceptance of the original quote (of Buddhaghosa)
I have never read the Buddha said: "There is no sufferer".
Such statements are nihilistic & too broad. They are not conducive to clear seeing.
However, as i said in my last post, to me, statements like that of Buddhaghosa are nihilistic, too broad & not conducive to clear seeing
Happy to be corrected, but although the Dhamma explicity states "all things whatsoever are not self", I cannot recall reading any (Pali) words of the Buddha stating "becoming" is not-self.
Most suttas state the elements & five aggregates are not-self; and the sense spheres, including the associated consciousness, feeling & even craving, are not-self.
But I cannot recall the Buddha ever saying "becoming" is not-self.
Whilst "becoming" certainly is not-self, my opinion the Buddha's intention was that practitioners clearly understand & see the process of becoming & suffering.
The Phagguna Sutta is a good example, where the Buddha stopped the "who" questions at attachment and exhorted: "clinging is the condition of the process of becoming. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering".
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
If we or a person are suffering but we think: "There is no sufferer", this is not clear practise. Imo, this is a kind of denial or nihilism. The Buddha's intention, imo, was for us to see there is suffering due to 'self-view'.
Regards
The error in your hypothesis is you have not defined what "suffering" is
In your hypothesis, the meaning of "suffering" is implicit
I am curious about what you mean by control is all that is necessary for sotapanna. As a sotapanna has attained insight into the nature of dhamma and gained the dhamma eye I don't think it is appropriate to comment that insight is only for a higher level
Even abandoning arises due to dependent origination and has no agency
"The knowledge of ending in the presence of ending has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is the prerequisite for the knowledge of ending? Release, it should be said. Release has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is its prerequisite? Dispassion... Disenchantment... Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present... Concentration... Pleasure... Serenity... Rapture... Joy... Conviction... Stress... Birth... Becoming... Clinging... Craving... Feeling... Contact... The six sense media... Name-&-form... Consciousness... Fabrications... Fabrications have their prerequisite, I tell you. They are not without a prerequisite. And what is their prerequisite? Ignorance, it should be said.
Attachment to self is the problem, not personal styles.
You can realize nonduality and dissolve the sense of seperate self and the subjectobject dichotomy. Yet the view of an inherent awareness remains.
See the difference between stage four, five and six in
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Therefore the realization of nonduality (stage four) is not the same as the realization of anatta (stage five) and anatta is not the same as the realization of sunyata (stage six)