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 the body is an object then what feels good during nirvana?
Well, feelings (vedana) are one of the five aggregates and so is subject to the three characteristics. So technically, it is correct to say that nirvana surpasses feelings. Right?
In my view, yes. Arahants cannot be described in terms of the aggregates. The aggregates and dependent origination only apply to suffering and samsara.
Form is not form when grasped to? Same as feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness. When any of these are grasped there is a sense of subtle suffering.
The self is not the body. Thus one might say that the body is an object, dependently originated. But then what body is it that feels nirvana? Nirvana probably feels good, thus there must be a body that feels the bliss.
My lama says that place opens out to nirvana because space is one of the qualities of awareness. Room to include one more. Nirvana I think would include everything.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes, @Jeffrey, but it's a bit like Self/Not-self.... self is place, not-self is Nibbana, comparatively speaking... Self is 'solid' but Not-self is harder to comprehend and get your head round.....the concept is describable, but actually witnessing it is less easy to put your finger on, experientially......
Not self is just the start. There is no line between self and other. The reality is just as it is. And yet it is not.
Best wishes, Abu
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2012
I was attempting to make a comparison between the two concepts of 'place and Nibbana' and 'self and not-self'. I'm not discussing not-self as a factor in the process of achieving Nibbana.
Yes, @Jeffrey, but it's a bit like Self/Not-self.... self is place, not-self is Nibbana, comparatively speaking... Self is 'solid' but Not-self is harder to comprehend and get your head round.....the concept is describable, but actually witnessing it is less easy to put your finger on, experientially......
It's the opposite with my lama. There are no boundaries to space, they are all fabricated, prapancha. An example is a pureland which has no boundaries. But most important is that 'space' is just a hint. Space is not 'the answer', it's just a word to sharpen up awareness and question our 'hum drum world' as Pema Chodron says.
It's the opposite with my lama. There are no boundaries to space, they are all fabricated, prapancha. An example is a pureland which has no boundaries. But most important is that 'space' is just a hint. Space is not 'the answer', it's just a word to sharpen up awareness and question our 'hum drum world' as Pema Chodron says.
Good post. The Buddha advised us to 'cultivate a mind like space'. He also described this ideal mind as 'endless in all directions'. But these are ideas which facilitate our progress; as you say, they aren't the answer.
So when the Buddha pointed to awareness, sati-sampajanna, he was pointing to the reflective capacity. For this I use the phrase 'intuitive awareness.' Although 'intuition' is a common enough word in English, I myself use it to refer to the ability to awaken and be aware, which is a state of reflection. It isn't thought; it's not filling my mind with ideas or views and opinions. It's an ability to receive this present moment, to receive both the physical and mental conditions as they impinge on me through the senses. It is the ability to embrace the moment, which means the embracement of everything. Everything belongs here, whether you like it or not. Whether you want it or don't want it is not the issue. It is the way it is.
Personality is not the problem; the problem is the attachment to it. So you're always going to have a personality, even as an arahant; but an arahant has no identity with it and no attachment. So we have ways of speaking and talking and doing things that might seem very personal or unique or eccentric or whatever.
But that's not a problem. It's the ignorance and attachment that the Buddha was always referring to again and again as the cause of suffering.
This awareness, sati-sampajanna, intuitive awareness, is not something that I can claim personally. If my personality started claiming it, it would just be more self-view, sakkaya-ditthi again. If I started saying 'I'm a very wise person,' then it would be self-view claiming to be wise. So when you understand that, how could you claim to be anything at all? Of course, on a conventional level I'm willing to play the game. So, when they say 'Ajahn Sumedho' I say 'Yes'. There's nothing wrong with conventional reality either. The problem is in the attachment to it out of ignorance.
Once you see through self-view, the development of the path is then very clear. You trust in this awareness, in non-attachment. You are able to see that attachment is like this, non-attachment is like this. There's a discernment.
We all have these primordial drives as human beings. They are common to all of us. They are not a personal identity. Our refuge is in awareness rather than in judging these energies that we're experiencing. Of course, our religious form is celibate, so when sexual energies arise, we're aware of them, and don't act on them. They arise and cease just like everything else. Anger and hatred arise and cease. When the conditions for anger arise, it's like this; likewise fear, the primal emotion of the animal realm. But the awareness of lust and greed, the awareness of anger, the awareness of hatred and fear, that is your refuge. Your refuge is in the awareness.
Arahants cannot be described in terms of the aggregates.
I think they can. The difference for an Arahant is the absence of grasping the aggregates - and therefore the absence of dukkha.
What PrairieGhost said is correct, but it is referring to the traceless/"non-stationing" aspect of a liberated mind. Just like drawing on water or the flight path of a bird, nothing can be tracked in one whose consciousness is unsupported.
"It’s also worth mentioning that once liberation has been realized an arahant cannot be measured (mīyati) or labeled (saṅkha) in terms of the five aggregates. For example, SN 22.36 Bhikkhu Sutta:
Venerable sir, if one has no underlying tendency towards form... feeling... recognition... fabrications... consciousness, then one is not measured (anumīyati) in accord with it. Whatever one is not measured by, that is not how one is labeled (saṅkha).
An arahant’s consciousness is not dependent (anissita) on any findable support, and therefore, is untraceable (ananuvejja) here and now. MN 22 Alagaddūpama Sutta:
Monks, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a monk who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say], “The tathāgata’s consciousness is dependent on this.” Why is that? A tathāgata, I say, is untraceable even here and now.
Elsewhere this non-abiding mind is designated as consciousness which is “not established” (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:
When that consciousness is not established, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’"
Venerable sir, if one has no underlying tendency towards form... feeling... recognition... fabrications... consciousness, then one is not measured (anumīyati) in accord with it. Whatever one is not measured by, that is not how one is labeled (saṅkha).
An arahant’s consciousness is not dependent (anissita) on any findable support, and therefore, is untraceable (ananuvejja) here and now.
@porpoise, I think of pleasure feelings as in my body because my emotions are in my body. Stress is in my mind and release is in my body. People feel different things there are a lot of people who feel pleasure in the mind. I have felt pleasure in my head during meditation, but it still doesn't feel like my mind. Fantasies even the good feeling is in the body, I think.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
If you remove your mind, your body cannot function. If you remove limbs your mind can still function. Your emotions are not in your body, however much you might protest and insist they are. All senses, feelings and emotions are mind-wrought, and even if they are felt in the body, they originate in the mind.
Stress is in your mind, but is also in your body. it must be, because release is in your body - but it's generated in the mind. Fantasies, even the good feeling being in the body - are mind-generated.
You have to understand that this is fact, whereas what you declare is purely personal opinion, and is flawed and unfounded. Jeffrey, please understand, your mind is whence all things are born.
@Federica, I would include the body in Mind. But the little category, mind, is not what I feel sensation. Little mind is conditioned discursive mind.
The five skhandas are inseparable. Form skhanda includes the earth and the planets. My teachers guru said that thinking that mind and body are separable is suffering. Mind and body interpenetrate.
If you take a drug the mind changes. So doesn't that prove that substance is whence all comes from?
I know that your view comes from the dhammapada but there are more teachings than just that text. It might be sectarian, remember the mahayana teaches emptiness at other subtleties than the skhandas as empty. In the cittimatra view all is mind. The prasangika nothing is unconditioned thus you can't find any mind to say mind is whence all comes.
@Jeffrey: mind is where all the input from the 5 sense-organs go to and it is in the mind that all are combined to form what we call experience. mind resides in body. mind is initially conditioned (sankhara) due to ignorance (avidya), so mind changes every moment either due to some sense-organ input or due to some mental factor which is created in the mind itself using the inputs of the 5 sense-organs and also input from mind via thoughts. all the feelings are generated in the mind. all perceptions are stored in chitta, which is part of mind. the magic of consciousness at the five sense organs are combined and played out as experience in the mental consciousness of the sixth sense organ - mind. the removal of the conditioning of the mind to make it unconditioned is the essence of the 8-fold path and the final destination of the path is Awakening which occurs when all the conditioning ceases.
If you remove your mind, your body cannot function. If you remove limbs your mind can still function. Your emotions are not in your body, however much you might protest and insist they are. All senses, feelings and emotions are mind-wrought, and even if they are felt in the body, they originate in the mind.
Stress is in your mind, but is also in your body. it must be, because release is in your body - but it's generated in the mind. Fantasies, even the good feeling being in the body - are mind-generated.
You have to understand that this is fact, whereas what you declare is purely personal opinion, and is flawed and unfounded. Jeffrey, please understand, your mind is whence all things are born.
I've always been curious about people with this view. Where exactly do you draw-the-line, as it were? Is it like this here [pointing finger] is mind, and that part there [pointing finger again] is body?
All senses, feelings and emotions are mind-wrought, and even if they are felt in the body, they originate in the mind.
I think it's more accurate to say that physical sensations originate in the body. Traditionally there are 2 main sub-divisions of vedana ( feeling/sensation ), ie physical and mental. This is the point (!) of the 2 arrows sutta, it's possible to have an unpleasant physical sensation without the associated unpleasant mental feeling. Without this distinction cessation of dukkha wouldn't be possible for a living being.
mind is considered as a sense-organ in the body. conventionally speaking - mind mentally exists, body physically exists. ultimate truth - since everything is empty of any inherent existence, so there is emptiness everywhere and nothing exists.
Is this important for you at the moment? How are you doing otherwise, is everything OK?
Metta, Abu
Hi floating Abu. I am ok, though I have been hearing voices day and night since February. So, yeah, I've got my own flavor of samsara. Having some coffee and a beautiful day out.
- since everything is empty of any inherent existence, so there is emptiness everywhere and nothing exists.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
my understanding says: since any thing is empty of any entity in it, so there is emptiness everywhere. so conventionally speaking, things exist - but ultimate reality is that there is emptiness or nothingness everywhere.
- since everything is empty of any inherent existence, so there is emptiness everywhere and nothing exists.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
my understanding says: since any thing is empty of any entity in it, so there is emptiness everywhere. so conventionally speaking, things exist - but ultimate reality is that there is emptiness or nothingness everywhere.
Hello Misemisc1,
Some say that any thing is empty of any [abiding (permanent)] entity in it.
- since everything is empty of any inherent existence, so there is emptiness everywhere and nothing exists.
I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
my understanding says: since any thing is empty of any entity in it, so there is emptiness everywhere. so conventionally speaking, things exist - but ultimate reality is that there is emptiness or nothingness everywhere.
Hello Misemisc1,
Some say that any thing is empty of any [abiding (permanent)] entity in it.
@ozen: hi, i think we are saying the same thing. what i meant was - since any thing is empty of any entity (entity meaning any thing which in and of itself is permanent, which is not dependently originated) in it, so there is emptiness everywhere.
No, but they are a useful way of categorising and analysing human experience.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think the teachings in the Dhamma have to be digested in bite-sized chunks. Trying to devour the entire banquet at one sitting is completely counter-productive. A little at a time... While the skandas are not separate, there are 5 of them, and as such, should first of all be accepted as such, before venturing onto their interconnectedness.... Try to tell a newbie the two concepts, and you'll give them indigestion...!
Comments
The assumptions about Nibbana are probably not so helpful FWIW. Remember, it's not a place or a destination.
Blessings,
Abu
Peace,
Abu
Self is 'solid' but Not-self is harder to comprehend and get your head round.....the concept is describable, but actually witnessing it is less easy to put your finger on, experientially......
Best wishes,
Abu
I'm not discussing not-self as a factor in the process of achieving Nibbana.
You sound like you have a wonderful Lama, @Jeffrey.
Thankyou for sharing, well wishes --
Abu
Excerpt from http://measurelessmind.ca/four_noble_truths.html
"It’s also worth mentioning that once liberation has been realized an arahant cannot be measured (mīyati) or labeled (saṅkha) in terms of the five aggregates. For example, SN 22.36 Bhikkhu Sutta:
Venerable sir, if one has no underlying tendency towards form... feeling... recognition... fabrications... consciousness, then one is not measured (anumīyati) in accord with it. Whatever one is not measured by, that is not how one is labeled (saṅkha).
An arahant’s consciousness is not dependent (anissita) on any findable support, and therefore, is untraceable (ananuvejja) here and now. MN 22 Alagaddūpama Sutta:
Monks, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a monk who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say], “The tathāgata’s consciousness is dependent on this.” Why is that? A tathāgata, I say, is untraceable even here and now.
Elsewhere this non-abiding mind is designated as consciousness which is “not established” (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:
When that consciousness is not established, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’"
Your emotions are not in your body, however much you might protest and insist they are.
All senses, feelings and emotions are mind-wrought, and even if they are felt in the body, they originate in the mind.
Stress is in your mind, but is also in your body. it must be, because release is in your body - but it's generated in the mind.
Fantasies, even the good feeling being in the body - are mind-generated.
You have to understand that this is fact, whereas what you declare is purely personal opinion, and is flawed and unfounded.
Jeffrey, please understand, your mind is whence all things are born.
The five skhandas are inseparable. Form skhanda includes the earth and the planets. My teachers guru said that thinking that mind and body are separable is suffering. Mind and body interpenetrate.
If you take a drug the mind changes. So doesn't that prove that substance is whence all comes from?
I know that your view comes from the dhammapada but there are more teachings than just that text. It might be sectarian, remember the mahayana teaches emptiness at other subtleties than the skhandas as empty. In the cittimatra view all is mind. The prasangika nothing is unconditioned thus you can't find any mind to say mind is whence all comes.
Is this important for you at the moment?
How are you doing otherwise, is everything OK?
Metta,
Abu
Namaste,
Abu
Some say that any thing is empty of any [abiding (permanent)] entity in it.
Trying to devour the entire banquet at one sitting is completely counter-productive.
A little at a time...
While the skandas are not separate, there are 5 of them, and as such, should first of all be accepted as such, before venturing onto their interconnectedness....
Try to tell a newbie the two concepts, and you'll give them indigestion...!