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.
Nibbana, the tathagatha and death
fivebells
Veteran
in Meditation
I decided to start a new thread for this reply to @PrairieGhost, since it seems the thread it came up in has been "sunk" (I assume not because of the discussion between the pair of us. If I'm wrong about that I apologize, and please delete this thread.)
Regarding the formless realms: yes, 7th jhana is the "sphere of nothingness" on that list. I suppose you could say that perception of nothing and feeling nothing is still perception and feeling. In any case, I know it is not nibbana itself, and not even particularly useful, since it hardly ever happens.
Regarding the Dharma Overground and "gaps" in consciousness: I have had those experiences. I don't know what they mean. I don't accept the Dharma Overground model in its entirety, I just like its seriousness, its modernity, and its helpful community, plus I think they are very solid with regard to the fundamentals of the practice, which is the most important thing for me at this stage. There is really not much to argue with them about, when it comes to the fundamentals. My main problem with the movement is the focus on progress and attainments, which leads to grasping and becoming in its own right for some of the participants there.
Regarding the mysterious nature of cessation (of perception, feeling, etc.) and the tathagatha: I really think it's more accessible than that, and you and I may have been talking past each other to some extent. The tathagatha is simply what's left when the fermentations have been ended. The reason for the lack of language for what's left when that happens is made clear in the Buddha's fire analogy:
I think that is what you meant when you said "I don't breathe, so [I don't crave for breath.]" But this seems glib and dubious to me. The practical, phenomenological question is whether there would be a sense of identity with the tremendous disturbance of asphyxiation. If it would, then that claim is just words/intellect, and does not represent any meaningful shift from the conventional mode of experiencing the world. By this, I don't mean to imply that you are badly trained, just that I think disidentification from the five skandhas in a given situation is contingent and subject to fluctuation, and that therefore cessation is not a terminal state, but arises and passes away like all other aspects of experience. To me, the actual cessation of suffering is the key metric (what I measure and therefore classify myself by.
, though I must admit, my capabilities in this regard are quite modest.
Regarding nibbana and death, I am curious about your view of the Godhika sutta. In it, Godhika repeatedly fails to obtain release through practice and decides to kill himself. The Buddha says he obtained release as a result of that.
Regarding the formless realms: yes, 7th jhana is the "sphere of nothingness" on that list. I suppose you could say that perception of nothing and feeling nothing is still perception and feeling. In any case, I know it is not nibbana itself, and not even particularly useful, since it hardly ever happens.
Regarding the Dharma Overground and "gaps" in consciousness: I have had those experiences. I don't know what they mean. I don't accept the Dharma Overground model in its entirety, I just like its seriousness, its modernity, and its helpful community, plus I think they are very solid with regard to the fundamentals of the practice, which is the most important thing for me at this stage. There is really not much to argue with them about, when it comes to the fundamentals. My main problem with the movement is the focus on progress and attainments, which leads to grasping and becoming in its own right for some of the participants there.
Regarding the mysterious nature of cessation (of perception, feeling, etc.) and the tathagatha: I really think it's more accessible than that, and you and I may have been talking past each other to some extent. The tathagatha is simply what's left when the fermentations have been ended. The reason for the lack of language for what's left when that happens is made clear in the Buddha's fire analogy:
"...suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"I.e., you can't talk about the Tathagatha because it is not a thing, it is simply the absence of the process of suffering. This is further complicated by the fact that the Buddha sees ontological positions as a kind of fermentation in and of themselves, and refuses to take one:
"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. [And so on for the rest of the skandhas.]
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"Now, I don't claim to be enlightened, and I have a position on this, which I acknowledge is suffering. My view is that just as a fire can be started on a site where another fire has gone out, suffering can start back up again after release. This is not to say that it's the same person, because there's no coherent basis for identification, but it can arise in the same physical body, just as if I light a piece of paper on fire, extinguish it, then relight it, the two fires aren't the same, they're just using the same fuel. I also believe that the actions we take to support our lives are suffering, whether there has been release prior to that or not. So when the Buddha obtained and ate food, the five skandhas were operating in support of that. Of course, he presumably did not identify with the five skandhas at any moment of their operation, and therefore could be said to be tathagatha and free of suffering. But the operation of the skandhas is suffering in and of itself.
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
I think that is what you meant when you said "I don't breathe, so [I don't crave for breath.]" But this seems glib and dubious to me. The practical, phenomenological question is whether there would be a sense of identity with the tremendous disturbance of asphyxiation. If it would, then that claim is just words/intellect, and does not represent any meaningful shift from the conventional mode of experiencing the world. By this, I don't mean to imply that you are badly trained, just that I think disidentification from the five skandhas in a given situation is contingent and subject to fluctuation, and that therefore cessation is not a terminal state, but arises and passes away like all other aspects of experience. To me, the actual cessation of suffering is the key metric (what I measure and therefore classify myself by.
, though I must admit, my capabilities in this regard are quite modest.Regarding nibbana and death, I am curious about your view of the Godhika sutta. In it, Godhika repeatedly fails to obtain release through practice and decides to kill himself. The Buddha says he obtained release as a result of that.
0
Comments
I don't think you are badly trained either, but you may be a little unhappy, and I think that's the wrong place from which to form views.
I read your post on computer programming and I understand. I have felt the same way and held the same view.
The hard part about advising someone, is that you're trying in as gentle a way as possible to say that everything that person thinks is completely wrong, not even wrong, fundamentally irrelevant. And I'm not yet skillful enough to do that and it not be seen as a challenge, or a claim.
But I think you are quite disciplined in your mind and practise. What has served you best will have to be let go, of course.
This: isn't so. Saying it, is not outside it; it's part of what you see as identification, it's a coping mechanism. Here's why it isn't so; it's also why I asked you whether you perceived yourself to meditate.
You see, I don't meditate. I sit still from time to time. In the same way, you aren't identifying; you're programming. But, as I said above: saying it, or knowing it, isn't outside it. You said: Forgive me for copy pasting, but I wrote in another thread: There are no empty skandhas that continue. I know that on one level you disagree with me, but as I said, you are not even wrong. It's that level that is suffering.
When I said no one, including me, has a clue what 'this' is, that's provisional. You are not a stranger in a strange dream. You won't float away if you don't tie yourself to the mountain. As far as I can tell, his release of mind was release in concentration, which is still a supported state. I could speculate based on Tibetan teachings about what happened to him next, but I won't.
My view is that death is not necessary for parinibbana. To be frank, I think not dying is what people are most afraid of; for in that sleep of death what dreams may come?
...thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
It is possible to temporarily regress from unbinding with fuel remaining, as I have regressed from this stage through drinking alcohol, but the evidence of my experience, and of the scriptures, is that it is not possible to regress to the state of a worldling. The fuel of my craving for alcohol is spent now. It didn't buy me much good
The correct term is: anupadisesa-nibbana-dhatu. The nibbana element without fuel.
There really wouldn't be much time in such a situation as drowning but at some point when realizing death comes, then the person could let go into death despite having heaving and convulsing of sphincters or whatever nasty things happen to this stinking bacteria ridden bag of meat that we call 'me'.
What do you think of the ethics sections of the Brahmajala sutta? I know the Buddha describes the ethical behaviors of the tathagatha as trifling matters, and compared to Right View they are. But aren't unethical behaviors useful indications of what's actually running the show? This sounds like stream entry, to me, not full-blown enlightenment. This is the stage my practice is at (another thing I like about Dharma Overground, they talk about these things.) Beings still arise, but they aren't construed as glued together in a coherent identity. There is still lust, hatred and ignorance, though. Different situations offer different fuel. The meditation cushion is particularly short on fuel. In everyday life, though, there is still plenty. (My everyday life, at least.)
But I do remember knowing, in a way that is not available to me now, that this was just the beginning, not the end. And that the reason Buddha didn't teach further, was because no teaching is required. You're out of the burning building, basically. Even as I drank, I knew that, and I knew I'd have to go through the stages again.
I have some inkling that Mahayana teachings make more sense later on. No, you see, that there isn't any fuel. That's what I meant by it not being the aggregates. Listen to the song again. Why are you digging in with those spurs (hint: you're not, that's just how you're interpreting things. The self-judgemental person I'm talking to doesn't exist). I'm sorry to have to put it like this, but you'll see. I've read a lot of debates where one side is trying to explain this to people with a strict understanding of doctrine, and I've never seen an 'ah!' moment. You have to be in the right configuration to get it (which of course isn't exactly what I mean either).
No secret practices, no cheat modes, no valium prescriptions. I tried 'em all. Trying was dukkha. Not trying was dukkha. Trying not to try was dukkha. Trying not to not try... well, you get what I mean.
If you can accept this, that's your practice. It may hurt now. It won't always hurt.
This too shall pass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass
When the writing on the ring doesn't grasp you, that's when you don't need me or anyone else to tell you it's done.
Courage is as important as discernment.
What's it like on a phenomenological level? Does the decision to take a smoke break arise from craving, though not your craving? Is there a sense of conflict between the decision to smoke and the risk of harm from doing so? How is it different from the conventional relationship to addiction?
Regarding strict understanding of doctrine, FWIW, my understanding is not strict at all. The suttas have no special authority, what really matters is results, and I am quite happy to go beyond the suttas when it makes sense. I learned from someone trained in the Karma Kagyu tradition, so I don't have a strong institutional connection to the Pali canon and I know the basic Mahayana doctrines, though they aren't helping me much at the moment. To show just how unorthodox I'm prepared to get, here's a rough transcript from a beginning meditation class I'm teaching, the theme being shifting one's relationship to habits. (I know, "Physician, heal thyself.")
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
Consider me someone who has seen just enough of the results of accepting this response to know that this is satisfactory, providing it isn't clung to.
This is a metaphysical question, isn't it? I had another go at resolving it:
The world is dependently originated, that is why we call the world empty.
Emptiness is dependently originated, that is why we call it the real world.
To answer these questions again, in more detail: As I see that I want a cigarette, it's possible to let the sensations be what they are and not impute a self who wants to smoke, thus behaviour changes. There's no, or little conflict because of this; I know that I must neither struggle against a self nor rest to appease a self, because both are counterproductive and based on ignorance. Which is why I still smoke, but less, and I'm confident that I'll give up. Other cravings have already been transformed by seeing them as not self, but smoking is persistent.
But trying not to smoke is still craving.
So I kind of let go of goals to the extent of having a mental construct 'I am quitting'. At the same time I have made many wishing prayers 'pranadhanas' to be happy and healthy and those wishes manifest either as sitting with craving or enjoying the indulgence.
Thus the 'non-smoker' mandala is not at the center and rather the awareness mandala is. In the awareness mandala we embody sitting with craving OR we embody letting go into the sense pleasure and enjoy it.
Rigdzin Shikpo said craving was like a hydra. Hercules cut of one head of the hydra and another regrows. He recommended being mindful of the contact and being with it. I mean by contact that you are full force whatever your micro-decision. Just an aside but anger is not a hydra, rather it has one head and if you recognize that you are angry you are able to cut it right there with awareness and I guess cool down.