"The Deathless" (amata)

[tiltbillings]

So, arahants either do not have cognitions -- that is, they do not see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or have thoughts --,

Not true, obviously.

or they they are just big piles of dukkha like the rest of us.

What are you identifying the arahant as? The body? Cognitions?

I am not identifying the arahant with anything; however, it is only through cognitions that there is going to be awareness of awakening, unless you are advocating some sort of mysterious awareness that is not a cognition.

[tiltbillings]

SN 2.26: It is in this very fathom-long physical frame with its perceptions and mind, that, I declare, lies the world, and the arising of the world, and the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world. [26]


26.The import of this significant declaration can be understood in the context of those suttas in which the Buddha defines the concept of the world. The 'world,' for the Buddha, arises in the six sense-spheres (See above Note 21). Hence its cessation too, is to be experienced there, in the cessation of the six sense-spheres (salaayatananirodha). "I will teach you, monks, how the world comes to be and passes away... What monks, is the arising of the world? Dependent on eye and forms, arises visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling, craving. Conditioned by craving, grasping. Conditioned by grasping, becoming. Conditioned by becoming, birth. And conditioned by birth, arise decay, death, grief lamentation, suffering, despair. This is the arising of the world.
And what, monks, is the passing away of the world? Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling is craving. By the utter fading away and cessation of that craving, grasping ceases, by the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases, by the ceasing of becoming birth ceases, by the ceasing of birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamentation, suffering, despair, cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire man[sic; should be 'mass'] of Ill." -- SN ii 73 CDB i 581


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... passage-10
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tml#fnt-26

[tiltbillings]

Seems I missed this.

And what do arahants say? Is there any arahant who has said that what rises and falls is not dukkha?

A cognition is dukkha because it is not satifactory to grasp, but there is freedom from grasping, obviously there is no dukkha in what rises and falls. If that were not the case, the arahant would be subject to dukkha with the rise and fall of cognitions, and that obviously is not the case.

[kirk5a]

Seems I missed this.

And what do arahants say? Is there any arahant who has said that what rises and falls is not dukkha?

A cognition is dukkha because it is not satifactory to grasp, but there is freedom from grasping, obviously there is no dukkha in what rises and falls. If that were not the case, the arahant would be subject to dukkha with the rise and fall of cognitions, and that obviously is not the case.

This is explained in the Arrow Sutta. The first arrow one is shot with is still dukkha. Otherwise, if it really was the case that "there is no dukkha in what rises and falls" for an arahant, they might as well be reborn then! Keep being reborn and help others, enjoy life, whatever. But arahants don't say " I'll be back." They say "Birth is destroyed... there is no more coming to any state of being."

But the idea that an arahant is "subject to" dukkha is not quite right. Again, what the arrow sutta says "He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

How do we come to know what this "disjoined" actually is? See here, in the description of stream entry which I have been quoting:

his consciousness
no longer enters into or settles down on or resolves upon any field of formations
at all, or clings, cleaves or clutches on to it, but retreats, retracts and recoils as
water does from a lotus leaf

Or even better, to return again to the sutta quotation:

"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[tiltbillings]

. . .

The texts you quote do not contradict anything I have said. If anything, they support my position, but the texts you quote certainly do not support your seeming contention that there is a "the Deathless" that exists even if there were no arahants or other ariya. Since you refuse, despite my repeatedly asking you, to explain your actual position, it is unclear what you are contending. You might want to clarify your position here.

Now we come to this:

Otherwise, if it really was the case that "there is no dukkha in what rises and falls " for an arahant, they might as well be reborn then! Keep being reborn and help others, enjoy life, whatever.

Like much of what you have done with what I have said, the problem is, you take it out of context and twist it, which has been pointed out to you. And this particular taking my words out of context is no different. The full sentence, not just the bit you plucked out to twist: A cognition is dukkha because it is not satisfactory to grasp, but there is freedom from grasping, obviously there is no dukkha in what rises and falls.

And, of course, what I said was posted in a msg that immediately followed the msg where I quoted this:

And what, monks, is the passing away of the world? Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling is craving. By the utter fading away and cessation of that craving, grasping ceases, by the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases, by the ceasing of becoming birth ceases, by the ceasing of birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamentation, suffering, despair, cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire man[sic; should be 'mass'] of Ill." -- SN ii 73 CDB i 581

If there is no grasping, I am obviously talking about an arahant, and certainly in this is so in the context of this passage.

Now, this is a very interesting passage. The passage as a whole tells us where and how the drama of awakening happens. It also tells that for an arahant that -- Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling -- continues to function, but the relationship to that which rises and falls has been radically altered. The craving for it has ceased, and with no craving, there is no grasping after it. And because of that there is no becoming -- no compulsion forward because of it -- leading to rebirth. And no rebirth gives us amata, freedom from death.

In other words, this statement of yours -- Otherwise, if it really was the case that "there is no dukkha in what rises and falls " for an arahant, they might as well be reborn then! Keep being reborn and help others, enjoy life, whatever -- is not something I said or even remotely implied. For the arahant is freed of craving for what rises and falls, no longer grasping after the khandhas, with no further compulsion to rebirth, the congitions that rise and fall are no longer conditioned – asankhata – for the arahant by greed, hatred, and delusion:

"And what have I [the Buddha] taught? 'This is dukkha... This is the origination of dukkha... This is the cessation of dukkha... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening [sambodhi], to nibbana. This is why I have taught them. SN v 437 cf DN i 189. The arahant, in experiencing the rising and falling of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing, is free of dukkha.

[kirk5a]

Like much of what you have done with what I have said, the problem is, you take it out of context and twist it, which has been pointed out to you. And this particular taking my words out of context is no different.

Your context is right there for all to see and decide if I am twisting anything.

The arahant, in experiencing the rising and falling of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing, is free of dukkha.

The arahant is "disjoined" from dukkha. The Buddha taught that what is inconstant is dukkha. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing is inconstant and therefore dukkha.

"Sabbe sankhara dukkha." That is what the Buddha taught.

the congitions that rise and fall are no longer conditioned – asankhata – for the arahant by greed, hatred, and delusion:

Please show me where "asankhata" refers to cognitions.

[tiltbillings]

Like much of what you have done with what I have said, the problem is, you take it out of context and twist it, which has been pointed out to you. And this particular taking my words out of context is no different.

Your context is right there for all to see and decide if I am twisting anything.

And as I clearly showed the context does not support what you are saying I am saying.

The arahant, in experiencing the rising and falling of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing, is free of dukkha.

The arahant is "disjoined" from dukkha. The Buddha taught that what is inconstant is dukkha. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing is inconstant and therefore dukkha.

"Sabbe sankhara dukkha." That is what the Buddha taught.

So, when an arahant is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing, the arahant is suffering, according to you?

the congitions that rise and fall are no longer conditioned – asankhata – for the arahant by greed, hatred, and delusion:

Please show me where "asankhata" refers to cognitions.

The destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362.

Let me ask you: as unawakened individuals our cognitions are not conditioned by wanting, a craving for, a grasping after, what reinforces a sense of self; our cognitions are not conditioned by aversion to, a hatred of, that which threatens our sense of self; our cognitions are not conditioned by the fundamental sense that we are at our core an important, lasting agent-self?

[kirk5a]

So, when an arahant is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing, the arahant is suffering, according to you?

I'm not an arahant, so I don't have any better explanation than the Arrow Sutta.

The destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362.

When you were talking about "cognitions" before, it was in the context of "what rises and falls" - "experiencing the rising and falling of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing." So I don't see how this quote uses "asankhata" as you do, like this:

the congitions that rise and fall are no longer conditioned – asankhata – for the arahant by greed, hatred, and delusion:

Since we are talking about arahants, the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion does not "rise and fall." You used asankhata to describe what rises and falls - that it is "not conditioned by" greed, hatred, and delusion. I don't see how that quote is using "asankhata" as "not conditioned by." That passage is translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned.

Let me ask you: as unawakened individuals our cognitions are not conditioned by wanting, a craving for, a grasping after, what reinforces a sense of self; our cognitions are not conditioned by aversion to, a hatred of, that which threatens our sense of self; our cognitions are not conditioned by the fundamental sense that we are at our core an important, lasting agent-self?

Sorry, don't understand the grammar. What is the question here?

[tiltbillings]

So, when an arahant is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing, the arahant is suffering, according to you?

I'm not an arahant, so I don't have any better explanation than the Arrow Sutta.

Is the The Arrow Sutta describing the arahant or the way to becoming awakened? Either the arahant is free of dukkha grounded in craving, or not. If not, then the FNT are a sham. Being an arahant means that seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing are not based in craving; they are not, for the arahant, suffering grounded in craving.

When you were talking about "cognitions" before, it was in the context of "what rises and falls" - "experiencing the rising and falling of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and cognizing." So I don't see how this quote uses "asankhata" as you do, like this:

the congitions that rise and fall are no longer conditioned – asankhata – for the arahant by greed, hatred, and delusion:

Since we are talking about arahants, the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion does not "rise and fall." You used asankhata to describe what rises and falls - that it is "not conditioned by" greed, hatred, and delusion. I don't see how that quote is using "asankhata" as "not conditioned by."

You are missing the point. What rises and falls is no longer conditioned by -- what rises and falls is free of the conditioning of -- greed, hatred, and delusion. Greed, hatred, and delusion, having been destroyed, are no longer there to condition our cognitions.

That passage is translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned.

Again, not a very good translation in that we are stuck with asking what is "the unconditioned." What is "unconditioned" are our cognitions. We can drop the "the."

Let me ask you: as unawakened individuals our cognitions are not conditioned by wanting, a craving for, a grasping after, what reinforces a sense of self; our cognitions are not conditioned by aversion to, a hatred of, that which threatens our sense of self; our cognitions are not conditioned by the fundamental sense that we are at our core an important, lasting agent-self?

Sorry, don't understand the grammar. What is the question here?

Let me make it a bit easier, but before I do, let us make it clear that what I said was in response to your request: “Please show me where "asankhata" refers to cognitions.”

Let me ask you: as unawakened individuals are our cognitions conditioned by wanting, a craving for, a grasping after, what reinforces a sense of self?

Are our cognitions conditioned by aversion to, a hatred of, that which threatens our sense of self?

Are our cognitions conditioned by the fundamental sense that we are at our core an important, lasting agent-self?

Now, are the arahant’s cognitions characterized by being conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion? I would say that they are unconditioned by – free of the conditioning of – greed, hatred and delusion, given that greed, hatred, and delusion have been destroyed. Otherwise what would be the point of awakening? And don’t forget the arahant is clearly defined by the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.

[tiltbillings]

But the idea that an arahant is "subject to" dukkha is not quite right. Again, what the arrow sutta says "He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

This is something I've wondered about. In the following extract from the Arrow Sutta, is the "physical" pain dukkha? I'm not sure it's clear!

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental."

That is a reasonable distinction. The dukkha the arahant does not suffer from is that which is the result of craving, grasping, the dukkha that arises from the conditioning of greed, hatred, and delusion.

[kirk5a]

Again, not a very good translation in that we are stuck with asking what is "the unconditioned." What is "unconditioned" are our cognitions. We can drop the "the."

"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated [sankhata]. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) of what stays is discernible.

"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.

"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated [asankhata]. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration of what stays is discernible.

"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Clearly then cognitions cannot be what the Buddha called unconditioned - asankhata - because cognitions do arise and pass away.

[tiltbillings]

Clearly then cognitions cannot be what the Buddha called unconditioned - asankhata - because cognitions do arise and pass away.

Cognitions arise and fall, but for the arahant cognitions are no longer conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion, which is to say that while cognitions, as they rise and fall, are conditioned by any number other factors they are unconditioned -- freed of conditioning -- by greed, hatred and delusion.

[kirk5a]

§ The word sankhata-dhamma — fabricated phenomena — covers conditions of nature that are marked by the three characteristics. The things we have to study are summarized in two words: sankhata dhamma and asankhata dhamma. Both of these terms have a deep and wide range of meaning, especially sankhata dhammas, which are always inconstant, stressful, and not-self. The conditions of sankhata dhamma follow their own swirling currents without end. As for asankhata dhamma — the phenomenon that doesn't change, isn't stressful, but is still not-self — that's something hard to know. But even this refined, subtle condition is something that we shouldn't latch onto.
...
§ If we don't look inward, we make the mind dark and murky. Then when sensory contact comes, the mind can easily get all stirred up. So I ask that you make an effort to peer carefully inward to see what's there in the mind, to see how things arise, to see how mental labels and fabrications arise. That way you'll be able to disband them, destroy them, leaving just the mind pure and simple, with no labels or attachments at all. It will then be empty of defilement. You might call it your inner beauty, Miss Emptiness, who doesn't have to age, doesn't have to grow ill, doesn't have to die — a primal nature that doesn't change. This is something you have to touch right at the mind. It's not the mind itself, but the mind itself is what makes contact with it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... imple.html

[tiltbillings]

. . .

Does not address fact that cognitions of an arahant are freed of the conditioning, asankhata, of greed, hatred, and delusion.

[kirk5a]

. . .

Does not address fact that cognitions of an arahant are freed of the conditioning, asankhata, of greed, hatred, and delusion.

An arahant sees the deathless, the unconditioned. So I'm sure it's true then that the cognitions of an arahant are, to use your terminology, "freed of the conditioning of" greed hatred and delusion.

[tiltbillings]

. . .

Does not address fact that cognitions of an arahant are freed of the conditioning, asankhata, of greed, hatred, and delusion.

An arahant sees the deathless, the unconditioned. So I'm sure it's true then that the cognitions of an arahant are, to use your terminology, "freed of the conditioning of" greed hatred and delusion.

So, according to you it might be that nibbana/bodhi is some thing to see. Or it is far more likely that the arahants sees that there cognitions are no longer conditioned by -- are free from the conditioning -- asankhata -- of greed, hatred, and delusion. Don't forget that in the Pali there is no "the" -- no definite particle -- before asankhata.

drifting cloud: I am coming very late to this conversation, and do not have the knowledge of Pali to weigh in on the more technical aspects of translation under discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to offer a few comments.

There is an interesting passage in Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols that says "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."

Now obviously Nietzsche's worldview and that of Buddhism are quite different, but I think this is an instructive passage, and especially so for Buddhists. This becomes more apparent if we substitute 'self' for 'God' in Nietzsche's quote, or if we see the two concepts as somewhat co-extensive. The point of the quote is that our everyday patterns of thought, language and "common sense" themselves are all structured around the idea of permanent, separate entities; that there is some enduring substratum that constitutes my "self" and other substrata underlying the various "objects" that my "self" comes into contact with (the idea of God can be understood as the idea that there is some permanent ground to the whole of being itself). As such, these cognitive-linguistic structures can and often do subtly reinforce the illusion of self and all of its attendant suffering.

Seen in this context, I think tilt's point about how the translation as "the deathless" implies that there is some 'thing' or object that is described by this locution is more than just grammatical hairsplitting. It's basically identifying how the very language we use to describe nibbana actually reinforces the kind of grasping habits of thought that we are trying to liberate ourselves from. English in particular seems prone to reinforcing these habits through the use of the copula, its requirement of grammatical subjects, and its tendency to reify concepts as nouns (rather than rendering them as processes or verbs). Thus speaking as somebody without anything but a very basic familiarity with Pali, I think there is a lot of merit to what tilt is suggesting and that for these reasons alone it's worth considering his perspective.

Just my 2 baht. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10569&start=240#p199149

[kirk5a]

So, according to you it might be that nibbana/bodhi is some thing to see.

In both ways
consummate,[1]
I'm known as Rahula
the Fortunate:
because I'm the son of the Buddha,
because I've the eye that sees Dhammas,
because my fermentations are ended,
because I've no further becoming.
I'm deserving of offerings,
a worthy one
a three-knowledge man,[2]
with sight
of the Deathless.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[daverupa]

So blind people cannot become arahants? I'm confused... can we hear nibbana, as well as see it, kirk?

[kirk5a]

So blind people cannot become arahants? I'm confused... can we hear nibbana, as well as see it, kirk?

I wonder how Ven. Rahula would respond to that sort of snide comment.

"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

But you must also find this confusing:

Because these are amazing people, hard to find in the world, i.e., those who dwell touching the deathless element with the body.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[tiltbillings]

So, according to you it might be that nibbana/bodhi is some thing to see.

In both ways
consummate,[1]
I'm known as Rahula
the Fortunate:
because I'm the son of the Buddha,
because I've the eye that sees Dhammas,
because my fermentations are ended,
because I've no further becoming.
I'm deserving of offerings,
a worthy one
a three-knowledge man,[2]
with sight
of the Deathless.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"See Dhammas?" Of course theres no capital "D" in Pali, so what does "dhammas" refer to here? How many "Dhammas" are there to be seen?

those who dwell touching the deathless element with the body. So, nibbana/bodhi is a thing, an element, that can actually be touched. I wonder were this thing is when it is not being touched. Any ideas, Kirk?