With what do you experience this?

[reflection]

Here it speaks of no perception of the four elements (ie body), and not saying there is no mind, unlike the first quote. So seems to me it is about a mental perception that is not nibbana itself, but a reflection upon nibbana, knowing how "this is peace etc."


The first quote is as I showed a mistranslation. When the 6 senses stop there is nothing left to be experienced.

Did you see this part?

MahāKoṭṭhita: 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six spheres of contact, is it the case that there is not anything else?'

Sāriputta: 'Don't say that, my friend.'

This is "nibbana itself" as it specifically says. Where else would "nibbana itself" be described?

The Buddha: 'There is the case, Ānanda, where he would be percipient of this: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbāna."'

Hi kirk,

The sutta also says the same thing about there being something (to be aware of):

MahāKoṭṭhita: 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six spheres of contact [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?'

Sāriputta: 'Don't say that, my friend.'

So this sutta is about how to talk about things, not what there actually is or isn't. To quote Sariputta on why not to speak like this: "one is objectifying the non-objectified." So Sariputta asked not to talk like this so "there is nothing" can't be misunderstood as if nibbana is a "there"; as if there is a place or reality beyond the six senses, 'where' nothing is. So it is about how to speak about it conceptually to not confuse others or ourselves. It is not about what actually is or isn't. The funny thing is, this objectifying he was warning us for is exactly what happens when taking such quotes to imply something metaphysical.

But Sariputta did it himself when he said "where there is nothing felt". (AN 9.34) So how to speak about it I would say depends on context and who we're speaking to. I think Sariputta was wise enough to distinguish to who he could relate in which ways.


The second quote is not incompatible with my view that one can reflect upon nibbana even if it can not be experienced. Since perception itself is fabricated, you can't percieve "the resolution (stilling?) of all fabrications". You can however read it as "he is percipient of this: nibbana is peaceful." instead of "he is percipient of nibbana". Here my suggested reading is a contemplation about nibbana:

And what, Ananda, is contemplation of detachment? Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to a lonely place, contemplates thus: 'This is peaceful, this is sublime, namely, the stilling of all conditioned things, the giving up of all substratum of becoming, the extinction of craving, detachment, Nibbana.' This, Ananda, is called contemplation of detachment.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html

[kirk5a]

The funny thing is, this objectifying he was warning us for is exactly what happens when taking such quotes to imply something metaphysical.

But Sariputta did it himself when he said "where there is nothing felt". (AN 9.34) So how to speak about it I would say depends on context and who we're speaking to. I think Sariputta was wise enough to distinguish to who he could relate in which ways.

Seriously, you're suggesting Ven. Sariputta himself "objectified non-objectification" when he said that? Surely you aren't going to accuse the Buddha of fault in saying

Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

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

[reflection]

The funny thing is, this objectifying he was warning us for is exactly what happens when taking such quotes to imply something metaphysical.

But Sariputta did it himself when he said "where there is nothing felt". (AN 9.34) So how to speak about it I would say depends on context and who we're speaking to. I think Sariputta was wise enough to distinguish to who he could relate in which ways.

Seriously, you're suggesting Ven. Sariputta himself "objectified non-objectification" when he said that? Surely you aren't going to accuse the Buddha of fault in saying

Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

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

I'm not saying it is a fault. I'm saying how wise teachers would speak seems to me to depend on context. At times the Buddha spoke in terms of "I", at other times he said it is a conceit to think in terms of "I". So using the word "I" is a way of speaking to get a message across. It is not implying some existence of the "I".

"Where there is" is similar. It is a way of speaking but there is no place 'where' there is.

By saying not to objectify the not-objectified, Sariputta was warning us not to take the message as the reality, or speaking in such a way that could suggest something that is not meant. That's why he said "'Don't say that, my friend.'" instead of "That is not true, my friend". It's all about skillful use of words, not about reality itself. At one time certain words may be skillful, at other times other words may be skillful.

[acinteyyo]

Not right from the start but now that you mention it, yes...

"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [1] Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

Note:
[1] To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

note the note.
Is there anything you want to point out particularly kirk5a?

best wishes, acinteyyo

Yes, that "the all" is "subject to cessation" as SN 35.42 says. So then, clearly what is under discussion here is the "experience" of the cessation of "the all."

And that actually is what I meant when I said that I think the suttas suggest that the absence (cessation) of "the world", "the all" can be "experienced".

[kirk5a]

I'm not saying it is a fault. I'm saying how wise teachers would speak seems to me to depend on context. At times the Buddha spoke in terms of "I", at other times he said it is a conceit to think in terms of "I". So using the word "I" is a way of speaking to get a message across. It is not implying some existence of the "I".

"Where there is" is similar. It is a way of speaking but there is no place 'where' there is.

By saying not to objectify the not-objectified, Sariputta was warning us not to take the message as the reality, or speaking in such a way that could suggest something that is not meant. That's why he said "Sāriputta: 'Don't say that, my friend.'" instead of "That is not true, my friend". It's all about skillful use of words, not about reality itself. At one time certain words may be skillful, at other times other words may be skillful.

This part is not about the skillful use of words.

With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.

[kirk5a]

The second quote is not incompatible with my view that one can reflect upon nibbana even if it can not be experienced. Since perception itself is fabricated, you can't percieve "the resolution (stilling?) of all fabrications". You can however read it as "he is percipient of this: nibbana is peaceful." instead of "he is percipient of nibbana".

No you can't read it that way.

The Buddha: 'There is the case, Ānanda, where he would be percipient of this: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbāna."'

— AN 10.6

[Ānanda puts the same question to Sāriputta, who responds that he himself once had experienced such a concentration.]

Ānanda: 'But what were you percipient of at that time?'

Sāriputta: '"The stopping of becoming — nibbāna — the stopping of becoming — nibbāna": One perception arose in me as another perception stopped. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame stops, even so, "The stopping of becoming — nibbāna — the stopping of becoming — nibbāna": One perception arose in me as another one stopped. I was percipient at that time of "the stopping of becoming — nibbāna."'

[chownah]

I accept that you do not agree with my views as expressed but I want to say that in my view what I have said does address the issues in the portion of AN 10.6. It asks, "in what way.......have neither the PERCEPTION of earth...water....etc.....and yet he would STILL BE PERCIPIENT. I maintain that what I have described does in fact represent a state of mind that would do that.......and......to depart from the worldly side of this and to speak to the more noble aspects I am of the view that all the rest (resolution of fabrications, relinquishing of acquisitions, etc.) comes along too.
chownah

It says
where the eye [vision] stops and the perception [label] of form fade

I don't understand what point you are making......but I'll just say that the eyes arises from a worldly standpoint when the body is differentiated based on the different types of sensations experienced and when that differentiation ceases it can be said that the eye stops but it doesn't mean that sensations stop, only that it is not differentiated into components I.e. the body is not differentiated into parts and sensation is not differentiated into kinds, there is no longer a pairing of body part with sensation and no consciousness arises with respect to differentiation but this does not necessarily mean that a coma results. I don't know but it might be that another kind of consciousness arises but there is no need to hypothesize about this and to do so is probably a case of objectifying the non-objectified......when you get to the point of the stopping of the senses there is no basis for talking about objects at all.
chownah

[kirk5a]

I don't understand what point you are making......but I'll just say that the eyes arises from a worldly standpoint when the body is differentiated based on the different types of sensations experienced and when that differentiation ceases it can be said that the eye stops but it doesn't mean that sensations stop, only that it is not differentiated into components

As quoted earlier: nibbana - "where there is nothing felt"

You are clearly not talking about a state in which nothing is felt.

[reflection]

This part is not about the skillful use of words.

With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.

But it is not implying some perception either. If there are no senses, if there is no mind, of course you can't objectify things anymore.
(also don't ignore the word "remainderless".. but that aside)

No you can't read it that way.

One perception arose in me as another one stopped. I was percipient at that time of "the stopping of becoming — nibbāna."'

Not in venerable Thanissaro's translations you can't. But fortunately you can in the translation of others.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's and Nyanatiloka translate it as "I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” That's something entirely different than what Thanissaro is implying. You can have "the cessation of existence is nibbana" as a perception but not nibbana itself. In other words, you can perceive an understanding of the third noble truth.

I have not enough Pali knowledge to say Thanissaro's translation is linguistically wrong or if it is a choice he made. But either way it is one that doesn't make sense because nibbana is also the end of perception. (Talking about the final nibbana which is the end of existence)

[kirk5a]

Not in venerable Thanissaro's translations you can't. But fortunately you can in the translation of others.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's and Nyanatiloka translate it as "I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” That's something entirely different than what Thanissaro is implying. You can have "the cessation of existence is nibbana" as a perception but not nibbana itself. In other words, you can perceive an understanding of the third noble truth.

I have not enough Pali knowledge to say Thanissaro's translation is linguistically wrong or if it is a choice he made. But either way it is one that doesn't make sense because nibbana s also the end of perception. (Talking about the aspect of nibbana that is cessation of existence, not the end of craving)

How about we both admit we haven't personally attained the state in question, and therefore our own personal words about it are mere guessing?

[santa100]

kirk5a wrote:How about we both admit we haven't personally attained the state in question, and therefore our own personal words about it are mere guessing?

Good point there. Ven. Bodhi's note in AN 10.6 clarified:

This attainment is not the fruition that occurs for a few moments immediately following the path, but a special meditative state accessible only to those who have already attained one of the four paths and its subsequent fruition. The attainment, as shown in this sutta, does not take any of the mundane, conditioned meditation objects as its support; its support is the unconditioned nibbana, experienced directly and immediately. The commentaries hold that this attainment is graded as fourfold according to the four stages of realization (from stream-entry to arahantship).

[equilibrium]

With what do you experience this?

Supra-mundane consciousness.

If there are no six senses how do you experience it?

Who says there are no six senses?.....Is it not true if one were to experience it, one is that of a deluded being?.....a deluded being has senses does he/she not? so if one who has experienced it, does that mean all perception stops?.....Buddha had no perception?.....impossible!

Something is missing isn't there?.....knowing!

(edit: mind replaced by "Supra-mundane")

[SarathW]

Thank you all for your replies.
Is this experience is something similar to Nirodha-samāpatti?

[chownah]

I don't understand what point you are making......but I'll just say that the eyes arises from a worldly standpoint when the body is differentiated based on the different types of sensations experienced and when that differentiation ceases it can be said that the eye stops but it doesn't mean that sensations stop, only that it is not differentiated into components

As quoted earlier: nibbana - "where there is nothing felt"

You are clearly not talking about a state in which nothing is felt.

If something is felt as a result of the DO concept of Feeling then I guess I am in that sense saying that nothing is felt in that in my view any word, concept, idea, etc. is an objectified thing which only results from differentiation of body/sensation/experience and so with the ceasing of differentiations there is a ceasing of the Feelings which arise through differentiation. Just as I said with consciousness, there may be some different kind of feeling which arises but again this is probably objectifying the un-objectified I guess and with the stopping of the senses there is no basis for talking about objects at all.

Also, I am not trying to say that nibbana follows immediately upon stoping of the senses....I.e. I am not saying that on Friday afternoon at 3:14 the senses stopped and nibanna was entered. My view is that the stopping of the senses happens incrementally and it may take years from the first hint of this happening to full and complete stopping and that one probably needs to master the technique to accomplish this before all of the knowledge can be extracted from the experience and it can proceed to its fullest manifestation......BUT I MAY VERY WELL BE WRONG ABOUT THIS and really, I think that the cessation of the six senses is profound enough that we need not worry too much about the mechanics of what follows at least not until we get there.....I guess....
chownah
P.S. I just took a look at the OP and the first line is "The dimension of non-objectification, although it may not be described, may be realized through direct experience." In my view all descriptions are fabricated objects that rely on objectification for their formulation....in that sense it would be clearly be impossible to describe a state (the dimension of non-objectification for example) where no objects exist.
chownah

[SarathW]

Hi all
Thanks for your valuable input.
I have a question re following passage. I thought it is better to include here rather than raising a new question.

===========================
Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (MN 49). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness. As the Buddha said of himself:
"Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness... birth... aging... death... suffering & stress... defilement, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness."
— AN 10.81

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... andha.html

=====================
My questions:
a)How consciousness be luminous all around if it hasn’t got features?
b)How consciousness can be experienced if there is no six sense spheres?
C) Is Ven. Thanissaaro talking here about a living Arahant?