"The Deathless" (amata)

[tiltbillings]

"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.

Only one "Dhamma?" What about the the "Dhammas" that are seen?

[daverupa]

that sort of snide comment

Not at all, but this is one of those things about the internet, so we'll just have to give each other the benefit of the doubt here.

Also, you didn't answer the question. Something such as "no of course not, nibbana isn't a sound or a sight" would have been simple and true; would you agree with this?

[kirk5a]

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?

Obscured by clinging.

[kirk5a]

that sort of snide comment

Not at all, but this is one of those things about the internet, so we'll just have to give each other the benefit of the doubt here.

Ok.

Also, you didn't answer the question. Something such as "no of course not, nibbana isn't a sound or a sight" would have been simple and true; would you agree with this?

Yes.

[daverupa]

nibbana isn't a sound or a sight

(presumably, then, we will agree that it is not a smell, taste, or tactile impression either)

So if nibbana isn't a thing in one of those five sense gates, do you understand nibbana to be a thing at the mind sense gate?

[tiltbillings]

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?

Obscured by clinging.

Obscured by clinging? I think you should be posting here: http://www.dharmawheel.net/ Obscured by clinging is not a Pali teaching, though it is a Mahayana teaching.

[kirk5a]

nibbana isn't a sound or a sight

(presumably, then, we will agree that it is not a smell, taste, or tactile impression either)

So if nibbana isn't a thing in one of those five sense gates, do you understand nibbana to be a thing at the mind sense gate?

In "The Debate of King Milinda," Ven. Nagasena said:

Of nibbāna, O king, it cannot be said that it is perceptible by the five senses, but it is perceptible by the mind. The disciple whose mind is pure, and free from obstructions can perceive nibbāna”

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/Mil ... ments.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

"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."


Only one "Dhamma?" What about the the "Dhammas" that are seen?

So, what are these "Dhammas"? Of course theres no capital "D" in Pali, so what does "dhammas" refer to here? How many "Dhammas" are there to be seen? Kirk, please address these questions.

[kirk5a]

Obscured by clinging? I think you should be posting here: http://www.dharmawheel.net/ Obscured by clinging is not a Pali teaching, though it is a Mahayana teaching.

Is your question a "Theravada question," such that we can take a look at what the "Theravada answer" might be?

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?

[tiltbillings]

Obscured by clinging? I think you should be posting here: http://www.dharmawheel.net/ Obscured by clinging is not a Pali teaching, though it is a Mahayana teaching.

Is your question a "Theravada question," such that we can take a look at what the "Theravada answer" might be?

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?

I am simply trying to understand what you are saying from a Theravadin/Pali sutta point of view. Now, you have said that nibbana is obscured by clinging. What do we conclude from that? "Nibbana does exist," but is obscured by clinging?

Nibanna is a self-existent thing separate from us, but is only seen or touched when we are pure of mind?

[kirk5a]

I am simply trying to understand what you are saying from a Theravadin/Pali sutta point of view.

Ok, well everything I've quoted has been from a Theravadin/Pali sutta point of view. You ask all sorts of questions, some of which I don't know where they've been asked in a Theravadin context. Maybe they have, which is why I keep asking you to point out where. But then if I come up with my own best answer, you say I should post at dharmawheel.net. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you if that's how you're going to go forward. You have basically just suggested I stop posting here.

[tiltbillings]

I am simply trying to understand what you are saying from a Theravadin/Pali sutta point of view.

Ok, well everything I've quoted has been from a Theravadin/Pali sutta point of view. You ask all sorts of questions, some of which I don't know where they've been asked in a Theravadin context. Maybe they have, which is why I keep asking you to point out where. But then if I come up with my own best answer, you say I should post at Dhammawheel.com. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you if that's how you're going to go forward. You have basically just suggested I stop posting here.

I am not suggesting you stop posting here. I am suggesting that your seeming notion that nibbana is a self-existent thing that "does exist" is obscured by clinging is more consistent with some Mahayana ideas rather than what is found in the suttas. The only text you have quoted that "supports' "nibbana does exist" is from Milinda and you have refused to discuss what "nibbana does exist" means.

The suttas texts you have quoted do not support "nibbana does exist" in terms of some thing being obscured by clinging.

Also, as of this writing, you have refused to answer my questions about "Dhammas" and "Dhamma." And you refuse to engage the point that cognitions, that rise and fall, are unconditioned -- asankhata -- by greed, hatred, and delusion.

[daverupa]

The disciple whose mind is pure, and free from obstructions can perceive nibbāna

You know, this reminded me of something; the passage is relevant here:

This is deathless: the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.

This would mean that a liberated mind can be perceived, but not a thing 'liberation'. So, too, one perceives a nibbanized mind, but not a thing 'nibbana'. (Both sentences have the same meaning, of course.)

Would you agree?

[kirk5a]

I am not suggesting you stop posting here. I am suggesting that your seeming notion that nibbana is a self-existent thing that "does exist" is obscured by clinging is more consistent with some Mahayana ideas rather than what is found in the suttas. The only text you have quoted that "supports' "nibbana does exist" is from Milinda and you have refused to discuss what "nibbana does exist" means.

The Milinda Pañha is an ancient and much venerated book of the Buddhists, indeed regarded so highly as to be included by the Burmese in the Pali Canon.

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/Mil ... ction.html
A thoroughly Theravadin document if I ever saw one, translated by a Theravadin Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Pesala, a member of this very forum. Now there is a lot in there, so perhaps there is something in there that will satisfy you about what Ven. Nagasena meant by "nibbana does exist."

Also, as of this writing, you have refused to answer my questions about "Dhammas" and "Dhamma."

Sankhata dhammas and asankhata dhamma was discussed in that earlier quotation by Upasika Kee Nanayon, as well as in the quotation from AN 3.47.

And you refuse to engage the point that cognitions, that rise and fall, are unconditioned -- asankhata -- by greed, hatred, and delusion.

I did engage that.

[tiltbillings]

I am not suggesting you stop posting here. I am suggesting that your seeming notion that nibbana is a self-existent thing that "does exist" is obscured by clinging is more consistent with some Mahayana ideas rather than what is found in the suttas. The only text you have quoted that "supports' "nibbana does exist" is from Milinda and you have refused to discuss what "nibbana does exist" means.

The Milinda Pañha is an ancient and much venerated book of the Buddhists, indeed regarded so highly as to be included by the Burmese in the Pali Canon.

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/Mil ... ction.html
A thoroughly Theravadin document if I ever saw one, translated by a Theravadin Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Pesala, a member of this very forum. Now there is a lot in there, so perhaps there is something in there that will satisfy you about what Ven. Nagasena meant by "nibbana does exist."

Actually, the QoKM started out as a text from a different school. Be that as it may, I am asking you, since, you quoted the text, what does "Nibbana does exist" mean? Also, the QoKM is not the suttas.

Also, as of this writing, you have refused to answer my questions about "Dhammas" and "Dhamma."

Sankhata dhammas and asankhata dhamma was discussed in that earlier quotation by Upasika Kee Nanayon, as well as in the quotation from AN 3.47.

Yes, and I showed that that did not really work for you, and you refused to engage that.

And you refuse to engage the point that cognitions, that rise and fall, are unconditioned -- asankhata -- by greed, hatred, and delusion.

I did engage that.

Well, you sort of did and I responded to that and you refuse to engage it any further. The basic point is that nibbana is not a thing and it is not a self-existent thing and it has no reality outside the arahant. In other words there is no "the Deathless" thing out there.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

....

Would you agree?

Good observations. When there is no accumulation, there is no experience to which jati-marana could apply.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

My interlocutors keep trying to ground this conversation on "thing" even though I have not staked some position on "thing."

[tiltbillings]

My interlocutors keep trying to ground this conversation on "thing" even though I have not staked some position on "thing."

Part of the problem is that you do not answer questions put to you so that we can better understand your point of view. You have refused to discuss "nibbana does exist," and then you use language that suggests that nibbana is a thing. So, what conclusions should we draw from that?

[kirk5a]

My interlocutors keep trying to ground this conversation on "thing" even though I have not staked some position on "thing."

Par of the problem is that you do not answer questions put to you so that we can better understand your point of view. You have refused to discuss "nibbana does exist," and then you use language that suggests that nibbana is a thing. So, what conclusions should we draw from that?

Define "thing" if you're so insistent about using the term. It's not a term I have staked a position on.

And I haven't refused to discuss what Ven. Nagasena meant by "nibbana does exist" - I encouraged participants to go read the context and see if there is more information forthcoming from the one who said it, and we could talk about that. Maybe in another thread.

[tiltbillings]

And I haven't refused to discuss what Ven. Nagasena meant by "nibbana does exist"

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10569&p=199292&#p199292