Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby nibbuti » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:11 pm

tiltbillings wrote:So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned? That is a lot like of the idea of an absolute, unchanging god interacting with the relative and changing.

tiltbillings wrote:Well, that may be one way to interpret that passage, but if it is so, then the Buddha is, in fact, advocating an existing, unchanging entity, thing, which is a definition for atta/atman.

Hi Tilt

It is not "one way to interpret that passage".

I've just quoted the Buddha replacing Nibbana-synonyms with 'Nibbana' .

You, however, seem to be suggesting that the Buddha taught Nibbana is Atta.

But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. - Ud 8.3

___

tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?

tiltbillings wrote:but I wonder if for the person who becomes an arahant if there is not a transformation

tiltbillings wrote:So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?


For your consideration:
Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19

tiltbillings wrote:Am I talking from direct experience? Interesting question...

Indeed.

:anjali:
nibbuti
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby DAWN » Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:27 pm

In DN 16 Mahaparinibbana sutta, Buddha said also this :
Anupadisesaya nibbana-dhatuya parinibbayati : 'enters the Nibbana-element without the groups (of attachement) remaining' M. Walshe
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby Alobha » Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:02 pm

DAWN wrote:Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma?

Yes. Nibbana is unconditioned.
User avatar
Alobha
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby DAWN » Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:30 pm

Alobha wrote:
DAWN wrote:Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma?

Yes. Nibbana is unconditioned.


:anjali:

Is somethink what is unconditioned take a place of condition to the rest? What is your opinion?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:24 pm

nibbuti wrote:
You, however, seem to be suggesting that the Buddha taught Nibbana is Atta.
Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written. I am suggesting that your "understanding" of what the Buddha taught about nibbana points to an atman/atta.

And interestingly, you list a number of question I directly asked which you have refused to directly answer.

As for your quotation of Udana 80, see:

ALot wrote:
DAWN wrote:There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

Another translation and opinion:
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/file ... _ednref493
Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. No ce taṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyati.[493]

"Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that not-born, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no stepping out here from what is born, become, made and compounded. But since, monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded, therefore there is a stepping out from what is born, become, made and compounded."

The terms ajātaṃ, not-born, abhūtaṃ, not-become, akataṃ, not-made, and asaṅkhataṃ, not-compounded, are all epithets for Nibbāna. The Buddha declares that if not for this not-born, not-become, not-made, not-compounded, there would be no possibility of stepping out or release here, that is, in this very world, from the born, the become, the made and the compounded.

The second half of the passage rhetorically reiterates and emphasises the same fact. Now as to the significance of this profound declaration of the Buddha, we may point out that the terms not-born, not-become, not-made, not-compounded, suggest the emancipation of the arahant's mind from birth, becoming and preparations, saṅkhārā. They refer to the cessation of birth, becoming and preparations realized by the arahant. So then the significance of these terms is purely psychological.

But the commentator, the Venerable Dhammapāla, pays little attention to the word idha, "here", in this passage, which needs to be emphasized. The fact that there is a possibility here and now, of stepping out from the state of being born, become, made and compounded, surely deserves emphasis, since, until then, release from decay and death was thought to be possible only in another dimension of existence, that is, after death.

The prospect of stepping out from decay and death here and now in this very world has to be asserted for its novelty, which is why the declaration opens with the word atthi, "there is". However, most of the scholars who tried to interpret this passage in their discussion on Nibbāna, instead of laying stress on the word idha, "here", emphasize the opening word atthi, "there is", to prove that Nibbāna is some form of reality absolutely existing somewhere.

As that passage from the Dhatuvibhaṅgasutta on maññanā, which we discussed, has shown us, the terms ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ and asaṅkhataṃ have to be understood in a deeper sense.

Existence is a conceit deep rooted in the mind, which gives rise to a heap of pervert notions. Its cessation, therefore, has also to be accomplished in the mind and by the mind. This is the gist of the Buddha's exhortation.






For your consideration:
Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19
Since you used it, please define "element" -- dhatu. Also, keep in mind that you are the one who talks about dhatu as being a conditioning, existing "thing" separate from any individual who has attained it.

Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it? and how does an unconditioned, unchanging thing conditioned something that changes and is conditioned?

tiltbillings wrote:Am I talking from direct experience? Interesting question...

Indeed.
And since you brought this question up, I see that you are refusing to address it.

If you expect me to answer question, then you need to answer the questions put to you. You are ignoring most of what I am saying here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby DAWN » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:06 am

It's not separate from fenomena (being).
Nibbana-dhatu mean, perharps, dhatu for the mind until the mind is suppordet by the body? And with cessetion of body this dhatu (for the mind) have no place.

Nibbana-dhatu = Brahrmanhood = Buddhahood ?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby Rahula » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:14 am

Whom we are to debate about Nibbana, when we our-self had not attain it?
How does anybody, who didn't attain Nibbana describe it?
We all can make wild guesses, it is this, it is that, do anybody will ever know it without attaining it?
What's the point arguing over other persons opinion when you can not be very sure about your own?

Rather, the question we all should be addressing is why nobody is attaining Nibbana nowadays?
What is wrong with us?
User avatar
Rahula
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby ground » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:19 am

Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?

Nothing. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby Rahula » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:39 am

ground wrote:
Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?

Nothing. :sage:


Thank you very much for answering my last question, I guess you only know answer to that.

But my friend there is something seriously wrong with us. Otherwise there should be people who attained Nibbana. The problem could be that you think there is nothing wrong with us and continue to argue with others on matters beyond our knowledge. It could be that we don't realize that we are in wrong view. May be what we know as right view is actually not.

If you think clearly it's obvious that without right view, there will be no Nibbana.
If there is no Nibbana, it's only because of wrong view.

.
User avatar
Rahula
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby ground » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:45 am

Rahula wrote:
ground wrote:
Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?

Nothing. :sage:


Thank you very much for answering my last question, I guess you only know answer to that.

But my friend there is something seriously wrong with us. ....

Since you can only speak from within your own sphere what you are saying may hold true for your own sphere. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby Rahula » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:56 am

ground wrote:Since you can only speak from within your own sphere what you are saying may hold true for your own sphere. :sage:


Yes, you are correct. It's just my understanding and opinion.

Please be kind to share your opinion on what I had mentioned on above posts.

Thank you very much.
User avatar
Rahula
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby ground » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:02 am

Rahula wrote:Please be kind to share your opinion on what I had mentioned on above posts.

Thank you very much.

Please accept that I have decided that if I had opinions that these are not worth to be mentioned in this context. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby equilibrium » Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:25 pm

ground wrote:
Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?

Nothing. :sage:

This is getting very interesting.....wonder if Rahula has any "realizations" based on the above word?.....or what it actually means?
User avatar
equilibrium
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby Rahula » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:59 am

equilibrium wrote:
ground wrote:
Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?

Nothing. :sage:

This is getting very interesting.....wonder if Rahula has any "realizations" based on the above word?.....or what it actually means?


Frankly, I don't have any realizations based on that word. I guess I don't know what it actually means.

I also don't wont to start any debate over understanding of words, as I don't see any value in that. Neither do I want any debate over nothingness.

Only thing I like to talk about here is this question; if you like.

Why there is nobody that attained Nibbana in present?
(at-least not known to us)
User avatar
Rahula
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby nibbuti » Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:58 am

tiltbillings wrote:Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written.

Hi Tilt. You may consider not using this phrase inflationary.

tiltbillings wrote:Since you used it, please define "element" -- dhatu.

Done:
nibbuti wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Element here is dhatu. Since you are the one using it, you should be the one to be able to explain its actual mraning. Please do.

An element, whether itself conditioned or not, is a natural 'thing' which can 'con-dition' (lat. together-speak, agree with, situate or come before) other things.

'Natural thing' can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.


tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind that you are the one who talks about dhatu as being a conditioning, existing "thing" separate from any individual who has attained it.

Where?

Seperatedness or non-seperatedness does not apply, because for "one who has attained it" there is not 'I'-making or 'mine'-making.

But it may be separated from the 1. fetter: individuality-belief.

tiltbillings wrote:I am suggesting that your "understanding" of what the Buddha taught about nibbana points to an atman/atta.

This may be the case if one understands Nibbana as some kind of 'Arahant consciousness-individuality'.

Which in reality is backdoor Brahminism or Deism.

:toilet:
nibbuti
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:44 pm

nibbuti wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written.

Hi Tilt. You may consider not using this phrase inflationary.
Damdifino what you mean here.

tiltbillings wrote:Since you used it, please define "element" -- dhatu.

Done:
nibbuti wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Element here is dhatu. Since you are the one using it, you should be the one to be able to explain its actual mraning. Please do.

An element, whether itself conditioned or not, is a natural 'thing' which can 'con-dition' (lat. together-speak, agree with, situate or come before) other things.

'Natural thing' can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.
And this reflects how the suttas use the term, especially dukkha-dhatu and viññāna-dhatu?

tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind that you are the one who talks about dhatu as being a conditioning, existing "thing" separate from any individual who has attained it.

Where?
So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby nibbuti » Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:13 am

tiltbillings wrote:
nibbuti wrote:'Natural thing' (dhatu) can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.


And this reflects how the suttas use the term, especially dukkha-dhatu and viññāna-dhatu?

Indeed.

The Buddha wrote:"'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property (viññāna-dhatu). 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. ...

What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes (experiences) 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain (dukkha).' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' - M 140



tiltbillings wrote:So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

"Exists" does not apply. There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.

Again, this is not "advocating", the Buddha was clear about it:

Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19

As you asked, I have defined dhatu for you carefully.

Yet you keep posting the same questions over and over again:

tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?

So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?

So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.

So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?

So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?

So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned?

Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it?

So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

There is a wrong assumption that Nibbana is some localized Arahant individuality-consciousness (which equals Brahma 'Godhead' in the best case, sakkāya-diṭṭhi personality attachment in the worst case).

:strawman:

Bhikkhus, whether the Thus Gone Ones are born or not born whether the Thus Gone One's elements are stable as an established rule, the rightful order of things is that all conditions things (sankhara) are impermanent ... all conditions things are suffering ... all things (including Nibbana) are not-self. - AN 3.137



tiltbillings wrote:
nibbuti wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written.

You may consider not using this phrase inflationary.
Damdifino what you mean here.

Perhaps the meaning is clearer now.

Please desist from making accusations like "you are not reading carefully", when you yourself are not only not reading carefully, but also have disregarded what was written, including what the Buddha taught.

Thanks.

:anjali:
Last edited by nibbuti on Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
nibbuti
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:42 am

nibbuti wrote:'Natural thing' (dhatu) can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.
So, even when dukkha is not experienced there is a dukkha-dhatu waiting as a potential to be experienced.

The Buddha wrote:"'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property (viññāna-dhatu). 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. ...

What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes (experiences) 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain (dukkha).' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' - M 140
in other words, you really do not understand what this sutta is saying.


tiltbillings wrote:So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

"Exists" does not apply. There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.
So, there is a nibbana-element even if there are no ariya, is that what you are saying?

Again, this is not "advocating", the Buddha was clear about it:

Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19
Well, you have yet to say what this actually means.

As you asked, I have defined dhatu for you carefully.
Actually, you have not defined dhatu at all.

Yet you keep asking the same questions over and over again:

tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?

So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?

So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.

So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?

So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?

So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned?

Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it?

So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?

There is a wrong assumption that Nibbana is some localized Arahant individuality-consciousness.
First of all, one is stuck using language, and even when using language one can understand that behind what is being said is the truth of anatta. Even the Buddha used language in the way that you are criticizing me for. The question is simple; No arahants, no nibbana?

Bhikkhus, whether the Thus Gone Ones are born or not born whether the Thus Gone One's elements are stable as an established rule, the rightful order of things is that all conditions things (sankhara) are impermanent ... all conditions things are suffering ... all things (including Nibbana) are not-self. - AN 3.137
And the real question here is: What is a dhamma in this context?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby nibbuti » Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:38 am

tiltbillings wrote:So, even when dukkha is not experienced there is a dukkha-dhatu waiting as a potential to be experienced.

Even when dukkha is not experienced in the present, there is dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) as a potential in the future, if one's mind is stuck in individuality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).

Even when dukkha is not experienced by an Arahant or Buddha, neither in the present nor in the future, there is dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) as a potential in the world, for one whose mind is stuck in individuality view.

tiltbillings wrote:in other words, you really do not understand what this sutta is saying.

According to your ill-considered question above, it is you who did not understand what this sutta is saying, nor what the other suttas above are saying.

tiltbillings wrote:So, there is a nibbana-element even if there are no ariya, is that what you are saying?

You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered:

nibbuti wrote:There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.


tiltbillings wrote:Actually, you have not defined dhatu at all.

Are you drunk?

dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience" and backed it with sutta quote.

tiltbillings wrote:First of all, one is stuck using language, and even when using language one can understand that behind what is being said is the truth of anatta. Even the Buddha used language in the way that you are criticizing me for.

In this case, it is not the language.

It is impossible that a mind constantly pulling up questions regarding "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana after one dies" - rather than impersonal (anatta) natural causes, potentials and conditions - has an understanding of "truth of anatta" (impersonality).

tiltbillings wrote:The question is simple; No arahants, no nibbana?

See above, when it says "You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered".

tiltbillings wrote:And the real question here is: What is a dhamma in this context?

:rolleye:
nibbuti
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:02 am

nibbuti wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:So, even when dukkha is not experienced there is a dukkha-dhatu waiting as a potential to be experienced.

Even when dukkha is not experienced in the present, there is a dukkha-dhatu as a potential to be experienced in the future, if one's mind is stuck in individuality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
So there is this dukkha element waiting in the wings for the correct conditions so that it can be experienced. This is what your language is suggesting.

tiltbillings wrote:So, there is a nibbana-element even if there are no ariya, is that what you are saying?

You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered:

nibbuti wrote:"Exists" ("there is") does not apply. There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.

This question specifically only leads to Papanca, especially in a mind stuck in individuality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
That does not answer the question. You are saying '"Exists" ("there is") does not apply,' but then you talk about nibbana-dhatu not changing, which is language of existence.

The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person

"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
I am not talking about viewing nibbana as "mine." Also, look at the language being used in this sutta.

tiltbillings wrote:Actually, you have not defined dhatu at all.

Are you drunk?
I don't drink or smoke funny stuff. And no, you really have not defined dhatu.

Dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience" like suffering and non-suffering, and backed it with sutta quote.
The dhatu is not an element, which is a very poor English word to translate dhatu in that it suggests an existence, but that is not what is going on at all with either dukkha-dhatu or nibbana-dhatu. And it really become meaningless to talk about nibbana in terms other than its actual experience, which is terms of the arahant.

tiltbillings wrote:First of all, one is stuck using language, and even when using language one can understand that behind what is being said is the truth of anatta. Even the Buddha used language in the way that you are criticizing me for.

In this case, it is not the language's fault.
Yes, I know. You have been less than clear.

It is impossible that a mind constantly pulling up questions regarding "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana" - rather than impersonal (anatta) natural causes, potentials and conditions - has any understanding whatsoever of "truth of anatta" (impersonality).
We can use imperonal language, but it tends to be rather stilted and a bit more prolix than necessary, but the point will still be the same.

tiltbillings wrote:The question is simple; No arahants, no nibbana?

See above, when it says "You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered".
You have not shown it to be an ill-considered question. What I have asked is -- in language -- line with the MN 1 sutta you quoted above, so thank you for that.

tiltbillings wrote:And the real question here is: What is a dhamma in this context?

:rolleye:
What is a dhamma in the context is very much to the point.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19384
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests