Unconditioned

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
katavedi
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by katavedi »

Hello David,
davidbrainerd wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
cappuccino wrote:It is the Everlasting
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44
Interesting. That the Buddha said about himself:

    • Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118-9
Looks like you are stating that the Buddha somehow or other is, but he says that is inappropriate. Also, this goes directly to davidbrainerd's "true self" idea.
There's that "just shut up" sutta on parinirvana I mentioned way back. Thanks for finding the reference.

To me this sounds like the Nicene Creed. Just where Constantine invented a creed to unify the chuch onto 1 position where there were 3 before, because he needed a unified church to convince Greeks to convert, Asoka apparently favored the "you are not allowed to take any position" method for presenting a unified face of Buddhism to try and convert the Hindus in his empire. It makes sense that a king could add such an outrageous sutta after Buddhism was well established and the monks would passively put up with it and largely ignore it (how else did the position that Buddha was anihilated become so common when this sutta clearly disallows it?). But if Buddha actually taught this way then I can't imagine him ever gaining even 1 follower. "There's this Nirvana our whole religion is about going to, but if you try and say anything about it you're a retard." "Oh wow, isn't he the best teacher ever? I totally want to follow him." The "just shut up" suttas are like blasphemy against Buddha.
None of the four options of the tetralemma (is, is not, both is and is not, and neither is nor is not) are invalid because they are based on a false assumption -- the assumption of a "thing" that inherently exists. Since this assumption is false, all four options that are based on the assumption are invalid. This is why Tilt keeps pointing you back to dependent origination, which is the key to understanding this. Nothing "exists" independently. Something only appears to exist when certain conditions are present. If any of those necessary conditions cease, the apparent "thing" ceases as well.

For example, if someone asked you, "Do your friends know you're an axe-murderer? Yes, no, or some do and some don't?" If those were the only options, you couldn't answer (I'm assuming you're not actually an axe-murderer....If I'm wrong, then my apologies, sir, and please don't hurt me). That's because the question is based on wrong understanding, an incorrect assumption.

I write this not to convince you, as I think that's not possible at this time (though hopefully a seed might be planted), but for newer practitioners who might be reading and may be confused.

Kind wishes,
katavedi
“But, Gotamī, when you know of certain things: ‘These things lead to dispassion, not to passion; to detachment, not to attachment; to diminution, not to accumulation; to having few wishes, not to having many wishes; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to socializing; to the arousing of energy, not to indolence; to simple living, not to luxurious living’ – of such things you can be certain: ‘This is the Dhamma; this is the Discipline; this is the Master’s Teaching.’”
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by davidbrainerd »

How do terms like safety snd security apply to something non-existent? "Supreme security of Nibbana" is a common phrase in the suttas. Gotta keep that non-existent self safe and secure, right?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5120
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by cappuccino »

What do you think self is? david
Is it constant or inconstant?
Last edited by cappuccino on Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
katavedi
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by katavedi »

Hello David,
davidbrainerd wrote:How do terms like safety snd security apply to something non-existent? "Supreme security of Nibbana" is a common phrase in the suttas. Gotta keep that non-existent self safe and secure, right?
I understand how you're viewing this, David, but, to me, I know that safety, security, bliss, etc., do not need an experiencer. In fact, it is precisely when there is no experiencer that there is the ultimate in safety and security (from dukkha). It is very difficult to step outside of this view of an experiencer. This is why meditative practice (preferably intensive from time to time) is so important. If one stays on the level of thinking and speculating about how things are, one will never get past speculative views.

I don't blame you for your holding your particular view, but I'd encourage you to hold that view lightly and remain open-minded until your practice allows you to see things as they are, outside of conceptualizing and speculating.

Kind wishes,
katavedi
“But, Gotamī, when you know of certain things: ‘These things lead to dispassion, not to passion; to detachment, not to attachment; to diminution, not to accumulation; to having few wishes, not to having many wishes; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to socializing; to the arousing of energy, not to indolence; to simple living, not to luxurious living’ – of such things you can be certain: ‘This is the Dhamma; this is the Discipline; this is the Master’s Teaching.’”
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7010
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Aloka »

cappuccino wrote:
Aloka wrote:The Buddha was extraordinarily resolute in saying nothing about what happens after the death of the body of an enlightened one
It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End,
the Truth, the Other Shore, the Subtle,
the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified,
Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety,
the Wonderful, the Marvellous,
Nibbæna, Purity, Freedom,
the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44
I'm not sure why you're posting the quote refering to Nibbana which is on the page preceding the contents section of the book "The Island" which I mentioned previously. My post was refering to Parinibbana.

.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5120
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by cappuccino »

The state we have in life… we have in death.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7010
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Aloka »

cappuccino wrote:The state we have in life… we have in death.
Could you say more about that please, I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you able to speak in more than one or two sentences, by the way ? I feel as though I'm trying to communicate with a spam bot.

:)
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5120
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by cappuccino »

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el261.html

"the final attainment of Nibbana should not be understood as mere annihilation in the materialistic sense"
Last edited by cappuccino on Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by tiltbillings »

And you are linking Walshe's essay why?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7010
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Aloka »

That's a very long article called "Buddhism and Death" by M. O'C. Walshe. Would you mind pointing out in which section it explains "The state we have in life… we have in death" and how it relates to this discussion, please?
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7010
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Aloka »

and now you appear to have removed it from your post and replaced it with something else.

:shrug:
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Bakmoon »

davidbrainerd wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:He repeatedly enjoined that the aggregates and the sense bases are without any kind of self
Yep.
and also denied that there is anything beyond them as well.
Nope.

Also I think you misunderstand the concept of the self not being the aggregates nor "in" the aggregates. Basically he means the self remote controls the body rather than being in it, not that there is no self controling the controlable actions of the body. [Yes, spasms and things like that are not controlable; does not mean a thing.]
With the origination of name-and-form there is origination of mind [citta]. With the cessation of name-and-form there is passing away of mind.
An unfortunate case of Pali words having multiple meanings like dhamma does "teaching, phenomena, thing"...citta means both "mind" (an immaterial mind distinct from the nama) and "thought". Here he is talking about "thought" not "mind". Of course thoughts are impermanent, since they arise in the mind and pass.

In any case I have little will to keep debating a subject I think is completely settled by the question "Did Buddha teach suicide or the eight-fold noble path as the means to liberation?" which nobody here seems to want to tough because you know the implications: If the body is all there is then liberation comes merely from death and enlightenment is not necessary, everyone on their deathbed is liberated, arhat or not. You could not come up with a better way to undo the entire dhamma! A self beyond the body is required to make enlightenment/arhatship necessary for liberation. Therefore, its impossible that Buddha did not teach a self.


You also know that Buddha taught the 5 aggs are not the self and NEVER actually said that beyond them there is no self. That comes only from materialistic bias being put on the text.
If there is a self beyond the aggregates, then that would mean that the purpose of the teaching of Anatta would be to distinguish between false concepts of self and the true self, correct? But there is not a single passage where the Buddha gives a teaching on Anatta and then follows it up by saying "The aggregates are not the self, but this other thing separate from them is the self". Given that the texts harp on over and over again in very explicit terms about how the aggregates and sense bases are non-self, the fact that none of these teachings then go on and talk about what is the self means either on the one hand that the Buddha was totally incompetent at teaching because he never explicitly said the very climax of his teaching, or on the other hand that the Buddha just never taught what you are saying he did.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by tiltbillings »

davidbrainerd wrote:How do terms like safety snd security apply to something non-existent? "Supreme security of Nibbana" is a common phrase in the suttas. Gotta keep that non-existent self safe and secure, right?
Let us look at these texts. Quote an actual text or two with "Supreme security of Nibbana" .

Also, you never really address what other people say to you.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by davidbrainerd »

tiltbillings wrote:Let us look at these texts. Quote an actual text or two with "Supreme security of Nibbana" .
Supreme security is not limited by a context; its supreme. Also what absurdity to use the term "the deathless" to refer to obliteration, which would be a true and absolute death. If obliteration is the goal it ought to be called supreme death not the deathless supreme security. This is not something you can wriggle out of by finding a context where security means insecurity and deathless means death. Or am I engaging in "is"/"not is" (i.e. reading comprehension) again...
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by davidbrainerd »

But even so, here's one:
[url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html wrote:MN26[/url]]"And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search.
I think I'd prefer a different translation, but good enough. I'd love to see an attempt to prove it does not mean what is says. "unexcelled rest from the yoke" would be "supreme security from bondage" and "Unbinding" Nirvana is a different translation, so don't think I'm placing any emphasis on the word "rest".

Here we go,

Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation in an article by him:
In MN 26, the Buddha says that "being myself subject to birth, aging, sickness, and death, I attained the unborn, ageless, sickness-free, deathless, supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna"
Post Reply