asahi wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:26 am
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:37 pm
I don’t understand the question sorry. Could you rephrase?
You assert that there is a nibbana state or domain where in reality it is not in anyway your actual "experience" but merely through your own reasoning you take it to be true and you seems to be quite certain about it , that is "a synthetic a priori" isnt it ?!
Thank you for the clarification. When we talk of a priori statements, although they are statements that are known to be true (or claimed to be) without recourse to experience they can nevertheless be prompted by experience. In the suttas one of the periciopes that awakens the mind into stream-entry is:
“yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti."
“Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.”
Another way to frame it would be:
"All that has ceased had an arising"
This is an analytic a priori statement prompted by experience. It is analytic because the predicate "arising" is contained in the subject of "ceasing", and vice versa. If something ceased then it must have began, by definition. This then becomes the basis for the 1st Noble Truth:
"That which arises and ceases cannot bring lasting satisfaction".
By definition, that which ceases cannot bring lasting satisfaction and so:
"Birth is dukkha; old age is dukkha; death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are dukkha; not getting what you wish for is dukkha. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are dukkha."
One one has arrived at the 1st Noble Truths than the 2nd and 3rd truths follow via analytic a priori reasoning:
2nd Truth: "Clinging to that which is subject to arising and ceasing is dukkha"
3rd Truth: "The cessation of clinging is the cessation of dukkha"
One can then arrive at the first 3 truths via analytic a priori reasoning, which is certain knowledge without recourse to experience. Since the 3rd truth is nibbāna one can via analytical a priori reasoning establish for certain that is is the cessation of dukkha, by definition.
Now, you asked in relation to myself. I'm not one to declare attainments, since that serves no purpose on forums like these, but I will say what I am not. I am not a sotāpanna. I have not fully understood yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti, and so the other truths do not become established in me which in turn means that nibbāna has not been sensed by me at the mind base. I therefore assert these things based on faith and through reasoning about the Dhamma. Of course, when I do eventually sense nibbāna at the mind base at that point I can assert nibbāna as an a posteriori statement rather than a synthetic a posteriori one (remember the difference between the 2).
You will notice that nowhere in this is synthetic a priori. No metaphysics required.