Unconditioned

[Spiny Norman]

If Nibbana is "unconditioned", does this mean it exists independently of cognising minds?

[asahi]

And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.

Sabba Sutta

Guess what , i didnt find the sutta mentioned the All include nibbana !

[chownah]

If Nibbana is "unconditioned", does this mean it exists independently of cognising minds?

Could it be that you ask this question because you have not directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment?
chownah

[Spiny Norman]

If Nibbana is "unconditioned", does this mean it exists independently of cognising minds?

Could it be that you ask this question because you have not directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment?
chownah

How about answering the question I posed? Does Nibbana exist independently of cognising minds?

[Ceisiwr]

If Nibbana is "unconditioned", does this mean it exists independently of cognising minds?

I would say so, yes.

[Ceisiwr]

And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.

Sabba Sutta

Guess what , i didnt find the sutta mentioned the All include nibbana !

But you did, under “mental-phenomena”. What do you think “contacting the deathless element with the body” means?

[asahi]

But you did, under “mental-phenomena”. What do you think “contacting the deathless element with the body” means?

I would think this is just figure of speech

[ToVincent]

√ चि ci
.
.

[Ceisiwr]

But you did, under “mental-phenomena”. What do you think “contacting the deathless element with the body” means?

I would think this is just figure of speech

Not like the Buddha to play it so coy. What are you basing your conclusion on? To me it seems rather obvious that “body” here does not mean the physical body and so, via simple deduction, it must refer to the mental body. This of course would make sense, since you can only come to know Nibbana in the mind.

You also haven’t answered my other question. If Nibbana isn’t cognised at the mind base then how does anyone ever come to know about it?

[chownah]

If Nibbana is "unconditioned", does this mean it exists independently of cognising minds?

Could it be that you ask this question because you have not directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment?
chownah

How about answering the question I posed? Does Nibbana exist independently of cognising minds?

When I posted I thought what I posted would be clear to you but having looked at it again I see that it is too vague of an answer....sorry for that.....no need to bite your tongue and lose control of your eyes though....

The extents mentioned are the extents which an accomplished sage does understand and because of that understanding the sage does not fabricate views on topics for which views are inappropriate (my understanding of the sutta...ymmv).....I guess my post is saying that you have posited a question which should not be entertained or if it is entertained it should not result in the aquisition of view because is falls outside of what can be reasonably considerer (or something similar).....sort of like your question deals with something which is beyond range and thus being strictly constual (remember that construing is a disease according to sutta references).

One example of why your question is best not entertained is that the view of existence/non-existence can not be appropriately applied to nibbana (my view)....do note that there is no sutta reference which says that nibbana exists (in that "atthi" is never used to introduce nibbana even though "atthi" is used to introduce those many worldly metaphores used with respect to nibbana).

Its kind of the same old stuff being presented yet again.....whenever someone claims that nibbana exists there may be arguements for why the suttas never declare that nibbana exists......

chownah

[SteRo]

And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.

Sabba Sutta

Guess what , i didnt find the sutta mentioned the All include nibbana !

That's interesting, isn't it ... B. Bodhi interpretes nibbana as being included (s. quote above). But nibbana isn't a form, isn't a sound, isn't an odour, isn't a taste, isn't a tactile object and isn't a mental object. If it were a mental object it wouldn't have to be "contacted with the body" although it isn't a tactile object.
One might think that B. Bodhi is wrong and the all in Sabba sutta only refers to "the phenomena of the three planes" ... if this all wouldn't be called "the all of personal identity (sakk̄yasabba )" but since the speaker has abandoned personal identity it can't be "the all of personal identity (sakk̄yasabba )".
It's a challenge to investigate why taking the sabba sutta at face value would result in affirmation of personal identity.

[Ceisiwr]

If it were a mental object it wouldn't have to be "contacted with the body" although it isn't a tactile object.

As with English “body” doesn’t just mean the physical body. For example in English we can also find “a body of water” or “the student body”. In the suttas we find that “Kāya” can also have a range of meanings. For example it can mean the physical body (or, perhaps, the aggregates as a whole) but it can also mean the mental body (nāmakāya). We also have Nikāya (Ni-kāya) as another example of how it can be used. With this in mind we can say that nibbāna contacts the body if we understand body here to mean the mental body.

If nibbāna wasn’t cognised at the mind base then no one would ever have any direct experience of it.

[chownah]

But you did, under “mental-phenomena”. What do you think “contacting the deathless element with the body” means?

I would think this is just figure of speech

Whatever one considers that “contacting the deathless element with the body” means you are still correct that "nibbana" does not appear in The All sutta.
chownah

[Ceisiwr]

But you did, under “mental-phenomena”. What do you think “contacting the deathless element with the body” means?

I would think this is just figure of speech

Whatever one considers that “contacting the deathless element with the body” m[/b]eans you are still correct that "nibbana" does not appear in The All sutta.
chownah

But it does, under “dhammā”. I do hope this isn’t going to follow a similar trajectory as your nibbāna & atthi silliness.

[SteRo]

If it were a mental object it wouldn't have to be "contacted with the body" although it isn't a tactile object.

As with English “body” doesn’t just mean the physical body. For example in English we can also find “a body of water” or “the student body”. In the suttas we find that “Kāya” can also have a range of meanings. For example it can mean the physical body (or, perhaps, the aggregates as a whole but it can also mean the mental body (nāmakāya). We also have Nikāya (Ni-kāya) as another example of how it can be used. With this in mind we can say that nibbāna contacts the body if we understand body here to mean the mental body.

If nibbāna wasn’t cognised at the mind base then no one would ever have any direct experience of it.

"mental body" is problematic because this is easily confused with mentality. But it isn't a mental object. If "mind base" refers to materiality then fine because materiality excludes mentality.