Unconditioned

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by ToVincent »

sphairos wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:20 pm ... Rather, the Buddha "was shrinking" the whole universe to the "size" of human perception channels... As Sue Hamilton brilliantly argues in the above mentioned paper.
Brillantly nonsensical, considering that the six fields of (sensory) experiences are the fifth link (nidāna) of paṭiccasamuppāda.
Maybe you could explain to us, how a cause can belong to its consequence, when that consequence depends on its cause ?!?!?! ©

I'd call that an elegant way to push the skeptical empiricist sclerosis into Buddha's Teaching.
A sinuous otiosity, and pathetic wishful thinking.

By the way, (while we're at it,) the proper translation of Paṭicca-Samuppāda is:
"What springs together [flows out & perishes] (samuppāda/samutpāda), to (appear and) be understood (paṭicca/pratītya)".
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Unconditioned

Post by sphairos »

ToVincent wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:43 pm
sphairos wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:20 pm ... Rather, the Buddha "was shrinking" the whole universe to the "size" of human perception channels... As Sue Hamilton brilliantly argues in the above mentioned paper.
Brillantly nonsensical, considering that the six fields of (sensory) experiences are the fifth link (nidāna) of paṭiccasamuppāda.
Maybe you could explain to us, how a cause can belong to its consequence, when that consequence depends on its cause ?!?!?! ©

I'd call that an elegant way to push the skeptical empiricist sclerosis into Buddha's Teaching.
A sinuous otiosity, and pathetic wishful thinking.

By the way, (while we're at it,) the proper translation of Paṭicca-Samuppāda is:
"What springs together [flows out & perishes] (samuppāda/samutpāda), to (appear and) be understood (paṭicca/pratītya)".
.
.

Try this bit :

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 19#p601919
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by chownah »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:04 pm
chownah wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:03 pm ...
If you really think that in texts such as Ud 8.1 nibbāna's existence (whatever that means) is not affirmed then there really is no point in us discussing this further. I don't understand your logic and to me it's poor. Best we just leave it at that and move on, rather than beat the dead horse.
Once again you just ignore my main point about the suttas use of "atthi".....once again you use the same irrelevant comments to avoid addressing my main point.....you say you don't understand the logic (this is the third or fourth time you have said this) when in fact my main point is just an observation of what appears in the suttas. THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUEMENT INVOLVED.....I have simply said (and I believe what I have said is accurate) that the many worldly metaphores used in connection with nibbana are often if not always introduced with "atthi" which you have said means that they exist...BUT "nibbana" is NEVER introduced with "atthi"....so if the presence of "atthi" as an introduction is how the suttas say that things exist and since "atthi" is NOT used to introduct "nibbana" then it seems that there very well might be some meaning in this.....why is "atthi" not used with "nibbana" ever?....does this have meaning?......if it has no meaning then is it just a gigantically huge coincidence?....it seems unlikely that the absence of "atthi" being used with respect to "nibbana" has happened by chance...by coincidence....by accident.....

So....it seems to me that it would be good if people said something to account for this peculiarity which is found everywhere in the suttas.....why is "atthi" use most always with worldly metaphores related to "nibbana" but it is never used with "nibbana" itself?.......this is not an assertion based on logic, rather it is an observation made by observing...I'm asking people to apply their logic to this observation and see what implications they find from their perspective.

Also you have on more than one occasion called this "silly"....it is not silly.....it is an observation of what seems to be and what seems to not be in the suttas.....calling it "silly" is just a way to try to discount what I have said because you really have no way to account for what I have said from within your views on the existence of nibbana.......you have no reply which supports your views so you slander my posts as "silly"....
chownah
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Unconditioned

Post by pegembara »

chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:01 am "nibbana" is NEVER introduced with "atthi"....so if the presence of "atthi" as an introduction is how the suttas say that things exist and since "atthi" is NOT used to introduct "nibbana" then it seems that there very well might be some meaning in this.....why is "atthi" not used with "nibbana" ever?....does this have meaning?......if it has no meaning then is it just a gigantically huge coincidence?....it seems unlikely that the absence of "atthi" being used with respect to "nibbana" has happened by chance...by coincidence....by accident.....

So....it seems to me that it would be good if people said something to account for this peculiarity which is found everywhere in the suttas.....why is "atthi" use most always with worldly metaphores related to "nibbana" but it is never used with "nibbana" itself?.......this is not an assertion based on logic, rather it is an observation made by observing...I'm asking people to apply their logic to this observation and see what implications they find from their perspective.
I am rather hopeless in translation. Could you look up the proper Pali translation for this?
Not been following this long thread, so if this has been addressed kindly point out.
This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Unconditioned

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:50 pm
SteRo wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:55 pm
Then we have a dissent here. No problem.
My perspective: Mentality is definitely excluded. Whatever is cognized or experienced isn't nibbana because it is conditioned.
Only if you take the position that the mind creates external objects to it. In other words, ontological Idealism. If something is external to the mind it doesn’t follow that it is impermanent because it’s cognised. The cognition would be impermanent, yes. Incidentally, this would explain why the Buddha’s and Arahants aren’t constantly in Nibbana.

On what basis do you claim that something must be conditioned if it is cognised?
We have to be careful here not to confuse own interpretations with the theravada doctrine. It is the theravada doctrine that says "contacted with the body" which excludes mentality and it is the theravada doctrine that says "unconditioned".
I acknowledge that saying "Whatever is cognized or experienced isn't nibbana because it is conditioned." might be my own fabrication but even if I withdraw that mentality is excluded by the doctrine.
Our dissent may be caused that in many cases of sutta there is no differentiation between nibbana element proper which exists independent of the subject and the subject subsequent to having contacted nibbana "with the body". Of course contacting the unconditioned with the body conditions effects in terms of mentality which might lead to the misunderstanding that these conditioned effects are nibbana element proper, i.e. the unconditioned.

As said above in the sphere of the theravada doctrine:
SteRo wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:55 pm
Vism wrote:Derived materiality is of twenty-four kinds as ... heart-basis ...
60. 13. The heart-basis has the characteristic of being
the (material) support for the mind-element and for
the mind-consciousness-element
... If one would want to replace "body" with another term then "heart-basis" would be more appropriate.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by ToVincent »

sphairos wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:04 pm Try this bit :
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 19#p601919
Nonsense.

Again:
how can a cause originate in its consequence, when the consequence originates from the cause that is external and prior to it.

And again:
"the Munī, free from the naming from the ci,
escapes and can no longer be connected with.”
Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ (saṃkhya)”.
Snp 5.7 (Upasiva)


Are you from India?
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Ceisiwr »

chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:01 am
...
I just said I’m not going to discuss it further with you. We don’t agree at all. Let’s leave it there and move on.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Sam Vara »

pegembara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:38 am
chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:01 am
So....it seems to me that it would be good if people said something to account for this peculiarity which is found everywhere in the suttas.....why is "atthi" use most always with worldly metaphores related to "nibbana" but it is never used with "nibbana" itself?.......this is not an assertion based on logic, rather it is an observation made by observing...I'm asking people to apply their logic to this observation and see what implications they find from their perspective.
I am rather hopeless in translation. Could you look up the proper Pali translation for this?
Not been following this long thread, so if this has been addressed kindly point out.
This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland
I've just had a look at the Pali version of this, and there is no "atthi" there. Chownah's observation remains sound, although I'm not sure what to make of it.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by chownah »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:22 am
pegembara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:38 am
chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:01 am
So....it seems to me that it would be good if people said something to account for this peculiarity which is found everywhere in the suttas.....why is "atthi" use most always with worldly metaphores related to "nibbana" but it is never used with "nibbana" itself?.......this is not an assertion based on logic, rather it is an observation made by observing...I'm asking people to apply their logic to this observation and see what implications they find from their perspective.
I am rather hopeless in translation. Could you look up the proper Pali translation for this?
Not been following this long thread, so if this has been addressed kindly point out.
This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland
I've just had a look at the Pali version of this, and there is no "atthi" there. Chownah's observation remains sound, although I'm not sure what to make of it.
Thank you so much for looking that up. I am a bit disappointed because from the english I thought that it was likely that "atthi" was used and am surprised to find that it was not. I was kind of excited to think that we would find the rare exception.
Can you tell us how they expressed "there is" in pali without using "atthi".....maybe some meaning can be found from how they do it (or maybe not).
The fact that "atthi" was not used with "nibbana-element" in a context where "atthi" is usually used makes me think even more fully that there is some reason for this and that it is meaningful (although I suppose it could be just some grammatical rule or something like that).
chownah
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Sam Vara »

chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:32 am
Thank you so much for looking that up. I am a bit disappointed because from the english I thought that it was likely that "atthi" was used and am surprised to find that it was not. I was kind of excited to think that we would find the rare exception.
Can you tell us how they expressed "there is" in pali without using "atthi".....maybe some meaning can be found from how they do it (or maybe not).
The fact that "atthi" was not used with "nibbana-element" in a context where "atthi" is usually used makes me think even more fully that there is some reason for this and that it is meaningful (although I suppose it could be just some grammatical rule or something like that).
chownah
The Pali is Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo, which means I think something like "Monks, there are these two nibbana-elements". It's the usual way of expressing a state of affairs when it doesn't mean the more emphatic "This exists". I'm inclined to think that this is grammatical in this case, but it still leaves the question as to whether there is a more emphatic expression along the lines of "nibbāna exists"; and if not, why not.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 am
chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:32 am
Thank you so much for looking that up. I am a bit disappointed because from the english I thought that it was likely that "atthi" was used and am surprised to find that it was not. I was kind of excited to think that we would find the rare exception.
Can you tell us how they expressed "there is" in pali without using "atthi".....maybe some meaning can be found from how they do it (or maybe not).
The fact that "atthi" was not used with "nibbana-element" in a context where "atthi" is usually used makes me think even more fully that there is some reason for this and that it is meaningful (although I suppose it could be just some grammatical rule or something like that).
chownah
The Pali is Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo, which means I think something like "Monks, there are these two nibbana-elements". It's the usual way of expressing a state of affairs when it doesn't mean the more emphatic "This exists". I'm inclined to think that this is grammatical in this case, but it still leaves the question as to whether there is a more emphatic expression along the lines of "nibbāna exists"; and if not, why not.
Logically, Nibbana must exist.

The other two options are:
1.Nibbana doesn't exist - in which case, why bother?
2.Nibbana arises in dependence on conditions, DO as the middle way between existence and non-existence, etc. But this doesn't make sense, because Nibbana is said to be unconditioned.
So I think this is a :redherring:

The real discussion is around the way in which Nibbana exists, and what "unconditioned" means when applied to Nibbana.
I still don't think we've got to the bottom of that.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 am ...
The only thing I can think of is that the compilers of the suttas were taking nibbāna to mean “extinguished” and so felt uncomfortable placing “exists” next to “extinguished” since “extinguished exists” sounds rather odd. Still, seeing as how we find atthi next to “the deathless” or in relation to that special āyatana of Ud 8.1 which is experiencing something classified as nibbāna, and since “the deathless”, “nibbāna“ and Ud 8.1 all relate to the same thing we can say that the unconditioned dhamma which the word “nibbāna” refers to does indeed exist.

If such a reading holds then nibbāna is simply more along the lines of the moment, the moment of extinguishment whilst the “deathless” is the state of someone who has extinguished, with the āyatana of Ud 8.1 being the experience of that (with fuel remaining).

Of course, for ease of reading as a shorthand we can simply say “ nibbāna exists” in my opinion.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Sam Vara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:08 am
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 am ...
The only thing I can think of is that the compilers of the suttas were taking nibbāna to mean “extinguished” and so felt uncomfortable placing “exists” next to “extinguished” since “extinguished exists” sounds rather odd.
Well, it's a noun, rather than a past participle, more like "extinguishment', "extinction", or "cooling" so there should be no grammatical problem in that respect. But you might well be right. A PM to Ven. Dhammanando would sort it!
Still, seeing as how we find atthi next to “the deathless” or in relation to that special āyatana of Ud 8.1 which is experiencing something classified as nibbāna, and since “the deathless”, “nibbāna“ and Ud 8.1 all relate to the same thing we can say that the unconditioned dhamma which the word “nibbāna” refers to does indeed exist.
Yes, one issue here is thinking that all the other epithets are merely metaphors, and that it 'really is" nibbāna, and that's its "proper name". The term nibbāna is very much more common than all the other terms - there's a big list of them in one of the suttas, and Ven. Amaro examines them in The Island - but they are all figures of speech, including nibbāna. They would have to be, I guess, as the Buddha was pointing towards the ineffable and unconditioned, and had a conventionalist view of language. So it's no big deal as they all, as you say, have the selfsame referent. But I think that Chownah has hit upon something interesting, even if it's only at the level of how the Pali works. :anjali:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Coëmgenu »

"the Munī, free from the naming from the ci,

You really can't make these things up.
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 am
chownah wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:32 am
Thank you so much for looking that up. I am a bit disappointed because from the english I thought that it was likely that "atthi" was used and am surprised to find that it was not. I was kind of excited to think that we would find the rare exception.
Can you tell us how they expressed "there is" in pali without using "atthi".....maybe some meaning can be found from how they do it (or maybe not).
The fact that "atthi" was not used with "nibbana-element" in a context where "atthi" is usually used makes me think even more fully that there is some reason for this and that it is meaningful (although I suppose it could be just some grammatical rule or something like that).
chownah
The Pali is Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo, which means I think something like "Monks, there are these two nibbana-elements". It's the usual way of expressing a state of affairs when it doesn't mean the more emphatic "This exists". I'm inclined to think that this is grammatical in this case, but it still leaves the question as to whether there is a more emphatic expression along the lines of "nibbāna exists"; and if not, why not.
You very rarely need to say the copula in Pali, the existential quantifier "to be," because there is no need to stress an objects abstract existence. When we want to say "There are two nibbana elements," we have to use the conjugated "to be." Pali can say "there are two" without needing "are" and "there."

A good example is the Sanskrit translation of the Christian Bible, because my Pali is not good enough to show you with Pali.

When Jesus has said to him "You are the annointed son of the living god," in Sanskrit that is the word "tvamamareśvarasyābhiṣiktaputraḥ."

This word means "You, the deathless lord's annointed son." It does not have "are" in it, because that is implied by the declensions. Similarly, "Dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo" is like "Two of them, monks, the nibbana elements." Because Pali is so declined (and I mean that in the sense of declension), you don't need the verb "to be" most often. Chinese also likes to regularly drop copulas.

If we want to stress the abstract reality of something moreso than as a figure of speech, "asti/atthi" is used as well as "bhavati/hoti," but this is not needed for quick sentences not about existence itself. "John is a butcher" does not need "is a" in Pali or Sanskrit because it is just "John the butcher" and the declension tells you the grammar. The lack of an existential quantifier is not that big a deal, but it is indeed interesting that the Buddha in the EBTs seems to never use it.
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:01 amit still leaves the question as to whether there is a more emphatic expression along the lines of "nibbāna exists"; and if not, why not.
The easiest way would be to say "atthi nibbānaṃ," which the Buddha never says. As to "if not, why not," it's clearly because the Buddha is a Madhyamaka and doesn't believe that nibbana exists.

:stirthepot:

I joke. Here we go. Have we found this yet? I don't know.

The Buddha never says "atthi nibbanam," but Venerable Nagasena does.

‘But if so, Nāgasena, then you are only showing us how Nirvāṇa is a condition that does not exist. There can be no such thing as Nirvāṇa.’

Nirvāṇa exists, O king. And it is perceptible to the mind. By means of his pure heart, refined and straight, free from the obstacles, free from low cravings, that disciple of the Noble Ones who has fully attained can see Nirvāṇa.’

[“Atthi, mahārāja, nibbānaṃ, manoviññeyyaṃ nibbānaṃ, visuddhena mānasena paṇītena ujukena anāvaraṇena nirāmisena sammāpaṭipanno ariyasāvako nibbānaṃ passatī”ti.]

‘Then what, Sir, is Nirvāṇa? Such a Nirvāṇa (I mean) as can be explained by similes. Convince me by argument how far the fact of its existence can be explained by similes.’

‘Is there such a thing, O king, as wind?’

‘Yes, of course.’

‘Show it me then, I pray you, O king—whether by its colour, or its form, whether as thin or thick, or short or long!’

‘But wind, Nāgasena, cannot be pointed out in that way. It is not of such a nature that it can be taken into the hand or squeezed. But it exists all the same.’

‘If you can’t show me the wind, then there can’t be such a thing.’

‘But I know there is, Nāgasena. That wind exists I am convinced, though I cannot show it you.’

‘Well! just so, O king, does Nirvāṇa exist, though it cannot be shown to you in colour or in form.’

‘Very good, Nāgasena! That is so, and I accept it as you say.’
(Mil 6.2.5)

There is also this sentence: "Nibbānaṃ atthi, nibbānaṃ nibbānato samāpajjantassa viparītaṃ hotīti?" from this webpage, but I have no idea what I am looking at. I see "abh" in the URL, so I am assuming it is perhaps a Abhidhamma text?

EDIT: It's Kathāvatthu and is part of the stance recorded therein that “Nibbāna exists and retains its state as Nibbāna.” It appears to be a polemicized-against Sarvastivadin doctrine.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Unconditioned

Post by Pulsar »

Coëmgenu joked
the Buddha never says. As to "if not, why not," it's clearly because the Buddha is a Madhyamaka and doesn't believe that nibbana exists.
Seriously, your single joke attracted me to the thread. It is so funny, I love your jokes.
Then you wrote Ven. Nagasena said (...)
Now I understand why sometimes commentaries tend to mislead. What an effective joke.
Thank you.
You mentioned at the end
Kathāvatthu and is part of the stance recorded therein that “Nibbāna exists and retains its state as Nibbāna.” It appears to be a polemicized-against Sarvastivadin doctrine.
Does that mean that Kathavatthu really did no say that "Nibbana Exists"
Did we not once have a long thread
that proved the existence of Nibbana or did not??? I understand neither Pali nor Sanskrit, so it is nice to have an expert in Sanskriti who knows how to translate the Holy Bible accurately into Sanskrit, or find flaws in such translations.
With love :candle:
Post Reply