Unconditioned

[Ceisiwr]

Please stop trolling. That's enough. I won't be responding anymore. I was interested while you were imputing actual content in the conversation, but not if this is how it's going to be.

This does seem to be becoming rather circular.

[Coëmgenu]

I was interested in learning more about the observer that is outside the mind and how he supposedly observes it without one, but supposedly it's "the limits of language." The last comment convinced me that the poster is coming from a haughty mindset concerning the objective correctness of their views. Indeed, that there is this observer outside the mind not characterized by the mind "isn't a view."

[Spiny Norman]

The most dangerous kind of views!

It's fine. I'm not personally morally offended or anything because you believe in this "observer," although I don't think it's a coherent view and I do think it's a view.

So without talking about an observer, how would you explain the activity of the third frame of satipatthana, knowing the state and contents of the mind?

Well, minds observe already. That is one of the things minds do. The mind observes itself. The "observer" that I understand we are talking about here with coffeendonuts is an observer that observes the conditioned mind and this observer is supposedly not itself "found or associated with the senses, the mind, consciousness."

Though satipatthana is a deliberate activity - there is a conscious decision to place attention on a particular aspect of experience, and keep it there.
As for the question of the mind observing itself, it seems like one "bit" of the mind is observing the rest of the mind, sort of.

[Coëmgenu]

Do you think this "bit" is what coffeendonuts has been talking about? You surely don't think this "bit" of the mind is outside the mind and not characterized by the mind though.

[Spiny Norman]

Do you think this "bit" is what coffeendonuts has been talking about? You surely don't think this "bit" of the mind is outside the mind and not characterized by the mind though.

I think this bit is "inside" the mind. The next question is "What exactly is this bit, or this function?".
And who or what is making the choice to use this bit of the mind, or to do this observing activity?

[SDC]

I agree, but I believe denial of self is in the visuddhimagga. Is that canon? I'm not well-versed in the Theravada.

The Vism is not part of the Pali Canon, but it is central to the Theravada tradition.

[Coëmgenu]

I think this bit is "inside" the mind. The next question is "What exactly is this bit, or this function?".
And who or what is making the choice to use this bit of the mind, or to do this observing activity?

A sentient being, a designated conventionality, a provisional name we give to five aggregates, makes choices and directs their mind as much as their are pulled to and fro when they don't have mastery of their mind. Seems reasonable to me. On terms of the qualities this bit of the mind has, how many of the qualities of the "observer" from before carry over? It isn't outside the mind, but is it impermanent or permanent? The observer was eternal and unchanging. It "observed" in a manner beyond the limits of language allegedly. Your "bit" seems to be the mind observing the mind, but you say you experience a particular bit of the mind doing the observing as I understand it.

[ToVincent]

...

Could you give to the poor human* I am, a Pali translation (and also references from suttas/sutras) for what you call: "mindstream".

------

You are serving us with a litany of so called "comparisons", without ever giving us any references**. Might they be Buddhist, "buddhist", or coming from this "profound yet bottomless knowledge" (as Hegel used to qualify for instance, the Egyptian philosophy, that ended in the killing of the Sphinx by Œdipe the Greek - for the spirit (geist) had enough of not finding itself in that mumbo jumbo).
**Sutta's numbers, with their parallels, if any.

I think you are too much into the frame of mind of a somewhat esoteric "Buddha's gnosis", and generally way too much into gnosis at large.
Buddha did clearly say that there was no secret in his Teaching (SN 47.9).
I shall continue to be a propagator of the teaching of the sutras and will expound the meaning of each sentence.
...
I shall vindicate the testimony of my own experience on the mysteries of the Dharma. (DN2).

-----

Buddha did clearly state that it is the liberated citta - outside the fields of sensory experience (saḷāyatana nidāna), that sees (dassana/dṛś), "according to what have become" (yathābhūta).
The ci is what "sees" in the Vedic philosophy — and this is exactly the same in early Buddhism.
- kāyasaṅkhāro is about the ci.
- vacīsaṅkhāro is about the ci.
- cittasaṅkhāro is about the ci.
That yields consciousness, then name and form, then the fields of sensory experience.
When a human totally liberates himself, he liberates himself from the bond of the ci, and cannot be connected with anything in the dhrman of ignorance any longer (aka paṭiccasamuppāda)
"the Munī, free from the namings of the ci,
escapes and can no longer be connected with.”
Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ (saṃkhya)”.
Snp 5.7 (Upasiva)

-----

I have already told you that you are scattering "the hand full of leaves", in the wide forest - and leading us astray.
And once more: who cares about a Self! — I suppose that only those like Vṛtra the great obfuscator, would insist about speculating about it - as some red herring to obfuscate the more simpler escape from the world of senses (kāma loka) [the first step in the escape].

To paraphrase you differently: "A sentient being, a designated conventionality, a provisional name given to (the sankarization of) five aggregates, (should) make choices and direct his/her (liberated [providing it is so]) citta towards the escape - once he has seen that what has become is not his/her own (the other proper meaning of anicca, in this case)".
That's the issue.
Not a self/Self.


*Human = The only creature that can escape the Buddhist worlds; and which, in the 21st century, almost disappeared due to the "cancel culture" that went bezerk.
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

...

Could you give to the poor human* I am, a Pali translation (and also references from suttas/sutras) for what you call: "mindstream".

Cittasaṃtati. You can find it in the Kathāvatthuprakaraṇāṭṭhakathā, p. 132 here:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ss0BAA ... ti&f=false

心流 in Chinese. I don't particularly care if it isn't in Pali suttas, but you are free to point out that this is a term coined by Buddhists and not a term that the Buddha uses in the Pali Canon.

[ToVincent]

I don't particularly care if it isn't in Pali suttas, but you are free to point out that this is a term coined by Buddhists and not a term that the Buddha uses in the Pali Canon.

Then sorry to say, but I will never be able to take what you say as anything serious.

My sentiment is that narrowing as much as possible our exploration of the texts, to the common denominator between the early sects*, remains the ultimate way to get closer to the original message of the Buddha - and therefore an unambiguous understanding.
Something that makes neither the Theravāda or the Sarvāstivāda, or any other early sect wrong.
I know it's a lot of work that must discourage more than one, that would rather read anything and everything, and just comment on that. But then again.

*Unless they bring a logical plus to the comprehension.
.
.

[Lucas Oliveira]

...

-----

Buddha did clearly state that it is the liberated citta - outside the fields of sensory experience (saḷāyatana nidāna), that sees (dassana/dṛś), "according to what have become" (yathābhūta).
The ci is what "sees" in the Vedic philosophy — and this is exactly the same in early Buddhism.
- kāyasaṅkhāro is about the ci.
- vacīsaṅkhāro is about the ci.
- cittasaṅkhāro is about the ci.
That yields consciousness, then name and form, then the fields of sensory experience.
When a human totally liberates himself, he liberates himself from the bond of the ci, and cannot be connected with anything in the dhrman of ignorance any longer (aka paṭiccasamuppāda)
"the Munī, free from the namings of the ci,
escapes and can no longer be connected with.”
Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ (saṃkhya)”.
Snp 5.7 (Upasiva)

-----

I have already told you that you are scattering "the hand full of leaves", in the wide forest - and leading us astray.
And once more: who cares about a Self! — I suppose that only those like Vṛtra the great obfuscator, would insist about speculating about it - as some red herring to obfuscate the more simpler escape from the world of senses (kāma loka) [the first step in the escape].

To paraphrase you differently: "A sentient being, a designated conventionality, a provisional name given to (the sankarization of) five aggregates, (should) make choices and direct his/her (liberated [providing it is so]) citta towards the escape - once he has seen that what has become is not his/her own (the other proper meaning of anicca, in this case)".
That's the issue.
Not a self/Self.

[Ceisiwr]

Ah ha , you may interpret it otherwise but i dont see it that way . Nibbana is cognised at mind base and i do hope you provide evidence in according to suttas .(assuming you refer mind specificly as mind base and mental dhamma include nibbana ) .

I already did. As previously discussed the Buddha states that the deathless is contacted by the body. He also taught that one turns their mind to the signless. Assuming that we can't physically touch nibbāna with our foot, and seeing as how the Buddha taught about a mental body (nāmakāya), it stands to reason that nibbāna is cognised at the mind base. If it were not cognised, how would anyone know about it? You still haven't answered this question.

The sutta stated the corresponding sense objects appears to be conditioned .

The Sabba Sutta gives a list of senses and their respective objects, but it does not state that all of these objects are conditioned. You have asserted that they are, you haven't shown that they are.

In the reverse order of dependent origination with the cessation of ignorance etc etc then comes the cessation of six sense base , with this cessation of feeling etc etc and then cessation of becoming and last the stopping of birth (with it the cessation of sufferings) . Therefore , at the Link of Cessation of six sense base , that mind base appears to be not in the condition or situation or available to Cognise Nibbana ( if Nibbana exists ) . I hope you realise this .

In a previous life there are the āsavas, which are a condition for the formations. These conditions are the basis for viññāṇa & nāmarūpa in this life. In this life there are still the āsavas. Viññāṇa reflects nāmarūpa. Nāmarūpa is comprised of vedanā (feeling/sense experience), saññā (perception & conceptualisation/appellation), cetanā (intention), phasso (contact) & manasikāro (attention, or holding in the mind). Rūpa is the "image" or "appearance" of a sense object when there is contact with the 6 senses. When contacted by rūpa there is designation contact in the mental body (nāmakāya). That is to say when contacted by rūpa, vedanā comes to be. Underlying this vedanā in the worldling are the āsavas, and so when a pleasant or painful vedanā is experienced due to contact it is taken up. This then becomes the basis for saññā, which recognises said object due to its nimitta and conceptualises it through appellation (still under the influence of the āsavas). This then becomes the basis for cetanā and manasikāro. All of this is then the basis for experiencing the 12 āyatana.

For those who awaken, upon understanding that "whatever is subject to origination is also subject to cessation" the 4 noble truths are understood all at once and ignorance is abolished. The āsavas are abolished. When contacted by rūpa the corresponding vedanā is felt detached, as there are no āsavas underlying it. It is not taken up. Vedanā not being grasped there is emptiness contact (suññato phasso). Vedanā not being followed, saññā (perception & conceptualisation/appellation) thus ceases to operate. There is the signless contact (animitto phasso). Saññā ceasing to function, there is no cetanā nor manasikāro and so there is desireless contact (appaṇihito phasso). Viññāṇa still reflects nāmarūpa, but nāmarūpa have become deactivated. What viññāṇa thus cognises when it is free of nāmarūpa is this element which has 3 aspects (desirelessness, signless and emptiness). This element was always there, but it was obscured by the āsavas and the actions of nāmarūpa under their influence. It has no prior condition, thus no arising nor ceasing. The experience of this āyatana is laid out in Ud 8.1.

Regarding dependent origination, it is very much first known post the fact. Through looking at what currently is one looks at what the condition was for its arising all the way back to ignorance. One then understands that when ignorance ceases, then the condition for the other states will also cease to be. Dependent origination, however, is about conditionality and not causality. This means that there can be a time lag between the cessations, and so whilst the Arahant has no ignorance it is understood that only at final death will all the links cease fully without remainder.

[Ceisiwr]

Buddha did clearly state that it is the liberated citta - outside the fields of sensory experience (saḷāyatana nidāna), that sees (dassana/dṛś), "according to

If nibbāna is cognised then it is sensed. If it is not sensed then how does anyone know about it? What is the condition for this citta?

[Coëmgenu]

I don't particularly care if it isn't in Pali suttas, but you are free to point out that this is a term coined by Buddhists and not a term that the Buddha uses in the Pali Canon.

Then sorry to say, but I will never be able to take what you say as anything serious.

That's more than fine. The feeling is mutual. We'll just try to be civil.

[ToVincent]

As previously discussed the Buddha states that the deathless is contacted by the body. He also taught that one turns their mind to the signless. Assuming that we can't physically touch nibbāna with our foot, and seeing as how the Buddha taught about a mental body (nāmakāya), it stands to reason that nibbāna is cognised at the mind base. If it were not cognised, how would anyone know about it?

_________

Nāmarūpa is comprised of vedanā (feeling/sense experience), saññā (perception & conceptualisation/appellation), cetanā (intention), phasso (contact) & manasikāro (attention, or holding in the mind).

Kāya is the active* of ci.
* (grammar) expressing action, instead of a state of being.

It is the first action of the ci in the Saṅkhārā nidāna.
And the last action a human can do to liberate himself from ignorance, is to get free of any influence of the ci, and get away from the dhṛman* of ignorance (paṭiccasamuppāda), through vijjā.
(* dhamma - from √ dhṛ = 'that undertakes, and maintains (or restrain) activity).

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

Nāmakāyā = mental body?!?!?

__________

Also, I was saying that one could consider a sutta/sutra without parallel if it fits the logic of the Teaching.

How can you put mano, phasso and ceto in the definition of nāma (of the nāma-rūpa nidāna), when mano, phasso and ceto, only appear in the following links of the paṭicca-samuppāda sequence.
Mano appears in the saḷāyatana nidana. The SCOPE of mano is the saḷāyatana nidana. You cannot logically put mano in the preceding link (nāmarūpa nidāna).

Therefore one has to rely on the Sarvāstivāda's definition in SA 298 — Which does not preclude the Theravāda's definition of nāma in SN 12.2.
https://justpaste.it/1695d

Anyway, "seeing" (dassana) the unconditioned with mano is just an empiricit's joke.
.
.