Unconditioned

[Coëmgenu]

“The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation”

4.9-10 the Whole: the exact sense of the term sarva, here translated as "the Whole," has been much debated.

Apparently it is a PIE cognate with the Latin sollus. Makes sense. The "health" connotation is the strangest one. I'm wondering if it's related to salut in French etc. and sláinte in Irish. I'll see.

[Ceisiwr]

“The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation”

4.9-10 the Whole: the exact sense of the term sarva, here translated as "the Whole," has been much debated.

Apparently it is a PIE cognate with the Latin sollus. Makes sense. The "health" connotation is the strangest one. I'm wondering if it's related to salute in French etc. and sláinte in Irish. I'll see.

[Coëmgenu]

It is. It is also related to "salutations" as an expression of will for good heath.

[Ceisiwr]

It is. It is also related to "salutations" as an expression of will for good heath.

[Ceisiwr]

"A citta outside the world of senses !!!!!!!, says the latters — Impossible!"
Even if this is what the suttas say.

The empiricist, sclerosed by the timeworn philosophy hamered in his head since infancy, and of which he is so nationally proud, cannot envisage something different.
The Vaisheshika started it, and the Brito-Anglo-Saxo-Normano-Juto philosophers cherish it still, up to now.

"A citta outside the world of senses !!!!!!!, says the latters — Impossible!"
Even if this is what the suttas say.

They can't even pass that factual level — Imagine going beyond the possibility of an even higher level (might it exist or not).
I suppose that they engage into that self/Self thing to avoid talking about a (liberated) citta outside the sphere of senses.

Yet:

1. with the complete overstepping of perceptions of form (matter),
2.with the vanishing of perceptions (based) upon the organs of senses (viz. ajjhattikāni āyatanāni [including mano]),
3. not turning the mind (manasa/mano) towards perceptions of manifoldness (lit. (what is) differently than one),
4. aware that ‘space is boundless,’
he attains and seizes distinctively, the field of boundless space.

1. sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā,
2. paṭighasaññānaṃ* atthaṅgamā,
3. nānattasaññānaṃ amanasikārā
4. ‘ananto ākāso’ti
ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ upasampajja viharati.

How do you want them to put the unconditioned, outside the salayatana nidana (fields of sensory experience), if they can't acknowledge that?

1. sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā,
2. paṭighasaññānaṃ* atthaṅgamā,
3. nānattasaññānaṃ amanasikārā
4. ‘ananto ākāso’ti
ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ upasampajja viharati.

1. With the complete surmounting of perceptions of rūpa (image, appearance)
2. With the passing away of perceptions of impingement
3. With non-attention to perceptions of diversity
4. Perceiving "space is infinite" one enters and dwells in the base of the infinity of space.

What has been overcome here, temporarily, is impingement contact (paṭighasamphasso) but not designation contact (adhivacanasamphasso). There is still the sense base of the mind, which is cognising the concept "space is infinite". This is still firmly within the Sabbaṃ, since there is still mano ca dhammā. As of yet you have not established that a citta can exist outside of the Sabbaṃ.

Kāya is the active* of ci.

What are you basing that on?

"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 don't see "ci" anywhere in the pali?

Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ

Nāmakāyā = mental body?!?!?

Naming bodies, mental bodies.

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.

I'm amazed that it hasn't dawned on you that suttas like SA 298 are more likely to have been influenced by the Sarvāstivādin's Abhidharma as opposed to the Buddha teaching two kinds of nāmarūpa. Seeing as we have suttas like DN 15 which explain dependent origination without the saḷāyatana nidana, and seeing as how we see within that sutta two different types of contact, it becomes easier to see how we can have phasso and ceto in the definition of nāma. Regarding mano, the suttas are somewhat confusing in relation to it. We can either read citta, mano & viññāna as synonyms or different aspects of the same thing:

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worlding to take as self this body… rather than the mind. For what reason? The body … is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fify, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called 'mind [citta],' 'mentality [mano],' or 'consciousness [viññāna]' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grans still another, so too that which is called 'mind [citta],' 'mentality [mano],' or 'consciousness [viññāna]' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this that arises….

SN 12.61

Or we could perhaps interpret it as a synonym for nāma. Either way, it is still perfectly logical to incorporate this understanding into the standard 12-link formula of dependent origination and have all of experience restricted to the limits of the Sabbaṃ.

Now, you still haven't answered my question. What is the condition for this citta of yours that is outside of the Sabbaṃ and just what exactly is it cognising? Also, how can nibbāna be known without being cognised?

[asahi]

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.

Earlier i did answered that the mind (base) didnt cognised it (ie nibbana) while at the moment of cessation (of ignorance) but there is an illumination thereafter .
The deathless is contacted by the body means one attaining the state or one has direct experiencing it and not about a mental body .

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.

I did , i recall that the text provided as below shows that the mind and thoughts are conditioned .
According to your explanation , the mind (base) take nibbana as its object and therefore there is a corresponding mind consciousness that take place at that moment of contact , but i am afraid you are unable to provide sutta reference to support it .

Mendicants, I will teach you the all. Listen …

And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called the all.

___________________________________________

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.

It appears that the suttas never saids that avijja meant previous life ignorance . How does the vinnana reflects namarupa ? Vinnana occurs only if there is a contact happening .

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

Even Buddha and arahants still have vedana , they felt the bodily pains which means it is taken up and grasped at by the mind . Thats why an arahant are saids to be shot with one arrow only .

[Ceisiwr]

Earlier i did answered that the mind didnt cognised it while at the moment of cessation (of ignorance) but there is an illumination thereafter .

This would equate nibbāna with the mind that is free of the taints, which would make it rather impermanent. Another problem for your interpretation is Ud 8.1, since if nothing was cognised during awakening then you couldn't say there was an āyatana. To compound the problem even further for yourself I don't see how your interpretation can make any sense of a sutta like this:

“On one occasion, friend Ānanda, I was dwelling right here in Sāvatthī in the Blind Men’s Grove. There I attained such a state of concentration that I was not percipient of earth in relation to earth; of water in relation to water; of fire in relation to fire; of air in relation to air; of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world, but I was still percipient.”

“But of what was the Venerable Sāriputta percipient on that occasion?”

“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.”

https://suttacentral.net/an10.7/en/bodhi

The deathless is contacted by the body means it is being directly experience and not about a mental body .

"Acchariyā hete, āvuso, puggalā dullabhā lokasmiṃ, ye amataṃ dhātuṃ kāyena phusitvā viharanti."
"Because it’s incredibly rare to find individuals in the world who dwell touching the deathless with the body."

amataṃ dhātuṃ = deathless element

viharanti = dwelling

kāyena phusitvā

Kāyena is the instrumental singular of "Kāya". Phusitvā means touching. Since Kāyena is the instrumental case, it means that the Kāya is the cause of the touching. It is because of the kāya that the deathless element is touched. The grammar of the pali thus indicates that this "Kāya" or "body" touches the deathless element, which is another name for nibbāna. How do you explain this, since it is clearly not a metaphor? To me it's rather obvious that this means that nibbāna is touched, or cognised, at the mind base.

I did , i recall that the text provided as below shows that the mind and thoughts are conditioned .

The Sabba Sutta lists sense bases and their objects. No where in this does it state or even imply that they are all conditioned. You have not shown on the basis of the Sabba sutta alone that the "All" is a list of conditioned dhammas only. Where in the Sabba sutta does it state that those dhammas are all conditioned? Quote it please.

It appears that the suttas never saids that avijja meant previous life ignorance . How does the vinnana reflects namarupa ? Vinnana occurs only there is a contact happening .

I never said that " avijja meant previous life ignorance". I said ignorance in a previous life. Are you of the view that before birth there was no ignorance for any being? In relation to viññāṇa & nāmarūpa, they are two sheaves of reeds:

“Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-form comes cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness comes cessation of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form comes cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.67/en/bodhi

Since viññāṇa is, for want of a better translation, "awareness" or "cognition" we can say that viññāṇa reflect nāmarūpa, it's direct object. Viññāṇa occurs whenever there is resistance contact (paṭighasamphasso) or designation contact (adhivacanasamphasso), as per DN 15 (note, it is possible to have designation contact and viññāṇa without rūpa & paṭighasamphasso) or when cognising nibbāna, which is a contact free of both.

but i am afraid you are unable to provide sutta reference to support it .

I've put forward why other suttas make the case the nibbāna is indeed included within the "All" of the Sabba sutta, with the corollary that if nibbāna is not experienced at the mind base then it becomes difficult if not impossible to establish how nibbāna is ever known about at all.

Even Buddha and arahants still have vedana , they felt the bodily pains which means it is taken up and grasped at by the mind . Thats why an arahant are saids to be shot with one arrow only

Yes they do, but the āsavas no longer underlie the vedanā. It is felt detached. Regarding the two arrows in the the Salla Sutta that you referenced, the 1st dart is not restricted to "physical painful feelings". To save some time I will re-post what I have said elsehwere:

"Evameva kho, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohaṃ āpajjati.
When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two feelings, kayika & cetasika.

They experience two feelings:
So dve vedanā vedayati—

kāyikañca, cetasikañca."

This states that the worldling will feel both kayika & cetasika. Kayika here is painful vedanā whilst cetasika is "sorrows, grieves, & laments..." etc. What is being said here is that there is an experiential side (kayika) & an emotive side (cetasika) when experiencing contact. Now, two things. Firstly, as MN 43 shows the physical body can only ever experience physical touch. This touch can then the basis for painful or pleasant vedanā in the nāmakāya (lets ignore neutral feelings for a moment). However, in the Dhamma there are 6 senses not 5. It then follows that mind-objects too can become the basis for painful or pleasant vedanā in the nāmakāya. For example, if a particularly nasty childhood memory arises at the mind base then this can become the basis for painful vedanā in the nāmakāya without reference to anything physical going on. This memory which has triggered painful vedanā (kāyikañca) goes on in the worldling and develops into cetasikañca. Kāyikañca then is the experiential side whilst cetasikañca is the emotive side. Now, for the Buddha and Arahants they still experience kāyikañca but they do not experience cetasikañca. The Buddha and Arahants then would still experience physical contacts which become the basis for painful vedanā in the nāmakāya, experienced at the mind base, but, due to their awakening, this does not go on to become the emotive side (cetasikañca) and so no grief, lamentation etc. Following this line of reasoning the Buddha and Arahants then would also still experience unpleasant memories (why wouldn't they?) at the mind-base which can become the basis for painful vedanā (kāyikañca) in the nāmakāya but, as with physical contact, this does not go on to become cetasikañca. From this interpretation and reasoning then it can be concluded that kāyikañca isn't restricted to physical sensations only.

[Spiny Norman]

There is still no clarity on what Nibbana being "unconditioned" actually means, practically speaking.

States of mind are transient and conditioned, so describing Nibbana as a state of mind doesn't sound right.

Nibbana as a mental object (mind object) doesn't sound right either, since mental objects are transient, and only arise in dependence on conditions.

[SteRo]

There is still no clarity or consensus on what Nibbana being "unconditioned" actually means, practical speaking .

I think that the meaning of "unconditioned" is pretty clear.

[Spiny Norman]

There is still no clarity or consensus on what Nibbana being "unconditioned" actually means, practical speaking .

I think that the meaning of "unconditioned" is pretty clear.

Not subject to conditions. Independent. Not arising or ceasing. Unchanging.

But nobody has explained how this applies to Nibbana.

[SteRo]

There is still no clarity or consensus on what Nibbana being "unconditioned" actually means, practical speaking .

I think that the meaning of "unconditioned" is pretty clear.

Not subject to conditions. Independent. Not arising or ceasing. Unchanging.

But nobody has explained how this applies to Nibbana.

??

Nibbana [element] IS the unconditioned. You must not use different concepts for "nibbana" and "unconditioned" merely because the two words look different.

[Spiny Norman]

I think that the meaning of "unconditioned" is pretty clear.

Not subject to conditions. Independent. Not arising or ceasing. Unchanging.

But nobody has explained how this applies to Nibbana.

??

Nibbana [element] IS the unconditioned. You must not use different concepts for "nibbana" and "unconditioned" merely because the two words look different.

Nobody has explained what Nibbana = unconditioned means, practically speaking.

[SteRo]

Not subject to conditions. Independent. Not arising or ceasing. Unchanging.

But nobody has explained how this applies to Nibbana.

??

Nibbana [element] IS the unconditioned. You must not use different concepts for "nibbana" and "unconditioned" merely because the two words look different.

Nobody has explained what Nibbana = unconditioned means, practically speaking.

You have explained it yourself above.

[Spiny Norman]

??

Nibbana [element] IS the unconditioned. You must not use different concepts for "nibbana" and "unconditioned" merely because the two words look different.

Nobody has explained what Nibbana = unconditioned means, practically speaking.

You have explained it yourself above.

Theoretically, not practically.

[SteRo]

Nobody has explained what Nibbana = unconditioned means, practically speaking.

You have explained it yourself above.

Theoretically, not practically.

What do you mean with "practically" here? I mean you've asked a question relying on thought and it has been clarified relying on thought. So what does "practically" mean?