This, once again, gives you no knowledge about my experiences which aren't relevant to the discussion at all.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:09 pm
Actually I do, since you tend to talk about it quite a bit saying you dedicate significant time to studying abhidhamma and lately Nagarjuna, spend a fair amount of time talking and posting here, and you said previously you have limited meditation practice. There is only so much time one has.
Either way, I do know for a fact that various TFT monks are far further on the path then you in eradication of defilements, and that you claim to have 'a closer conceptual image of nibbana' and I am demonstrating the fallacy of that way of thinking.
How am I avoiding using the annihilationist label? What connection are you seeing between what I've said an annihilationism?This is quibbling and avoiding use of terms.
I would agree. There is no consciousness on it's own, independent. Consciousness is always aware of something. We are told however that we can't say there is an experience or not when it comes to nibbāna, because the concepts of something or nothing and so on do not apply. For you, however, they do apply. For you there is something which is or is in nibbāna.Nowhere is there any Buddhist nor modern description of 'experience without some form of consciousness'.
Consciousness is experience.
https://suttacentral.net/an4.173/en/thanissaroThen Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, “With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “…is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “…is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Being asked if … there is not anything else … there both is & is not anything else … there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?”
[Sariputta:] “The statement, ‘With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification. The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else … is it the case that there both is & is not anything else … is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
When it comes to nibbāna existence does not apply. Non-existence does not apply. Arising and ceasing do not apply. Since then what is impermanent is false and which is not-impermanent is true, nibbāna then is the only truth. If then nibbāna is the only truth then ultimately there is no arising or ceasing, no beings or dhammas, no consciousness or form and no nibbāna either. The 3 aspects of nibbāna are emptiness, signless and nothingness. When one then sees nibbāna they see that there is only emptiness, lack of dhammas and nothing. This too however is a condition, for the signless is said also to be a condition, and so emptiness itself then is empty.
For someone stuck in the binary thinking of existence and non-existence I suppose that is true.So if you say that you don't think Nibbana is the cessation of all experience, you essentially say that there is some form or type or consciousness there.
I don't think the Buddha refused to say definitavely what nibbāna is because there really was some protoconsciousness thingy behind it all (which opens up questions as to why he praised annihilationists instead of eternalists if true). I think nibbāna can't be fully conceptualised because it is not a thing. To the Upanishads Ātman was also hard to conceptualise (which is also a "protoconsciousness" by the way). The word Ātman doesn't actually capture the reality in that system, but to the Upanishads there is a reality behind the word. There is existence (satya). Ātman therefore exists. The same can't be said for nibbāna. Nibbāna can't be said to exist, or not exist or anything in between because it is only ever a word, a concept, and words and concepts can only ever be said to have a nominal existence not a substantial one. They can never be said to really exist, or not exist and so on.I understand the reticence to call it that given that the temporary aggregates consciousness ceases. This is why the Buddha did not call it sensory or nama-rupa consciousness but made indirect allusions to it by way of analogy. It's why TFT masters who realize it struggle to put labels to it. It's also why I call it 'protoconsciousness'.
“When there are words, there is the fetter of birth and death. When words do not exist, there is nirvāṇa. Those who have words have birth, death, arising and cessation; those who have no words have no birth, no death, no arising and no cessation.”
EĀ 30:1
"The is nothing to understand, nothing at all to understand. For nothing in particular has been indicated, nothing in particular has been explained." - Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
I take the Mahāsāṃghika (EĀ 30:1) and Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra to be referring to thinking that the referent of words truly exist. Of course, in order to get to awakening we still have to make use of concepts such as citta, or mano, or awareness, or nibbāna (which was a common concept among ascetics and philosophers during the Buddha's time).
Yes, but we also find it in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.The later upanishads were likely post Buddhist and influenced by it so this may just reflect early ways Nibbana was understood. It's not necessarily an argument against any overlaps as you think.
The jiva is reborn, Ātman however always is. Unaffected, unchanged, always present.Also the atman idea is that there is an entity that is reborn continually which is the self. Clearly that is not what I am saying.
The Buddha never says there is an unconditioned consciousness. Viññāṇa, citta and mano are always conditions. According to the Buddha's thought if there is something then there must be a condition for it. If something is eternal then it would have an eternal condition, but this condition itself also has a condition. If there were an eternal consciousness then nothing would change, ever, but dhammas do change. Consciousness does change. A permanent consciousness then cannot be established.The Buddha spoke of an unconditioned awareness separate from the conditioned, but didn't apply labels to it or say it is self. Nor did he say it is the source of the universe like Advaita.
Maybe it's better to call it a void than a field consciousness.