Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Ceisiwr »

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.
This, once again, gives you no knowledge about my experiences which aren't relevant to the discussion at all.
This is quibbling and avoiding use of terms.
How am I avoiding using the annihilationist label? What connection are you seeing between what I've said an annihilationism?
Nowhere is there any Buddhist nor modern description of 'experience without some form of consciousness'.
Consciousness is experience.
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.
Then 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.
https://suttacentral.net/an4.173/en/thanissaro

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.
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.
For someone stuck in the binary thinking of existence and non-existence I suppose that is true.
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'.
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.

“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).
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.
Yes, but we also find it in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.

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 jiva is reborn, Ātman however always is. Unaffected, unchanged, always present.
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.
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.
“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.”
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm This, once again, gives you no knowledge about my experiences which aren't relevant to the discussion at all.
I agree whatever experience you have is probably irrelevant to the discussion. Your main practice appears to be reading, thinking and forming mental images of what nibbana cannot be and what it therefore might be. I have highlighted why this is a wrong turn.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:09 pm Nowhere is there any Buddhist nor modern description of 'experience without some form of consciousness'.
Consciousness is experience.
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.
For you, 'experience doesn't end in nibbana' in your own words. You also agree that consciousness is experience. Yet you then say there isn't any form or type of transformed consciousness in nibbana.
If you can't see the contradictions I can't help you.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm

[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.
https://suttacentral.net/an4.173/en/thanissaro

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.
A nice but flawed attempt at tacking on a Nagarjuna exegesis to the end of a Pali sutta discourse by Sariputta.

I have also seen translations by Bhikku Bodhi where he calls it 'complicating non-complication'
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:09 pm
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.
For someone stuck in the binary thinking of existence and non-existence I suppose that is true.
More Nagarjuna Mahayana layered with a smug attitude to boot.
Luckily the Buddha taught 'in a binary way of thinking' throughout his life - the development of the path vs non-development.

The goal is what he said could not be conceptualized or categorized, which you are trying to do via deduction.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm I think nibbāna can't be fully conceptualised because it is not a thing.
I agree it's not a 'thing'.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm The jiva is reborn, Ātman however always is. Unaffected, unchanged, always present.
I am not really versed in the Upanishads or Advaita. But as I said there is certainly some overlap due to influence from Buddhism. The difference is how they conceived it. So any similarities can be looked at in context.

In the Buddha dhamma there can be many births that occur within a single human 'bhava' for example. Both are inconstant yet arise within a beginingless stream of dependently arisen mind and formations.
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:09 pm 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.
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.
Actually he did in several suttas. You can try to dispute the interpretations but they are there, some of them are presented at the beginning of this thread.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:48 pm What connection are you seeing between what I've said an annihilationism?
You can’t seem to have faith in the existence of Nirvana



Similar to the problem of faith in the existence of God
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Ceisiwr »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:17 am
I agree whatever experience you have is probably irrelevant to the discussion.
My experience, whatever it is, is irrelevant to the discussion yes. Anyone's experience is. You can't have a rational discussion regarding if the Buddha taught there is an eternal awareness from "my experience is..." The texts are our common source of reference, not our experiences or those of monks whom we like.
Your main practice appears to be reading, thinking and forming mental images of what nibbana cannot be and what it therefore might be. I have highlighted why this is a wrong turn.
Thank you, but I doubt you are in a position to instruct me in the ways of Dhamma. Reading and learning about the Dhamma conceptually is important but of course, there is more to the Dhamma than that. Regardless, speculating on what my practice is like doesn't move the conversation forward one inch regarding the question of the Buddha teaching about an eternal awareness.
For you, 'experience doesn't end in nibbana' in your own words. You also agree that consciousness is experience. Yet you then say there isn't any form or type of transformed consciousness in nibbana.
If you can't see the contradictions I can't help you.
I said that we can't say there is an experience or not when it comes to nibbāna. Those concepts simply do not apply. The dhammas, which would include citta, also do not apply.
A nice but flawed attempt at tacking on a Nagarjuna exegesis to the end of a Pali sutta discourse by Sariputta.
What was the flaw in my argument? Ven. Sāriputta states that when it comes to nibbāna we can't say there is something or not something, because it is the end of conceptual proliferation (papañca). This is the northern parallel

The venerable Śāriputra said to the venerable Ānanda: “To ask ‘After the extinction of the six sense-spheres of contact, and the fading away of desire, after cessation, after ending, is there any remainder?’ that is meaningless talk.
“To ask ‘Is there no remainder?’ that is meaningless talk.

“To ask ‘Is there both remainder and no remainder?’ that is meaningless talk.

“To ask ‘Is there neither remainder nor no remainder?’ that is meaningless talk.

“But if one says that after the extinction of the six sense-spheres of contact, and the fading away of desire, after cessation, after ending, there is fading away of all meaningless argument and the attaining of nirvāṇa, then this is the teaching of the Buddha.”
https://suttacentral.net/sa249/en/choong

Such concepts just do not apply, because concepts are based on the 6 senses and these are absent in nibbāna. The highest truth then is the emptiness of the 6 sense bases, the emptiness of all concepts. There is merely Emptiness, Signless and Nothingness (the 3 aspects of nibbāna) which too are empty.
I have also seen translations by Bhikku Bodhi where he calls it 'complicating non-complication'
In his translation of the sutta Ven. Bodhi has "proliferates". His note cites the commentary (which Ven. Bodhi does not object too). There it agrees with what I said. To say there is something or not something in nibbāna is simply applying concepts to that which they do not apply. You therefore cannot say that something exists in nibbāna, such as your "protoconsciousness" thingy, nor can one say that there is nothing. None of those concepts apply.
More Nagarjuna Mahayana layered with a smug attitude to boot.
Luckily the Buddha taught 'in a binary way of thinking' throughout his life - the development of the path vs non-development.
Yes he did, because to awaken we need certain concepts. At the end though, even these must be given up. Everything the Buddha taught must too be let go off, when it is time.
The goal is what he said could not be conceptualized or categorized, which you are trying to do via deduction.
It can't be conceptualised, no. When one realises the highest truth, concepts no longer apply. Here you are though, applying the concepts of "protoconsciousness" and existence to nibbāna.
I agree it's not a 'thing'.
But it is some-thing isn't it, for you.
I am not really versed in the Upanishads or Advaita. But as I said there is certainly some overlap due to influence from Buddhism. The difference is how they conceived it. So any similarities can be looked at in context.
You can find the idea that Ātman is beyond nāmarūpa and sensory consciousness in the Upanisads which pre-date the Buddha.
In the Buddha dhamma there can be many births that occur within a single human 'bhava' for example. Both are inconstant yet arise within a beginingless stream of dependently arisen mind and formations.
Are you referring to the idea that "jati" in dependent origination means the birth of identity in each moment? If so I don't think that is what the Buddha taught at all.
Actually he did in several suttas. You can try to dispute the interpretations but they are there, some of them are presented at the beginning of this thread.
Saying that "my heart is liberated from the taints" does not mean there is an eternal awareness. Even if we go with "mind" instead of "heart" nothing in the Pāli let alone the English suggests that liberation here means existing eternally. Besides, regardless of if we choose "heart" or "mind" as an appropriate translation of citta the texts clearly state that it is impermanent.
“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ [citta] and ‘mentality’ [mano] and ‘consciousness’ [viññāṇa] —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/suj ... ript=latin

Here the Buddha clearly states that citta is just as impermanent as mano or viññāṇa, and that all 3 arises and fall rapidly. He further states that if an eternalist was to find something as the basis for a self, it would be better to take the body as a self rather than citta as the body lasts longer than citta does. Citta is therefore not an eternal protoconsciousness, and neither are mano or viññāṇa either. The ideas you put forward were those of ascetics whom the Buddha thought were the most deluded of all.
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm it would be better to take the body as a self rather than citta as the body lasts longer than citta does.
because the mind changes, it’s inconstant


people focus on self too much & ignore inconstancy
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:17 am
I agree whatever experience you have is probably irrelevant to the discussion.
My experience, whatever it is, is irrelevant to the discussion yes. Anyone's experience is. You can't have a rational discussion regarding if the Buddha taught there is an eternal awareness from "my experience is..." The texts are our common source of reference, not our experiences or those of monks whom we like.
This really says a lot about your perspective on the path.
Personal experience most certainly is relevant, but to the misguided path of 'textual analysis to Nibbana' someone might say that it isn't.
It's actually a bizaare statement and more confirmation you are merely an adherent of text-vada.

Try to understand this although it goes against your prevalent mentality; none of the sutta texts mean anything outside of relating to our experiences. This is what the dhamma is. Only by reference and comparison to each person's experience do any of the concepts actually mean anything.

For you to say that 'personal experiences are irrelevent, what matters is what's in the suttas' is essentially missing the entire point of the Buddha's teachings.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:17 am
Your main practice appears to be reading, thinking and forming mental images of what nibbana cannot be and what it therefore might be. I have highlighted why this is a wrong turn.
Thank you, but I doubt you are in a position to instruct me in the ways of Dhamma.
It's not a complement.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Such concepts just do not apply, because concepts are based on the 6 senses and these are absent in nibbāna. The highest truth then is the emptiness of the 6 sense bases, the emptiness of all concepts. There is merely Emptiness, Signless and Nothingness (the 3 aspects of nibbāna) which too are empty.
You are not in any position to make statements about 'the highest truth' and nor do you have any genuine idea about what any of these words actually mean.

The liberated infinite protoconscious field is indeed free of disturbance (empty) and signless (no sensory cognizance can impinge). It does not partake of further becoming. This is much closer to the meaning.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:17 am

The goal is what he said could not be conceptualized or categorized, which you are trying to do via deduction.
It can't be conceptualised, no. When one realises the highest truth, concepts no longer apply. Here you are though, applying the concepts of "protoconsciousness" and existence to nibbāna.
I merely piece together what the Buddha said and experience - both my own and that of realized meditation masters such as of the Thai Forrest Tradition.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:17 am I am not really versed in the Upanishads or Advaita. But as I said there is certainly some overlap due to influence from Buddhism. The difference is how they conceived it. So any similarities can be looked at in context.
You can find the idea that Ātman is beyond nāmarūpa and sensory consciousness in the Upanisads which pre-date the Buddha.
The Upanishads may be post Buddha. I can look into them a bit more I suppose, since so much of your argument seems to rest on what the Upanishads say.

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Are you referring to the idea that "jati" in dependent origination means the birth of identity in each moment? If so I don't think that is what the Buddha taught at all.
No, I am referring to the fact that several human births/lives can occcur within a single human bhava

This is a different topic though and may be worthy of another thread if there is confusion about it.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Saying that "my heart is liberated from the taints" does not mean there is an eternal awareness. Even if we go with "mind" instead of "heart" nothing in the Pāli let alone the English suggests that liberation here means existing eternally. Besides, regardless of if we choose "heart" or "mind" as an appropriate translation of citta the texts clearly state that it is impermanent.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm
[The Buddha]“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ [citta] and ‘mentality’ [mano] and ‘consciousness’ [viññāṇa] —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/suj ... ript=latin

Here the Buddha clearly states that citta is just as impermanent as mano or viññāṇa, and that all 3 arises and fall rapidly. He further states that if an eternalist was to find something as the basis for a self, it would be better to take the body as a self rather than citta as the body lasts longer than citta does. Citta is therefore not an eternal protoconsciousness, and neither are mano or viññāṇa either. The ideas you put forward were those of ascetics whom the Buddha thought were the most deluded of all.
Here you demonstrate the fallacy of your arguments. You are trying to equate the briefest instances of cognizance (the sensory vinnana or cittas that arise and cease) with the unending witnessing faculty (the protoconsciousness/consciousness without feature).

It's easy to see from this example the Buddha is referring to sensory cognizance, since he says it arises as one thing and as ceases as another. Unlike yourself, many realize that the purpose of the Buddha's words is to reference with ones experience to come to genuine understanding.

You seem to think it's about playing word games and forming conceptual images to compare which is why you don't 'get it'. For you meditating itself will likely never be important regardless of what you claim, since you think you already 'get it' by conceptualizing, but it is merely papanca and misunderstanding.

To give a tangible example - yes people are accustomed to considering all their experiences as part of self - what they see, hear, taste etc. Yet these things are the most impermanent and transitory, constantly changing. If you look somewhere visual consciousness arises, if you blink it is gone then open your eyes and another visual consciousness arises. It is this the Buddha is referring to when he compares it to the body.

For you to consider these brief instances of sensory consciousness all together and the same with the background awareness that witnesses, is misrepreseing his teaching and simply delusional.

In light of the Bahuna sutta it is even more ridiculous, since the Tathagata 'dwells with limitless awareness freed and independent from form....freed and independent from (sense base) cognizance'.
So was the Buddha deluded?

The witnessing faculty of knowing - 'the one who knows' as Ajahn Chah puts it - does not arise and cease when one blinks - it is constantly in the background. It doesn't arise and cease with a sound is heard , or when a touch contact is experienced and passes - knowing remains in the background. It doesn't arise and cease with sensory cognizance including with thinking cognizance.

You seem be trying work out the Buddha's teaching in reference to 'the oppossite of what you think is Advaita' - a strange approach to be sure.

When the Buddha says my heart/mind is liberated from the taints it is a clear indication- aligned with numerous other passages in the Canon and with the Bahuna sutta - that there is a distinction between the core 'witnessing faculty' which is liberated and all the sensory consciousness that arise and cease and all the preoccupations of mind and tendencies to becoming.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi C&E
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:20 am
It seems also you have been hiding for some time that you adhere to Nagarjuna.
Either way, saying "Nibbana is Samsara" is totally wrong and not aligned with Pali Buddhism or what the Buddha taught.
Nagarjuna doesn't really say that. His argument is much more subtle and interesting. See, for example.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ni ... ra/15674/9

:heart:
Mike
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by asahi »

Nagarjuna Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

All phenomenas or dhamma are :

(八不中道,Eight Negations of Middle Path)

不生、不滅、Non arising Non cessation
不斷、不常、Non annihilation Non eternal
不一、不異、Non singleness Non difference
不去、不來、Non going Non coming

The teachings is to break through our thinking mode where we cling to fixed view .
No bashing No gossiping
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:13 am Hi C&E
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:20 am
It seems also you have been hiding for some time that you adhere to Nagarjuna.
Either way, saying "Nibbana is Samsara" is totally wrong and not aligned with Pali Buddhism or what the Buddha taught.
Nagarjuna doesn't really say that. His argument is much more subtle and interesting. See, for example.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ni ... ra/15674/9

:heart:
Mike
Thanks, that was actually insightful and I think that's all I need to know from Nagarjuna. It's great that one of his main endeavours was to disprove the method and approach of abhidhamma. It seems however that some fall into the very trap when reading him that he was trying to disprove and free people from, and use his method as one of logical deduction of the dhamma rather than what it seems to me from that brief excerpt - that his methods are essentially about exposing the limits of logical inference and leading one back to the experiential method that is the heart of the Buddha's path.

I like this passage in particular that Sujato describes regarding his work:
"The term vikalpyate has a connotation of discriminative, limited thinking. He is posing apparent paradoxes to force the mind into accepting the limits of rational knowledge and open up to a different way of seeing. The methods of discrimination, i.e. the methods of the Abhidharma, are inadequate for understanding the central profundities of the Buddha’s teaching. In other words, he is echoing the Buddha’s saying that nirvana is difficult, hard to see, beyond the scope of reason (atakkāvacara)".
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Ceisiwr »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:17 am
This really says a lot about your perspective on the path.
Personal experience most certainly is relevant, but to the misguided path of 'textual analysis to Nibbana' someone might say that it isn't.
It's actually a bizaare statement and more confirmation you are merely an adherent of text-vada.

Try to understand this although it goes against your prevalent mentality; none of the sutta texts mean anything outside of relating to our experiences. This is what the dhamma is. Only by reference and comparison to each person's experience do any of the concepts actually mean anything.

For you to say that 'personal experiences are irrelevent, what matters is what's in the suttas' is essentially missing the entire point of the Buddha's teachings.
I never said that personal experience isn't relevant to the path. I said that personal experience isn't relevant to the discussion, as in we can't really have a rational discussion about these things via appeals to experience or x monk or nun's authority. If you said to me I am wrong because you have direct experience of a protoconsciousness thing I can only :shrug: because it really adds nothing to the discussion. It would be like me saying you are wrong because I have experienced x. You, or whatever monk or nun, might have experienced x, y or z. I might have experienced x, y or z which is different to your x, y or z but having experienced either x, y or z doesn't tell us if x, y or z is what the Buddha taught. Our only common reference are the suttas (or parallels if you acknowledge them too). I'm not saying that reading texts is 100% of the path. I'm saying to have a rational discussion about what is or isn't the path we have to refer to the texts.
It's not a complement.
I didn't take it as a compliment. I took it as a concern for my well-being. Was I wrong there?
You are not in any position to make statements about 'the highest truth' and nor do you have any genuine idea about what any of these words actually mean.

The liberated infinite protoconscious field is indeed free of disturbance (empty) and signless (no sensory cognizance can impinge). It does not partake of further becoming. This is much closer to the meaning.
If we are to take the view that we can only discuss things of which we have direct experience, then very few people here would discuss anything about the Dhamma at all. I think though we can be safe in taking up another view, namely that we are allowed to discuss aspects of the Dhamma that we have not yet directly experienced in order to better understand the direction the Buddha wanted us to head in. People here then do not have to have directly experienced Jhāna, as an example, to engage in discussion regarding what it is or is not. The same with other aspects of the path, including nibbāna. I do not know nibbāna, but I can still discuss it and I can still understand conceptually what it is not. Am I to gather, however, from your post here that you do know nibbāna? You say I am not in a position to discuss it, because of a lack of experience (I take this from your claim that I do not know what the words actually mean) yet you the proceed to tell me what the real meaning is. The implication here is that you believe that you yourself know what nibbāna is, which is why you can make a statement about it. Are you claiming some level of awakening here? If not it seems then we can discuss things of which we have no current direct experience of, no?
I merely piece together what the Buddha said and experience - both my own and that of realized meditation masters such as of the Thai Forrest Tradition.
If concepts such as existence or consciousness do not apply how then can you equate nibbāna with those concepts, apart from it's because what some TFT monks say?
The Upanishads may be post Buddha. I can look into them a bit more I suppose, since so much of your argument seems to rest on what the Upanishads say.
The dating of the Upanishads is tricky, but Patrick Olivelle gives us a nice outline of the chronology
In spite of claims made by some, in reality, any dating of these documents that attempts a precision closer than a few centuries is as stable as a house of cards. The scholarly consensus, well founded I think, is that the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanisads. We have seen, however, that they are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts as we have them are, in all likelihood, pre-Buddhist; placing them in the seventh to sixth centuries BCE may be reasonable, give or take a century or so. The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki—come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the sixth to fifth centuries BCE.

The Kena is the oldest of the verse Upanisads and contains many of the themes, such as the search for the one god who is both the creator and the agent of liberation for humans, that recur in the four subsequent verse Upanisads. Of these, the oldest is probably the Katha, followed by Isa, Svetasvatara, and Mundaka. All exhibit strong theistic tendencies and are probably the earliest literary products of the theistic tradition, whose later literature includes the Bhagavad Gita and the Puranas. All these Upanisads were composed probably in the last few centuries BCE. Finally, we have the two late prose Upanisads, the Prasna and the Mandukya, which cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era.
The Early Upanisads
No, I am referring to the fact that several human births/lives can occcur within a single human bhava

This is a different topic though and may be worthy of another thread if there is confusion about it.
I don't know what you mean then. Bhava is coming into existence in one of the 3 realms, whilst birth is literally birth through the vaginal canal or via appearance (if a god etc), but yes this is probably better suited for a new topic.
Here you demonstrate the fallacy of your arguments.
Which logical fallacy am I guilty of here?
You are trying to equate the briefest instances of cognizance (the sensory vinnana or cittas that arise and cease) with the unending witnessing faculty (the protoconsciousness/consciousness without feature).

It's easy to see from this example the Buddha is referring to sensory cognizance, since he says it arises as one thing and as ceases as another. Unlike yourself, many realize that the purpose of the Buddha's words is to reference with ones experience to come to genuine understanding.
I agree that citta is involved with sense perception. This is the sense that the Buddha used the word. I also agree that we are to look at our own experience. I agree with the Buddha that my mind and it's aspects rise and fall rapidly. You have been arguing that citta is a permanent awareness, but the texts show that for the Buddha citta was thought of as an impermanent aspect of what we call the mind.
You seem to think it's about playing word games and forming conceptual images to compare which is why you don't 'get it'. For you meditating itself will likely never be important regardless of what you claim, since you think you already 'get it' by conceptualizing, but it is merely papanca and misunderstanding.
This is another wrong an unsubstantiated assumption on your part.
To give a tangible example - yes people are accustomed to considering all their experiences as part of self - what they see, hear, taste etc. Yet these things are the most impermanent and transitory, constantly changing. If you look somewhere visual consciousness arises, if you blink it is gone then open your eyes and another visual consciousness arises. It is this the Buddha is referring to when he compares it to the body.

For you to consider these brief instances of sensory consciousness all together and the same with the background awareness that witnesses, is misrepreseing his teaching and simply delusional.
I agree with the first paragraph. You have been arguing that citta is a permanent awareness. This sutta says that it rises and falls. Now you are arguing that there are actually two cittas. One is impermanent, the other permanent. Now in the texts whenever the Buddha talks about citta or viññāṇa it is always in the sense of dependency. Where then are you getting this 2nd eternal citta from? You discuss a liberated citta, but nothing in those words specifically mean it is therefore eternal. Seems to me you leaping to conclusions here, possibly reading what you want into that sentence. The citta is liberated, yes, but what does liberated actually mean? Where does the Buddha say that liberated means "exists forever", which is an especially difficult reading since "exists forever" can't be applied to nibbāna (which itself is never equated with citta or viññāṇa)? Why does "liberated" mean "eternally existing"?
In light of the Bahuna sutta it is even more ridiculous, since the Tathagata 'dwells with limitless awareness freed and independent from form....freed and independent from (sense base) cognizance'.
So was the Buddha deluded?
No, but as I said above the sentence "Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with limitless awareness." in itself doesn't say anything about a permanent citta that exists forever. It merely says that the Buddha is free from those things, and so his citta is without limits. You have a lot more arguments to put forward to get from that to a permanent citta. The Buddha's citta is without limits, but why does that mean it is an eternally existing awareness? A simpler reading, to me, would be that his mind is no longer clinging. By not clinging, he is freed from the defilements and future birth, death etc. You have also added "independent" in your translation above. Where in the Pāli are you getting that from?

“Dasahi kho, vāhana, dhammehi tathāgato nissaṭo visaṁyutto vippamutto vimariyādīkatena cetasā viharati."
The witnessing faculty of knowing - 'the one who knows' as Ajahn Chah puts it - does not arise and cease when one blinks - it is constantly in the background. It doesn't arise and cease with a sound is heard , or when a touch contact is experienced and passes - knowing remains in the background. It doesn't arise and cease with sensory cognizance including with thinking cognizance.
That is your claim, yes, but as of yet you haven't demonstrated that this was a concept that the Buddha taught. Ajahn Chah did make use of this concept, true. How eternal or not he viewed it is a matter of debate. He certainly seems to have thought of it as something that is present in deep sleep. The later Upanishads (later I think from memory) discuss the eternal awareness as being that which is present during deep sleep. Interestingly, the Buddha himself never discusses the consciousness of those who are asleep. Whenever he does discuss awareness, it's always in the sense of someone who is awake.
You seem be trying work out the Buddha's teaching in reference to 'the oppossite of what you think is Advaita' - a strange approach to be sure.
Not at all. I learnt Dhamma long before I really understood Advaita Vedanta. The idea though that Ādi Śaṅkarācāryaḥ or Gauḍapāda were both teaching the same thing as the Buddha when it came to consciousness doesn't have much evidence to support it. Your protoconsciousness is essentially their Ātman/Brahman. The ever existing witness, that exists even in deep sleep.
When the Buddha says my heart/mind is liberated from the taints it is a clear indication- aligned with numerous other passages in the Canon and with the Bahuna sutta - that there is a distinction between the core 'witnessing faculty' which is liberated and all the sensory consciousness that arise and cease and all the preoccupations of mind and tendencies to becoming.
Or it simply means he no longer has any greed, hatred or delusion left within him. That interpretation doesn't run into enormous difficulties when we are subsequently told that terms like existence do not apply to nibbāna. Your interpretation does face those difficulties, and so far you have no shown how that issue can be resolved.
“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.”
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Ontheway »

What Cause_And_Effect wrote is kinda confusing...

First you wrote
The liberated infinite protoconscious field is indeed free of disturbance (empty) and signless (no sensory cognizance can impinge). It does not partake of further becoming. This is much closer to the meaning.
Then you wrote
Here you demonstrate the fallacy of your arguments. You are trying to equate the briefest instances of cognizance (the sensory vinnana or cittas that arise and cease) with the unending witnessing faculty (the protoconsciousness/consciousness without feature).


Do we have two sets of consciousnesses here? And what is that "protoconsciousness"? I never come across this phrase in any Theravada Dhamma books... :shrug:

Any reference from Pāli Tipitaka for this "protoconsciousness"?
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by cappuccino »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:17 am Here you demonstrate the fallacy of your arguments. You are trying to equate the briefest instances of cognizance (the sensory vinnana or cittas that arise and cease) with the unending witnessing faculty (the … consciousness without feature).
:goodpost:
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:06 pm
I never said that personal experience isn't relevant to the path. I said that personal experience isn't relevant to the discussion, as in we can't really have a rational discussion about these things via appeals to experience or x monk or nun's authority. If you said to me I am wrong because you have direct experience of a protoconsciousness thing I can only :shrug: because it really adds nothing to the discussion. It would be like me saying you are wrong because I have experienced x. You, or whatever monk or nun, might have experienced x, y or z. I might have experienced x, y or z which is different to your x, y or z but having experienced either x, y or z doesn't tell us if x, y or z is what the Buddha taught. Our only common reference are the suttas (or parallels if you acknowledge them too). I'm not saying that reading texts is 100% of the path. I'm saying to have a rational discussion about what is or isn't the path we have to refer to the texts.
I still don't think you are quite getting the point here. Words and concepts that we read about in the texts will be interpreted differently by different people depending on their experiences. The concepts will even be interpreted differently by the same person as their practice and experiences progress.
So there is no such thing as saying 'it doesn't matter about individual people or monks experiences, it's about the texts'. It is only through personal experiences and those of highly regarded monks that we can truly understand what those words and concepts in the canon actually mean.

Often the Canon provides only a brief schematic or idea that needs to be fleshed out through lived experience to become really known. This is what stops it being mere intellection which is shallow and often off track.

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:06 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:17 am In light of the Bahuna sutta it is even more ridiculous, since the Tathagata 'dwells with limitless awareness freed and independent from form....freed and independent from (sense base) cognizance'.
So was the Buddha deluded?
No, but as I said above the sentence "Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with limitless awareness." in itself doesn't say anything about a permanent citta that exists forever. It merely says that the Buddha is free from those things, and so his citta is without limits. You have a lot more arguments to put forward to get from that to a permanent citta. The Buddha's citta is without limits, but why does that mean it is an eternally existing awareness? A simpler reading, to me, would be that his mind is no longer clinging. By not clinging, he is freed from the defilements and future birth, death etc.
Can you explain how the limitless awareness of the Buddha described here 'arises' when it is stated to be 'released and dissociated from the five aggregates'?
He is saying this awareness is not a dependently arisen phenomenon, unlike the consciousness associated with the aggregates and sense bases.

Ontheway wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:26 pm What Cause_And_Effect wrote is kinda confusing...

First you wrote
The liberated infinite protoconscious field is indeed free of disturbance (empty) and signless (no sensory cognizance can impinge). It does not partake of further becoming. This is much closer to the meaning.
Then you wrote
Here you demonstrate the fallacy of your arguments. You are trying to equate the briefest instances of cognizance (the sensory vinnana or cittas that arise and cease) with the unending witnessing faculty (the protoconsciousness/consciousness without feature).


Do we have two sets of consciousnesses here? And what is that "protoconsciousness"? I never come across this phrase in any Theravada Dhamma books... :shrug:

Any reference from Pāli Tipitaka for this "protoconsciousness"?

From the Canon


"Consciousness unmanifest,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long and short
coarse and fine
fair and foul
name and form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"


DN 11
So there is clear separation between the inconstant arising and ceasing cognizance associated with the 5 aggregates and 6 sense bases, and the underlying 'unmanifest consciousness' which is liberated.
This is also what I see described in the Bahuna sutta when the Buddha dwells in awareness freed from the aggregates and freed from death.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Ontheway »

From the Canon

So there is clear separation between the inconstant arising and ceasing cognizance associated with the 5 aggregates and 6 sense bases, and the underlying 'unmanifest consciousness' which is liberated.
This is also what I see described in the Bahuna sutta when the Buddha dwells awareness freed from the aggregates and freed from death.

Aren't that kriyacitta in bahuna sutta's context......

Btw, I searched about it on Google, Protoconsciousness was explained as such:
Protoconsciousness theory posits “A primordial state of brain organization that is a building block for consciousness” (Hobson 2009). ... Hobson posits further that protoconsciousness then continues throughout life, especially during REM sleep dreaming, functioning in support of waking consciousness.
I think this is very similar to Bhavanga Citta. Except that Bhavanga Citta arises and ceases from moment to moment.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Joe.c
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Bahuna Sutta: Limitless awareness dissociated from the consciousness aggregate is the cessation of suffering

Post by Joe.c »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:16 am I still don't think you are quite getting the point here. Words and concepts that we read about in the texts will be interpreted differently by different people depending on their experiences. The concepts will even be interpreted differently by the same person as their practice and experiences progress.
So there is no such thing as saying 'it doesn't matter about individual people or monks experiences, it's about the texts'. It is only through personal experiences and those of highly regarded monks that we can truly understand what those words and concepts in the canon actually mean.

Often the Canon provides only a brief schematic or idea that needs to be fleshed out through lived experience to become really known. This is what stops it being mere intellection which is shallow and often off track.
This statement is very accurate. Personal direct life experience is the most important thing, so one can relate direct practice experience to the Canon. Not to the commentaries of intellect or logic or idea from someone just contemplate only.

To have a Right View means you understand that your experience is matching with other nobles/Buddha experience as described in Canon. The higher the training you took, the higher your wisdom will have.

This is why teaching of Buddha is Beautiful in the beginning, middle and end. Your confidence of triple gems (Buddha, Dhamma and Ariya Sangha) can only grow if your personal experience is matching with their experience or Canon.

See DN9:
‘When you practice accordingly, corrupting qualities will be given up in you and cleansing qualities will grow. You’ll enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with your own insight in this very life.’

Poṭṭhapāda, you might think:

‘Corrupting qualities will be given up and cleansing qualities will grow. One will enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with one’s own insight in this very life. But such a life is suffering.’

But you should not see it like this.

Corrupting qualities will be given up and cleansing qualities will grow. One will enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with one’s own insight in this very life. And there will be only joy and happiness, tranquility, mindfulness and awareness. Such a life is blissful.
Hence it is important to seek a Good Person (Ariya) with higher wisdom, so your practice can accelerate faster. But make sure you also practice per Canon or their instruction. Otherwise, it is not very beneficial for your life.
May you be relax, happy, comfortable and free of dukkhas from hearing true dhamma.
May you gain unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma and (Ariya) Sangha.
Learn about Buddha/Dhamma Characters.
Post Reply