Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:34 am The Vimuttimagga is following the Vibangha here, where different types of dependent origination are given. I believe the mind only process is one that lacks form, if I’m remembering correctly. It is probably trying to account for beings in the formless realms.
The example given by the Vimuttimagga is explicitly 'seeing a form with the eye', so at least the author of the Vimuttimagga didn't interpret it as referring to the formless realms.
Thinking about it I think the Vibangha does something similar. Rupa in the nama-rupa part is still missing there though.
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:39 am
This is it
2. Analysis According to Abhidhamma
1. Causal Tetrad
Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind; because of mind there is the sixth base; because of the sixth base there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (1)
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/thittila
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by mjaviem »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:50 am If there's no metaphor and it has to do with perception, if it's normal sañña according to how the Buddha defined it, an eyeless Arhat would be blind. The Buddha would have been similarly blind. Because you think "the eye" is a metaphor, despite your denials, you can say that Arhats have no eyes. If you don't think "the eye" is a metaphor, "Arhats have no eyes" is a meaningless statement, since they do have eyes and vision.
...
The eyes truly cease as the cart truly cease for someone who sees correctly. He's eyeless because the eyes you see and assign as belonging to the Buddha are not appropriated by him and are seen correctly. You are talking about form while I'm talking about conceiving. Everything in DO ceases and this is not a metaphor, this is the real experience of seeing the Truth, i. e. no experience, or no experience as we know it

IMO
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Jack19990101 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 2:45 am
Arahants do have contact or sense consciousness - otherwise they won't need glasses or alike. The thing is that the activities they carry out, is not under spell of dependent origination. They do have feelings too but it is not accurate to consider all feelings are under avijja's spell.
All feelings would have ignorance as a prior condition.
“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.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:58 am All feelings would have ignorance as a prior condition.
Again, the English translation here, viewtopic.php?p=655515#p655515 , is very misleading.

The grammatically proper translation is here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41905

"Condition" (might it be pointlessly necessary or sufficient) , (or "cause" - might it be pointlessly impracticable timewise) , are just empty talks — that you seem to defend to the limit of absurdness - despite the evidence of a proper grammar, and a proper meaning.

There is just a correlation between ignorance and feeling.
(As explained here in the case of phassa (contact/transference)).
viewtopic.php?p=655507#p655507
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by nirodh27 »

I almost missed this, I think it is better to respond here since I've seen that the same argument reappeared here in almost the same terms.
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:29 pm I would read that in terms of final Nibbana. I believe the commentaries also do. A sage at peace isn’t reborn, so how can he suffer and die again is a more natural reading IMO.
A sage at peace is NOT BORN (not "it will not be reborn", not "it will not be born again"), so how could (aka: he can't, he will not) die. The sage at peace is one of the oldest names for the quenched by releasing all acquisitions, so it is probably a very old statement that we find in the MN, the appellative is usually find in the octads and in the way beyond that are considered an aggregate of some of the oldest Buddhist saying that we have.

Yes we have the Buddha and many followers in a stock phrase that says "The holy life has been lived, this is my last birth". Seems exaclty what it seems, a stock phrase used when the early sayings were composed in the oral Nikayas that we have and that can be read in both ways, in a tension that is everywhere in the suttas for one that can look at it in both ways and we have people like Buddhadhasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho (which I think is the best on this issue because he really represents the attitude of the muni in my opinion), Ajahn Amaro and many others that reads it in only-psychological/behavioural or in both ways.

This tension could have been easily avoided by the Buddha. The Buddha could have sorted out the issue by saying "this will be my last death" btw, since in your view, the Buddha will experience death, a thing directly opposed by MN140. "You will die for the last time". But the Arahant doesn't really die and we don't know about them after death, right? Why? Because of something we will understand when we will be arahants or "simply" because there will not be a psychological death for him by not acquisition?
I tend to think that the earliest interpretation is the here-and-now / no mental birth
The Buddha spoke in ways his audience would understand. Would most people back then have a psychological idea of birth, or a more common one? The same with death, sickness and ageing?
I've written that treats birth and death simply as an here-and-now acquisition problem, this is a brilliant solution of the Buddha for a problem that was put in various different terms when pressed to give his opinion, maybe while he was wandering around as a muni. It is good to note that I haven't found a single citation of illness, the earliest texts all are interested in old-age and death in the way that we will see now.

This is how the problem usually unfolds, there are two sides: those who crave for existence (usually future, so rebirth) and those who crave for not-existence: the problem tackled is not future existence or future not-existence per se (that seems to me the goal of classic Theravada, not having experience again), but with a change of perspective the craving for new (good) existence, craving for non-existence (that was also present in his time as we know, the jains), hope for new existence. For example here we have a person that is interested about sacrifices and have a rebirth view:
“Whatever hermits and men,” replied the Buddha, “aristocrats and brahmins here in the world have performed so many different sacrifices to the gods: all performed sacrifices bound to old age, hoping for some state of existence.”
The Buddha responds in the terms of the questioner, telling that they (of course) have not crossed over birth and old-age. And then the questioner asks.
“If, dear sir, those intent on sacrifice,” (said the Venerable Puṇṇaka), “by their sacrifices did not cross over birth and old age, then who here in the world of devas and humans has crossed over birth and old age, dear sir? I ask you, Blessed One: please declare this for me.”
“Having comprehended the far and near in the world, one without agitation anywhere in the world, peaceful, fumeless, untroubled, wishless, has crossed over birth and old age, I say.”
First, let me note that the Buddha here use "world" in an unusual way. So we have the Buddha uses words in different ways from the usual. And that in Mysticism of religions is the standard is to use words that have a strong impact to redefine it by changing the perspective (like "heaven" that is used for here-and-now (love) in catholic mysticism and as an actual place in catholicism doctrine, without using a word so full of meaning you will never got the interest of the listeners: if you speak about the deathless for example you will bring people of any kind to listen you and then you can introduce your actual point of view). It is the same for when we use "The Buddha": we should always say "What this suttas report being the word of the Buddha but historically who really knows!", but that will not gain the same impact on people or even ourselves.

But let's stay on the main argument: The Buddha :tongue: responds to this questions by pointing out that hopes, yearnings are agitations, hope is fear, hope is Dukkha. The Buddha makes a change of focus from the grand scheme of things of the sacrifices (that is a view, and the Buddha doesn't enter in quarrels and disputes in those texts) to a psychological solution of the same problem that is visible here-and-now and not based on tradition, the solution is being at peace, non-acquisition. Of all the questions the solution will always be the same, non-clinging, non-delight, non-acquisition, not-taking something as "mine", having nothign dear or beloved. Since the problem is not future existence, but craving for future existence that is agitation, is not peaceful, is driven by the fear of death that appears usually in old-age, the solution of the problem is a psychological one about the value of your craving/acquisition for your well-being now and in the future.

You think the problem is the actual old-age and death that gets repeated forever, the Buddha teaches you that the problem is your attitude towards those views and the desires that you invent around this "me" that is touched by the prospect of death in old-age. For existence, you want a better birth, for non-existence, you want no rebirth. To give up the acquisitions of the five aggregates, equanimity is reached to a point that nothing can disturb you peace now. Detachment. Non-appropriation. Also for loved ones, the solution is a psychological (= a solution about mind and behaviour).

We will see that the muni is invisible to death (a poetic way that means that death will not touch him).
“Look upon the world as empty, Mogharājā, ever mindful. Having uprooted the view of self, you may thus cross over death. That’s how to look upon the world so the King of Death won’t see you.
When you uproot a view, at that point you have crossed over death. At that moment. This is very hard not to read this as an acquisition thing, a psychological movement that frees you of hopes, that give you indifference for whatever happens here and in the future.
“In whom sensual pleasures do not dwell,” replied the Buddha, “and for whom there is no craving, and who has crossed over doubts—their liberation is none other than this.

They are free of hope, they are not in need of hope. They possess wisdom, they are not still forming wisdom. That, Todeyya, is how to understand a sage, one who has nothing, unattached to sensual life.”
Everything here is mental, is about behaviour, peace is here and now. They don't need hope of non-existence too.
“I shall extol that peace for you,” replied the Buddha, “that is apparent in the present, not relying on tradition. Having understood it, one who lives mindfully may cross over clinging in the world* (tare loke visattikaṁ”.).”

“Once you have understood that everything,” replied the Buddha, “you are aware of in the world—above, below, all round, between—is a snare, don’t crave for life after life (Bhavābhavāya mākāsi taṇhan”ti.).”
As you can see. This is not presented as a problem to terminate existence, but as a problem of craving, and craving is agitation, is uncertainty, is not peaceful here-and-now. It is better not to crave for life after life because you will have true peace.
“Experts do not speak of a sage in terms of view, oral transmission, or notion. Those who are sages live far from the crowd, I say, untroubled, with no need for hope.”
“I don’t say that all ascetics and brahmins,” replied the Buddha, “are shrouded by birth (jati) and old age. There are those here who have given up all that is seen, heard, and thought, and precepts and vows, who have given up all the countless different things. Fully understanding craving, free of defilements, those people, I say, have crossed the flood.”
And this is the crux of the problem that I see in your view, and I would see this problem even if they would resurrect the Buddha in some way and to tell me "Ceisiwr is 100% right" by his own words. A truly detached muni, a sage at peace would be detached from everything, from craving, from hope to existence and not-existence. Total equanimity, indifference. An Arahant, correct me if I'm wrong, in your view (and I would be interest also in what Coëmgenu thinks about this) will have a sort of superhuman knowledge at the moment of realization that assures him beyond any conceivable doubt now (because else is simply a view, and that would be an agitation, unless if an Arahant would be ok of being "rebirthed") that he (or "he" if you want) will not be reborn in the future. Since the sabbe is the six senses what will perceive would be a vision, a thought, a knowledge, a "just-knowing", a "gut-feeling" that is inside this six senses. How that would be different from a jesus believer that is assured by a vision, a "just knowing", a profound gut-feeling that he will go forever in paradise after death? If we go out of this field, it is something totally beyond our human comprehension, a method of knowning unknown to humanity. If you take this route, of course we simply have to detach and hope that in fourth jhana something incredible will happen. A thing that assures you now about a future event after death. Else, agitation, uncertainty, Dukkha. (This is indipendent from rebirth being true or not).

So we have to figure out what the Buddha meant by looking at all possible interpretation and then choose where to give prominence. But to say "only this is true" is really to miss the tension that is everywhere in the suttas. The fact that the twelve link nidanas, a thing that I think is very late, is so easy to read also on psychological terms is the ultimate testimony of this tension of those two different views that are there since the early days of Buddhism. I think that one option is better because I think is the most prominent in the early days, it has survived very well in the Nikayas, it has the testimony of people I admire like Chah, Sumedho and Amaro and I have seen it worked in myself in ways that I could never thought possible, especially about matters about death (my prospect to and loved ones). I truly hope the same (or better) is for you with your undestanding (now or in the future).
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by waryoffolly »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:08 am This is it
2. Analysis According to Abhidhamma
1. Causal Tetrad
Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind; because of mind there is the sixth base; because of the sixth base there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (1)
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/thittila
Interesting. I’m not sure how to interpret that. It looks like in the abhidhamma analysis contact is always said to only be dependent on the mind base? Did I miss an example with contact dependent on all six sense bases?

Even in the examples of dependent arising listed that do included nama-rupa and the six sense bases (which means we can’t just explain all of the examples as the formless, only some of them allow that interpretation) it is said that contact depends solely on the mind base it looks like-maybe since contact is a mental phenomena the vibhanga decided to say it depends on the mind sense base? How bizarre if so..
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by SDC »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:49 pm
SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 amIf you want to talk about it from the POV of the "meeting of the three"...I don't read it as a description of those three things first being separate and then coming together, and that motion of coming together is called contact. Not at all how I read it.
Why does the Buddha use the term "phassa" then, commonly translated as contact, if three things that were not together do not come together? Otherwise, why does the Buddha use the term "phassa" when things already touching or already together stay together? What new information does calling it a "phassa" communicate when they have always touched and will always touch? Certainly, the element of vijnana, for instance, that participates in the threefold contact has no directionality to it. Despite the creativity of Buddhist commentators, the name and the consciousness can't actually "bend" toward the object. That is a metaphor (indeed, it must be, unless we want to argue that the mind is made of airy particles as some Buddhists have!). It can't proceed in "motion" "towards" the other three. Similarly, the sense bases are stationary with the exception of the moveable body and the rotatable eye, so the "motion" is metaphorical. The only thing that could conceivably be in actual motion are the particles of light entering the eye, the scented molecules drifting through the air, or the sound waves transmitted via that air, and in the case of these, it's not clear that people in the time of the Buddha were aware that wave/particles of photons had to enter an aperture in the eye and literally "strike" nerves to generate a picture. It's also not clear at all if there was a modern understanding of how sound was transmitted via waves in the air. If we go down that route, "scientifying the Buddha" I think it will be very bad for the Buddha's Iron Age context. I mean, that's how we end up with an obviously Iron Age cosmos, "The land floats in water, the water stands in the air, the air is suspected in space," and people suggest that this is actually a modern globe/planet-based cosmology. So I would agree that any "motion" to be spoken of in phassa is metaphorical. But is the phassa itself metaphorical? If the three do not actually "touch," if they don't "meet" in any way, having not been touching/met before, on what grounds was it called "phassa" in the first place? If they've always touched and remain touching, what does "phassa" distinctly communicate?
SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 amThey are already together, and when they are meeting the togetherness of those three things is contact for experience rooted in ignorance. (The ownership is already previously established though. "I am" is already there in the eye, ear...mind. So sights, sounds...thoughts are - by default - in contact with me. Is it a fourth thing? Sure. That is what DO is about. That mass of suffering - how it is layered. The five clinging aggregates. Self.)

As I said, that point of convergence remains for the arahant, there is still that meeting, but - as you've indicated - it takes a hit when self-view is surmounted and is completely abandoned when conceit is destroyed.
I think that there might be some mixed messaging here, but I invite you to correct me where I find it. Above, you say that you reject the notion of contact as based on "three things first being separate and then coming together." You further say, "Not at all how I read it." Then, here, you admit for "that point of convergence." "Convergence" is when multiple disparate things that were formerly separate come together, no?

SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:26 pm So what then is the difference between the absence of the top of the tree and the cessation of the tree's top as far as this metaphor goes? The metaphor is "like cutting off the top of a palm tree" that you are thinking of, no? How does this relate to the difference being drawn between "absent" and "ceased?"
Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:26 pm We can still recollect things that are absent. For instance, maybe a relative of yours is absent from the room, has "ceased" being in the room, but you can still recall him, no? In what sense do you mean "unavailable for recollection?"
That is not the absence I am referring to. If our parent dies, we can still recollect them. They aren't absent if they are recollected. They can be present in the experience even if they are dead. I think you agree with this. For a thing to be truly absent it has to be forgotten to whatever degree, either completely or at a given point (not recollected), but that is not what cessation is - cessation is when a thing can no longer grow, but that doesn't mean that an arahant cannot recollect what growth used to mean. So yes, further growth is absent but the fact that things used to grow can be known. That knowledge is bliss. The presence of that absence, emptiness. The knowledge that growth is now impossible.
Earlier, when I quoted the peyyala from Ven Dhammanando's post...
Rāgassa, bhikkhave, nirodhāya satta dhammā bhāvetabbā.
For the cessation of attachment, bhikkhus, seven dhammas must be developed.
...I asked you if you thought that this soteriological statement was pointing "to a state where there is cessation but not absence of greed/attachment?" With the understanding of "absence vs cessation" you've outlined above, would you say that bhavanirodha is when bhava "can no longer grow" but that "that doesn't mean that an Arahant cannot recollect what frowth used to [feel like]?" In that case, I'm not sure we've a disagreement at all. I think that absence and cessation are functionally identical, since we've both admitted that absent things can be recalled and that absence does not necessarily mean 'complete forgetting.' In light of this, what did you mean here?
SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 amAbsence and cessation are not the same thing. Been trying to emphasize that with SN 12.55.
How does SN 12.55 affirm this distinction that we've negated when we mutually admitted that the absent can be recollected just as much as the ceased can be?
SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 amI didn't realize you were asking me to simply define words I could easily use a PED to cut and paste. I figured you were asking about my understanding of the statements, and since the discourse would be given to wanderers of other sects it is clear to me that those first four questions would most definitely apply to the ordinary person, i.e. there isn't necessarily any concentration (AN 10.58).
This is okay, but IMO when the Buddha identifies the material contents of what his mendicants are to say to wanderers of other sects, he says they are to say that it is "bhagavaṁmūlakā," or "rooted in the Lord['s Dhamma]." So, yes, the question is phrased as if it were a non-Dhamma question, a question from an "ordinary person," but the answer is given "bhagavaṁmūlakā."
SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 amBut please let me qualify that:

- I framed manasikāra as exclusively unwholesome because it was referring to bhava, but in MN 20 it is also wholesome. So, no I was not making such a universal statement.

- I did not say it was exclusively negative - desire can be wholesome also. Again, I chose to stay with a situation of ignorance, which I believe is the context (wanderers of other sects).

- "From what do they originate?" is the question. The answer is, "They originate from contact". The "what" is contact. Contact is the necessary condition - "all things" is what originates, is what is produced (samudayā) .

Again, I was giving my understanding of the statements in the context of the discourse. Does that clarify?
Somewhat, yes. I understand "samudayā" and "sambhavā" to be functionally identical terms. They "come to be" (sambhavā) via attention. They "originate" (samudayā) via contact. Contact and attention here I take to be functionally identical, one always being accompanied by the other. Where there is attention, there will be contact, whether wholesome, unwholesome, or neither. In traditional Theravada scholasticism, even Nibbana is a contact accompanied by attention. Contact and attention, "originating" and "coming to be," are a little like the chicken and the egg, no?

SDC wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:00 amI know I don't always communicate effectively. Sharing my perspective requires a bit of extra work, and I don't always have the energy to set it up clearly each time. I appreciate you taking me to task and I hope you continue to do so.
Well, if there's one thing I try not to do it's rush people. I hate being rushed by someone else to write some response on a web forum.

I haven't even had time to respond to all you've written yet. I also still think that your understanding of contact is a "meeting of the four," namely 1) the object, 2) the sense base, 3) the consciousness, and 4) the "me," but that's a messier can of worms on my end than trying to get the distinction you are drawing between absence and cessation. When I identify 4) as "the me," I am not accusing you of holding atmavada, but rather "the me" is a euphemism for "the wrongly imputed notion of 'the me.'"
Hi Coemgenu,

Since we’ve diffused quite a bit, I’d like to start over in hopes of not leaving you with as many loose ends as I have so far. Like I said, it is labor-intensive to make this clear because we’re dealing in different groundwork, so it isn’t just a matter of rephrasing the details. So here it goes:

Experience of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or thought implies that senses are functioning. There is no access to the functioning aspect of senses - MN 1 describes a development towards direct-knowing of them, not remaining with a conceiving of having perceived the process of perception. The senses meet in the mind, so appearance is already that of sense/object/consciousness being together. In other words, there is no direct access to any “creation” of the appearance. Experience, the world, eye/sights, ear/sounds…mind/thoughts is always already the result of elements, aggregates and sense bases. And that appearance (as a whole) would always include the body as a result of sense as well, i.e. body in body. And there is no beyond the scope of appearance from this POV.

Having said all of that, sights, sounds…thoughts are the world. That is already what signifies contact. The subject that is there in the world along with that which pressures “me”, the feeling in regard to it, and the craving for feelings, the suffering as a result of being liable to change. That is why I stress it as a point of convergence. It is where things are all stacked together. And that point is not just where things are together, but it is literally where “I am”. With ignorance as a condition there is craving to manage the feeling at that convergence because it belongs to me and want my life to go in a particular direction and be a certain way.

With the cessation of ignorance there is no longer a need to manage that point of convergence. It no longer signifies a place that requires maintenance. So even though there are sights, sounds…thoughts; even though those things are still stacked together, there is no longer that pressure of upkeep to the extent when impermanence was ignored. Contact has no depth anymore. I really really hope this shift makes things clearer.

Now to the matter of cessation vs absence. Death of a person does not imply they are now absent. We can recollect them, so the potential for presence remains a possibility. We can even have new memories of them; if we fantasize about spending time with a dead relative we can return to that memory, it can be recollected. Cessation - based on my reading of SN 12.55 - applies to growth and depth in regards to Self and the mass of suffering. It is the removal of an entire direction of experience, not just whether a particular thing is present or absent. Each of the twelve layers of DO no longer apply to the existence of Self and cannot ever again.

I actually don’t like getting into the weeds like this. I’m not an arahant and therefore have no direct knowledge of these things. I just think it is important to have a notion of liberation that is great and worthy of praise, and I entered this discussion when an idea that I believe was both inaccurate and not praiseworthy was being offered. The suttas seem to clearly describe an achievement beyond that of a normal human and an experience here and now that is truly free of practically everything a normal person experiences. What is no longer possible for the arahant is that liability for experience to be abysmal, and at the risk of the following sutta being misused, I’m still going to post it to give a better idea of this notion of depth:
SN 36.4 wrote: Bhikkhus, when the uninstructed worldling makes the statement, ‘In the great ocean there is a bottomless abyss,’ he makes such a statement about something that is nonexistent and unreal. This, bhikkhus, is rather a designation for painful bodily feelings, that is, ‘bottomless abyss.’

“When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a painful bodily feeling, he sorrows, grieves, and laments; he weeps and beats his breast and becomes distraught. This is called an uninstructed worldling who has not risen up in the bottomless abyss, one who has not gained a foothold.

“But, bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful bodily feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep and beat his breast and become distraught. This is called an instructed noble disciple who has risen up in the bottomless abyss, one who has gained a foothold.”

One who cannot endure
The arisen painful feelings,
Bodily feelings that sap one’s life,
Who trembles when they touch him,
A weakling of little strength
Who weeps out loud and wails:
He has not risen up in the bottomless abyss,
Nor has he even gained a foothold.

But one who is able to endure them—
The arisen painful feelings,
Bodily feelings that sap one’s life—
Who trembles not when they touch him:
He has risen up in the bottomless abyss,
And he has also gained a foothold.
And this is just for the instructed noble disciple, the sotapanna, let alone the arahant.

The arahant is no longer touched in this way at all since the place where feelings converge is no longer the center of experience; that “being bound” to its fate is no longer a concern. I has been abandoned and what remains there is no longer accumulated within the scope of being. That scope cannot grow any further. That dimension has ceased.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:34 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 8:08 am This is it
2. Analysis According to Abhidhamma
1. Causal Tetrad
Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind; because of mind there is the sixth base; because of the sixth base there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (1)
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/thittila
Interesting. I’m not sure how to interpret that. It looks like in the abhidhamma analysis contact is always said to only be dependent on the mind base? Did I miss an example with contact dependent on all six sense bases?

Even in the examples of dependent arising listed that do included nama-rupa and the six sense bases (which means we can’t just explain all of the examples as the formless, only some of them allow that interpretation) it is said that contact depends solely on the mind base it looks like-maybe since contact is a mental phenomena the vibhanga decided to say it depends on the mind sense base? How bizarre if so..
Here is the full Vibhaṅga passage, in relation to the casual section
2. Analysis According to Abhidhamma
1. Causal Tetrad
Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind; because of mind there is the sixth base; because of the sixth base there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (1)

Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind; because of mind there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (2)

Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind and matter; because of mind and matter there is the sixth base; because of the sixth base there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (3)

Because of ignorance there is activity; because of activity there is consciousness; because of consciousness there is mind and matter; because of mind and matter there are six bases; because of the sixth base there is contact; because of contact there is feeling; because of feeling there is craving; because of craving there is attachment; because of attachment there is becoming; because of | becoming there is birth; because of birth there is ageing and death. Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. (4)
If you do not have a copy, I can post some extracts from the Sammohavinodani?
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:00 am
It is thus (tatha), devoid of sankhara.

Nibbana is what is, when sankharas are not. (think here of idappaccayatā)
Putting aside what nibbāna is for the moment, the suttas and āgamas (as far as I have read them) make it pretty clear that the only thing which is not conditioned, or to do with conditions, is nibbāna. Putting aside the further debate regarding concepts, all other dhammas stand in a conditional relation with another dhamma thus being anicca and empty. If then viññanam-anidassanam is unconditioned, then it must be nibbāna. I personally don't think it is, but this seems to be the logical conclusion of what you have said.
I sense you are trying to introduce time to that which is akaliko.
I think there is a more straightforward and less philosophical, might I even say esoteric, way of understanding akaliko. Namely that the extinguishing of the āsavā doesn't take time. Once awakened, the are gone.

"When a person is overcome and overwhelmed by greed/hatred/delusion, he intends to hurt themselves, hurt others, and hurt both. They experience mental pain and sadness. When greed/hatred/delusion has been given up, they don’t intend to hurt themselves, hurt others, and hurt both. They don’t experience mental pain and sadness. This is how the teaching is realizable in this very life (sanditthiko), without delay (akaliko), inviting inspection (ehipassiko), relevant (opaneyikko) , so that sensible people can know it for themselves (paccattaṃ veditabbo)."
I would not do that myself, but I understand the influences of the Theravada tradition. Hence why it's difficult to simply "unsubscribe" to aspects of it, if all one's understandings and accepted exegeses are implicitly or explicitly grounded in it. This is what I was referring to earlier - it is difficult to explain perspectives from outside the paradigm to one who accepts the paradigm and takes it as given. Often there is no point even trying because (much like in political discussion) the words will be interpreted according to the listener's paradigm, no matter what the speaker says or does.
Hmm. I think it best we stick to discussing the texts, rather than speculating on each other's potential biases. To bring this back to the topic at hand, do you have any sutta to quote which supports your distinction between "having experiences" and experiencing vedanā? In the Samanupassanā sutta the Buddha taught that the sense of "I am" comes to be from ignorance based contact.

“Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’ occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these occur to him."

The opposite then of this is to have wisdom based contact. The Pāli sutta doesn't state this explicitly, but the āgama parallel does

“The foolish untaught common person has ignorance therefore arise: the experience of existence, the experience of non existence, the experience of existence and non existence, the experience that I am superior, the experience that I am equal, the experience that I am inferior, the experience that I know, the experience that I see, the experience that I know like this and the experience that I see like this. These are all from the six sense organs.

“Therefore the well-learned noble disciple, having given up ignorance regarding these six sense organs and wisdom arises and: the experience of existence, the experience of non existence, the experience of existence and non existence, the experience that I am superior, the experience that I am equal, the experience that I am inferior, the experience that I know, the experience that I see, the experience that I know like this and the experience that I see like this, do not arise. The ignorant contact which had arisen before is destroyed and thereafter wise contact and experience arise.”


This makes sense, since the Buddha and Arahants have perfect vision and understanding. They perfectly see that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent. That all conditioned dhammas are dukkha and that all dhammas are not-self. Being contacted and experiencing vedanā, they feel it detached. They can't feel vedanā in a detached and awakened way without actually experiencing vedanā, and vedanā itself is always said to have a condition which is contact. Both the Buddha and ordinary folk experience contact and so different types of vedanā. What distinguishes them is that for the Buddha and Arahants there are no āsavā or underlying tendencies underlying those experiences. They are seen with wisdom, not delusion. You can't see something with wisdom unless it's actually experienced, it seems to me.
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

nirodh27 wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 12:37 pm
A sage at peace is NOT BORN (not "it will not be reborn", not "it will not be born again"), so how could (aka: he can't, he will not) die. The sage at peace is one of the oldest names for the quenched by releasing all acquisitions, so it is probably a very old statement that we find in the MN, the appellative is usually find in the octads and in the way beyond that are considered an aggregate of some of the oldest Buddhist saying that we have.
Here is the full passage
"Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?"
It's quite beautiful isn't it. One of my favourites. What is being said here then? Firstly it is said that by abandoning all conceivings, one will be at peace. Conceiving here relates to the false sense of self, and so this is pointing towards the āsavā. We can rephrase this then as

"Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all āsavā, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace."

We are then told what it means to be a sage at peace. We are told that a sage at peace is not born, age, die etc. This is referring to the 4NT. Without the āsavā there will be no more craving, and so no more birth. There being no more birth there is no longer the condition for ageing, death, being shaken and yearning. To fully draw out the meaning of the passage, we must then refer to the definitions given for the 4NT especially for birth, ageing, death etc.
“What is knowledge of birth as it really is? It is this: all living beings, in their various forms, experience birth when they are born, when they arise, when they are formed, when the five aggregates come into being, and when the vital faculties are developed. This is reckoned to be knowledge of birth as it really is.

What is knowledge of old age as it really is? It is this: old age brings hoary hair, lost teeth, deteriorating health, hunched body, unsteady step, overweight body, shortness of breath, reliance on a walking cane, shrinking flesh, sagging skin, wrinkles like pockmarks, failing sense faculties, and unsightly complexion. This is reckoned to be old age.

What is knowledge of death? It is this: all living beings, in their various forms, are subject to the ending of life, the impermanence, death, dissolution, extinction and breaking up of their life, the stopping of their vital force. This is reckoned to be death. This is the explanation of death and it, along with the explanation of old age that I gave just before, is what is meant by old age and death. This is reckoned to be knowledge of old age and death as they really are.”
With these definitions, we could rephrase the sutta further

"And the sage at peace does not generate the aggregates in some form or another among the many order of beings. Does not develop the life faculties, thus being born. Does not age and so experience loss of teeth, deteriorating health, sagging skin and declining faculties. Does not experience the stopping of their life force, of falling apart and dying and so is not shaken in relation to dying and does not yearn for more life or annihilation."

The passage then continues with

"For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?"

This refers us back to the āsavā, craving and the 2nd Noble Truth. When the āsavā are gone craving is gone. When there is no more craving then there is no more existence and birth. It then follows that if there is no more birth, then there can be no more ageing or death and no more being shaken or yearning. Someone who was never born never experiences those things. The whole passage then can be read in the following way.

"Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all āsavā, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace does not generate the aggregates in some form or another among the many order of beings. Does not develop the life faculties, thus being born. Does not age and so experience loss of teeth, deteriorating health, sagging skin and declining faculties. Does not experience the stopping of their life force, of falling apart and dying and so is not shaken in relation to dying and does not yearn for more life or annihilation. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born again. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?"
Yes we have the Buddha and many followers in a stock phrase that says "The holy life has been lived, this is my last birth". Seems exaclty what it seems, a stock phrase used when the early sayings were composed in the oral Nikayas that we have and that can be read in both ways, in a tension that is everywhere in the suttas for one that can look at it in both ways and we have people like Buddhadhasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho (which I think is the best on this issue because he really represents the attitude of the muni in my opinion), Ajahn Amaro and many others that reads it in only-psychological/behavioural or in both ways.
Well there might be tension for people who read birth in dependent origination to be anything other than what is commonly understood by the word "birth", but there isn't for someone like me. I did used to have that tension when I held that view, but in all honestly it's like trying to square a circle. In my humble opinion Venerables who subscribe to such an idea, and their lay followers, are making an endless problems where none exists.
This tension could have been easily avoided by the Buddha. The Buddha could have sorted out the issue by saying "this will be my last death" btw, since in your view, the Buddha will experience death, a thing directly opposed by MN140. "You will die for the last time". But the Arahant doesn't really die and we don't know about them after death, right? Why? Because of something we will understand when we will be arahants or "simply" because there will not be a psychological death for him by not acquisition?
He says he is no longer be subject to birth, which means he won't have to die again. Since he said "this is my last birth", he is obviously referring to his literal birth from the womb. I don't see how it can be psychological, since it would mean that when he awakened there was birth.
I've written that treats birth and death simply as an here-and-now acquisition problem, this is a brilliant solution of the Buddha for a problem that was put in various different terms when pressed to give his opinion, maybe while he was wandering around as a muni. It is good to note that I haven't found a single citation of illness, the earliest texts all are interested in old-age and death in the way that we will see now.
Birth and death are an "acquisition problem", in that grasping is a condition for being born and dying. I'm not sure what you mean about illness. It's part of the definition of the 1st Truth, amongst the things that are abandoned forever when someone awakens. How does one psychologically abandon rabies when awakened?
This is how the problem usually unfolds, there are two sides: those who crave for existence (usually future, so rebirth) and those who crave for not-existence: the problem tackled is not future existence or future not-existence per se (that seems to me the goal of classic Theravada, not having experience again), but with a change of perspective the craving for new (good) existence, craving for non-existence (that was also present in his time as we know, the jains), hope for new existence. For example here we have a person that is interested about sacrifices and have a rebirth view:
The Buddha said that his path was for the cessation of future existence.

"When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence. When there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” - SN 12.38
First, let me note that the Buddha here use "world" in an unusual way. So we have the Buddha uses words in different ways from the usual. And that in Mysticism of religions is the standard is to use words that have a strong impact to redefine it by changing the perspective (like "heaven" that is used for here-and-now (love) in catholic mysticism and as an actual place in catholicism doctrine, without using a word so full of meaning you will never got the interest of the listeners: if you speak about the deathless for example you will bring people of any kind to listen you and then you can introduce your actual point of view). It is the same for when we use "The Buddha": we should always say "What this suttas report being the word of the Buddha but historically who really knows!", but that will not gain the same impact on people or even ourselves.
The Buddha, like most teachers, did have his own idiosyncrasies such as "world" (assuming other ascetics didn't teach in a similar way). When he does though he always defines them. On the whole, the words he used were words those whom he met would understand. He would want to explain his message as clear as possible, rather than making it philosophically more complicated than it needed to be or even esoteric. Thankfully he also gave definitions of other words, such as birth and death. There, in terms of his central teaching, the 4NT, they always mean what is commonly understood by birth and death (albeit also applied to gods etc). If that is what they always mean in the 4NT. If that is how we should be reading them, then that is what they mean in dependent origination. That is how we should be reading birth & death etc in dependent origination. Not in a psychological way, or in an esoteric way or in some abstract philosophical way but in a normal and conventional way.
A truly detached muni, a sage at peace would be detached from everything, from craving, from hope to existence and not-existence. Total equanimity, indifference.
Being detached doesn't necessarily mean not experiencing anything.
An Arahant, correct me if I'm wrong, in your view (and I would be interest also in what Coëmgenu thinks about this) will have a sort of superhuman knowledge at the moment of realization that assures him beyond any conceivable doubt now (because else is simply a view, and that would be an agitation, unless if an Arahant would be ok of being "rebirthed") that he (or "he" if you want) will not be reborn in the future. Since the sabbe is the six senses what will perceive would be a vision, a thought, a knowledge, a "just-knowing", a "gut-feeling" that is inside this six senses. How that would be different from a jesus believer that is assured by a vision, a "just knowing", a profound gut-feeling that he will go forever in paradise after death? If we go out of this field, it is something totally beyond our human comprehension, a method of knowning unknown to humanity. If you take this route, of course we simply have to detach and hope that in fourth jhana something incredible will happen. A thing that assures you now about a future event after death. Else, agitation, uncertainty, Dukkha. (This is indipendent from rebirth being true or not).
I currently think there isn't the slightest bit of difference between saṃsāra and nibbāna, and this is the Buddha's vision & knowledge. How then does he know that he won't be born again? Because he knows that birth doesn't make sense, can't come to be, without craving and clinging. They stand in a conditional relation with each other. That said, Gethin points out in his "Buddhist Path to Awakening" that, contrary to what Jayatilleke, the Arahants do not replace faith/confidence/trust (saddhā) with knowledge but rather have saddhā and knowledge. Perhaps then ultimate knowledge regarding birth and death being totally done away with is for Buddha's only, something the Arahants still trust in the Buddha for. Perhaps not though. This is more of an afterthought and isn't something I'm wedded to.
“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: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ontheway »

I currently think there isn't the slightest bit of difference between saṃsāra and nibbāna, and this is the Buddha's vision & knowledge.
If that is true, the whole Buddhism is meaningless.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by ToVincent »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:31 pm Putting aside what nibbāna is for the moment, the suttas and āgamas (as far as I have read them) make it pretty clear that the only thing which is not conditioned, or to do with conditions, is nibbāna. Putting aside the further debate regarding concepts, all other dhammas stand in a conditional relation with another dhamma thus being anicca and empty. If then viññanam-anidassanam is unconditioned, then it must be nibbāna. I personally don't think it is, but this seems to be the logical conclusion of what you have said.
"Conditional relation".
You might as well drop the 'nditional' for an additional 'r' — and bring them together (saṅkhata).

In the meantime, as far as saṅkhata is concerned, see:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5909&p=543415&hili ... ta#p543415

In the SN 22.55 extract:
He does not understand as it has come to be conditioned form (brought together)
Saṅkhataṃ rūpaṃ ‘saṅkhataṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ

Saṅkhata does not mean "conditioned", but rather "brought/made together, to procure for one self". That is to say to make things "mine".
Avoiding that making things "mine" , is to enter nibbāna with remnant — The remnant being the "I".
“Form, feeling (experience), and perception (acquiescence), consciousness (knowledge about that experience), and whatever thing has been brought/made together, to be procured for one self (saṅkhata), ‘I am not this, this isn’t mine' — Thus one is detached from it."
Rūpaṃ vedayitaṃ saññā, viññāṇaṃ yañca saṅkhataṃ; Nesohamasmi netaṃ me, evaṃ tattha virajjati.
SN 4.16
if nibbāna is the end of raga, dosa & moha, then SN 35.94 is a good example of not getting into raga & dosa — namely of not" procuring for one self" (saṅkhata)

SN 10.3 is also a good example.
Exitement and defilment come from here;
“Rāgo ca doso ca itonidānā,
from here spring rest, unrest, and raising of the hair (viz. from good or bad experience) ;
Aratī ratī lomahaṁso (√hṛṣ) itojā;
here’s where the mano’s thoughts originate,
Ito samuṭṭhāya manovitakkā,
like a crow let loose by boys.
Kumārakā dhaṅkamivossajanti.0
Born of subordination (subdued), originating in oneself,
Snehajā attasambhūtā,
- Sneha (from √snih = to render pliant or subject , subdue (RV. ))
- Rāga [act. rañj] = to be greatly excited , exult (RV.)
- Dosa - from √duṣ = to become bad or corrupted, to be defiled or impure (AitBr. ChUp.)


Also Dhp 146–156 is interesting with that word-play on gaha-kūṭa
I’ve seen you, house-builder!
Gahakāraka diṭṭhosi,
You won’t build a house again!
puna gehaṁ na kāhasi;
Your rafters are all broken,
Sabbā te phāsukā bhaggā,
your ridgepole* does not attach (viz. bring the rafters together) .
gahakūṭaṁ visaṅkhataṁ;
My citta, set on not making (not co-acting sankharas),
Visaṅkhāragataṁ cittaṁ,
has reached the end of craving.
taṇhānaṁ khayamajjhagā.
Gaha-kūṭa as:
- the house (gaha) — ridgepole (kūṭa)
and
- the seizer (gaha) — of the snare (fig. falsehood, deceit) (kūṭa)
*Ridgepole = A beam laid along the edge where two sloping sides of a roof meet at the top; provides an attachment for the upper ends of rafters

The question is: What and how is the correlation between the craving and that attachement ?
Did I say THAT & THIS lately?
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Ontheway wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:13 am
I currently think there isn't the slightest bit of difference between saṃsāra and nibbāna, and this is the Buddha's vision & knowledge.
If that is true, the whole Buddhism is meaningless.
I wouldn't say so, but that's a topic for another discussion.
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

Post by mjaviem »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:22 am ...The Buddha said that his path was for the cessation of future existence.

"When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence. When there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” - SN 12.38
...
This dhamma of yours is a promise of liberation. In your dhamma, realizing the third noble truth only means to realize that the cessation of suffering is possible. Your dhamma is full of expectations and only leads to the arising of suffering, not cessation. Doesn't seem Buddha dhamma.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Post Reply