On the Existence of Nibbana

[SDC]

Thank you for clarifying. My argument style is to try to make things as simple and as clear as possible, so as to avoid mist and possible misunderstandings. If you prefer more long winded type of debates, which seems to be the case so far, then there might be a clash. Still, lets proceed and see where we end up.

I would rather we clash circling around an increasingly similar understanding of what we are discussing instead of being in blissful agreement about two completely unrelated points of view that we are both too blind to see are seriously misaligned. I am in favor of simplicity, but not at the expense of accuracy. So let's try and find a happy medium.

I'm still not sure if you have given MN 60

I have read it. The sutta is aimed at those who have not yet gone for refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. It is, essentially, a Kalama like sutta. For those who have gone for refuge in the Buddha there is saddha (faith) until some level of awakening occurs. Saddha clarifies and removes all doubts. So, for one who has gone for refuge in the Buddha these kind of Dhamma talks are not necessary. The only message to take is to not dogmatically cling to the truth until you know the truth directly for yourself. With that in mind I do not see any relevance for the sutta here?

We should probably agree to disagree on the message of MN 60. We'll just waste time. I find the distinction between the first three doctrines compared to the last two very striking. The Buddha literally says to these householder, "Since there is...". That is very unusual in suttas about these doctrines, as far as I recall. Very unsual. Be that as it may, MN 60 is now an auxiliary to the others I have cited, and I am less interested in coming to terms on its message. I maintain that it is illuminating on this matter, but we don't have to harp on it as the others are far more direct. Your call.

Whilst it is true that until some level of awakening there will be a tendency towards convieving this or that dhamma I do not see why that means we cannot talk about said dhamma? If we are sincerely practicing the path then we should be aware of this flaw and should be practicing mindfulness to refrain from doing so. Us having a tendency towards conceit when it comes to nibbāna is not a good enough reason to then refrain from discussing nibbāna for, I think, two reasons. Firstly, we have a tendency towards conceit for all dhammas. MN1 does not just say it is nibbāna that can be taken as self, or as being possesed by self and so on and it would be strange if it did so. For example, MN1 also mentions concieving in relation to the earth element. Does this then mean we can never discuss the earth element?

AN 4.159 is in your corner:

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, ‘The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.’ The thought occurs to him, ‘The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?’ Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. ‘This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.’ Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

And SN 35.31 is in mine, and I find it far more explicit and more appropriate for broaching contemplation of the meaning of "direct knowing":

Whatever, bhikkhus, is the extent of the aggregates, the elements, and the sense bases, he does not conceive that, does not conceive in that, does not conceive from that, does not conceive, ‘That is mine.’

Indeed, there is no choice as one is striving to understand, but my point is that, unless one is a noble disciple, they could only be talking about whether or not this or that is accurate in terms of the Right view; Nibbana is absent from the question, literally unavailable because of the bottomlessness of avijja.

Sure, talk about the elements, but since it will be on the basis of perceiving tainted by ignorance, one must accept that they have not accessed the elements. MN 1 says, "From X, he directly knows..." "Knows", not perceives. That is critical.

Better to accept this and strive with such an inadequacy, than to assume access from some quasi neutral ground between wrong and Right view. If one is striving and is not a noble disciple, the view is still fundamentally wrong. Yet.... it will be through the admission of this fact that will serve as the basis for wisdom (AN 4.159 above). So we have a bit of alignment there.

The second issue would be that restricting ourselves to only discussing nibbāna via its negative aspects offers no protection against concieving. Nibbāna only described in negative terms can be grasped at as much as nibbāna described via positive terms. Each can become the basis for the wrong view of eternalism or annihilationism.

So, all in all, I do not agree with what I think is your position. Whilst it is true that we can grasp nibbāna when discussing it, this is true of all dhammas. Our job is to be aware of this tendency, to be mindful of it, whilst discussing these dhammas. Discussion, of course, being a part of learning which is vital for the development of the path.

On mindfulness, are you referring to this?

...When they don’t have the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states in them, they understand: ‘I don’t have the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states in me.’
...

How often are people actually admitting that, I wonder? And I never said that negativity offers protection from conceiving, it's almost just as dangerous. I even cautioned within my own attempts. Striving to not conceive is the only protection.

-----

Again, I'm not saying not to discuss it. I'm discussing the fact that we can't discuss it freely. The inadequacy is the focal point in these suttas. It is the work. Not a hindrance, but the training itself. And no discussion is complete without their acknowledgment. These are serious limitations that if disregarded for the purpose of discussion, can just as easily be repeated in contemplation. I want to make this last point very clear. To set this aside for purposes of discussion is nothing else than courting avijja:

Bhikkhus, this saṃsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving….

“Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a strong post or pillar. If it walks, it walks close to that post or pillar. If it stands, it stands close to that post or pillar. If it sits down, it sits down close to that post or pillar. If it lies down, it lies down close to that post or pillar.

So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling regards form thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is myself.’ He regards feeling … perception … determinations … consciousness thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is myself.’ If he walks, he walks close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he stands, he stands close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he sits down, he sits down close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he lies down, he lies down close to those five aggregates subject to clinging.

So we can and should carry on, but with this issue as the work, not just a burden to set aside under certain circumstances, lest we toss the baby out with the bath water.

Super tired. Hope this makes sense.

[sentinel]

one arrive at "this is not me / not mine" one suppose have already seen the "dhamma" but that is not yet nibbana . One achieve nibbana at the third turning of the wheel . Since 1st 2nd 3rd stage still have works to do the fetters is still there and the meaning of nibbana is total destruction of defilements .

[Pulsar]

SDC wrote

Super tired. Hope this makes sense.

you wrote a brilliant comment, in spite of being super tired. It makes perfect sense to me. I had lost interest, in this thread, in the sense, if this is Nibbaba, who on earth wants that kind of Nibbana?
What point is copying your entire comment? it is already here, will only be a burden, on cloud storage. For those who cannot fathom the soteriological sensitivity of your comment? what point is another comment by me clarifying it further?
I could not possibly make it better.
With love

[SDC]

SDC wrote

Super tired. Hope this makes sense.

you wrote a brilliant comment, in spite of being super tired. It makes perfect sense to me. I had lost interest, in this thread, in the sense, if this is Nibbaba, who on earth wants that kind of Nibbana?
What point is copying your entire comment? it is already here, will only be a burden, on cloud storage. For those who cannot fathom the soteriological sensitivity of your comment? what point is another comment by me clarifying it further?
I could not possibly make it better.
With love

Thank you for the kind words, P. Sorry for stealing "Faring On"

[Ceisiwr]

SDC

We should probably agree to disagree on the message of MN 60.

Very well.

Indeed, there is no choice as one is striving to understand, but my point is that, unless one is a noble disciple, they could only be talking about whether or not this or that is accurate in terms of the Right view; Nibbana is absent from the question, literally unavailable because of the bottomlessness of avijja.

Sure, talk about the elements, but since it will be on the basis of perceiving tainted by ignorance, one must accept that they have not accessed the elements. MN 1 says, "From X, he directly knows..." "Knows", not perceives. That is critical.

Better to accept this and strive with such an inadequacy, than to assume access from some quasi neutral ground between wrong and Right view. If one is striving and is not a noble disciple, the view is still fundamentally wrong. Yet.... it will be through the admission of this fact that will serve as the basis for wisdom (AN 4.159 above). So we have a bit of alignment there.

My first response would be in a similar vein to what I said prior. Whilst it is true that we till be subjected to the taints until awakening, I see no reason why that means we can't discuss and investigate the Dhamma further:

Ven. Ananda said, “There is the case, friend, where a monk masters the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose & verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He teaches the Dhamma in detail—as he has heard it, as he has remembered it—to others. He gets others to recite the Dhamma in detail—as they have heard it, as they have remembered it. He holds a group chanting of the Dhamma in detail—as he has heard it, as he has remembered it. He thinks about & evaluates the Dhamma as he has heard it, as he has remembered it; he contemplates it with his intellect. He enters the Rains in monasteries in which there are senior monks who are learned, who know the tradition, who are holders of the Dhamma, the Vinaya, & the Matika. Having approached them periodically, he questions them & quizzes them: ‘How it this, venerable sirs? What is the meaning of this?’ They make open for him what wasn’t open, make plain what wasn’t plain, dispel doubt on various doubtful points.

“It’s to this extent, friend Sariputta, that a monk hears Dhamma he has not heard, that the Dhammas he has heard do not get confused, that the Dhammas he has touched with his awareness stay current, and that he understands what (previously) was not understood.”

https://suttacentral.net/an6.51/en/thanissaro

Here it is explicitly stated that in order to grow in the Dhamma it is important to discuss the Dhamma. We should approach those who are learned in the Dhamma and debate it with them. The sutta states that we should debate the Vinaya, the Suttas and the Abhidhamma. Now, of course I am not comparing myself to a knowledgeable monk here. My point is that the suttas do encourage us to debate these things. It is good to do so. What is important to remember whilst discussing these things is that we are still subjected to the taints. We need to be mindful of that when debating the Dhamma (actually we should be mindful of this tendency 24/7), however that isn't reason enough to simply not discuss the finer aspects of the Dhamma:

"It’s from wishing to learn that learning grows;
when you’re learned, wisdom grows;
by wisdom, you know the goal;
knowing the goal brings happiness."

Mahācundattheragāthā

A futher point. You said here:

Indeed, there is no choice as one is striving to understand, but my point is that, unless one is a noble disciple, they could only be talking about whether or not this or that is accurate in terms of the Right view; Nibbana is absent from the question, literally unavailable because of the bottomlessness of avijja.

The problem is, we are discussing what is accurate in terms of Right View. Right View is understanding the Four Noble Truths. The 3rd Noble Truth is nibbāna, so by discussing nibbāna as we have been doing here we are discussing Right View. We are trying to arrive at Right View. As such, you should be in favour of this discussion instead of cautioning against it.

[sentinel]

The problem is, we are discussing what is accurate in terms of Right View. Right View is understanding the Four Noble Truths. The 3rd Noble Truth is nibbāna, so by discussing nibbāna as we have been doing here we are discussing Right View. We are trying to arrive at Right View. As such, you should be in favour of this discussion instead of cautioning against it.

Hi Ceisiwr , if you dont mind ,
one should discuss dukkha first and proceed to samudaya then from that onwards one might find that there is a possibility of knowing the nirodha but one do not know for certain yet , thus the certainty of knowing cessation is from eight fold path . Therefore , trying to arrive at right view by analysing Nibbana isnt going to help much imo . Discussing nibbana is not equivalent to discussing right view . Nibbana cannot be known by mere discussion . Right view can be known by studying the dependent arising .

[Coëmgenu]

Hi Ceisiwr , if you dont mind ,
one should discuss dukkha first and proceed to samudaya then from that onwards one might find that there is a possibility of knowing the nirodha but one do not know for certain yet , thus the certainty of knowing cessation is from eight fold path .

Well, supposedly, the four noble truths are non-sequential, another point that's popped up in the dialogue. But there is a separate thread for that now. Still though, in this thread in this context it warrants mentioning that that is an undergirding assumption underpinning how some of the participants are going to be framing the third truth.

[takso]

Those from Mahayana and some from within Theravada would argue that it is a mistake to say that Nibbana exists, that is to say to grant Nibbana some measure of ontological status. My question is general. Do you think nibbana is a real and existing dhamma, or is it a concept? Is it a mistake to claim that "nibbana exists" or not? Can we say dhammas exist or not in your view?

What exists is defined as that which can be known by the mind or otherwise, it does not exist. Conventionally, things can exist within the boundaries of mind as fallacy or reality. For example, in a room, there are two individuals i.e. Individual A (Mind A) and Individual B (Mind B). Let's say, Individual A is holding a ball and it's hidden from Individual B. In this case, the ball does exist in the room as it is already known to Individual A (Mind A). However, the ball does not exist in the room if you were to ask Individual B (Mind B). At the end of the day, the onus for phenomena or existence is on the mind per se. In other words, things do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

For general understanding, there are two sides of truth i.e. conventional truth and ultimate truth. Before expressing one’s point of view, it is imperative to fix on the side of the truth respectively. For instance, one would agree that duality or multiplicity does exist from a conventional perspective. Therefore, nibbāna is a phenomenon because one is speaking, as a subject, on the other side of the object or matter. In other words, the subject is pondering on the object or matter - phenomenon arises. Concurrently, one would also agree on the absence of duality or multiplicity from an ultimate perspective and as a result, nibbāna is not a phenomenon (also applies on all other things). This is because of the absence of subject that would ponder on the object or matter.

Mind Is The Forerunner Of All Things

All realities and fallacies are in the mind,
All observations and perceptions are in the mind,
All labelling and stereotyping are in the mind,

What else is not in the mind?
You have a mind, I have a mind,
and we all have respective minds,
even a rock.

A mind is nothing but vibrational frequencies,
Vibrational frequencies are nothing but energy,
Energy is nothing but a notion being conjured up by the mind.
But still, all arguments are trivial because the true culprit is the mind.

Ignorance is in the mind,
Enlightenment is in the mind,
If one could neuter the mind, all things will fizzle out and cease to exist or be,
This is the dawning of a new paradigm that is a fully neutralised state of affairs,
In Buddhism, this is known as nibbāna.

[Pulsar]

Takso wrote at the end

This is the dawning of a new paradigm that is a fully neutralised state of affairs,In Buddhism, this is known as nibbāna.

Your entire comment is sensible and excellent, not sure whether it is a new paradigm. These words are assembled with great clarity, but it requires a sensible mind to assimilate this information, and use it however one sees fit.
With love

[Ceisiwr]

takso

What exists is defined as that which can be known by the mind or otherwise, it does not exist. Conventionally, things can exist within the boundaries of mind as fallacy or reality. For example, in a room, there are two individuals i.e. Individual A (Mind A) and Individual B (Mind B). Let's say, Individual A is holding a ball and it's hidden from Individual B. In this case, the ball does exist in the room as it is already known to Individual A (Mind A). However, the ball does not exist in the room if you were to ask Individual B (Mind B). At the end of the day, the onus for phenomena or existence is on the mind per se. In other words, things do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

I see no evidence that the Buddha taught "mind only" or anything like Yogācāra and indeed, this position was rejected by the Theravādins during the 3rd council:

7. Of the Earth and Karma.

Controverted Point — That land is a result of action.

From the Commentary — In as much as there is human action directed to gain dominion and sovereignty over the soil, some, like the Andhakas, hold that the earth itself is a resultant of such action (or karma). The argument goes to show that (1) land has nothing in common with the sentient results which are caused by karma; (2) that such results are a matter of individual subjective experience, not shared by others, myriads of whom do not even live upon the earth.

[1] Th.—As well say that the earth belongs to feeling pleasant, painful, or neutral, or is conjoined [as mental] with feeling or with perception, or volition, or cognition, that the earth has a mental object, that she can advert to, reflect upon, consider, attend, intend, anticipate, aim. Is not just the opposite true of her? Hence your proposition is wrong. [2] Again, compare her [with something mental]—with contact. Of contact you could say that it is both (i.) a result of action and also that it (ii.) belongs to feeling, and so on (as in § 1). But you cannot say both these things of earth. Or if you affirm the former (i.) and deny the latter predicate (ii.) of earth, you must be prepared to do no less in the case of contact. [3] Again, the earth undergoes expansion and contraction, cutting and breaking up. Can you say as much of the [mental] result of action? Again, the earth may be bought and sold, located, collected, explored. Can you say as much of the result of action? Again, the earth is common to everyone else. But is the result of [my] action common to everyone else? 'Yes,' you say. But was it not said by the Exalted One : ' This treasure to none else belongs, No bandit hence may bear it. The mortal tvho woiddfare aright Let him work acts of merit'?1 Hence it is wrong to say that a result of action is experienced by everyone else. [4] Again, you would admit that first the earth is established and afterwards beings are reborn [on it]. But does result first come to pass and afterwards people act to insure result? If you deny, you cannot maintain that earth is a result of action. [5] Again, is the earth a common result of collective action? Yes, you say? Do you mean that all beings enjoy the use of the earth? If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposition. If you assent, I ask whether there are any who pass utterly away without enjoying the use of it? You assent, of course. But are there any who pass utterly away without exhausting the experienced result of their actions? Of course you deny. .. . [6] Once more, is the earth a result of the action of a being who is a world-monarch? and do other beings share in the use of the earth? Yes, you reply. Then do other beings make use of the result of his actions? You deny. . . . I ask again, and you assent. But then, do other beings share also in his contact, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, understanding? Of course you deny. . . .
[7] A.—But if I am wrong, surely there is action to gain dominion [over the earth],1 action to gain sovereignty [on the earth]? If so, surely the earth is a result of action.

http://lirs.ru/do/Points_of_Controversy ... s,1915.pdf

There are dhammas which exist separate from mind, such as the mahābhūtas and nibbāna. Nibbāna does not depend on mind for its existence, otherwise it is not unconditioned. Nibbāna was also discovered by the Buddha, as in it exists independently.

For general understanding, there are two sides of truth i.e. conventional truth and ultimate truth.

I agree, but we probably have different ideas of what conventional reality and ultimate reality means. Conventional reality are those things which are constructs of the mind, such as "house" or "person", but which, under analysis, are found not to exist. Ultimate reality are those things which, under analysis, cannot be broken down any further and so truly exist. These realities then bear their own intrinsic characteristics. The 4 ultimare realities are citta, cetasika, rūpa and nibbāna.

For instance, one would agree that duality or multiplicity does exist from a conventional perspective. Therefore, nibbāna is a phenomenon because one is speaking, as a subject, on the other side of the object or matter. In other words, the subject is pondering on the object or matter - phenomenon arises. Concurrently, one would also agree on the absence of duality or multiplicity from an ultimate perspective and as a result, nibbāna is not a phenomenon (also applies on all other things). This is because of the absence of subject that would ponder on the object or matter.

The Buddha did not teach "non-duality":

“Friend Koṭṭhita, the eye is not the fetter of forms nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds nor are sounds the fetter of the ear, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there…. The mind is not the fetter of mental phenomena nor are mental phenomena the fetter of the mind, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there...

“In this way too, friend, it may be understood how that is so: There exists in the Blessed One the eye, the Blessed One sees a form with the eye, yet there is no desire and lust in the Blessed One; the Blessed One is well liberated in mind. There exists in the Blessed One the ear, the Blessed One hears a sound with the ear … There exists in the Blessed One the nose, the Blessed One smells an odour with the nose … There exists in the Blessed One the tongue, the Blessed One savours a taste with the tongue … There exists in the Blessed One the body, the Blessed One feels a tactile object with the body … There exists in the Blessed One the mind, the Blessed One cognizes a mental phenomenon with the mind, yet there is no desire and lust in the Blessed One; the Blessed One is well liberated in mind.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.232/en/bodhi

Mind Is The Forerunner Of All Things

The full quote is:

"All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart."

From the commentary: "All mental phenomena have Mind as their forerunner in the sense that Mind is the most dominant, and it is the cause of the other three mental phenomena, namely, Feeling (vedana), Perception (sanna) and Mental Formations or Mental Concomitants (sankhara). These three have Mind or Consciousness (vinnana) as their forerunner, because although they arise simultaneously with Mind they cannot arise if Mind does not arise."

This does not support a "mind only" position.

All realities and fallacies are in the mind,

This is not true. The the mahābhūtas and nibbāna exist outside of mind. Whilst nibbāna is cognised in the mind base, it exists independently outside of mind.

All observations and perceptions are in the mind,
All labelling and stereotyping are in the mind,

Yes and yes.

What else is not in the mind?
You have a mind, I have a mind,
and we all have respective minds,
even a rock.

Nibbāna.

A mind is nothing but vibrational frequencies,
Vibrational frequencies are nothing but energy,
Energy is nothing but a notion being conjured up by the mind.
But still, all arguments are trivial because the true culprit is the mind.

The Buddha did not teach this.

Ignorance is in the mind,

Yes.

Enlightenment is in the mind,

Awakening happens via the mind base, but nibbāna is not in the mind.

If one could neuter the mind, all things will fizzle out and cease to exist or be,

This is false. Nibbāna would still persist as an external and permanent dhamma that is unconditioned and absolutely endless.

This is the dawning of a new paradigm that is a fully neutralised state of affairs,

No idea what this means.

In Buddhism, this is known as nibbāna.

No it isn't.

[confusedlayman]

With the remainderless dispassion-cessation of the six contact-
34
media, there comes to be the cessation, the allaying of objectification.” — AN
4:173
The allaying of objectification is experienced by a type of consciousness
that, because it lies beyond the dimensions of space and time, is not
classified as sensory consciousness under the five aggregates.
§ 29. “‘Having directly known the all [the six sense media and their objects] as
the all, and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced
through the allness of the all, I wasn’t the all, I wasn’t in the all, I wasn’t coming
forth from the all, I wasn’t “The all is mine.” I didn’t affirm the all….
“‘Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth… the liquidity of
liquid… the fieriness of fire… the windiness of wind… the being-ness of beings…
the deva-ness of devas… the Paj›pati-ness of Paj›pati… the brahm›-ness of
Brahm›… the radiant-ness of the radiant (devas)… the beautiful black-ness of
the beautiful black (devas)… the sky-fruit-ness of the sky-fruit (devas)… the
conqueror-ness of the conqueror… the allness of the all.’” — MN 49
As we have seen, a basic feature of the Buddha’s teachings on causality is
that if x arises because y arises, it will cease when y ceases. Thus, for
instance, the Buddha was harshly critical of any attempts to depict sensory
consciousness, which arises and passes away based on conditions, as
existing independently of those conditions.




“‘Consciousness without surface,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of consciousness
each is here brought to an end.’” — DN 11
Having experienced this type of consciousness at the time of Awakening,
the arahant may return to the experience of sensory consciousness if he/she
still has the kammic potential to continue living. In doing so, he/she
continues to create further kamma by producing further intentions. However,
because the mind is now free of the craving and clinging associated with
greed, aversion, and delusion, those intentions lead to no further becoming.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... fering.pdf
pg 36,37

[SDC]

The problem is, we are discussing what is accurate in terms of Right View.

Seems to me "accurate or not accurate" would only apply to those who are capable of making such an assessment. The mere presence of a description of Right View isn't always enough for the reader to reason it, let alone acquire it. If that were true, one sutta would be enough for sotāpatti for anyone who could read; but since it is not a guarantee that one will follow the other, there are clearly other factors involved.

I think our views are altogether so different that to find where they are not already beyond the point of departure would take a good deal of time, and surely does not have much to do the OP. Perhaps it is best to just chip away at the mystery on a topic-by-topic basis.

We are trying to arrive at Right View. As such, you should be in favour of this discussion instead of cautioning against it.

I've said several times that the acquisition of Right view is the most beneficial thing to be discussed, and that I consider it a prerequisite to any discussion about Nibbana. Again, I'm getting the impression that some vastly different views have us much further apart than we originally thought, and are making it difficult to get to the same place. At least that gives us something to do when cross paths in the future.

I'm not bowing out, but I've halted the discussion enough with my input. So if you want to just leave it for now that is fine. Your thread. Your call.

[takso]

Ultimate truth is the primal source of all things and actualities. It arises beyond mind and beyond concepts and words in the sense that it is beyond our usual ways of perceiving things. The depths of such realisation vary, depending on who does the disclosing; and the particular situation (and speaker) affects its perceived authority. In other words, ultimate truth is such label-less, bound-less, stereotype-less, colour-less, beginning-less, end-less and for the ease of our expression, we could summarise it as the deepest fact about things. An enlightened mind is able to discern the deepest fact about things in crystal clear and without hesitation.

The elements of energy in the cosmos would give rise to mind that, in turn, conjures up perceptions, conceptions, labels, boundaries, names, activities, shapes, relations, descriptions, stereotyping, beginning, ending, etc. Mind is basically consciousness in individuality and it is the forerunner of all states i.e. the architect for classifying all existences in the dependent nature. The circumstances of duality or multiplicity are merely the end result of various activities of aggregation being observed by the mind consciousness under the influences of conditional phenomena i.e. it involves clear discrimination that differentiates and understands the characteristics of objects or matters.

In the absence of mind, things would appear as the deepest facts per se i.e. no label, no boundary, no name, no activity, no shape, no description, etc. This is because there is no existence arising in relative to one another as appearances. When there is no mind arising, no phenomenon would arise. When there is no phenomenon arising, no dependent nature would arise. When there is no dependent nature, there would be no perception, no conception, no label, no boundary, no name, no activity, no shape, no relation, no description, no stereotyping, no beginning, no ending, etc.

At the end of the day, one would realise that all things or matters are born from the same fundamental qualities i.e. emptiness and energy that would orientate as a continuum of one integrated whole and this is the ultimate reality of all things or matters. Buddhism is all about transforming an ignorant state of the mind into a realised one i.e. a process of enlightenment. During deep meditation, the becoming process of the mind would slow down. This means energy would expand away from the centre point of the source at a slower rate. When the becoming process ceases, literally, it means energy would stop vibrating. In a way, energy just got frozen. Zero vibration would mean zero becoming. Zero becoming would mean the cessation of any changing activities.

The ultimate realisation of emptiness would mean a phase of perfect intermediation being accomplished by the mind consciousness a.k.a. full enlightenment. A perfect intermediation would mean a comprehensive absence of any or all units under consideration. It is also known as a complete neutralisation of conditional phenomena. Once an absolute stage of absence is realised and it is akin to an equanimous state of affairs. Therefore, absence is not about nothingness but instead, no-thing-ness. No thing would mean no becoming or no changing. No changing would mean no suffering. No suffering would mean no mind. No mind would mean no existence. And mind is the forerunner of all states. No mind would mean a completely neutralised state of affairs. In Buddhism, this state is called nibbāna that is boundless, timeless and permanent.

The principle in effect: -

This arising (the cause and condition), that arises (the result),
This ceasing (the cause and condition), that ceases (the result).

[Pulsar]

takso wrote

During deep meditation, the becoming process of the mind would slow down. This means energy would expand away from the centre point of the source at a slower rate. When the becoming process ceases, literally, it means energy would stop vibrating. In a way, energy just got frozen. Zero vibration would mean zero becoming. Zero becoming would mean the cessation of any changing activities.

I am trying to digest your comment.
This is not a criticism, just my attempt at greater understanding. I do not quite comprehend your last paragraph either, but that later.
What do you mean by the center point of the source? What is the source?
You wrote when becoming ceases, literally it means energy would stop vibrating? Pl. clarify.
The becoming has ceased in the Buddha and all Arahants. But this does not mean the energy has ceased, energy as I understand, is the energy associated with the functioning of body of Arahant, and the energy of its sentience.
Arahant dwells in the void mostly, is that not an energetic process, or a very dynamic process? So much so, that we who are trapped within 5 aggregates are unable to comprehend that, Arahant has gone beyond the sense bases,

• empty of all sorrow related things true!, yet full of the energy of bliss, of compassion, a marvelous radiation of sorts, indescribable.

How can we deny this?
How do you define "zero vibration"? Now there is the case of 'nevasannavedayitanirodha' reported in the canon.
Are you referring to this? I think this however was not taught by Buddha.
Your idea of zero vibration and zero becoming does not make sense to me. To me no becoming is just that, to be soteriologicaly understood.
With love

[Ceisiwr]

[Sutta quotes]

Is there anything you wanted to say or argue for based on these sutta quotes?