'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

[Ceisiwr]

Stop conjecturing.
Read Thannissaro's Mind Like Fire Unbound will be a start and Peter Harveys The Selfless Mind.

The āsava are also said to be extinguished. Does that mean the āsava go to some dormant state, and so in a sense still exist?

The famous sutta says the mind is defiled by adventitious defilements, and can be freed from them. There is a separation.

Ok, so I take it from this then that in your worldview nothing ever ceases apart from perhaps our perception of them, or our sense impressions?

[Cause_and_Effect]

The āsava are also said to be extinguished. Does that mean the āsava go to some dormant state, and so in a sense still exist?

The famous sutta says the mind is defiled by adventitious defilements, and can be freed from them. There is a separation.

Ok, so I take it from this then that in your worldview nothing ever ceases apart from perhaps our perception of them, or our sense impressions?

That's an interesting metaphysical speculation. The key point is if they cease for us. I mean the four great elements cease being part of our rupa, but they don't 'cease' in an ultimate sense. Cessation of the aggregates is cessation of the aggregates as far as we are concerned. Eradication of defilements is the same.

[Ceisiwr]

The famous sutta says the mind is defiled by adventitious defilements, and can be freed from them. There is a separation.

Ok, so I take it from this then that in your worldview nothing ever ceases apart from perhaps our perception of them, or our sense impressions?

That's an interesting metaphysical speculation. The key point is if they cease for us. I mean the four great elements cease being part of our rupa, but they don't 'cease' in an ultimate sense. Cessation of the aggregates is cessation of the aggregates as far as we are concerned. Eradication of defilements is the same.

It's an implication of what you and the Venerable are arguing. If conciousness goes back to some dormant state then so must the āsavā, but how can you have the āsavā exist apart from citta?

[Cause_and_Effect]

Ok, so I take it from this then that in your worldview nothing ever ceases apart from perhaps our perception of them, or our sense impressions?

That's an interesting metaphysical speculation. The key point is if they cease for us. I mean the four great elements cease being part of our rupa, but they don't 'cease' in an ultimate sense. Cessation of the aggregates is cessation of the aggregates as far as we are concerned. Eradication of defilements is the same.

It's an implication of what you and the Venerable are arguing. If conciousness goes back to some dormant state then so must the āsavā, but how can you have the āsavā exist apart from citta?

Not necessarily. The idea is the mind is unbounded from taking up of nama-rupa. The asava are connected to nama rupa only.
This is why terms like 'original mind' have been used to distinguish from conventional mind, or the 'mind that spins with the defilments and aggregates' as some of the TFT monks like to put it.

What is your take on the luminous mind sutta, where the Buddha says mind is separate from asava and can be freed from them? It lends some support to the Ajahns view.

[Ceisiwr]

Not necessarily. The idea is the mind is unbounded from taking up of nama-rupa. The asava are connected to nama rupa only.
This is why terms like 'original mind' have been used to distinguish from conventional mind, or the 'mind that spins with the defilments and aggregates' as some of the TFT monks like to put it.

The āsavā are involved with citta, not name & form.

What is your take on the luminous mind sutta, where the Buddha says mind is separate from asava and can be freed from them? It lends some support to the Ajahns view.

I think it is probably talking about the hindrances and Jhāna.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Not necessarily. The idea is the mind is unbounded from taking up of nama-rupa. The asava are connected to nama rupa only.
This is why terms like 'original mind' have been used to distinguish from conventional mind, or the 'mind that spins with the defilments and aggregates' as some of the TFT monks like to put it.

The āsavā are involved with citta, not name & form.

The asava are most certainly involved with nama, seeing as it's a term designating the mentality and individal identity, or mind in a conventional sense. They are also involved in rupa to the extent it's connected with mind.

What is your take on the luminous mind sutta, where the Buddha says mind is separate from asava and can be freed from them? It lends some support to the Ajahns view.

I think it is probably talking about the hindrances and Jhāna.

Well you are indeed free to 'probably think' that. It's just that there is no basis in the suttas for that interpretation. Whenever the Buddha was talking about jhana he said so, there is usually a stock forumula or at least a specific question relating to it.

For him to simply say 'the mind is luminous' seems to indicate the nature of pure mind itself. It also has a resonance with the 'consciousness without surface, luminous all around' verse.
Needless to say, the TFT Ajahns statements look very different if this verse is taken at face value.

[Ceisiwr]

The asava are most certainly involved with nama, seeing as it's a term designating the mentality and individal identity, or mind in a conventional sense. They are also involved in rupa to the extent it's connected with mind.

It's not name & form which is liberated from the āsavā. It's citta.

Well you are indeed free to 'probably think' that. It's just that there is no basis in the suttas for that interpretation. Whenever the Buddha was talking about jhana he said so, there is usually a stock forumula or at least a specific question relating to it.

For him to simply say 'the mind is luminous' seems to indicate the nature of pure mind itself. It also has a resonance with the 'consciousness without surface, luminous all around' verse.
Needless to say, the TFT Ajahns statements look very different if this verse is taken at face value.

The text itself seems to be one that is lifted from some unknown source, which is why there isn't much context. It's talk of "upakkilesehi" is suggestive of the hindrances, whilst the mention of "cittabhāvanā " or "development of the mind" suggests Jhāna. I believe the commentarial view is that it is referring to the Bhavaṅga. Sujato thinks it is about the hindrances and Jhāna too, whilst Venerable Anālayo, if i remember correctly, thinks it is not an original early sutta or teaching at all. Then we have some monks (and nuns?) who think it refers to an eternal citta. Out of all of those explanations, I find this to be the most unlikely.

[cappuccino]

Then we have some monks … who think it refers to an eternal citta.

You want to fit a square peg (No self) into a round hole

[Spiny Norman]

You want to fit a square peg (No self) into a round hole

No, that's your job.

[Spiny Norman]

I don’t think it’s annihilation, because annihilationism is the view that a self is destroyed

That’s not how Buddha defines annihilation.

I think it is, actually.

[Spiny Norman]

It's amazing how attached you are and how fervently you argue for your annihilationist and exterminationist beliefs, and how much you identify with the aggregates.
It's a compulsive desire you have for non-existance. It's not healthy, not to speak of misrepresentation of the goal. You want nibbana to be 'the great and final everlasting death' instead of 'the deathless'.

I'm afraid you are using "annihilationist" in a way that isn't used in Theravāda nor early Buddhism. According to Buddhadhamma, nowhere have I proposed annihilationism.

interrupting this convo for a sec, i might see it wrongly, but it truly seem like it that,
Ceiswir you are getting lost from the first line what user Cause and effect posted and just carrying on with your usual narrative.
What said to you is:
You think nibbana is annihilation. Therefore you are an annihilationist.

Nibbana is about cessation, not about eternal life.
Again, you are muddling up Buddhist and Hindu teachings, and missing the point.

[cappuccino]

I think it is, actually.

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].

[cappuccino]

Nibbana is about cessation, not about eternal life.

Paradox…

[Ceisiwr]

I'm afraid you are using "annihilationist" in a way that isn't used in Theravāda nor early Buddhism. According to Buddhadhamma, nowhere have I proposed annihilationism.

interrupting this convo for a sec, i might see it wrongly, but it truly seem like it that,
Ceiswir you are getting lost from the first line what user Cause and effect posted and just carrying on with your usual narrative.
What said to you is:
You think nibbana is annihilation. Therefore you are an annihilationist.

Nibbana is about cessation, not about eternal life.
Again, you are muddling up Buddhist and Hindu teachings, and missing the point.

He throws Christian Theism into the blender too.

[Spiny Norman]

Nibbana is about cessation, not about eternal life.

Paradox…

No, just a lack of clarity on your part.