'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

[Spiny Norman]

why it would be atman? why do you suggest that option at all?

You have just claimed that Nibbana equals Brahman. But Atman equals Brahman, so you're also saying that Nibbana equals Atman.

where did i said that? i think i said attaining brahman.
..
with that you reminded me a serious matter. you actually need attain soul so yes you don't have one if you haven't attained it yet.

"Attaining" Brahman is the same as attaining (realising) Atman.

You're basically claiming that attaining Brahman is the same as attaining Nibbana, so let's see some sutta support for this claim.

[Spiny Norman]

Please answer my question in a straightforward way.

Not Self … Not No Self

Again, please answer my question in a straightforward way. Stop hiding behind these random cryptic quotes.

[cappuccino]

Again …

the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self

[Spiny Norman]

Again …

the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self

...and then what?

[cappuccino]

...and then what?

well self view is transcended


for what that's worth

[mikenz66]

No, just a lack of clarity on your part.

It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End,
the Truth, the Other Shore, the Subtle,
the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified,
Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety,
the Wonderful, the Marvellous,
Nibbæna, Purity, Freedom,
the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44

You seem attached to an eternalist view.

What Pali term is translated as "everlasting" in the quote above?

Unsure. Here's the English/Pali to compare...
https://suttacentral.net/sn43.14-43/en/ ... ript=latin


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End,
the Truth, the Other Shore, the Subtle,
the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified,
Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety,
the Wonderful, the Marvellous,
Nibbæna, Purity, Freedom,
the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44

You seem attached to an eternalist view.

What Pali term is translated as "everlasting" in the quote above?

Unsure. Here's the English/Pali to compare...
https://suttacentral.net/sn43.14-43/en/ ... ript=latin


Mike

"Everlasting" doesn't seem to be there.

[Cause_and_Effect]

No, just a lack of clarity on your part.

It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End,
the Truth, the Other Shore, the Subtle,
the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified,
Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety,
the Wonderful, the Marvellous,
Nibbæna, Purity, Freedom,
the Island,
the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44

You seem attached to an eternalist view.

As has been argued here, apparently according to the Buddha 'annihilationist' does not mean annihilation of all experience. Although that would be a philosophical and metaphysical annihilation.
Still, in the Canon it is argued that 'annihilationist' refers only to a concept of a permanent self or soul that is annihilated at death.

Similarly by this perspective 'Eternalist' would not mean 'an Eternal reality beyond death'. Rather, by the same argument 'Eternalist' in the Canon refers only to the concept of an eternal or permanent self or soul that is born again and again and transmigrates, and is the true self.

You seem attached to an eternalist view.

What Pali term is translated as "everlasting" in the quote above?

Unsure. Here's the English/Pali to compare...
https://suttacentral.net/sn43.14-43/en/ ... ript=latin


Mike

"Everlasting" doesn't seem to be there.

Permanent, non-disintegrating, Sure, Stable, Unailing state are all renderings of the numerous synonyms. Ever-lasting is indeed there.

[Ceisiwr]

Rather, by the same argument 'Eternalist' in the Canon refers only to the concept of an eternal or permanent self or soul that is born again and again and transmigrates, and is the true self.

Yes, a self that has a foundation in a permanent and eternal thing.

"Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession?”

“No, sir.”

“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such possession."

https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato ... ript=latin

If there were a permanent and everlasting conciousness, then according to the Buddha it would make sense to call it a self (to possess something is to identify with it). The Buddha's argument is that there is no such thing. The foundation of the eternalist belief isn't simply that they believe in a self. Rather its they take something to be permanent and claim that as the self, but in reality, what they claim is the basis for self is impermanent and so not-self. The basis for their belief in an eternal atta is in viewing something as eternal, like you do, and identifying with it. For the annihilationist, they (rightly) recognise something as being subject to death but err in identifying with that which is impermanent.

“And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

“How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

“How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see? Herein a bhikkhu sees what has come to be as having come to be. Having seen it thus, he practises the course for turning away, for dispassion, for the cessation of what has come to be. Thus, bhikkhus, do those with vision see.”

Having seen what has come to be
As having come to be,
Passing beyond what has come to be,
They are released in accordance with truth
By exhausting the craving for being.

When a bhikkhu has fully understood
That which has come to be as such,
Free from craving to be this or that,
By the extinction of what has come to be
He comes no more to renewal of being.

https://suttacentral.net/iti49/en/irela ... ight=false

[Cause_and_Effect]

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.

Nama and citta cannot be distinguished fully like that. This statement shows you more as a scholastic suttavadin than more of an experientially oriented practicioner trying to use the texts to inform their practice.

After all you've reached in your mind a definitive philosophically nihilist view about nibbana without having attained, simply off of speculative reasoning.

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.

It's convenient how virtually every sutta passage in the Pali Canon that rebukes your metaphysical nihilism, is either 'an odd text from some unknown source', 'a corruption', 'a verse with a variation in a parallel collection with a different implication', 'some other meaning not mentioned in the sutta itself which later commentators think it means, and thus doesn't imply what it looks like'.

As to Sujato, he is your nihilsm guru so of course he is going to deny the implications.

[Ceisiwr]

This statement shows you more as a scholastic suttavadin than more of an experientially oriented practicioner trying to use the texts to inform their practice...As to Sujato, he is your nihilsm guru so of course he is going to deny the implications.

I wouldn't label myself as a Suttavādin. I mean the commentarial tradition does inform my view of things, but then again I'm not strictly orthodox on everything. I do agree with Sujato on somethings, less so on others. As for my practice, well, once again you don't really know what it is like. As to the rest, as ever I'll respond in the next day or so.

[Coëmgenu]

The "luminous mind" discourse is absent from all other recensions of the EBTs, unless I'm quite mistaken. It is a text that is specific to the Pāli tradition, and obviously refers to jhāna, inasmuch as it refers to anything. The Theravādins and Dharmaguptakas share a fascination with the mind being "luminous" in various contexts, almost all of them being in the context of samādhis/jhānas.

Link forthcoming when I'm at a computer. In the meantime, look up Ven Analayo's essay concerning luminosity and the Dharmaguptakas.

[Cause_and_Effect]

"Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession?”

“No, sir.”

“Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such possession."

https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato ... ript=latin

If there were a permanent and everlasting conciousness, then according to the Buddha it would make sense to call it a self (to possess something is to identify with it).

No no no! You have it totally wrong here.
The Buddha here is talking about the five aggregates, and arguing that there is nothing amongst them that is worthy of being called 'self' as it is inconstant, changeable and thus cannot be identified with. The Buddha was not a metaphysician as you are.
He was pragmatic, and looked at the material of what was observable. By seeing what is inconstant and letting go, one will eventually arrive at the constant.

The Buddha's argument is that there is no such thing. The foundation of the eternalist belief isn't simply that they believe in a self. Rather its they take something to be permanent and claim that as the self, but in reality, what they claim is the basis for self is impermanent and so not-self.

They take a separate self as perment that is within, contains, or is the same as the aggregates. None of which I am arguing.

The basis for their belief in an eternal atta is in viewing something as eternal, like you do, and identifying with it.

No no no! The Buddha calling nibbana permanent and the stable shore does not make him a believer in an eternal atta or 'an eternalist'. He rightly recognized that when one merges into the unailing nibbana (a simile he gave) one cannot identify with it at that point. Thus it is the supreme dhamma, but it is not self and does not belong to anyone.

“And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy becoming, delight in becoming, are satisfied with becoming. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of becoming, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

“How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same becoming and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-becoming, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

“How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see? Herein a bhikkhu sees what has come to be as having come to be. Having seen it thus, he practises the course for turning away, for dispassion, for the cessation of what has come to be. Thus, bhikkhus, do those with vision see.”

https://suttacentral.net/iti49/en/irela ... ight=false


Becoming and rebecoming are better renderings than 'being' and 'renewal of being' in my view.

[cappuccino]

"Everlasting" doesn't seem to be there.

Because Sujato translated

[Coëmgenu]

More like Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated "unaging" with a synonym for "eternal."

It's freedom from aging and death alike. Once Nibbāna has happened, that won't happen again. Birth, aging, death: none of it.