Saying someone is 'intellectualizing' is not a complement of the intellect, and neither is it what the suttas ask one to do to realize the goal.
'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
-
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
Actually reading what the Pali suttas actually say isn't "intellectualizing" however. It is merely "applying the intellect," something that you must do in order to engage with the Dharma at a base level. If you can't apply the intellect to the contemplation of impermanence, anatman, the elements, the aggregates, etc., you're in trouble in Buddhism.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
Intellectualizing is trying to use reading and interpretation as a substitute to practice for realizing what the texts are pointing to, and coming to misguided meanings in doing so. This is what we have a lot of here from you also.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:57 pm Actually reading what the Pali suttas actually say isn't "intellectualizing" however. It is merely "applying the intellect," something that you must do in order to engage with the Dharma at a base level. If you can't apply the intellect to the contemplation of impermanence, anatman, the elements, the aggregates, etc., you're in trouble in Buddhism.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
-
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
I am usually not a huge fan of Bhikkhu Bodhi's exegesis although his translations are good , however he does a great job here in dismantling the wrong view of nihilism being perpetuated on here.
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books16/Bhi ... ibbana.pdf
I also question to what extent this annihilationist view is considered 'orthodox' as it's a clear misrepresentation of what in the Pali Canon.
As to some of the unequivocal and indisputable points as to why Nibbana is not simply 'nothingness and non-existence when the aggregates cease'.
Nibbana is a reality beyond the aggregates according to the Buddha.
Nibbana is not simply the cessation of the conditioned, but realization of the Unconditioned, Uncaused Element.
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books16/Bhi ... ibbana.pdf
I also question to what extent this annihilationist view is considered 'orthodox' as it's a clear misrepresentation of what in the Pali Canon.
As to some of the unequivocal and indisputable points as to why Nibbana is not simply 'nothingness and non-existence when the aggregates cease'.
Nothingness, or simply a label for the ending of the aggregates cannot be designated as a Dhamma, much less 'the supreme Dhamma'.Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions.
The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality. However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma."
Nibbana is a reality beyond the aggregates according to the Buddha.
Nibbana is not simply the cessation of the conditioned, but realization of the Unconditioned, Uncaused Element.
It seems that using the well known method of negation is beyond some and leads them to speculate Nibbana itself is nothing more than a mere negation. That Nibbana does not correspond to our familiar experience is also of course why people get confused attempting to conceptualize it.Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that corresponds to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things."
Aside from the use of the ocean simile given to convey the vastness of nibbana and the liberated mind of the Arahant, the Buddha specifically refers to the reality of Nibbana when he says that the Nibbana element, like the ocean does not increase when arahants merge with it after death. This is unfortunately for the annihilationists not interpretable in any kind of semantic sleight of hand or metaphorical way as indicating simply 'cessation of aggregates and nothingness with nothing to talk about' as it refers directly to the Nibbana property in it's reality.Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'dhatu,' an element, the 'deathless element' (amata-dhatu). He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana."
Last edited by Cause_and_Effect on Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
The difference between you and I is that for me conciousness is just another natural phenomenon that arises and ceases due to conditions, whilst for you it is that plus this substratum of conciousness which is the basis. You do get ideas like that put forward in certain types of Buddhism, Yogācāra for example, but I don't see any support for this kind of Rationalism in the Dhamma. From reading the early texts its more the case that the Buddha makes a series of insightful observations, rather than Rationalising to hidden realities.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:31 pm
Here you are closer to the reality.
What I have termed 'Protoconsciousness' or 'Original mind' in the Forest tradition is part of the structure of reality. It gives rise to consciousness and mentality. The dependently arisen aspects of nama-rupa are self evident. They arise with sense contacts and cease where they cease.
The protoconsciousness is not dependently arisen. On the contrary it is a field we are all participating in and which can exist in two modes, samsaric nama-rupa with individual locus of identify or it can 'Nibbanize' into the liberated deathless state free from any sense contact. The entirety of the Buddha's teachings are grounded in this implicit understanding, which fits into our shared kammic patterns and causality (eg that giving a gift to virtuous person creates better kamma for the giver than giving a gift to an unvirtuous person).
That isn't "intellectualism". I simply quoted what the sutta actually says. It says quite plainly that citta is dependent on name & form. When name & form cease, so does citta. If I said the Buddha taught that sensual pleasures are to be renounced, and then provided quotes where he says, "sensual pleasures should be renounced", that isn't engaging in some academic intellectualism or speculating. It's quoting what he is actually said to have taught.Ceisiwr wrote:
Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo;
The citta originates from name and form.
nāmarūpanirodhā cittassa atthaṅgamo.
When name and form cease, citta ends.
- SN 47.42
Cause_and_Effect wrote: This is merely more intellectualism. It's not experiential wisdom informing your views but rather an attempt at logical deduction of the suttas to try to elucidate what you think is a concept of the goal, something the Buddha warned about.
Once again, I only referred to what the sutta actually says. Consciousness, perception and feeling are all conjoined. Therefore, there is no conciousness without perception & feeling going on.More intellectual quibbling. It's telling that the attainment is not called 'the cessation of consciousness, perception and feeling'.
You are making so many lack of experientially informed judgements and assumptions about what the texts mean based on nothing more than a form of jigsaw deduction. It's a grotesque misuse of the dhamma to try to do this to this extent to support your wrong views.
If you look at what "clear and bright" is alluding to in the Pāli, nothing suggests that the faculties are still operating in that attainment. If they were, there would be bodily and visual experiences in saññāvedayitanirodhasamāpatti.Consciousness is clear and bright. There no such thing as 'faculties are bright but switched off at the same time'. That's an again twisting the clear implications in an attempt to suit your preconceived view. If thats your strategy it won't hold up well.
I'm not a nihilist, at least not according to how nihilism is presented in the suttas. I do disagree with Venerable Bodhi on certain things. I also disagree with the other monks too on certain things (although I'm less familiar with Ajahn Thate). I agree with them on other topics. You yourself are in opposition to a great number of monks and nuns too.At least you here acknowledge your personal view of nihilism nibbana is not supported by scholar monks such as Bodhi as well as great many TFT monk such as Ajahn Mun, Thate, Boowa, Thanissaro, Ajahn Sumedho etc etc
I find this strange. I find it strange when you claim I am guilt of "intellectualising", when you yourself continue to argue for speculative Rationalist theories. If anything here is an example of "intellectualising", engaging with Rationalism would be it.Indeed it hard to intellectualize everything which is why you should stop.
Again this shows nothing more than your personal distortions. The Buddha describing the liberated state free from the aggregates here as "immeasurable" cannot be distorted as a mere intellectual devise. It's simply disingenuous to try to twist that he would use auch an analogy for something which could be simply stated (according to you) "body-mind is ended and there is no further existance or experience after death".
According to you the Buddha is apt at making unnecessary analogies that can give the impression of a in infinite liberated awareness.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
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.”
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
You have no idea what my practice is like.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:16 pmIntellectualizing is trying to use reading and interpretation as a substitute to practice for realizing what the texts are pointing to, and coming to misguided meanings in doing so. This is what we have a lot of here from you also.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:57 pm Actually reading what the Pali suttas actually say isn't "intellectualizing" however. It is merely "applying the intellect," something that you must do in order to engage with the Dharma at a base level. If you can't apply the intellect to the contemplation of impermanence, anatman, the elements, the aggregates, etc., you're in trouble in Buddhism.
“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.”
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.”
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
Fake news. Move along. Please don't spread lies about me.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:16 pmIntellectualizing is trying to use reading and interpretation as a substitute to practice for realizing what the texts are pointing to, and coming to misguided meanings in doing so. This is what we have a lot of here from you also.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:57 pm Actually reading what the Pali suttas actually say isn't "intellectualizing" however. It is merely "applying the intellect," something that you must do in order to engage with the Dharma at a base level. If you can't apply the intellect to the contemplation of impermanence, anatman, the elements, the aggregates, etc., you're in trouble in Buddhism.
"Everyone I disagree with is an intellectual with bad practice!"
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
No, mainly you and select others who make themselves knowns also by snide comments unable to engage the discussion.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:20 pmFake news. Move along. Please don't spread lies about me.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:16 pmIntellectualizing is trying to use reading and interpretation as a substitute to practice for realizing what the texts are pointing to, and coming to misguided meanings in doing so. This is what we have a lot of here from you also.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:57 pm Actually reading what the Pali suttas actually say isn't "intellectualizing" however. It is merely "applying the intellect," something that you must do in order to engage with the Dharma at a base level. If you can't apply the intellect to the contemplation of impermanence, anatman, the elements, the aggregates, etc., you're in trouble in Buddhism.
"Everyone I disagree with is an intellectual with bad practice!"
So saying your views are misguided and intellectualism is not a lie it's a valid opinion.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
For example, haven't you been arguing and deducing lately that there is some kamma "field" or some background substratum to conciousness?Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:25 pm This is merely more intellectualism. It's not experiential wisdom informing your views but rather an attempt at logical deduction of the suttas to try to elucidate what you think is a concept of the goal, something the Buddha warned about.
“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.”
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.”
-
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
That's a speculative opinion, as though your speculations are not a rationalist attempt at elucidation.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:19 pmThe difference between you and I is that for me conciousness is just another natural phenomenon that arises and ceases due to conditions, whilst for you it is that plus this substratum of conciousness which is the basis. You do get ideas like that put forward in certain types of Buddhism, Yogācāra for example, but I don't see any support for this kind of Rationalism in the Dhamma. From reading the early texts its more the case that the Buddha makes a series of insightful observations, rather than Rationalising to hidden realities.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:31 pm
Here you are closer to the reality.
What I have termed 'Protoconsciousness' or 'Original mind' in the Forest tradition is part of the structure of reality. It gives rise to consciousness and mentality. The dependently arisen aspects of nama-rupa are self evident. They arise with sense contacts and cease where they cease.
The protoconsciousness is not dependently arisen. On the contrary it is a field we are all participating in and which can exist in two modes, samsaric nama-rupa with individual locus of identify or it can 'Nibbanize' into the liberated deathless state free from any sense contact. The entirety of the Buddha's teachings are grounded in this implicit understanding, which fits into our shared kammic patterns and causality (eg that giving a gift to virtuous person creates better kamma for the giver than giving a gift to an unvirtuous person).
While not an expert in schools such as Yogacara, their positions are based on exegesis of early texts like the Nikayas and implications in the framework as they saw it so it's not necessarily the case to say because they are later school some of their views are not a valid interpretation of what the Buddha taught in the early discourses.
Yes, but I don't engage in that form of logical inference without experiential insight first into a wider consciousness/protoconsciousness field to back it up and inform my views.Ceisiwr wrote:For example, haven't you been arguing and deducing lately that there is some kamma "field" or some background substratum to conciousness?Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:25 pm This is merely more intellectualism. It's not experiential wisdom informing your views but rather an attempt at logical deduction of the suttas to try to elucidate what you think is a concept of the goal, something the Buddha warned about.
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
No, foolish man, it's prapañca, because you don't know my views. That's what prapañca is. You, however, clearly can't tell the difference between understanding buddhavacana and intellectualizing it. Clearly, you imagine me with all sorts of views that you've made up in your own head and assigned to me. Kindly stop.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:25 pmNo, mainly you and select others who make themselves knowns also by snide comments unable to engage the discussion.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:20 pmFake news. Move along. Please don't spread lies about me.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:16 pm
Intellectualizing is trying to use reading and interpretation as a substitute to practice for realizing what the texts are pointing to, and coming to misguided meanings in doing so. This is what we have a lot of here from you also.
"Everyone I disagree with is an intellectual with bad practice!"
So saying your views are misguided and intellectualism is not a lie it's a valid opinion.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
Using reason isn't Rationalism. Rationalism is a philosophical view or approach where reason can grant access to realities that exist above or behind sense experience. Advaita Vedānta or Samkhya are good examples of Indian Rationalism. The Buddha wasn't a Rationalist. He warned against it, and even criticised it. Rather the Buddha stuck to what was experienced, which is why I said it's more that he made a series of observations. Our experience of consciousness is that it is always dependent, never independent. To get to a permanent conciousness which underlies everything, a substratum, you need Rationalism or just to simply believe and assert it.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:37 pm
That's a speculative opinion, as though your speculations are not a rationalist attempt at elucidation.
Being late doesn't mean it's wrong, no, but I see little support for its theories. Yogācāra being another form of Abhidhamma, a Mahāyāna one.While not an expert in schools such as Yogacara, their positions are based on exegesis of early texts like the Nikayas and implications in the framework as they saw it so it's not necessarily the case to say because they are later school some of their views are not a valid interpretation of what the Buddha taught in the early discourses.
“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.”
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.”
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
Yogācāra sits at the intersection of Mahāyāna, Sautrāntika (Ven Vasubandhu's tradition), and Mahīśāsaka Abhidharma (Ven Āsaṃga's tradition), which is clear if you've even a casual understanding of these three traditions. Cue comments from the peanut gallery about all this intellectualization!
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
I said you are intellectualizing and I have little interest in philosophical labels for whatever it is you are doing when you try to wrongly imagine what Nibbana is based on selective textual inference.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:51 pmUsing reason isn't Rationalism. Rationalism is a philosophical view or approach where reason can grant access to realities that exist above or behind sense experience.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:37 pm
That's a speculative opinion, as though your speculations are not a rationalist attempt at elucidation.
Again not true in any way. It may be your experience but not mine.
My experience is of dependently arisen sensory consciousness, and of a protoconscious witnessing field that is an inviolable part of the structure of reality that is not dependently arisen. I interpret the Buddha's teachings through the lens of my experience and I find it fits so I am pleased, and further vindicated with some TFT and other monks experiencing similar things and some exegesis of later schools where I find support in some points and see the basis in the Suttas while broadly disagreeing on others. I also see some indications in modern physics so it's all good.
I spend little to no time thinking anything about you and that's not going to change no matter how many silly emojis you want to post.
Last edited by Cause_and_Effect on Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."
(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?
You said "That's a speculative opinion, as though your speculations are not a rationalist attempt at elucidation.". You were trying to say that my use of reason means I was guilty of my own charge of Rationalism. That doesn't follow. For example, David Hume used reason, but he wasn't a Rationalist. He was an Empiricist. Venerable Nāgārjuna used reason, but he wasn't a Rationalist.Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:16 pm
I said you are intellectualizing and I have little interest in philosophical labels for whatever it is you are doing when you try to wrongly imagine what Nibbana is based on selective textual inference.
Since you have equated this eternal "proto-conciousness" with nibbāna I guess you are making a claim of some level of realisation here? May I ask, and this isn't being snarky, did you experience this whilst high on LSD? If you did, you might consider being a bit sceptical of it.Again not true in any way. It may be your experience but not mine.
My experience is of dependently arisen sensory consciousness, and of a protoconscious witnessing field that is an inviolable part of the structure of reality that is not dependently arisen. I interpret the Buddha's teachings through the lens of my experience and I find it fits so I am pleased, and further vindicated with some TFT and other monks experiencing similar things and some exegesis of later schools where I find support in some points and see the basis in the Suttas while broadly disagreeing on others. I also see some indications in modern physics so it's all good.
“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.”
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.”