The position of Theravāda and, if I recall, Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika and some other early schools was that nibbāna is cognised at the mind base. The All is the totality of what can be known. Since nibbāna can be known, and since its not cognised with sight, touch, hearing etc, then it is included as amongst the objects of the mind base.User13866 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:44 pm They assert that Unconditioned is actually a conditioned element and that it's name is not representative of what it is.
As if i had a boat and named this boat 'a woman' and was to say 'a boat is a woman'. Similarly they assert that the unconditioned is merely a name for a conditioned phenomena.
Ceisiwr from DW is a good example of one holding this view
https://suttacentral.net/vb2/en/thittil ... ight=falseTherein what is ideational base? The aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of mental concomitants and that invisible non-impingent material quality included in the ideational base; the unconditioned element.
Now this is a dualist view of nibbāna. In these systems of thought nibbāna is a dhamma which exists in it's own right, and it is this dhamma which is cognised at the mind. There is of course the other view that there is no difference between saṃsāra and nibbāna. On said view, nibbāna is saṃsāra correctly understood. Even here though, I think, an argument can be made for including nibbāna within the All.
I've not argued that the Arahant's mind is nibbāna. In fact I've consistently argued against viewing nibbāna as being some kind of mind/consciousness/awareness.This is the assertion he makes;
He asserts that a person becomes an Arahant merely by a deep understanding of the Dhamma and with that he is not reborn because his mind is 'unconditioned'.
Thus he asserts that the unconditioned element is merely a name for the conditioned mind of the Arahant, hence he says "the unconditioned is included among the conditioned".
For evidence he will say
* Isn't it so that in attaining Arahantship one attains Nibbana [removal of delusion]?
* Isn't it so that Nibbana is Unconditioned?
However this is quite reprehensible because the mind of the Arahant is never in he texts called neither Nibbana or Unconditioned.
The suttas themselves make the comparison with a dead body. Furthermore, it is impossible to have conciousness without perception & feeling according to the suttas. It's impossible to have any conciousness without contact, because there is no recognition of a consciousness arising or existing independently in the earliest material (nor later ones). On nibbāna being "bliss", sukha can be used in different ways in the suttas. Sometimes its rather technical and specific (5 faculties) but are other times more a figure of speech. For example, there is said to be the "bliss" of equanimity. Equanimity is not bliss though, it's equanimity. The "bliss" here is a manner of speech. This is how the commentaries read nibbāna being bliss, and its how I read it too. In fact, its the only way to read it since bliss the feeling can't be in nibbāna since nibbāna is beyond all feeling.Furthermore those who hold to interpretation A) are completely lost when it comes to explaining cessation of perception & feeling.
Ceisiwr just says 'it's like being dead'. This is of course meaningless because what is that exactly?
In Theravada death is the break up of the body and a consequent taking up of another body, being dead is not really anything other than that.
