Dependant Origination....

Liberation

Bit from Ajahn Thanissaro...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html

Liberation 

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress.

— Ud 8.1

Where water, earth, fire, and wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine,  the sun is not visible,  the moon does not appear,  darkness is not found. And when a sage, a worthy one, through sagacity  has known (this) for himself, then from form and formless,  from pleasure and pain,   he is freed. 

— Ud 1.10

Aggivessana Vacchagotta: 'But, Venerable Gotama the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?'

Buddha: '"Reappear," Vaccha, doesn't apply.'

'In that case, Venerable Gotama, he does not reappear.'

'"Does not reappear," Vaccha, doesn't apply.'

'...both does and does not reappear.'

'...doesn't apply.'

'...Neither does nor does not reappear.'

'...doesn't apply.'...

'At this point, Venerable Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured.'

'Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, "This fire is burning in front of me"?'

'...yes...'

'And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, "This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?" Thus asked, how would you reply?'

'...I would reply, "This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass and timber as its sustenance."'

'If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, "This fire burning in front of me has gone out"?'

'...yes...'

'And suppose someone were to ask you, "This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?" Thus asked, how would you reply?'

'That doesn't apply, Venerable Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as "out."'

'Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard-to-fathom, like the sea. "Reappears" does not apply. "Does not reappear" does not apply. "Both does and does not reappear" does not apply. "Neither reappears nor does not reappear" does not apply.

'Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...

'Any [act of] consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned... Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard-to-fathom, like the sea.'

— M 72

Ajahn Dune on nibbana

I have been reading a bit of "posts" at my usual Buddhism forum. I can't be bothered to post there though. However, I always like Ajahn Dune's small bit on nibbana, as well as Ajahn Mun's bit on Avijja (in his biography, posted here somewhere already)

108. Final words

A few moments after we had finished chanting the Mahasatipatthana Discourse, Luang Pu began speaking about the Lord Buddha's total nibbana, from the beginning to the end. Here, I'll ask just to quote his concluding remarks:

"The Lord Buddha didn't attain nibbana in any of his jhanic attainments. When he left the fourth jhana, his mental aggregates all ceased at once, with nothing remaining. In other words, he allowed his feeling aggregate to cease in an awake state of mind, the normal human mental series, complete with mindfulness and alertness, with no other mental states coming to blind or delude the mind at all. This was the mind fully in its own state. You could call that state great emptiness, or the original cosmos, or nibbana, whichever you like. That's the state I've been practicing all along to reach."

Those were Luang Pu's last words.

Knowledge and understanding of the "unconditioned"

As human and other living beings live in the world that is defined by space and time, we are unable to comprehend "the unconditioned" beyond samsara that have no relevance to both space and time - where both space and time have no meaning.

No wonder we keep on not understanding anything about this "unconditioned". The problem with our mode of learning is that we try to understand things, including something that is beyond our comprehension, our ability to understand. Direct experience is totally different kind of knowledge from mere understanding or mere conceptualization, and to know this "unconditioned" we need to directly experience it, not understanding it.

Even though in some schools of Buddhism masters are said to be able to "introduce" their students to this "unconditioned", in my opinion they can not really give the students the true knowledge of this "unconditioned". Only direct knowledge can give practitioners true knowledge of the "unconditioned" beyond samsara, beyond space and time.

There is monks a domain...

"There is monks a domain where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind, no sphere of infinite space, no sphere of nothingness, no sphere of neither awareness nor non-awareness; there is not this world, there is not another world, there is no sun or moon. I do not call this coming or going, nor standing nor dying, nor being reborn; it is without support, without occurrence, without object. Just this is the end of suffering."

(Trans. in Gethin 1998: 76-77).

Paticca-samuppada

Anguttara Nikaya 3:61:

It is with ignorance (avijja) as a condition
that formations (sankhara) come to be;
with formations as a condition,
consciousness (vinnana) comes to be;
with consciousness as a condition,
name and form (nama-rupa) come to be;
with name and form as a condition,
the six bases (salayatana) come to be;
with the six bases as a condition,
contact (phassa) comes to be;
with contact as a condition,
feeling (vedana) comes to be;
with feeling as a condition,
desire (tanha) comes to be;
with desire as a condition,
clinging (upadana) comes to be;
with clinging as a condition,
being (bhava) comes to be;
with being as a condition,
birth (jati) comes to be;
with birth as a condition,
aging and death (jara-marana) come to be,
and also sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair;
that is how there is an origin to this whole mass of suffering (dukkha).
This is called the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering.

My post on "vi~n~naana.m andassana.m"

At E-Sangha...

Disclaimer: this is my understanding from practicing in the Thai forest tradition, but what I am writing below does not represent the teachings of the forest tradition, only my limited understanding of it.

Regarding "vi~n~naana.m andassana.m", it is unconditioned. Since it is unconditioned, it cannot interact with anything. It cannot influence samsara, nor can it be influenced by samsara. It is not a controller of anything as it does not have any ability to control, or be controlled.

Since it is "unborn" and "deathless", there is no concept of time. Time does not apply. Time only applies to things that are conditioned, like the five aggregates. For the unconditioned, time simply does not exist. No time.

We are so caught up with samsara way of thinking where time is an inescapable reality, and as we never have experienced anything that is “not bound by time”, we always think of this as having to be either nihilistic or eternalistic. But both terms do not apply.

The only reason that, in my understanding, " vi~n~naana.m andassana.m" is used is because of the quality of knowing. However, this quality is of “simply knowing” only, and not of thinking, not understanding, not comprehending, not storing any tiny bits of memory. Simply knows. Luminous because knowing is limitless, but there light/color/darkness do not apply.

When we use the word mind, we think of a thing. This is not a thing either, and cannot be found, and does not exist nor not exist. It is not the mind. Sometimes the word mind is used simply because for lack of better words.

Is it Self or True Self? Far from that as well. Self or whatever we call me or mine only belongs to samsara. “We” are the self, the illusion, the concept. The “one” that knows is also a concept. It's not also the new-age or ancient-age "one with all, and all with one". Or getting back into the Atman either, no mini Me finally rejoining the Big Me.

But this can be known, and the only way that it is known is directly from practice to see samsara as is. Simple. But that "direct knowledge" of is also in samsara. As this can be known, some Buddhist practitioners do not deny it. Some may not like to talk much about it as it is incomprehensible, and unexplainable, and only to be known by oneself. But since we have not yet experienced this , it does not mean that this is "false" or "wrong". [I know, some wouldn't want to anyway, or say it's a fake mind-made thing, whatever.]

For those who have direct knowledge of this "vi~n~naana.m andassana.m", which is also not any jhanic states either as it does not belong to any realms of existence nor does it have any kinds of existence (nor not exist), it is more true than anything in front of our eyes.

PS – I do not equate this to nibbana though.

Just my limited understanding from listening and learning from some meditation masters.

Emptyuniverse on "vi~n~naana.m andassana.m"

A post by Emptyuniverse at E-Sangha...


Anyhoo, since it's now established that one who translates vi~n~naana.m andassana.m as "non-manifestative consciousness," etc., isn't necessarily a heretic guilty of wrong view, it's worth looking at this second allegation: that this translation is merely an oxymoron.

First, a list of some authors and translators who have seen fit to translate vi~n~naana.m andassana.m along these lines:

- the consciousness that makes no showing (Ven. Nanamoli)
- non-manifestative consciousness (Ven. Nyanananda)
- consciousness non-manifesting (from A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya by Ven. Nanamoli and Ven. Bodhi)
- awakened consiciousness (from the Introduction of Ven. Sumedho's Intuitive Awareness)
- consciousness which is unmanifest (Ven. Amaro)
- consciousness without feature, consciousness without surface (Ven. Thanissaro)
- non-manifestative consciousness (Ven. Analayo)
- where consciousness is signless (M. Walshe)
- undemonstratable consciousness (Jeffrey Hopkins, Ven. Lati Rimpoche, trans. of rnam shes bstan med, from The Buddhism of Tibet)

Second, Ven. Bodhi's translation of this term in MN 49: Brahmanimantanika Sutta:

Consciousness non-manifesting,
Boundless, luminous all-round:

that is not pataken of by the earthness of earth, that is not partaken of by the waterness of water ... that is not partaken of by the allness of all.

And his reason for departing from the commentary when doing so (endnote 513 from The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya):

These lines (which also apear as part of a full verse at DN 11.85/i.223) have been a perennial challenge to Buddhist scholarship, and even Aacariya Buddhaghosa seems to founder over them. MA takes the subject of the sentence to be Nibbaana, called "consciousness" (vi~n~naa.na.m) in the sense that "it can be cognized" (vijaanitabba.m). This derivation is hardly credible, since nowhere in the Nikaayas is Nibbaana described as consciousness, nor is it possible to derive an active noun from the gerundive. MA explains anidassana.m as meaning invisible, "because it (Nibbaana) does not come within range of eye-consciousness," but again this is a trite explanation. The word anidassana occurs at MN 21.14 in the description of empty space as an unsuitable medium for painting pictures; thus the idea seems to be that of not making manifest.

MA offers three explanations of sabbato pabha.m: (1) completely possessed of luminosity (pabhaa); (2) possessing being (pabhuuta.m) everywhere; and (3) a ford (pabha.m) accessible from all sides, i.e. through any of the thirty-eight meditation objects. Only the first of these seems to have any linguistic legitimacy.

Ven. Nyanananda's comments on this same excerpt from MN 49:

In the Brahmanimantanikasutta of the Majjhima Nikaaya, also, the first two lines of the verse, vi~n~naana.m anidassana.m, anan­ta.m sabbato pabha.m, occur. But here the commentator follows a dif­ferent line of interpretation. Whereas in his commentary to the Keva.d.dhasutta he explains anidas­sana.m as an epithet of Nibbaana, in the sense of having nothing to compare with, here he takes it in the sense of not being visi­ble to the eye. Cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa aapaatha.m anupagamanato ani­dassana.m naama, "it is called anidassana be­cause it does not come within the range of eye-consciousness".

In explaining the term sabbato pabha.m, he suggests several alter­native interpretations. In the first interpretation, he takes pabhaa to mean light, or lustre. Sabbato pabhan'ti sabbato pabhaa­sampanna.m. Nibbaanato hi a~n~no dhammo sappabhataro vaa joti­vantataro vaa pari­suddhataro vaa pa.n.darataro vaa natthi. "Sabbato pabha.m means more lustrous than anything else. For there is nothing more lustrous or lu­minous or purer or whiter than Nib­baana".

The etymology of the term sabbato pabha.m has been given a twist, for the word sabbato is taken in a comparative sense, 'more lustrous than anything'. As we have pointed out, the term actu­ally means 'lustrous on all sides'. Then a second interpretation is given, bringing in the word pabhuu, 'lord' or 'chief'. Sabbato vaa pabhuu, that is to say more prominent than anything else. In sup­port of it he says: Asukadisaaya naama nibbaana.m natthii'ti na vat­tabba.m, "it should not be said that in such and such a direction Nibbaana is not to be found". He says that it is called pabhuu, or lord, because it is to be found in all directions. Only as the third interpretation he cites his simile of the ford already given in his commentary to the Keva.d.dhasutta.

What is the reason for giving so many figurative interpreta­tions as alternatives to such a significant verse? Surely the Bud­dha would not have intended the verse to convey so many con­flicting meanings, when he preached it.

No doubt the commentators have made a great effort to pre­serve the Dhamma, but due to some unfortunate historical cir­cumstances, most of the deep discourses dealing with the sub­ject of Nibbaana have been handed down without even a clue to the correct version among variant readings. This has left the commentators nonplussed, so much so that they had to give us several vague and alternative inter­pretations to choose from. It is up to us to decide, whether we should accept this position as it is, or try to improve on it by exploring any other possible means of explanation.

We had occasion to mention in our very first sermon that the Bud­dha himself has prophesied that those discourse which deal with voidness would, in time to come, go into disuse, with their deeper meanings obscured. The interpretations just quoted go to show that already the prediction has come true to a great ex­tent.

And third, the relevant passage from DN 11: Kevaddha Sutta (Nyanananda trans.):

Consciousness, which is non-manifestative,
Endless, lustrous on all sides[....]

And his comments regarding Ven. Buddhaghosa's treatment of these lines:

The commentator begins his exposition with the word vi~n~naa.na.m itself. He comes out with a peculiar etymology: Vi~n~naa.nan'ti tattha vi~n~naatabbanti vi~n~naa.na.m nibbaanassa naama.m, which means that the word vi~n~naa.na, or consciousness, is in this context a synonym for Nibbaana, in the sense that it is 'to be known', vi~n~naatabba.m. This forced etymology is far from con­vincing, since such a usage is not attested elsewhere. Moreover, we come across a long list of epithets for Nibbaana, as many as thirty-three, in the Asa.nkhatasa.myutta of the Sa.myutta Nikaaya, but vi~n~naa.na is not counted as one. In fact, no­where in the dis­courses is vi~n~naa.na used as a synonym for Nibbaana.

Next, he takes up the word anidassana, and makes the fol­lowing comment: Tad eta.m nidassanaabhaavato anidassana.m, that Nibbaana is called anidassana because no illustration for it could be given. The idea is that it has nothing to compare with. Then comes the explana­tion of the word ananta.m. According to the commentator Nibbaana is called ananta, endless, because it has neither the arising-end, up­paadanto, nor the falling-end, vayanto, nor the otherwiseness of the persisting-end, .thitassa a~n~nathatta. Strangely enough, even the last mentioned middle-state is counted as an 'end' in the commentators concept of three ends. So this is the substance of his commentary to the first three words vi~n~naa.na.m, anidassana.m, ananta.m.

The commentarial interpretation of the term sabbato pabha.m is even more confusing. The word pabhaa is explained as a syno­nym for papa, meaning 'ford'. The bha element in the word, he explains, is a result of consonantal interchange with the original pa in papa. Pakaa­rassa pana bhakaaro kato. The idea is that the original form of this particular term for Nibbaana is sabbato pa­pa.m. The meaning attrib­uted to it is 'with fords on all sides'. Nibbaana is supposed to be meta­phorically conceived as the ocean, to get down into which there are fords on all sides, namely the thirty-eight topics of meditation. This interpretation seems rather far fetched. It is as if the commen­tator has re­sorted to this simile of a ford, because he is already 'in deep wa­ters'! The word pabhaa, as it is, clearly means light, or radi­ance, and its association with wisdom is also well attested in the canon.

Just considering these two venerable authors/translators, it seems that they have employed significant textual analysis in departing from the commentaries to give their translation of this term. It's obvious that they don't do so lightly. IMO their analysis is cogent.

Metta.

Is samsara = dukkha ?

In the simple form:

1st Noble Truth = Truth of dukkha
2nd Noble Truth = Truth of the cause of dukkha
3rd Noble Truth = Truth of the cessation of dukkha
4th Noble Truth = Truth of the way to the end of suffering, the 8-fold path

What is dukkha? In everyday words, dukkha is often translated as "suffering" or sometimes "stressful". If I have to choose between the two, I would choose the second one.

What is the origin of dukkha? It's ignorance, the "not knowing" the reality of the 4NT itself, or some may prefer the not knowing what samsara and nibbana is all about.

The Third Noble truth is the end of suffering. Some says that it is when there is no more suffering. Some say that it is nibbana. I say it's both. However, to me the end of suffering is not the end of the process, but the "..." that is not bound by samsara, not bound by ignorance, which is simply is nibbana. Although I believe it is also correct to say that dukkha is ended when all the 10 fetters have been eradicated, so arahants has no dukkha even when they are alive, I tend to link the First Noble Truth to samsara itself. The condition of samsara as "impermanence, non-self, and suffering/stressful " is packaged in "dukkha". So in another word, there is only dukkha and nibbana. Dukkha = conditioned = samsara-ing, while on the other hand, nibbana = unconditioned , unborn, deathless, cannot be found/not found.

The Forth Noble Truth is known when the noble ones realized the first 3 Noble Truths, as when they realize these Noble Truths, it becomes clear to them as to how to practice in the correct way, which is the 8-fold path.


There are a lot of questions reagarding the First Noble Truth. It goes like; "when I am happy and do not suffer, I am not in dukkha, so does the First Noble Truth apply in this case?"; or something like; "if a heavenly being are constantly happy and do not experience, do the First Noble Truth apply to them?

I'd say "yes". As stated in the co-independent origination, ignorance is the root of all things in samsara, then as ignorance has not been uprooted, samsara is still inherently dukkha. The only exception when the 5 aggregates are not dukkha is when one becomes an arahant and is no longer fooled by avijja, ignorance. As there is no ignorance, the root of dukkha has already been eliminated. Even though there are still 5 aggregates, these five aggregates are merely aggregates and are not bound by the rules of karma of samsara in the same way as for unenlightened beings like us.

The 4th Noble Truth

The Noble Eightfold Path, the 4th Noble Truth, may be a wide 20-lane path that allows for more "right views", rather than only 1 right view that has to be identical for everyone, everywhere, anytime.

Perhaps the path starts off wide, but get narrower as one comes closer to total liberalization, when all the 10 fetters have been eradicated.

Noble Eightfold Path

Just a note :)
The 4th Noble Turth..."Noble Eightfold Path"

Is it a 10 lane highway, or a small road???

[Wisdom]
Right View
Right Thought

[Morality (sila)]
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood

[Meditation (samadhi)]
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Contemplation