Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

SarathW wrote:A) sabbe dhamma anatta: Does it mean that nirvana is there as same as Sankara?

SarathW wrote:...

“So,though indeed Existence is, Non-Existence should be sought”

The central paradox of becoming is also evident in the second noble truth, where one of the three forms of craving leading to becoming is craving for non‐becoming—the ending of what has come to be. This poses a practical challenge for any attempt to put an end to becoming. Many writers have tried to resolve this paradox by defining non‐becoming in such a way that the desire for Unbinding (nibbana) would not fall into that category. However, the Buddha himself taught a strategic resolution to this paradox, in which the fourth noble truth—the path to the end of suffering—involves creating a type of becoming where the mind is so steady and alert that it can simply allow what has come into being to pass away of its own accord, thus avoiding the twin dangers of craving for becoming or for non‐becoming.

SarathW wrote:“So,though indeed Existence is, Non-Existence should be sought”

pegembara wrote:There is no consciousness independent of the 6 senses. http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

equilibrium wrote:

pegembara wrote:There is no consciousness independent of the 6 senses. http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What would you say about these people who said they have OBE.....they can see their body on a bed but without eyes.....they are conscious/aware that they see their body.....they might be able to hear but without ears.....otherwise, the OBE experience cannot be told, unless there is no such a thing as an OBE, it is all made up?

If it is true, then that whatever it is, consciousness/awareness is indeed independent of the senses.....what do you guys think?

Viññanam anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

m0rl0ck wrote:This is a common notion in many religions and schools of buddhism. I seem to remember references to this in some of the thai forest stuff i have read, but the best exposition of it that i have read is in "the zen teachings of huang po":

(EDIT: found a better example:)

This Mind is neither large nor small; it is located neither within nor without. It should not be thought about by the mind nor be discussed by the mouth. Ordinarily, it is said that we use the Mind to transmit the Mind, or that we use the Mind to seal the Mind. Actually, however, in transmitting the Mind, there is really no Mind to receive or obtain; and in sealing the Mind, there is really no Mind to seal. If this is the case, then does the Mind exist or does it not exist? Actually, it cannot be said with certainty that the Mind either exists or does not exist, for it is Absolute Reality. This is expressed in the Ch'an Sect by the maxim: "If you open your mouth, you are wrong. If you give rise to a single thought, you are in error." So, if you can quiet your thinking totally, all that remains is voidness and stillness.

"It is only to be feared that you students of the Way, by the coming into existence of a single thought, may raise a barrier between yourselves and the Way. From thought-instant to thought-instant, no form; from thought-instant to thought instant, no ACTIVITY—that is to be a Buddha! If you students of the way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything. Where nothing is sought this implies Mind unborn; where no attachment exists, this implies Mind not destroyed; and that which is neither born nor destroyed is the Buddha."

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."