Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

[piotr]

Hi Retrofuturist,

There's a Pāli word between two parts: evaṃeva — it means “so too”. It's a word which is used when simile is explained. So it's clear that first part is a simile. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your cryptic reading of this text.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Piotr,

There's a Pāli word between two parts: evaṃeva — it means “so too”. It's a word which is used when simile is explained.

It just sounds like a continuation to me. I see nothing inherent in the words "so too" to say, "this is a simile that I shall now expand upon thusly..."

In fact often when things are similes (e.g. the chariot one rides to liberation, monkey in a glue trap) it made quite literally clear that this is what they are, and the different components are often explained.

So it's clear that first part is a simile. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your cryptic reading of this text.

That's fine Piotr, you don't need to if you don't want to. So too, I was not altogether satisfied by your interpretation. So be it...

Metta,
Retro.

[Sylvester]

Elsewhere this non-abiding mind is designated as "unestablished consciousness" (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa).

Hi Geoff

Where may I encounter this consciousness that is unestablished?

I looked at SN 12.38 and there's a reference to -

Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti
When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness - per BB

Clearly, this is not a junction between an adjective and its noun, since both are declined differently.

I looked also at SN 12.64 which speaks of

... atthi rāgo atthi nandī atthi taṇhā, patiṭṭhitaṃ tattha viññāṇaṃ virūḷhaṃ. Yattha patiṭṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ virūḷhaṃ, atthi tattha nāmarūpassa avakkanti.

...if there is lust, if there is delight, if there is craving, consciousness becomes established there and comes to growth. Where consciousness becomes established and comes to growth, there is the descent of name and form.

Again, I do not see any suggestion that the above reference to "consciousness becomes established" could be grammatically transformed by a negation to be an adjective-noun junction that is appatiṭṭha viññāṇa.

How did you derive appatiṭṭha viññāṇa, as I could not find this term in the Canon? BB points to a variant "...appatitthena vinnanena ... parinibbuto" but that simply works out be being "...with consciousness unestablished ... has attained final Nibbana". The term is clearly a verb and a noun in conjunction, not an adjective and a noun in a junction. The context also reveals this, as the question that prompted the Buddha to answer in this manner was Mara's query "Where has the consciousness of the clansman Godhika been established?" per SN 4.23.

I'm not sure if we need to papancize a simple case of "no consciousness because there was no establishment" to become "an unestablished consciousness [is]"

[piotr]

Hi Retrofuturist,

In fact often when things are similes (e.g. the chariot one rides to liberation, monkey in a grease trap) it made quite literally clear that this is what they are, and the different components are often explained.

Often but not always. Turn one page of your Saṃyutta-nikāya translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi and read the last paragraph at the bottom of p. 1239. You'll read simile of the chariot. Evaṃeva is used. None of the components are explained, but simile is still clear. So it is in the sutta which concerned us.

[Nyana]

Where may I encounter this consciousness that is unestablished?

If you follow the noble eightfold path to its fruition and thereby eliminate passion, aggression, and delusion, then you'll have your answer. In the meantime, Ven. Ñāṇananda's Nibbāna Sermons will have to suffice:

• Now as to this vacant gaze, there is much to be said, though one might think that it is not at all worth discussing about. If someone asks us: 'What is the object of the gaze of one with such a vacant gaze', what shall we say? The vacant gaze is, in fact, not established anywhere (appatiṭṭham). It has no existence (appavattaṃ) and it is object-less (anārammaṇaṃ). Even at the mention of these three terms, appatiṭṭham, appavattaṃ and anārammaṇaṃ, some might recall those highly controversial discourses on Nibbāna.
  
  Why do we call the vision of the arahant a vacant gaze? At the highest point of the development of the three characteristics impermanence, suffering and not-self, that is, through the three deliverances animitta, appaṇihita and suññata, the "signess", the "undirected" and the "void", the arahant is now looking at the object with a penetrative gaze. That is why it is not possible to say what he is looking at. It is a gaze that sees the cessation of the object, a gaze that penetrates the object, as it were.

Also, SN 12.64: "Where consciousness does not become established and come to growth, there is no decent of name-and-form." (Yattha appatiṭṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ, natthi tattha nāmarūpassa avakkanti.) Ven. Bodhi's endnote:

• The present passage is clearly speaking of the arahant's consciousness while he is alive. Its purport is not that an "unestablished consciousness" remains after the arahant's parinibbāna, but that his consciousness, being devoid of lust, does not "become established in" the four nutriments in any way that might generate a future existence.

As for my rendering of "unestablished" (appatiṭṭha) as an adjective for a "consciousness which does not become established," this is in keeping with the sense of the above from Ven. Ñāṇananda. One could designate it as mental-consciousness (manoviññāṇa), as per MN 38: "[W]hen consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness." This is what the early ābhidhammikas have decided, adding that said mental-consciousness is classified within the unincluded level (apariyāpanna bhūmi). That's fine by me, but doesn't really convey the full meaning of Ven. Ñāṇananda's interpretation of SN 12.64 and Udāna 8.1 (PTS Ud 80).

All the best,

Geoff

[tiltbillings]

Well, it may be mere designation, but it is still something that can be talked about. Or at least the Buddha seemed to think so, otherwise we would not have the such designation as khandhas and the "all" put forth by the Buddha as ways of talking about such stuff, even if it is mere designation.

The all is to be abandoned. The path is to be developed in order to abandon the all. The path is entirely 100% fabricated for that specific purpose. The raft is for crossing over, not for carrying around once crossed over, and certainly not for constructing philosophies.

Attachment to the "all" is let go, but that does not mean that for the arahant who has not died yet, who still is embodied, the khandhas no longer function.

[tiltbillings]

Well, it may be mere designation, but it is still something that can be talked about. Or at least the Buddha seemed to think so, otherwise we would not have the such designation as khandhas and the "all" put forth by the Buddha as ways of talking about such stuff, even if it is mere designation.

The all is to be abandoned. The path is to be developed in order to abandon the all. The path is entirely 100% fabricated for that specific purpose. The raft is for crossing over, not for carrying around once crossed over, and certainly not for constructing philosophies.

All the best,

Geoff

this hits the nail on the head again! We are too often mislead still trying to describe the measureless with inapropriate means.

No one is trying to describe the measureless by inappropriate means. While the arahant maybe measureless in terms of no longer taking measure in terms of mine and not mine and that there is a mine at all, that does not mean that for the arahant while still alive, that the khandhas are not functioning, They obviously are.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Because of a combination of both of those factors, it doesn't adequately satisfy the challenge I laid out for Tilt.

But as Sylvester has neatly shown, the challenge is not meaningful.

No, but he has shown why it was impossible.

This is because dependent origination, as explained through the 12 nidanas, depicts the entirety of conditioned/samsaric existince, as defined by sabba (the all).

You mean there is something outside the "all?" Another "all?"

However, the nibbanic experience of an arahant is unconditioned (by greed, aversion and delusion) - it is asankhata dhamma (an unformed dhamma)

Nibbana is, by definition of the suttas, dhammas uncondition, not put together, by greed, hatred and delusuion.

This is why I asked Sylvester to confirm he was talking about conditioned/formed (sankhata dhammas)... because that which is unconditioned (i.e. not dependent on anything) cannot possibly arise in dependence upon something.

Looks like you are reifying nibbana.

Hence a statement like "... Paticcasamuppada, which is Dhamma, is what functions. Just not paticcasamuppada conditioned by ignorance" makes no sense whatsoever. How could the independent be dependently arisen?

As long as you reify nibbana as some sort of unconditioned thing, sure, it makes no sense, but fortunately nibbana is not some sort of unconditioned thing. It is the rise and fall of our experience that is free of the limitations of grasping after, pushing away, and the delusion that there is something that we truly are.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

You mean there is something outside the "all?" Another "all?"

There is a way of regarding things that does not correctly regard "the all", as defined by the Buddha... it is called ontology. Discussion of the "physical existence of an arahant" is ontology. Discussion of the arahant's "experience" is not ontology.

What there is beyond "sabba" is by its very nature speculative and if one sticks to a phenomenological approach, one would not speculate on existence and non-existence (ala SN 12.15). The five aggregates relate to experience and are not ontological statements of existence and non-existence.

Nibbana is, by definition of the suttas, dhammas uncondition, not put together, by greed, hatred and delusuion.

Indeed.

Looks like you are reifying nibbana.

What do you mean by this? I'm saying it's unconditioned.

As long as you reify nibbana as some sort of unconditioned thing

... which I don't think I am. I'm not attributing any "thingness" to it, if that's what you're implying. Nibbana is beyond all thingness, since thingness is a sankhara.

nibbana is not some sort of unconditioned thing.

It has no "thingness", and if that's the nature of your objection, then sure, I agree.

If the nature of your objection is that nibbana isn't unconditioned, well, of course, I cannot agree.

It is the rise and fall of our experience that is free of the limitations of grasping after, pushing away, and the delusion that there is something that we truly are.

What you say is not without truth, but it is also incomplete (particularly in the context of this topic) in that it does not adequately account for the cessation of all formations.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

You mean there is something outside the "all?" Another "all?"

There is a way of regarding things that does not correctly regard "the all", as defined by the Buddha... it is called ontology. Discussion of the "physical existence of an arahant" is ontology. Discussion of the arahant's "experience" is not ontology.

And I am talking about the arahant's experience as played out via the khandhas until the arahant dies. As for the "all," where else would you find nibbana?

What there is beyond "sabba" is by its very nature speculative and if one sticks to a phenomenological approach, one would not speculate on existence and non-existence (ala SN 12.15).

Which is why it is meaningless to talk about nibbana as some sort of other thing.

Nibbana is, by definition of the suttas, dhammas unconditioned, not put together, by greed, hatred and delusuion.

Indeed.

Looks like you are reifying nibbana.

What do you mean by this? I'm saying it's unconditioned.

And I am saying that nibbana is the arahant unconditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion.

As long as you reify nibbana as some sort of unconditioned thing

... which I don't think I am. I'm not attributing any "thingness" to it, if that's what you're implying. Nibbana is beyond all thingness, since thingness is a sankhara.

Okay, but nibbana is what the arahant "is" (in terms of the flow of experience) free of greed, hatred, and delusion. The arahant is nibbanized.

nibbana is not some sort of unconditioned thing.

It has no "thingness", and if that's the nature of your objection, then sure, I agree.

If the nature of your objection is that nibbana is unconditioned, well, of course, I cannot agree.

Interesting. Nibbana is being unconditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. It is not some sort "unconditioned" somethging else.

It is the rise and fall of our experience that is free of the limitations of grasping after, pushing away, and the delusion that there is something that we truly are.

What you say is not without truth, but it is also incomplete (particularly in the context of this topic) in that it does not adequately account for the cessation of all formations.

What does cessation of all formations mean? The arahant has no more memory?

[Sylvester]

Where may I encounter this consciousness that is unestablished?

If you follow the noble eightfold path to its fruition and thereby eliminate passion, aggression, and delusion, then you'll have your answer. In the meantime, Ven. Ñāṇananda's Nibbāna Sermons will have to suffice:

As much as I find a lot to admire in Ven N's expositions (particularly his take on Nama-Rupa), I'm afraid his views on "unestablished consciousness" are quite "out there". The suttas simply refer to "where consciousness is not established" and that gets papancized into an "unestablished consciousness". But to be fair, he might actually be just speaking of some special samadhi, and not to the "normal" consciousness of an Arahant.

If Ven N is in fact guilty of that sort of reification, then he appears to contradict himself, insofar as he had also opted to view an Arahant as being subject to residual "clinging". That surely leads to contact, and its sequela. What is so "appatiṭṭha" about those experiences, especially the Arahant's likes and dislikes referenced in the Nibbanadhatu Sutta?

[tiltbillings]

Some relevant texts:

"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."— SN 12.38

"One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (doesn't cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it."— MN 140

"If one stays obsessed with form, that's what one is measured (limited) by.

"One attached is unreleased; one unattached is released. Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object), established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

[Similarly with feeling, perception, and fabrications.]

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"— SN 22.53

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

It is not some sort "unconditioned" somethging else.

Lordy... I don't know what makes you think I'm attributing thing-ness to nibbana, nor do I see how many times I am going to have to repeat myself before you see that.

What does cessation of all formations mean?

The cessation of all sankharas.

The word sankhāra, in all contexts, means 'something that something else depends on', that is to say are formed...

Khandha Samy. viii,7

Kiñ ca bhikkhave vedanam vadetha...
Kiñ ca bhikkhave saññam vadetha...
Kiñ ca bhikkhave sankhāre vadetha. Sankhatam abhisankharontī ti bhikkhave tasmā Sankhārā ti vuccanti.
Kiñ ca sankhatam abhisankharonti.
Rūpam rūpattāya sankhatam abhisankharonti,
Vedanam vedanattāya sankhatam abhisankharonti,
Saññam saññattāya sankhatam abhisankharonti,
Sankhāre sankhārattāya sankhatam abhisankharonti,
Viññānam viññānattāya sankhatam abhisankharonti.
Sankhatam abhisankharontī ti kho bhikkhave tasmā Sankhārā ti vuccanti.

And what, monks, do you say are formations? 'They form the formed': that, monks, is why they are called 'formations'.
And what is the formed that they form?
Matter as matter is the formation that they form,
Feeling as feeling is the formation that they form,
Perception as perception is the formation that they form,
Formations as formations are the formations that they form,
Consciousness as consciousness is the formation that they form.
'They form the formed': that indeed, monks, is why they are called formations'.

The arahant has no more memory?

I have already answered this question earlier, by way of reference to how an arahant may regard a memory vis-a-vis a puthujjana (though of course, not being an arahant, take it with a grain of salt). Assess it against the above sutta, if you like.

That's a nice collection of suttas you've quoted above. They might also be worth re-reading in light of this sutta.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

The arahant has no more memory?

I have already answered this question earlier,

Obviously it your answer did not make an impression or a memory

That's a nice collection of suttas you've quoted above. They might also be worth re-reading in light of this sutta.

Whart is interesting is that an not yet dead arahnt's khandhas obviously function. The difference between the arahant and the wordling is that the arahant is not obsessed, has let go, there being no conditioning driven by greed, hatred, and delusion.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

What is interesting is that an not yet dead arahnt's khandhas obviously function.

The perception of khandas is itself the delusion perpetuated by sankharas, which are perpetuated by avijja, Tilt. That is what the sutta above tells you, and I what I have been unsuccessfully trying to tell you throughout this correspondence. Again...

Matter as matter is the formation that they form,
Feeling as feeling is the formation that they form,
Perception as perception is the formation that they form,
Formations as formations are the formations that they form,
Consciousness as consciousness is the formation that they form.
'They form the formed': that indeed, monks, is why they are called formations'.

For you to say, "a not yet dead arahnt's khandhas obviously function" means that you obviously do not see khandas as formations, formed by avijja.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

...

Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling....

...

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling...

Whilst you continue to labour under this assumption and take it as given that khandas exist, this conversation cannot progress.

Now, I will quote you something from another author (whose name shall not be mentioned, lest it give rise to aversion and non-receptivity), which provides some clarity on why I think your insistence on measuring arahants in terms of khandas is (beyond even the suttas quoted so far) misguided.

Since to be sankhata and to be paticcasamuppanna are one and the same thing, we see that each item in the series...

Paccudāvattati kho idam viññānam nāmarūpamhā nāparam gacchati; ettāvatā jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā uppajjetha vā yadidam nāmarūpapaccayā viññānam, viññānapaccayā nāmarūpam, nāmarūpapaccayā salāyatanam,

This consciousness turns back from name-&-matter, it does not go further; thus far may one be born or age or die or fall or arise; that is to say, with name-&-matter as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-&-matter; with name-&-matter as condition, six bases;...

... is preceded by a sankhāra upon which it depends, and that therefore the total collection of items in the series depends upon the total collection of their respective sankhārā. In this sense we might say that the total collection of items is sankhārapaccayā. But since this statement means only that each and every particular item of the series depends upon a particular sankhāra, it does not say anything fresh. Sankhārapaccayā, however, can be understood in a different way: instead of 'dependent upon a collection of particular sankhārā', we can take it as meaning 'dependent upon the fact that there are such things as sankhārā'. In the first sense sankhārapaccayā is the equivalent of paticcasamuppanna ('dependently arisen'), and applies to a given series as a collection of particular items; in the second sense sankhārapaccayā is the equivalent of paticcasamuppāda ('dependent arising'), and applies to a given series as the exemplification of a structural principle. In the second sense it is true quite generally of all formulations of paticcasamuppāda, and not merely of this formulation (since any other formulation will consist of some other set of particular items). Paticcasamuppāda is, in fact, a structural principle (formally stated in this Sutta passage...)

Api c'Udāyi titthatu pubbanto titthatu aparanto, dhammam te desessāmi: Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati; imasmim asati idam na hoti, imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhatī ti.

Majjhima viii,9 <M.ii,32>

But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases.

...and not one or another specific chain of sankhārā. It is thus an over-simplification to regard any one given formulation in particular terms as paticcasamuppāda. Every such formulation exemplifies the principle: none states it. Any paticcasamuppāda series, purely in virtue of its being an exemplification of paticcasamuppāda, depends upon the fact that there are such things as sankhārā; and a fortiori the series (as quoted prior to the quotation above) depends upon the fact of the existence of sankhārā: if there were no such things as sankhārā there would be no such thing as paticcasamuppāda at all, and therefore no such thing as this individual formulation of it.

Metta,
Retro.