What awakens?

[rolling_boulder]

When we say that people reach a state of Awakening,
Do people attain Buddhahood "individually?"

How can a person with anatta (no binary state of a "self") suddenly make a change in state like that?

Must it then be a gradual process?

Thanks for understanding what must be a vague question,

[chownah]

I think the Buddha taught that awakening there is but no one who awakens.
If you have no doctrine of self as the Buddha suggests then this will make sense.

[Dan74]

When we say that people reach a state of Awakening,
Do people attain Buddhahood "individually?"

How can a person with anatta (no binary state of a "self") suddenly make a change in state like that?

Must it then be a gradual process?

Thanks for understanding what must be a vague question,

Hello!

We must generally use conventional language when speaking about such things, so we say "the Buddha awakened/attained enlightenment/etc." Of course these expressions are misleading in that they suggest an acquisition, whereas in reality it is more like losing something - losing delusion. Like scales dropping from the eyes.

Right now I am in pain from gout and some time in the near future I hope to attain a pain-free state in my feet and be able to walk normally again. In the meantime it is best to just carry on and not add anger about this predicament to the physical pain, nor escapist fantasies about the future pain-free state. This is how I try to approach practice, but this may not suit everyone.

[rolling_boulder]

Hi,
I am sorry to hear about your gout.

A further question.
If we are losing delusion, or delusion is being lost, however you may put it,

What is "it" that loses a delusion?
Perhaps these are Western concepts of self that remain influencing my interpretation.

[Mkoll]

I can't say because I haven't attained any awakening. But I imagine that even if I had, I wouldn't be able to explain it well because of the limits of language. Maybe these sutta excerpts will help.

This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.

-SN 6.2

Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"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.

-SN 12.15

[Boris]

If we are losing delusion, or delusion is being lost, however you may put it,
What is "it" that loses a delusion?
Perhaps these are Western concepts of self that remain influencing my interpretation.

One important thing, self as such is universal concept, on the East or on the West, all puthujjanas are the same, they are so called attavadins, they are victims of attavadupadana. So this is the base assumption which depends on ignorance. Just as a cloud obscures the sun without in any way affecting it, so does assumption obscure reality without destroying it. You may ask "what is this reality?"

"There is that (external) base where no earth (is), or water or fire or air or base consisting of infinity of space or base consisting of infinity of onsciousness or base consisting of nothingness or base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception or this world or the other world or moon or sun; and that I call neither a coming nor a going nor a staying nor a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, no support; it is the end of suffering.

"The Unaffected is hard to see;
It is not easy to see Truth.
To know is to uncover craving;
To see is to have done with owning.

"There is an unborn, an un-brought-to-being, an unmade, an unformed. If there were not, there would be no escape made known here for one who is born, brought to being, made, formed. But since there is an unborn, an un-brought-to-being, an unmade, an unformed, an escape is therefore described for one who is born, brought to being, made, formed."

Ud. 8:1-3

Or it can be stated in terms of person. You do ask such questions, because you think of yourself as a person who lives in the world, who was born and one day will die. But you can answer these questions for yourself, no need to ask anyone, what is neccessary: just to reject idea of being born, of being person. In Suttas terminology it means to be free from sakkaya-ditthi, which is total disidentification with all things.

All I know is that whatever depends, is not real. The real is truly independent. Since the existence of the person depends on the existence of the world and it is circumscribed and defined by the world, it cannot be real.

http://nisargadatta-vipassana.blogspot. ... erson.html

[Spiny Norman]

How can a person with anatta (no binary state of a "self") suddenly make a change in state like that?

It's an interesting question. Perhaps it's more like transcending the self than getting rid of it? My assumption is that the Buddha didn't suddenly "lose his personality" when he awakened, rather that he was no longer limited by it. Like in the Heart Sutra ( I hope it's OK to mention that here! ), "Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond."

[culaavuso]

SN 44.2

And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life ...

SN 12.12

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

Ud 1.10

Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

[Boris]

How can a person with anatta (no binary state of a "self") suddenly make a change in state like that?

It's an interesting question. Perhaps it's more like transcending the self than getting rid of it? My assumption is that the Buddha didn't suddenly "lose his personality" when he awakened, rather that he was no longer limited by it.

Being a person (sakkaya) depends on sakkaya-ditthi. But lost of sakkaya-ditthi is rather sudden. You see impermanence or not, once Four Noble Truths are seen, one can't step back into not knowledge. The same is on higher level with conceit "I am", since cassation of asmimana = nibbana, and you either have asmimana or don't have it, change is sudden and definite.

But since total cessation of ignorance from insight into impermanence to realization of Four Noble Truths can take even seven lives, in this sense change is gradual. Bahiya seems to be exeption here.

[SamKR]

All I know is that whatever depends, is not real. The real is truly independent. Since the existence of the person depends on the existence of the world and it is circumscribed and defined by the world, it cannot be real.

http://nisargadatta-vipassana.blogspot. ... erson.html

Very interesting and useful website.

[pegembara]

The mind-heart.

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

[Spiny Norman]

How can a person with anatta (no binary state of a "self") suddenly make a change in state like that?

It's an interesting question. Perhaps it's more like transcending the self than getting rid of it? My assumption is that the Buddha didn't suddenly "lose his personality" when he awakened, rather that he was no longer limited by it.

Being a person (sakkaya) depends on sakkaya-ditthi. But lost of sakkaya-ditthi is rather sudden. You see impermanence or not, once Four Noble Truths are seen, one can't step back into not knowledge. The same is on higher level with conceit "I am", since cassation of asmimana = nibbana, and you either have asmimana or don't have it, change is sudden and definite.

But since total cessation of ignorance from insight into impermanence to realization of Four Noble Truths can take even seven lives, in this sense change is gradual. Bahiya seems to be exeption here.

OK, but my point was about "loss of personality" rather than the suddenness of awakening.

[Boris]

OK, but my point was about "loss of personality" rather than the suddenness of awakening.

OK, but my point is that loss of personality and awakening are synonyms - at least when sakkaya is translated as a "person".

[Spiny Norman]

OK, but my point was about "loss of personality" rather than the suddenness of awakening.

OK, but my point is that loss of personality and awakening are synonyms - at least when sakkaya is translated as a "person".

But is there anything in the suttas which supports the view that the Buddha "lost his personality" on awakening? We can say he "lost" self-view and conceit, but personality too? I'm not sure.

[Boris]

OK, but my point was about "loss of personality" rather than the suddenness of awakening.

OK, but my point is that loss of personality and awakening are synonyms - at least when sakkaya is translated as a "person".

But is there anything in the suttas which supports the view that the Buddha "lost his personality" on awakening? We can say he "lost" self-view and conceit, but personality too? I'm not sure.

Well, in other terms Buddha is asankhata element, which manifest itself as a voidness. And voidness us such is free from any personal attributes. Personal attributes are present only in one who is not free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness. That is why here and now the Tathāgata actually and in truth is not to be found...') Avyākata Samy. 2 <S.iv,384>). that means he is rūpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto.

When there is a person, you can tell something about it, but when there is no self-identification with the particular, what can be said?

http://nisargadatta-vipassana.blogspot. ... lised.html