It's not separate from fenomena (being).
Nibbana-dhatu mean, perharps, dhatu for the mind until the mind is suppordet by the body? And with cessetion of body this dhatu (for the mind) have no place.
Nibbana-dhatu = Brahrmanhood = Buddhahood ?
Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Whom we are to debate about Nibbana, when we our-self had not attain it?
How does anybody, who didn't attain Nibbana describe it?
We all can make wild guesses, it is this, it is that, do anybody will ever know it without attaining it?
What's the point arguing over other persons opinion when you can not be very sure about your own?
Rather, the question we all should be addressing is why nobody is attaining Nibbana nowadays?
What is wrong with us?
How does anybody, who didn't attain Nibbana describe it?
We all can make wild guesses, it is this, it is that, do anybody will ever know it without attaining it?
What's the point arguing over other persons opinion when you can not be very sure about your own?
Rather, the question we all should be addressing is why nobody is attaining Nibbana nowadays?
What is wrong with us?
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do!
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Nothing.Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Thank you very much for answering my last question, I guess you only know answer to that.ground wrote:Nothing.Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?
But my friend there is something seriously wrong with us. Otherwise there should be people who attained Nibbana. The problem could be that you think there is nothing wrong with us and continue to argue with others on matters beyond our knowledge. It could be that we don't realize that we are in wrong view. May be what we know as right view is actually not.
If you think clearly it's obvious that without right view, there will be no Nibbana.
If there is no Nibbana, it's only because of wrong view.
.
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do!
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Since you can only speak from within your own sphere what you are saying may hold true for your own sphere.Rahula wrote:Thank you very much for answering my last question, I guess you only know answer to that.ground wrote:Nothing.Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?
But my friend there is something seriously wrong with us. ....
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Yes, you are correct. It's just my understanding and opinion.ground wrote:Since you can only speak from within your own sphere what you are saying may hold true for your own sphere.
Please be kind to share your opinion on what I had mentioned on above posts.
Thank you very much.
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do!
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Please accept that I have decided that if I had opinions that these are not worth to be mentioned in this context.Rahula wrote:Please be kind to share your opinion on what I had mentioned on above posts.
Thank you very much.
- equilibrium
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
This is getting very interesting.....wonder if Rahula has any "realizations" based on the above word?.....or what it actually means?ground wrote:Nothing.Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Frankly, I don't have any realizations based on that word. I guess I don't know what it actually means.equilibrium wrote:This is getting very interesting.....wonder if Rahula has any "realizations" based on the above word?.....or what it actually means?ground wrote:Nothing.Rahula wrote:What is wrong with us?
I also don't wont to start any debate over understanding of words, as I don't see any value in that. Neither do I want any debate over nothingness.
Only thing I like to talk about here is this question; if you like.
Why there is nobody that attained Nibbana in present?
(at-least not known to us)
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do!
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Hi Tilt. You may consider not using this phrase inflationary.tiltbillings wrote:Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written.
Done:tiltbillings wrote:Since you used it, please define "element" -- dhatu.
nibbuti wrote:An element, whether itself conditioned or not, is a natural 'thing' which can 'con-dition' (lat. together-speak, agree with, situate or come before) other things.tiltbillings wrote:Element here is dhatu. Since you are the one using it, you should be the one to be able to explain its actual mraning. Please do.
'Natural thing' can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.
Where?tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind that you are the one who talks about dhatu as being a conditioning, existing "thing" separate from any individual who has attained it.
Seperatedness or non-seperatedness does not apply, because for "one who has attained it" there is not 'I'-making or 'mine'-making.
But it may be separated from the 1. fetter: individuality-belief.
This may be the case if one understands Nibbana as some kind of 'Arahant consciousness-individuality'.tiltbillings wrote:I am suggesting that your "understanding" of what the Buddha taught about nibbana points to an atman/atta.
Which in reality is backdoor Brahminism or Deism.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Damdifino what you mean here.nibbuti wrote:Hi Tilt. You may consider not using this phrase inflationary.tiltbillings wrote:Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written.
And this reflects how the suttas use the term, especially dukkha-dhatu and viññāna-dhatu?Done:tiltbillings wrote:Since you used it, please define "element" -- dhatu.nibbuti wrote:An element, whether itself conditioned or not, is a natural 'thing' which can 'con-dition' (lat. together-speak, agree with, situate or come before) other things.tiltbillings wrote:Element here is dhatu. Since you are the one using it, you should be the one to be able to explain its actual mraning. Please do.
'Natural thing' can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.
So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?Where?tiltbillings wrote:Also, keep in mind that you are the one who talks about dhatu as being a conditioning, existing "thing" separate from any individual who has attained it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Indeed.tiltbillings wrote:And this reflects how the suttas use the term, especially dukkha-dhatu and viññāna-dhatu?nibbuti wrote:'Natural thing' (dhatu) can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.
The Buddha wrote:"'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property (viññāna-dhatu). 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. ...
What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes (experiences) 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain (dukkha).' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' - M 140
"Exists" does not apply. There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.tiltbillings wrote:So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?
Again, this is not "advocating", the Buddha was clear about it:
As you asked, I have defined dhatu for you carefully.Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19
Yet you keep posting the same questions over and over again:
There is a wrong assumption that Nibbana is some localized Arahant individuality-consciousness (which equals Brahma 'Godhead' in the best case, sakkāya-diṭṭhi personality attachment in the worst case).tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?
So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?
So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.
So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?
So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?
So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned?
Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it?
So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?
Bhikkhus, whether the Thus Gone Ones are born or not born whether the Thus Gone One's elements are stable as an established rule, the rightful order of things is that all conditions things (sankhara) are impermanent ... all conditions things are suffering ... all things (including Nibbana) are not-self. - AN 3.137
Perhaps the meaning is clearer now.tiltbillings wrote:Damdifino what you mean here.nibbuti wrote:You may consider not using this phrase inflationary.tiltbillings wrote:Obviously you are not reading carefully what I have written.
Please desist from making accusations like "you are not reading carefully", when you yourself are not only not reading carefully, but also have disregarded what was written, including what the Buddha taught.
Thanks.
Last edited by nibbuti on Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
So, even when dukkha is not experienced there is a dukkha-dhatu waiting as a potential to be experienced.nibbuti wrote:'Natural thing' (dhatu) can be understood as a potential for experience (rather than a created thing), including both suffering and non-suffering.
in other words, you really do not understand what this sutta is saying.The Buddha wrote:"'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property (viññāna-dhatu). 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said. ...
What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes (experiences) 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain (dukkha).' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' - M 140
So, there is a nibbana-element even if there are no ariya, is that what you are saying?"Exists" does not apply. There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.tiltbillings wrote:So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?
Well, you have yet to say what this actually means.Again, this is not "advocating", the Buddha was clear about it:
Just as in the great ocean neither a decrease nor an increase will appear though all the streams of the world flow into it and rain falls into it from the sky; even so, even if many monks attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana element that is without residue left, there is no decrease or increase in the Nibbana element that is without residue left. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline…. - A 8.19
Actually, you have not defined dhatu at all.As you asked, I have defined dhatu for you carefully.
First of all, one is stuck using language, and even when using language one can understand that behind what is being said is the truth of anatta. Even the Buddha used language in the way that you are criticizing me for. The question is simple; No arahants, no nibbana?Yet you keep asking the same questions over and over again:
There is a wrong assumption that Nibbana is some localized Arahant individuality-consciousness.tiltbillings wrote:If there where at this time no awakened individuals, where is nibbana?
So, where is nibbana when there are no arahants?
So, you are saying that nibbana is a self-existant thing that exists independent of awakened individuals.
So, after the arahant dies, where does the nibbana go?
So, does nibbana exists if there are no awakened individuals?
So, nibbana is a natural thing existing someplace, somehow, and it can condition other things, but itself has no condition – which means there is nothing by which we can locate it and how can something that has no attributes relative to the conditioned condition that which requires attributes for being conditioned?
Basically, you are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya. Where is it?
So, you are not are advocating an idea of nibbana that exists even if there are no ariya?
And the real question here is: What is a dhamma in this context?Bhikkhus, whether the Thus Gone Ones are born or not born whether the Thus Gone One's elements are stable as an established rule, the rightful order of things is that all conditions things (sankhara) are impermanent ... all conditions things are suffering ... all things (including Nibbana) are not-self. - AN 3.137
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
Even when dukkha is not experienced in the present, there is dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) as a potential in the future, if one's mind is stuck in individuality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).tiltbillings wrote:So, even when dukkha is not experienced there is a dukkha-dhatu waiting as a potential to be experienced.
Even when dukkha is not experienced by an Arahant or Buddha, neither in the present nor in the future, there is dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) as a potential in the world, for one whose mind is stuck in individuality view.
According to your ill-considered question above, it is you who did not understand what this sutta is saying, nor what the other suttas above are saying.tiltbillings wrote:in other words, you really do not understand what this sutta is saying.
You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered:tiltbillings wrote:So, there is a nibbana-element even if there are no ariya, is that what you are saying?
nibbuti wrote:There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.
Are you drunk?tiltbillings wrote:Actually, you have not defined dhatu at all.
dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience" and backed it with sutta quote.
In this case, it is not the language.tiltbillings wrote:First of all, one is stuck using language, and even when using language one can understand that behind what is being said is the truth of anatta. Even the Buddha used language in the way that you are criticizing me for.
It is impossible that a mind constantly pulling up questions regarding "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana after one dies" - rather than impersonal (anatta) natural causes, potentials and conditions - has an understanding of "truth of anatta" (impersonality).
See above, when it says "You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered".tiltbillings wrote:The question is simple; No arahants, no nibbana?
tiltbillings wrote:And the real question here is: What is a dhamma in this context?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, or is not a dhamma?
So there is this dukkha element waiting in the wings for the correct conditions so that it can be experienced. This is what your language is suggesting.nibbuti wrote:Even when dukkha is not experienced in the present, there is a dukkha-dhatu as a potential to be experienced in the future, if one's mind is stuck in individuality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).tiltbillings wrote:So, even when dukkha is not experienced there is a dukkha-dhatu waiting as a potential to be experienced.
That does not answer the question. You are saying '"Exists" ("there is") does not apply,' but then you talk about nibbana-dhatu not changing, which is language of existence.You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered:tiltbillings wrote:So, there is a nibbana-element even if there are no ariya, is that what you are saying?
This question specifically only leads to Papanca, especially in a mind stuck in individuality view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).nibbuti wrote:"Exists" ("there is") does not apply. There is no change in the Nibbana element whatsoever.
I am not talking about viewing nibbana as "mine." Also, look at the language being used in this sutta.The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person
"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
I don't drink or smoke funny stuff. And no, you really have not defined dhatu.Are you drunk?tiltbillings wrote:Actually, you have not defined dhatu at all.
The dhatu is not an element, which is a very poor English word to translate dhatu in that it suggests an existence, but that is not what is going on at all with either dukkha-dhatu or nibbana-dhatu. And it really become meaningless to talk about nibbana in terms other than its actual experience, which is terms of the arahant.Dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience" like suffering and non-suffering, and backed it with sutta quote.
Yes, I know. You have been less than clear.In this case, it is not the language's fault.tiltbillings wrote:First of all, one is stuck using language, and even when using language one can understand that behind what is being said is the truth of anatta. Even the Buddha used language in the way that you are criticizing me for.
We can use imperonal language, but it tends to be rather stilted and a bit more prolix than necessary, but the point will still be the same.It is impossible that a mind constantly pulling up questions regarding "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana" - rather than impersonal (anatta) natural causes, potentials and conditions - has any understanding whatsoever of "truth of anatta" (impersonality).
You have not shown it to be an ill-considered question. What I have asked is -- in language -- line with the MN 1 sutta you quoted above, so thank you for that.See above, when it says "You keep repeating the same ill-considered questions like a broken record, even after they have been already answered".tiltbillings wrote:The question is simple; No arahants, no nibbana?
What is a dhamma in the context is very much to the point.tiltbillings wrote:And the real question here is: What is a dhamma in this context?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723