Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Spiny Norman wrote:"There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

What do you think?

Honestly, Mahayanists would say the Buddha is talking about the Dharmakāya, but I am still trying to figure out what the Theravada-dispensation opinion actually is on the subject of the Mahayana postulation of a Dharmakāya.

Spiny Norman wrote:

chownah wrote:Isn't a transcendent reality just a state of mind?

The OP passage seems to describe Nibbana as something that has always been present, so more like a realm or sphere which we "connect" with. As opposed to just a state of mind free from craving, aversion and delusion. I say "just" because these two are not mutually exclusive, both are descriptive of Nibbana.

It feels like you are playing with the semantics rather than trying to address the question I asked.

Here is my post in full"

Isn't a transcendent reality just a state of mind?

If you think it is not, then can you explain exactly how one can discern what a transcendent reality is and discern what a state of mind is and discern just exactly what the difference is? I can't figure out a way to do this....reliably...

I think you only brought the first sentence because on its own it is an easy target to dismiss as semantic play....but you ignore the sentence in the second paragraph....this is not semantic play. Can you tell me how to do these things reliably? I think the answer is "no" and that is why you want to ignore this part of my post and just pull one sentence out of context where it can be characterised as having nits so you can pick at them.
chownah

Goofaholix wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote:but that doesn't really answer the OP question.

Actually the OP question was "What do you think?", any answer that someone thinks answers the OP question.

I think you know what I mean.

Spiny Norman wrote:

Goofaholix wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote:but that doesn't really answer the OP question.

Actually the OP question was "What do you think?", any answer that someone thinks answers the OP question.

I think you know what I mean.

Please state what it is that you meant to ask in the OP. If it is not "what do you think" then I don't really know.
chownah

Spiny Norman wrote: Nibbana certainly involves the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, but that is not the only description of Nibbana in the suttas. What is your take on the OP passage? It seems to describe Nibbana as always having been there, so more like a transcendent realm or sphere.

You're right, the cessation of greed, hatred and delusion is not the only description for nibbana but it is still important to keep in mind that the term "nibbana" denotes the "putting out of a fire" in particular the fires of rāga, dosa and moha (greed, hatred, and delusion) and does not support the idea of pointing to a sphere or place in any way.

Apart from that, the part in question in the OP in Pali reads like:

atthi bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ

I have to say that I'm not happy at all with the translation "There is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated", which gives the impression of "thinginess", like as if there were a thing that is "the unborn" and so on.

"atthi" here in my eyes means "to be" or "exists" meaning that the negation of "being born", which is not-being born (a-jātaṃ) and so on is possible.

It is a call, that the Buddha made in this Sutta, that there is a way out of the circle of birth, becoming and fabricating, namely not-being born, not-becoming, not-fabricating. Put like this, it sounds completely different in comparison to your reading of an implied "realm", doesn't it?

best wishes, acinteyyo

This question already clearly answered in 11th chapter of abhidhammāvatāra by buddhadattathera (living in buddhaghosācāriya era).
http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/abh06t.nrf11.xml

It seems to describe Nibbana as always having been there

This is mu understanding too.
However there is no person to contact it. (it is not I, me or myself)
It is the same as the five aggregate but unconditioned.

Spiny Norman wrote: I think you know what I mean.

Looking at the passage you quoted the only part that implies thingness, which is I assume where the transcendent reality interpretation is coming from, the use of the word "an" (I can only assume this is true to the Pali).

So the "unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated" is presumably one thing and the "born — become — made — fabricated" is another thing, and we escape from one thing by discerning the other thing. I'm not sure what justifies the assumption that those two things are best described as realities but reality sounds better than thing.

If it wasn't for the word "an" it would be abvious that all these words are adjectives ("unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated born — become — made — fabricated") describing a state rather than a thing and it's a process of transformation rather than of swapping one thing for another thing.

At times like these I think it's best to not let a little word like "an" trip us up.

At times like these I think it's best to not let a little word like "an" trip us up.

Agree.
I wonder whether question in OP is another way to ask:
‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist.’

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn63

Arahanta never have kilesa but still having dukkha until they will die. But nibbāna doesn't have any dukkha. So nibbāna is not just state of mind.

Another, in 5 pahāna, have 2 state of minds, samucchedapahāna (maggacittuppāda) and paṭipassaddhipahāna(phalacittuppāda). These both are separate from the last pahāna, nissaraṇapahāna (nibbāna). So nibbāna is not just state of mind.

Nibbana is a transcendent reality because it is a stuff when paccaya (all lokiya and lokuttara khandhas) never arise anymore.

Baññatti is not a transcendent reality because it doesn't care any reason(Only transcendent reality is paccayuppanna, Baññatti is not ). You can know it without its own paccaya. But for nibbāna you can know it when some or whole kilesa never arise anymore. And you can nibbāna only when whole khandha of you never arise anymore-after arahanta cuticitta.

Nibbana is a transcendent reality

Where does it say in Sutta?
Is this your own opinion?

By the way what is Baññatti?
Thanks

In mahaaparinibbaanasutta:
1.saupaadisesanibbaana is mind state (dukkhakhandha+nibbaana)
2. anupaadisesanibbaana is just nibbaana-transcendent-reality.


Baññatti is everything that is not khandha such as attaa, name, etc.

acinteyyo wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote: Nibbana certainly involves the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion, but that is not the only description of Nibbana in the suttas. What is your take on the OP passage? It seems to describe Nibbana as always having been there, so more like a transcendent realm or sphere.

You're right, the cessation of greed, hatred and delusion is not the only description for nibbana but it is still important to keep in mind that the term "nibbana" denotes the "putting out of a fire" in particular the fires of rāga, dosa and moha (greed, hatred, and delusion) and does not support the idea of pointing to a sphere or place in any way.

Apart from that, the part in question in the OP in Pali reads like:

atthi bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ

I have to say that I'm not happy at all with the translation "There is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated", which gives the impression of "thinginess", like as if there were a thing that is "the unborn" and so on.

"atthi" here in my eyes means "to be" or "exists" meaning that the negation of "being born", which is not-being born (a-jātaṃ) and so on is possible.

It is a call, that the Buddha made in this Sutta, that there is a way out of the circle of birth, becoming and fabricating, namely not-being born, not-becoming, not-fabricating. Put like this, it sounds completely different in comparison to your reading of an implied "realm", doesn't it?

best wishes, acinteyyo

I don't see why the putting out the fires of raga, dosa and moha excludes nibbana being a sphere. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.

The use of "atthi" ( "exists" ), suggests that Nibbana is currently existing, not that it might exist in the future. And you not being happy with the translation "There is an" doesn't mean it is wrong.

Actually I think it is a rather ambiguous passage, one that people will interpret according to their preconceptions.

Goofaholix wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote: I think you know what I mean.

Looking at the passage you quoted the only part that implies thingness, which is I assume where the transcendent reality interpretation is coming from, the use of the word "an" (I can only assume this is true to the Pali).

So the "unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated" is presumably one thing and the "born — become — made — fabricated" is another thing, and we escape from one thing by discerning the other thing. I'm not sure what justifies the assumption that those two things are best described as realities but reality sounds better than thing.

If it wasn't for the word "an" it would be abvious that all these words are adjectives ("unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated born — become — made — fabricated") describing a state rather than a thing and it's a process of transformation rather than of swapping one thing for another thing.

At times like these I think it's best to not let a little word like "an" trip us up.

You seem to be arguing that we should airbrush out the word "an" here, in order to arrive at the meaning you prefer.

But the word "an" isn't the only problem with the interpretation you are proposing. The sutta passage doesn't describe a "transformation", it describes Nibbana as an escape. The problem is that transformation implies conditionality, and Nibbana is described as unconditioned in the suttas.

And nobody seems to be addressing the problem that states of mind are conditional and transient.

Spiny Norman wrote:

Goofaholix wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote: I think you know what I mean.

Looking at the passage you quoted the only part that implies thingness, which is I assume where the transcendent reality interpretation is coming from, the use of the word "an" (I can only assume this is true to the Pali).

So the "unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated" is presumably one thing and the "born — become — made — fabricated" is another thing, and we escape from one thing by discerning the other thing. I'm not sure what justifies the assumption that those two things are best described as realities but reality sounds better than thing.

If it wasn't for the word "an" it would be abvious that all these words are adjectives ("unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated born — become — made — fabricated") describing a state rather than a thing and it's a process of transformation rather than of swapping one thing for another thing.

At times like these I think it's best to not let a little word like "an" trip us up.

You seem to be arguing that we should airbrush out the word "an" here, in order to arrive at the meaning you prefer.

But the word "an" isn't the only problem with the interpretation you are proposing. The sutta passage doesn't describe a "transformation", it describes Nibbana as an escape. The other problem is that transformation implies conditionality, and Nibbana is described as unconditioned in the suttas. And states of mind are conditional.

If one wants to treat the text so precisely as to analyze it for indefinite and definite articles, a referral to the Pali would have to be made, although that wouldn't necessarily solve the issue. The Buddha didn't speak Pali.