Are Rapture and Pleasure (Piti Sukha) Experienced in Nibbana? It Seems So!

[Spiny Norman]

Precisely. In all eternalstic/annihilationistic theories Atta (soul) is an unconditioned part of a living being. Everything depends on conditions, but this thing is "always there" and does not change because it is not conditioned. True Self. This is what you are describing.

Nibbana is also unconditioned.

[User1249x]

Because souls go to heaven or exists in this world as part of a being.

I'm not talking about christian concept of a soul. Please see what Buddha described as "atta". This is just what you are defending here, while Buddha strongly criticized that.

Well you are clearly not talking about christian concept of a soul because that would make the soul a created thing. You are however saying that it is something that "always there" as a part of a being.
So i ask you again, how on earth do you reconcile it with non-duration and not belonging to any world?

And again, if you say that this your "super-vinnyana"

As i said you can use BB's translation consciousness non-manifesting if you want. And it is not my invention, it is from DN11 and MN 49.

And again, if you say that this your "super-vinnyana" does not exist in this world as a part of a being, then here is a question for you: how it is connected with a particular arahant?

It is not a part of him, in doesn't exist in him, it is not him, he does not exist in it. It is not a world, nor is it a part of this world or the next world.

If it is not a part of him, and does not exist in him, then why bother speaking about it at all? If this is the case, then it has nothing to do with Dhamma, nothing to do with enlightenment - just some useless thing not worth even mentioning.

Because it is being discussed in this thread for starters. Second if you can accept that i am actually referring to the Unmade when i talk about Vinnanam Anidassanam then you should realize that it is The Dhamma to be comprended and directly known and is what the Buddha discovered when he realized cessation;

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned."


The born, become, produced,
made, fabricated, impermanent,
composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing,
come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] —
is unfit for delight.

The escape from that
is
calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.

If someone was to say "There is not that Unmade - it is impossible it cannot happen but there is the cessation of The Made." He would not be speaking in line with the Dhamma and would be talking about a impossibility.

[User1249x]

You can also think about this; consciousness and sense-impressions arise and cease all the time. Yet there is not enlightenment by mere virtue of cessation and change. If the made was all there was and there was no Unmade then cessation of the conditioned would not make any difference even if it could occur because nothing would be discerned as not-made.

A person comes to know the Unmade and discerns it from the Made precisely because the Made is X and Unmade is Y, Y is not merely the absence of X.

If there was not unmade then cessation of X would be impossible;
imagine this sequence; XXXXXXXX____ XXXXXXXX
What would that ____ be discerned as if X was all there was? It would not be discerned and that expression would be flawed that because in that context "_" is not a symbol and X would never cease because if "X" is all there is then how could it cease. Therefore;

precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned."

[Spiny Norman]

This explanation is incorrect. Please read MN 38. View that nibbana = consiousness is eternalism.

In MN38 Sati assumes vinnana to be like a "soul", and not like Nibbana. Also vinnana refers to the six types of sense-consciousness, and not to consciousness without surface ( vinnana anidassanam ) .

[Zom]

If there was not unmade then cessation of X would be impossible;

Okay, I see your point. However, your are wrong, because we can easily see the cessation of anything simply by the very fact of cessation. You have this experience ten times a day actually .) Things cease, and you see they've gone. No need to introduce some mystical "uncreated" stuff here. Again, this shows that either this "Vinnayam Adissanam" is an entirely useless concept in terms of Path, or, you've understood it in a wrong way (the 2nd is true -)

[Spiny Norman]

Again, this shows that either this "Vinnayam Adissanam" is an entirely useless concept in terms of Path

This is just your assumption.

, or, you've understood it in a wrong way (the 2nd is true -)

Really? And what in your view is the right way?

[User1249x]

'However, your are wrong, because we can easily see the cessation of anything simply by the very fact of cessation. You have this experience ten times a day actually .) Things cease, and you see they've gone.

One thing ceases and another thing arises, so how on earth do you discern not made therein? Now in case of the arising of the path there is non-arising and a person actually discerns the Unmade.

No need to introduce some mystical "uncreated" stuff here. Again, this shows that either this "Vinnayam Adissanam" is an entirely useless concept in terms of Path, or, you've understood it in a wrong way (the 2nd is true -)

1. If it was useless the Buddha would not have talked about the mystical "uncreated" stuff.
2. It is clearly a mystery TO YOU, so if anybody misunderstood anything that is you.

A person not having seen with discernment the Unmade state is incapable of destruction of fetters.

[Zom]

And what in your view is the right way?

Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Sujato, Ven. Brahmali explained it in a right way.

To be short, how they puts: this Vinnayam Adissanam is an arahant's mind, it is boundless, luminous, etc etc, name-and-form doesn't get footing in it (which means there is no craving which would lead to a new name-and-form), it does not land anywhere (again which means there is no craving/ignorance which lands vinnyana on new realms of existence). However, this Vinnayam Adissanam is not unconditioned, and, as the text of a verse concludes, this Vinnayam Adissanam ceases, and after that "everyting comes to an end" (personal existence with this very consciousness cease forever).

1. If it was useless the Buddha would not have talked about the mystical "uncreated" stuff.

But he did not. It is a matter of translation.

https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.p ... /7139/4835

The other sutta of interest at Ud 80 reads as follows: ‘Monks, there is a freedom
from what is born, a freedom from what has become, a freedom from what
is made, a freedom from what is produced (atthi bhikkhave ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ
asaṃkhataṃ)’ (Ud 80, my translation). What is here rendered as ‘freedom from
what is born’, ajātaṃ, is often translated as ‘the unborn’, giving a definite sense
that this sutta describes something positively existing.97 However, as Johansson
(1969, 39, 54) points out, ajātaṃ recurs at MN I 163, 10 where the context requires
it to mean ‘freedom from birth’. Having understood that he is subject to birth,
the Buddha-to-be seeks the ajātaṃ. If birth is a problem, then surely the natural
thing to do is to seek a freedom from birth, not a ‘state’ that is unborn.98 The
most reasonable translation of ajātaṃ, therefore, would seem to be ‘freedom from
what is born’ or ‘freedom from birth’.99 If this is accepted, it is natural to translate
all the initial a’s at Ud 80 as privatives, that is, as ‘freedom from’. According
to this interpretation (see my translation above), what is being described here
is not necessarily a ‘state’ at all.

[User1249x]

And what in your view is the right way?

Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Sujato, Ven. Brahmali explained it in a right way.

To be short, how they puts: this Vinnayam Adissanam is an arahant's mind, it is boundless, luminous, etc etc, name-and-form doesn't get footing in it (which means there is no craving which would lead to a new name-and-form), it does not land anywhere (again which means there is no craving/ignorance which lands vinnyana on new realms of existence). However, this Vinnayam Adissanam is not unconditioned, and, as the text of a verse concludes, this Vinnayam Adissanam ceases, and after that "everyting comes to an end" (personal existence with this very consciousness cease forever).

ridiculous view and a non-sensical statement. The Arahant is not without name and form and his sense faculties only arise in dependence on name and form, the aggregates are conjoined with name and form and The Arahant is not without aggregates. So how on earth could you say that namarupa does not get a footing therein.

[Zom]

ridiculous view. The Arahant is not without name and form and his sense faculties only arise in dependence on name and form, the aggregates are conjoined with name and form and The Arahant is not without aggregates. So how on earth could you say that namarupa does not get a footing therein.

I didn't say he is without name and form. You misunderstood it. Okay, I'll search for a detailed explanation by Ven. Bodhi himself .)

[User1249x]

ridiculous view. The Arahant is not without name and form and his sense faculties only arise in dependence on name and form, the aggregates are conjoined with name and form and The Arahant is not without aggregates. So how on earth could you say that namarupa does not get a footing therein.

I didn't say he is without name and form. You misunderstood it. Okay, I'll search for a detailed explanation by Ven. Bodhi himself .)

Id rather hear your explaination because Bhikkhu Bodhi is neither an authority nor is he here to answer questions. Surely it is better if you can speak for yourself.

Furthermore VInnanam Anidassanam does not part-take in the All and the mind of an arahant is outside of all?

[User1249x]

And what in your view is the right way?

Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Sujato, Ven. Brahmali explained it in a right way.

To be short, how they puts: this Vinnayam Adissanam is an arahant's mind, it is boundless, luminous, etc etc, name-and-form doesn't get footing in it (which means there is no craving which would lead to a new name-and-form), it does not land anywhere (again which means there is no craving/ignorance which lands vinnyana on new realms of existence). However, this Vinnayam Adissanam is not unconditioned, and, as the text of a verse concludes, this Vinnayam Adissanam ceases, and after that "everyting comes to an end" (personal existence with this very consciousness cease forever).

1. If it was useless the Buddha would not have talked about the mystical "uncreated" stuff.

But he did not. It is a matter of translation.

https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.p ... /7139/4835

The other sutta of interest at Ud 80 reads as follows: ‘Monks, there is a freedom
from what is born, a freedom from what has become, a freedom from what
is made, a freedom from what is produced (atthi bhikkhave ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ
asaṃkhataṃ)’ (Ud 80, my translation). What is here rendered as ‘freedom from
what is born’, ajātaṃ, is often translated as ‘the unborn’, giving a definite sense
that this sutta describes something positively existing.97 However, as Johansson
(1969, 39, 54) points out, ajātaṃ recurs at MN I 163, 10 where the context requires
it to mean ‘freedom from birth’. Having understood that he is subject to birth,
the Buddha-to-be seeks the ajātaṃ. If birth is a problem, then surely the natural
thing to do is to seek a freedom from birth, not a ‘state’ that is unborn.98 The
most reasonable translation of ajātaṃ, therefore, would seem to be ‘freedom from
what is born’ or ‘freedom from birth’.99 If this is accepted, it is natural to translate
all the initial a’s at Ud 80 as privatives, that is, as ‘freedom from’. According
to this interpretation (see my translation above), what is being described here
is not necessarily a ‘state’ at all.

This translation still implies existence of the Asankhata. If everything is a prison then there is no freedom from prison. If there is the not-prison or a state of not being in prison or a possible state of there being no prison only then freedom from prison can be discerned.

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”

[Zom]

Id rather hear your explaination because Bhikkhu Bodhi is neither an authority nor is he here to answer questions. Surely it is better if you can speak for yourself.

He explains it well, and I agree with what he says, so I don't see a reason why I shouldn't post it )

Furthermore VInnanam Anidassanam does not part-take in the All and the mind of an arahant is outside of all?

Again, "does not partake" here means the same as "landing" or "gain footing". Craving/ignorance no longer propel consiouisness to new bases, be it new eye base, new ear base, new body base, etc. - this is why all these bases "don't get footing in his mind" and his mind in turn "doesn't land on these bases". It is in this sense it does not partake in allness (which is, again, defined in the suttas as 6 sense bases).

This translation still implies existence of the Asankhata. If everything is a prison then there is no freedom from prison. If there is the not-prison or a state of not being in prison or a possible state of there being no prison only then freedom from prison can be discerned.

Does "nonexistence" exist? Well, as a phenomenon, cognizable by mind, sure. The absense of something is a real (not imaginary) situation. To see a freedom from prison the only thing you need to realize is that the prison itself is no more. Here it was, and now you don't see it anywhere. No need to introduce new substances here.

Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

"There are two situations: a situation when there is something conditioned, and the situation when it is no more" .) (When it is no more, it is of course not conditioned. Only "something" can be conditioned, but not "nothing").

[User1249x]

Id rather hear your explaination because Bhikkhu Bodhi is neither an authority nor is he here to answer questions. Surely it is better if you can speak for yourself.

He explains it well, and I agree with what he says, so I don't see a reason why I shouldn't post it )

you can post it sure

Furthermore VInnanam Anidassanam does not part-take in the All and the mind of an arahant is outside of all?

Again, "does not partake" here means the same as "landing" or "gain footing". Craving/ignorance no longer propel consiouisness to new bases, be it new eye base, new ear base, new body base, etc. - this is why all these bases "don't get footing in his mind" and his mind in turn "doesn't land on these bases". It is in this sense it does not partake in allness (which is, again, defined in the suttas as 6 sense bases).

But this is contradicted by MN 49 directly, which says that Vinnanam Anidassanam is not experienced thru allness of the all. The mind of the Arahant is experienced thru allness of the all. If the mind of the Arahant was not experienced thru allness of the all then it would persist past Parinibbana.

This translation still implies existence of the Asankhata. If everything is a prison then there is no freedom from prison. If there is the not-prison or a state of not being in prison or a possible state of there being no prison only then freedom from prison can be discerned.

Does "nonexistence" exist? Well, as a phenomenon, cognizable by mind, sure. The absense of something is a real (not imaginary) situation. To see a freedom from prison the only thing you need to realize is that the prison itself is no more. Here it was, and now you don't see it anywhere. No need to introduce new substances here.

One can not talk about non-existence without talking about non-existence of something. Non-existence of something would be discerned as existence of something else which is not the thing that is absent.

You seem to be saying it yourself; absence of something is a different state, a state where something is absent, a state with X and a state without X, the state of absence is a state it it's own right. Which is exactly the point i am making.

Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

"There are two situations: a situation when there is something conditioned, and the situation when it is no more" .)

This is not valid because the unconditioned is timeless, akaliko, so it is not a "when".
Cessation of the conditioned is itself conditioned by the prior development and inclination of the mind. The unmade however is unconditioned and is not the same as the event of cessation of the conditioned.

[Zom]

But this is contradicted by MN 49 directly, which says that Vinnanam Anidassanam is not experienced thru allness of the all.

Phrasing there is, again "partake in" -- [allness of the all].

The mind of the Arahant is experienced thru allness of the all.

His mind experiences (get contact and feelings) through the all, yes. But at the same time it does not partake in it (in terms of craving and generating future existence).

Cessation of the conditioned is itself conditioned by the prior development and inclination of the mind. The unmade however is unconditioned and is not the same as the event of cessation of the conditioned.

I'm not speaking about the event. I'm speaking about the fact of non-existence. The very non-existence [of whatever] is awalys not conditioned. But sometimes to make non-existence of something possible you have to stop something to exist; demolishing existing conditioned thing, of course, requires removing all supporting conditions. Classic simile - fire. Fire is conditioned. Fuel is conditioned. Removing fuel is a conditioned process. But when all this is done - the very absense of this fire - is uncoditioned; there are no conditions that "cause fire not to be" )) It is acutally otherwise - conditions can be only for existence of fire .)