Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, it might be interesting to look at the suttas where the personalities of Arahants is discussed, which is presumably relevant to this playing out of old kamma. Unfortunately, I don't have any references handy.
By my understanding of vipaka it wouldn't be relevant,
Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about (even after rereading this thread), it would seem that if what I think I understand of your position, an living arahant should manifest no personality, or much of anything else.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, it might be interesting to look at the suttas where the personalities of Arahants is discussed, which is presumably relevant to this playing out of old kamma. Unfortunately, I don't have any references handy.
By my understanding of vipaka it wouldn't be relevant,
Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about (even after rereading this thread), it would seem that if what I think I understand of your position, an living arahant should manifest no personality, or much of anything else.
No, that's not what I'm saying, though I sense that's what you've been objecting to.
tiltbillings wrote:Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about
I appreciate the frankness and am prepared to leave it there.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Though quite honestly, I really have no idea of what you are talking about (even after rereading this thread), it would seem that if what I think I understand of your position, an living arahant should manifest no personality, or much of anything else.
No, that's not what I'm saying, though I sense that's what you've been objecting to.
Then, briefly, in clear, concise English, what are you saying about a living arahant?
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Then, briefly, in clear, concise English, what are you saying about a living arahant?
(I hope you don't mind if I cheat and use a little Pali...)

From the cessation of ignorance (i.e. attainment of arahantship) comes the cessation of sankharas. From the cessation of sankharas comes the cessation of vipaka.

That is all I'm saying about a living arahant.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Then, briefly, in clear, concise English, what are you saying about a living arahant?
(I hope you don't mind if I cheat and use a little Pali...)

From the cessation of ignorance (i.e. attainment of arahantship) comes the cessation of sankharas. From the cessation of sankharas comes the cessation of vipaka.

That is all I'm saying about a living arahant.

Metta,
Retro. :)
And, of course without litigating this all over again, this hinges on what is actually meant in the real world by "cessation," given that between the cessation of ignorance and the supposed cessation of vipaka are such things as the cessation contact, feeling, apperception and consciousness, which would make for an interesting "living" arahant, not having any of these functions actually functioning. The arahant as zombie.

I guess I go with the suttas that I and others have quoted, and with Ven Nanananda, and with Ledi Syadaw, and with my own synopsis of the issue. Obviously, we are not going to agree.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:And, of course without litigating this all over again, this hinges on what is actually meant in the real world by "cessation," given that between the cessation of ignorance and the supposed cessation of vipaka are such things as the cessation contact, feeling, apperception and consciousness, which would make for an interesting "living" arahant, not having any of these functions actually functioning. The arahant as zombie.
Again, not what I'm suggesting.

I'm not attempting to measure the arahant in any way, and I suppose my unwillingness to speculative in positive terms on the experience of an arahant would make it difficult to understand my position if you are expecting to find within it declarations on whether certain things "exist" for the arahant.
What wise man here would seek to define
A measureless one by taking his measure?
He who would measure a measureless one
Must be, I think, an obstructed worldling.
tiltbillings wrote:I guess I go with the suttas that I and others have quoted, and with Ven Nanananda, and with Ledi Syadaw, and with my own synopsis of the issue.
As you see fit.
tiltbillings wrote:Obviously, we are not going to agree.
Indeed, as I recognised earlier.

I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Interestingly prickly reaction...
It was more bemusement that after 13 pages of being the most active participant in the discussion, and having not once made such a statement, you suggest that I had. Hence, I challenged you to provide an example.
I gathered you were implying that the khandhas were completely delusional. It still seems to me that that is your implication but I can't find a definitive statement on that. However there is this on the other thread:
p://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7947#p125367" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
retrofuturist wrote: Kamma is based on the fundamental misperception that there is a person/agent/soul who acts, and a person/agent/soul who experiences the fruition of those actions. Once this misperception is eradicated through the attainment of arahantship, someone is beyond the net of kamma, having seen through that which sustains it. Therefore, kamma does not operate outside of the person/agent/soul and therefore the attack from the junkie was their 'bad kamma' (i.e. unwholesome volitional activity) and nothing to do with your kamma. The only role your kamma and vipaka (mental resultant) had in the piece was that you regard what happened as something that happened to "you" and "you" suffer to that extent.
Here you seem to be insisting that we must regard kamma in a certain way. As an illusion.

Well, maybe it is, but I think that insisting that it is would be going too far.

What I find problematical in these threads is your insistence that anyone who disagree with your view is necessarily taking a realist position, and you put a lot of effort painting any disagreement as "realist" and then arguing against that position. Whereas I think that Tilt and I would rather talk about the phenomenology of experience, and how it may be analysed.

And here you speak of some sort of "external reality" that is not part of our experience. Your reply to my query didn't seem very satisfactory.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/posting.php? ... 3&p=125538" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:So there is a world/all outside that which we experience? Are the clods not part of our experience?
The five aggregates are our experience. The six senses are our experience.

Where do clods fit in to that? The feel of clods, the taste of clods, the smell of clods, the smell of clods.... but not the clods, in and of themselves, independent of receiving consciousness.

Angulimala experienced feeling (of clod, of cuts)... not "clod" itself.
Since we only know what we experience, I don't see how it is possible to make definitive statements about some external world of clods, or whatever, only our experience of clods.

Anyway, as you and Tilt say, we are hardly likely to agree, after dozens of similar threads... :tongue:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Here you seem to be insisting that we must regard kamma in a certain way. As an illusion.

Well, maybe it is, but I think that insisting that it is would be going too far.

I'm not sure how I feel about the word "illusion" in this context on account of the fact one might take it to be the opposite of "existing" and thereby equate "illusion" with "non-existence"... because on the contrary, it's avijja and sankharas themselves which are the reason for false perceptions of existence and non-existence. (Note, no statement there affirming or denying existence).
mikenz66 wrote:What I find problematical in these threads is your insistence that anyone who disagree with your view is necessarily taking a realist position, and you put a lot of effort painting any disagreement as "realist" and then arguing against that position.

If there is any assertion that things "exist" made that ignores the fact experienced phenomenon (dhammas) only come into being dependent upon consciousness/cognition of them then I believe it is "realist".

To quote from Bhikkhu Samahita's Daily Dhamma Drops... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p122292" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A crucial core question is: What is actually an experienced phenomenon?
See the equally vital answer here! If mind is directly involved in creating
the very "thing" or "state" it perceives, as an active participatory observer,
then there cannot ever be any "objective observation"
or "world out-there",
which is independent of the mind that intends, selects, and manifests it...!
It entails that 'mind' is inseparable from 'matter'. They are Siamese-Twins!
In early Buddhism, the Buddha coined this subtle yet dual Unity: Nama-Rupa!
Name-&-Form or Naming-&-Forming, since these are dynamic processes, that
in mutual dependence creates each other like 2 creepers, that only can grow
up, if growing up twisted & rotated around the other's stem like a DNA-helix.
Scroll a little further down for his delightfully cheeky...
If you feel slightly weird or dizzy after reading this, you are right on track!
Hihihi Keep on observing, studying, reflecting. Never give up Examination!
It is not "reality" that seems to be evaporating under your feet, but rather
the unseen, hidden, habitual and utterly false assumptions you had about it!
(Those bolded sentences might be a useful reminder to those who establish themselves in vipassana practice to ensure their practice leads to vipassana)

By way of comparison, here's definitions of "realism"....

4. philosophy theory that things exist objectively: the theory that things such as universals, moral facts, and theoretical scientific entities exist independently of people's thoughts and perceptions
5. philosophy theory of objectively existing world: the theory that there is an objectively existing world, not dependent on our minds, and that people are able to understand aspects of that world through perception
Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18617 ... alism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
mikenz66 wrote:Whereas I think that Tilt and I would rather talk about the phenomenology of experience, and how it may be analysed.

I think that's what we'd all like to be talking about - you just don't see the connection between what I'm saying and that. So be it.
mikenz66 wrote:Since we only know what we experience, I don't see how it is possible to make definitive statements about some external world of clods, or whatever, only our experience of clods.
Where is the definitive statement? Again, I think you're just inferring meaning about existence and non-existence into what I say on account of the absence of any categorical positive assertions about these things.
mikenz66 wrote:Anyway, as you and Tilt say, we are hardly likely to agree, after dozens of similar threads... :tongue:
Indeed... and that's fine.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: I think that's what we'd all like to be talking about - you just don't see the connection between what I'm saying and that. So be it.
That basically sums it up. I don't really understand what you're trying to do. Sorry. I've attempted many, many, times to explain how you engage in what seems to me be to be a kind of negative ontology. Obviously my explanations are not very good.
retrofuturist wrote: If there is any assertion that things "exist" made that ignores the fact experienced phenomenon (dhammas) only come into being dependent upon consciousness/cognition of them then I believe it is "realist".
Likewise, any asserting that "things don't exist" also has serious problems. Since I have not asserted that "things exist", only that it would be a mistake to assert that "things don't exist", I agree with your criticism of realism.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Sorry. I've attempted many, many, times to explain how you engage in what seems to me be to be a kind of negative ontology.
If it's any help, try regarding my statements as ontologically neutral, rather than ontologically negative.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Sorry. I've attempted many, many, times to explain how you engage in what seems to me be to be a kind of negative ontology.
If it's any help, try regarding my statements as ontologically neutral, rather than ontologically negative.
Of course, just as soon as you stop labelling other view as "ontological", "realist", etc. ... :tongue:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:And, of course without litigating this all over again, this hinges on what is actually meant in the real world by "cessation," given that between the cessation of ignorance and the supposed cessation of vipaka are such things as the cessation contact, feeling, apperception and consciousness, which would make for an interesting "living" arahant, not having any of these functions actually functioning. The arahant as zombie.
Again, not what I'm suggesting.

I'm not attempting to measure the arahant in any way, and I suppose my unwillingness to speculative in positive terms on the experience of an arahant would make it difficult to understand my position if you are expecting to find within it declarations on whether certain things "exist" for the arahant.
What wise man here would seek to define
A measureless one by taking his measure?
He who would measure a measureless one
Must be, I think, an obstructed worldling.
Been there, done that. It is not a matter of measuring the arahant, and "exists" is a non-starter, as has been pointed out.
I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?
Since the living arahant's khandhas still function and the arahant is no longer measured in those terms, what stops is the grasping after the khandhas, the pushing away of the khandhas, and the misaphrehension of the khandhas in terms of being and non-being. It is the khandhas identified in terms of being/non-being, of grasping after which has ceased. Just as khandhas are a way of talking about the flow experience, cessation is also a way of talking about the flow of experience.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Of course, just as soon as you stop labelling other view as "ontological", "realist", etc. ... :tongue:
To be clear, if I label other views thusly, it's because that's what I perceive them to be... it's not a case of using these terms as "put downs".

I'm not intending to associate any value judgement to them, merely openly establishing the reasons either why I disagree, or neither-agree-nor-disagree with any given assertion.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I am interested though, in light of what you've said in recent posts, to hear how you think dependent origination in its cessation mode would function in practice. For you, what constitutes cessation of nama-rupa and salayatana? Is it something that requires "death" for it to occur?
Since the living arahant's khandhas still function and the arahant is no longer measured in those terms, what stops is the grasping after the khandhas, the pushing away of the khandhas, and the misaphrehension of the khandhas in terms of being and non-being. It is the khandhas identified in terms of being/non-being, of grasping after which has ceased. Just as khandhas are a way of talking about the flow experience, cessation is also a way of talking about the flow of experience.
That would account adequately for everything from the cessation of tanha onwards, but what about the cessation mode up to that point... what does that mean to you?

And if cessation of tanha occurs, surely this is dependent upon the cessation of the earlier nidanas (i.e. sankhara, vinnana, nama-rupa, salayatana, phassa, vedana). To wit, what does the cessation of the pre-tanha nidanas mean to you? What is "going on" there?

Asking this about the arahant might "seem" theoretical and irrelevant, but I maintain it is relevant, because whatever is ceasing or ceased for the arahant is precisely what is arising for us.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:If it's any help, try regarding my statements as ontologically neutral, rather than ontologically negative.
mikenz66 wrote:Of course, just as soon as you stop labelling other view as "ontological", "realist", etc. ... :tongue:
retrofuturist wrote: To be clear, if I label other views thusly, it's because that's what I perceive them to be... it's not a case of using these terms as "put downs".

I'm not intending to associate any value judgement to them, merely openly establishing the reasons either why I disagree, or neither-agree-nor-disagree with any given assertion.
That's fine. But, as I've said repeatedly, from my perspective much of your labelling is actually mislabelling, and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

Clearly I've not explained that convincingly enough, but I'm unlikely to find any new ways of saying it...

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply