piotr wrote:Hi,
Sāriputta-thera did (AN 10.7).bodom_bad_boy wrote:Whoever said Nibbana is the ending of existence?
Clw_uk I would suggest you to read The Paradox of Becoming by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, because he touches this topic in depth there.
http://dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings ... coming.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That book is really interesting because you can see how modern & pre-modern contemplatives use the perceptual viewpoints discussed by Ajaan Thanissaro (and the suttas) to induce the "arupa" states and teach them as "enlightenment." It is also a good antidote to the erroneous notion that the "anatta" teaching alone will take to you "enlightenment;" craving for non-becoming will still lead to renewed becoming. Here are some quotes from The Paradox of Becoming that illustrate the problem:
"Later passages in this discourse show that the monks in question, in trying
to abandon a sense of self, end up clinging instead to a state of equanimity—a
point that shows how important it is to understand all four types of clinging
in order to escape clinging entirely."
“The supreme viewpoint external (to the Dhamma) is this: ‘I should
not be and it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.’
Of one with this view it may be expected, ‘(The thought of)
unloathsomeness with regard to becoming will not occur to him, and (the
thought of) loathsomeness with regard to the cessation of becoming will
not occur to him.’” — AN 10:29
However, this viewpoint—in and of itself—does not lead to freedom from the
changeablility of becoming.
“There are beings who have this view. Yet even in the beings who have
this view there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the
instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that.” —
AN 10:29
The Buddha nowhere discusses the precise state of becoming engendered by
the act of holding to this viewpoint, but two possibilities come to mind. The first
is that the act of holding to the second reading of the viewpoint—stating that no
thoughts (or perceptions) should or will occur to one—would apparently lead to
the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. AN 4:172 singles out
this dimension as the realm in which beings take rebirth without conscious
intention on their part or on the part of anyone else. In other words, one takes
rebirth and inhabits a new level of becoming there even when one does not
consciously want to engage in becoming at all. As we will see below, MN 106
states that this realm is the fate of a monk who, with an incomplete
understanding of its results, uses a modified version of this viewpoint."
Now, if you look at someone like Nisargadatta Maharaj, this is exactly what he is doing:
...you are not this, there is nothing of yours in this, except the little point of 'I am' ... . 'I am this, I am that' is dream, while pure 'I am' has the stamp of reality on it. You have tasted so many things -- all came to naught. Only the sense 'I am' persisted -- unchanged. Stay with the changeless among the changeful, until you are able to go beyond.
When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is...
By knowing what you are not, you come to know your Self. The way back to your Self is through refusal and rejection.
http://www.nonduality.com/beyond.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He describes what sounds exactly like the arupa state of neither perception nor non-perception:
I am beyond, though it is not easy to explain how one can be neither conscious, nor unconscious, but just beyond.
http://www.prahlad.org/gallery/nisargad ... _9785_.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So the awareness is beyond even the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this astonishing distinction is by saying that the absolute is "awareness unaware of itself."
http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/preman ... RENESS.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now, look at how Ajaan Lee describes the "dimension of neither perception nor non-perception." It sounds exactly like the same state Nisargadatta is describing:
4. Nevasañña-nasaññayatana: being absorbed in a feeling that occurs in the mind, that isn't awareness exactly, but neither is it non-awareness; i.e., there is awareness, but with no thinking, no focusing of awareness on what it knows.
These four formless absorptions are merely resting places for the mind, because they are states that the mind enters, stays in, and leaves. They are by nature unstable and inconstant, so we shouldn't rest content simply at this level. We have to go back and forth through the various levels many times so as to realize that they're only stages of enforced tranquillity.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/themes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;