The Elders did not create paradoxes

[cappuccino]

where is this explanation from?

I disagree

Directly from suttas.

consider this……

Just as… the great ocean is vast, boundless, fills not up for all
of the streams that flow into it. Precisely so Nibbæna is vast,
boundless, fills not up for all of the living beings that pass
thereunto.

~ Miln 315-323 (abridged)

[zan]

...

Thank you for explaining all of that! Much appreciated. So, twice you mentioned something about "so long as that consciousness refers to one of the true ultimate reality" in your general statement about not accepting permanent or unconditioned consciousness nor nibbana as consciousness.

Of course, I don't accept any consciousness whatsoever to be permanent or unconditioned *** as long as that consciousness represents one of the true ultimate realities.

Nibbana is not consciousness (as long as that consciousness refers to one of true ultimate reality).

I am wondering: Without going outside the suttas and commentaries (ie: I'm asking about traditional dhamma, so if you're referencing other philosophies, other religions or ideas, etc. then please let me know and I kindly withdraw my question, as it is not related to these things): What about a consciousness that does not represent or refer to one of the true ultimate realities? Might that be a permanent, unconditioned consciousness or nibbana as consciousness? Side note: I don't think the dhamma allows for any permanent consciousness nor nibbana as consciousness whatsoever, in any sense, regardless of how it is represented or what is being referenced and I'm guessing you don't either lol! Just wondering what you meant for the sake of clarity as I do not understand what your phrasing


As to this:

Oh zan,

Yoy have asked similar questions for a long time and people have answerd them since then

That is certainly true. Similar, but not identical. I may ask similar questions about things for several reasons.

I will try to explain:

The most obvious is that probably around 75% of this entire forum is similar questions lol. We all talk about the same stuff, there's only so many suttas, and if people never posted similar threads the forum would be quite slow moving, new threads would be much less frequent as people would simply find one that sounded similar to the one they were considering writing, and would refrain from creating it at all because of this.

Another reason is that, while I got some of the information that I am requesting here, I was asking for a different reason and so didn't fully work out the answers that I am now looking for in the previous post. I was thinking it was against the tos to resurrect old dead threads for some reason, but looking now it seems that is not the case. At any rate this is said by some to be normal etiquette for forums, that is, not resurrecting old, dead threads. So that is why I started a new thread, rather than just discussing it with people in that old thread. In that thread, for example, I didn't ask: "Do the elders explain away what I am incorrectly perceiving as a paradox?" Because I didn't have this question then, but I do now.

One more reason, though there are surely others, is that, even if I started talking in my old thread again, the op is not asking directly about AN 10.6 in comparison to Ud 8.1, etc. like this thread is. And so anyone looking at the thread would start discussing the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw with me when what I now want to discuss is the commentary tradition and writers of the abhidhamma. I have no way of editing the old op, so this would be particularly confusing. I would have resurrected it and, then, every time someone started discussing the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw I would have to clarify that it is a new direction for the thread and really has nothing to do with that at all any more, but is instead about the writers of the commentaries, specifically about AN 10.6 etc.

And yet one more: I can find old info that partially answers my current questions frequently, but nothing beats a live conversation with intelligent people like yourself, who can explain things in new ways that will help me understand things that previous explanations perhaps did not (due to my own failings, not those explaining!). I would be willing to bet that the majority of the threads on this forum could easily be answered by a simple web search which would lead to articles or whatever. But we are here because we want to talk to people, and, for me at least, this is a much more effective way to learn than reading an article

That said, it is always a little embarrassing to be publicly called out for being repetitive and so I will make it a point to avoid this in the future. Maybe. Though no promises! For all of the reasons above it may be worth it to post a new thread that is similar to my older ones to learn more and get new info than to just re read my old threads, or threads of others, and in doing so, fail to push through incomplete understandings and into new knowledge.

[cappuccino]

Might that be a permanent, unconditioned consciousness or nibbana as consciousness?

It is the Unformed, the Unconditioned, the End
~ S 43.1-44

[zan]

Zom wrote:
The best explanation is that mind ceases and this is nibbana (which is translated as "extinguishment"). Just that simple. And understanding this is only possible with retrospective knowledge, when mind reappears. This is what, obviously, happens when someone finally enters nirodha-samapatti (where mind ceases completely, not to some extent like in previous 4th arupa-attainment) and then quits this state and retrospectively observes what has happened (same is true for 4th arupa-attainment too, as perception does not really work in it, and thus one has to quit this state to understand it). And this is what obviously Ven. Sariputta spoke about when said in AN 10.7: "cessation of existence = nibbana" (bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ). Both nibbana and 4th arupa-attainment, neither perception nor non-perception cannot be percieved directly as they are states with ceased / almost ceased mentality. The highest state cognizable by perception, according to Buddha, is 7th arupa-attainment, sphere of nothingness (SN 14.11, AN 9.36 and some other texts)

Thank you! This clears things up for me! Much appreciated

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Thank you for explaining all of that! Much appreciated.

Most welcome, zan.

Oh zan,
you can call me
Hey SDA, or anything you wish, as long as it is black

I quoted a post from an old thread because:
1. at that specific post the concepts in dynamic are quite similar
2. the answer is much more to the point and much more elegant than that in my mind (when I saw that post, I felt - a ha! that is what I want to say.)
3. that member used the words eloquently (such as cognizing, while I was hopelessly and awkwardly stuck on "be conscious of" )
4. the most important reason is while searching around I have excavated many many excellent threads and posts, and they have been put into life by members who are by all means more advanced in Dhamma than me. So, I thought personally, in answering the questions, why should I reinvent a "lesser wheel" while those jewels are all around, and my answer would definitely convey the same meaning in much less efficient form.

That's why, Oh zan . by calling that I'm just trying to be friendly. But, later on I'll refrain from using that.

imho, it's OK to repeat the questions and it's also more OK to quote the Classics in Classical ground.

I'll answer "consciousness" soon.


metta

Regarding "intelligent", i'm not one of those truely intelligent people, of couse. I'm becoming more of an arguing buddhist rather than a practicing buddhist since my presence on DW. Anyway, I've learnt a lot about "self" which helps me dramatically change from somewhat like materialistic Absolute-anatta to Buddha's way of Absolute-Anatta. I thank DW for that. Of course, there is No Self

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Hello,

I don't accept any consciousness whatsoever to be permanent or unconditioned.

Nibbana is not consciousness.

That's how I accept.

What about a consciousness that does not represent or refer to one of the true ultimate realities?

- There is no such one.

Side note: I don't think the dhamma allows for any permanent consciousness nor nibbana as consciousness whatsoever, in any sense, regardless of how it is represented or what is being referenced and I'm guessing you don't either lol!

Me Neither.

[cappuccino]

I don't accept any consciousness whatsoever to be permanent or unconditioned.
Nibbana is not consciousness.
That's how I accept.

this is desire for non existence

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

I don't accept any consciousness whatsoever to be permanent or unconditioned.
Nibbana is not consciousness.
That's how I accept.

this is desire for non existence

Hello my friend,

I deeply respect your immense faith in your own stance, and your bottomless compassion for all of us.

When someone is in your realm, you're always there, trying to save, with short and neat and cute words.

I still remember one of your posts, saying:

"Buddha refuted wrong views, why can I not?"

Genuine respects, again, to your strength of faith in your own stance. That's the truth and my asseveration; and because of that, may you, I & all the other beings be free from sufferings.


metta

[cappuccino]

[zan]

Thank you for explaining all of that! Much appreciated.

Most welcome, zan.

...

I quoted a post from an old thread because:
1. at that specific post the concepts in dynamic are quite similar
2. the answer is much more to the point and much more elegant than that in my mind (when I saw that post, I felt - a ha! that is what I want to say.)
3. that member used the words eloquently (such as cognizing, while I was hopelessly and awkwardly stuck on "be conscious of" )
4. the most important reason is while searching around I have excavated many many excellent threads and posts, and they have been put into life by members who are by all means more advanced in Dhamma than me. So, I thought personally, in answering the questions, why should I reinvent a "lesser wheel" while those jewels are all around, and my answer would definitely convey the same meaning in much less efficient form.

That's why, Oh zan . by calling that I'm just trying to be friendly. But, later on I'll refrain from using that.

imho, it's OK to repeat the questions and it's also more OK to quote the Classics in Classical ground.

I'll answer "consciousness" soon.


metta

Regarding "intelligent", i'm not one of those truely intelligent people, of couse. I'm becoming more of an arguing buddhist rather than a practicing buddhist since my presence on DW. Anyway, I've learnt a lot about "self" which helps me dramatically change from somewhat like materialistic Absolute-anatta to Buddha's way of Absolute-Anatta. I thank DW for that. Of course, there is No Self

I understand. Don't sell yourself short though. You are pretty clearly a person of sharp wit

[zan]

Hello,

I don't accept any consciousness whatsoever to be permanent or unconditioned.

Nibbana is not consciousness.

That's how I accept.

What about a consciousness that does not represent or refer to one of the true ultimate realities?

- There is no such one.

Side note: I don't think the dhamma allows for any permanent consciousness nor nibbana as consciousness whatsoever, in any sense, regardless of how it is represented or what is being referenced and I'm guessing you don't either lol!

Me Neither.

I'm glad you're around!!!

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

So it's never explained anywhere?

The best explanation is that mind ceases and this is nibbana (which is translated as "extinguishment"). Just that simple. And understanding this is only possible with retrospective knowledge, when mind reappears. This is what, obviously, happens when someone finally enters nirodha-samapatti (where mind ceases completely, not to some extent like in previous 4th arupa-attainment) and then quits this state and retrospectively observes what has happened (same is true for 4th arupa-attainment too, as perception does not really work in it, and thus one has to quit this state to understand it). And this is what obviously Ven. Sariputta spoke about when said in AN 10.7: "cessation of existence = nibbana" (bhavanirodho nibbānaṃ). Both nibbana and 4th arupa-attainment, neither perception nor non-perception cannot be percieved directly as they are states with ceased / almost ceased mentality. The highest state cognizable by perception, according to Buddha, is 7th arupa-attainment, sphere of nothingness (SN 14.11, AN 9.36 and some other texts)

Hello zom,
Would you please kindly explain what is highlighted in quote above from the perspective of quote below in which you said "Difference is in the presence of consciousness." in response to the topic "Nirodha-samapatti vs Arhattaphala Samadhi?" ... ?

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=21484&p=305521&hil ... ha#p312173
Nirodha-samapatti vs Arhattaphala Samadhi?

Difference is in the presence of consciousness.

I am lost in the words of Nirodha-samapatti, 4th arupa-attainment, nibbana in regards to consciousness/perceived/perception.

To clarify my question, would you please compare and contrast among the four of Nirodha-samapatti, 4th arupa-attainment, nibbana and Arhattaphala Samadhi from the perspectives of consciousness and perception. Thanks in advance.


Another point is: I am not able to discern the meaning of the phrase "ceases completely, not to some extent like". Would you also please kindly explain that?

[Zom]

To clarify my question, would you please compare and contrast among the four of Nirodha-samapatti, 4th arupa-attainment, nibbana and Arhattaphala Samadhi from the perspectives of consciousness and perception. Thanks in advance.

From how I personally see it from the suttas, there are 2 nibbana elements, one is psychological nibbana (sa-upadisesa-nibbana) defined exactly as "destruction of kilesas", which is arahant's mind state; another is ontological nibbana, the cessation of the All, uncluding arahant's mind (anupadisesa nibbana). Now, arhattaphala samadhi is probably the arahant's state of mind in this or that jhanic attainment (most likely, in that special one, called signless samadhi which is also the same thing as "abiding in the emptiness" for buddhas and arahants (see MN 122). Nirodha samapatti is the same as a "test drive" for anupadisesa nibbana element (everything ceases; and arahant, or even anagami, can thus retrospectively know how technically this happens). 4th arupa attainment, which is neither perception nor non-perception is, according to Buddha, the best spiritual worldly attainment, the peak of samsara, the highest point of existence, the most sublime, and, obviously, it is just one step from nirodha, which is final nibbana. In there 5 khandhas almost cease to exist, but they are still there, because craving keeps their remains together. If one is able to remove that subtle craving, one attains nibbana immediately (the reason why Alara Kalama was the first whom Buddha wanted to teach).

[cappuccino]

as I understand, Nirvana is the absence of stress

the mind feels this absence of stress

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

as I understand, Nirvana is the absence of stress

the mind feels this absence of stress

Nirvana?
Interesting.
Unusually strange word for me.

Are you discussing from Mahayana or other "similar" perspectives?