Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Zom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:43 pm MN 1 is what you need:


“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person... perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

A bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows nibbana as nibbana. Having directly known nibbana as nibbana, he does not conceive himself as nibbana, he does not conceive himself in nibbana, he does not conceive himself apart from nibbana, he does not conceive nibbana to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in nibbana. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.

For him … not being delighted in, will become cool right here.

JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:01 pm

Zom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:43 pm MN 1 is what you need:


“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person... perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

A bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows nibbana as nibbana. Having directly known nibbana as nibbana, he does not conceive himself as nibbana, he does not conceive himself in nibbana, he does not conceive himself apart from nibbana, he does not conceive nibbana to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in nibbana. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.

That is the very best, most perfect and conclusive answer I've seen on here in a long time. Well done!

SarathW wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:03 pm

JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:01 pm

Zom wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:43 pm MN 1 is what you need:


“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person... perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

A bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows nibbana as nibbana. Having directly known nibbana as nibbana, he does not conceive himself as nibbana, he does not conceive himself in nibbana, he does not conceive himself apart from nibbana, he does not conceive nibbana to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in nibbana. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.

That is the very best, most perfect and conclusive answer I've seen on here in a long time. Well done!

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:29 pm Well, the Suttas say

"Sabbe dhamma anatta", which is taken to mean that all things are devoid of self; and the contrast with all sankhara, or compounded phenomena, is often taken to mean that the "all things" include the unconditioned, or nibbana.

zan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:19 pm

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:29 pm Well, the Suttas say

"Sabbe dhamma anatta", which is taken to mean that all things are devoid of self; and the contrast with all sankhara, or compounded phenomena, is often taken to mean that the "all things" include the unconditioned, or nibbana.

Thank you. Which sutta is this quote from exactly?

zan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:19 pm

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:29 pm Well, the Suttas say

"Sabbe dhamma anatta", which is taken to mean that all things are devoid of self; and the contrast with all sankhara, or compounded phenomena, is often taken to mean that the "all things" include the unconditioned, or nibbana.

Thank you. Which sutta is this quote from exactly?

A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it:
Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti:
‘All conditions are suffering.’
‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti.
Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles:
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
all things are not-self.
Sabbe dhammā anattā.
A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
Taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it:
Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti:
‘All things are not-self.’”
‘sabbe dhammā anattā’”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato

zan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:26 pm
For the sake of being thorough, does anyone know any other suttas that the traditional Theravada Orthodox commentators would present as an answer to the question? Or commentaries with accompaning suttas?

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard form as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“But, Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Good, good, Anuradha! Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.86/en/bodhi

zan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:26 pm So MN 1 makes it pretty clear that nibbana is not the self.

It's in the Maggavagga of the Dhammapada (v. 277-279). I think it's also in the Digha Nikaya somewhere, but I can't recall where.

Not exactly. It's saying you won't understand what Nibbana is if you consider it as "me" or "mine". It doesn't say anything about what Nibbana is, or isn't.