Questions on "Manual of Insight"

[zan]

Edit:
I read on and he does clarify that "Among the ultimate realities, nibbana is called an unconditioned reality (asankhataparamattha). it is subject to nothing and does not arise and disappear, and so it is said to be permanent (nicca) and stable (dhuva). All the other ultimate realities are conditioned realities (sankhataparamattha)." So my question was answered three pages after the page I was asking about.
End edit.

I just flipped it open and already have a question! Could anyone please tell me if I understand the author correctly? I have a limited understanding of the Dhamma in general and so my questions and assumptions are almost definitely incorrect and the author surely is clear and correct, the confusion caused by my lack of understanding, not the book.

On page 101 the author says (obviously my quoting here is missing diacritic marks and the square root symbols):

"Following the explanations given in the commentaries and subcommentaries, we should correctly understand ultimate reality in this way: the four realities-mind, mental factors, matter and nibbana-that can be personally experienced, are immutable, and really existing are called "ultimate realities." We should always keep this correct definition of ultimate reality in mind.

There is a misapprehension that ultimate realities are eternal and unchanging while conventional realities (pannatti) are transitory and changing. Accordingly it is explained that ultimate realities are eternal in several ways: in terms of characteristics or with regard to consequences. Matter (rupa), for instance, is defined as malleable or transformable and subject to alteration by cold, heat and so on. However it is also said that it is characteristically perpetual. This contradiction is actually rooted in confusing the words aviparita (not false) and aviparinanata (unchanging), thinking they have the same meaning.

The word aviparinata is composed of the root namu with the prefixes vi- and pari-. The literal meaning of this word is "unchanging." By extension it can be read as "enduring" or "perpetual." On the other hand, the word aviparita is composed of the root i with the same prefixes, vi- and pari-. The literal meaning of this word is "not false," or in other words "true." The subcommentary to the Paramatthavibhavini defines ultimate reality as "not false (aviparita); truth (attha)." This explanation should resolve the confusion mentioned above. Keep these correct definitions in mind to better understand what is meant by the term "ultimate reality."
-Manual of Insight

Is this saying that mind, mental factors, matter and nibbana are all eternal and unchanging? Or is the author clearing up the view that they are eternal and unchanging by pointing out that the word mistaken for "unchanging" actually is a different word meaning "not false"?

If the former, am I completely wrong in understanding The Buddha's teachings all these years that everything is temporary but nibbana and that actually there are four things that are not temporary and nibbana is one of these? Do mind, mental factors and matter all last forever without changing, the same as nibbana?

If the latter, why does the author not clarify that mind, mental factors and matter are all temporary and changeable and only nibbana is eternal and unchanging? Or does he clarify this at some other point in the book?

[Ruud]

The way I read this passage is as follows:

The correct definition of ultimate reality (which includes all four realities) is:

• It can be personally experienced
  It is immutable
  It is really existing

Some people believe the definition is:

• It is eternal
  It is unchanging

The author says that this confusion comes from not understanding the difference between aviparita ("not false", given as a synonym/definition for paramattha,"ultimate", right before the passage you quoted) and aviparinata ("unchanging"), with a breakdown of how both words can be analyzed to show that difference.

So I believe Mahasi Sayadaw just seems to be comparing two definitions, one correct and one incorrect. What the difference between immutable and unchanging is though

[zan]

The way I read this passage is as follows:

The correct definition of ultimate reality (which includes all four realities) is:

• It can be personally experienced
  It is immutable
  It is really existing

Some people believe the definition is:

• It is eternal
  It is unchanging

The author says that this confusion comes from not understanding the difference between aviparita ("not false", given as a synonym/definition for paramattha,"ultimate", right before the passage you quoted) and aviparinata ("unchanging"), with a breakdown of how both words can be analyzed to show that difference.

So I believe Mahasi Sayadaw just seems to be comparing two definitions, one correct and one incorrect. What the difference between immutable and unchanging is though

Thank you. I think it makes sense to define them all as "not false" but I am perplexed as to how nibbana can even be listed along side the other three, let alone defined with the same terms.

[Ruud]

Maybe that definition holds for all four, but each can also have their own individual characteristics? I'd say Matter for example also has characteristics the other three don't have.

By the way, just as a disclaimer, I have not studied the Manual or this specific chapter/topic very much yet. I'm here much more to learn than to spread information, and I might even be spreading misinformation, so I'll be curious about others interpretation too.

[Bakmoon]

Is this saying that mind, mental factors, matter and nibbana are all eternal and unchanging? Or is the author clearing up the view that they are eternal and unchanging by pointing out that the word mistaken for "unchanging" actually is a different word meaning "not false"?

The second of the two, namely, that this text isn't saying that ultimate phenomena are eternal, rather that they are true rather than false.

If the latter, why does the author not clarify that mind, mental factors and matter are all temporary and changeable and only nibbana is eternal and unchanging? Or does he clarify this at some other point in the book?

He probably didn't think that it was necessary because he never said that all ultimate phenomena are impermanent, he just said that there is a misunderstanding in which people think that they are all permanent. I can see why it can be confusing, but a lot of traditional style texts are written like that.

[zan]

Turns out he clarifies it only three pages later. Sorry for any confusion, this is why I headed the post with "...my questions and assumptions are almost definitely incorrect and the author surely is clear and correct, the confusion caused by my lack of understanding, not the book."

I have added an "Edit" section to the beginning of the original post with the information.