Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
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:Certainly in terms of "discussing" with me, you have made no real effort. Damdifino way. It is, however, too bad.
Search this topic and see how many times you see the phrase "Greetings Tilt".

If all that's in those posts constitutes "no real effort" in your mind... well, yes then, I guess it's just too bad.

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:Certainly in terms of "discussing" with me, you have made no real effort. Damdifino way. It is, however, too bad.
Search this topic and see how many times you see the phrase "Greetings Tilt".

If all that's in those posts constitutes "no real effort" in your mind... well, yes then, I guess it's just too bad.

Metta,
Retro. :)
And when it was obvious, and when it was directly stated, I did not have any idea of what you were talking about in terms of how you were interpreting sankhara, you made no real effort in that matter to draw out your particular meaning, you made no effort to correct my misunderstanding of your position. You refused.
>> 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: 27839
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 when it was obvious, and when it was directly stated, I did not have any idea of what you were talking about in terms of how you were interpreting sankhara, you made no real effort in that matter to draw out your particular meaning, you made no effort to correct my misunderstanding of your position. You refused.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p126137" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Since to be sankhata and to be paticcasamuppanna are one and the same thing, we see that each item in the series...

Paccudāvattati kho idam viññānam nāmarūpamhā nāparam gacchati; ettāvatā jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā uppajjetha vā yadidam nāmarūpapaccayā viññānam, viññānapaccayā nāmarūpam, nāmarūpapaccayā salāyatanam,

This consciousness turns back from name-&-matter, it does not go further; thus far may one be born or age or die or fall or arise; that is to say, with name-&-matter as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-&-matter; with name-&-matter as condition, six bases;...


... is preceded by a sankhāra upon which it depends, and that therefore the total collection of items in the series depends upon the total collection of their respective sankhārā. In this sense we might say that the total collection of items is sankhārapaccayā. But since this statement means only that each and every particular item of the series depends upon a particular sankhāra, it does not say anything fresh. Sankhārapaccayā, however, can be understood in a different way: instead of 'dependent upon a collection of particular sankhārā', we can take it as meaning 'dependent upon the fact that there are such things as sankhārā'. In the first sense sankhārapaccayā is the equivalent of paticcasamuppanna ('dependently arisen'), and applies to a given series as a collection of particular items; in the second sense sankhārapaccayā is the equivalent of paticcasamuppāda ('dependent arising'), and applies to a given series as the exemplification of a structural principle. In the second sense it is true quite generally of all formulations of paticcasamuppāda, and not merely of this formulation (since any other formulation will consist of some other set of particular items). Paticcasamuppāda is, in fact, a structural principle (formally stated in this Sutta passage...)

Api c'Udāyi titthatu pubbanto titthatu aparanto, dhammam te desessāmi: Imasmim sati idam hoti, imass'uppādā idam uppajjati; imasmim asati idam na hoti, imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhatī ti.

Majjhima viii,9 <M.ii,32>

But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases.


...and not one or another specific chain of sankhārā. It is thus an over-simplification to regard any one given formulation in particular terms as paticcasamuppāda. Every such formulation exemplifies the principle: none states it. Any paticcasamuppāda series, purely in virtue of its being an exemplification of paticcasamuppāda, depends upon the fact that there are such things as sankhārā; and a fortiori the series (as quoted prior to the quotation above) depends upon the fact of the existence of sankhārā: if there were no such things as sankhārā there would be no such thing as paticcasamuppāda at all, and therefore no such thing as this individual formulation of it.
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 »

Yes, and interestingly, I dealt with that, but then you tell me I didn't.
>> 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: 27839
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:Yes, and interestingly, I dealt with that, but then you tell me I didn't.
May you provide a link, then? I looked for a response to that explanation but saw none.

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: 27839
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:While the old kamma and conditioning plays itself out
retrofuturist wrote:Disagree, but already done to death. I believe our point of difference lies in different understandings of the English word "conditioning" and the Pali word "sankhara" as they pertain to experience.
tiltbillings wrote:I have no idea what your position on this is.
Well, I have tried to relate it to you using sutta terminology, which is my chosen frame of reference.

However, since that has failed, perhaps pages 44-45 of A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma might give you some idea as to how, within the Mahavihara Theravada tradition, consciousness might "function" (to use your terminology) in an unconditioned/unformed sense (i.e. without sankhara as its necessary foundation, i.e. without itself being sankhata, formed), without this notion of "old kamma and conditioning play[ing] itself out".

If you do not have a hard-copy, here is an online copy - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxo ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The "guide" part states...
"The remaining three types of consciousness among the ahetukas are not kammic results. They belong to the category called kiriya, rendered here as "functional" to indicate that they perform tasks which do not have any kammic potency. Such type consciousness are neither causal kamma nor the result of kamma. Within this category, three types of consciousness are rootless.
In brief they are listed as...

- five-sense-door adverting consciousness (pancadvaravajjanacitta)
- mind-door adverting consciousness (manodvaravajjanacitta)
- smile-producing consciousness (hasituppadacitta)

To be clear, I'm not advocating this tract of commentarial Abhidhamma.... merely presenting it to you as an opportunity for you to see how vinnana might "function" after the cessation of sankhara (formations), without the need for anything to be "obliterated" or "kill[ed] off".

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."
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Nyana »

retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might "function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation
I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:
  • ‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

    When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness.
Secondly, the absence of specific fabrication (abhisaṅkharoti) or volitional intention (abhisañcetayati) towards either existence or non-existence. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:
  • One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world. Not clinging, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’
Cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 04:
  • What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared consciousness, abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. An arahant's experience of the cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of the cessation of name-and-form.
And Nibbāna Sermon 06:
  • The more one sees preparations (saṅkhāras) as preparations, ignorance is dispelled, and the more one dispels ignorance, the preparations lose their significance as preparations. Then one sees the nature of preparations with wisdom as signless, desireless, and void. So much so that, in effect, preparations cease to be preparations.... The relation of saṅkhāras to ignorance is somewhat similar to the relation a drama has to its back-stage preparations. It seems, then, that from the standpoint of Dhamma the entire saṃsāra is a product of specifically prepared intentions, even like the drama with its back-stage preparations....

    The phrase saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ (e.g. M III 299), 'prepared and dependently arisen', suggests that the prepared nature is also due to that contact. What may be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa (S III 58), 'specifically prepared consciousness', is that sort of consciousness which gets attached to name-and-form. When one sees a film show, one interprets a scene appearing on the screen according to one's likes and dislikes. It becomes a thing of experience for him. Similarly, by imagining a self in name-and-form, consciousness gets attached to it. It is such a consciousness, which is established on name-and-form, that can be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. Then could there be also a consciousness which does not reflect a name-and-form? Yes, there could be. That is what is known as anidassana viññāṇa, or 'non-manifestative consciousness'.
And thirdly, consciousness which is unestablished (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:
  • When that consciousness is unestablished, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’
As for the qualm that this last passage refers to the death of an arahant, the phrase: "Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here,'" is the standard paricope referring to the time of awakening, i.e. a statement of the attainment of arahant fruition (e.g. DN 15, MN 105, etc.), and not the time of death of an arahant.

The above passages referring to the cognition of an arahant are succinctly presented in AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:
  • Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

    He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

    He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

    He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.
Ven. Ñāṇananda considered the Kāḷakārāma Sutta important enough to write a text on it.

All the best,

Geoff
Last edited by Nyana on Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Brilliant.

Thanks Geoff.

:twothumbsup:

Absolutely spot on.

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:While the old kamma and conditioning plays itself out
retrofuturist wrote:Disagree, but already done to death. I believe our point of difference lies in different understandings of the English word "conditioning" and the Pali word "sankhara" as they pertain to experience.
tiltbillings wrote:I have no idea what your position on this is.
Well, I have tried to relate it to you using sutta terminology, which is my chosen frame of reference.
And as for using the suttas, which is my preference, apparently you do not agree with my understanding, but interestingly, you really have not given a reasoned counter argument to the points I raised other than saying they are not how you understand things.

As for the A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma, I'll take the suttas.

And for all of this, there are other things to do.
>> 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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might "function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation
I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:
Interestingly, if there were no functioning of the khandhas, there would be no "seen in the seen"; there would be no seen at all, or any of it, which is all the functioning of the khandhas. It is just that the arahant's insight has freed her from indentifying, from establishing herself in terms of the khandhas. Ven Nanananda is not saying anything I have not said, and has not said anything in this missive with which I disagree. (Though I would not want get entangled with the appatiṭṭha viññāṇa business.)
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:Interestingly, if there were no functioning of the khandhas, there would be no "seen in the seen"; there would be no seen at all, or any of it, which is all the functioning of the khandhas. It is just that the arahant's insight has freed her from indentifying, from establishing herself in terms of the khandhas.
Well, I'd suggest that this amounts to measuring and classifying the arahant in terms of the aggregates. Also, the aggregate scheme isn't necessary to account for awakened experience. And as I've previously mentioned, the suttas do not use the aggregate classification when referring to the Buddha or an arahant. They use the faculties classification. The suttas never equate the aggregates with the sense spheres or the faculties. Given the definition of the fabrications aggregate as volitional intention pertaining to the six objects (e.g. SN 22.56 Upādānaparivatta Sutta), there may be good reason for this. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:
  • One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world.
SN 22.79 Khajjanīya Sutta also has some interesting things to say about the aggregates.

All the best,

Geoff
Last edited by Nyana on Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Interestingly, if there were no functioning of the khandhas, there would be no "seen in the seen"; there would be no seen at all, or any of it, which is all the functioning of the khandhas. It is just that the arahant's insight has freed her from identifying, from establishing herself in terms of the khandhas.
Well, I'd suggest that this amounts to measuring and classifying the arahant in terms of the aggregates.
I'd suggest that it doesn't. The only way that an individual would be measured and classified in terms of the khandhas is if they identify and establish themselves with them. Here someone seems to be in agreement with what I have said: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p126153" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"If one stays obsessed with form, that's what one is measured (limited) by." - SN 22.53. The arahant is not obsessed by the khandhas, thusly is not measured by them, but the living arahant sees, hears, cognizes, which are all functions of the khandhas. Why would it be otherwise?
Also, the aggregate scheme isn't necessary to account for awakened experience.
I did not say they were, but it is an interesting question: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p100997" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p125953" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Also, the aggregate scheme isn't necessary to account for awakened experience.
I did not say they were, but it is an interesting question: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p100997" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is what I've been saying -- the sutta which defines saupādisesa nibbānadhātu refers to the faculties, not the aggregates. The suttas in the Saṃyuttanikāya which describe the Buddha's experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc., refer to the faculties, not the aggregates. I'm not interested in hanging my hat on any thesis based on the omission of the aggregate scheme in these contexts, but it's worth noting.

All the best,

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

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Also, the aggregate scheme isn't necessary to account for awakened experience.
I did not say they were, but it is an interesting question: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p100997" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is what I've been saying -- the sutta which defines saupādisesa nibbānadhātu refers to the faculties, not the aggregates. The suttas in the Saṃyuttanikāya which describe the Buddha's experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc., refer to the faculties, not the aggregates. I'm not interested in hanging my hat on any thesis based on the omission of the aggregate scheme in these contexts, but it's worth noting.

All the best,

Geoff
Alrighty then.
>> 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
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:A couple of follow up questions, if you'll oblige...

Does this mean you only believe an arahant transcends dukkha (the final nidana) through "death"?

If so, does this mean either that an arahant does not experience nibbana, or that nibbana and dukkha are either simultaneously present, or alternating?
Hi retro

At risk of sounding like a nit-picker, I don't believe "dukkha" is a nidana per se. A nidana is a relationship described by one of the iddapaccayata formula. Birth and dukkha form one nidana.

Based on what the AN 9s have to say in its listing of Nibbana-Here-&-Now variants, it seems pretty clear that when an Arahant soaks in a Jhana or Nirodha Sammapatti, he/she is personally experiencing Nibbana. This leads me to think that outside of these 9 specifically named experiences, it is not Nibbana.

On the other hand, the objection could be raised that if an Arahant's normal moments are not-Nibbanic, would that not mean the Arahant is still generating tanha which leads to dukkha? Clearly, I think that would be impossible, given my belief that the nidana between vedana and tanha are forever destroyed in an Arahant. The problem is of course the nidana between tanha and upadana. Ven Nanananda posits the upadana in sa-upadisesa nibbana to be clinging, and I think it is a possibility that he could be right and this upadana is in relation to the 5 material indriyas. Iddapaccayata does allow the tanha-upadana nidana to unravel over time, and this could explain why an Arahant in the kāmaloka still makes contact with the kāmā (ie due to the persistance of kāmupadana). Some of the experiences borne of contact with kāmā will be dukkha, to the extent that they are unpleasant kayika vedana. But we do know that because an Arahant has also destroyed the Anusayas, this means that all the cetasika vedanas that trigger the Anusayas are also gone. But, the other 3 clingings described in the DO pericopes are certainly gone, thereby rendering any form of identification by an Arahant with his/her khandhas (experiences of those kāmā) impossible.

Dukkha, in the normal DO sense, includes both the kayika and the cetasika vedanas. The persistance of an Arahant's experience of kayika vedana is inevitable (except in the Jhanas) given his/her 5 indriyas, but his/her transcendance of the cetasika vedanas have removed a huge, huge chunk of dukkha.

Does this make sense?
Post Reply