mikenz66 wrote:So nothing is conditioned by those past conditions any more?
Are you able to give a bit more detail about your question as I'm a little unsure exactly what you're asking? However, this may be relevant for the arahant who no longer experiences dependent arising
, from the aptly titled...Ud 8.4: Nibbana Suttahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Thanissaro translation wrote:One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no desire. There being no desire, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
Ireland translation wrote:For the supported there is instability, for the unsupported there is no instability; when there is no instability there is serenity; when there is serenity there is no inclination: when there is no inclination there is no coming-and-going; when there is no coming-and-going there is no decease-and-uprising; when there is no decease-and-uprising there is neither "here" nor "beyond" nor "in between the two." Just this is the end of suffering.
To cautiously use a sometimes abused term, the experience of the arahant is non-manifestative. When one is accustomed to Yes/No or True/False responses, how does one interpret a zero, or a blank response, or an n/a? It's hard to explain when one's existing terms of reference no longer apply, and when one's current terms of reference actually prohibit understanding rather than facilitate it. This is why nibbana is described as it is, and not as an absolute - the Buddha wasn't being needlessly cryptic. Have a look at A2I's nibbana study guide - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... bbana.html
- in this context.
SN 12.15 wrote:By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Mike wrote:Sorry, I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying that aspects of an arahant such as personality, feeling and so on, are not conditioned by past kamma?
Something like personality is, but the ability to be touched by vipaka (kammically-resultant mental happiness or suffering) directly attributable to past actions made prior to nibanna disappears, because through attaining nibbana these causal net of kamma and its resultants (which is based on ignorance and false perceptions of self) is "seen through".
Mike wrote:I'm still curious to see a coherent explanation of your interpretation that dependent origination ceases at the nibbanizing moment. Perhaps it is in the suttas, but it's certainly not obvious to me. Can you provide some references?
Well, I take the standard dependent origination sequence in its 'arising' and 'cessation' modes as supporting this. It was repeated many times, so it must be important!
Of course, coherency of the dependent origination sequence will depend on how certain key terms are regarded... specifically in the context of this discussion, terms like sankhara, bhava, jati and dukkha.
Mike wrote:It seems to me that questions of timing are tricky. Take the common sutta statement: "Birth is ended". I know some people interpret this to mean that birth is something that is happening at every moment, and now (after nibbana) it has stopped. But clearly it is not the only way of interpreting the statement, which, more conventionally, is interpreted as saying "There will be no more birth in the future".
Indeed. To me this is similar in its meaning and implication to the Nibbana Sutta extract provided above, where "coming and going" refers to the various and differing manifestations of dependently-arisen existence and is therefore synonymous with jati
. I understand others may see it differently, so I'll caveat this once more by saying it's my understanding - the Mahavihara commentators thought differently. I'm not here to say I'm right, only to say what I have learned.
Ud 8.3 wrote:"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
As Tilt alludes to, how one understands bhava
and punabhava (i.e. repeated bhava) has a big impact on how the nature of how the experience of an arahant would be regarded... that's probably why the transcripts from Bhikkhu Nanananda's Nibbana Sermons extend into the hundreds of pages.
As for Ajahn Brahma... yes, I disagree with him too, probably more vehemently than you do.