Someone (LF) in Dharma Connectione asked,
"I notice Pa Auk Sayadaw talks different times about the unformed
object of nibbana. I find this phrase curious. Could anyone shed
more light on this paradox?
"After this as he continues to discern the passing away and
ceasing
of dhammas with a wish for release from them he finds that
eventually the formations cease and his mind takes the
unformed
nibbana as an object."
An Eternal Now: I do not know what is Pa Auk Sayadaw's
understanding of Nirvana.
But as some suttas explained, Nirvana is an object of mental
cognition and therefore falls under the all - the 12 ayatanas which
are the 6 cognitive faculties (5 sense organs and the mind) and the
6 corresponding categories of objects (which Thanissaro Bhikkhu may
not agree with such correlation) and is the object of mental
cognition.
Malcolm: "No, actually it does. The Sabbasutta is just a
description of the twelve āyatanas. The twelve āyatanas contain all
conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, including the supreme
Dharma, nirvana.
The twelve āyatanas:
eye | form
ear | sound
nose | scent
tongue | tastes
body | tactiles
mind | dharmas
That is it. There are no phenomena taught in any buddhist teachings
that can go beyond this list. The dharma āyatana contains the
aggregates of sensation, ideation and formations
(vedanasamjñā̄saṃskaraskandha), as well as space and the two kinds
of cessation. When the twelve āyatanas are broken out in to the
eighteen dhātus, the dharma āyatana changes its name to the
dharmadhātu. Mano āyatana, the mind ayatanā is the aggregate of
consciousness, vijñāna skandha, and the ten material āyatanas, eye,
form, etc, are the rūpaskandha.
...
Well, that may be how Theravadins approach that sutta -- but some
tendencies in Theravada are slightly eternalist. We also have that
Sutra in the Agamas, and the way the twelve āyatanas are described
by Vasubandhu and the way I have outlined this is completely normal
and consistent with that sutra. Nirvana, for stream enterers and so
on, is an object of their consciousnesses since it is included in
the dharmāyatana/dhātu.
There are no phenomena that lie outside the twelve āyatanas."
Geoff: "It's (nirvana) a mental object of the sixth consciousness.
The path has a purpose, and that purpose for śrāvakas (and
bodhisattvas as well) includes the elimination of the fetters.
Thus, with the fruition attainments there is the knowledge (ñāṇa)
of extinguishment (nibbāna) of fetters, also called the knowledge
of elimination (khayeñāṇa) of fetters, etc. Without such
elimination there is no awakening (bodhi). This isn't
controversial."
"It's the object of a supramundane cognition (lokuttaracitta),
yes."
"It's implicit in terms such as the cognition of cessation
(nirodhasaññā), etc."
Nirvana here simply means the termination of passion, aggression
and delusion. The termination of such defilements is called Nirvana
and given many epithets by Buddha like unaging, not-born, and so
on.
For a more experiential example of "taking nibbana as an object of
cognition" just think of carrying a 20kg load on your shoulders for
20 miles and suddenly putting it down. Ah! What a release.
The burden of samsara, afflictions, attachments, seLF:-clinging,
all gone... and in place of it is such a liberating mode -
perception/experience becomes direct, immediate, liberating without
any sense of seLF:/SeLF:.
And in the suttas we often hear, "Now at that time a large number
of monks had declared final gnosis in the Blessed One's presence:
"We discern that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fuLF:illed, the
task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this
world.'""
13 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3
LF: Thanks, Soh, for the added context. I like the weight analogy.
Sometimes I think of the ideal of perfect health. What's there to
say about it except in terms of the ailments that it's not? Still,
health, being unburdened, or being free from suffering are all
dependent on their opposite. If this applied to nirvana, would this
make nirvana conditioned? Maybe this is a difference between
Theravada and Mahayana ideologies?
12 hours ago · Like · 1
An Eternal Now: Nirvana is the termination of passion, aggression,
and delusion. This is precisely what Nirvana is, not what it is
not.
Non-Buddhist people, particularly Awareness people or those with an
eternalist view like to see Buddha as talking about Nirvana in a
negative way but keeping silence on what Nirvana is. This is
because they have the idea that Nirvana is for example, eternal
awareness.
Actually the Buddha did not avoid talking about nirvana. He
remained silent on speculative issues (like the infinitude of
universe, etc) - but not on the subject of nirvana which is
straightforward, not speculative, can be verified experientially
which he has and many had, etc. The Buddha actually described what
Nirvana is, very clearly, as explained in
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/09/great-resource-of-buddhas-teachings.html
- the second article on that page,
The Recognition of Cessation (Nirodhasaññā)
It is very well written by Geoff (online jnana/nana) and backed up
by scriptures - what Buddha himseLF: said.
Nirvana is unconditioned because cessation is unconditioned - it is
not subjected to passing away, not subject to afflictive
conditions, etc. Like a fire that has gone out - it is simply
ceased, terminated. It is described by Buddha as being
extinguishment like a flame going out. That is what Nirvana is -
the cessation of afflictions. Cessation is not conditioned. The two
cessations (analytical/nonanalytical) are examples of unconditioned
dharmas.
Now as for Mahayana... let me drink water and eat my cake
first.
Awakening to Reality: Great Resource of Buddha's Teachings
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
very interesting articlesomewhat reminds me of u.g. krishnamurtis
talkse.g. talk...See More
12 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
An Eternal Now: lol i wrote a super lengthy post and my firefox
crashed
12 hours ago · Like
An Eternal Now: let me try again
12 hours ago · Like
An Eternal Now: just installed this hopefully it can help similar
situations again:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lazarus-form-recovery/
Lazarus: Form Recovery
addons.mozilla.org
Never lose anything you type into a web form again! Lazarus
securely auto-saves ...See More
12 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
An Eternal Now: Now recently I was discussing with Geoff (online
jnana, nana, etc) and he mentioned: "The "Mahāyāna" is a mixed bag,
and has meant different things to different people at different
times. I have faith that by practicing the perfections one can
realize buddhahood. And this isn't unique to the Mahāyāna. The
Theravāda also has teachings on the bodhisatta vehicle."
I can't agree more with this particularly the first sentence.
Mahayana means different things to different people, simply because
it is not one particular teaching taught by one person. It is not
even from the historical Buddha. Rather, it is a collection of
teachings from so many people with different background, situation,
understandings, under different circumstances or periods of
doctrinal developments etc etc.
Some of those scriptures may be attributed to Buddha, but even
those scriptures are not exactly by the historical Buddha (as
modern scholarship will tell you) but are composed by many unknown
authors writing them - perhaps a visionary account of their
teachings, or more likely than not as Malcolm said - "...Even
though Shakyamuni Buddha certainly never actually taught Mahayana,
nevertheless, Mahayana stands on its own and is valid as a
spiritual path and practice because the folks that wrote the
Mahayana sutras down were realized persons. The source of these
teachings are all realized beings-- ***their assumed historical
settings are merely skilLF:ul means to instill faith in the
teachings in those person's who need to crutch of historical
literalism...***" In any case, the Mahayana sutras show signs of
literary composition and gradual development that are simply absent
in the Pali suttas, which shows signs of being handed down orally
in the beginning and having more consistency etc.
And because Mahayana is such a diverse set of teachings developed
over a thousand years, you can actually easily find a sutra to
support a whole range of positions to your own liking. So if for
example your understanding is that your true seLF: is eternal and
changeless awareness (and I know you're an eternalist lol), sure,
you can also find doctrinal support easily in Mahayana Buddhism.
You may even find that the early Tathagatagarbha teachings like the
early Mahaparinirvana Sutra (Mahayana) may even seem more
eternalist than Vedanta and is rather unapologetic about it. In
that sutra, Nirvana is described as the true changeless seLF: and
distinct from the five passing aggregates. Which is in direct
contradiction to the earlier Pali suttas (and Mahayana
Prajnaparamita sutras etc) which held Nirvana to be empty of
seLF:.
But that is just one small part of the Mahayana basket of
scriptures. Earlier than the Tathagatagarbha class of teachings we
have the Prajnaparamita class of teachings, which are the emptiness
teachings - all dharmas including Nirvana are taught to be empty
and illusory, and as I quoted to you in the past from this class of
teaching, "Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything
greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion." ~
Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñapāramitā Sutra
And in the later developments, such as Lankavatara Sutra, which is
not particularly prajnaparamita, not particularly tathagatagarbha,
not particularly yogacara - but since it is such a late sutra it is
a synthesis of all the earlier developments - PP, TG, YC all
included in one coherent scripture. This is the sutra that teaches
sudden awakening and is said to be the only sutra brought into
China by the 1st Zen/Ch'an Patriarch in China, Bodhidharma.
In this Lankavatara Sutra, it explains that the doctrine of
Tathagatagarbha is simply a skilLF:ul, expedient means taught to
non-Buddhists who fear the notion of emptiness and cling to notions
of true seLF:. Its aim is actually to lead them gradually towards
understanding emptiness, non-arising etc expediently. It teaches
that true Bodhisattvas must treat tathagatagarbha as ultimately
not-seLF:, and warn against falling into non-Buddhist views of an
Atman. But of course this is not what is being explained in the
Mahaparinirvana Sutra for example, which explains itseLF: as being
the final definitive teachings, etc. So there are always
contradictions between sutras simply because they are written and
developed by different people.
So all these mean very different things to different people, all
depending on what they take to be provisional and what they take to
be definitive.
The general consensus among the majority of Mahayana and
particularly Vajrayana people is that they do not hold a rather
substantialist understanding of Buddha-nature. In Vajrayana for
example Buddha-nature is understood as the inseparability of
clarity and emptiness. In other words, even though clarity is an
aspect of nature of mind, or one of the natures/essence of mind
(the other being emptiness), that clarity too is not reified in
terms of a changeless substantial true seLF: but is empty of any
seLF: or substantial real existence as well.
Vajrayana generally take the middle way teachings on emptiness to
be definitive but at the same time talk about the clarity aspect or
the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. There is strong
influence of Nagarjuna's emptiness teachings in terms of view on
the Vajrayana teachings as a whole even though in terms of practice
they are more focused on tantric methodologies generally speaking
(or there may be practice-based teachings that claim themselves to
be beyond tantras like Dzogchen and Mahamudra for example).
On the other hand there are also those minority like the Jonangs
and the more extreme version of Shentong that takes some of the
Tathagatagarbha teachings to be definitive and thus developed an
eternalist doctrine out of it that is no different from the Vedanta
teachings. The same goes for some adherents/teachers of Zen and
Ch'an Buddhism which are also in many cases teaching stuff that are
very much like Vedanta. At the same time you can find Zen teachers
that teach a very non-substantialist understanding, and I
especially like Dogen for example. So it is truly, a mixed bag,
even within the specific traditions of Mahayana and Vajrayana.
There can be no similar consensus among such a wide range of
Buddhists on such issues.
But going back to topic, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists generally
agree with the Buddha's (the early/original teachings in pali
suttas) description of Nirvana and generally do not hold
substantialist views about it. However they do have different
understandings of the details - and some Vajrayana people will talk
about the difference of Bodhisattva's nirvana (non-abiding nirvana)
versus the one-sided cessation of arahants and so on. All these
I'll leave to the experts like Geoff who described it very nicely:
http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/nirvana-in-different-schools-of-buddhism.html
Dharma Connection: Nirvana In The Different Schools Of
Buddhism
dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com
11 hours ago · Edited · Like · 7 · Remove Preview
An Eternal Now: And by the way the Lazarus form recovery truly
works. It's an awesome tool that I recommend all who are running
Firefox to install. Save yourseLF: from losing lengthy grandmother
stories like me when your browser crashes
11 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Stian: Yes, yes, yes!
11 hours ago via mobile · Unlike · 1
LF: Thanks, Soh, for taking the time to write that down
(twice!)
Soh wrote: "Now as for Mahayana... let me drink water and eat my
cake first."
So, essentially, Theravada is having your cake, while Mahayana is
having your cake and eating it too?
Seriously, though, great comments. I just went over them on my
lunch break, but I'll need to digest them more this evening.
11 hours ago · Unlike · 1