James Ford on kensho, from Pathos

[aflatun]

The three poisons never arose in the state of nirvana, they are not in a state called unborn or nonarisen. There can be no such state, by definition

Has any dharma whatsoever arisen in the state of nirvana? Why are the three poisons exempt? Aren't they empty like everything else?

You also have to distinguish between the absorption of cessation, nirodhasamapatti, and the subsequent attainment of cessation, where one is no longer subject to birth and death.

On your reading what distinguishes the two? What has changed? (Besides the fact that perception and feeling have "resumed" and one is walking about, etc). I'm guessing you wouldn't accept "the destruction of hatred, greed, delusion" as a valid answer here

[Malcolm]

The three poisons never arose in the state of nirvana, they are not in a state called unborn or nonarisen. There can be no such state, by definition

Has any dharma whatsoever arisen in the state of nirvana? Why are the three poisons exempt? Aren't they empty like everything else?

You also have to distinguish between the absorption of cessation, nirodhasamapatti, and the subsequent attainment of cessation, where one is no longer subject to birth and death.

On your reading what distinguishes the two? What has changed? (Besides the fact that perception and feeling have "resumed" and one is walking about, etc). I'm guessing you wouldn't accept "the destruction of hatred, greed, delusion" as a valid answer here

In the context, nirvana is not the cessation of all phenomena, it is the cessation of all afflictive phenomena.

The three poisons are not things that can be destroyed, like pots. In order to destroy them, you would have to destroy the mind. In other words, you would have to "Destroy the village to save it, sir."

[boda]

It means, rising above the need to make such judgements. It's not a matter of abandoning the understanding of right and wrong, but understanding it so well you don't have to think about it. It is called, in learning theory, 'unconscious competence'.

This theory may apply well to leaning a new skill like playing the piano, however right and wrong, in the sphere of morality, is not so straightforward. Also, right and wrong are essentially value judgements. How does one rise above the need to make value judgments?

[boda]

Astus has studied with a number of Zen teachers, and couple of Kagyu ones too, if I am not mistaken.

My Little Dharma History

Hi Astus,

At the end of this blogpost you write: "No buddha can make people enlightened. Everyone has to do it oneself."

If I may ask, how exactly do you know this?

[aflatun]

The three poisons never arose in the state of nirvana, they are not in a state called unborn or nonarisen. There can be no such state, by definition

Has any dharma whatsoever arisen in the state of nirvana? Why are the three poisons exempt? Aren't they empty like everything else?

You also have to distinguish between the absorption of cessation, nirodhasamapatti, and the subsequent attainment of cessation, where one is no longer subject to birth and death.

On your reading what distinguishes the two? What has changed? (Besides the fact that perception and feeling have "resumed" and one is walking about, etc). I'm guessing you wouldn't accept "the destruction of hatred, greed, delusion" as a valid answer here

In the context, nirvana is not the cessation of all phenomena, it is the cessation of all afflictive phenomena.

The three poisons are not things that can be destroyed, like pots. In order to destroy them, you would have to destroy the mind. In other words, you would have to "Destroy the village to save it, sir."

Can you explain what the context is then?

EDIT: I"m happy to take this to PM if you feel like I'm derailing this thread, i'll leave it up to you!

[Astus]

"No buddha can make people enlightened. Everyone has to do it oneself."
If I may ask, how exactly do you know this?

"By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another."
(Dhp 12.165)

"You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of Mara."
(Dhp 20.276)

Question: "Does the Buddha really save or rescue all sentient beings?"
The master said: "There are really no sentient beings to be saved by Tathagata. Since there is, in reality, neither self nor non-self, how then can there be a Buddha to save or sentient beings to be saved?
(Huangbo, The Wan-Ling Record)

"Outside mind there’s no dharma, nor is there anything to be gained within it. What are you seeking? Everywhere you say, ‘Th ere’s something to practice, something to obtain.’ Make no mistake! Even if there were something to be gained by practice, it would be nothing but birth-and-death karma."
(Record of Linji, p 17, tr Sasaki)

One day, Guishan said to Xiangyan, “I’m not asking you about what’s recorded in or what can be learned from the scriptures! You must say something from the time before you were born and before you could distinguish objects. I want to record what you say.”
Xiangyan was confused and unable to answer. He sat in deep thought for a some time and then mumbled a few words to explain his understanding. But Guishan wouldn’t accept this.
Xiangyan said, “Then would the master please explain it?”
Guishan said, “What I might say would merely be my own understanding. How could it benefit your own view?”
Xiangyan returned to the monks’ hall and searched through the books he had collected, but he couldn’t find a single phrase that could be used to answer Guishan’s question.
Xiangyan then sighed and said, “A picture of a cake can’t satisfy hunger.”
He then burned all his books and said, “During this lifetime I won’t study the essential doctrine. I’ll just become a common mendicant monk, and I won’t apply my mind to this any more.”
Xiangyan tearfully left Guishan. He then went traveling and eventually resided at Nanyang, the site of the grave of National Teacher Nanyang Huizhong.
One day as Xiangyan was scything grass, a small piece of tile was knocked through the air and struck a stalk of bamboo. Upon hearing the sound of the tile hitting the bamboo, Xiangyan instantly experienced vast enlightenment.
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 191-192)

[Malcolm]

Has any dharma whatsoever arisen in the state of nirvana? Why are the three poisons exempt? Aren't they empty like everything else?



On your reading what distinguishes the two? What has changed? (Besides the fact that perception and feeling have "resumed" and one is walking about, etc). I'm guessing you wouldn't accept "the destruction of hatred, greed, delusion" as a valid answer here

In the context, nirvana is not the cessation of all phenomena, it is the cessation of all afflictive phenomena.

The three poisons are not things that can be destroyed, like pots. In order to destroy them, you would have to destroy the mind. In other words, you would have to "Destroy the village to save it, sir."

Can you explain what the context is then?

There is no reason any positive dharmas will cease as a result of insight. The purpose of insight is to see what is negative and remove the causes for that.

[aflatun]

There is no reason any positive dharmas will cease as a result of insight. The purpose of insight is to see what is negative and remove the causes for that.

Agreed, although Nirvana, at least in the Pali tradition (which I'm not pushing) does have a sense in which all phenomena do cease, depending on who you ask, Nirvana without residue/Arahattaphala Samadhi (Nanananda), Timless, Cessation of the Personality Factors/Unconstructed Discernment (Peter Harvey), Nirvana without residue post mortem (Buddhaghosa). But we're not talking about that so I'm happy to leave it there.

Nirvana is the cessation of hatred, greed and delusion. I said "destruction" before, and it seems you took issue with this word. I'll take your word for it, as you are a scholar and I respect that. But the general form of the proposition is not controversial as I understand it.

While I appreciate this exchange (I mean that) I'd like to return to where it started. When I asked why cessation wasn't an experience you said:

All experiences are necessarily conceptual.

Can you explain how this relates?

You also said:

You cannot experience the absence of three poisons that have never arisen. This is why nirvana is peaceful. It is not an experience of an absence of anything. The three poisons never grew in the state of nirvana.

I still need help with this. Nirvana is the cessation of the three poisons. Saying they never grew (why is this in the past tense) in the state of nirvana sounds redundant to me. Of course they didn't, the state of nirvana is itself their irreversible cessation. What were you getting at here?

Further, Nirvana is in one sense precisely experience which is no longer conditioned by hatred, greed and delusion. So it is six sense base experience marked by the absence of cognitive and affective distortions. For Buddha Joe, those afflictions were once present, after awakening they're absent. This absence would have to be discernible. How? For one, suffering is now impossible, always and forever.

Further you stated:

You cannot experience a tree that has never grown. Cessation is not the absence of something.

A cessation is the absence of cause for arising. Saying you can experience a cessation is like saying you can experience the sprout that never grows from a burnt seed.

I can't resolve the two bolded statements. Help?

[Malcolm]

There is no reason any positive dharmas will cease as a result of insight. The purpose of insight is to see what is negative and remove the causes for that.

Agreed, although Nirvana, at least in the Pali tradition (which I'm not pushing) does have a sense in which all phenomena do cease, depending on who you ask, Nirvana without residue/Arahattaphala Samadhi (Nanananda), Timless, Cessation of the Personality Factors/Unconstructed Discernment (Peter Harvey), Nirvana without residue post mortem (Buddhaghosa). But we're not talking about that so I'm happy to leave it there.

Nirvana is the cessation of hatred, greed and delusion. I said "destruction" before, and it seems you took issue with this word. I'll take your word for it, as you are a scholar and I respect that. But the general form of the proposition is not controversial as I understand it.

While I appreciate this exchange (I mean that) I'd like to return to where it started. When I asked why cessation wasn't an experience you said:

All experiences are necessarily conceptual.

Can you explain how this relates?

You also said:

You cannot experience the absence of three poisons that have never arisen. This is why nirvana is peaceful. It is not an experience of an absence of anything. The three poisons never grew in the state of nirvana.

I still need help with this. Nirvana is the cessation of the three poisons. Saying they never grew (why is this in the past tense) in the state of nirvana sounds redundant to me. Of course they didn't, the state of nirvana is itself their irreversible cessation. What were you getting at here?

Further, Nirvana is in one sense precisely experience which is no longer conditioned by hatred, greed and delusion. So it is six sense base experience marked by the absence of cognitive and affective distortions. For Buddha Joe, those afflictions were once present, after awakening they're absent. This absence would have to be discernible. How? For one, suffering is now impossible, always and forever.

Further you stated:

You cannot experience a tree that has never grown. Cessation is not the absence of something.

A cessation is the absence of cause for arising. Saying you can experience a cessation is like saying you can experience the sprout that never grows from a burnt seed.

I can't resolve the two bolded statements. Help?

.


The absence of a cause is not the absence of something since there is nothing by which that absence may be identified.

[aflatun]

There is no reason any positive dharmas will cease as a result of insight. The purpose of insight is to see what is negative and remove the causes for that.

Agreed, although Nirvana, at least in the Pali tradition (which I'm not pushing) does have a sense in which all phenomena do cease, depending on who you ask, Nirvana without residue/Arahattaphala Samadhi (Nanananda), Timless, Cessation of the Personality Factors/Unconstructed Discernment (Peter Harvey), Nirvana without residue post mortem (Buddhaghosa). But we're not talking about that so I'm happy to leave it there.

Nirvana is the cessation of hatred, greed and delusion. I said "destruction" before, and it seems you took issue with this word. I'll take your word for it, as you are a scholar and I respect that. But the general form of the proposition is not controversial as I understand it.

While I appreciate this exchange (I mean that) I'd like to return to where it started. When I asked why cessation wasn't an experience you said:

All experiences are necessarily conceptual.

Can you explain how this relates?

You also said:

You cannot experience the absence of three poisons that have never arisen. This is why nirvana is peaceful. It is not an experience of an absence of anything. The three poisons never grew in the state of nirvana.

I still need help with this. Nirvana is the cessation of the three poisons. Saying they never grew (why is this in the past tense) in the state of nirvana sounds redundant to me. Of course they didn't, the state of nirvana is itself their irreversible cessation. What were you getting at here?

Further, Nirvana is in one sense precisely experience which is no longer conditioned by hatred, greed and delusion. So it is six sense base experience marked by the absence of cognitive and affective distortions. For Buddha Joe, those afflictions were once present, after awakening they're absent. This absence would have to be discernible. How? For one, suffering is now impossible, always and forever.

Further you stated:

You cannot experience a tree that has never grown. Cessation is not the absence of something.

A cessation is the absence of cause for arising. Saying you can experience a cessation is like saying you can experience the sprout that never grows from a burnt seed.

I can't resolve the two bolded statements. Help?

.


The absence of a cause is not the absence of something since there is nothing by which that absence may be identified.

How does this follow? The cause is the three poisons. They are assuredly something (barring any one upmanship here ). Their absence is identified by the cessation of suffering, birth, death, etc.

[Malcolm]

A cause that does not produce a result is a non cause.

Agreed, although Nirvana, at least in the Pali tradition (which I'm not pushing) does have a sense in which all phenomena do cease, depending on who you ask, Nirvana without residue/Arahattaphala Samadhi (Nanananda), Timless, Cessation of the Personality Factors/Unconstructed Discernment (Peter Harvey), Nirvana without residue post mortem (Buddhaghosa). But we're not talking about that so I'm happy to leave it there.

Nirvana is the cessation of hatred, greed and delusion. I said "destruction" before, and it seems you took issue with this word. I'll take your word for it, as you are a scholar and I respect that. But the general form of the proposition is not controversial as I understand it.

While I appreciate this exchange (I mean that) I'd like to return to where it started. When I asked why cessation wasn't an experience you said:



Can you explain how this relates?

You also said:



I still need help with this. Nirvana is the cessation of the three poisons. Saying they never grew (why is this in the past tense) in the state of nirvana sounds redundant to me. Of course they didn't, the state of nirvana is itself their irreversible cessation. What were you getting at here?

Further, Nirvana is in one sense precisely experience which is no longer conditioned by hatred, greed and delusion. So it is six sense base experience marked by the absence of cognitive and affective distortions. For Buddha Joe, those afflictions were once present, after awakening they're absent. This absence would have to be discernible. How? For one, suffering is now impossible, always and forever.

Further you stated:





I can't resolve the two bolded statements. Help?

.


The absence of a cause is not the absence of something since there is nothing by which that absence may be identified.

How does this follow? The cause is the three poisons. They are assuredly something (barring any one upmanship here ). Their absence is identified by the cessation of suffering, birth, death, etc.

[dharmagoat]

Picture this hypothetical scenario:

I have been given a box of cereal and now sit at the breakfast table before opening it. I read on the packet how delicious and nutritious it is. I discuss it with my flatmate who is sitting with me, they read the packet too, agree with me that it must be very good cereal, but want to be sure. We go online and find people that assure us it tastes wonderful and is very healthy, some are experts in cereal and have written books about it, some have even tried it for themselves. We discuss what flavour is. We read about taste buds. We argue the importance of dietary fibre. We study the history of breakfast cereals. Time is up and we go off to work.

[Anonymous X]

Astus has studied with a number of Zen teachers, and couple of Kagyu ones too, if I am not mistaken.

My Little Dharma History

Hi Astus,

At the end of this blogpost you write: "No buddha can make people enlightened. Everyone has to do it oneself."

If I may ask, how exactly do you know this?

There really is no sense in trying to argue this one way or another. It doesn't matter.

[aflatun]

A cause that does not produce a result is a non cause.

I thought we had a tacit agreement to stay conventional. You're shifting the ground rules, unless you're claiming the poisons don't produce results conventionally speaking.

[aflatun]

Picture this hypothetical scenario:

I have been given a box of cereal and now sit at the breakfast table before opening it. I read on the packet how delicious and nutritious it is. I discuss it with my flatmate who is sitting with me, they read the packet too, agree with me that it must be very good cereal, but want to be sure. We go online and find people that assure us it tastes wonderful and is very healthy, some are experts in cereal and have written books about it, some have even tried it for themselves. We discuss what flavour is. We read about taste buds. We argue the importance of dietary fibre. We study the history of breakfast cereals. Time is up and we go off to work.

Yes. But before we get up and go to work we try to learn from others in that discussion

[dharmagoat]

Yes. But before we get up and go to work we try to learn from others in that discussion

It can be a discussion over breakfast, for sure. Something like "this tastes good, what is it?"

But it is unfortunate to get sidetracked in discussions that have no basis in experience and you end up going hungry.

[aflatun]

Yes. But before we get up and go to work we try to learn from others in that discussion

It can be a discussion over breakfast, for sure. Something like "this tastes good, what is it?"

But it is unfortunate to get sidetracked in discussions that have no basis in experience and you end up going hungry.

I agree. But I tend to think theoretical discussions have their place. And Malcolm knows his stuff.

[Anonymous X]

Yes. But before we get up and go to work we try to learn from others in that discussion

It can be a discussion over breakfast, for sure. Something like "this tastes good, what is it?"

But it is unfortunate to get sidetracked in discussions that have no basis in experience and you end up going hungry.

I agree. But I tend to think theoretical discussions have their place. And Malcolm knows his stuff.

Especially on a public board about Buddhism, which most posters will not agree on anything, 100%.
Certainly, this can't bring certainty or confidence in your own experience. But, I think there is no way to escape the question/answer syndrome until one begins to see this as going nowhere.

[dharmagoat]

Yes. But before we get up and go to work we try to learn from others in that discussion

It can be a discussion over breakfast, for sure. Something like "this tastes good, what is it?"

But it is unfortunate to get sidetracked in discussions that have no basis in experience and you end up going hungry.

I agree. But I tend to think theoretical discussions have their place. And Malcolm knows his stuff.

Yes, to continue the food theme, they too can be part of a healthy, balanced diet.

[Wayfarer]

It means, rising above the need to make such judgements. It's not a matter of abandoning the understanding of right and wrong, but understanding it so well you don't have to think about it. It is called, in learning theory, 'unconscious competence'.

This theory may apply well to leaning a new skill like playing the piano, however right and wrong, in the sphere of morality, is not so straightforward. Also, right and wrong are essentially value judgements. How does one rise above the need to make value judgments?

As I said, by it being internalised, by not having to make judgements. I suppose there will be some times when you still need to deliberate over some things, but I think, like anything else, right action is a learned behaviour; once you internalise it, then it is second nature.