Can Nibbana Be A State Of Mind?

[camerata]

I've always thought of nibbana as a remarkable state of mind which transcends millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of mental conditioning. Subjectively, it may be "outside time and space," as some people say, but I still think of it as a state of mind, at least up until the death of the body.

But I recently read that the Buddha said that all states of mind and states of being are conditioned, and therefore nibbana cannot be either. Unfortunately, there was no sutta reference for this. Anyone have any source for this? Is it impossible to have an unconditioned state of mind?

[robitusson]

Some nice, light questions to ask. Dunno about the sources myself.

But with regard to

whether it's impossible to have an unconditioned state of mind? Yes. The Buddha had an unconditioned state of mind. As did the others who achieved enlightenment.

[chownah]

You will never find the answer by asking the question....only by following the path.

[thaibebop]

You will never find the answer by asking the question....only by following the path.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Wise" guy

[Abandon]

The problem is the word 'Sankhara' - what does it mean? Everyone you ask has a 'definitive' answer, but few agree. Also there is the 'dynamic' definition where people just redefine the word on each occasion to suit their feeling of what the sutta means.

I'm a bit lazy to type out all the definitions. I find that one definition works well in pretty much every case - the Abhidhamma definition which includes 50 'states' - intention, application of mind, joy, effort, greed, sloth, shamelessness, faith, goodwill, elasticity of mind, weildiness of mind, uprightness, compassion etc....

To be enlightened Sankhara cease - that is all the conditionings of the mind cease. Citta however, does not cease, it is just that the mind is now free of any conditions, any kamma, of any of the sankhara.

Thus the 'unconditioned state of mind' is a linguistic logic trap. If there is a 'state' conditioning the mind, then it is not unconditioned. But there is still citta (mind) as with Sariputta who declared "this nibbana is bliss, this nibbana is bliss"

"but how can it be bliss when there is no feeling (vedana)" asked someone

"it is because there is no feeling that it is bliss" was his reply.

[chownah]

I studied Tai Chi for many years and also some of the associated writings and have found that the concepts I learned and experienced there fit seamlessly into Buddhist ideas (in my experience, as far as I know). One verse from Lao Tzu says something like 'The Tao gives rise to the 10,000 things with names but itself remains nameless.' I believe that in Buddhist thought all mental fabrications will be dropped on the path to enlightenment, nibbhana, whatever.

Edited October 21, 2005 by chownah

[sabaijai]

I've always thought of nibbana as a remarkable state of mind which transcends millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of mental conditioning. Subjectively, it may be "outside time and space," as some people say, but I still think of it as a state of mind, at least up until the death of the body.

But I recently read that the Buddha said that all states of mind and states of being are conditioned, and therefore nibbana cannot be either. Unfortunately, there was no sutta reference for this. Anyone have any source for this? Is it impossible to have an unconditioned state of mind?

Here's an essay by Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Cha's senior-most Western disciple, that may shed some light.

Now Is The Knowing

Meanwhile Mahasi Sayadaw said this about nibbana, as reached through satipatthana vipassana:

"This mode of realization of Nibbana has been mentioned in many discourses of the Master, for example: "The vision of truth arose: whatsoever has the nature of arising is bound to cease." Herein the words "bound to cease" indicate the aspect of realizing the stilling and ceasing of all formations which have the nature of arising.

Also in the Questions of King Milinda it is said: "His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e., noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana."

The meaning is this: the meditator who wishes to realize Nibbana should repeatedly bring to mind, through the practice of noticing, every bodily and mental process that appears at any of the six sense doors. When he brings them to mind thus, his consciousness engaged in noticing -- here called "bringing to mind" -- will, until adaptation knowledge is reached, fall at every moment upon the (conditioned) bodily and mental formations called here "continuous occurrence," because they go on occurring over and over again in an unbroken flow, like a river's current. But in the last phase, instead of falling upon that continuous occurrence, consciousness passes beyond it and alights upon "non-occurrence," which is the very opposite of the bodily and mental formations called here "occurrence." In other words, it arrives at non-occurrence, that is to say, it reaches, as if it "alights upon," cessation, which is the stilling of the formations (or conditioned phenomena). When the meditator, having already before practiced correctly and without deviation by way of the knowledge of arising and passing away and the other knowledges (or by way of the purification of conduct, of mind, of view, etc.), has in this manner arrived at non-occurrence (by the consciousness alighting upon it), he is said to have "realized Nibbana." He is called one who has made Nibbana a direct experience and has actually seen it."

Scholars doing Buddhist studies at secular universities debate these points endlessly, and there are a few academic theses floating around out there that discuss the problem of defining the mind in Buddhism, from the perspective of modern philosophy.

In the end I doubt that nibbana can be rationally explained. If there is cessation of dukkha, that's what counts.

[sabaijai]

By the way, this is one of those cases where the Suttanta lack the detail necessary to even begin to answer your question, Camerata. The only Tipitaka source where you can assemble an answer - and it won't be 100% watertight, but close - is the Abhidhamma Pitaka, as Pandit has cited.

The discourses in the suttas never explain exactly what is left behind upon reaching nibbana. One of many examples:

"[Aggivessana Vacchagotta:] "But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

"[The Buddha:] "'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

""In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

""'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

""...both does & does not reappear."

""...doesn't apply."

""...neither does nor does not reappear."

""...doesn't apply."

""How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

""Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

""...yes..."

""And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

""...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

""If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

""...yes..."

""And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

""That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

""Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

""Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...

""Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.""

— MN 72

MN/Aggi-Vaccha ...

Such explanations will satisfy some intellects, and not others. For the 'others', there is the Abhidhamma.

[camerata]

To be enlightened Sankhara cease - that is all the conditionings of the mind cease. Citta however, does not cease, it is just that the mind is now free of any conditions, any kamma, of any of the sankhara.

Thus the 'unconditioned state of mind' is a linguistic logic trap. If there is a 'state' conditioning the mind, then it is not unconditioned. But there is still citta (mind) as with Sariputta who declared "this nibbana is bliss, this nibbana is bliss"

"but how can it be bliss when there is no feeling (vedana)" asked someone

"it is because there is no feeling that it is bliss" was his reply.

I guess what I'm getting at is that some people (Aj Brahm and Ayya Kema, for example) talk about consciousness as something that is independent of the brain and lives on after death. This type of idea promotes the belief that nibbana remains unchanged after death and isn't dependent on a brain.

My impression is that generally Theravadins believe that whatever happens to an arahant after death is inexplicable, but it isn't simply an eternal continuation of the "state" of nibbana experienced while alive.

If nibbana can indeed be a mind-dependent experience and a mind needs a brain,

parinibbana is going to be something different.

[matthew78]

CAMERATA SAID:

I've always thought of nibbana as a remarkable state of mind which transcends millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of mental conditioning. Subjectively, it may be "outside time and space," as some people say, but I still think of it as a state of mind, at least up until the death of the body.

But I recently read that the Buddha said that all states of mind and states of being are conditioned, and therefore nibbana cannot be either. Unfortunately, there was no sutta reference for this. Anyone have any source for this? Is it impossible to have an unconditioned state of mind?

MATTHEW SAYS: It seems like your first sentence answers your question, which is largely semantic, maybe? Why is it important to distiguish "state" "mind" "state of mind" etc.? I'm not just trying to be clever here. Seriously, if you KNOW that "nibbana" "transcends....mental conditioning" what's the function of conditioned, semantic information about it? Maybe it would help to ask yourself if you really do or can BELIEVE in something like that. BELIEF, although spurned by some Buddhists, IMO is the key to all of this. Saddha, whatever you want to call it. Otherwise, you're likely to get stuck in Papanca, proliferation of thought. And you'll find it hard to cultivate whatever sense of Samvega, visceral desire for release, comes about.....

Just my two sense....not that I can live up to all that myself!!!

Take Care!

[Abandon]

I had a perfectly good comment to add. But I refuse because some cyber ghost just gobbled it up

[camerata]

I had a perfectly good comment to add. But I refuse because some cyber ghost just gobbled it up

That's happened to me so many times that now I save every reply to the clipboard before hitting the submit button. It's dukkha to the max when you've spent half an hour typing a reply and after submitting it you get the familiar "server cannot be reached" screen. Then you hit the Back button and your message has disappeared into the Twilight Zone.

[chownah]

So I guess the question might be did Pandit's comment disappear into the twilight zone or did it just disappear? Likewise, when you die does your mind disappear into some other place (hopefully not the Twilight Zone!) or does it just disappear?

[Abandon]

[Suthep_Steve]

When our eye awareness focuses on table before the thought this is a table arises or at least distinct from the thought "This is a table." There is no conceving a table in this mind. This is a non conceptual mind focusing on table. Would that meet your criteria for a non conditioned mind? Do I use conceptual where you use conditioned? Or am I barking up the wrong tree.

Camerata if you can't seperate out some minds from the brain then I think you are going to hit a brick wall down a lot of buddhist roads. Yes there is a link clearly the brain and the mind are linked but does the mind depend apon the brain or the brain the mind?

I don't think you can prove it either way unless you go through the death process with some form of mindfulness or get reborn in the formless realm.