[jimisommerMember]

Okay, so I love this, and honestly it makes the most sense to me. But I am confused about one thing, so just to clear, using this model for the Buddha’s teaching on rebirth, we really only have this one chance for awakening, this one lifetime? Once we die, and our body is breaking down in a coffin 6 feet under, it’s done and over. No matter the work we’ve done in this life in working toward awakening, none of that carries over in any way with some type of karmic stream or ocean. Is this the case? Or is there some type of rebirth after death that allows some other being to inherit the work that’s been done in this life? I realize that there is no self and never was, but I think you know what I’m asking here. Basically just is this it? Eliminate suffering here and now and get as close as possible and then you die and it doesn’t matter anymore anyways because the suffering resulting from this form is ended regardless. For some reason I feel like I’m missing something but I just want to make sure.

[jimisommerMember]

Well I certainly think it’s possible, and I think it’s absolutely extremely rare. And those ethical conditions aren’t as weird as your making them out to be. There is no rule about dying if you don’t join the monastery, not in the suttas at least, that’s in the commentary and it’s not that you die, it’s just that you’ll just naturally want to after you’ve become an arhat. In the suttas it’s far less specific, it says you won’t kill anyone because you wouldn’t want to, it’s more about purity of mind. The ten fetters are a good scaffold, but it’s better to take everything together. I definitely believe it’s possible to be so awakened that no amount of physical pain bothers you, but even in the suttas it shows buddha in intense pain that he had to be mindful through, so it did show a concerted effort that had to be made. I’m not saying that this level of awakening is easy. I’m only saying it’s possible. I do think the suttas are the closest to the true teachings of the buddha we are going to get, so I do follow them pretty closely, but I am also open to a lot of culadasa’s interpretations of them. Now daniel ingram I definitely respect, but I think his claim of arhatship is utterly ridiculous and just causes more confusion than not. There’s no need to lower the standard because it’s so rare, most people just have to be okay with only getting so far. In the suttas it even talks about the arising of counterfeit Dhamma, and what it will look like. We are in an age where people don’t practice like they did back in the buddha’s days. I mean his followers seemingly dedicated themselves to a lifelong retreat. I think when the buddha spoke of the sangha, he was really referring to that level of dedication. So I don’t know anyone who is fully enlightened either, but I also don’t know anyone who practices all day everyday, always.

[jimisommerMember]

Yeah absolutely, by fully enlightened I mean someone who has completely uprooted the causes of greed, hatred, and delusion. Total dispassion and cessation of suffering, the elimination of craving and aversion within the mind. When’s I say fully enlightened or arhat, that’s what I mean.

[jimisommerMember]

No I have never heard of someone who did that, which is why there must be something that prevents them from doing so. I realize they still feel hunger and pain, but the craving for it to end isn’t there, there’s no aversion for the pain or craving for the pleasure. That’s why I say it must be passionless compassion or reverence for the Dhamma that moves them to stay alive, to even move at all from the moment of awakening onward. I understand what you’re saying about true awakening not being possible, but I’m certainly not asking about that. I think most people here are proceeding under the assumption that the way the buddha described arhatship is a possible and very real experience. And of course you are totally entitled to your opinion about it, but I’m really just asking the people that think full enlightenment is possible.

[jimisommerMember]

Well I can’t agree with that. I certainly believe it is possible to become fully enlightened. I mean if no one could overcome those deep rooted psychological urges like survival, then no one would ever commit suicide. I know that’s a morbid example, but nonetheless, I do believe that true awakening is a real thing. I’m assuming there must be a loving-kindness for all beings and a dependence on the Dhamma that can motivate a person without involving any craving or desire. It’s difficult for me to understand, but I can see how that would be possible. Although I do see your point, that maybe full enlightenment is just the complete elimination of greed, hatred, and delusion. It is only desire filtered through these things that is considered a corruption. That makes total sense to me. I also suppose it’s difficult to understand true altruism for someone who isn’t already awakened, to do something solely for the purpose of others, and not because it somehow makes you feel better for doing it. I almost feel like, to practice true metta and compassion, you have to have some level of awakening so that this can actually be understood. It seems that only when you are able to truly act without greed, hatred, or delusion, you will always be acting out of those things in some way, however small.

[jimisommerMember]

Well you’re actually very accurate in what you’ve said here. The only aspect you’ve left out is sunyata, or emptiness. When the other two marks, anicca (impermanent, unreliable, unstable) and dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactory, bereft), are taken together with sunyata, regarding the 5 aggregates, you then get anatta, no self. Emptiness is essential the idea of no-essence. There is no intrinsic nature to anything. Whatever you look at, there is nothing within it that makes it that thing. Everything is just made up of aggregates, all of them also empty, anicca, and dukkha. And so it is not just us, but everything that is no-self. As far as your experience as compared to anyone else’s, it is true that your specific aggregates are bound together by form, but you must see that each of those aggregates are not yours, or pertaining to you. So another way to think of it is that yes, the 5 aggregates that make “you” up are bound together by form, but they just are, they’re not your form, it’s just form, not your mental formations, just mental formations, not your perceptions, just perceptions, and so on. As well as them not being yours, they do not pertain to you. So, you aren’t seeing, there is just seeing. You aren’t feeling, there is just feeling. You aren’t angry, there is just anger. I assume you’re still with me on all of this, but I understand when you get to consciousness it starts to get difficult. But, in the same way, the knowing, or experiencing, is not your consciousness, it is just consciousness. And you are not knowing, there is just knowing. In the same way as all the rest, this knowing is anicca, dukkha, and sunyata, and so this is not you either. When you think of it this way, you can almost experience it without even meditating. Just think, there is only the surface level, there is no one this is all happening to. Whatever is happening right now, even as you read this, there is only that. You aren’t perceiving the text, there is just seeing, you aren’t sitting down, there is just form sitting, you aren’t understanding the words through mental formations, there is just mental formations, and most complex of all, you aren’t knowing and experiencing all of this, there is just an empty knowing. I hope this helps, I know it’s an unusual way of understanding the world, but it also just so happens to be true. If you have any other questions regarding this, just ask, I’m sure there are many others that have far deeper insight into anatta than me.

[Author]

Posts