[N95FzmMw]

Off topic posts moved from ''Born with a birth defect'' thread to this new topic
"Enlightened, then death...then what?"

kind regards

Admin
.

.................................................. .................................................. ........................



Hi Aloka and Kaarine,

I understand what you are saying, and understand why you or others might not want to consider kamma as literal. That's fine. I also agree that pay attention to the here and now is more important, since even if one believes in kamma and rebirth, unless one is enlightened, one cannot necessary know one's past deeds and there is no reason to speculate on it. That's all cool.

But my question for you two, or others is, then is what is your personal goal for practicing Buddhism? Let us say that a person is enlightened, and then he dies and then he is no more. Then what? Is there a point for that person to reach enlightenment, whatever your definition of enlightenment is?

Just curious. Since this line of thoughts is rare among Chinese/Taiwanese Buddhists.

BTW, in What Is Karma? Mr. Mcleod wrote that "The full term for karma in Tibetan is las.rgyu.abras which in translation yields action-seed-result.". In Chinese, it is more like "possibility-conditions fulfillment(dependent origination)-result", - which is how I interpret karma. It differs in a subtle way than his English translation of the Tibetan version, but a lot different than "cause-effect."

[Investblogger]

But my question for you two, or others is, then is what is your personal goal for practicing Buddhism?

Hi Yuan,

The personal goals of Kaarine and myself - or of others - are not the subject of this topic. I suggest you start a different topic to this one in the General Buddhist Discussions forum if you wish to ask other members of the group about their personal goals for practising Buddhism.


Thanks.

[BariGrootrego]

even if one believes in kamma and rebirth, unless one is enlightened, one cannot necessary know one's past deeds and there is no reason to speculate on it.

Please read the Susima sutta. An enlightenment person does not necessarily gain knowledge about one's past deeds.

But my question for you two, or others is, then is what is your personal goal for practicing Buddhism? Let us say that a person is enlightened, and then he dies and then he is no more. Then what? Is there a point for that person to reach enlightenment, whatever your definition of enlightenment is?

Imo there is a fundamental flaw in your justification. You are comparing apples to oranges. When a person dies, he is dead. He is not living anymore to feel or perceive anything. What good is in that state? Enlightenment is for the living. Enlightenment is ending of all kinds of mental suffering and living in complete peace and equanimity. Now that sounds like an appealing goal to achieve. I wouldn't trade enlightenment for death.

[KixdricyArrip]

Hi Yuan,

I agree with what Deshy has posted above. The goal I have seen in the teachings of Buddha is quenching suffering. It is clearly stated in its core teachings over and over. It is just about following his teachings.

If a person is enlightened and dies... Then what? Well, that is just great. He died enlightened. If a person is not enlightened and dies... he dies not enlightened. If a person never know the Dhamma and dies... he dies without having known the Dhamma.

I can't see where is the problem with this.

A contemplative peaceful mind do not craves, do not speculates, do not yearns, do not clings with what fabricates.

To think about after death is speculative, wishful thinking, craving and clinging into an idea of something that endures or keeps something for a "next time", thus, a self.

Consciousness arises with perception. The perception of its conscious object. Perception ends, consiousness ends.

Again, I don't see where is the problem with this.

As Deshy said: Enlightenment is for the living.

[GogaMegaPiska]

Let us say that a person is enlightened, and then he dies and then he is no more. Then what?

This might be helpful from SN 44.6.....



On one occasion Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. Then in the evening, Ven. Sariputta emerged from his seclusion and went to Ven. Maha Kotthita and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Maha Kotthita, "Now then, friend Kotthita, does the Tathagata exist after death?"

"That, friend, has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata exists after death.'"

"Well then, friend Kotthita, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"

"Friend, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata does not exist after death.'"

"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"

"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.'"

"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"

"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'"

"Now, friend Kotthita, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata exists after death."'

When asked if the Tathagata does not exist after death... both exists and does not exist after death... neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

continued :

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....006.than.html

[Rabbahpuptiopp]

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property. Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining.

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with fuel remaining.[1]

And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining."

Notes
1, 2.
With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five aggregates (see the Glossary). While the arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else. For a discussion of this point, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, pp. 21-37.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...-049.than.html

[toyboy]

When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else. For a discussion of this point, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, pp. 21-37.

Thanks Pegembara... this is what resonated deeply when I first came into the teachings of Buddha. And this awareness happens when mind is still, at ease, pacefuly and quite.

[PerfectCreditForYou]

My dear Deshy,

You've kindly stated that ''Enlightenment is ending of all kinds of mental suffering and living in complete peace and equanimity. Now that sounds like an appealing goal to achieve.'' Which is very skilfully and smart definition of enlightenment.

I wonder how can an enlightened person ends all kind of mental sufferings and lives in complete peace and equanimity when people around are miserable, fighting each other and fully within the mud?

It seems to me enlightenment has nothing to do with being free of suffering and complete peace. Enligtened people still suffer and can not be in complete peace...You have to think once again, from the beginning...

With compassion,

[wbondarmunw]

It seems to me enlightenment has nothing to do with being free of suffering and complete peace. Enligtened people still suffer and can not be in complete peace...You have to think once again, from the beginning...

hello Bothi

yes...it may seem that way to you

in Buddhism, a fully enlightened being is at complete peace

where as a partially enlightened being still suffers and is not at complete peace

in the scriptures, it is reported the Buddha said the suffering of a partially enlightened being is like a fingertip of soil compared to the whole earth

kind regards

[Ceriopal]

Hi Kaarine, Aloka, Deshy and Pegembara,

Thank you for your words and sutra references. I have read those sutras (both English and Chinese versions, to make sure I don't mus-interpretate anything) and have slightly different interpretations than you do. I guess these differences can be attributed to some fundamental differences in our backgrounds. So while I do not fully agree with your views, at least I can understand them and felt that it is not my place to argue with them. Thank you.

However, I do have a question regarding an excerpt from Pegembara's post that Kaarine responded to:

When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else. My question is, if there is no 'something after death (or rebirth)', why would anyone (not just arahants) experiences 5 aggregates here or anywhere else, after he/she passes away? Isn't 5 aggregates simply the physical constructs of our bodies? Or is he talking about the 'moment' of death only?

[GeraldCortis]

Yuan,

Thanks for your kind tone so to adress the issue,

My take is this,

It is known that there is the believe of a stream of consiousness... that Buddha didn't taught. As Element pointed somewhere, this debate has been adress before, in the time Lazy Eye was posting in a more regular basis.

There is too, the concept of an alaya vijñana... the Buddha didn't taught that also.

So the author, I think, is making that clear.

There is people that has taken refuge in the teachings of Buddha; the early ones. I understand that taken refuge in his teachings is about verification of their efficacy through its practice and evaluation of results. Also the understanding aspect is about something that resonates or touches deeply the heart, because it fits with the nature of things as they are and not as we wish to be.

The experience of a still mind, a quite mind, a peaceful mind happens with the giving up or letting go of any view, hope or speculation about after death enduring events.

Some members here believe in something that endures. I can't hold on believes. This particular feature fit with what the Buddha taught.

Many suttas that adress in a definitive way the complete quenching of Dukkha, thus, the final liberation or awakening is taught in the suttas, with this final closing statement:

"He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world." This quality of mind don't holds on believes, do not yearns, do not crave, do not speculate and has realized This is not mine, this is not my self, this I am not.

This, IMO, talks about definitive awakening. The statement, for example, is the case of the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta which teaches:

Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' The author, IMO, is making clear this core aspect of Buddha teachings where there is no room for the believe of streams or "seeds" sown somewhere in the khandas, from past consiousness experiences.

[@Aerodyno@]

This might be helpful from SN 44.6.....

Regarding SN 44.6... Living in enlightenment here and now, for an arhat (with no fuel) means having seen the cessation of consciousness, craving, becoming, grasping, form They have no desire in that moment of enlightenment or in any subsequent moment for any of the things that the rest of us depend on to even feel that we are alive.

The Buddha states, for all of the above:

"For one who doesn't love consciousness (or form, or grasping, or becoming), who isn't fond of consciousness, who doesn't cherish consciousness, B]who knows & sees, as it actually is present, the cessation of consciousness[/B]"...

What does that mean? To me it means that the state achieved by the historical Buddha Sakyamumi, in every moment post-enlightenment, lacked consciousness, at least in the sense that we understand consciousness. I don't really know what kind of awareness that implies, but clearly the Buddha was aware of other beings speaking to him and answered questions properly. So I am assuming that he meant something like "not experiencing any self concept at all at any moment", but that doesn't adequately capture the essence of what it means not to be conscious. It seems to go far deeper than that; what awareness exists without consciousness?

So we can't really know the mental state of a Buddha at all unless we have also experienced this state lacking consciousness and the rest. It seems that this state doesn't differ from how conventionally, we see death. No consciousness, no grasping, no form, no craving, no becoming.
So I have to wonder how the Buddha's state of enlightenment is actually different than the Buddha's post-death state; but something tells all of us, without exception, that it was very different. In terms of function, it's totally different, at least; Buddha walks and talks, etc.

Having achieve the cessation of consciousness, of craving, of feeling, grasping, of becoming, of form--- what exactly is the mind of a Buddha and what sustains it. The If the mind of a Buddha operates based on something other than consciousness then what produces that? It has to be impermanent because the Buddha's mind changes (because the Buddha utters different words when asked different questions). The ordinary sick old body of the old and dying Buddha---did it sustain the mind of the Buddha? Consciousness is thought to be a byproduct of the brain's activities. Is whatever allows the Buddha to speak to Sariputta a function of the brain's activities? So...enlightenment arises from neural activity? Neurons fire in a particular kind of pattern and that's experienced as enlightenment? Does it represent no more than a change in the way the brain functions, basically?

I'm not making any assertions here at all; I'm just thinking out loud.

Anyway, thanks for posting this again. It's always beneficial to read this Sutta. And it always raises more questions for me than it answers.

[cigsstorenick]

I think its worthwhile remembering that 'consciousness' usually means sense consciousness in the suttas... which I don't think is quite the same as the 'consciousness' some people talk about which is supposed to leave a body and float around after death.

Possibly the end of the sutta can give an answer to the question in the title of this discussion topic we're posting in:

Now, what more do you want, friend Kotthita? When a monk has been freed from the classification of craving, there exists no cycle for describing him

[Vezazvqw]

I think its worthwhile remembering that 'consciousness' usually means sense consciousness in the suttas... which I don't think is quite the same as the 'consciousness' some people talk about which is supposed to leave a body and float around after death.

Possibly the end of the sutta can give an answer to the question in the title of this discussion topic we're posting in:

"Now, what more do you want, friend Kotthita? When a monk has been freed from the classification of craving, there exists no cycle for describing him."

this quote is fine to illustrate my question; such a being freed from craving either has a radically transformed brain, from which the 6 conciousnesses, in the sense we think of it, don't arise, form doesn't arise, desire, craving, grasping, becoming, doesn't arise. So, the normal process for perceiving stimuli and processing it (feeling, discrimination) arises totally differently for such a being. Is this due to organic changes in the brain or something else. If something else then what, where, how.

Conciousness, for me, IN THIS CONTEXT, has nothing to do with after death; I am referring to live beings who have awareness of being alive, of existing. There are 6 types of consciousness; 5 relate to sense consciousness (taste, smell, touch, hearing, sight), and one relates to what's happening in the brain that arises as "sense of being awake/conscious". If that one is extinguished and a Buddha still functions perfectly then what allows a Buddha to function perfectly? Merely eliminating the other 5 is irrelevant. Otherwise we could remove all the relevant sense organs from someone and state "here is cessation of consciousness".

I don't think the Buddha was talking ending of taste, touch, etc. I do think that the Buddha was talking about all those things becoming completely unnecessary, up to and including what we ordinary beings think of as a sense of being alive and conscious. If that is unnecessary then what mental processes does a Buddha have that allows it to function (or are they not mental processes), and is it directly produced by brain activity (as set forth above).

If, by conciousness, the ignorance that holds mere awareness to constitute the self is what's being referred to then mere awareness in which absolutely no self is ever discerned (so it's clear, aware, impersonal in terms of affixing to a particular entity) may be what's being referred to when the Sutta speaks of cessation of concsiousness. Is that the sense one should get from it?

And if so is it still correct to state that this type of purely impersonal awareness is an emergent property of the Buddha's brain and nothing else (the the Buddha doesn't see this as "my" awareness in any way, shape or form), making it totally dependent on the Buddha's form heap (as the actual matter of the brain is clearly form, though mind (what emerges) is said to not be form, but rather mental stuff.

I guess what I'm trying to get to (very cumbersomely, by necessity, I think) is an understanding of whether the enlightened mind of a Buddha is still entirely mundane, in the sense that it's a kind of luminous clarity, free of concept of self and other, arising from a bunch of neurons firing in one specific place (the brain that's part of its body...the body we can see as Buddha's body) or whether enlightened mind of a Buddha is something else, something less separate from "other" mind...from the mind manifested by It seems that for you, it's simply (though not at all simple to achieve!) a brain working differently, manifesting as enlightened mind, free of suffering, etc.

And I have no problem with that, from the POV of neurobioliogy. It's a lot less "sexy" than what many imagine about a Buddha, but, if that's what it really is then I'd think that, eventually, we can develop different techniques that alter brain function in a fundamental way to produce the same or similar states. Certain drugs do that, to some extent right now, but they're unstable, ephemeral, and produce a variety of different results in different people.

[derty]

Hello tijampel,

Knowing that I am a newcomer into sutta study and practice and maybe I will give some misapprehensions.

In accordance to this teachings we are the result of the five aggregates.

The unaware mind of a non Noble Disciple understands Khandas as the self, or the self in the Khandas.

The Noble Disciple understands each of the five Khandas as not ours, not mine, not yours.

Consciousness is just cognition but we are not cognition... it just cognizes. So consiousness not being mine, me or my self its nature is to fade and the Noble One lets it go.

Cessation is about quenching the fire of desire in each aggregate, thus, quenches craving for more... feeling, perception, fabrication and consciousness events.

This doesn't mean that the Noble Disciple is a dead body walking around like zombies... is about a mental disposition, an emotional reaction that is free from craving and free from clinging in an absolute state of contentment.

The fire of I am, this is mine, this is my self... has quenched for each Khandha.

The Noble One and much more the Arahat... can't kill, can't lie, etc... and he relates with the world in absolute peace bringing happiness and compassion to all sentient beings, her/his actions are dispassionate. He is not burn with the fire of craving for each Khandha.

He is free form self identification in each Khanda.

Of course it is recommended to verify this through practice and evaluate the result because it is not about believing.

[inofindy]

I wonder how can an enlightened person ends all kind of mental sufferings and lives in complete peace and equanimity when people around are miserable, fighting each other and fully within the mud?

This is how: Suffering arises from within you. The cause of suffering is not in the external environment. It is within you. Therefore, eradication of the cause does not depend on factors of the external environment, such as fighting people, suffering mosquitoes or dying children. This is how an enlightened person's peace can never be disturbed by the outside world.

The definition to enlightenment is not mine. It is how enlightenment is described by the Buddha in the suttas - complete cessation of suffering.

Would you like to tell me how you came into contact with Buddhism Bothi? Which school do you follow and what have you read on Buddhism so far?

[bestcigsnick]

Hello tijampel,

Knowing that I am a newcomer into sutta study and practice and maybe I will give some misapprehensions.

In accordance to this teachings we are the result of the five aggregates.

The unaware mind of a non Noble Disciple understands Khandas as the self, or the self in the Khandas.

The Noble Disciple understands each of the five Khandas as not ours, not mine, not yours.

Consciousness is just cognition but we are not cognition... it just cognizes. So consiousness not being mine, me or my self its nature is to fade and the Noble One lets it go.

Cessation is about quenching the fire of desire in each aggregate, thus, quenches craving for more... feeling, perception, fabrication and consciousness events.

This doesn't mean that the Noble Disciple is a dead body walking around like zombies... is about a mental disposition, an emotional reaction that is free from craving, clinging in absolute contentment.

The fire of I am, this is mine, this is my self... is quenched.

The Noble One and much more the Arahat... can't kill, can't lie, etc... and he relates with the world in absolute peace bringing happiness, being compassion to all sentient beings, her/his actions are dispassionate. He is not burn with the fire of craving for each Khandha.

Of course it is recommended to verify this through practice and evaluate the result because it is not about believing.

Having let go of all desire regarding each aggregate, what's left regarding mental processes ("disposition" is the word you use), once consciousness/cognition ceases; Of course a Buddha functions perfectly and answers questions and teaches and is compassionate, etc. In psychology, we have difficulty understanding how a higher being (such as human) can function without any cognition.

For example... (I use "Buddha to refer what you call Noble Disciple, but I am referencing ANY being who has achieved the same mind)

If you say "no mental processes" does this mean the brain is inactive in a Buddha (or does something other than the brain allow the Buddha/Arahant to function---I think you would surely say NO). If you say that the brain is active and mental processes occur then does something occur without any consciousness, with regard to any of the 6 types, without feeling (in response to stiumuli), etc.

There is clearly no fabrication, no desire, no craving, no becoming; we all agree. But what brain functions allow the Buddha to do all of the wonderful activities that a Buddha engages in? What arises for a Buddha that can't be said to be consciousness? What equivalent of physical form is perceived by a Buddha that is not form (a Buddha lets go of form...there is a cessation). Cessation is where something ceases to occur or function. If consciousness (all 6) cease to function then what does function and how? It's been said that a Buddha can smell with his eye, see with his toes, etc. What does that mean? Does anyone believe that?

And can we find these activities in the brain and then find a way to produce the same for others without them having to meditate for years?

Please understand, I am not requesting that you answer any of these. I'm just throwing things out that concern me (kind of thinking out loud). And of course best to just practice (I am off to meditate right now!).

I also apologize as well for any harshness in my tone, previously. I am hoping to understand things better for the benefit of myself and anyone else who is interested in this topic.

take care;

tj

[Janny2006]

tjampel, I didn't follow your discussion completely (posts are too long) but according to your last post, are you suggesting that a person can function normally while his consciousness/cognition has ceased?

[ViagraFeller]

This is how: Suffering arises from within you. The cause of suffering is not in the external environment. It is within you.

This overlooks the most important element of causality of suffering, if you accept a model which posits that external causes and conditions produce the mind which suffers.

The direct cause of suffering for each and every instance of suffering is entirely produced by the mind. I have no problem with that statement.

The material cause of suffering is the thing that "stuff" which turns into that mind (the actual physical material that becomes brain, which produces mind or, if you don't believe mind is an emergent property of the brain's activities, then, the mental stuff that turns into current mind).

So, this refers to egg and sperm, generally (for most sentient beings). These are produced externally; they are not at all influenced by mental fabrications. No mind has been formed yet so no such fabrications can even exist.

Sperm and egg combine to produce fertilized egg; ultimately a newborn sentient being is produced.

Whatever mind that newborn sentient being has, the material cause of that mind is the previous moment of mind back to when its mind first began to function. The material from which mind arises is materially produced by the previous moment of material (brain, etc.) all the way back to the beginning of time, actually.

So whatever brain a newborn is born with is entirely the product of external causes, having nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance (at least if one accepts your model of birth and death).

The same is of course true for the body of such a being, whether it be the body of a future tri-athlete or a body born with a hole in the heart and downs syndrome.

Additionally, the physical circumstances of birth, the place of birth (war torn region of Muslim fundamentalist parents or in a gated Buddhist community composed of Billionaires, if such exists) are entirely caused by external conditions and are contributing causes.

So you say that the above three results (mind, body, physical location) may be determined externally but they have nothing to do with suffering, per se.

I disagree

It's like saying that a shooting victim whose femoral artery is severed and bleeds to death is not killed by the bullet. It's entirely true that the specific cause of death for a shooting victim is lack of blood to the brain and other vital organs. The blood is lost through the wound and not enough gets to the brain (especially) and the victim dies. But the external cause of being shot is clearly responsible for everything else that happened. A coroner's report would state "cause of death---loss of blood secondary to severing of femoral artery by 99mm bullet" or similar.

If I try to light a match in a vacuum you can state, accurately, that the cause of the match not lighting is lack of oxygen necessary to support combustion). However, someone would surely point out, no matter what you say, that the real cause of the match not lighting was that you foolishly tried to light it in a vacuum.

In fact, the external circumstances of their birth (just as in the case of the bullet that severed the femoral artery or the fool who tried to light the match in a vacuum) mandate such suffering; there is absolutely nothing that the vast majority of such beings can do about it.

Shantideva pointed this out very nicely, actually. He spoke of one who is pierced by an arrow and made to suffer thereby blaming the arrow for causing her/his suffering. That's foolish. Then...blame the person who shot it? Is that the cause? Just as foolish. Instead we should blame the suffering which produces such behavior.

You are placing the blame for suffering (instead of blame you can call it cause; it's all the same thing) on the one who suffers because, technically, the act of perceiving suffering, any suffering, is a process steeped in ignorance and the mental fabrications that arise from it.

When you are born with fundamental ignorance plenty of cause for mental fabrications that insure a constant stream of suffering (mosquito) and when there is no chance of reversing the process, it makes no sense at all not to then look to the causes for such birth. And the causes are the material cause and the circumstances (place, parents, etc.) are contributing causes.

To the extent that a being has choice and awareness of the causes of suffering and the mental ability to engage in meditation, and the good fortune to be able to practice, have teacher, materials, etc. then it's reasonable for that individual to think of her or his own suffering in terms of mental fabrications arising from ignorance. That's what he's working with. And, for people in this forum who are desiring to embark on their own spiritual journey towards the eradication of suffering it makes sense to see the causes for their own suffering as coming entirely from their own mental fabrications; after all that's what they are looking at and working with.

However, it's a totally different thing to analyze the suffering of all those sentient beings that have absolutely no chance to ever practice, let alone hear about or comprehend the dhamma.

[Fellionas]

Having let go of all desire regarding each aggregate, what's left regarding mental processes ("disposition" is the word you use), once consciousness/cognition ceases;

Consciousness arises when the six senses are in contact with its object of consiousness. Eye consiousness for colors... and mind consiousness for ideas being mind just another sense organ. With out contact consiousness ceases.

We can not avoid sense contact but we can be mindful of craving, clinging and self identification when contact happens along each khandha.

Cessation in this terms should be understood as quenching or extinguishing of the fire of craving and self identification. The Pail term is Nirodha.

Of course a Buddha functions perfectly and answers questions and teaches and is compassionate, etc. Yes, he was an Arahat and outstanding teacher.

In psychology, we have difficulty understanding how a higher being (such as human) can function without any cognition. I am not a psychologist but many schools are grounded in the idea of a "Self". Non self doctrine threatens them very much.


Cessation is where something ceases to occur or function. Again, cessation is about quenching or extinguishing self identification, craving, clinging with such function; for each khanda.

It's been said that a Buddha can smell with his eye, see with his toes, etc. What does that mean? Does anyone believe that? Please quote that... I still haven't gone through that statement in any of the few suttas I have read.

Please understand, I am not requesting that you answer any of these. I'm just throwing things out that concern me (kind of thinking out loud). And of course best to just practice (I am off to meditate right now!).

I also apologize as well for any harshness in my tone, previously. I am hoping to understand things better for the benefit of myself and anyone else who is interested in this topic. No problem tijampel. Indeed I know I am not the best one making this things clear. Hope other members with more experience with the early teachings of Buddha can be of more help.

Again, Buddha explains it much more clearly, here:

Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
take care;

tj Kind wishes tj