If Nirvana is not arisen, how can consciousness take it as an object?
To my understanding, it cannot.
a person has to have a first glimpse of nibbana before the consciousness can take nibbana as an object.
So a stream enterer, for example, can take nibbana as an object, but someone who has not had any
experience of whatsoever length cannot take Nibbana as an object for meditation.
But Bhante is back.
The question... I see, I got it.
You got it?
Okay, so I said my part.
How can consciousness take it as an object?
It's just a manner of speaking.
I don't know what the Pali is exactly that says mind takes nibbana as an object.
See, this is a technical, nitty-gritty question that I have no idea about.
What does the text actually say?
What do the Abhidhamma texts actually say?
Because the objects of mind are called aramana.
Now, is nibbana considered an aramana?
Suppose it would be considered Dhamma Ramana.
But it's just a word.
It means the focus of the mind.
Where is the mind bent upon?
What is the mind set upon?
What has the mind averted to?
In which direction has the mind gone?
Has the mind...
connected with the eye?
Or has it connected with the ear?
Has it connected with the tongue, the nose, the tongue, the body, or the heart, the thoughts?
Or has it connected with non-arising?
So it's really just a figure of speech.
From a scientific point of view, you
And really the point is, as Sariputta said, as the Buddha taught, nibbana is the non-arising of the five aggregates.
So that's the non-arising of vijnana as well.
Vijnana doesn't arise.
So it's...
It's all just technical as to whether you say that the mind has taken nibbana as an object because that mind hasn't arisen or the mind has entered into cessation is what you might say.
And so in order to stay technically correct you have to say that the mind is taking X as an object.
But really all it means is the mind has
has come to a state of cessation during that time.
There's no thinking, there's no awareness, there's no, ooh, this is what nibbana feels like.
No, it's none of that.
There can't be, otherwise it's not nibbana.
If it ever comes that you have an experience that this is nibbana or a realization, this is the experience of freedom of enlightenment, then it's not the experience of freedom of enlightenment, because it's arisen.
I am not sure where exactly I read it, but I'm very sure.
I think it was Mahasi Sayadaw.
He wrote that, or possibly somebody else wrote that,
Only a stream-enterer can take Nibbana as an object, not before?
Right, this is what you said.
Let's explain that clearly.
A stream-enterer is the moment of, the first moment of the realization of Nibbana.
All that means is that what it means to be a stream-enterer is someone who has seen Nibbana.
So it's redundant to say that because it's the definition, the very definition of stream-enterer is one who has come to the realization of Nibbana.
The first moment is Magganyana.
The next moment and any subsequent moments are Palanyana.
So the first one is already a Sotapanna.
The first moment of realizing Nibbana, that's called Sotapati Palla.
I can't remember what the person is.
Sotapati Magga Pugala or something like that.
The person who has reached the path of Sotapanna.
So for one moment, they're the first.
They're actually, you know, this Supatipanno, you know, talking about Atta Purisa Pugala.
They're actually eight people.
So what are the eight holy people?
The eight holy people is because the first moment, that person is different from the next moment.
The first moment, the defilements are being cut off.
And this is different from the second moment where the defilements are already cut off.
It's very technical and you have to know a little bit about Abhidhamma to understand it.
The first moment is a different person from the next moment.
But the meaning is the moment of realizing Nibbana.
So if an ordinary person did realize Nibbana, that would mean they're now a Sotapanna.
They're now, in the first moment, Sotapatti Manga.
So that becoming of a Sotapanna is the realization of Nibbana, is taking Nibbana as the object.
But then from then on, when that person meditates as there is that first glimpse of Nibbana, can take Nibbana as an object for further meditations, that
That's how I understood the question.
Not actually, cannot actually take nibbana as an object.
Can infer the peace of nibbana.
If you read, there's actually...
Upasamanusati, which is reflection or recollection of peace.
In the Visuddhimagga it's one of the ten anusatis.
Upasamanusati, which really does mean taking Nibbana as an object.
But it has to be through inference because you can't think back to what Nibbana is like.
You can only think back to the peace that comes from it.
and somehow refer back to it or connect with the idea of it, the state of your own peace that you have gained from Nibbana.
So in that sense, yeah, only a Sotapanna... I remember reading through that about Upasamanusati, and I think it's clear that only a Sotapanna can practice that.
Meditation But the actual taking That's not the taking of nibbana as an object The taking of nibbana as an object would be Entering into palasamapati Where the sotapanna goes back And goes to the Goes back to The 15th stage of knowledge Enters into Palasamapati Anyway It's pretty technical