Daniel M. Ingram:
My background is a whole lot wider than that.
From reading MCTB, I am aware of that...and yet, It appears to me that your interpretation of other traditions that you're familiar with is rooted in your take on Burmese Theravada, as you think (many? all?) traditions are about the very same thing, and that thing is most clearly expressed in the idiom of Burmese Theravada. (For example, consider your take on "rigpa" and Dzogchen in MCTB, vs. Kenneth's take.)
Would you consider that a fair assessment?
What experiences are you having that contradict those two standard interpretations?
A non-contentious place to start may be this: fruition (as described in MCTB ) does not live up to the hype about nibbana, as far as I can see. Is it the goal of spiritual life? Is it pleasant? Is it good? Is it unequivocally better than every conditioned experience? (Is it different in any way from pure unconsciousness, which is a strange thing to call "unconditioned"?)
Kenneth wrote:
http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+Controversy:
Question: I just finished reading Sam Harris's book, The End of Faith, in which he claims to describe the universal essence of contemplative and mystical experience. It's strange, because what he calls the universal contemplative experience sounds like what people on this forum are calling primordial awareness or seeing emptiness, but he doesn't mention nirvana (cessation) at all in anything I've read by him. I'm wondering why he does that, if he really experiences emptiness but not cessation, or if he declines to write about nirvana in his mainstream writing career for other reasons (although, gee, writing about empty awareness is pretty weird on the scale of things).
Answer: This is an interesting question, and one that only someone well-versed in Theravada theory would ask. It would be difficult to find a reference to cessation/nibbana in the literature of any other tradition. Other traditions tend to emphasize the awake no-self experience over the erased-self experience of cessation. Assuming that people go through the same organic process of development whether they are targeting it or not, then everyone will experience the developmental landmark of cessation as defined by the Mahasi school. On the other hand, if you aren't looking for cessation and/or haven't been told that it is significant, it's just another of the thousands of things that can happen during a meditator's day.
This may be true about fruition (as defined in MCTB )...and yet the Deathless, the unconditioned, the goal of spiritual life, is just one more thing that can be glossed over by a serious spiritual seeker as if it were irrelevant?
Further, fruition (as defined in MCTB ) does not reliably lead to the cessation of fetters in the way that the suttas say that attaining paths would, according to an orthodox take on the fetters (i.e. stream entry severs
three fetters), as many do not appreciate the possibility of ending craving, desire, suffering, etc. via insight despite attaining fruition, and yet that possibility is pretty straightforwardly what the doctrine is about...so not having skeptical doubt would be due to seeing that possibility, while having skeptical doubt would cause one to doubt it. And yet, nibbana is supposed to lead to stream entry and to no further skeptical doubt concerning the doctrine, at minimum.
(EDIT: For clarity, on the chance that your position is that fruition is one thing, and arahantship is another, and they are not related except causally, i.e. fruition is not the Deathless, not the goal of spiritual life, not unconditioned, etc., but just some random thing connected with meditative development, that seems reasonable to me...but, I don't think this is what you mean.)
What possible other ways of looking at the usage in the abhidhamma versus, say, the MN, can you come up with?
I have little familiarity with the Abhidhamma, but it's worth noting that we are talking merely about the
Theravadin Abhidhamma, while many (no longer extant) schools of Buddhism also based on the Pali suttas had their own distinct Abhidhamma.
Further, even with little familiarity with the (Theravadin) Abhidhamma, what I have read often seems to bear little relationship both with the suttas and with my own contemplative experience, and so I am inclined to simply pass it over.
As far as the suttas in general, there is stuff like this:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.068.than.html:
"My friend, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended. It's as if there were a well along a road in a desert, with neither rope nor water bucket. A man would come along overcome by heat, oppressed by the heat, exhausted, dehydrated, & thirsty. He would look into the well and would have knowledge of 'water,' but he would not dwell touching it with his body. In the same way, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended."
Does an arahant "dwell touching fruition with his body", literally or metaphorically (as the non-arahant has seen nibbana [fruition, according to you] but only dwells touching it at arahantship)? If not, that seems like good reason to consider a theory on which nibbana is not fruition (as described in MCTB ).
As a general point, I agree that arahantship means nibbana, though it could well be that nibbana (as experienced before arahantship) is the very same thing, or a glimpse of the very same thing. (I suspect, if this is true, that it would only be understood fully by an arahant.)
FYI, I wrote this response in the spirit of sharing my perspective on why someone might reasonably disagree with your perspective, not because I am interested in debating who is right (which I am not).