It has long been my suspicion that there is in fact no divergence between what Daniel talks about and what the Buddha describes for his adepts. They are in fact the same thing. I believe however, that Daniel is not as eloquent as the Buddha.

I define fourth path as the utter extinction of suffering in its entirety, the complete cessation of self-identity view (sakkaya ditthi, in other words the aggregates) and the ending of craving and lust.

Daniel defines fourth path as the extinction of agency, that there is no doer, no doing, no seer, or seen and so forth.

Daniel is adamant that it is not possible to deepen the experience of fourth path.

Unfortunately for us it is difficult to reach conclusions as to whether or not the adepthood of the Buddha was in fact Daniel's fourth path. On the one hand Daniel describes experiencing emotions, perhaps he has an active sex life.

The Theravada sect states that it's not possible for an adept to engage in sexual intercourse. Yet many of our fourth-pathers have active sex lives, many of them state that they experience anger, or lust etc.

How does one resolve this issue?

The crux of the issue is a misunderstanding of what Awakening is, Awakening is the ending of birth, death and suffering. It is the complete and total cessation of suffering. It is giving up of the aggregates, the laying down of the burden and the consummation of practice.

It is not the ending of self, it is not annihilation, the unawakened worldling equates form with self, or feelings with self, or perception with self, or formations with self or consciousness with self. And thus concluding they believe that removing the aggregates is the cessation of suffering.

It is not possible that a person who does not see the no-self present in the aggregates would reach awakening.

fini

(this talk is not completed and will be resumed at a later date)

So how does one see the no-self present in the aggregates? Literally by seeing the impermanent and suffering nature of the aggregates one gives them up, concluding: this is not me, this is not mine.

Having seen thus he finds estrangement in form, in feelings, in perception, in formations, in consciousness. Being thus estranged he becomes dispassionate. Being thus dispassionate he is liberated. Being liberated he understands: I am liberated.

He understands: Birth is exhausted, the holy life is fulfilled, there is now nothing further for this world.

And that is why fourth path cannot be deepened.

(cheesy grin)

The fact of the matter remains that whoever is a genuine recluse is someone who has seen this truth.

There is no recluse who has ever reached the fruit of recluseship who has not seen this truth, they all go by the same path. Namely the Noble Eightfold Path.

And the Noble Eightfold Path does not arise without the arising of the Tathagata.

Dear James,

There is always the sticky issue of timing and the difference between nibbana and paranibbana, meaning what is possible while the body is still alive and what is possible on the dissolution of the body.

Being very traditional about it, and drawing on the Pali Canon, there is still some suffering while the body still lives.

There are numerous places to look for this:

the pains the Buddha suffered (back pains, headaches that were probably migraines and his painful abdominal cramps before his death),

the case of Channa (often mentioned in these discussions) the arahat who killed himself,

and the even worthy MN 121 that reminds us that for the arahat, while there may not be the taints ignorance, attachment or aversion, there is still the suffering of the body conditioned by life.

One can also look to Dependent Origination and carefully tease out what the Buddha meant by suffering, which was many things, but among them were old age, pain, lamentation, grief, despair, illness and death: those things that happen to a body that was born.

Thoughts on these textual sources and their meaning and implications?

Daniel

The difference between nibbana and parinibbana is in fact a misnomer. Quickly after the parinibbana (irony) of the Buddha, the sectarian Buddhists began to draw logical conclusions regarding the teachings of the Buddha.

It is in fact the case that the Buddha did not intend his teachings to be logically deduced from. Nevertheless after his demise many a follower did in fact begin to explicated what shouldn't be explicated, and not explicated what should have been explicated.

The common misnomer is that there is a final end to suffering after death and a precursor end of suffering while one is alive. This is not the intended teaching. The end of suffering occurs while alive, finish. After death, we cannot speculate what happens. Nevertheless we know that the end of suffering in fact occurs while the body is alive.

Now of course, someone could ask me, James why don't you pinch yourself? If you hurt then we will conclude that Awakening does not end bodily pain. But the fact of the matter is is that it's not so simple.

I don't feel bodily pain, period. There is no what-if. The only arrow is the arrow of craving. I haven't felt bodily pain in years, it is erased. There is no body anymore, the body is gone. I feel only satisfaction.



But with the ending of the body there can be no more suffering. I have ended the body (so called), therefore suffering is ended. There is nothing further for this world. Whatever there is to know has been known.



I'm really stuck trying to convey this truth that I witness with my body. There really is no more suffering here, and by that I mean literally no more old age, pain, lamentation, grief, despair, illness and death. It is in fact gone. There is no one here to feel it and there is no one to suffer.

You could conclude that all bodies that are born suffer, but are all trees that are born suffer? Trees are not subject to birth, suffering, aging and death.

But I am, I always will be.

Seeing thus, he wanders for a long time. Therefore, crave not, with the ending of craving is the ending of me. And what am I? The conceit "I am" must be ended.

I'm skeptical about Buddha having headaches and also back pain. I used to have neck pain and headaches and both are gone to the extent that it doesn't even feel as if I ever had them.

Do you have a link to the source where he is described as having back pains and headaches?

Plenty of places to find it.

Here is one.