It is often said that Nibbana is unconditioned. But isn't Nibbana to be attained through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path (abandoning desire, meditation, realizing paticcasamuppada etc)? Aren't those practices conditions for Nibbana? What am I missing here :) ?

When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in? > The word means 'formations' or 'that which has been put together' > and 'that which puts together'. I take this to mean something about parts and wholes, as well as causation. But what about "the unconditioned": will it appear as cognitive residue or by-product of establishing every conditioned thing, or is it an object of cognition one gets to? Or what exactly?

The Wikipedia page for "the 3 marks of existence" differentiates between "conditioned things" and "unconditioned things" like so: > The three marks are: > 1. sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras > (conditioned things) are impermanent" > 2. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all > saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory" > 3. sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas > (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self" The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only. Suffering and the end of suffering." Within that context: 1. What is the difference between a "conditioned thing" and an "unconditioned thing"? 2. How does that difference give meaning to the 3 marks? 3. How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?

Through reading books on Buddhism I get the idea that existence is conditioned. The faculties (mind, consciousness, etc.) through which we try to attain Nirvana are also conditioned. So, how is it possible to attain the Unconditioned through conditioned faculties?

All I can think of off the top of mind head is the zen claim that mountains are buddha nature. Do they suffer? They are composed of parts, and I believe that there is a type of suffering from "conditioned existence", in Pali.

Does 'karma' mean that everything that happens to us is under our control, or only that we are responsible for it? I thought that only substantial beings could be completely in control of everything that happens to them, and not just because things are impermanent. Also, conditioned things are a result of past karma, which is often said to be an unconscious process of seeds becoming ripe. So surely it would only be under out control over the course of very many lives, at least? The Points of Controversy -- theravada -- refute the claim that everything is from karma, including karma, of the rajagirikas and siddhatthikas. But it does not show that for anything but new karma. The sautrantikas taught that there is no life faculty sustaining events between life and death, because karma alone is "sufficient" to account for all destinies. > this is accepted by all Buddhists... theravada or mahayana The Lioness in Bloom, p33 Further, Bodhidharma exhorted > the practice of following conditions, sentient beings lack a self and > are all whirled around by conditions and karma; **suffering and joy are > to be equally accepted, for both arise from conditions. If I > encounter excellent karmic recompense, such as honor and so forth, it > is in response to causes in my past lives**. Even if I should encounter > such recompense in the present, the necessary conditions for it will > exhaust themselves, and it will again cease to exist. What is there > to be joyful about in its existence? Gain and loss follow conditions. > Mind has neither increase nor decrease. Unmoved by the winds of joy, > one is mysteriously in accordance with the path. Therefore, it is > called the practice of following conditions. - Bodhidharnma, *Two Entrances*

I know that space is often said to be unconditioned, and it seems right to say that it is empty of svabhava. - But, is it impermanent?

Often it is said that nibbana is unconditioned, but nibbana is definitely dependent on other conditions. Also, according to modern psychology nothing can be 'eliminated' (greed, hatred and delusion in this case). Once learned, never able to unlearn. A skill, therefore zu can become either more efficient or less efficient, so why is it in Religion that something can be absolutely eliminated, whereas psychology tells us differently?

Has any Buddhist philosopher claimed space is ideal because it is a whole, and wholes can't be real? With emphasis on *space*, not what takes it up, except perhaps to say they're "in" space likes parts in a whole, and / or the contents of a whole.

It is often stated particularly by Theravada Buddhism that Nibbana/Nirvana is unconditioned. In fact extensive metaphysical speculations have even been written about by esteemed monks. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html Where is this actually stated in the canonical scripture? This doctrine seems particularly important and should have extensive discourse by the Buddha. In fact, it would appears that this doctrine is in contradiction with the doctrine of dependent origination. And it would not be clear how the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path arrived at an "Unconditioned Nibana". > When this is, that is. > > From the arising of this comes the arising of that. > > When this isn't, that isn't. > > From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. It was said that Venerable Sariputta upon hearing the dependent generation stanzas out of his profound wisdom immediately became a stream winner, knowing the way to end suffering. I believe the reasoning is as follows: - Things that arise due to causes and conditions cease with the end of those causes and conditions. - Suffering arise due to causes and conditions - Suffering therefore can be extinguish with the right causes and conditions. - The right causes and conditions are the Practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, which leads to Ethics, Concentration and Wisdom, removing the causes for suffering. But this mean that even the cessation of suffering Nibana itself is conditional! I did some research on Sutta Central and found the following https://suttacentral.net/en/sn43.12 > “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to > the unconditioned. Listen to that…. > > “And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, > the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called > the unconditioned. > > “And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? > Serenity: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned…. > > “Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the unconditioned and the path > leading to the unconditioned…. This is our instruction to you.” > > “Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught you the unconditioned and the path > leading to the unconditioned. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a > compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring > their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees, > bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not be > negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you.” However, there is no correspondent parallel text in the Chinese Agama, and the content is lacking substance having no message apart from Buddhist practice leading to Unconditionality, and hence can be suspected to be a Theravadin innovation and a latter doctrinal addition. Likewise with https://suttacentral.net/en/ud8.3 > Thus I heard: At one time the Gracious One was dwelling near Sāvatthī, > in Jeta’s Wood, at Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then at that time the > Gracious One was instructing, rousing, enthusing, and cheering the > monks with a Dhamma talk connected with Emancipation. Those monks, > after making it their goal, applying their minds, considering it with > all their mind, were listening to Dhamma with an attentive ear. > > Then the Gracious One, having understood the significance of it, on > that occasion uttered this exalted utterance: > > “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, > monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you > could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, > unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, > made, and conditioned.” This sounds like an illogical tautology - circular reasoning supporting the unconditional Nibbana doctrine. The fact that this would be said by someone as enlightened as the Buddha is extremely slim. The main reason I can imagine this being used is the use of Nirvana (Cessation/Blown Out) as a negation, i.e. Nothing is Unconditioned, therefore Nirvana is Unconditioned. I would appreciate it if anyone can provide canonical sources that explain the importance of unconditionality with respect to Nibbana and Nirvana. Particularly why is it even important and consistent with the rest of Buddhist teachings? Please feel free to point out where you think my own views might be mistaken.

In *A history of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana*, Professor Hirakawa states: > Both nirvana and space were considered to be unconditioned dharmas. This fundamental classification of dharmas into conditioned and unconditioned is found in the Agamas. In what passage from the agamas (and/or pali?) we read *space* to be unconditioned?