Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
In northern Italy, my home, there is a warm mist today and pale sunlight shining through, illuminating African faces, painting shawled women from Romania, chattering Italians, comfortable in their own skin and fashions, all so unique and rich in colour, hints of an entire universe to be discovered, worked with and for... it isn't perfect, there is a Malaysian woman who sits on a scrap of cloth by the railway station, seems to be counting on her fingers, stuck in a vast indecision, and there are people who walk sagged under crushing cares, I see this side too, but is the answer really to destroy this marvellous world? Can it not be saved?
Is it the case that you won't use the word oblivion, while believing we practice for exactly what I see the word pointing to? In experiential terms, which are the only terms which matter.
experience is like a dream. keyword like. it isn't oblivion. things exist but not inherently. they are dependently originated. i don't use the word oblivion because that is nihilism. reality cannot be categorized in such a way.
non-self basically teaches that there was no subject to begin with.
In the seen, there is only the seen, in the heard, there is only the heard, in the sensed, there is only the sensed, in the cognized, there is only the cognized. Thus you should see that indeed there is no thing here; this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself. Since, Bahiya, there is for you in the seen, only the seen, in the heard, only the heard, in the sensed, only the sensed, in the cognized, only the cognized, and you see that there is no thing here, you will therefore see that indeed there is no thing there. As you see that there is no thing there, you will see that you are therefore located neither in the world of this, nor in the world of that, nor in any place betwixt the two. This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
Is it the case that you won't use the word oblivion, while believing we practice for exactly what I see the word pointing to? In experiential terms, which are the only terms which matter.
No. I see nirvana as the cessation of suffering. Your idea of oblivion as it comes across to me is cessation of happiness. Also i agree with what Taiyaki posted above.
but if in parinibbana there is nothing, that's the attainment of the cessation of happiness, no? Since in samsara there is suffering and also happiness, but after liberation there is nothing whatsoever?
mmm tomatoes, garlic, sausage and mozzarella... please excuse my sensuality
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Nirvana is described as peace not happiness. Maybe a small distinction but, I think, important.
The happiness of samsara is compounded, it rises and ceases. When we cling to it as the source for providing well being we start the process of engaging in negative actions to get and maintain that happiness thus causing the karma for future suffering.
Nirvana is a way to move beyond that up and down conditional sort of existence. Whether its oblivion or transcendence seems to be the discussion here. I guess I go with transcendence.
What I am saying is, the equation seems to be, either you take heaven and hell and whatever combinations of the two arise, or you live a cat's ninth life of happiness before becoming the complete negation one always was. You get a few years of bliss, nopossibility of suffering, but in exchange you give up all happiness, and yes, even peace, which is only positive as felt. Oblivion may be metaphorically peace, but it isn't the kind of peace which can be enjoyed.
person, yes, I'd go with transcendence given that option. But is that option on the table?
just like there is no "you" other than the designation from your mind based on there being a body/mind.
that is the only way "you" exist.
and because the body/mind is a product of infinite causes and conditions, "you" or what "you" really are can never cease. you will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. but this "you" isn't the conceptual "you" that you designate.
i'd seriously figure out what you "designate" as ceasing. because if you correctly understand/perceive dependent origination then what appears is just an appearance with no substance.
And as I say, a weekend goes by in a flash. So does 40 or so years. It's nothing. A fat god blinks lazily and you're gone. Aside from eternity, there is really no worth to anything. So if we are practicing for oblivion, we aren't practicing for what is good, we're practicing to avoid what is bad. That is the only lasting benefit. And if that's the case, well, I trust the Buddha, but it does make life itself, seen in this way, without delusional hope or desire, as heartbreakingly sad.
taiyaki, I donit designate anything as ceasing, I am examing the notion held by some Theravadans, that consciousness ceases. i.e. that the causes you speak of are non infinite and can be ended.
Yes taiyaki, I do perceive that illusory nature, but you have Mahayana views i.e. that the illusion is permanent, samsara is nibbana. There is another view, that the illusion ceases leaving nothing in its place, no transcendence, nothing. Permanent death.
Well on a practical level. If it does end completely, then that is fine. This was a great experience and to live fully with no regrets is how I'd like to live. In both cases we can help others and find peace.
Our actions have infinite consequence. Just like the Buddha brought the dharma and we are living in his example.
There is no "thing" here to end. This body/mind is just a rental. What freedom and how magical? This whole experience is crazy.
You're right, of course. It's just sad, as I say, as a story it is a sad story. I agree it doesn't mean we have to be sad. But I always thought it was only stories that end, and life wasn't like that.
And we are giving up eternity... we have been happy and unhappy since beginningless time. And now we are saying, enough, we can't handle it anymore. We're giving up on the world, bowing out gracefully, but ultimately defeated.
My heart doesn't go to it. We're attaining the end of suffering, but we're also giving up all happiness, every chance of happiness. So it's not win win.
Excuse my downbeatness, but I reckon it's good to consider worst case scenarios. Yet I know enough of life to know that samsara could lead us to suffering that cannot be played down, cannot be minimised or ignored.
If we become something then awesome. Haha, ok then. One for the money, two for the show.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
What I am saying is, the equation seems to be, either you take heaven and hell and whatever combinations of the two arise, or you live a cat's ninth life of happiness before becoming the complete negation one always was. You get a few years of bliss, nopossibility of suffering, but in exchange you give up all happiness, and yes, even peace, which is only positive as felt. Oblivion may be metaphorically peace, but it isn't the kind of peace which can be enjoyed.
person, yes, I'd go with transcendence given that option. But is that option on the table?
Idk, I guess if you feel the only true dharma comes from the early pali suttas and agree with the interpretations. @Jason linked a couple blogs from a Therevada perspective that didn't agree with oblivion.
In one view, the whole Mahayana was formed because no one could handle it.
In another view Mahayana and Tantrayana was also taught by the Buddha to a more select audience in the second and third turning of the Dharma. The article on the gandharan manuscripts that I linked earlier wasn't able to link mahayana doctrine directly to the Buddha but most of the opinion in the article is that the notion of one true dharma from which all others branched off isn't the concensus anymore.
keep in mind. something and nothing do not apply to reality and are constructs of the mind.
so this is all theory and no play.
buddhism is about understanding suffering and then learning to be maximumly happy.
to be honest with you what brings most happiness is helping others.
so whether or not there is a final cessation doesn't really matter. because at least I've tried to help others.
and to really put a wrench in all of this. No old age and death, and no end to old age and death. the Mahayana point of view just makes too much sense.
the great love/compassion. this is the function/purpose of buddhism imho.
The Mahayana scriptures refer to writing, and other historical developments that come later than the Buddha's time. If they accorded with the Pali stuff, then I would accept them, because I am not interested in Buddha as a personality, only in enlightened discourse, but they don't seem to in some regards, and in some interpretations. And for a moment in my practice, I'm exploring that and seeing if I can handle it. I'm tugging at the string which binds me to existence, not volitionally, it's just happening. I see that string as love, bodhicca, but it may just be craving and the seed of future suffering.
Now of course there are other interpretations e.g. Thannisaro's, the Mahayana, the fact that the Pali may be misinterpreted or have been altered by nihilists and so on.
Yes, it makes sense to me too. It is elegant. But isn't it the Hindu eternal Atman thing? i.e. the thing Buddha refuted, having gone further and found no substance, and impermanence of consciousness, i.e. an oblivion to escape to.
Of course, eternal life is just as scary as eternal death, hence Buddha's criticism of nihilists and eternalists. Neither craving nor aversion is soteriologically sound. But a popular interpretation is, no nihilism because no being, just impersonal consciousness fading away.
You guys really don't study the Nikayas, do you? He was the guy who set this thing up. The thing about the Nikayas is how very sober and consistent they seem.
And we are giving up eternity... we have been happy and unhappy since beginningless time. And now we are saying, enough, we can't handle it anymore. We're giving up on the world, bowing out gracefully, but ultimately defeated.
What do you mean when you say "we"? I cant remember any lifes except this one im living right now, and even in this life my "self" does not survive long time. The person i was 10 years ago is dead, my views changed, my personality changed, my looks changed, not much that stayed unchanged. Even if there is something that continues for all eternity it is nothing i would use to define my self.
'we' what is not arisen and is not subject to cessation, and not to be seen as a self, though I use the word 'we'. Self in Buddhism is a way of relating to things delusionally and selfishly (like me on this thread, but I'm working on it), it isn't continuity or denial of continuity.
No basis, just the way things are. Not a thing that does not arise or cease, not a phenomenon or the ground of phenomenon, but what is beyond words. As an ocean current could not encompass the ocean to describe it, but also could not be said not to know the ocean, and know it well. As Student noticed parallels between science and Dharma, as we see impermanence in sunset and moonrise. The unlimited, unbounded, way things are.
'we' what is not arisen and is not subject to cessation, and not to be seen as a self, though I use the word 'we'. Self in Buddhism is a way of relating to things delusionally and selfishly (like me on this thread, but I'm working on it), it isn't continuity or denial of continuity.
If this "we" is not to be seen as a self, what relation do i have to it? If it is not that which i define as my self it obviously doesnt help much in the question if i (that which i classical define as my self) continue after death. So if my classical definition of self doesnt survive dead, thats just the dead i fear. In any case i will _really_ die.
In discourses I am asked to keep discerning things, even through meditational experience, but everything I own, including my discernment, is being given by the light to the light as we speak.
taiyaki, yes. That is my usual view too.
ihepf, I am not talking about a self continuing, I am not particularly attached to my body or thoughts or changing life. Which is not to say I don't love life, but to love life is to love impermance, always was. What I don't want to lose is traceless impermanence itself, life.
There isn't a body to be attached to - I perceive light that my mind forms as hands typing on a keyboard from time to time, but in blur of image passing and transforming... if a zen chap hit me with stick I'd probably identify for a few minutes, but no, death isn't a problem, death is also life, its just another moment arising.
That why I can't understand the Theravada notion that when we end craving, we no longer create a new moment of consciousness at the end of this life... what's so special about the dying moment that makes it a candidate for cessation?
Well obviously there's no I here, it's just dust on the wind and no one really cares if experience ends or not. And so the thread unravels and my suffering ends. But if it's oblivion I'm going to be really upset, just so as you know.
well life isn't a thing but a process. and even the process is a process. and that process is a process. ad infinitum.
that is the wisdom of no-birth and no-death.
the idea of a final cessation doesn't make sense to me.
just like the thought vividly appearing. there is no agent here creating such thoughts. thoughts are dependently arisen. there is no stopping such thoughts. thoughts will come and go based on causes/conditions.
this process never ends because it has never begun. cessation is merely a mind that rests in knowing/understanding this whole process.
how can there be a final cessation when everything is an appearance?
Comments
but where the toe?
experience is the six streams coming together. the mind links each sense with another but each sense is independent of anything.
feeling the object has absolutely nothing to do with seeing the object. other than the minds link.
so the absence of experience is always present. and even when we directly touch upon the experience it is luminous, vividly appearing.
yet where is it happening? who is it happening to? when does it happen? is it graspable?
absence, yet vividly appearing.
things exist but not inherently. they are dependently originated.
i don't use the word oblivion because that is nihilism. reality cannot be categorized in such a way.
non-self basically teaches that there was no subject to begin with.
In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html
The happiness of samsara is compounded, it rises and ceases. When we cling to it as the source for providing well being we start the process of engaging in negative actions to get and maintain that happiness thus causing the karma for future suffering.
Nirvana is a way to move beyond that up and down conditional sort of existence. Whether its oblivion or transcendence seems to be the discussion here. I guess I go with transcendence.
person, yes, I'd go with transcendence given that option. But is that option on the table?
that is the only way "you" exist.
and because the body/mind is a product of infinite causes and conditions, "you" or what "you" really are can never cease. you will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. but this "you" isn't the conceptual "you" that you designate.
i'd seriously figure out what you "designate" as ceasing. because if you correctly understand/perceive dependent origination then what appears is just an appearance with no substance.
If it does end completely, then that is fine.
This was a great experience and to live fully with no regrets is how I'd like to live.
In both cases we can help others and find peace.
Our actions have infinite consequence. Just like the Buddha brought the dharma and we are living in his example.
There is no "thing" here to end. This body/mind is just a rental. What freedom and how magical? This whole experience is crazy.
Just fucking crazy.
We have to first attain nirvana. Then the body/mind has to end.
Then maybe we'll find out. If we become nothing, then there is no one to complain.
If we become something then awesome.
Either way its win win.
My heart doesn't go to it. We're attaining the end of suffering, but we're also giving up all happiness, every chance of happiness. So it's not win win.
Excuse my downbeatness, but I reckon it's good to consider worst case scenarios. Yet I know enough of life to know that samsara could lead us to suffering that cannot be played down, cannot be minimised or ignored.
If we become something then awesome. Haha, ok then. One for the money, two for the show.
so this is all theory and no play.
buddhism is about understanding suffering and then learning to be maximumly happy.
to be honest with you what brings most happiness is helping others.
so whether or not there is a final cessation doesn't really matter. because at least I've tried to help others.
and to really put a wrench in all of this. No old age and death, and no end to old age and death. the Mahayana point of view just makes too much sense.
the great love/compassion. this is the function/purpose of buddhism imho.
Now of course there are other interpretations e.g. Thannisaro's, the Mahayana, the fact that the Pali may be misinterpreted or have been altered by nihilists and so on.
You guys really don't study the Nikayas, do you? He was the guy who set this thing up. The thing about the Nikayas is how very sober and consistent they seem.
Non arisen things cannot be destroyed because they have never begun.
taiyaki, yes. That is my usual view too.
ihepf, I am not talking about a self continuing, I am not particularly attached to my body or thoughts or changing life. Which is not to say I don't love life, but to love life is to love impermance, always was. What I don't want to lose is traceless impermanence itself, life.
this is why they teach emptiness of self and phenomena.
That why I can't understand the Theravada notion that when we end craving, we no longer create a new moment of consciousness at the end of this life... what's so special about the dying moment that makes it a candidate for cessation?
If there's oblivion, then this is life. It exists as relative to that concept. If no oblivion, then life isn't a thing.
that is the wisdom of no-birth and no-death.
the idea of a final cessation doesn't make sense to me.
just like the thought vividly appearing. there is no agent here creating such thoughts. thoughts are dependently arisen. there is no stopping such thoughts. thoughts will come and go based on causes/conditions.
this process never ends because it has never begun. cessation is merely a mind that rests in knowing/understanding this whole process.
how can there be a final cessation when everything is an appearance?
But if the cause of the process is subtle craving, even in deeply realised people, then it can end.
However, how can craving itself be a thing and therefore a cause?