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.
Nature of Nirvana
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In the past people were much more focused on seeing reality, so much so that they might awaken from the Buddha holding a lotus flower aloft, recognizing an expression of the Dharma right then and there. How could that be, if Nirvana was something "else" (other than realizing emptiness)? We're much more deluded and are looking for something else, even burying ourselves in scriptures and thinking we know. Mindfulness can lead to awakening for just this reason, but it has to be cultivated. It's more than just our normal seeing of things.
It's a mistake to think we know emptiness when we don't. What we know is a concept, an idea, and it may make sense... but truly knowing emptiness is cause for unbinding. Believing that we "know" emptiness, we'll discount it and start looking for Nirvana. That's a double-delusion. We've skipped the crucial step that actually leads to Nirvana, and so are groping in the dark for something that isn't there.
I ask this because I read these 103 dissertations on the nature of Nirvana and I am not really sure who is helped by them?
Is something of this supposed to apply to ones life or is this an exercise in mental refinement that does not even apply to meditative understanding?
I understand that selfless acts and sutra study can be complete practises onto themselves so is this just an example of the path of sutra study?
The realization of emptiness happens when the conditions are right, and this is awakening. It could be hearing the sound of a bird that does it (for a mindful practitioner, or even a non-Buddhist). It's ridiculous, laughable in fact, to say that you realize Nirvana by seeing Nirvana.
The realization of emptiness, the actual realization of emptiness (not a conceptual understanding or view), results in the realization of Nirvana, or Buddha-Nature, which is non-attachment to and non-identification with conditioned phenomena (because Buddha-Nature is already that which is not conditioned phenomena).
If you don't know where to look, what to look for, you're screwed basically. Thinking there's this thing called "Nirvana" that you're going to see in meditation is pure delusion. It'd be a sad bunch of "puthujjanas" as you call them sitting around meditating in frustration, if this were something actually taught. The only hope for them would be that their meditation practice would follow the arising and passing of all phenomena, rather than being focused on seeing this "Nirvana". This would eventually lead the mind to directly realizing emptiness, and releasing from conditioned phenomena. That is Nirvana.
A great deal of the problem may be that descriptions of Nirvana have been about Nirvana as experienced in life, before the dissolution of the aggregates. This can lead to a host of misunderstandings. We can lose sight of what Nirvana actually is, which is the cessation of craving and thus of suffering. The experience of Nirvana is this non-craving mind, no longer identifying with the five aggregates (conditioned phenomena). Unbound consciousness. This is very foreign to us and is difficult to put into words that'd make sense, like trying to describe the taste of an orange to someone who hasn't eaten one.
Because things do not last and are in a constant state of change, we can appreciate them even more. At the same time, they have always been in one form or another and cannot be possessed by us anymore than we can be possessed by them. There is no birth and no death because we have always been here in one form or another.
A process is little different than a thing in that it takes energy to function. But who is imagining that reality is difficult? Who isn't satisfied? If I ever stop learning or lose the state of wonder then perhaps I will feel unsatisfied. Unless liberation is also a delusion. When we see things as they truely are but still live on to enjoy them and hope to help others do the same, what is there to be liberated from?
Sometimes I think suffering is over rated.
The "who" is always the false self created by the mind. It's really nothing other than deluded mind. Deluded mind, thinking there is a self, craves for continued existence yada yada yada.
I was just asking which level of understanding of nirvana, some eloquent authors believed they were operating on. This was not to denegrate anyone but to help answer my other 3 questions.
I can indeed find stable-ness in the fact that all is unstable. It is not that there is no true self but that there is no true self that is seperate. Because there is no self aside from the other, there is no other aside from the self.
I'm sorry but I fail to see the craving here. It is just good old fashioned logic...
If I'm wrong, it wouldn't upset me but I go with what works.
And I agree the only thing that stays the same is change. However "change" can't really constitute a self, because it's more a force or process... it's not itself a substance. All of the substance, the "conditioned phenomena", is also selfless because nothing stays the same.
These are the two sides of the coin. Substance (emptiness/form) and Nature (change). One has no meaning or function without the other.
I'm not sure what "self" you think there is?
"We" are just temporary combinations of inter-dependent "stuff", undergoing constant change (without unchanging "self"). Directly experiencing this flowing "emptiness" of reality, mind ceases its grasping/craving for stability. As you say everything has existed in one form or another, it's just "recycled" phenomena... there's no actual issue of things being created or destroyed (birth and death). Is that more simple?
Suffering is really seeking stability in an unstable reality. It's only through the full realization of uncertainty, impermanence, that the mind can let go.
Well, my state of wonder often leads to bouts of curiosity which in turn lead me to want to dig deeper. That in itself is an act of craving but what can I do? Afterall, is that not partially why Buddha sat under the tree?
I ask these questions of you and challenge what you say because I find you knowledgable. Sometimes I ask questions and challenge for the opposite reasons so I should let you know it isn't because you don't have a decent understanding but because you do.
I wonder if that makes sense.
Obviously the Buddha realizing we had problems, and having the craving to find answers, turned out to be a good thing. Generally though most everything we do is an act of craving, and the bad kind far outweighs the good kind. The craving to find answers might lead to a lot of frustration (for many it does) rather than discovering enlightenment, so it's a good thing we're provided with a Noble Eightfold Path by one who already has!
I'm glad you challenge me, especially if you're trying to learn from it.
I'm just trying to articulate here but when we give a label to a part of the process we sometimes mistake the act of being for something we can turn to later and identify as the same thing. But it won't be the same thing because it has already changed. To me, this means that everything is a verb and that nouns are useful but misleading.
I guess I should hit the hay before I go too far off topic but I find this interesting.
You are right in bringing this up. Buddhism isn't meant as an intellectual excersize or a battle of sutta comparisions. However, a lot of people will refer to the texts often enough to show what they are saying also has been taught by the Buddha. This can be to show they are right, to make a point or 'win' an argument, yes, so much is sometimes obvious. But to me it is mainly to give the one who reads another base to rely on, so they can also use that. Because why believe an anonymous poster on a board on what he says, hmm?
Also, the teachings of the Buddha are just the best. They are so immensely structured and deep, after years you still find new links and deeper levels. I don't think anyone who ever reaches whatever stage of enlightenment will say they can teach at a comparable level. Therefore, referring back to the suttas is also a good teaching and reminder in itself. In the end, everything is non-self, so we don't own any or our realizations or ideas anyway, they all come from the Buddha.
You can not really ever tell if somebody is speaking out of experience or if they are just going the intellectual way, especially when you don't see them in real life. But you can know who does not speaks in line with the Buddha-Dhamma, if what they say doesn't match the suttas. If you want to be able to do that, you have to be a bit knowledgeable in the text. Don't just rely on the quotes you're given, because one can take any pieces out of the immense suttas and change or structurize them in that way, to say whatever they feel like. So I think it's worth showing why certain things don't really fit in the suttas, like the "endless consciousness without feature".
For me personally another test to see if others know what they are talking about, is to see if they talk in riddles, as I said before. If somebody does this, they probably don't really know and are talking as if they are really wise, maybe even convincing themselves in the process. But this way of looking is personal for me, I have to stress that.
So far it was mainly speaking in general. Coming back to nirvana, I think it's not really about who realizes what, but mainly what is there to realize in the first place. Because if we don't have at least a first idea of nirvana, we can have a very distorted way of seeing the Buddhas messages. This is my main reason to participate in this thread, to give others an idea of my understanding of it and to show how I think it fits the texts.
And the mind is a magician, it makes nirvana out of things that aren't. It thinks it's enlightened when it isn't, it thinks it has knowledge that it really doesn't. So we have to be honest with ourselves. Where do we stand now? Do we really know what we are talking about? Did we fit the texts to our understanding or did we fit our understanding to the texts?
There are steps of realization that are not really understanding nirvana. Those are lower steps before that, like really realizing we don't own our body. Or realizing we don't own the will. It's easy to take these experiences as enlightenment even. Therefore always be cautious. A good teacher will tell you this and put your feet back on the ground.
Another test to know if we really have some experience is to see how the process went. Was it just an idea that popped up or a 'ah it must be like this'? If so, it wasn't significant. A real realization turns the world upside down for days. Why? Because realizing non-self means the end of the mind; it sort of kills itself by seeing it has no permanence anywhere. One can only imagine what this must be like, but surely it will not be a small thing.
And as the Buddha said it must be accompanied by extreme bliss: (Stream entrance includes understanding nirvana)
Long story, but I think it's quite important. And also explains why I think this thread can serve a purpose, not only to talk about nirvana, but perhaps also to put people back on the ground, just like a good teacher would.
Metta to ya!
Sabre
When mind is completely unbound from conditionality what is this mind like? Is this liberated mind the mind of Buddha, Buddha also meaning Budda-nature?
Yet no denial is made. Because lucidity is apparent. Yet throught and throught totally ungraspable happening to no one, no place, and no time.
Clinging to and recognizing external forms, discrimination is set in motion. Body, property, and abode are appearances and their rise is due to habit-energy (vasana); thus appearances are born of irrationality (ayukta), their rise is due to discrimination. Rightly, the wise understand that all things have no reality, but according to the discriminations of the ignorant things appear to exist.
@songhill
true
what i say is love and compassion are by-products of anatta
what i meant was:
if one experienced (knows) anatta one sees the difference between worldlyn beings (pruthajjana) and Noble Deciples (Arya puggala)
then one feels sorry for worldly beings (like seeing people in cold weather)
then one wants to give them the Anatta Teaching of Buddha and try to explain the Teaching to others (like giving blankets to those people)
but at this point one must be careful not to talk about Teaching with everyone (read anumana sutta at majjima nikaya to see why this is so)
accept the Teaching or rejecting Teaching is with the people who has the chance to listen/read Teaching (from the Noble Deciple's side it is like one who offer the blanket doesn't worry what the other people do about the blanket)
true
if one knows anatta and established what one knows ( Arahants-full Enligtened Ones) five skandhas do not belong to mara
even one is continue living (nirvana)
five skandhas does not belong to anyone once Arahnts passed away
the hiligted part is my inference
but if one knows anatta but not established fully (Noble Deciples but not Arahants) and when there is no mindfulness he is not beyon Mara's jurisdiction
i have no doubt about the above italiced part
this is very profitable thread and special thanks go to Sabre and thanks for all participated and provide different point of views about Nature of nirvana
it is a sort of relief that one knows one has to dig down deep (na-kathakaraniyam -hope my pali is correct)
thanks songhill
By whom was this living being created?
Where is the living being's maker?
Where has the living being originated?
Where does the living being
cease?
Sister Vajira:
What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.
Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.
For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.than.html
Not life itself as the Buddha stated.It is wrong view to think life ceases for their is always the continuation of an existing being.
I like the Nirvana sutras explanation of nirvana better what happens when wood is burned on a fire?the wood sir ceases to exist it can no longer be called wood,so sir does that mean nothing is left behind?the wood ceases to exist BUT what is left is the ashes(nirvana)
Have you ever heard of dharmakaya?
"The old is destroyed, the new is not arising. [Those whose minds are disgusted with future existence, their seeds (of rebirth) have been destroyed (and) they have no desire for growth.] The wise are quenched like this lamp. This outstanding jewel too is in the Order; by this truth may there be well-being." (trans. K.R. Norman)
Nirvana, itself, is an ontological state—not sheer absence as the Sautrantikas believe.
In reference to blowing out of candle,i was qouting cloud,and trying to explain the answer to him with the wording he already used previously.
Do you currently belong to a sangha?
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd43.htm
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/nirvana.html
Plenty of references in that article, and very well spoken.
The so-called Fire Sermon (Ādittapariyāya Sutta) which is found in the Samyutta-Nikaya (S.iv.19) makes no mention of the self, nor are the five khandhas mentioned. I have checked out the other Suttas related to the Ādittapariyāya Sutta, there is no mention of the self.
Songhill just read the whole article, don't nitpick over the quote I chose to share.
dispassion am i correct?
Samsara is emptiness with (conditioned-by) craving/clinging, Nirvana is emptiness without ("not"-conditioned-by or "unconditioned"-by) craving/clinging. What we are, have always been, doesn't actually change. It's simply that the cause for suffering has been fully abandoned and suffering will no longer arise. This unconditioned state is what's experienced in life as Nirvana, and results also in no further suffering upon/after death and dissolution of the aggregates.
then you try to reference it to a sutta,where as song hill points out your very argument does not exist.
then you say if someone beleives nirvana can be identified with the self then they have not understood nirvana.have you ever read ANY Tathagatagarbha sutra??the VERY Buddha nature sutras from where Buddha nature COMES FROM states Nirvana is the true self.
anyone who uses the term Buddha nature traces the Buddha nature back to its ORIGINAL SOURCE,you sir are simply disagreeing with the Buddha natures original sources
(the sutras)
tell you what go ahead and post WHAT THE BUDDHA NATURE IS based on where it comes from go ahead.making up things that go against the Buddha nature sutras then saying thats what Buddha nature is just shows a lack of actual study of the Tathagatagarbha texts for which Mahayana Buddhism is founded on(chan founded on lankavatara)zen founded on Lotus sutra,teintai is founded on lotus sutra and Paranirvana sutra,ALL of mahayana Buddhism is incompensed in the Buddha nature teachings yet all of you seem to INGNORE what the actual tathagatagarbha sutras are telling you.
chapter 3 on grief
Then, the World-Honoured One praised all the bhiksus and said: "It is good, it is good, that you practise the selflessness meditation." Then all bhiksus said to the Buddhha: "We not only practise the selflessness meditation, but even other meditations, to wit, all those on Suffering, the non-Eternal, and Selflessness. O World-Honoured One! When intoxicated, the mind spins round, and all mountains, rivers, castles, palaces, the sun, moon and stars appear to spin round too. O World-Honoured One! Any person who does not practise the meditation of the non-Eternal and Selflessness cannot be called a sage. Due to indolence, one repeats birth and death. O World-Honoured One! Because of this, we all practise such meditations."
Then the Buddha said to all the bhiksus: "Hear me well, hear me well! Now, you mention the case of an intoxicated person. This refers to knowledge, but not the signification. What do I mean by signification? The intoxicated person sees the sun and moon, which do not move, but he thinks they do. The same is the case with beings. As all illusion and ignorance overhang [the mind], the mind turns upside down and takes Self for non-Self, Eternal for non-Eternal, Purity as non-Pure, and Bliss as sorrow. Overhung by illusion, this thought arises. Though this though arises, the meaning is not gained [realised]. This is as in the case of the intoxicated person who takes what does not move as moving. The Self' signifies the Buddha; 'the Eternal' signifies the Dharmakaya; 'Bliss' signifies Nirvana, and 'the Pure' signifies Dharma. Bhiksus, why is it said that one who has the idea of a Self is arrogant and haughty, traversing round Samsara? Bhiksus, although you might say, 'We also cultivate impermanence, suffering, and non-Self, these three kinds of cultivation have no real value/ meaning. I shall now explain the excellent three ways of cultivating Dharma. To think of suffering as Bliss and to think of Bliss as suffering, is perverse Dharma; to think of the impermanent as the Eternal and to think of the Eternal as impermanent is perverse Dharma; to think of the non-Self [anatman]as the Self [atman] and to think of the Self [atman] as non-Self [anatman] is perverse Dharma; to think of the impure as the Pure and to think of the Pure as impure is perverse Dharma. Whoever has these four kinds of perversion, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas. Bhiksus, you give rise to the idea of Bliss with regard to phenomena associated with suffering; the idea of Eternity with regard to phenomena associated with impermanence; the idea of the Self with regard to phenomena without Self; and the idea of Purity with regard to phenomena that are impure. Both the mundane and also the supramundane have the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and Purity. Mundane teachings [dharmas] have letters and are without meaning [referents]; the Supramundane [teachings] have letters and meaning. Why? Because mundane people have these four perversions, they are unacquainted with the [true] meaning/ referents. Why? Having these perverse ideas, their minds and vision are distorted. Through these three perversions, mundane people see suffering in Bliss, impermanence in the Eternal, non-Self in the Self, and impurity in the Pure. These are called perversions/ inversions. Because of these perversions/ inversions, mundane people know the letters but not the meaning [referents]. What is the meaning/referent? Non-Self is Samsara, the Self is the Tathagata; impermanence is the sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, the Eternal is the Tathagata's Dharmakaya; suffering is all tirthikas, Bliss is Nirvana; the impure is all compounded [samskrta] dharmas , the Pure is the true Dharma that the Buddha and Bodhisattvas have. This is called non-perversion/ non-inversion. By not being inverted [in one's views], one will know [both] the letter and the meaning. If one desires to be freed from the four perverse/ inverted [views - catur-viparita-drsti], one should know the Eternal, Blissful, the Self and the Pure in this manner."