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.
I personally never could belief in some eternal thing that ever lasts, neither material or immaterial.
Why not? I don't know. How would you explain why you don't belief in something you don't believe in? It just always seemed bizarre to me. For example some kind of consciousness that always just is sort of there, without an object?.. How can that be? How can you be conscious of nothing? That's the same as nothing to me.. And why don't people who get unconscious experience that consciousness?.. If it's something permanent, it should always be there. Also the fact that people can't describe what a 'heaven' or 'featureless consciousness' would be like always said a lot to me. I was looking for answers, not more vague and confusing descriptions. In "The All" sutta the Buddha describes that whoever tried to describe such thing would be put to shame because you can't find it.
From the moment I really read the 4 noble truths for the first time, at least on an intellectual level, I had the view I described before, of the end of suffering being the end of existence. Of course I couldn't accept it full heartedly, but at least I saw something in it which rang true to me. This almost subconscious voice which said "can this be it?" And that's probably when Buddhism really became important to me. Before that I only did meditation without being too interested in the 'philosofical' side.
And really, it makes so much sense when put against the rest of the teachings, while a heavenly-nirvana to me doesn't. Considering the Buddha said he only taught suffering and the cessation of suffering, fits well here.
The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is a mental process, which arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five aggregates, and acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta).
Are you saying that bhava is a purely mental process? I don't see how this interpretation is consistent with the way the birth ( jati ) and becoming ( bhava ) nidanas are actually described in the suttas ( see my earlier post, and refer to the nidana descriptions in MN9 and SN12.2 ).
No, I wouldn't go that far; but I'd say that it's primarily a mental one that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," which can be understood in both a psychological and cosmological sense, although the psychological aspect clearly dominates (i.e., is the focal point). For example, see AN 3.76 and the translators note:
Notice that the Buddha, instead of giving a definition of becoming (bhava) in response to this question, simply notes that becoming occurs on three levels. Nowhere in the suttas does he define the term becoming, but a survey of how he uses the term in different contexts suggests that it means a sense of identity in a particular world of experience: your sense of what you are, focused on a particular desire, in your personal sense of the world as related to that desire. In other words, it is both a psychological and a cosmological concept. For more on this topic, see The Paradox of Becoming, Introduction and Chapter One.
No, I wouldn't go that far; but I'd say that it's primarily a mental one that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," which can be understood in both a psychological and cosmological sense, although the psychological aspect clearly dominates (i.e., is the focal point). For example, see AN 3.76 and the translators note:
But AN3.76 says that bhava ( becoming ) occurs in the 3 realms, confirming the description of bhava in MN9 and SN12.2 as the process of existence in the the realms - not some kind of mental process. And this is confirmed by the way the resulting process of jati ( birth ) is described in MN9 and SN12.2, as physical birth rather than "mental" birth. I can see how bhava can also be viewed as a mental process, but I don't see any evidence in the suttas for this being the dominant aspect. And more generally I don't see how the nidana descriptions in MN9 and SN12.2 can possibly support a purely psychological interpretation of dependent origination.
The problem with the question "what exactly is nirvana" is also the problem with physics, "what is the stuff an electron or even a Higgs particle is made of?"
Sure, we can say nirvana is attained when states of mind/consciousness are transcended. And yes, we can say the stuff of an electron is made from space energy. But such answers are a far cry from direct realization which in Buddhism is demanded.
Even good verbal answers only go so far. They don't quench our thirst for true knowledge.
I've heard many explanations before, most of which were confusing. In advaita, unconditioned consciousness is our true nature. Is nirvana something similar, or is it the negation of consciousness altogether? If the latter, then what are we, if not conscious?
In the Buddha's words, it's a kind of "unbinding". You're totally unbound from conditioned states of existence, from the ups and downs of life, and from any sense of ego. You can simply enjoy things as they are without any contrivance, or without getting pulled this way and that by life.
A person who experiences Enlightenment becomes a Buddha, and Nirvana is the end-result. It's exceedingly rare, but once achieved is never lost.
Hmm, Im sure after reading all the comments posted, one would definitely be looking at a plate of spaghetti, all jumbled up and not knowing wheres the head or tail.
What is Nirvana........... its merely a state of mind, its a place where the mind can reach, so is it a place?
What is meditation, its the training of the mind, just as you go to the gym to buff up your body, the mind also needs to be trained. Its to strengthen our concentration and to tame its 'monkey' nature.
We meditate to reach certain levels of mental achievements, which we call Jhanas.
Lets look at the Jhanas, they are also states of mind, what happens when we reach certain Jhanas. We actually manage to tame some of its latent tendencies.
Cravings, unwholesome thoughts, lust, wandering mind, these are the afflictions! As we reach higher Jhanas, we reach greater concentration levels, we control our thoughts better, shutting out a lot of the unwanted tendencies for the mind to wander.
As we further progress to the higher Jhanas, what happens is that the concentration becomes one pointed. When we are able to control our mind very well, we have equanimity. All our bodily senses are shut off, the mind turns in on itself. It only senses itself , completely cut off from our physical senses.
For ease of discussion, lets take the mind and soul(s) as one entity. The mind can then actually disassociate itself from the body, hence the astral travelling phenomenon. Remember that the body is only a shell for the mind/soul(s) to reside. Albeit not everyone has the capacity to reach this stage, just as not all can jump over 4 feet height, no matter how they try, forget about trying 6 feet then.
This complete control of the mind affords us the super senses. If you reach this stage, communication with heavenly beings, Buddha realms are possible. The supreme mind then understands ( enlightenment ) the nature of life, karma and the various realms, . This also explains the 'Mind only' teachings, because it ultimately summits there.
The Buddha taught us the way to reach Nirvana, through meditation, hence the taming of the mind is the correct method. The Human realm is the perfect place to do this, its where the mind is free to do both good and bad.
To all the doubting Thomases, a lot of past masters have acknowledged this fact, but unscientifically they cant be proven to others. ( Science means that under the same conditions and using the same methods, the experiments can be repeated and produce the same results).
So, Nirvana is just a state of mind, the final goal of a very long and arduous trek by a fully trained mind.
Comments
I don't know. How would you explain why you don't belief in something you don't believe in? It just always seemed bizarre to me. For example some kind of consciousness that always just is sort of there, without an object?.. How can that be? How can you be conscious of nothing? That's the same as nothing to me.. And why don't people who get unconscious experience that consciousness?.. If it's something permanent, it should always be there. Also the fact that people can't describe what a 'heaven' or 'featureless consciousness' would be like always said a lot to me. I was looking for answers, not more vague and confusing descriptions. In "The All" sutta the Buddha describes that whoever tried to describe such thing would be put to shame because you can't find it.
From the moment I really read the 4 noble truths for the first time, at least on an intellectual level, I had the view I described before, of the end of suffering being the end of existence. Of course I couldn't accept it full heartedly, but at least I saw something in it which rang true to me. This almost subconscious voice which said "can this be it?" And that's probably when Buddhism really became important to me. Before that I only did meditation without being too interested in the 'philosofical' side.
And really, it makes so much sense when put against the rest of the teachings, while a heavenly-nirvana to me doesn't. Considering the Buddha said he only taught suffering and the cessation of suffering, fits well here.
Metta!
Sabre
No, I wouldn't go that far; but I'd say that it's primarily a mental one that has the potential to lead to "renewed becoming in the future," which can be understood in both a psychological and cosmological sense, although the psychological aspect clearly dominates (i.e., is the focal point). For example, see AN 3.76 and the translators note: Also check out this interesting article in the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies: "Burning Yourself: Paticca Samuppāda as a Description of the Arising of a False Sense of Self Modeled on Vedic Rituals."
And this is confirmed by the way the resulting process of jati ( birth ) is described in MN9 and SN12.2, as physical birth rather than "mental" birth.
I can see how bhava can also be viewed as a mental process, but I don't see any evidence in the suttas for this being the dominant aspect.
And more generally I don't see how the nidana descriptions in MN9 and SN12.2 can possibly support a purely psychological interpretation of dependent origination.
Sure, we can say nirvana is attained when states of mind/consciousness are transcended. And yes, we can say the stuff of an electron is made from space energy. But such answers are a far cry from direct realization which in Buddhism is demanded.
Even good verbal answers only go so far. They don't quench our thirst for true knowledge.
A person who experiences Enlightenment becomes a Buddha, and Nirvana is the end-result. It's exceedingly rare, but once achieved is never lost.
What is Nirvana........... its merely a state of mind, its a place where the mind can reach, so is it a place?
What is meditation, its the training of the mind, just as you go to the gym to buff up your body, the mind also needs to be trained.
Its to strengthen our concentration and to tame its 'monkey' nature.
We meditate to reach certain levels of mental achievements, which we call Jhanas.
Lets look at the Jhanas, they are also states of mind, what happens when we reach certain Jhanas. We actually manage to tame some of its latent tendencies.
Cravings, unwholesome thoughts, lust, wandering mind, these are the afflictions!
As we reach higher Jhanas, we reach greater concentration levels, we control our thoughts better, shutting out a lot of the unwanted tendencies for the mind to wander.
As we further progress to the higher Jhanas, what happens is that the concentration becomes one pointed. When we are able to control our mind very well, we have equanimity. All our bodily senses are shut off, the mind turns in on itself. It only senses itself , completely cut off from our physical senses.
For ease of discussion, lets take the mind and soul(s) as one entity. The mind can then actually disassociate itself from the body, hence the astral travelling phenomenon.
Remember that the body is only a shell for the mind/soul(s) to reside.
Albeit not everyone has the capacity to reach this stage, just as not all can jump over 4 feet height, no matter how they try, forget about trying 6 feet then.
This complete control of the mind affords us the super senses. If you reach this stage, communication with heavenly beings, Buddha realms are possible.
The supreme mind then understands ( enlightenment ) the nature of life, karma and the various realms, . This also explains the 'Mind only' teachings, because it ultimately summits there.
The Buddha taught us the way to reach Nirvana, through meditation, hence the taming of the mind is the correct method. The Human realm is the perfect place to do this, its where the mind is free to do both good and bad.
To all the doubting Thomases, a lot of past masters have acknowledged this fact, but unscientifically they cant be proven to others.
( Science means that under the same conditions and using the same methods, the experiments can be repeated and produce the same results).
So, Nirvana is just a state of mind, the final goal of a very long and arduous trek by a fully trained mind.
Cheers.