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.
What is Nirvana and What is the Essential Mind?
I'm pretty new to Buddhism. All my life, I have been raised as a Catholic, with a Catholic family, and I live in a very religious, Christian town. However, I never truly connected with the faith, and recently began researching Buddhism. I've only been studying really extensively for the past few months, and have been concentrating mostly on modern references. I feel that educating myself with more current texts will make understanding Buddhist concepts simpler for me because they would be more relatable. However, I have come to a few blocks as I try to embrace such big ideas. I've had a few questions in particular:
The past few months, I've been trying to grasp the idea of 'non-existence' and the idea that there is no such thing as the Self. I feel pretty stable with these concepts, so far. However, what I don't understand is, if there is no such thing as the Self, if we do not inherently exist, then how can we ever truly achieve Nirvana? How can we, beings who do not inherently exist, have permanent residence in Nirvana? If We are all insubstantial beings in an insubstantial world, doesn't this completely contradict with the existence of Nirvana? Buddhism philosophy is based on the concept that nothing inherently exists. How does the idea of Nirvana fit with this concept?
Only recently have I diverted from studying modern Buddhist texts. I've begun reading translated scriptures and again feel that there are inconsistencies. I'm having trouble understanding the principles the Buddha talks about because I keep finding these thoughts that contradict in my mind. For instance, in a few scriptures I was reading, Buddha spoke of something called 'The Essential Mind'. He explained that once stripped of our insubstantial body and mind, we can realize the Essential Mind and our true nature. The Essential Mind is said to be unchanging and eternal. However, to me it seems that the concept of an 'Essential Mind' contradicts with the idea of an absence of Self or the soul. If there is no such thing as an unchanging, eternal Self, how is there such a thing as the Essential Mind? The Essential Mind also contradicts with the idea that everything arises from causation, and nothing is inherently existent. How can both of these things be true?
The past few months, I've been trying to grasp the idea of 'non-existence' and the idea that there is no such thing as the Self. I feel pretty stable with these concepts, so far. However, what I don't understand is, if there is no such thing as the Self, if we do not inherently exist, then how can we ever truly achieve Nirvana? How can we, beings who do not inherently exist, have permanent residence in Nirvana? If We are all insubstantial beings in an insubstantial world, doesn't this completely contradict with the existence of Nirvana? Buddhism philosophy is based on the concept that nothing inherently exists. How does the idea of Nirvana fit with this concept?
Only recently have I diverted from studying modern Buddhist texts. I've begun reading translated scriptures and again feel that there are inconsistencies. I'm having trouble understanding the principles the Buddha talks about because I keep finding these thoughts that contradict in my mind. For instance, in a few scriptures I was reading, Buddha spoke of something called 'The Essential Mind'. He explained that once stripped of our insubstantial body and mind, we can realize the Essential Mind and our true nature. The Essential Mind is said to be unchanging and eternal. However, to me it seems that the concept of an 'Essential Mind' contradicts with the idea of an absence of Self or the soul. If there is no such thing as an unchanging, eternal Self, how is there such a thing as the Essential Mind? The Essential Mind also contradicts with the idea that everything arises from causation, and nothing is inherently existent. How can both of these things be true?
0
Comments
I always recommend to start with Theravada tradition. It makes an easy to understand introduction to foundation level dharma.
Leave the mind only, emptiness, interdependent origination alone until you have a firm foundation.
These concepts explain the philosophical side. Whether they are of benefit really depends on your current Understanding.
Its a bit like studying doctorate level for quantum physics. Will knowing benefit your everyday life.
Stick to the noble truths and eightfold paths, read aboit reincarnation between the 31 realms, karma formations, the NIKAYAS. Again, read Theravada material, start from there, then only progress to deeper truths.
Start at elementary level, then high school, then college etc.
In my humble opinion they could be impossible to answer to your satisfaction. And that’s okay.
The words and the concepts – after all - are just tools, rafts, fingers pointing at the moon.
I think of Buddhism rather as a path, a practice, or a way of life.
Just do it. You don’t achieve running a marathon by reading more books about it and understanding it better.
Start understanding Buddhism by not doing harm, by learning meditation and by really looking at the truth of what is happening here and now in your body and mind.
Anatta or non-self means all conditioned things are empty of any inherent existence. So you exist conventionally in Samsara, but there is no 'you' as an entity in you. In ultimate reality, you are just a set of conditions which continuously arise and cease based on the arising and ceasing of its causes, without any entity in it - though it seems too philosophical, but it is ultimate reality which cannot be understood or explained through words, but can only be directly experienced.
As far as 'The Essential Mind' is concerned, I have till now not read that Buddha said of such a thing. But there are traditions in Buddhism, which talk about Buddhahood, or plain Buddha consciousness - which are almost like Soul in Christianity or Atman in Hinduism. So I cannot comment upon, whether Buddha talked about 'The Essential Mind' or Buddhahood. But I think there is some Sutta which says Buddha did not answered the question about whether there is any Self different from the body, or what happens after death etc, because these things do not help in reducing the suffering.
Try to understand 4 noble truths. Buddha taught that all conditioned things are impermanent(anicca), unsatisfactory(dukkha) and non-self(anatta). So try to understand this statement and try to directly experience it. It is nothingness everywhere, so no one going nowhere - just conditions playing out by arising and ceasing of their own. We suffer because we try to crave and cling to these processes by giving meaning to it, instead of just observing it.
It is a difficult thing to grasp because it cannot be conceptualised, only felt. Through practice you begin to feel the vastness of your true self behind the noise of your thoughts.
Nirvana's in the bag, it's inherent, it's not going anywhere. You might imagine a person who has never really seen clouds because they were daydreaming cloud faces.
Or imagine you were running a gold mining company and you had spent all your life digging up the amazon rainforest to find gold, when one day your company was taken over and you were sacked. Might you not see the forest for the first time as it really is, and not in terms of the gold it could yield? I think Nirvana's like that, seeing there is no self and that we therefore don't have a horse in this race.
If you'd ask me, some sort of eternalism is not what nirvana is. Nirvana is two-fold. Nirvana is cessation of existence and thus perfectly corresponds with non-self. There is also nirvana while still alive, which is realizing this cessation is indeed the highest happiness. There is no such thing as an essential mind, for the word mind is just a word to describe an always changing process.
It's a matter of semantics, mainly. Let's call it cessation of life than if you prefer that.
Hi Escritara
I am still 'new' to Buddhism after some after nearly 20 years of following the Dharma.
[quote]The past few months, I've been trying to grasp the idea of 'non-existence' and the idea that there is no such thing as the Self. I feel pretty stable with these concepts, so far. However, what I don't understand is, if there is no such thing as the Self, if we do not inherently exist, then how can we ever truly achieve Nirvana? How can we, beings who do not inherently exist, have permanent residence in Nirvana? If We are all insubstantial beings in an insubstantial world, doesn't this completely contradict with the existence of Nirvana? Buddhism philosophy is based on the concept that nothing inherently exists. How does the idea of Nirvana fit with this concept?[/quote]
You are asking BIG questions. Not that there is anything wrong in asking questions - just don't expect any concrete answers with which you will agree.
Most of us Westerners just love the logic and rational approach to any question but in Buddhism things are somewhat different. It is how you, and I, have been bought up. The West is pretty big on the whole idea of 'self' which is a cultural thing. In the East things are somewhat different.
[quote]Only recently have I diverted from studying modern Buddhist texts. I've begun reading translated scriptures and again feel that there are inconsistencies. I'm having trouble understanding the principles the Buddha talks about because I keep finding these thoughts that contradict in my mind. For instance, in a few scriptures I was reading, Buddha spoke of something called 'The Essential Mind'. He explained that once stripped of our insubstantial body and mind, we can realize the Essential Mind and our true nature. The Essential Mind is said to be unchanging and eternal. However, to me it seems that the concept of an 'Essential Mind' contradicts with the idea of an absence of Self or the soul. If there is no such thing as an unchanging, eternal Self, how is there such a thing as the Essential Mind? The Essential Mind also contradicts with the idea that everything arises from causation, and nothing is inherently existent. How can both of these things be true?
Of course you are going to find things in the texts that 'contradict' your own thinking - because you are essentially programmed to think in terms of 'contradictions'. I know this is somewhat frustrating but there is no short cut - you just have to sit with it until it drops.
The secret is - don't try. Don't try to understand. Just accept. Yep, things don't add up but, Hey, what the heck.
Remember, you are now on a path which is very, very different to anything you have trod before. There are no 'transfer' credits up for grabs. You will have to face the path. But there are guides so make use of them.
You do not indicate which particular form of Buddhism you follow but if it is Tibetan Buddhist I would urge you to start with the Lam Rim text.
May all beings achieve happiness.
Obvious to me
Nirvana is very real and accessable, but not a place or even state of mind.
Nirvana is bliss, but not all states of bliss are the true Nirvana.
Nirvana is extinguishment of desires, but stopping desires does not necessarily mean Nirvana.
Nirvana is the extinguishment of individual self, but that isn't the same as non-existance.
And so it goes.
What is it you really, really want out of life? If life is a journey, then where are you trying to get to? There's a lot of false Nirvanas. What would satisfy you completely and for all time? What would complete you, allow you to look around and say, "This is it. I've arrived. There's nothing left to fix"?
That's Nirvana. And not a single one of us can imagine what that might be. But it must be out there, somewhere.
And it is. But it's not "out there" somewhere. It's inside you. When you can look in your own heart and mind and say, "There's nothing left to fix." then you've discovered Nirvana. And you might be a beggar sitting on a sidewalk with a bowl when it happens. You might be a rich man looking at another hospital your donations have helped. You might be a mother looking at your child asleep in his bed.
Nirvana isn't.
Nirvana is the whole enchilada of Buddhism. Ignoring it amounts to only learning about one half of Buddhism, the conditioned half which is about the three marks of existence, namely, origin (S., utpâda), passing away (S., vyaya) and change of state (S., sthity anyathâtvam) (cp. AN 3:47).
By the way, for those interested I once opened a topic about what nirvana is here:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15952/nature-of-nirvana/p1
It's a misinterpretation that there's no such thing as self. There's no such thing as a static, unchanging self. The self is always changing and evolving. This means it can evolve toward Enlightenment. The Buddha taught a Middle Way between the nihilism of "non-Self" and the eternalism of a fixed, static self. This is the ever-evolving self, a work-in-progress.
We don't "reside" in Nirvana, like people "go to" heaven. Nirvana, or Enlightenment, is the liberation from our own neuroses, our clinging to self, clinging to material objects or to ego, fame, whatever. Once we realize that all that is a construction of mind, and has no inherent existence, that we've conjured it all up, then we're free of it.
I must say, though, there's a thing about how material objects aren't "real", they're also just conjurings of our mind, that I still don't understand. Something about "dependent origination"--look it up.
I've never heard the term, "the essential mind". But it may be a translation of the "tathagatagarbha", the "Buddha nature", or "Buddha embryo" that we all have within us, the Enlightenment potential. The same sutra that introduces this idea also speaks of the "True Self". Once we abandon clinging to self, to ego, to self-image, when that all falls away, we realize "True Self", which is our Buddha nature coming to fruition. That's how I understand it, anyway.