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? What is consciousness?
I'm back to this fundamental question, no explanations have satisfied me. I am told it is the "end of suffering", but it also sounds a whole lot like annihilation, but then am told there is nothing to be annihilated since there never was anything. Well in that case, I might as well believe there is something instead of realize I am nothing and then become such. Ignorance is bliss?
I talked to a buddhist girl and she said Nirvana was unifying with the universe/existence. I doubted it, since I once thought so too, but everyone in these forums didn't think so. I also read somewhere that buddhism is actually pantheistic, but doesn't refer to a "God" since it has too many connotations to a judeo-christian God and the gods of Hinduism.
I don't know I think information has been confusing me in what nirvana is, and it really is unification with all, and the whole, "you are nothing" thing is stating that there is no stable self that is "theuprising", that identity is under constant flux. Once you renounce attachment to identities, you will realize the depth w/in your own consciousness.
Also in buddhism, consciousness isn't regarded highly? I've read consciousness IS the "life force" but it is dependent on matter to exist, as matter is dependent on it? And thus consciousness is simply the result of moving mind states and not the essence of the universe or something as is the common belief in spirituality? Thx beforehand, I'm just confused and no one gives me straight answers...
I talked to a buddhist girl and she said Nirvana was unifying with the universe/existence. I doubted it, since I once thought so too, but everyone in these forums didn't think so. I also read somewhere that buddhism is actually pantheistic, but doesn't refer to a "God" since it has too many connotations to a judeo-christian God and the gods of Hinduism.
I don't know I think information has been confusing me in what nirvana is, and it really is unification with all, and the whole, "you are nothing" thing is stating that there is no stable self that is "theuprising", that identity is under constant flux. Once you renounce attachment to identities, you will realize the depth w/in your own consciousness.
Also in buddhism, consciousness isn't regarded highly? I've read consciousness IS the "life force" but it is dependent on matter to exist, as matter is dependent on it? And thus consciousness is simply the result of moving mind states and not the essence of the universe or something as is the common belief in spirituality? Thx beforehand, I'm just confused and no one gives me straight answers...
0
Comments
For one though, Buddhism does not believe in any gods. Tibetan Buddhism mentions gods, but only in a metaphorical sense, they are not to be taken literally.
Nirvana is the same thing as ego death. If you want to understand what Nirvana is, do some research on ego death, it is the same thing.
Consciousness (vinnana) is the bare awareness of sense data and ideas. The arising of sensory-consciousness is said to be dependent upon the meeting of one of the six sense-organs (salayatana) and its corresponding object. The process of seeing, for example, is described as a conditional process where "dependent on eye and visible forms, eye-consciousness arises" (SN 12.43).
As for nibbana being the annihilation of consciousness after death, that's how some people interpret the term anupadises-nibbana-dhatu (nibbana element with no fuel remaining) in Iti 44 — as well as the line, "With the cessation of consciousness each is here brought to an end" from DN 11 — but that's certainly not how it's understood by everyone.
In The Mind Like Fire Unbound, for example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes that, "This experience of the goal — absolutely unlimited freedom, beyond classification and exclusive of all else — is termed the elemental nibbana property with no 'fuel' remaining (anupadisesa-nibbana-dhatu)."
He also points to the term vinnanam-anidassanam (consciousness without feature) in DN 11, and notes that this consciousness, not "partaking the allness of the all," doesn't come under the aggregate of consciousness because it stands outside of space and time. As such, it is a type of awareness that is "not harmed by death."
So while some Theravadins describe nibbana as the end of all consciousness, stressing the cessation aspect of nibbana, others describe nibbana as a state of purified awareness and stress its transcendent aspect.
I am not really good at this but here goes: The thought that "it is annihilation" sounds like a presumption of a self or an ego. Buddhism focuses on eliminating the ego concept. Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance causes suffering which is why we try to eliminate ignorance and try to see things as they really are: non-self, impermanent and suffering. Once wisdom is achieved it will be the ultimate bliss aka Nirvana. I have never heard "Nirvana is unifying with the universe/existence". Nirvana as I understand is realizing non-self, impermanent and suffering of all things and thus not getting attached to them or insight into the four noble truths. Buddhists refute the belief of an all-mighty God who controls everything. You are in charge of the way you feel and your own destiny. Only you can navigate through the path to enlightenment.
I suggest you read some suttas and other reliable material on the matter and most importantly, start meditating. I am sure you will get reference links form other users
Hey Jason, do you meant to say there are sects who believe Nibbana is not the complete cessation? If not so then why did the Buddha give the popular "flame" simile? I'm confused
When asked where the Buddha would go after death his reply was “he ceases to exist” like the flame when the causes of the flame was removed. Can you say where the flame went when the firewood was removed? No. The flame just ceases to exist because the causes of the fire is no longer there
nirvana: happy to happy not to
consciousness: imagine that!
bubba buddha tole me this under the freeway overpass with all the rest o us bums!
the buddha described consciousness in relation to nirvana: Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around. That doesn't sound like annihilation to me...
Last I checked, me and my neighbor were not interconnected either.
but appleorange why are you denying karma?
anyways theuprising, the best way to answer these questions fully is to sit down day after day, and to rest and be happy.
Karma is cause & effect, friend.
When mind sees "neighbor" as separate, as not separate, as both, as neither, or intentionally disregards neighbor, already there is interconnection.
With metta.
There are 3 very good, very short articles which I suggest reading, called 'Karma'. 'Karma and Growth', and 'Karma Doesn't Explain Anything'
Here:
http://www.unfetteredmind.com/articles/index.php
Kind regards,
Dazzle
.
first you must understand that consciousness is derived in the domain of relative truth.
whereas nirvana is dwell in the domain of absolute truth.
They are not talking in the same plane of the reality.
when you observed the four dharma seals of impermance, non-self , suffering and nirvana .
the first three seals ( impermance, non-self , suffering ) are refering to the realm of relative truth, but the fourth seal ( nirvana ) is refering to the realm of absolute truth .
certainly Nikaya teaching deal alots of the first three seals , but Mahayana teaching do touch alot in the fourth seal.
Suggest reading : the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra - it deal on alot on nirvana
Yes, especially some within the Thai Forest Tradition. As Thanissaro likes to say, Buddhism isn't spiritual suicide. For his take on the flame imagery throughout the Canon, I suggest reading Mind Like Fire Unbound.
As for which view is right, however, I can't say. Perhaps consciousness is purely a conditional phenomenon with nothing else underlying it. Perhaps consciousness is something that is fundamental to the basic structure of the universe. Perhaps there is a separate type of consciousness that doesn't partake of any of the six senses or their objects. For me, the jury is still out on this one.
This is all fine and dandy but.... what the hey.:tonguec:
These are very good questions, and I can see you are trying very hard to understand what the answers might be. But these the answers are not going to found through intellectual questioning, nor understood through intellect.
- No, it does not seem that freedom from suffering is annihilation.
- I don't think achieving Nirvana is unifying with the universe, but I haven't achieved Nirvana yet, so I could be wrong.
-The presence or absence of God is irrelevant to the practice of Buddhism, because no one/no power can give you enlightenment ... it is achieved through our own efforts.
- "Consciousness" is only our own little limited mind ... that which is writing these answers, that which is reading them.
But if you want to REALLY understand the answers, you will find them through your practice, done as your teacher instructs you. Over time, you will start to see glimmers of your answers, which become stronger with time. The answer to what Nirvana actually is will be our last answer!
Personally, I used to lean towards the classical position that all consciousness ceases at death, but now I tend to lean more towards the view that there is a type of consciousness that lies outside of space and time. The imagery of consciousness that "does not land or increase" mentioned in SN 12.64 does seems to support such a possibility, as does various other passages throughout the Canon.
Thanks Jason I'll go through the link during the weekend.
Well as you say you never know for sure but I believe that an arahant just ceases to exist after death. The idea that there is some other place or some other form for the consciousness seems just wishful thinking. You know, we are so attached to existence that we like to think something is out there even after the death of an arahant. But you never know ...
I think there are problems with the idea of seeking the cessation of consciousness as well. As for the absurdity of consciousness without an object, the consciousness of nibbana is said to have the deathless (amata) as it's object. For example, there is this passage from MN 64:
What, Jason, do you think of this notion of entering contemplation of the deathless and forgetting you entered? What do you think of this subtle dualistic state? What is it to you? Non suffering, you bet. Ultimate realization? Is that what you are describing Jason? I'm asking sincerely. Is that really the ultimate realization in Theravadin Buddhism?
Sorry, Richard, but I don't really understand what you're asking here. It's a little over my head, I guess.
first , 'unifying with the universe/existence' does not need to have any element of any artifical concept of 'God' or 'Brahman'. as in Buddhism it just means our life is in rhythm in the same pulse with the universal principle ( inpersonal natural Law , Dharma )
second - 'pantheistic' means everything in the phenomena are part of this divine universal principle , including you and me, the spark of dust, the cloud , the mountain and the wild flower ....
Sorry, amigo, but I'm still lost. Can you be a little more specific?
Also, this is just one interpretation of certain terms and passage found throughout the Canon—I never said it represented all of Theravada. You can hold whatever view of nibbana you like. There's plenty to go around.
And I don't know consciousness seems interesting, emptiness is the statement that everything is relative, maybe because one's individual consciousness changes reality? In quantum physics, the observer plays a crucial role, as an electron has a different position depending on how you look at it, unlike all other sciences where the observer is just there to observe and not intervene.
Richard, I like to share with you the doctrine of five false view from the Indian Mahayana master Dharmapala ( 530-561 ) on his commentary to bodhisattva Vasubandhu's Yogachara work - it is compiled as known as The Treastise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only Doctrine.
Here he listed five false views seem from Buddhist perspective :
i) Though the mind and body are no more than a temporary union of the five aggregates ( components ) , one regards them as possessing a self that is absolute ; and though nothing in in the universe can belong to an individual, one views one's mind and body as one's own possession.
ii) the belief in one of two extremes concerning existence: that life ends with death, or that life persists after death in some eternal and unchanging form.
iii) deniel of the law of cause and effect.
iv) adhering to misconception and viewing them as truth.
v) viewing erroneus practices or precepts as the correct way to enlightenment
-SGID
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
I also do not buy into the concept of bhavanga-citta. My thinking is that purified, luminous citta is the same as amala and is the goal of cultivating the mind. From what I have seen, the Buddha talked about awakening as both Nibbana {unbinding} and Vishuddha {purification}. I see those as two words for the same thing. The former is waking up 'from' samsaric delusion, the afflictions, four distortions, the five veils, obsessions, outflows, and so on. The latter is waking up, or awakening, 'to' the Buddha Nature & the Four Innate Virtues {see Mahayana Nirvana Sutra}; death-less-ness and self-less-ness; or luminous citta & the unborn, non-arisen, uncreated, and uncompounded. I am a bit more confident on this part.
One other thing, I am not sure cessation is the best translation of Nirodha. I have heard that rhoda means prison or confinement. I think ni- is similar in use to ex-, as in export, meaning 'out of.' So nirodha is like breaking out of jail; it is like mukti or moksha; a liberation?
Just some thoughts ...
Hi bob, not ready , from the general Mahayana point of view for the last 2000 years , both of the schools are accacpted as valid Buddhist view and accepted into the mahayana canon.
It is only from their standpoint of perspective which are different .
i) for Madhyamika school, their view came from the absolute truth to the reality
ii) for Yogocara school, the are formerly Nikayan realist school ( based on relative truth ) but converted into Mahayana , their bridging and transformation doctrine is base on consciousness doctrine - which by itself still based on relative truth
both of them are approaching to the same aspect of the Reality , but they are based from different starting perspective.
i) Madhyamika approaching it from the absolute truth
ii) Yogocara approaching it from the relative truth ( similar to Nikayan teaching in ancient Indian school at that time )
iii) Tathagata-garbha school ( mainly influence in East Asian Buddhism on the doctrine of buddha nature - to Zen/Chan, Tientai/Tendai/Nichiren, Huayan, Shingon etc ) approaching it from the Ultimate truth ( truth of the middle-way )
as for your quesstion of definitive authority on Buddhism ?
All their teaching result in our human history has proven that they are effective vehicle, they have able to spread the Buddha Dharma to all different lands and culture, making Buddha Dharma a univerval world teaching , and have produced many enlightened teachers and masters in the last 2000 years
Hi Bro Robby , I would agreed with the later Yogacara masters that divided the Alaya consciouosness into two, one the defiled Alaya and the pure Alaya .
Hence this pure Alaya conciousness would be standalone by definition as the Alama consciouenss ( 9th Consciousness in the Yogacara-Tathagata-garbha hybrid doctrine .)
Well Richard , then please explains how to define when the realm of pure illuminate awareness , when both the subject and object are in non-duality realm ( suyatta )
there are no longer the false self of 'you'
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Well, if one cannot explain , one cannot teach , it is like unable to gave direction to a group of students to their destination , and do not provide them any map and compass to follow
So at time the mediation teacher himself /herself do not know how he arrived to that level of cultivation , and unable to validate if he is progressing correctly ?
hence the Tientai -Lotus school stress both important in Buddhist doctrinal study and Buddhist practice ( mediation, chanting )
In this way of perfect good balance, the practitioner could check himself in his wisdom obtained and could clearly give good Buddhist guildance to other according to the Mahayana canon
This only could fulfill the role of Bodhisattva in training, and help the Buddha ( teacher ) to turn the Dharma wheel
"Luminous, monks, is citta. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is citta-bhavana." {I,vi,2
My referent is the statement 'Here he listed five false views seem from the Buddhist perspective.' The question is, 'Is this the Buddhist perspective or Dharmapala's view of the Buddhadharma? Which has been questioned by others.
My wish is that there be clarity about whose view is being presented, not necessarily that it isn't helpful to some.
Richard, I imagine you as correct also - words/labels are the philosophers realm, direct knowing, beyond words/labels, the Zen practitioners. I imagine this as the difference here.
It's all good!
It is said that the Buddha preached this with regard to the first experience of the pure citta aka the thing called nimitta we perceive in deep meditation when all five sensory indulgences are abandoned. "Luminous, monks, is citta" tallies well with the description of the nimitta.
One meaning of alaya is accumulation. Citta comes from the verbal root, cit; which means 'to accumulate.' The late Venerable Rahula Walplola also regarded the alaya of mahayana as the same as the citta of Theravada.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind."
Mind here, iirc, is Citta 心 -- not mano-vijnana. Development, I think is Bhavana 修行. 'Development of the mind.' could be translated as 'spiritual cultivation.' This uncultivated mind, sullied by kilesas and so on, could be alaya.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}
This cultivated citta, freed from the prison of afflictions, could be amala. My understanding is that amala is a cognate of immaculate. Amala and vimala could be near synonyms of vishuddha.
My view is that academic understanding, which I would say is vidya 明 or objective wisdom, is neither a requirement for nor an impediment to jnana /gnosis or direct knowing.
Would this be the counter-sign, which is mental 'imagery;' there is form, but it is intangible; there is no sensory contact with the external sign or symbol? I am just now learning those terminologies. It is easier to remember the words if I first understand the concept.
BTW, even though I use the word "I" that is not intended to imply an eternal soul.
I will be interested if some Mahayana practitioners / teachers rejected this 5 false view , and what they backup themselve with ...
Dear ansanna,
Is the 'Buddhist perspective' only Mahayana?
I'll respond to your interest, to the best of my poor ability, when I have more time to do the research/contemplation needed to respond correctly. Probably over the weekend.
Theravadin do not take reference with the Mahayana canon.
but as said the Yogacara school , they are formerly Nikayan school in India mainland , hence they shared many of the root with our Theravadin counterpart
Would it be correct to identify the specific source of a quoted point of view?
i.e. Mahayana, Theravada, etc.
So, we avoid contributing to errant thinking, as much as we can.
I do understand in the west , practitioners are lesser familiar to Mahayana treastise , as they are more familiar from the background of Theravadin and Zen , Hence I took the purpose to introduce them here