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 the difference between nihilism and the teaching of nirvana?
As asked in the title, my question is what separates the concept of nihilism from the teaching of nirvana?
I am not Buddhist (or anything, really, when it comes to religion) but this question has bothered me for quite some time. I'm curious if anyone has some insights that would help.
I am not Buddhist (or anything, really, when it comes to religion) but this question has bothered me for quite some time. I'm curious if anyone has some insights that would help.
0
Comments
The Buddha taught anatta, not-self--that there's no permanent thing fit to be clung to as "self." This teaching is related to -dukkha-.
In MN 22 the Buddha addresses this very thing:
"37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist38 is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'39
"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering."
Guide me if I misunderstand..
As I understand it, nihilism teaches that nothing matters, and consequently there is no such thing as moral judgment or any consequences save on the most basic, physical level.
The heart of your reply seems to lie in the quote "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering." I understand this to mean the Buddha's intent is not to deny meaning, but rather how to escape the cycle of suffering that reincarnation brings about. Where I struggle with this concept is that the teaching of nirvana seeks to avoid pain, rather than learn from it. I have difficulty resolving that intent with the other teachings of Buddha.
On another note, is 'nibbana' a more correct translation of nirvana, and the latter is simply the westernization of the pronunciation?
The only thing I have learnt from suffering so far is that I need to end suffering
This might help you get things clarified:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm
Nirvana (Sanskrit) or Nibbana (Pali) is the cessation of suffering, but it doesn't seek to avoid anything.... Nibbana is the transcendence of everything transitory and impermanent. it is a state of being - or non-being.... it is the zenith of consciousness and the fruition of the end of kamma (Pali) or Karma (Sanskrit).
It's impossible to describe, but it is ultimate serene bliss and all-acceptance....I'm having a hard time putting it into words, because it is the ultimate 'beyond-enlightenment' Buddhists strive for, but it's just as it is, with no description able to encompass it. It is.
PALI - - - - - - SANSKRIT
Nibbana - - - - - Nirvana
Kamma - - - - - Karma
Sutta - - - - - Sutra
Dhamma - - - - - Dharma
Metta - - - - - - Maitri
I'm sure there will be others.....
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "nothing matters" and "no such thing as moral judgement," and explain what gives you this impression?
Buddhism doesn't teach reincarnation. Some Buddhists teach rebirth, but this is not a core teaching, and it's taught and understood in many different ways. The Buddha taught freedom from dukkha in the here-and-now, not outside of it. Freedom from dukkha isn't annihilation or death.
The Buddha taught the Middle Path. He had taken part in both extremes, of greed and indulgence (life in as a prince), and aversion and avoidance (life as an ascetic). Neither led to Nibbana. Both were full of clinging.
Dukkha does not mean "pain." It's a mental dis-ease that results from clinging, and living outside the present moment. I think that same sutta explains it quite well:
Now, it's natural to avoid pain... generally it's not a smart idea to go around sticking your hand in fire and such.
When you're angry, be mindful of it, don't cling, don't let it control you. Likewise when you're upset, happy--whatever. All of these things are conditioned, thus characterized by dukkha when misunderstood and clung to. Nibbana is an unconditioned internal peace.
Nibbana is the Pali transliteration while Nirvana is Sanskrit.
So we do learn from the suffering. Actually if you are suffering it is a great opportunity to learn the nature of suffering and enter the first noble truth.
In Mahayana one never enters Nirvana without remainder, as Nirvana is realize as not other than the bodymind and world.
Happy to feel pain because we are actually alive to feel pain and it may let us know when something's not right.
Happy not to feel pain - this is pretty self-explanatory.
I like this because I imagine this as a way to simply understand/know what the Buddha taught as the state of tranquil equipoise or equanimity, which is the basis and result of Niravana.
;-)
Nihilism fits annihilation. Nirvana fits freedom. :P
Nibbana is peace, joy, equilibrium and natural compassion.
Nihilism is as I understand it just another concept, another play within ego's world.
Best wishes,
Abu
As long as they remain unrealised by you, they are equally both concepts.
The Zen people talk about having a thorn in the flesh, To remove it we use another thorn and then throw both thorns away.
Ideas like Nirvana are the thorns that we use to motivate the process of removing the thorn of Dukkha.
Nihilism is a idea that says that the removal of the thorn of Dukkha is impossible. That in fact there is no meaning.
If there's no self then why do we suffer?
P
Because of the illusion of self?
There is a self. Its just not permanent , it has no permanent component, and it only exists dependantly on the arising of certain conditions.
Good point... I was always confident with the idea of a 'temporary changing self' which is the 'being' I am, moment-by-moment. This 'self' is a process rather than a subatantial thing, clinging to it only creates a false sense of a stable self, selfishness, and hence suffering.
What the 'anatta doctrine' states, is that, there is no 'permanent and unchanging self' to be found within the Five Aggregates. This is in line with the basic Buddhist view that all phenomena are temporary and constantly changing.
Another thought:
If phenomena are temporary but constantly changing, is that process eternal?
In the Buddhist perspective, questions of this nature are generally considered as ill-formed and misconceived. They are not connected with the goal of the Buddhist Path, namely the cessation of suffering. So it seems that speculation of this kind is best avoided.