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.
It's not his or anyone's job to make an argument that changes your mind.
You are on a Buddhist forum asking questions. Several people are doing the best they can to answer your questions. If you don't like the answers or don't believe the answers, that is your preference and your belief.
that is how it started, but then we started talking about reality and perception, and I think that is something I can talk about with at least some knowledge. Honestly, it wouldn't have gotten into an argument if there weren't claims being made for Buddhism granting you access to "reality", "the real world", and an objective perspective. Look back through the thread. There was no argument until it turned to this (look around where seeker242 first entered the discussion for the dividing line).
I would recommend a well reviewed intro book instead of a forum if you want to pursue answers in much more detail. There is a recommended reading thread around here somewhere if you want recommendations.
I do have a book that I bought, so I will be reading as well, but one problem with a book is the lack of interactivity, hence my presence on this forum.
When the concept is, for instance, "I am a hopeless loser," this differentiation becomes very useful. Without the differentiation, depression leads to "I am a hopeless loser" as an ontological belief about myself. With the differentiation, the "I am a hopeless loser" story becomes a set of physical, emotional and mental experience which I can disidentify from. Then I can take the physical, emotional and mental components apart, watch them support and feed each other, and learn to rest as I watch this happen. And in this resting, somehow the whole construct falls apart. (I actually went through this this morning.)
I can totally see this, the ability to understand that our beliefs are not necessarily tied to our experience, but is simply one interpretation (and not necessarily the best one if we are hoping to have a happy life).
I roughly agree with you, but I would say that all we have to go on is perceptions of reality. To say that there is no such thing as reality is itself a kind of ontological statement which is also hard to justify in these terms.
Well, you have me there. Rather, I should have said that there is no way of knowing reality as distinct from ourselves. On the other hand, of course there is reality, a reality you and I experience every day. Even if we disagree on all that pertains to that reality, it makes it no less real to us. It is any attempt at divorcing reality from our perceptions that gives me problems, since something can't be real unless it is real to someone. To try and talk about the reality of something without talking about the observer for whom it is real is not false so much as incoherent.
I roughly agree with you, but I would say that all we have to go on is perceptions of reality. To say that there is no such thing as reality is itself a kind of ontological statement which is also hard to justify in these terms.
It assumes an unknowable but none-the-less absolutely real underlying objective reality independent of a subject. No one has ever found an object of awareness without a subject, or a subject without an object, because they are two sides of one coin. That coin is the practice.
I can totally see this, the ability to understand that our beliefs are not necessarily tied to our experience, but is simply one interpretation (and not necessarily the best one if we are hoping to have a happy life).
I don't see much of a difference there. Our behavior is the enactment of our beliefs, and our beliefs are constantly reviewed and updated on the basis of our actions. Our practice is our interpretation.
What I described in the "hopeless loser" post was not a a belief or interpretation, but a mental process which leads to a shifted relationship to a belief.
Sigh, but clearly you don't understand how to read, since that isn't what I was saying.
I can read fine. You asked "what are things as they "really are"?" This can not be told to you by someone else or discovered by thinking about it. Do you want the truth about what the answer entails? It does not seem so. You want thoughts and ideas.
I can read fine. You asked "what are things as they "really are"?" This can not be told to you by someone else or discovered by thinking about it. Do you want the truth about what the answer entails? It does not seem so. You want thoughts and ideas.
Sorry, I've already come to the conclusion that talking with you, at least on this subject, isn't profitable. I'll give it some time and try again when I have a little more mental distance.
That is a belief. The key point is the process I described, which is not a belief.
OK, I understand that point. I think we were just talking past one another, because I don't see us actually disagreeing on what you were saying. Thanks for the explanation.
Sorry, I've already come to the conclusion that talking with you, at least on this subject, isn't profitable. I'll give it some time and try again when I have a little more mental distance.
I agree! Please see my signature.
p.s. It was not my intention to make an argument with you. I apologize if it came across like that. I originally thought you were already a practicing Buddhist. Obviously I was wrong. My apologies.
Sorry, I've already come to the conclusion that talking with you, at least on this subject, isn't profitable. I'll give it some time and try again when I have a little more mental distance.
Shouldn't be indulged. We all have our moment online, arrogant maybe and opinionated, but this takes the cake.
I suppose one could try, and perhaps even succeed in experiencing sensations without concepts, or at least differentiating between the experience and the concepts we apply to it
since you guess there is a possibility, why do not you try and see for yourself?
, but then my question would be why would you want to do that?
after the experience, there will be no more 'Why?'
It doesn't seem to me that it would give you any insight, in fact, all I can tell that it would do is completely shut down any understanding.
Sad Clown, Anyone who posts arrogant crap like this....
Shouldn't be indulged. We all have our moment online, arrogant maybe and opinionated, but this takes the cake.
Sorry you didn't like that. I suppose I could have gotten into an argument with him, but I thought it better to tell him it wasn't working and that I would try again later when I wasn't as annoyed.
since you guess there is a possibility, why do not you try and see for yourself?
Because I have strong doubts about its utility, as you noted.
after the experience, there will be no more 'Why?'
But I don't see that as a reason to try it. It sounds like someone trying to sell me drugs.
this is your belief, but you are not sure of it
Sorry, but that isn't unique. I lack certainty in all sorts of things. But that doesn't mean I am suddenly going to try being a Hindu or follow shintois, because I think there is an insufficiently high probability for their truth claims and so see no reason to further invest myself in them. I might try the meditation suggestion a few posts up, but I already have my doubts. I am skeptical about all religious claims, and while this might make it more difficult to convince me about Buddhisms claims, on the bright side, at least I am open to them since I am not committed to some other ideology.
How about "enlightenment" as simple as realizing that any attempt to understand and conceptualize it is unsatisfactory - and acceptance of that fact - thereby moving toward an obscure enlightenment without any real expectation.....
And nirvana as awakening from the dream of being into not being.......
How about "enlightenment" as simple as realizing that any attempt to understand and conceptualize it is unsatisfactory - and acceptance of that fact - thereby moving toward an obscure enlightenment without any real expectation.....
Well, my question was a little more specific than simply "what is enlightenment?" But more to your point, if I am unsatisfied with attempts at explaining it, why would I then move towards it?
And nirvana as awakening from the dream of being into not being.......
But what if I like being. It seems preferable to me than not being. At the very least, if I am, then I can have a preferences like this, but if I am not, then that is not an option.
Enlightenment and nirvana in a stripped down sense have nothing to do with liking or disliking what is satisfactory or unsatisfactory as a preference. Preference is irrelevant. It is a manifestation of dualistic thinking. Thinking is the millstone around our neck. Observing the states of like and dislike, satisfactory and unsatisfactory intelligently from an unaffected state by an unaffected observant original self moves one towards enlightenment. Liking being is fine if that is what one limit's oneself to. Not being is within being. It is threatening to the mind that clings to being. Form and formlessness cannot be separated by preference, only ignored, temporarily.
Sorry you didn't like that. I suppose I could have gotten into an argument with him, but I thought it better to tell him it wasn't working and that I would try again later when I wasn't as annoyed.
A more tactful approach is to put it on the relationship instead of on the other person. "I think we've gone about as far as we can, at this stage. We're just going around in circles, now." Or something like that.
But what if I like being. It seems preferable to me than not being. At the very least, if I am, then I can have a preferences like this, but if I am not, then that is not an option.
But eventually, that option (of being) is going to be forcibly taken from you and there is nothing you can do about that. Are you OK with that?
I don't think that is the only thing threatened by not being, like my existence.
Your existence is also going to be forcibly taken from you one day. In fact, everything that you like is going to be forcibly taken from you one day. Would that be OK with you? Some people say "sure, I could handle that" But when it actually starts to happen, they usually feel quite different about it. Furthermore, that day could easily be today and for thousands of people, that day will be today. Even though they thought it would be some day far away in the future. Surprise! It's today are you ready for it. For most of those people, the answer is a resounding NO!!! I'M NOT READY!!! OMG (enter panic mode) The sad thing is, they will never be ready.
Well, my question was a little more specific than simply "what is enlightenment?" But more to your point, if I am unsatisfied with attempts at explaining it, why would I then move towards it?
There is no reason to if you are satisfied with what you have right now. However, that satisfaction is not going to last because the things that this satisfaction depends on are not going to last either. And when the things that the satisfaction depends on fall away, the satisfaction goes with them. When the satisfaction is gone, then and only then, would there be a reason to move towards it. However, that is quite difficult to do when you are already dead.
But to answer the OP. Enlightenment and Nirvana would mean the same as they do now because they both are already stripped of karma and rebirth. Karma and rebirth are within, and only within, the realm of Samsara. Nirvana is outside the realm of Samsara so it would not be any different.
But eventually, that option (of being) is going to be forcibly taken from you and there is nothing you can do about that. Are you OK with that?
Yes, I am ok with it. As you said, it's going to happen, nothing I can do about it. I might as well get angry with the Sun for rising.
Your existence is also going to be forcibly taken from you one day. In fact, everything that you like is going to be forcibly taken from you one day. Would that be OK with you? Some people say "sure, I could handle that" But when it actually starts to happen, they usually feel quite different about it. Furthermore, that day could easily be today and for thousands of people, that day will be today. Even though they thought it would be some day far away in the future. Surprise! It's today are you ready for it. For most of those people, the answer is a resounding NO!!! I'M NOT READY!!! OMG (enter panic mode) The sad thing is, they will never be ready.
It depends on the circumstances. I'm not going to just throw my life away, if a mugger has a knife and threatens to kill me, I'll take actions to preserve my life, but if it is inevitable, then I'm pretty good at accepting what I can't change. But if I have being now, why would I want to relinquish it as long as I do have a choice? As I said, so far in my life, it seems better to be than to not be, all things considered.
There is no reason to if you are satisfied with what you have right now. However, that satisfaction is not going to last because the things that this satisfaction depends on are not going to last either. And when the things that the satisfaction depends on fall away, the satisfaction goes with them. When the satisfaction is gone, then and only then, would there be a reason to move towards it. However, that is quite difficult to do when you are already dead.
Sure, the things I find satisfaction in now may not last, but then I'll just have to find something else to be satisfied in. I don't mind there being transitions in life. In fact, it seems that change is a big part of life. Also, if I am dead, what do I have to worry about? I won't be anymore, so there wouldn't be a me there to be unsatisfied.
Your existence is also going to be forcibly taken from you one day. In fact, everything that you like is going to be forcibly taken from you one day. Would that be OK with you? Some people say "sure, I could handle that" But when it actually starts to happen, they usually feel quite different about it.
I know that I certainly felt that I was ready for that, until one day when I started having scary heart palpitations that felt like my heart was going to stop. It was unbelievably frightening to feel so alive one moment and the next feel like you're about to pass from this life.
A little off-topic, but I wanted to share that experience. I don't have much to contribute to the enlightenment debate, as it's not something I think I can adequately explain in a way that makes sense.
But if I have being now, why would I want to relinquish it as long as I do have a choice? As I said, so far in my life, it seems better to be than to not be, all things considered.
No reason to. However, it is false to assume that one "ceases to be" when they get enlightenment IMO. However, at the same time, it would be true to say that one does also. That is the paradox that our logical minds simply can not fathom. Logic and reason do not like paradox! They simply don't know what to do with it. But then again, it all depends on what your definition of the words "one, I, me" is. The Buddha spoke in depth about this with his teaching of Anatta Have you ever heard of it? You might find it interesting. It essentially states that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense, thoughts, feelings etc.) are not really "I" or "me" and it is delusion to think that they are.
However, that may lead one to conclude that there is nothing left to experience anything in life, etc. after the realization that this is true. However, if that is the case, then It would not be possible to experience the below which is one of the Buddha's descriptions of Nirvana.
Total ease, complete calm, absolute stillness, safe freedom, perfect happiness & pure peace…
Absence of any uncertainty, any doubt, any confusion, any delusion & all ignorance…
Presence of confidence, cleared certainty, understanding all, and direct experience…
Absence of any greed, lust, desire, urge, attraction, hunger, temptation and pull…
Presence of imperturbable indifference, serene composure & all stilled equanimity…
Absence of any hate, anger, aversion, hostility, irritation, & stubborn rigidity…
Presence of universal goodwill, infinite friendliness, all-embracing & boundless kindness…
Not a place, not an idea, not a fantasy, not a deception, not a conceit, not a conception…
Not a cause, not an effect, not finite, not definable, not formed, not changing, but eternal…
Unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncreated, uncaused, unconditioned & unconstructed, yet real…
Obviously, if one no longer existed, one would not be able to experience the complete calmness, perfect happiness, confidence, etc. or exhibit universal goodwill, infinite friendliness and kindness, etc. but they do .
So technically, it would be most correct to say that one neither ceases to exist nor not ceases to exist upon entering Nirvava. The reason is because both these views stem from a realm of duality while Nirvana is the realm of non-duality. But our dualistic, logical and reasoning mind simply can not comprehend such a thing to be accurate. It needs to have one or the other in order to maintain it's sanity. It simply can't accept the concept of "both and neither" at the same time.
But all this is just my view of it. If anyone reading this sees something that is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. But, be nice about it!
Sure, the things I find satisfaction in now may not last, but then I'll just have to find something else to be satisfied in.
And that right there is the conundrum. Always needing something in order to be satisfied and when that satisfaction fades, the endless and continual search for something else to take it's place again and again and again. With some people, mostly the ones that have resolved to attain this enlightenment, they have been though this same scenario. What has happened it that they have done this search over and over and over and over and over and the end result is always the same, unsatisfactory. There comes a point when they have exhausted all possibilities for satisfaction and still have not found it. In other words, they have turned over the very last stone and it's not under there either. When there are no more stones to turn over, so to speak, this is usually when one turns to something like enlightenment, etc.
Also, if I am dead, what do I have to worry about? I won't be anymore, so there wouldn't be a me there to be unsatisfied.
Are you sure? I can't see how one can know this to be true if one has not died yet.
Well, my question was a little more specific than simply "what is enlightenment?" But more to your point, if I am unsatisfied with attempts at explaining it, why would I then move towards it?
A wandering friend once asked the great disciple:
Friend Sariputta, Nibbana, Nibbana is it said!!!
What is this Nibbana ???
The destruction of Greed, the destruction of Hate, & the destruction of Confusion!
This, friend, is called Nibbana …
Why would anyone not want to move toward the destruction greed, hate and confusion?
So technically, it would be most correct to say that one neither ceases to exist nor not ceases to exist upon entering Nirvava. The reason is because both these views stem from a realm of duality while Nirvana is the realm of non-duality. But our dualistic, logical and reasoning mind simply can not comprehend such a thing to be accurate. It needs to have one or the other in order to maintain it's sanity. It simply can't accept the concept of "both and neither" at the same time.
But all this is just my view of it. If anyone reading this sees something that is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. But, be nice about it!
This is essentially the way that I understand it. One part that is difficult for me to understand about the Buddha's description of Nirvana is this:
Not a cause, not an effect, not finite, not definable, not formed, not changing, but eternal
It's sort of like trying to define the undefinable, by saying it is undefinable. It just makes my head spin :eek2:
And that right there is the conundrum. Always needing something in order to be satisfied and when that satisfaction fades, the endless and continual search for something else to take it's place again and again and again. With some people, mostly the ones that have resolved to attain this enlightenment, they have been though this same scenario. What has happened it that they have done this search over and over and over and over and over and the end result is always the same, unsatisfactory. There comes a point when they have exhausted all possibilities for satisfaction and still have not found it. In other words, they have turned over the very last stone and it's not under there either. When there are no more stones to turn over, so to speak, this is usually when one turns to something like enlightenment, etc.
But I am currently satisfied. And I suspect I can be satisfied with other things as well. I didn't say I am always needing something new to be satisfied. I just answered you that if what I was currently satisfied with was taken, then I would find something else to be satisfied with.
Are you sure? I can't see how one can know this to be true if one has not died yet.
It seems like the most likely outcome. If it turns out otherwise, I'll deal with it then. But heck, if I went around basing my actions on what will happen after death, I'd be screwed, since I could go to hell for not being a Christian and go to hell for not being a Muslim. So, I could freak out over the multiplicity of possibilities, or just go with what seems most likely and relax.
Why would anyone not want to move toward the destruction greed, hate and confusion?
Because, I'm not going to eat a barrel of chocolate ice cream just because someone tells me that eternal bliss will be found at the bottom of it. You weren't telling me to move towards destroying greed, hate and confusion, you were telling me how to do it, and so I have to evaluate the method, and not just the goals. Heck, I can try the whole no greed, hate, and confusion thing on my own, without Buddhism.
Hi sad clown. You are correct I did not like it, but that was then. I think you did not intend to be rude, you were just speaking from where you are at in an direct and socially non-tuned kind of way. We all do it sometimes....
The thing about Dukkha and practicing Buddhism is that Dukkha must be felt, it is experiential. So if you do not feel it, it aint there, period. No one can say you are suffering and disatisfied if you dont feel that way. This is why I said that Buddhism may not be for you, because you may simply feel you don't need what it offers. It is wrong for any Buddhist to say "you are suffering and you just can't see it" I've heard that from people and it is evangelical crappola. There are people who connect with the experience of Dukkha in a very serious way, begin practice, open the pandoras box of meditation, then leave often to be haunted by Dukkha. You are not that.
Thanks Richard. I didn't want to repulse you (ugh, can't think of another word at the moment), since I had appreciated your comments beforehand.
I'm going to try and do some reading. What I really came here for is to better understand the Buddhist perspective (or perspectives, as the case seems to be). I know my own biases are Western philosophically, and I'd like to at least try not so much break out of this box, but be aware of its perimeters, and perhaps expand them a bit.
I might try the meditation suggestion a few posts up
you never will be regretted, i assure you
, but I already have my doubts.
I am skeptical about all religious claims, and while this might make it more difficult to convince me about Buddhisms claims
this is normal
some of us have our doubt at the moment
or
had our doubt before:)
, on the bright side, at least I am open to them since I am not committed to some other ideology.
\ I know my own biases are Western philosophically, and I'd like to at least try not so much break out of this box, but be aware of its perimeters, and perhaps expand them a bit.
Keep in mind that Buddhism is most useful as a practice, not a philosophy in the modern sense. (Maybe it's a philosophy in the sense the pre-Socratics meant.) The ideas in Buddhist philosophy don't make a whole lot of sense outside of the practice they arise from.
But I am currently satisfied. And I suspect I can be satisfied with other things as well. I didn't say I am always needing something new to be satisfied. I just answered you that if what I was currently satisfied with was taken, then I would find something else to be satisfied with.
I understand you are currently satisfied and I would say that you probably would be satisfied with something else if what you have now was taken. What I was trying to get at was why the desire to "get enlightenment" occurs with people that it occurs with. It's the unsatisfactoriness about worldly things and wordy phenomena that brings it about. But of course, if one does not feel this unsatisfactoriness, the desire naturally does not arise, as is the case with yourself. Which is not good or bad necessarily, it just is.
Because, I'm not going to eat a barrel of chocolate ice cream just because someone tells me that eternal bliss will be found at the bottom of it. You weren't telling me to move towards destroying greed, hate and confusion, you were telling me how to do it, and so I have to evaluate the method, and not just the goals.
Yes, I originally made the mistake and assumed that you were already trying to do it, my mistake.
Heck, I can try the whole no greed, hate, and confusion thing on my own, without Buddhism.
I would agree you could. I could not take this view myself as I would see it as "reinventing the wheel", so to speak. But obviously, that is not the case with everyone.
Comments
I do have a book that I bought, so I will be reading as well, but one problem with a book is the lack of interactivity, hence my presence on this forum.
Well, you have me there. Rather, I should have said that there is no way of knowing reality as distinct from ourselves. On the other hand, of course there is reality, a reality you and I experience every day. Even if we disagree on all that pertains to that reality, it makes it no less real to us. It is any attempt at divorcing reality from our perceptions that gives me problems, since something can't be real unless it is real to someone. To try and talk about the reality of something without talking about the observer for whom it is real is not false so much as incoherent.
It's not an interpretation, it's a practice.
I can read fine. You asked "what are things as they "really are"?" This can not be told to you by someone else or discovered by thinking about it. Do you want the truth about what the answer entails? It does not seem so. You want thoughts and ideas.
You might enjoy this video, or maybe not.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLQD90Las5c
This one is good too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3WwS07wbJ0
I agree! Please see my signature.
p.s. It was not my intention to make an argument with you. I apologize if it came across like that. I originally thought you were already a practicing Buddhist. Obviously I was wrong. My apologies.
Shouldn't be indulged. We all have our moment online, arrogant maybe and opinionated, but this takes the cake.
after the experience, there will be no more 'Why?'
this is your belief, but you are not sure of it
But I don't see that as a reason to try it. It sounds like someone trying to sell me drugs.
Sorry, but that isn't unique. I lack certainty in all sorts of things. But that doesn't mean I am suddenly going to try being a Hindu or follow shintois, because I think there is an insufficiently high probability for their truth claims and so see no reason to further invest myself in them. I might try the meditation suggestion a few posts up, but I already have my doubts. I am skeptical about all religious claims, and while this might make it more difficult to convince me about Buddhisms claims, on the bright side, at least I am open to them since I am not committed to some other ideology.
And nirvana as awakening from the dream of being into not being.......
But what if I like being. It seems preferable to me than not being. At the very least, if I am, then I can have a preferences like this, but if I am not, then that is not an option.
Whose neck? I actually enjoy thinking.
I don't think that is the only thing threatened by not being, like my existence.
A more tactful approach is to put it on the relationship instead of on the other person. "I think we've gone about as far as we can, at this stage. We're just going around in circles, now." Or something like that.
But eventually, that option (of being) is going to be forcibly taken from you and there is nothing you can do about that. Are you OK with that?
Your existence is also going to be forcibly taken from you one day. In fact, everything that you like is going to be forcibly taken from you one day. Would that be OK with you? Some people say "sure, I could handle that" But when it actually starts to happen, they usually feel quite different about it. Furthermore, that day could easily be today and for thousands of people, that day will be today. Even though they thought it would be some day far away in the future. Surprise! It's today are you ready for it. For most of those people, the answer is a resounding NO!!! I'M NOT READY!!! OMG (enter panic mode) The sad thing is, they will never be ready.
There is no reason to if you are satisfied with what you have right now. However, that satisfaction is not going to last because the things that this satisfaction depends on are not going to last either. And when the things that the satisfaction depends on fall away, the satisfaction goes with them. When the satisfaction is gone, then and only then, would there be a reason to move towards it. However, that is quite difficult to do when you are already dead.
But to answer the OP. Enlightenment and Nirvana would mean the same as they do now because they both are already stripped of karma and rebirth. Karma and rebirth are within, and only within, the realm of Samsara. Nirvana is outside the realm of Samsara so it would not be any different.
It depends on the circumstances. I'm not going to just throw my life away, if a mugger has a knife and threatens to kill me, I'll take actions to preserve my life, but if it is inevitable, then I'm pretty good at accepting what I can't change. But if I have being now, why would I want to relinquish it as long as I do have a choice? As I said, so far in my life, it seems better to be than to not be, all things considered.
Sure, the things I find satisfaction in now may not last, but then I'll just have to find something else to be satisfied in. I don't mind there being transitions in life. In fact, it seems that change is a big part of life. Also, if I am dead, what do I have to worry about? I won't be anymore, so there wouldn't be a me there to be unsatisfied.
I know that I certainly felt that I was ready for that, until one day when I started having scary heart palpitations that felt like my heart was going to stop. It was unbelievably frightening to feel so alive one moment and the next feel like you're about to pass from this life.
A little off-topic, but I wanted to share that experience. I don't have much to contribute to the enlightenment debate, as it's not something I think I can adequately explain in a way that makes sense.
No reason to.
However, that may lead one to conclude that there is nothing left to experience anything in life, etc. after the realization that this is true. However, if that is the case, then It would not be possible to experience the below which is one of the Buddha's descriptions of Nirvana.
Total ease, complete calm, absolute stillness, safe freedom, perfect happiness & pure peace…
Absence of any uncertainty, any doubt, any confusion, any delusion & all ignorance…
Presence of confidence, cleared certainty, understanding all, and direct experience…
Absence of any greed, lust, desire, urge, attraction, hunger, temptation and pull…
Presence of imperturbable indifference, serene composure & all stilled equanimity…
Absence of any hate, anger, aversion, hostility, irritation, & stubborn rigidity…
Presence of universal goodwill, infinite friendliness, all-embracing & boundless kindness…
Not a place, not an idea, not a fantasy, not a deception, not a conceit, not a conception…
Not a cause, not an effect, not finite, not definable, not formed, not changing, but eternal…
Unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncreated, uncaused, unconditioned & unconstructed, yet real…
Obviously, if one no longer existed, one would not be able to experience the complete calmness, perfect happiness, confidence, etc. or exhibit universal goodwill, infinite friendliness and kindness, etc. but they do .
So technically, it would be most correct to say that one neither ceases to exist nor not ceases to exist upon entering Nirvava. The reason is because both these views stem from a realm of duality while Nirvana is the realm of non-duality. But our dualistic, logical and reasoning mind simply can not comprehend such a thing to be accurate. It needs to have one or the other in order to maintain it's sanity. It simply can't accept the concept of "both and neither" at the same time.
But all this is just my view of it. If anyone reading this sees something that is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. But, be nice about it!
And that right there is the conundrum. Always needing something in order to be satisfied and when that satisfaction fades, the endless and continual search for something else to take it's place again and again and again. With some people, mostly the ones that have resolved to attain this enlightenment, they have been though this same scenario. What has happened it that they have done this search over and over and over and over and over and the end result is always the same, unsatisfactory. There comes a point when they have exhausted all possibilities for satisfaction and still have not found it. In other words, they have turned over the very last stone and it's not under there either. When there are no more stones to turn over, so to speak, this is usually when one turns to something like enlightenment, etc.
Are you sure? I can't see how one can know this to be true if one has not died yet.
A wandering friend once asked the great disciple:
Friend Sariputta, Nibbana, Nibbana is it said!!!
What is this Nibbana ???
The destruction of Greed, the destruction of Hate, & the destruction of Confusion!
This, friend, is called Nibbana …
Why would anyone not want to move toward the destruction greed, hate and confusion?
This is essentially the way that I understand it. One part that is difficult for me to understand about the Buddha's description of Nirvana is this:
It's sort of like trying to define the undefinable, by saying it is undefinable. It just makes my head spin :eek2:
It seems like the most likely outcome. If it turns out otherwise, I'll deal with it then. But heck, if I went around basing my actions on what will happen after death, I'd be screwed, since I could go to hell for not being a Christian and go to hell for not being a Muslim. So, I could freak out over the multiplicity of possibilities, or just go with what seems most likely and relax.
Because, I'm not going to eat a barrel of chocolate ice cream just because someone tells me that eternal bliss will be found at the bottom of it. You weren't telling me to move towards destroying greed, hate and confusion, you were telling me how to do it, and so I have to evaluate the method, and not just the goals. Heck, I can try the whole no greed, hate, and confusion thing on my own, without Buddhism.
The thing about Dukkha and practicing Buddhism is that Dukkha must be felt, it is experiential. So if you do not feel it, it aint there, period. No one can say you are suffering and disatisfied if you dont feel that way. This is why I said that Buddhism may not be for you, because you may simply feel you don't need what it offers. It is wrong for any Buddhist to say "you are suffering and you just can't see it" I've heard that from people and it is evangelical crappola. There are people who connect with the experience of Dukkha in a very serious way, begin practice, open the pandoras box of meditation, then leave often to be haunted by Dukkha. You are not that.
I'm going to try and do some reading. What I really came here for is to better understand the Buddhist perspective (or perspectives, as the case seems to be). I know my own biases are Western philosophically, and I'd like to at least try not so much break out of this box, but be aware of its perimeters, and perhaps expand them a bit.
this is normal
some of us have our doubt at the moment
or
had our doubt before:)
good on you:)
Keep in mind that Buddhism is most useful as a practice, not a philosophy in the modern sense. (Maybe it's a philosophy in the sense the pre-Socratics meant.) The ideas in Buddhist philosophy don't make a whole lot of sense outside of the practice they arise from.
I understand you are currently satisfied and I would say that you probably would be satisfied with something else if what you have now was taken. What I was trying to get at was why the desire to "get enlightenment" occurs with people that it occurs with. It's the unsatisfactoriness about worldly things and wordy phenomena that brings it about. But of course, if one does not feel this unsatisfactoriness, the desire naturally does not arise, as is the case with yourself. Which is not good or bad necessarily, it just is.
Yes, I originally made the mistake and assumed that you were already trying to do it, my mistake.
I would agree you could. I could not take this view myself as I would see it as "reinventing the wheel", so to speak.