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.
Nature of Nirvana
Sabre
Veteran
For many, nirvana (or pali: nibbana) is the aim of Buddhist practice. I first thought people generally agreed on what nirvana is. However, as I widened my view, there seemed to be quite a lot of ideas and opinions on this matter. It turns out that's not so surprising, considering the Buddha called it "hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise".
This thread is here to discuss the nature of nirvana. Perhaps we can learn from eachother, maybe not to convince eachother, but at least to understand where we are coming from. So what's your idea on nirvana? How do you define/think/experience it? There were some interesting debates in other topics, so those can be continued here.
I'll probably share my words later, when I have more time. For now, here is some material that may be of interest. It's not all out of a particular point of view or tradition, so it may be contradicting and a nice start to the debate. Feel free to add more.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html
http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/article/2147/
With metta!
Sabre
This thread is here to discuss the nature of nirvana. Perhaps we can learn from eachother, maybe not to convince eachother, but at least to understand where we are coming from. So what's your idea on nirvana? How do you define/think/experience it? There were some interesting debates in other topics, so those can be continued here.
I'll probably share my words later, when I have more time. For now, here is some material that may be of interest. It's not all out of a particular point of view or tradition, so it may be contradicting and a nice start to the debate. Feel free to add more.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html
http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/article/2147/
With metta!
Sabre
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Such state is also called the non dual state. It cannot be called a self or cannot be owned, nor is it produced. It is naturally self perfected and self liberating. If such state is realized then both self and phenomena are understood and beyond designation.
The metaphor is of the mirror and the display of the mirror. Appearance and emptiness are the same. This actualized in body/mind is nirvana and ignorance of this is samsara.
Its not got a definite source, because no one actually knows what real nivanna or enlightenment actually is..
All the teachers, masters and even lay people have got different opinions on what it is.
So how do we know exactly what we are practising for?
Some people think nivanna is some magical state
Others think its an ordinary state
others think it isnt even a real thing
other think only Buddha achieved it
others think only one buddha at a time can be on earth
others think it takes many life times to achieve nivanna
others think we can be achieve it in this life time
But , WHAT THE HELL IS IT? LOL
Who is right?
If we study with one particular teacher, we will start believing that nivanna is what he thinks nivanna is because he is our teacher etc etc..
But some one else could be studying with a teacher who thinks nivanna is something else.
Take Zen for example, Dogen says meditation is enlightenment itself (but buddha didnt say that!)
Zen buddhism is completely different to Theravada Buddhism, and they both have different theories on what enlightenment is..
So how do we know if one is right and the other isnt.. ?
What is impermanent, is not worth clinging to. Something that one moment is, and another moment isn't, can not be relied on. What the Buddha was searching for, and what we are searching for is a certainty; something ultimate. So to realise nibbana, we need to stop clinging to things that aren't always there for us. Because if we cling, they will keep arising.
One often used expression in the suttas by those who have a realization, can be translated as "whatever arises passes away". So they realize, that whatever is, one day will cease. And hidden in that is the meaning of nibbana; nibbana is cessation of all things that are impermanent. In other words, it's the cessation of dukkha, of suffering. Now it is our job to find out exactly what is impermanent and what is permanent.
It might be quite shocking, but there isn't anything permanent. Delusion however, makes people think there are constant things. Things worth holding onto. The most fueling attachment is the view of a self. Somewhere in experience, one experiences a feeling of 'me', or 'mine'. The funny thing is, what this experience is, switches all the time. One thinks they 'are making the choices', but the next day we are the one to who things just happens.. 'the one who knows'. Or we 'are having the emotions', while other emotions we try to push away.. So self view escapes into different things.
That's why the Buddha brought up the scheme of the aggregates. Consciousnesses, feelings, perceptions, formations and form (body). Those are not solid things, but rather descriptions of all of human experience. He said, in every of these experiences there is not a self to be found. And so, non of these experiences is to be attached to. To realize this is enlightenment and what happens as a result is nibbana; first, the cessation of clinging and then the cessation of body and mind. Because body and mind can only go on if they are fuelled by clinging.
Notice that I refer to two different things with the same word of nibbana. That's possible because nibbana is not a place or a thing. Rather; it's a process of cessation. Litteraly nibbana is to extinguish, to go out.
So what's left after an enlightened one dies? I'd be tempted to say nothing, although people are going misunderstand this as annihilation. And it isn't really accutate either, because in a way the Buddha can still be seen here and now, because we still talk about him and follow his teachings.
This is how I've come to understand nibbana. I think it is a beautiful teaching.
For your reflection.
Metta to all!
Sabre
So maybe enlightenment isnt permanent aswell.
One example of this is that a Buddha does not suffer, and yet recognizes suffering where it arises and works toward its alleviation.
Think of it like finding a lump on your balls or something, the doctor will refer to it as a mass until it has been defined as a tumor or whatever they find out that it is.
It's just a way of languaging things so that they don't jump to conclusions.
In Vipassana we can make mental notes of all sorts of physical and mental phenomena. They come and go. But the way I see it there will never be a mental note saying “Ha, this is it, this is Nibbana”. But at the same time Nibbana is there all the time.
Using a noun is misleading, we don’t “have” nirvana and we “are” not in place with that name.
We should use verbs. We are doing it; we are practicing or manifesting “it”.
Enlightenment is here and now. Nirvana is the act of liberation. It is moment to moment awakening.
We can realize Zazen as an act of liberation but we can get up from our sitting mat as an act of liberation too. It has no beginning and no end.
Anyways, this is just “piling snow in a silver bowl” or adding wrong views to wrong views.
I agree you can't really tell how a vacation destination is going to be like if you haven't been there. Still you can look at some of the pictures, talk about it a bit with people who have been there (or are planning to go there), visit the travel agency, etc. When you get there, it'll always be different from how you expected it to be, however, at least you can know beforehand it's going to be in France instead of Alaska, so you have some sense of where you're going.
Same with nibbana. A lot agree that we have to remove our attachments, anger & fear to realize it. If we didn't know that, we would probably end up somewhere totally different.
:thumbup:
"To illustrate this error of regarding Nibbana as sheer nothingness, the Buddhists relate the story of the turtle and the fish. There was once a turtle who lived in a lake with a group of fish. One day the turtle went for a walk on dry land. He was away from the lake for a few weeks. When he returned he met some of the fish. The fish asked him, "Mister turtle, hello! How are you? We have not seen you for a few weeks. Where have you been? The turtle said, "I was up on the land, I have been spending some time on dry land." The fish were a little puzzled and they said, "Up on dry land? What are you talking about? What is this dry land? Is it wet?" The turtle said "No, it is not," "Is it cool and refreshing?" "No, it is not", "Does it have waves and ripples?" "No, it does not have waves and ripples." "Can you swim in it?" "No you can't" So the fish said, "it is not wet, it is not cool, there are no waves, you can’t swim in it. So this dry land of yours must be completely non-existent, just an imaginary thing, nothing real at all." The turtle said that "Well, may be so" and he left the fish and went for another walk on dry land." ~ Bhikkhu Bodhi
A monk whose mind is liberated sides with no one and disputes with no one; he
employs the speech currently used in the world without attaching to it.
An arahant with taints destroyed may say, ‘I speak this way, and they speak to me
this way.’ Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance, he uses such terms as mere
expressions.
Monks, I do not contend with the world; rather, it is the world that contends with
me. A speaker of the Dhamma (dhamma-vādī) does not dispute with anyone in the
world. Whatever the learned ones agree upon as not existing in the world, I too say that
it does not exist. Whatever the learned ones agree upon as existing, I too say that it
exists.
These are worldly terms, expressions, manners of speech and designations. The
Tathāgata uses these, but does not attach to them.
Monks, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance, whichever
conflicting, obstinate, and confounding views exist, such as: ‘What are mental
formations? Who owns these mental formations? Mental formations are one thing, the
owners of such formations are another thing; the life principle (jīva) and the body are
the same; the life principle is one thing, the body is another’—all of these views are
abandoned.
[A bhikkhu who has realized Dhamma] does not grieve over the past, and does not
fantasize over the future; he is sustained by what is present, thus his complexion is
bright. As for the ignorant, they fantasize over the future, and pine over the past; thus
they are haggard, like a fresh reed that has been plucked and left in the sun.
I may be wrong here.
In the same commentary nibbana is described as "hard to see (duddasam)" for various reasons, for example, "on account of its profundity of its own nature and on account of the fact that its own nature is one that is extremely abstruse and subtle."
The commentary goes on for pages. One interesting description of nibbana is "Deathless Great Nibbana." There is mentioned, too, the materialists (Lokâyata) who say "nibbana is mere talk" or "it does not exist in the highest sense."
Moths gathered in a fluttering throng one night
To learn the truth about the candle light,
And they decided one of them should go
To gather news of the elusive glow.
One flew till in the distance he discerned
A palace window where a candle burned --
And went no nearer: back again he flew
To tell the others what he thought he knew.
The mentor of the moths dismissed his claim,
Remarking: "He knows nothing of the flame."
A moth more eager than the one before
Set out and passed beyond the palace door.
He hovered in the aura of the fire,
A trembling blur of timorous desire,
Then headed back to say how far he'd been,
And how much he had undergone and seen.
The mentor said: "You do not bear the signs
Of one who's fathomed how the candle shines."
Another moth flew out -- his dizzy flight
Turned to an ardent wooing of the light;
He dipped and soared, and in his frenzied trance
Both self and fire were mingled by his dance --
The flame engulfed his wing-tips, body, head,
His being glowed a fierce translucent red;
And when the mentor saw that sudden blaze,
The moth's form lost within the glowing rays,
He said: "He knows, he knows the truth we seek,
That hidden truth of which we cannot speak."
To go beyond all knowledge is to find
That comprehension which eludes the mind,
And you can never gain the longed-for goal
Until you first outsoar both flesh and soul;
But should one part remain, a single hair
Will drag you back and plunge you in despair --
No creature's self can be admitted here,
Where all identity must disappear.
I never understood the function of pari-nirvana. Are there any suttas that speak about it?
I know this was posted but this is a longer version.
Especially the teaching on dependent origination and its counterpart on cessation shows how nibbana is cessation of experiences, including especially the will and consciousness. It is those two that driven by delusion create new life and thus new suffering.
We also have this, I may have quoted this before in this thread when I talked about the twofold meaning of nibbana. This is also quite a famous quote, which is by an enlightened one who says he is about to be unbound, meaning fully unbound.
The steadiness talked about, is I think the nibbana of one still alive.
But this is a sutta that is easy to interpret in multiple ways (which has also been done). Therefore, it's better to not give it too much value and I think it's better to look at the whole picture.
Also, 'the self' is something the Buddha never supported. In the sutta on 62 types of wrong view, we find: Which, to emphasize, is wrong view.
Metta!
Sabre
It's quite simple, if we cling to life, we're going to get it again and again. If we don't, there will finally be peace.
"One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...
We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.
Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.
It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.
This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.
Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.
Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!"
-Vajrahridaya
In the beginning of Dogen’s Bussho fascicle of the Shobogenzo, he quotes a famous passage from the Nirvana Sutra (ch. 27) All sentient beings without exception have the Buddha-nature. In Dogen’s way, Dogen reinterprets this sentence so that it more explicitedly reads in a non-dualistic style. In the previous sentence, it’s possible to read it dualistically as:
A subject, “sentient beings” “has” an object, “Buddha-nature”
Dogen reinterprets the sentence as:
Entire being is the Buddha-nature.
He tries to alleviate the duality inherent in the sentence structure. Entire being becomes the complete network of interdependent co-origination, which has no inside and no outside, no I and no you. Our being or a sentient being is actually the same as the total dynamic working of the entire network of beings. We cannot pull out a separated “being”. Dogen deconstructs the space or place of a “being” as a separate, independent unit. The entire network of beings, functioning together, is the Buddha-nature.
The Buddha-nature is not seen as a “thing” or an “object” but rather the process of life life-ing itself. It is the total dynamic working of the machine of life. Katagiri Roshi deconstructs the “time” of Buddha-nature. He says :
“Buddha-nature is impermanence itself. This real moment is constantly: working, arising, disappearing, and appearing. To say what the present moment is, right here, right now, is to say that this moment has already disappeared. This is called emptiness. Both cause and effect are exactly impermanence in themselves. It means just appearing, that’s all. This is the basic nature of existence. That’s why impermanence is Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is being preached constantly. When you manifest yourself right now, right here, becoming one with zazen or with your activity, this is Buddha-nature manifested in the realm of emptiness or impermanence.” From Returning to Silence, page 9.
Posted by Byakuren Judith Ragir at 7:04 AM "
"Suppose someone declares that he has already attained the most perfect enlightenment. When asked for the reason, [he replies] “It is because [the tathâgata teaches that all sentient beings] have Buddha-nature. Since whoever is in possession of the Buddha-nature should have already attained the most perfect enlightenment, [I declare] that I have attained enlightenment now.” It should be understood that such a person is guilty of the pârâjikas [grave offense like murder]. Why? It is because even though [the Buddha teaches that all sentient being] have the Buddha-nature, they have not yet cultivated various beneficial means, and so still have no vision of [the Buddha-nature which they are going to have]. Since they still have no vision [of the Buddha-nature], they have not attained the most perfect enlightenment” (Mahayana Maharparinirvana Sutra).
buddha nature isn't atman.
"O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man cannot see it." (Mahaparinirvana-sutra).