Nirvana; Is It Heaven (or God)?

[Pakeha]

I always thot the beauty of Buddhism is that there is nothing that cannot be discussed.

The only time I hear that something should not be discussed is when the person does not know the answer!

Yes I agree jamesc2000. Anything can be discussed but discussing a topic will not necessarily get you any closer to the 'answer'.

I think this is a good topic. However, from my readings and studies on Buddhism it seems most Masters say the way to discover Nirvana is to stop asking the question. Who is it that asks the question? The answer to this question explains why Nirvana can not be axplained.

[jamesc2000]

I always thot the beauty of Buddhism is that there is nothing that cannot be discussed.

The only time I hear that something should not be discussed is when the person does not know the answer!

Yes I agree jamesc2000. Anything can be discussed but discussing a topic will not necessarily get you any closer to the 'answer'.

I think this is a good topic. However, from my readings and studies on Buddhism it seems most Masters say the way to discover Nirvana is to stop asking the question. Who is it that asks the question? The answer to this question explains why Nirvana can not be axplained.

In my humble experience, getting the answer depends on who answers it!

If a "Master" could not explain what Nirvana is then I personally would not want to follow what they say to "discover" it!

I actually know very little about Buddhism but the little I know is that the beauty of Buddhism is its simplicity.

Its less than what a lot of "Masters" make it out to be! The more they try to explain is because the less they understand.

[siam4ever]

When Ajahn Jumnien, meditation master from Krabi, was asked if any of his monks had reached the higher levels on the road toward enlightenment, he answered "No". But, he added, many of the women in the community had reached these higher levels of selflessness and helping others but that they hadn't realized they had, thus their egos were not inflated with spiritual pride.

[chutai]

It has been said that we are already enlightened, we just aren't aware of it.

Only by Mahayanists, Rocky. Think about it... what good is enlightenment if we aren't aware of it and aren't experiencing it?

Edit// Actually, I think the Mahayana idea is not so much that we are already enlightened but that we have Buddha nature and all we have to do is realize it to become enlightened.

As we already have the innate Buddha nature then we also possess the fully enlightened state of Buddhahood. However, that enlightened state is latent in all life conditions and needs to become activated through practice on the clear road to Buddhahood.

As Nichiren Daishonin put it:

"When deluded, one is called an ordinary being, but when enlightened, one is called a Buddha. This is similar to a tarnished mirror that will shine like a jewel when polished. A mind now clouded by the illusions of the innate darkness of life is like a tarnished mirror, but when polished. it is sure to become like a clear mirror, reflecting the essential nature of phenomena and the true aspect of reality."

Self edited because the one quote is sufficient

Edited December 7, 2008 by chutai

[jamesc2000]

I don't have any fancy quotes but I thought it was it was accepted in Buddhism that everyone has Buddha nature?

You can polish a rock all you like but you can never get a diamond. You have to start with a diamond.

Enlightement is like gold. The Unenlighted is like gold covered in mud. Its simply washing away the mud and the gold is there.

Zen uses techniques to wash away the mud and it can take only a second. Meditation gets the same results but seems to take a little longer.

But there is no rush, people are free to take as long as they like.

Edited December 7, 2008 by jamesc2000

[rockyysdt]

Zen uses techniques to wash away the mud and it can take only a second. Meditation gets the same results but seems to take a little longer.

Do you favour Zen over other forms of Buddhism?

I understood Zen technique to involve sitting in concentration without mantra.

The Soto school consisting of "sitting in emptiness" with concentration on the breath.

The Rinzai method begins with focus on the breathe but then turns attention to a koan (a nonsensical or paradoxical question to a student for which an answer is demanded, the stress of meditation on the question often being illuminating).

Practice may often include periods of community work.

[jamesc2000]

All roads that lead to the same destination is equally good!

Just choose the flavour you like!

I am natually attracted to Zen but do not favour it over any other technique.

I dont know any thing about meditation but luckily I dont think you need to meditate to be enlightened.

You can do it by just answering the koan - the paradoxical question. The answer is also paradoxical - hard but also easy to answer.

[Brucenkhamen]

Zen uses techniques to wash away the mud and it can take only a second. Meditation gets the same results but seems to take a little longer.

What techniques would these be? Other than the rituals before and after sitting I can't think of anything, both Zen schools use meditation as the mainstay of their practice.

[jamesc2000]

Zen uses techniques to wash away the mud and it can take only a second. Meditation gets the same results but seems to take a little longer.

What techniques would these be? Other than the rituals before and after sitting I can't think of anything, both Zen schools use meditation as the mainstay of their practice.

You can do it by just answering the koan - the paradoxical question.

[jamesc2000]

I am not sure if this helps or I am out of topic and I apologise if I am out of topic.

Techniques to Nirvana by great Masters. Many people would measure a great Master by having many students and followers and they use that to validate their techniques.

Many great Masters also write books on techniques and people follow that. If all this works for you, thats great!

I am of the opposite view and I dont expect people to agree but Great Masters should have fewer n fewer followers and write fewer books.

People should have less need to follow anyone and Great masters should equip students so that they can be independent and have no need to keep coming back for direction and guidence.

Any Master that has students keep coming back has failed. Its like saying my mechanic is very good, my car always breaks down and I always go and see him!

The schools of Buddhism, the Masters are just guides and should be use as spring boards. The worse they can be is crutches.

They provide the platform but people should rely on their own selves to make the journey.

I am not saying the schools, books and Masters do not do a good job, they do a great job but people have to take responsibility for themselves.

As for Nirvana being heaven or God, its cannot be the same thing because they are the opposite. By why use my take on this (I know the least about Buddhism on this forum) when people can find out the truth for theselves!

[Brucenkhamen]

You can do it by just answering the koan - the paradoxical question.

As I understand it the way it works the teacher gives the student a koan which he mulls over in meditation, repeats over and over, or part of it like a mantra, until the teacher is satisfied that the student has realised the truth the teacher wants him to.

Now it is possible to realise the answer looking at a flower or putting your head on a pillow etc, just as it is possible to realise insights this way no matter what teaching school you follow, but the Koan process is still has meditation as it's basis.

[Brucenkhamen]

I am not sure if this helps or I am out of topic and I apologise if I am out of topic.

Techniques to Nirvana by great Masters. Many people would measure a great Master by having many students and followers and they use that to validate their techniques.

Many great Masters also write books on techniques and people follow that. If all this works for you, thats great!

I am of the opposite view and I dont expect people to agree but Great Masters should have fewer n fewer followers and write fewer books.

People should have less need to follow anyone and Great masters should equip students so that they can be independent and have no need to keep coming back for direction and guidence.

Any Master that has students keep coming back has failed. Its like saying my mechanic is very good, my car always breaks down and I always go and see him!

The schools of Buddhism, the Masters are just guides and should be use as spring boards. The worse they can be is crutches.

They provide the platform but people should rely on their own selves to make the journey.

I am not saying the schools, books and Masters do not do a good job, they do a great job but people have to take responsibility for themselves.

As for Nirvana being heaven or God, its cannot be the same thing because they are the opposite. By why use my take on this (I know the least about Buddhism on this forum) when people can find out the truth for theselves!

You're forgetting the fact that the Buddhas path generally takes a very long time to complete. Lifetimes if you take the scriptures literally. It's an interwesting thought though, maybe it needs it's own thread.

[jamesc2000]

You're forgetting the fact that the Buddhas path generally takes a very long time to complete. Lifetimes if you take the scriptures literally. It's an interwesting thought though, maybe it needs it's own thread.

I completely agree with that. I do think it take many lifetimes of preparation and then it can happen very quickly within a particular life.

[rockyysdt]

You're forgetting the fact that the Buddhas path generally takes a very long time to complete. Lifetimes if you take the scriptures literally. It's an interwesting thought though, maybe it needs it's own thread.

I completely agree with that. I do think it take many lifetimes of preparation and then it can happen very quickly within a particular life.

Aren't we forgetting that we are impermanent and conditioned, with no existence of self.

I know we have discussed this on other occasions but whos lifetimes are we talking about?

[Brucenkhamen]

You're forgetting the fact that the Buddhas path generally takes a very long time to complete. Lifetimes if you take the scriptures literally. It's an interwesting thought though, maybe it needs it's own thread.

I completely agree with that. I do think it take many lifetimes of preparation and then it can happen very quickly within a particular life.

Aren't we forgetting that we are impermanent and conditioned, with no existence of self.

I know we have discussed this on other occasions but whos lifetimes are we talking about?

That would be why I qualified it with "if you take the scriptures literally".

[jamesc2000]

no existence of self.

Does this mean that we do not exist?

And does anyone use this concept in their daily life?

I think this is one of the most beautiful concepts I have ever heard!

You get stuck in a jam and instead of thinking, oh no I am going to be late, its becomes I do not exist so no big deal about being late!

Someone contradicts you on a forum and instead of thinking, I am going to post my reply right back to I don't exist so no big deal being contradicted here or anywhere else!

Have I got the no existence of self correct or have I missed something?

[Brucenkhamen]

no existence of self.

Does this mean that we do not exist?

And does anyone use this concept in their daily life?

I think this is one of the most beautiful concepts I have ever heard!

You get stuck in a jam and instead of thinking, oh no I am going to be late, its becomes I do not exist so no big deal about being late!

Someone contradicts you on a forum and instead of thinking, I am going to post my reply right back to I don't exist so no big deal being contradicted here or anywhere else!

Have I got the no existence of self correct or have I missed something?

Some understand anatta to mean no existance of self full stop.

Others understand anatta to mean there is a self but it doesn't exist as a as a seperate entity.

Others understand anatta to mean there is a self, but it's a delusion, and that's the problem.

There are probably other ways of seeing it.

It's up to you and me to look into it our" selfs" and come to a realisation of what the truth is. In the meantime there's a big question mark hanging over what you and I understand to be my "self", this serves to help us be objective and not take things personally.

[fabianfred]

I and many find the 'non-self' the most difficult part to understand....

I take it to mean non-(self in the usually understood sense)

there is undoubtably a continuum.... a subtle connection... between births in the various planes of existence .... and it is linked by our karma which takes us from one life to the next ....until we break the chain by reaching the state of nirvana

[Brucenkhamen]

I and many find the 'non-self' the most difficult part to understand....

I take it to mean non-(self in the usually understood sense)

there is undoubtably a continuum.... a subtle connection... between births in the various planes of existence .... and it is linked by our karma which takes us from one life to the next ....until we break the chain by reaching the state of nirvana

I think we all find the concept of not-self difficult to get a handle on, and probably those who think they know are kidding themselve.

To me not-self is part of the practice, it's like a big question mark I carry around with me, the truth is in the asking not in receiving an answer that you can immediately file away under "intellectually understood".

I don't think they Buddha was interested so much in giving us all the answers but helping us ask the right questions, this is one of them.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[camerata]

Does this mean that we do not exist?

Have I got the no existence of self correct or have I missed something?

Try listening to Ajahn Amaro's talk on self. I think that will clarify it for you.

[jamesc2000]

Thanks very much Camerata! I will give it a listen.

I didn't know there was so many interpretations to anetta.

I just knew the one and I thought it was the foundation that everything else is built on!

People are free to interpret anatta any way they want but if you bend something out of its shape, it loses its original meaning.

I can well understand people not wanting to interpret as no existence. We don't exist is a really frightening prospect!

[camerata]

I can well understand people not wanting to interpret as no existence. We don't exist is a really frightening prospect!

Why don't you give us the source for this idea that we don't exist so we can take a look at it? I don't think any orthodox Theravada texts put it like that. The standard way of explaining anatta is that what we assume to be an unchanging self-identity or soul is in fact a group of ever-changing mental processes and an ever-changing body known collectively as the five aggregates. The point of anatta is that since the five aggregates are not unchanging, they can't move on to another life as a self or soul and so we shouldn't be attached to them.

According to Nyanatiloka's Pali Dictionary, anatta is the only teaching that is truly unique to Buddhism and doesn't occur in other religions. If we don't understand it, we won't be able to understand Buddhism.

[Xangsamhua]

I can well understand people not wanting to interpret as no existence. We don't exist is a really frightening prospect!

Why don't you give us the source for this idea that we don't exist so we can take a look at it? I don't think any orthodox Theravada texts put it like that. The standard way of explaining anatta is that what we assume to be an unchanging self-identity or soul is in fact a group of ever-changing mental processes and an ever-changing body known collectively as the five aggregates. The point of anatta is that since the five aggregates are not unchanging, they can't move on to another life as a self or soul and so we shouldn't be attached to them.

According to Nyanatiloka's Pali Dictionary, anatta is the only teaching that is truly unique to Buddhism and doesn't occur in other religions. If we don't understand it, we won't be able to understand Buddhism.

My understanding is that anatta refers to more than mental processes (unless, as in Yogacara, one holds that mind is the only ultimately real). The idea of Sunyata (emptiness, voidness) is that nothing possesses essential, enduring identity. Nagarjuna describes sunyata as "void, unreal and non-existent" (Wikipedia: Sunyata). In the same Wikipedia article, Robert Thurman is quoted as saying: "...voidness does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist - it makes them thoroughly relative." Such a view is consistent with the idea of interdependent origination and the (Madhyamika?) position that things exist but only in a relationship of cause and effect. However, I don't know that a view that all things exist only in relation to causes and effects negates the idea that they have no essential reality that is both cause and effect. To say, as Thurman does, that something has no intrinsic objectivity, identity or referentiality is easy enough to accept. These attributes are all ascribed (extrinsic) and relative. However, to say that something has no intrinsic "reality" to me means the same as saying that it doesn't exist; but that is what Thurman is denying (and he ought to know).

The question of whether or not anything has essential, intrinsic reality is complicated further, for me, in relation to the concept of infinity - something that intrigues me, but which I have trouble with. It has been said that reality is measured in terms of quality, quantity and location. Quantity and location (dimensional position and configuration) can be thought of in terms of their negative values or opposites. The term an-atta itself is the negative value of atta, thought of in terms of aggregates (quantity and dimensionality) rather than a "quality" underlying these aggregates. Anatta both defines and denies atta when thought of in terms of the Buddha's teaching. However, in infinity, neither quantity nor dimensionality have any meaning (because they only have negative values or opposites in relation to a finite universe).

What, then, of quality? If quality is that which underlies aggregates and relativities - that which is irreducible - then, in infinity, quality is both nothing and everything. It is nothing in that it is infinitely extended and lacks identity etc. However, it is everything in that it is infinitely extended and hence is everywhere.

Obviously there is something and not nothing or we would not be here to talk about these matters. However, what we irreducibly are, though not nothing, is not identifiable nor measurable except in terms of ever-changing, impermanent phenomena. We are expressions in some way of noumenal reality, whether it be God, "Will" (Schopenhauer), Dharma, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibnitz), or whatever. Though we may express it as no-thing, Sunyata or Emptiness, it is this very no-thing that we strive to attain, however our religion or philosophy explains it.

Sorry to sound so declarative. I'm not that confident - just trying to make sense of things, too - groping for meaning.

[camerata]

My understanding is that anatta refers to more than mental processes (unless, as in Yogacara, one holds that mind is the only ultimately real). The idea of Sunyata (emptiness, voidness) is that nothing possesses essential, enduring identity.

Sure, but I was stating things as simply as I could for James and referring specifically to the idea that we humans have no self. I don't know much about the Mahayana take on anatta, but I'm pretty sure it is not simply that "we don't exist," which is how he keeps putting it.

Edited December 13, 2008 by camerata

[rockyysdt]

What, then, of quality? If quality is that which underlies aggregates and relativities - that which is irreducible - then, in infinity, quality is both nothing and everything. It is nothing in that it is infinitely extended and lacks identity etc. However, it is everything in that it is infinitely extended and hence is everywhere.

Obviously there is something and not nothing or we would not be here to talk about these matters. However, what we irreducibly are, though not nothing, is not identifiable nor measurable except in terms of ever-changing, impermanent phenomena. We are expressions in some way of noumenal reality, whether it be God, "Will" (Schopenhauer), Dharma, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibnitz), or whatever. Though we may express it as no-thing, Sunyata or Emptiness, it is this very no-thing that we strive to attain, however our religion or philosophy explains it.

Sorry to sound so declarative. I'm not that confident - just trying to make sense of things, too - groping for meaning.

Are you saying we do exist but it's an unexplainable quality?

It's very hard to grasp for me.

In the "Three Signs" it states that there is no self or controller in both the Conditioned and Unconditioned worlds.

1. Suññato: Things exist in a state of emptiness; they are without a

self as essence or core (atta-særa). They are void of a real identity

as ‘person’, ‘I’, ‘him’, or ‘her’. There is no occupant, agent, or

experiencer apart from the causal process, or apart from provisional

designations. Things exist independently from their assigned

identities, for example ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘object A’ or

‘object B’.

2. Assæmikato: Things are ownerless; they do not belong to a person

or to a self. No separate self exists which possesses phenomena;

there is merely a natural causal process.

3. Avasa-vattanato: Things are not subject to control; they do not

depend on anyone. A related term used is anissarato, translated as

‘non-ruler’ or ‘powerless’. We have no absolute power over things;

we must concur with causes. In some places one finds the term

akæmakæriyato, translated as ‘unable to do as one pleases’. Things

do not obey desires; the mind of desire cannot dictate things. If one

wants things to be a certain way, then one must conform to or bring

about the proper causes and conditions. Things depend on causes,

not on someone’s power or desire. For example, it is impossible to

order something that has arisen to disappear, or to not change, or

to not deteriorate.

4. Atta-pa¥ikkhepato: The nature of things is inconsistent with, or

opposes, a self. The causal process of interrelated components is

inherently incompatible with a separate, autonomous self, which

would dictate or interfere with that process. [70/22] Such an isolated

self cannot exist. If it were to exist, a causal dynamic could not

occur; the course of events would necessarily follow the dictates

of self. Furthermore, the law of causality is intrinsically complete; it

does not require a controlling agent to intervene.

It seems all we are merely a preprogrammed (conditioned) automaton with an illusion of self.

We automatically respond to dynamic events and conditions around us.

We don't have a will because there is no self to will.

[Xangsamhua]

Are you saying we do exist but it's an unexplainable quality?

It seems all we are merely a preprogrammed (conditioned) automaton with an illusion of self.

We automatically respond to dynamic events and conditions around us.

We don't have a will because there is no self to will.

I think I'm saying that existence is inexplicable. Therefore any phenomena that arise from existence are only explicable within the framework of relationality - especially cause & effect, but also location, distance, quantity, extension, configuration, and so on.

There may be nothing static or essential underlying phenomena - just impermanent phenomena obeying the laws of cause and effect. But the fact that there are laws suggests some unifying and stabilizing force underpinning these laws, as well as providing the dynamics for them to respond to cause and produce effect.

Although, perhaps, we exist as phenomena in this unstable, impermanent sense, not as essential and abiding entities, there may be something that is expressed through us, giving us a relationship to the abiding reality that we call by different names - Buddha-nature(?) God, the "Will", etc. The process of awakening, or enlightenment, brings us into full awareness of and unity with this reality. It is our origin and our destiny. We are not discovering or creating something new. We are simply connecting with reality. Hence, free will, which is a highly problematic concept, does not apply, as we are not exercising a choice of two freely available alternatives, but simply conforming to that which really is.

I am trying to express myself in terms acceptable to students of Buddhist teachings, but I don't have the language. My books are in another place. From memory, there is some very interesting discussion of these questions, especially the debate between the Madhyamaka and Yogacara schools, in Paul Williams' Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations.

[jamesc2000]

Why don't you give us the source for this idea that we don't exist so we can take a look at it?

According to Nyanatiloka's Pali Dictionary, anatta is the only teaching that is truly unique to Buddhism and doesn't occur in other religions. If we don't understand it, we won't be able to understand Buddhism.

Please take a look at this and let me know if I have interpreted this incorrectly.

If I am wrong, I will be nothing but happy to change my views. Until then I will just be happy to be nothing.

http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2005_12_09.mp3

http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2007_02_16.mp3

[camerata]

Please take a look at this and let me know if I have interpreted this incorrectly.

If I am wrong, I will be nothing but happy to change my views. Until then I will just be happy to be nothing.

http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2005_12_09.mp3

As Aj Brahm says at the beginning, this is a "deep" talk about emptiness (sunyata) in relation to meditation and jhana. Anatta and no-self are not mentioned, and neither is the idea that we don't exist and don't suffer because we don't exist. He talks about things being "empty of anything solid." He says that "mind is empty of substance or a core" but then later clarifies and says, "Mind (the knower) is a process or interplay of energies." He talks about the universe being "nothing" but then says it is energy. The point is that things aren't what we assume them to be.

If you look at Aj Brahm's book, Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, he quotes the Pali Canon as saying, "'Such mindfulness is established enough to discern that there are just the body, feelings, mind, and objects of mind' and that these are not me, nor mine, nor a self." He says we should ask, "What is it that I take to be me?"

The things we normally take to be "me," such as age, occupation, nationality, health, skin colour etc, "are merely temporary identities and therefore not the essential me." In other words, the practice is all about waking up to the fact that "I" is just a concept, an illusion.

[jamesc2000]

http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2005_12_09.mp3

Description:

Ajahn Brahm delivers a challenging talk that highlights the empty nature of all conditioned phenomena. That's right, we are all full of emptiness. If we were not then enlightenment would not be possible. Listen and find out more about this central Buddhist doctrine.

http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2007_02_16.mp3

Description:

This talk enlarges on an academic panel discussion held recently at the University of Western Australia regarding the reconciliation of religion and science. Ajahn Brahm also takes the opportunity to discuss the Buddhists concepts of Non-duality and the Middle Way. In the process some fascinating linkages and extrapolations come to light, particularly in regard to Emptiness (Anatta) and gravity physics.

Dear Camerata

Did you get a chance to listen to the second talk? I don't know the difference between Sunyata and Anatta so I copied the above description for from the BWSA website:

http://www.bswa.org/modules/mydownloads/vi...teD&show=20

"In the process some fascinating linkages and extrapolations come to light, particularly in regard to Emptiness (Anatta) and gravity physics."

Is Anatta not nothing but something? Is the correct interpretation of Anatta that we do exist?

If there is a me then there has to be a mine. Mine to have, mine to hold, mine to lose, mine to give up. Mine to suffer!

So if I exist there must be something for me to do, something for me to be, something for me to have or not to have.

Should I be a good person? Should I not be a bad person?

What is it of me that exist? If I do not like any bit of me that exist can I get rid of it?

If something exist then it opens a whole world of complications and complications lead to more complications.

If there was nothing then you have perfection and simplicity.

I guess this is important as you correctly say - "According to Nyanatiloka's Pali Dictionary, anatta is the only teaching that is truly unique to Buddhism and doesn't occur in other religions. If we don't understand it, we won't be able to understand Buddhism."

Edited December 14, 2008 by jamesc2000

[camerata]

Did you get a chance to listen to the second talk?

I listened to the first 15 minutes but none of it was relevant and I couldn't take any more of Aj Brahm's recycled anecdotes. You'd be better off listening to Aj Amaro's talk than this stuff.

If something exist then it opens a whole world of complications and complications lead to more complications.

If there was nothing then you have perfection and simplicity.

Well, you can't determine that something is true dhamma by the fact that it is simple. In fact, the Buddha pointed out that the dhamma is difficult to understand. If anatta was as simple as "I don't exist" the books would be full that statement. Instead, what you'll see is something like: "Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense." (Buddhanet).