Nirvana; Is It Heaven (or God)?

[Brucenkhamen]

I think this excerpt from Thanissaro responds to the question at hand very well;

from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...o/notself2.html

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

[clausewitz]

Cam\erata has explained it pretty well. The citation from Thanissaro is a strange mix of mistaken views and certainly not Theravada doctrine.

[Brucenkhamen]

Cam\erata has explained it pretty well. The citation from Thanissaro is a strange mix of mistaken views and certainly not Theravada doctrine.

I would say he's drawing on several decades of practicing the path, rather than an intellectual understanding of the theory.

[clausewitz]

Visuddhimagga XIX19

There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right."

Visuddimagga XVIII24

"This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person"

XVII31"The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here

But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll"

[camerata]

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.

This is erroneous logic. You don't need a self to have volition (will), all you need is mental processes. And "conditioned" does not mean preprogrammed. Try explaining to yourself - without reference to Buddhism - how you can have "free will" without some influence from genetics and life experience. You can't. You make decisions based on genetic tendencies (which can be overriden) and life experience, stored as memories and mental patterns, mostly in your subconscious. The fact that you have a tendency to act in a certain way doesn't mean that you will, and it doesn't mean you can't change that tendency. So at all times you have the choice to change the way you act.

A central idea in Buddhism is that self-view (or ego) makes us act in ways that aren't in our interest because they cause suffering. And since much of the ego is buried in the subconscious, it's difficult to understand it and change it. So there is this tyrant hiding in our mind and forcing us to do things. That's slavery. It's nothing like "free will" at all. The Eightfold Path is a technique for understanding how the ego works and reducing its activity to zero. You train the mind to act in certain ways, and the result is that when you make a decision in the future, it won't be influenced by ego. When dynamic events require you to act, you will act in a way that you want to instead of a way that suits your ego and causes you suffering. That's a kind of relative free will where you get to determine your own behaviour.

The trick is not so much to keep denying that the self/ego exists, but to understand how this illusion of self works against your interests and causes you suffering. The ego is like a virus software running uninvited in your mind (the operating system). It filters all incoming information looking for threats - not real threats to your life, but threats to its own importance. It has its own agenda. For example, someone in a web forum calls you an moron. Incredibly, even though you are anonymous, your ego tags this as a threat and fires up the "fight or flight" response in your body. This causes you to suffer. Your heart rate increases. You feel bad, you may not be able to sleep. You feel compelled to go on the attack and insult the other guy, which will undoubtedly result in him attacking you back. But how is any of this in your interest? It isn't! Once you understand this, you have the free will to simply ignore this tyrant in your mind. It's not necessary to have some scientific proof that you have no self, you just need to experiment and see how its actions can be defeated. When you become an arahant with no self-identity, you'll still have the will to make decisions. For sure, you won't be paralyzed into inaction.

[jamesc2000]

Cam\erata has explained it pretty well. The citation from Thanissaro is a strange mix of mistaken views and certainly not Theravada doctrine.

Is Buddhism about doctrine? If Buddha pointed the direction with his finger, should we worship his finger?

Or is Buddhism just a map to a destination, there are experts here that can tell you everything about the map but nothing about the destination.

The map is just a tool - a very useful tool but there is nothing sacred about it!

We shouldn't take the tool as the treasure (well you can if you want to) but the real treasure is at the destination.

If people need to see to believe then that's the beauty of Buddhism - it allows people to experience the truth for themselves. No one needs to take another person's word for what is the truth.

I hope everyone gets to experience the truth for themselves if thats what they want too.

[sabaijai]

From Handbook for Mankind, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

"Nirvana" has been translated as "absence of any instrument of torture." Taken another way, it means "extinction without remainder." So the word "Nirvana" has two very important meanings; firstly, absence of any source of torment and burning, freedom from all forms of bondage and constraint and secondly, extinction, with no fuel for the further arising of suffering. The combination of these meanings indicates a condition of complete freedom from suffering. There are several other useful meanings for the word "Nirvana." It can be taken to mean the extinction of suffering, or the complete elimination of defilements, or the state, realm, or condition that is the cessation of all suffering, all defilements and all karmic activity. Though the word "Nirvana" is used by numerous different sects, the sense in which they use it is often not the same at all. For instance, one group takes it to mean simply calm and coolness, because they identify Nirvana with deep concentration. Other groups even consider total absorption in sensuality as Nirvana.

The Buddha defined Nirvana as simply that condition of freedom from bondage, torment and suffering which results from seeing the true nature of the worldly condition and all things, and so being able to give up all clinging to them. It is essential, then, that we recognize the very great value of insight into the true nature of things and endeavor to cultivate this insight by one means or another. Using one method, we simply encourage it to come about of its own accord, naturally, by developing, day and night, the joy that results from mental purity, until the qualities we have described gradually come about. The other method consists in developing mental power by following an organized system of concentration and insight practice. This latter technique is appropriate for people with a certain kind of disposition, who may make rapid progress with it if conditions are right. But we can practice the development of insight by the nature method in all circumstances and at all times just by making our own way of daily living so pure and honest that there arise in succession spiritual joy (piti and pamoda), calm (passaddhi), insight into the true nature of things (yathabhutananadassana), disenchantment (nibbida), withdrawal (viraga), escape (vimutti), purification from defilements (visuddhi), and coolness (santi), so that we come to get a taste of freedom from suffering (nibbana)- steadily, naturally, day by day, month by month, year by year, gradually approaching closer and closer to Nirvana.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you sabaijai for bringing to thread back to the original question (not that I think the discussion on anatta has been a distraction; I've found it very helpful). It seems there is a fundamental lack of clarity at the heart of the question: "What is Nirvana?" On the one hand it can be described (by Buddhadasa) as a condition of no-suffering; however, what is a "condition" if there is no "self" or "being" to which that condition refers? Buddhadasa says it's "extinction", but extinction is not a condition; it's nothing at all.

The Buddha threw the cat among the pigeons in presenting the doctrine of anatta. Inevitably, if you tell your disciples that there is nothing at the basis of phenomenal existence, they are going to ask how something arises from nothing, or related questions. To say: "Don't ask" because you're not ready, or it's a distraction from practice, or there's no answer, begs the question why the teacher taught the doctrine in the first place.

We don't really know, do we, how these teachings arose? We don't know the circumstances and causes. We have only the records and they are accounts of what was passed on through (how many?) people before they were written down and edited in the forms available. However, the centrality of the "no self" doctrine, extended to the doctrine of sunyata (no irreducible essence in phenomena), suggests that the Buddha did actually teach this, despite its incomprehensibility and the impossibility of explaining it. It reminds me of Basil the Great, one of the key formulators of the trinitarian doctrine defined at Chalcedon (AD 451), who, when asked for clarification of the doctrine, could only say that it was beyond comprehension - a "mystery".

That there are mysteries and ambiguities in even fundamental propositions about life is not unacceptable to the post-modern mind. That there is nothing to be found at the basis of phenomena is no more mysterious than to say that there is something. Most people probably still believe there is something at the heart of things, but it is inaccessible to our instruments and makes nonsense of our statements about it. However, if there is nothing, let it be, and all phenomena are simply objects of perception. Christian theology has a similar notion to the "nothing>something>nothing" sequence that seems to be proposed by Buddhists. It's the idea of "kenosis", that, in giving rise to and sustaining phenomena, God empties God's self of itself, but God is not diminished thereby. "Creation" is a continuing process of giving life without the source of it being depleted as a result. Make sense? Not a lot, perhaps, but maybe no less than that non-existence gives rise to existence which then returns to non-existence. I think these propositions are just ways of saying that the source and sustenance of the realm of existing beings is beyond our intellectual and imaginative grasp. The same can be said, therefore, of Nirvana, the goal of and destination those who are awakened.

[ff978472]

Hi

Nirvana is just a name given for layman like us to know that there is another state out there so that we can start walking from our current state of sleeping.

It's kind of useless to think of it logically.

Luang Pu Dul said that no matter how well a turtle describe what it's like to live on the land to a fish, the fish will not understand it because it never left water.

The best way for us to understand what nirvana is is by experiencing it.

How to expericne it? You learn it like when you learn riding bicycle.

Ajarn Buddhadasa said that it's useless for one to read an instruction to ride a bicycle.

You better get a bicycle, jump on it and try riding it.

The way you balance your bicycle and the way you ride it forward to the destination make it a complete process of riding a bicycle.

If you can only balance it, you will never leave your starting point.

If you can make it forward, but can't balance it, you won't go any far.

So the 2 processes need to be blended into 1 in order for you to move your bicycle forward.

It is like the 2 side of the coin and cann't be seperated.

Same thing with Samathi and Panya.

Samathi is how you balance your bicycle, and Panya is the way you push it forward.

Samathi and Panya are the 2 side of the coin; you need both of them at the same time in order for you to move forward out of the current state of sleeping.

Once you learn how to ride it, you will have to learn how to ride it with your both hands not on the handlebar.

And nirvana is when you can ride your bicycle without using your hands.

It's not a name of a place or god.

[Brucenkhamen]

Thank you sabaijai for bringing to thread back to the original question (not that I think the discussion on anatta has been a distraction; I've found it very helpful). It seems there is a fundamental lack of clarity at the heart of the question: "What is Nirvana?" On the one hand it can be described (by Buddhadasa) as a condition of no-suffering; however, what is a "condition" if there is no "self" or "being" to which that condition refers? Buddhadasa says it's "extinction", but extinction is not a condition; it's nothing at all.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If it's windy, or raining, or hot, or cold and there is nobody there to experience it then it's still windy, or raining, or hot, or cold, there doesn't have to be a being to which a condition refers for that condition to exist.

This is one of the major purposes of insight practice for us to sit there until we realise that this pain in the knee is not "my pain" it's not happening to "me", it's just pain arising due to conditions and it will pass away due to conditions. This thinking is not "my thinking" it's not happening to "me", it's just thinking arising due to conditions and it will pass away due to conditions.

The Buddha threw the cat among the pigeons in presenting the doctrine of anatta. Inevitably, if you tell your disciples that there is nothing at the basis of phenomenal existence, they are going to ask how something arises from nothing, or related questions. To say: "Don't ask" because you're not ready, or it's a distraction from practice, or there's no answer, begs the question why the teacher taught the doctrine in the first place.

Maybe, but as far as I'm aware the Buddha never said that there is nothing at the basis of phenomenal existence, he said there is no distinct and seperate self.

As I see it we are like leaves on a tree, as leaves we have no existence seperate from the tree yet each leaf can be identified as a distinctive part of the tree.

Does the rain and wind and sun happen to the leaves or to the tree? neither the rain and wind and sun just happens.

As for the idea of sunyata, if a container is empty does the container cease to exist? No we have an empty container.

I like the turtle and fish and bike riding analogies put forward by ff978472. One can analyse how applying x energy onto y pedal produces z forward motion all you like, and how balance is enabled by fluid in the eardrums, and why once learned you never forget how to ride a bike, but until you actually experience bike riding will you really know what's it's like? All that analysis achieves is distracts you from attaining the experience.

Once you've experienced it there might be some benefit in looking back to understand your experience because then doing so you do it with a changed perspective.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you sabaijai for bringing to thread back to the original question (not that I think the discussion on anatta has been a distraction; I've found it very helpful). It seems there is a fundamental lack of clarity at the heart of the question: "What is Nirvana?" On the one hand it can be described (by Buddhadasa) as a condition of no-suffering; however, what is a "condition" if there is no "self" or "being" to which that condition refers? Buddhadasa says it's "extinction", but extinction is not a condition; it's nothing at all.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If it's windy, or raining, or hot, or cold and there is nobody there to experience it then it's still windy, or raining, or hot, or cold, there doesn't have to be a being to which a condition refers for that condition to exist.

This is one of the major purposes of insight practice for us to sit there until we realise that this pain in the knee is not "my pain" it's not happening to "me", it's just pain arising due to conditions and it will pass away due to conditions. This thinking is not "my thinking" it's not happening to "me", it's just thinking arising due to conditions and it will pass away due to conditions.

The Buddha threw the cat among the pigeons in presenting the doctrine of anatta. Inevitably, if you tell your disciples that there is nothing at the basis of phenomenal existence, they are going to ask how something arises from nothing, or related questions. To say: "Don't ask" because you're not ready, or it's a distraction from practice, or there's no answer, begs the question why the teacher taught the doctrine in the first place.

Maybe, but as far as I'm aware the Buddha never said that there is nothing at the basis of phenomenal existence, he said there is no distinct and seperate self.

As I see it we are like leaves on a tree, as leaves we have no existence seperate from the tree yet each leaf can be identified as a distinctive part of the tree.

Does the rain and wind and sun happen to the leaves or to the tree? neither the rain and wind and sun just happens.

As for the idea of sunyata, if a container is empty does the container cease to exist? No we have an empty container.

I like the turtle and fish and bike riding analogies put forward by ff978472. One can analyse how applying x energy onto y pedal produces z forward motion all you like, and how balance is enabled by fluid in the eardrums, and why once learned you never forget how to ride a bike, but until you actually experience bike riding will you really know what's it's like? All that analysis achieves is distracts you from attaining the experience.

Once you've experienced it there might be some benefit in looking back to understand your experience because then doing so you do it with a changed perspective.

Thanks Brucenkhamen

I take on board your gentle admonition that it's really about practice. One can speculate on the nature or condition of nirvana, but one needs to attain it in order to know what it is.

The ontological questions, however, are still there alongside the methodological ones, and I suppose my original question was not just "What is Nirvana?", but whether Nirvana is another way of talking about the desired end-state common to religions after stripping away the angelic choruses, doe-eyed houris and tranquil gardens of religious imagery.

I suspect that, when the words and images are cleared away, there is a fair amount in common among Christian mystics, Sufis, sadhus and Buddhist teachers. However, the concept of anatta is much more foregrounded in Buddhist teaching. Others fall back on the idea of "God", and heaven/paradise/loka etc as in some way a condition of being in the presence of God. Negative (apophatic) theology denies any phenomenality to God, however, and hence would seem to have much in common with language that does not ascribe any identity to God and therefore makes "God-talk" meaningless. Still, it leaves open the question "Why is there something and not nothing?" - allowing for the fact that physicists may have real difficulties in isolating the irreducible source of "something".

I'm interested in your suggestion that the Buddha did not teach sunyata, but anatta, and that the latter related to the self rather than the broader ontological ground in which the self is situated (its hard to talk about the self being grounded if there is no "self", but I'm assuming that there is more in this conceptual, if not physical universe, than minds that mistakenly conceive selves for themselves). Are you saying that sunyata is a later development of the Buddha's teaching, not sourced in the Buddha, but inferred from his teaching about anatta?

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm interested in your suggestion that the Buddha did not teach sunyata, but anatta, and that the latter related to the self rather than the broader ontological ground in which the self is situated (its hard to talk about the self being grounded if there is no "self", but I'm assuming that there is more in this conceptual, if not physical universe, than minds that mistakenly conceive selves for themselves). Are you saying that sunyata is a later development of the Buddha's teaching, not sourced in the Buddha, but inferred from his teaching about anatta?

I didn't suggest that the "Buddha did not teach sunyata, but anatta", I said "as far as I'm aware the Buddha never said that there is nothing at the basis of phenomenal existence, he said there is no distinct and seperate self".

I don't believe Sunnata means nothing exists, as I go on to say a container that is empty is still a container.

The term Sunnata does appear in earlier scriptures but as far as I know not as a fundamental teaching in the way anicca. dukkha, anatta do. Even in the Mahayana scriptures, the Heart Sutra seems to use the term more poetically rather than laying out a fundamental doctrine, that's the way it seems to me anyway.

When I hear Sunnata (emptiness, voidness) it primarily speaks to me of the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned phenomena, all things are empty of the ability to satisfy. There are some things for which no-self is a given, it seems redundant to say money, sex, or chocolate is no self, but these things are empty precisely because they don't satisfy.

Sunnata I think points to both the not self and unsatisfactory nature of all things, rather than the non-existance of all things.

This is just my opinion, I've read a few references around the web that imply that sunnata and anatta are virtually synonymous.

I found this Wikipedia explanation that may help clarify;

Emptiness is not taught as often by Theravada teachers as it is by Mahayanists. One reason for this is that emptiness is seen as a liberating insight in the Theravada tradition, rather than a philosophical view one needs to understand intellectually; emptiness is often not taught until the teacher decides the student is ready. Another is that in some circumstance where a Mahayanist would use the word "shunyata," a Theravadin would instead use the words "impermanence" or "anatta" to mean the same thing. A third is that in the Theravada tradition, understanding emptiness is subordinated to the ultimate goal of liberation.[7]

Another view is that in advancing personal growth, it is not metaphysics but phenomenology that is required. Metaphysical views are often irrelevant, or even harmful if the intrinsic emptiness of the fruits of an unskillful act provide a rationale for performing that act.

[Svenn]

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.

This is erroneous logic. You don't need a self to have volition (will), all you need is mental processes. And "conditioned" does not mean preprogrammed. Try explaining to yourself - without reference to Buddhism - how you can have "free will" without some influence from genetics and life experience. You can't. You make decisions based on genetic tendencies (which can be overriden) and life experience, stored as memories and mental patterns, mostly in your subconscious. The fact that you have a tendency to act in a certain way doesn't mean that you will, and it doesn't mean you can't change that tendency. So at all times you have the choice to change the way you act.

A central idea in Buddhism is that self-view (or ego) makes us act in ways that aren't in our interest because they cause suffering. And since much of the ego is buried in the subconscious, it's difficult to understand it and change it. So there is this tyrant hiding in our mind and forcing us to do things. That's slavery. It's nothing like "free will" at all. The Eightfold Path is a technique for understanding how the ego works and reducing its activity to zero. You train the mind to act in certain ways, and the result is that when you make a decision in the future, it won't be influenced by ego. When dynamic events require you to act, you will act in a way that you want to instead of a way that suits your ego and causes you suffering. That's a kind of relative free will where you get to determine your own behaviour.

have to agree with rocky. your last paragraph camerata- you keep saying the word 'you' as something that can stop being influenced by the 'ego' if 'you' train enough- you seem to be falling into the telescoping conceptualism of self that never ends. you can argue there's gradually more refined and less reflexive version of ego or self above the subconcious, but you're still talking about selves. there is no 'you' that can train to attain realization, and when there is realization, there is per se no 'one' experiencing it.

anyone who's familiar with very basic science knows that there's no action in this universe, including mental thoughts/actions, that occurs spontaneously without predetermination- every movement of every atom occurs because of transfer of energy from some other source. except for weird subatomic quarks that appear to appear and disappear and move randomly without predetrination, every other movement in this reality of ours occurs from something else. therefore, if you had a machine intricate enough that could take into account every atomic movement in a field of human actors, and it didn't interfere with that which it was observing, you could precisely predict every mental thought of those actors... unless of course you have some weird spirtual of idea of the mind being something other than twitching neurons.

in reality, there are no 'choices' we make or 'actions' we take, and certainly no free will or self, it's all just what us creatures with limited sensory capacity use as an expediency in our very complex universe.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Svenn

[camerata]

camerata- you keep saying the word 'you' as something that can stop being influenced by the 'ego' if 'you' train enough- you seem to be falling into the telescoping conceptualism of self that never ends.

I'm trying to keep the discussion simple for rocky. From the Buddhist perspective there is the self-identity that separates an individual from everything else. An arahant extinguishes that self-identity but can still act normally. You could put the label "self" on the mental processes that motivate him to act, but that would be missing the point. An arahant acts in the interest of all beings rather than with a bias towards his own self-interest.

in reality, there are no 'choices' we make or 'actions' we take, and certainly no free will or self, it's all just what us creatures with limited sensory capacity use as an expediency in our very complex universe.

I think I said something like this in a previous post. "Free will" is a fuzzy Judeo-Christian concept involving an immortal soul and the ability to choose between good and evil at any time, apparently free of any external influence. There is no free will in this sense. However, there is always the subjective experience of free will and the ability to improve one's mental state, so I don't see rocky's problem other than (as he puts it) he tends to be negative.

[Jimjim]

Nirvana is nothingness.

[ff978472]

See a table, can you imagine "no table".

It's quite possible for one to imagine "no table" (in your mind, not by your eyes)

Now try to see hotness and coldness.

It's understandable if we say coldness doesn't exist, coldness is just the opposite of hotness.

0degree doesn't mean it's cold, it means its less hot then 1 degree.

Then what degree hotness is zero (lowest point of hotness)?

What degree where lower beyond that hotness will not exist?

-1,000,000degree? no, that's not the end because we know that it can go to -1,000,001degree.

So, we realize that hotness also doesn't exist.

Both hotness and coldness are created from something else (in our mind)

Those are Rupa-dham, it's easier to understand Rupa-dham than Nama-dham like selfness.

If we compare selfness with hotness and non-selfness with coldness.

Then it's believable that both selfness and non-selfness do not exist (but we still don't see this fact).

Both selness and non-selfness are maya.

If one doesn't exist, the other one also not exisit.

I think that's Sunyata.

It will be easier if we can measure level of selfness (like temperature) :-)

Edited January 17, 2009 by ff978472

[mark lamai]

maybe..

i dunno..

if i knew i'd tell you.

but then others who say they know can't tell you in a way you understand.

so if you don't know you can't know.

[SeerObserver]

Pondering how it is in the state of Nirvana, what it is like...is pointless because we can never know, until we reach it, and was warned from doing so by the Buddha, in case it led to madness. Trying to know the unknowable...Nirvana....the beginning of the world or the universe....the state of a buddha or arahant once they had passed on from their final human existances.

When on the path to try and achieve Nirvana, we should realise that peace is the most pleasant feeling. Not pleasure or suffering, but the simple absence of both.... equanamity and a neutral feeling without either extremes of pleasure or pain.

This is very well stated. Impractical amounts of time are spent speculating on what cannot be known/proven through "conventional" means. What would be better is to progress in our practice and attain the state of omniscience so that we will have the answers we seek.

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.

This is exactly what I was getting ready to post until I saw your reply. Well said. Anatta is about precisely that. Teaching on the three characteristics of existence is summarized well by your point here.

[rockyysdt]

Impractical amounts of time are spent speculating on what cannot be known/proven through "conventional" means.

Yes, but what such speculation does do is to allow you to seek like minded who may inspire you and teach you the correct path.

Over time such quality contact may assist you to dispel misconceptions you may have gathered in your life.

[SeerObserver]

Impractical amounts of time are spent speculating on what cannot be known/proven through "conventional" means.

Yes, but what such speculation does do is to allow you to seek like minded who may inspire you and teach you the correct path.

Over time such quality contact may assist you to dispel misconceptions you may have gathered in your life.

Yes. I agree with your point. Mine was not to say that speculation has no value, but it doesn't seem that you interpreted it to that extreme. If that were the case, you would have merely pointed out the fact that I am on this thread. Following the middle-way is what we seem to come to a consensus on.

Basically, just don't spend impractical amounts of time speculating to the point that you neglect practice, but also don't neglect this other contemplation to the point that one may miss out on the benefits that you have decribed either. It may seem like semantics, but maybe I am making a distinction between contemplation and speculation.

[rockyysdt]

Yes. I agree with your point. Mine was not to say that speculation has no value, but it doesn't seem that you interpreted it to that extreme. If that were the case, you would have merely pointed out the fact that I am on this thread. Following the middle-way is what we seem to come to a consensus on.

Basically, just don't spend impractical amounts of time speculating to the point that you neglect practice, but also don't neglect this other contemplation to the point that one may miss out on the benefits that you have decribed either. It may seem like semantics, but maybe I am making a distinction between contemplation and speculation.

I think we agree.

Those who spend impractical amounts of time on speculation have fallen into the trap of ego & negative self talk, at the expense of practice.

On the other hand, interacting with experienced travelers has helped me maintain hope and allowed me to technically improve my practice, understanding and technique.

I view regular contributors to this forum as informal teachers who selflessly offer their knowledge so others may progress. Whilst still in our ego dominated world, speculation supports our intellectual side, until such time that our practice allows us to see beyond this.

In formal retreat, one reports to the head monk for interaction and instruction.

This forum currently serves as my informal guidance.

Perhaps, one day, as my practice unfolds, I will seek a personal teacher.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think we agree.

Those who spend impractical amounts of time on speculation have fallen into the trap of ego & negative self talk, at the expense of practice.

On the other hand, interacting with experienced travelers has helped me maintain hope and allowed me to technically improve my practice, understanding and technique.

To me practice is a question designed among other things to answer the kinds of existential questions we are talking about here.

So there's not much point asking these sorts of questions of teachers, teachers are there to answer questions on how to practice so a good teacher will always point you back to the practice, and through that eventually the answers to these sorts of questions sort themselves out.