What is Nirvana really?

[trd]

But when the individual "I" permanently dissolves and expands into the universal "I" as a result of inquiry (meditation) into the source then:

Andrew in Millenium Man, & Data in Star Trek, are both manufactured androids.

Both are endowed with senses, memory, feelings, & consciousness and a desire to live.

We know they do not have soul/spirit and that they are both conditioned and impermanent (although with greater endurance than humans).

When terminated they become destroyed.

Unaware of anything other than the conditioned & impermanent, and statistically unlikely to awaken for close to eternity, aren't these Androids the same as non awakened humans?

With nothing in common with the permanent "I" (unconditioned & permanent), but in fact its opposite.

Won't both become destroyed upon expiration of body/mind.

I doubt we will be seeing Windows 8 - Self Aware Edition any time soon.

[rockyysdt]

Sorry TRD

Recovering from recent surgery leading to restricted practice and considerable helpings of aversion and delusion have been clouding my thoughts and inflating ego of late.

Good sense of humor regarding windows.

Is my path affected if I refrain from belief in a higher "I", containing belief to an open mind on it?

Reasonable reading of Dharma seems to allow for both the existence &/or not.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited July 30, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Sorry TRD

Recovering from recent surgery leading to restricted practice and considerable helpings of aversion and delusion have been clouding my thoughts and inflating ego of late.

Good sense of humor regarding windows.

Is my path affected if I refrain from belief in a higher "I", containing belief to an open mind on it?

Reasonable reading of Dharma seems to allow for both the existence &/or not.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I wish you a full and speedy recovery Rocky.

The personal, individual "I" is the root thought of the egoic mind. You don't have to believe in it. It is self evident. It is when the mind is experiencing itself. If by the higher "I", you mean the expanded universal "I", then a belief in it will be merely a thought projected from the limited, personal "I". All that is required is to turn the attention towards that personal "I" and with practice the door will open to the expanded, higher "I" which is prior to individual conscious mind.

It is important that you focus your attention on this and cease from engaging with scientific materialists who will never accept this. If you are not strong enough you will be distracted by ignorance of which there is an abundance. I see you have started yet another thread. Good on you. Keep it going.

[rockyysdt]

I wish you a full and speedy recovery Rocky.

The personal, individual "I" is the root thought of the egoic mind. You don't have to believe in it. It is self evident. It is when the mind is experiencing itself. If by the higher "I", you mean the expanded universal "I", then a belief in it will be merely a thought projected from the limited, personal "I". All that is required is to turn the attention towards that personal "I" and with practice the door will open to the expanded, higher "I" which is prior to individual conscious mind.

It is important that you focus your attention on this and cease from engaging with scientific materialists who will never accept this. If you are not strong enough you will be distracted by ignorance of which there is an abundance. I see you have started yet another thread. Good on you. Keep it going.

Thanks T.

Is the consciousness which I'm conscious of part of my small "I"?

Is the higher "I" part of a different/other consciousness?

[trd]

I wish you a full and speedy recovery Rocky.

The personal, individual "I" is the root thought of the egoic mind. You don't have to believe in it. It is self evident. It is when the mind is experiencing itself. If by the higher "I", you mean the expanded universal "I", then a belief in it will be merely a thought projected from the limited, personal "I". All that is required is to turn the attention towards that personal "I" and with practice the door will open to the expanded, higher "I" which is prior to individual conscious mind.

It is important that you focus your attention on this and cease from engaging with scientific materialists who will never accept this. If you are not strong enough you will be distracted by ignorance of which there is an abundance. I see you have started yet another thread. Good on you. Keep it going.

Thanks T.

Is the consciousness which I'm conscious of part of my small "I"?

Is the higher "I" part of a different/other consciousness?

If you are conscious of being conscious, then you are experiencing "I".

Is the ocean separate from the wave? Yes and No. Ocean is not dependent on wave.

Is unbounded awareness (higher "I") separate from the mind (which is conscious)? Yes and No. Awareness (True Self) is not dependent on mind.

Edited July 30, 2014 by trd

[Zendo]

From Linji Yixuan (Jap. Rinzai Gigen) :

Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.

In Buddhism there is no place for using effort. Just be ordinary and nothing special. Eat your food, move your bowels, pass water, and when you're tired go and lie down. The ignorant will laugh at me, but the wise will understand.

[trd]

From Linji Yixuan (Jap. Rinzai Gigen) :

Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.

In Buddhism there is no place for using effort. Just be ordinary and nothing special. Eat your food, move your bowels, pass water, and when you're tired go and lie down. The ignorant will laugh at me, but the wise will understand.

Doing nothing sounds very appealing and there are many teachers, particularly from the neo advaita circles who say this. Unfortunately it's just not true. I have known many people with strong bowel movements who are not enlightened. There has to be some effort to reach a state of no effort. And I'm not laughing Zendo. Edited July 30, 2014 by trd

[Zendo]

You are right trd when you say this :

Doing nothing sounds very appealing and there are many teachers, particularly from the neo advaita circles who say this. Unfortunately it's just not true. I have known many people with strong bowel movements who are not enlightened. There has to be some effort to reach a state of no effort. And I'm not laughing Zendo.

as being ordinary and not "special" might be the most difficult state to be, anyway you can make efforts all your life(s) and leading nowhere, loosing time..., so better STOP now and look at the grass growing and listen the one hand clapping ^^

But you know what, you SHOULD be laughing, as it might be the most powerfull tool to reach samadhi ^^ !

[trd]

You are right trd when you say this :

Doing nothing sounds very appealing and there are many teachers, particularly from the neo advaita circles who say this. Unfortunately it's just not true. I have known many people with strong bowel movements who are not enlightened. There has to be some effort to reach a state of no effort. And I'm not laughing Zendo.

as being ordinary and not "special" might be the most difficult state to be, anyway you can make efforts all your life(s) and leading nowhere, loosing time..., so better STOP now and look at the grass growing and listen the one hand clapping ^^

But you know what, you SHOULD be laughing, as it might be the most powerfull tool to reach samadhi ^^ !

Yes Zendo I know exactly what you mean. It's a difficult subject to get across. I started experiencing deep samadhis when I was ten years old without knowing anything about the teachings. It wasn't until the later part of my life that the state became permanently established and that was after much practice of "no effort".

Edited July 30, 2014 by trd

[camerata]

On the rare occasions when the Buddha spoke of nibbana in terms other than the end of dukkha, etc, he was very careful to differentiate it from mundane feelings of happiness or joy:

"There is, Magandiya, a delight apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, which surpasses divine bliss. Since I take delight in that, I do not envy what is inferior, nor do I delight therein." - M 75.12

[RandomSand]

rockyysdt: I like the second interpretation of nirvana that you cited. I often suffer due to my greed and self-indulgence (aversion to inconvenience and discomfort) but I do sometimes enter a state of nirvana. In moments of clarity, I am sometimes able to avoid things which cause my suffering - sometimes not. My life corresponds to the philosophy of life of the Bhagavad Gita - it's a daily struggle to control my thoughts and actions. It's not as simple to do as I once thought. Thanks for your interesting post!

Nope, the body has to die for any possible passage into nirvana. I am glad you have moments of peace, however.

How would someone who cannot remember their births or deaths make any sense of your statements ?

What is death ?

Do you mean the body must grind to a halt... i.e the person must flat-line ?

Edited July 31, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

Nope, the body has to die for any possible passage into nirvana.

1) Not true.

2) There is no passage into nirvana. Nirvana is here now always.

Edited July 31, 2014 by trd

[RandomSand]

The heart of my OP revolves around the difference of each possibility.

The Buddha taught there is no individual soul nor spirit.

There is an immeasurable difference between one experiencing a "timeless unconditioned blissful state empty of thought" vs a "universal unborn & undying consciousness".

In the first possibility Nirvana is a "place", a specialized heaven where souls are united in a timeless unconditioned state.

Sounds like Brahman

In the second possibility Nirvana is a "state" in which a human lives free from the fuels of Greed, Aversion & Delusion. A "state" free of Ego.

Sounds like being In Love (non-romantic)

The last illustrated possibility encompasses the second, but replaces souls with universal consciousness and extends it beyond the living mind/body.

Imagine that someone had known either one of the first two, but not both. They feel like that what they experienced is "true oneness" as the experience was so total that it seems impossible for anything to exist separate from this "oneness". Of course; they couldn't talk about something which they haven't experienced and when asked to explain "the basis of reality" they'll describe whatever they know according to their own experience.

I think the third "possibility" is rather undefined and could apply to both the first and second possibilities. You mention the third possibility encompasses "replacing souls" but I don't see how the first two necessitate any concept of soul.

Would write more but outta time...

[rockyysdt]

Hi R

Perhaps more clarification.

The key to the first is that it is a place.

The key to the second is that for each of us it ends with our death (body/mind - flatline).

The key to the third is that it is a state not place, it continues beyond death, there is no individual soul/spirit, and it is timeless, permanent & unconditioned.

Hope this helps.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited July 31, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

If nirvana is the unconditioned, you cannot impose any such limitation of time and space on it otherwise it "becomes conditioned".

[trd]

In the first possibility Nirvana is a "place", a specialized heaven where souls are united in a timeless unconditioned state.

Sounds like Brahman

Definitely not. Brahman is the unconditioned absolute.

Edited July 31, 2014 by trd

[trd]

The last illustrated possibility encompasses the second, but replaces souls with universal consciousness and extends it beyond the living mind/body.

The mistake is in thinking of universal consciousness and the personal "I" as separate. They are and they aren't. In a state of ignorance, there is total identification with the mind and body as the reality. The small self appears to be real. Then there is the realisation and shift to identify with unbounded awareness as the reality. But once that is known the impersonal and the personal become one.

If you see Buddha walking along the road and you call his name, does he not turn and respond. Who is it that responds? Like an actor on the stage playing a character, he does not forget his real identity while playing a role.

[Naam]

In truth, there are no words beautiful enough to describe nirvana. Neither from the Buddhist perspective, or the Christian name, the kingdom of heaven.

However, through the practice of Vipassana you can discover for yourself. Is is not easy, and not hard. Learn to live now, and insight will come.

big words without any meaning for those beginners who are seekers. i have made several attempts and never found/met anybody who could give me the tiniest portion of insight. but i will not give up!

inspite of reading most comments in the Buddhist section i still feel what my gardener must feel if i give him a lecture in quantum mechanics.

what i would highly appreciate is advice from the resident experts which books on buddhism they recommend for an absolute layman.

Hi Naam.

Can I ask?

What draws you to Buddhism (what is your aim)?

What is your practice?

i am not "drawn" to Buddhism Rocky but living in a Buddhist country i would like to understand the faith especially because i took my time to study other major religions. that i don't practice any is irrelevant.

in short... i am since many years a "taleban" based on the original meaning of the arabic word which is "seeker of..." insert "truth, fact, fiction, wisdom" and a bunch of other expressions.

[rockyysdt]

Very interesting Naam.

The reason for my question, apart from allowing me to assist with your enquiry, is that ones reasons can be a good place to begin focus with ones practice.

For example, why have you directed your life's focus on Taleban values?

And why select this particular word to describe these values?

So for me, awareness involves observing my conditioning and from this questioning my attraction to such conditioning.

What attracts me to what I do/believe?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited July 31, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

In the first possibility Nirvana is a "place", a specialized heaven where souls are united in a timeless unconditioned state.

Sounds like Brahman

Definitely not. Brahman is the unconditioned absolute.

Ignoring "souls" (existing in a place) for a moment (which I admit missing, sorry Rocky) is there a distinguishable difference between "a timeless unconditioned state" and "the unconditioned absolute" ?

Seems to be a matter of language if anything ?

trd, I'm interested to know if you'd consider "I am Brahman" to be a valid statement ?

Edited July 31, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

In the first possibility Nirvana is a "place", a specialized heaven where souls are united in a timeless unconditioned state. Sounds like Brahman

Definitely not. Brahman is the unconditioned absolute.

Ignoring "souls" (existing in a place) for a moment (which I admit missing, sorry Rocky) is there a distinguishable difference between "a timeless unconditioned state" and "the unconditioned absolute" ?

Seems to be a matter of language if anything ?

trd, I'm interested to know if you'd consider "I am Brahman" to be a valid statement?

Well I could just say, Google is your friend because Brahman has all kinds of descriptions and connotations which you can read up on to your heart's content. For me, to say, "I am Brahman", is the knowledge that you are the absolute, unbounded, unconditioned pure awareness, the supreme Self, that also expresses itself in the relative. From the sanskrit it is "sat chit ananda" (being, consciousness, bliss). So yes, it is a valid statement. This is from the vedic scriptures. The other three main influences which are all related and supportive even though they may seem to be contradictory are:

Yoga which is the samkhya school believing that there are two things only, purusha (consciousness) and prakriti (matter), but ultimately it is purusha that is the reality. It is a dualistic philosophy.

Advaita Vedanta which says there is only consciousness and everything in the relative is mere appearance.

Kashmir Saivism which is non dual but describes reality as the Shiva aspect (absolute) expressed as Shakti (relative).

And then of course there's ten different flavours of Buddhism.................

Take your pick.

Edited July 31, 2014 by trd

[RandomSand]

It seems to me that it's fair to say the following: "Nirvana is the absolute, unconditioned, state and from our relative situation of reality we refer to the state of Nirvana as a place or destination".

Other people say "Nirvana & Samsara are two sides of the same coin so therefore are not the absolute" and rigidly adhere to the doctrine of dependent origination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

Perhaps now might be a good time to mention... Parinirvana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parinirvana

In Buddhism, the term parinirvana is commonly used to refer to nirvana-after-death, which occurs upon the death of the body of someone who has attained nirvana during their lifetime. It implies a release from the Saṃsāra, karma and rebirth as well as the dissolution of the skandhas.

In some Mahāyāna scriptures, notably the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Parinirvāṇa is described as the realm of the eternal true Self of the Buddha.

Edited July 31, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

It seems to me that it's fair to say the following: "Nirvana is the absolute, unconditioned, state and from our relative situation of reality we refer to the state of Nirvana as a place or destination".

Other people say "Nirvana & Samsara are two sides of the same coin so therefore are not the absolute" and rigidly adhere to the doctrine of dependent origination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

You capture, using different words, two of the three models I described.

Both involving state (place being sometimes ascribed due to our limited state).

• The first confirming a state beyond the relative and necessitating a higher "self" or "I".

• The second requiring both (co existence) to exist.

An analogy by Ven. Sariputta explains the interdependency of consciousness and name-&-form (Nalakalapiyo Sutta, SN 12.67):

"It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another.

In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form....

"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall.

In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form...."

Buddhism is divided into these two camps.

For those who attach to the belief that "consciousness name & form being" are pre requisites of each other then what drives the universe if there is no absolute?

Could it be infinity itself, with matter and energy being in a state of constant flux?

Edited August 1, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

For those who attach to the belief that "consciousness name & form being" are pre requisites of each other then what drives the universe if there is no absolute?

Could it be infinity itself, with matter and energy being in a state of constant flux?

Gosh Rocky, what on earth does this mean? I have no idea. I think you need to take a holiday from this. You are becoming trapped in a conceptual maze which the mind cannot possibly understand. Let go of it.

[Naam]

Very interesting Naam.

The reason for my question, apart from allowing me to assist with your enquiry, is that ones reasons can be a good place to begin focus with ones practice.

For example, why have you directed your life's focus on Taleban values?

And why select this particular word to describe these values?

So for me, awareness involves observing my conditioning and from this questioning my attraction to such conditioning.

What attracts me to what I do/believe?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Rocky, i think there is some misunderstanding as far as "taleban values" are concerned. fate, kismet, karma and last not least Goddess Fortuna enabled me to retire at a rather young age and i used those nearly 25 years in acquiring or extending my knowledge in numerous subjects and categories.

faith/religions are only a part of the afore-mentioned but of special interest to me because i lived/worked in countries where religion, faith, and/or superstition had and still have a great, if not paramount, impact on daily life. i studied the Bible, Qr'an, various Hindu religious texts, Grant Sahib and African superstitions embedded in Christian sects.

completing nearly ten years residing in Thailand i deem it necessary to know more about Buddhism, as simple as that.

[rockyysdt]

Completing nearly ten years residing in Thailand i deem it necessary to know more about Buddhism, as simple as that.

Fred's link is a good summary of Buddhism.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

In terms of Thailand, a majority of laity are said to limit their practice towards garnering a favorable next life, with a minority actually fully practicing to achieve realization.

Things like offerings to the Monks, & Temple as well as observing Buddhist holidays within the tradition.

What do you do with the accumulation of religious knowledge?

[rockyysdt]

For those who attach to the belief that "consciousness name & form being" are pre requisites of each other then what drives the universe if there is no absolute?

Could it be infinity itself, with matter and energy being in a state of constant flux?

Gosh Rocky, what on earth does this mean? I have no idea. I think you need to take a holiday from this. You are becoming trapped in a conceptual maze which the mind cannot possibly understand. Let go of it.

Once again you're probably very correct T.

What I was attempting to describe is position taken by a large number of Buddhists.

Non attachment to that which is beyond "consciousness and name & form".

A belief in which realization requires the co existence of "consciousness and name & form".

Infinity, energy & matter in flux would perpetuate existence.

Edited August 1, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

Could it be infinity itself, with matter and energy being in a state of constant flux?

Ahhh.. infinity. The one thing we can't fit into our limited brains.

A scientist will usually define it simply as a unlimited set of numbers and not, as you just did, in such an esoteric fashion.

Edited August 1, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

Was I incorrect?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[RandomSand]

If the universe is a mysterious enigma that's always perplexed humanity it would be acutely arrogant for me to speak as an authority and say you were correct or incorrect.

I read you (previous) question as defining "infinity" as something itself and didn't necessarily disagree. From there my mind wandered, I imagined causality and cessation as two side of the same coin where creation is simultaneously destruction, and I thought Hinduism is much more poetic than Buddhism.

Edited August 1, 2014 by RandomSand