What is Nirvana really?

[Naam]

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?

are you serious? what does one do with any acquired knowledge which is not relevant to putting food on the table and pay for the roof over one's head? am i wasting time keeping up-to-date with the current efficiency of gas turbines, trying hard to read Urdu poetry in its original version or listen to anthropology lectures given by my wife?

[rockyysdt]

There's always a light hearted (non serious) element to my nature.

A level often not picked up in the written form.

John Peacock, lecturer and teacher of Buddhism picked up on this when studying early works of Dharma.

He contended that the Buddha, with a sense of humor, spoke in metaphor ridiculing the Brahmans of the time whilst selling his teaching of waking up to reality through awareness in the present moment.

Those who read him literally had their beliefs acknowledged, whilst those whose experience was anchored to awareness of reality would eventually see beyond this.

That is his theory anyway.

How would you describe your wife's lectures?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited August 1, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Naam]

How would you describe your wife's lectures?

most of the time (not always) quite interesting otherwise i wouldn't ask her for the lectures.

[trd]

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".

If by "non attachment" you mean it is an act of volition, and assuming that attachment implies an attachment to "something", then as an act, the mind is taking a position to not become attached to an object. But it would be impossible to be attached or non attached to something beyond consciousness or name and form as there would not be any object there to be attached or not attached to. The mind could not know it. An object needs consciousness to cognize it. By stating it as a possibility it can only exist as a mental concept and within the experience of mind.

If by "non attachment" you mean the natural state of desirelessness as a result of destruction of ego which is the true state of non attachment then the question does not even arise.

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

A belief in what? It is self evident that consciousness can experience itself without thought or perception, and name and form is manifested by consciousness.

Infinity, energy & matter in flux would perpetuate existence.

Existence cannot be perpetuated for what would be the agent of that perpetuation and what would be the agent of the agent of perpetuation. It just is.

[RandomSand]

Is there any amongst us who has completely destroyed Ego and can acknowledge the existence of Pure, Deathless, Timeless, Unconditioned Awareness?

1. Ego is just a concept we use to describe the way in which the mind works. Scientifically we don't actually understand much about consciousness. Is the "Ego" even talked about by Buddha?

2. I see a problem in "destroying it". Who will destroy it? Will the Ego will destroy itself ?

3. I read that Buddha "cut the root". This disturbs me slightly and I personally have no intention of cutting anything till the day I die.

[rockyysdt]

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

A belief in what? It is self evident that consciousness can experience itself without thought or perception, and name and form is manifested by consciousness.

Before I answer, I need to preface by saying, that apart from the disproved, I am open to all possibilities.

The other preface is to say that I speak from a position in which I don't enjoy personal experience or direct knowledge of the answers.

For this reason isn't it best to remain open to either possibility?

• The belief (which I don't hold but am open to) is: Although name and form is manifested by consciousness, it (consciousness) ceases when there is no name & form. (Nalakalapiyo Sutta, SN 12.67)

Two examples previously given were: When I close my eyes form disappears, and When experiencing Samadhi, mind, and name & form disappear.

Although consciousness continues during these events, name & form existed (I was not deceased).

• The other, of course is that consciousness can continue as a permanent & unconditioned state.

The leap of faith, for the unawakened, is that expansion into the universal "I" which is permanent & unconditioned, without form & name, enters the realm of religion.

I'm completely open to it, but, without personal experience, can't embrace it as fact, but as possibility.

To those who have personal experience, they are in a unique and unshakable position.

My strategy, crafted by my teachers (you & other forum members) will be to concentrate on practice.

Until I become blessed with wisdom, don't be surprised to see the odd post focusing on interpretation of Dharma.

Whilst unawakened, it can be fun, allows the expansion of Sangha, & shakes out a lot of useful information.

Not to mention adding to Awareness of/from the external.

Edited August 2, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Before I answer, I need to preface by saying, that apart from the disproved, I am open to all possibilities.

The other preface is to say that I speak from a position in which I don't enjoy personal experience or direct knowledge of the answers.

For this reason isn't it best to remain open to either possibility?

By all means remain open to either possibility. What does it matter? If you remain open to the possibility that you may or may not feel pain if I put your hand in the fire, when the time comes, you will know. Will you say, "I believe my hand is on fire" or will you just know it?

The leap of faith, for the unawakened, is that expansion into the universal "I" which is permanent & unconditioned, without form & name, enters the realm of religion.

So if you know your hand is burning what is the need of belief? What is the need of religion if you know something directly. You have got it the wrong way round. It is when you are in darkness that you need religion. When you see the light what is the use of it?

[rockyysdt]

By all means remain open to either possibility. What does it matter? If you remain open to the possibility that you may or may not feel pain if I put your hand in the fire, when the time comes, you will know. Will you say, "I believe my hand is on fire" or will you just know it?

Isn't the difference between the two examples, that burning ones hand with fire usually leading to pain, is provable, verifiable and has been proven, both theoretically and physically?

Doesn't the former rely on personal experience of others (until practice reveals fruit), whose form and mind has been extinguished and who have realized such a state?

Isn't this why one can be open but not have the full confidence to state such a thing as fact?

Edited August 2, 2014 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The leap of faith, for the unawakened, is that expansion into the universal "I" which is permanent & unconditioned, without form & name, enters the realm of religion.

So if you know your hand is burning what is the need of belief? What is the need of religion if you know something directly. You have got it the wrong way round. It is when you are in darkness that you need religion. When you see the light what is the use of it?

Once experienced, if as described, then indeed all else is darkness.

Doesn't the unawakened traveler have only his/her ego with which to navigate until wisdom/experience occurs?

Isn't it careless to accept beliefs without some level of proof, whether personal experience or other means?

I suspect that we may be using the word "religion" differently.

A Christian relative often quotes: "There is religion & there is the truth".

Incidentally, his view of the truth is Christianity.

My use of this word in the sentence:

The leap of faith, for the unawakened, is that expansion into the universal "I" which is permanent & unconditioned, without form & name, enters the realm of religion.

was to suggest that (as with most religions), for each of us (unawakened & without personal experience), there is an unproven promise of some form of continuance/existence beyond death.

Having said that, through my inquiry, I am "open" to what you have been teaching, but need personal experience or other, to 100% believe.

Edited August 2, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Let me ask one simple question. Why do you practice?

[rockyysdt]

Let me ask one simple question. Why do you practice?

It's a mixture of reasons, but I'd be deluded not to think that many might involve greed and aversion.

Aversion to impermanence.

Desire to believe there is more.

Means by which I can escape my conditioning.

Expand my awareness.

Improve my life.

Diminish suffering.

Give purpose and meaning to my life.

Ethical framework to base my life.

Power of awareness over auto response.

Clarity experienced after positive sits.

Escape from my ego.

Dislike of my ego.

Invitation of finding out for myself (self experience rather than belief).

Edited August 2, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

That's a well thought out answer Rocky. Every point you have listed says essentially the same thing. That you feel or believe there is something more than the surface reality you experience. It is not necessary to get too analytical about this feeling. You either have it or you do not. You could speculate that this feeling has arisen due to some kind of spiritual evolution. Perhaps you have done the work in a previous life that has got you to where you are now. Who knows? Who can say? The point is, it is there within you.

Is it not this feeling which spurs you on without a guarantee of success. You are already in a minority. Most people have no interest in this knowledge. But you need to trust the Guru within.

So this statement:

Doesn't the unawakened traveler have only his/her ego with which to navigate until wisdom/experience occurs?

Isn't it careless to accept beliefs without some level of proof, whether personal experience or other means?

Is simply doubt and uncertainty. A product of the unreliable mind.

You have just enough of a feeling to practice and at the same time just enough of a feeling to doubt. If you had no positive experiences at all you would stop your practice so I must assume there is some impatience for results. But this idea of a result is an idea of some future event which will never be what you think it is. But when it happens you will know what it is without any possibility of doubt. This doubt comes with the territory if you are on the path. The good news is that if you are catching momentary glimpses of the silence within, which you say you are, you are experiencing something which the vast majority of humans beings do not. Do not take this for granted.

I suspect that we may be using the word "religion" differently.

When I use the word religion, I mean a belief system such as is found in the major organised religions of the world.

[rockyysdt]

Thank you for your encouragement.

Many don't realize how fortunate they are to have access to guides of your quality.

[rockyysdt]

The Ven. Maha Boowa had an indirect go at describing Nirvana.

Included was Citta:

The mind’s essential knowing nature, the fundamental quality of knowing that underlies all sentient existence.

When associated with a physical body, it is corrupted by the defiling influence of fundamental ignorance (avijjã), a web of self-deception.

It is deceived about its own true nature.

The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies.

There is a strong tendency to think that consciousness results purely from complex interactions within the human brain, and that when the brain dies, consciousness ceases. This mechanistic view is wholly mistaken. While certain parts of the brain can be identified with certain mental functions, that does not mean that the brain produces consciousness. In essence, the brain is a complex processing organ. It receives and processes incoming data impulses that inform about feelings, memory, thoughts, and consciousness, but the brain does not generate these mental functions; nor does it generate conscious awareness. That is entirely the province of the citta.

Nirvana:

Too extraordinary to be captured in words.

The world completely vanished.

Once it arose in all its brilliance, things that had lain in obscurity, things I never knew, were suddenly illuminated and revealed.

Nothing remains hidden or concealed.

I no longer experience past, present, or future; for I no longer have any trace of conventional reality left within my heart.

I turned my attention to investigating my past lives, it was terrifying to think how many times I had been born and how many times I had died; how many times I was reborn in hell; and how many times in the heavens and the Brahma realms, only to fall back into hell again. It appeared as though the citta was climbing up and down a flight of stairs.

• The well cleansed Citta:

It enters a majestic quality of knowing, an extremely refined awareness which completely predominates. No images or visions appear at all. It is an awareness that stands out exclusively on its own and blankets the entire cosmos with absolutely nothing else appearing.

Awareness beyond the conditions of time and space, which allows it to blanket everything. Far is like near, for concepts of space do not apply.

All that appears is a very refined awareness suffusing everything throughout the entire universe. The whole world seems to be filled by this subtle quality of knowing, as though nothing else exists, though things still exist in the world as they always have.

• The absolutely pure Citta (free from defilements such as anicca, dukkha and anattã ):

Since it is something that defies definition, I don’t know how I could characterize it.

It cannot be expressed in the same way that conventional things in general can be, simply because it is not a conventional phenomenon.

It is the sole province of those who have transcended all aspects of conventional reality, and thus realize within themselves that non-conventional nature.

For this reason, words cannot describe it.

It is now pure awareness, a knowing quality that is so subtle and refined that it transcends all conventional designations whatsoever.

Still, in saying that it is “exceedingly refined”, we are obliged to use a conventional figure of speech that cannot possibly express the truth; for, of course, the notion of extreme refinement is itself a convention.

Since this refined awareness does not have a point or a center, it is impossible to specifically

locate its position. There is only that essential knowing, with absolutely nothing infiltrating it.

There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows.

The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies.

I had a quick look in the dictionary at the word "soul".

Naturally many religions will uniquely define a souls characteristics/attributes, but, in general terms Citta seems to align.

Edited August 12, 2014 by rockyysdt

[jacky54]

I have no idea what it is, but i don't think it's like much of the pretentious posturing on this thread

[lungmi]

What is Nibbana really?.

The question already is a trap.

Don't wait for an answer.

If you want to attein nibbana, you are failing at the start.

My variation of a Zen "joke"

"Master, what is nibbana?"

- Sorry, I have to go to toilet-

"Why do you not answer me?"

- On the toilet I want to attein emptiness, voidness-

(Pali word is Śūnyatā)

[connda]

One of the best alternative rock bands in history. RIP Kurt Cobain. May you be free from suffering.

[RandomSand]

What is Nirvana really?

But now the moment you've all been waiting for. I have the envelope and the correct answer is:

• Sipping the nectar of immortal bliss from the bosom of Mahadevi.

Edited August 12, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

Don't be fooled by vijjha, and Deva realms anchored in Samsara.

[RandomSand]

Don't be fooled by vijjha, and Deva realms anchored in Samsara.

Do you refer to "vajra", Rocky ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra

Indra, also known as Śakra in the Vedas, is the leader of the Devas or demi gods and the lord of Svargaloka or heaven in the Hindu religion. He is the god of rain and thunderstorms.[1] He wields a lightning thunderbolt known as vajra...

Edited August 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

Sorry RS.

I must work on my quality control

Avijja: fundamental ignorance.

The Ven Maha Boowa said that the Citta is made impure due to avijja.

Edited August 13, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Lovekorat]

I know this is on a slightly different angle but I am developing a bit if a problem and I need a little help. I have only been here for 5 months. I like Thailand, except of the bloody buses and the roads....and have respect for Buddhism and it's practises but just lately I have been noticing things that worry me a little.

Firstly, are monks supposed to help,the very poor, is that one of their functions? Because I don't see if happening and second, I was under the impression before I came here that monks own nothing and have no worldly interests at all yet I see them with mobile phones and not cheap ones I might add and other electrical devices. who pays for them. Is that ok in this high tech world. I hope I am not being picky here, just want some wise words from some of you guys who know a lot more than I do.

[RandomSand]

The Ven Maha Boowa said that the Citta is made impure due to avijja.

Isn't a state without a-vijja simply pure vijja... i.e naked awareness where citta is forsaken but apperception remains imminent?

It would seem to me rather logical.

If we say that a pure state has the quality of citta then aren't we objectifying that state ?

Then again...

I was reading on another forum something like "Permanence cannot create impermanence because the an act of creation is necessarily a change of the originator. Therefore only impermanence can create impermanence." Kinda shows any "absolute" to be an impossibility!

Edited August 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

I was going by Maha Booha's works.

In it he indicates Citta is and always will be, but it is deceived and defiled by Avijja.

In the final stage of practice we will experience overwhelming beauty and splendor but we are in danger as it is the decption of Avijja.

Its only after further investigation that we realize that what we see is impermanent and changing.

At this point Avijja dies revealing Citta in its purist form.

Once this occurs it is irreversible. The Citta's nature becomes revealed to itself.

Edited August 14, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

I think Ajahn Maha Bua is a great communicator. However, judging from the one book I've read and his Wikipedia page, in order to communicate so well he seems very liberal and poetic in the way he sets things up and elaborates in order to help others learn.

I think it's a mistake to take his words too literally so that a metaphysical construct becomes an objective culpable actuality...

Citta is and always will be, but it is deceived and defiled by Avijja.

Avijja: fundamental ignorance

We may as well name Avijja "satan" and go on a witch hunt if we really believe Avijja is culpable!

If anyone thinks Avijja is culpable and can deceive Citta then please speak up. Perhaps Citta is capable of being ignorant?... it makes sense to a certain extent, I must admit.

Edited August 14, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

Not so much evil, Avijja's power is due to "anatta", "dukkha", & "anicca".

Citta, free from these, becomes aware of its true nature.

[RandomSand]

Luk, Charles (1975). Ordinary Enlightenment: A Translation of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa. Shambhala Publications. ISBN 0394730658. (From Kumārajīva's Chinese)

:CHAPTER THIRTEEN THE OFFERING OF DHARMA:

...Lunar Canopy came to the Tathagata Bhaisajya, bowed his head at his feet and stood at his side, asking: ‘World Honoured One, (I have heard that) the offering of Dharma surpasses all other forms of offering; what is the offering of Dharma?’

“The Tathagata repolied: ‘Virtuous one, the offering of Dharma is preached by all Buddhas in profound sutras but it is hard for worldly men to believe and accept it as its meaning is subtle and not easily detected, for it is impeacable in its purity and cleanness. It is beyond the reach of thinking and discriminating; it contains the treasure of the Bodhi-sattva’s Dharma store and is sealed by the Dharani-symbol; it never backslides for it achieves the six perfections (paramitas); discerns the difference between various meanings; is in line with the bodhi Dharma; is at the top of all sutras; helps people to enter upon great kindness and great compassion; to keep from demons and perverse views, and to conform with the law of causality and the teaching on the unreality of an ego; a man, a living being and life and on voidness, formlessness, non-creating and non-uprising. It enables living beings to sit in a bodhimandala to turn the wheel of the law. It is praised and honoured by heavenly dragons, gandharvas, etc. It can help living beings to reach the Buddha’s Dharma store and gather all knowledge (sarvajna realized by) saints and sages, preach the path followed by all Bodhisattvas; rely on the reality underlying all things; proclaim the (doctrine of) impermanence, suffering; voidness and absence of ego and nirvana. It can save all living beings who have broken the precepts and keep in awe all demons, heretics and greedy people. It is praised by the Buddhas, saints and sages for it wipes out suffering from birth and death; proclaims the joy in nirvana as preached by past; future and present Buddhas in the ten directions.

“If a listener after hearing about this sutra, believes, understands, receives, upholds, reads and recites it and uses appropriate methods (upaya) to preach it clearly to others, this upholding of the Dharma is called the offering of Dharma.

“Further, the practice of all Dharmas as preached; to keep in line with the doctrine of the twelve links in the chain of existence; to wipe out all heterodox views; to achieve the patient endurance of the uncreate (anutpatti-dharma-ksanti) (as beyond creation); to settle once for all the unreality of the ego and the non-existence of living beings; and to forsake all dualities of ego and its objects without deviation from and contradiction to the law of causality and retribution for good and evil; by trusting to the meaning rather than the letter; to wisdom rather than consciousness; to sutras revealing the whole truth rather than those of partial revelation; and to the Dharma instead of the man (i.e. the preacher); to conform with the twelve links in the chain of existence (nidanas) that have neither whence to come nor wither to go; beginning from ignorance (avidya) which is fundamentally non-existent, and conception (samskara) which is also basically unreal, down to birth (jati) which is fundamentally non-existent; and old age and death (jaramarana) which are equally unreal. Thus, contemplated, the twelve links in the chain of existence are inexhaustible, thereby putting an end to the (wrong) view of annihilation. This is the unsurpassed offering of Dharma.”

The Buddha then said to Sakra: “Lunar Canopy, after hearing the Dharma from the Buddha Bhaisajya (the Buddha of Medicine), realized (only) the patience of Meekness and took off his precious robe to offer it to that Buddha, saying: “World Honoured One, after your nirvana, I shall make offerings of Dharma to uphold the right doctrine; will your awe-inspiring majestic help me to overcome the demons and to practise the Bodhisattva line of conduct?’”

The Buddha Bhaisajya knew of his deep thought and prophesied: “Until the last moment you will guard the Dharma protecting citadel.”

//snip//

The Buddha then said to Ananda: “Ananda, you too should receive, keep and spread this sutra widely.”

Ananda said: “Yes, World Honoured One, I have received this sutra and will keep it. What is its title?”

The Buddha said: “Ananda, its title is ‘The Sutra spoken by Vimalakirti’, or ‘The Inconceivable Door to Liberation’, under which you should receive and keep it.”

After the Buddha had expounded this sutra, the old upasaka Vimalakirti, Manjusri, Sariputra, Ananda and others as well as devas, asuras and all those present were filled with joy; believed, received and kept it; paid reverence and went away.

Edited August 15, 2014 by RandomSand

[rockyysdt]

“Further, the practice of all Dharmas as preached; to keep in line with the doctrine of the twelve links in the chain of existence; to wipe out all heterodox views; to achieve the patient endurance of the uncreate (anutpatti-dharma-ksanti) (as beyond creation); to settle once for all the unreality of the ego and the non-existence of living beings; and to forsake all dualities of ego and its objects without deviation from and contradiction to the law of causality and retribution for good and evil; by trusting to the meaning rather than the letter; to wisdom rather than consciousness; to sutras revealing the whole truth rather than those of partial revelation; and to the Dharma instead of the man (i.e. the preacher); to conform with the twelve links in the chain of existence (nidanas) that have neither whence to come nor wither to go; beginning from ignorance (avidya) which is fundamentally non-existent, and conception (samskara) which is also basically unreal, down to birth (jati) which is fundamentally non-existent; and old age and death (jaramarana) which are equally unreal. Thus, contemplated, the twelve links in the chain of existence are inexhaustible, thereby putting an end to the (wrong) view of annihilation. This is the unsurpassed offering of Dharma.”

avijjã:

Fundamental ignorance. This ignorance is the central factor in the delusion about the true nature of oneself and therefore the essential factor binding living beings to the cycle of rebirth.

Avijjã exists entirely within the citta (the one who knows). Being an integral part of the citta’s conscious perspective since time-without beginning, it has usurped the citta’s “knowing nature” and distorted its intrinsic quality of simply “knowing” by creating the false duality of the “knower” and the “known”. From this individual viewpoint spring right and wrong, good and evil, heaven and hell, and the whole mass of suffering that comprises the world of saÿsãra.

Thus avijjã is the seed of being and birth, the very nucleus of all existence.

It is also the well-spring from which all other mental defilements arise.

Far from appearing dark and menacing, avijjã is the epitome of all the mental and spiritual virtues that living beings hold in the very highest esteem.

This is its beguiling allure, the reason why living beings cannot see it for what it actually is—the great lord and master of birth and death.

Appearing at first to be the ultimate in virtue and happiness, the citta’s true abiding sanctuary, when wisdom finally penetrates to its core and exposes its fundamental deception, avijjã promptly dissipates, revealing the pure, unblemished citta, the true Supreme Happiness, Nibbãna.

In both Ajaan Maha Booha's book as well as Mae Chee Kaew's, both were confronted by Avijja.

Both believed Avijja was Nirvana.

With correct instruction, both investigated the brilliance and splendor of Avijja until they found ever so slight changes in it.

Almost imperceptibly Avijja displayed characteristics of impermanence and change.

With this experience Avijja implodes to reveal Nirvana.

The splendor of Avijja is like cow dung in comparison to the final goal.

It's been said this stage is akin to finally killing ones Ego (the roots of avijja).

Edited August 15, 2014 by rockyysdt

[RandomSand]

Rocky, your scholarly understanding seem to be most excellent.

So in the final analysis, ultimately, does Avijja exist or not ?

Edited August 15, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

Not so much evil, Avijja's power is due to "anatta", "dukkha", & "anicca".

Citta, free from (1) these, becomes aware (2) of its true nature.

Ontologically becoming is a most important concept.

If citta "becomes aware(2)" then was citta ignorant beforehand ?

Does citta "transform from (2)" ignorance? ..or does it become "free of (1)" ignorance?

I'm not directly quoting you, just trying to frame the words. but I think these questions are relevant.

Edited August 15, 2014 by RandomSand