Existence of nirvana
Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death - (suicide) ie. has no hope left, is in endless suffering/ misery, has exhausted all effort to endure and ultimately believes life is not good
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state.
We know the bad side exists for definite because death is fairly definitive evidence. We only hear of the opposite side - nirvana or inner peace, enlightenment, whatever term one wishes to use - from those who claim to be in the state but it is much harder to prove to exist by observation.
But I think it’s reasonable to believe that like many things in nature the mind is a spectrum and if there is one extreme there must exist the other.
So if we can logically infer that such a peace state exists should it not be of the highest importance to understand it/ manifest it?
And if you believe the existence of suicide is no reason to suppose the existence of nirvana then would that not imply that life is ultimately skewed towards the negative/bad - and that states of permanent joy are impossible?
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state.
We know the bad side exists for definite because death is fairly definitive evidence. We only hear of the opposite side - nirvana or inner peace, enlightenment, whatever term one wishes to use - from those who claim to be in the state but it is much harder to prove to exist by observation.
But I think it’s reasonable to believe that like many things in nature the mind is a spectrum and if there is one extreme there must exist the other.
So if we can logically infer that such a peace state exists should it not be of the highest importance to understand it/ manifest it?
And if you believe the existence of suicide is no reason to suppose the existence of nirvana then would that not imply that life is ultimately skewed towards the negative/bad - and that states of permanent joy are impossible?
Comments (96)
From my understanding of your description of Nirvana, I think you are coming from a very Westernised take on it, which is not based on the belief in Nirvana as it is within the historical context of Hinduism. I don't in any way consider myself as any expert on Hinduism but from my r discussion with some frienda from this tradition, Nirvana is not necessarily about 'enlightenment, or inner peace' but is the release from the wheel of rebirth. It is seen as the the ultimate release after many earthly incarnations, even though there is some dispute whether it is absolute, or will be followed by some future birth.
What you are describing as a state of bliss as opposed to the state of mind of a suicidal person seems more like the contrast between heaven and hell, which within Christianity can be in this life rather than just as an afterlife.
I hope that you don't think that I am being nitpicking. It is simply that I do believe that it is important to discuss ideas with some understanding of the context from which they come. Of course, no worldview exists in isolation from others, as there is convergence. In particular, I know that some Hindus believe in heaven and hell, as a state in between death in this life and future incarnations. But, of course, there are many different forms of traditions within Hinduism and later Eastern traditions, but I just believe that your presentation of the idea of Nirvana is based on the misinterpreted idea of the concept which developed within psychedelic writings, and the name of the group Nirvana (there was also a 60s band called Nirvana as well as that of Kurt Cobain).
Edit: I will say that the the Hindu perspective which I was thinking of when writing my response to you was Theravada tradition from which Buddhism emerged, so it is possible that you are drawing upon a tradition which I am not acquainted with, so if you are I apologise. However, I do think that it would be be more useful if you were able to contextualize your understanding of Nirvana.
"Nirvana" literally means "snuffing-out of a candle". Which may indicate why suicidal people may find the notion of nothingness preferable to sufferingness. :smile:
Where does your definition of Nirvana come from?
Part of the problem which I see is that the idea was originally in Sanskrit writings, so getting a precise definition is difficult. In the sense, in which you are using the term it is almost identical to the Western materialist understanding of death as nothingness. Apart from knowing friends who are Hindu, I did do a module on Hinduism at University and from the lectures I attended the Hindu understanding of death was extremely different from Western non religious views of death as 'nothingness".
Nirv??a does mean something like 'extinction' but a more philosophically sensitive intepretation is the 'extinction of suffering'. This also implies or requires relinquishment of the sense of self which is the sense in which Buddhism is a renunciate philosophy. Very hard to practice, for people with possessions, families, and ambitions.
In classical Buddhism, 'the desire to be', and 'the desire not to be', are both hindrances. The 'desire to be' manifests as the desire to live eternally, hence is associated with religious belief. The 'desire not to be' is said to be a form of nihilism. By Buddhist standards, scientific materialism is a form of nihilism.
Nirvana (nibbana) literally means "blowing out" or "quenching". It is the most used as well as the earliest term to describe the soteriological goal in Buddhism: release from the cycle of rebirth (sa?s?ra).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
Okay, I see your point, but of course I might have guessed it came from Wikipedia, because that is what most people rely on as a reference.
What I would say is that Nirvana does probably mean extinguish, but I am I still think that there are various interpretations within traditions, just as there are ambiguities within the Christian tradition about life after death. Certainly, the Hindus and Buddhists I have known, who grew up in Asian countries and, viewed the matter a bit differently, but they weren't expert scholars.
It's not clear that such is the case.
Bad for whom? Certainly not for bacteria and fungi that will feast on the corpse, and not bad for the undertaker's business either.
But what if the mind is, say, like a tree? There's no opposite to a tree.
More like life being skewed toward eating, consuming. Consider: life is all about consumption.
From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
[i]We all know what happens when a fire goes out. The flames die down and the fire is gone for good. So when we first learn that the name for the goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana (nirvana), literally means the extinguishing of a fire, it's hard to imagine a deadlier image for a spiritual goal: utter annihilation. It turns out, though, that this reading of the concept is a mistake in translation, not so much of a word as of an image. What did an extinguished fire represent to the Indians of the Buddha's day? Anything but annihilation.
According to the ancient Brahmans, when a fire was extinguished it went into a state of latency. Rather than ceasing to exist, it became dormant and in that state — unbound from any particular fuel — it became diffused throughout the cosmos. When the Buddha used the image to explain nibbana to the Indian Brahmans of his day, he bypassed the question of whether an extinguished fire continues to exist or not, and focused instead on the impossibility of defining a fire that doesn't burn: thus his statement that the person who has gone totally "out" can't be described.
However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nibbana more as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment — calm and unconfined. This is why Pali poetry repeatedly uses the image of extinguished fire as a metaphor for freedom. In fact, this metaphor is part of a pattern of fire imagery that involves two other related terms as well. Upadana, or clinging, also refers to the sustenance a fire takes from its fuel. Khandha means not only one of the five "heaps" (form, feeling, perception, thought processes, and consciousness) that define all conditioned experience, but also the trunk of a tree. Just as fire goes out when it stops clinging and taking sustenance from wood, so the mind is freed when it stops clinging to the khandhas.
Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom.
/.../[/i]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html
Thanks for providing a link and a long passage which I will read. But really i would have been more interesting to hear your view or understanding of the idea of nirvana.
??
I prefaced the part in italics with:
"From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:"
and provided a link.
Usually, this means it's a direct quotation.
Btw, I spent six months with Thanissaro Bhikku at his Thai Forest Tradition monastery in CA. Wonderful meditation teacher and expansive intellect.
I actually edited my reply to you because I realised that it was from a book. I knew that it was not your own writing and I really can't see the point of you just quoting a whole passage from a book. The idea of Nirvana is complex and needs to be understood in terms of the writer's perspective.
My own view is that the idea of Nirvana points to a possibility of freedom from earthly suffering, but that to understand the fuller picture we need to see it within the framework of that spiritual tradition, otherwise it cannot be appreciated in its truest sense. Spiritual knowledge is rather different from mere information gathering.
I think that your experience is more valuable than when people just lift passages from books and provide links because you are sharing lived knowledge. I believe that any knowledge about spiritual aspects of philosophy needs to be approached in this way in order to be meaningful.
I would imagine that scholars will continue their discussions on all the different aspects of (every damn thing) because this is what they do, but it all comes down to experience.
The idea that people who have not even attained stream-entry can meaningfully discuss nirvana based on their personal experience, is patently absurd.
This is why, when one is below that level of attainment, it makes sense to refer to established sources.
Further, the passage I quoted is about cultural and historical knowledge, not about first-hand experience of nirvana.
Peeople from the West tend to interpret the fire imagery in old texts in accordance with their own modern (or popular) notions of fire and burning, disregarding that people back then possibly had a different understanding of fire and burning.
Yes, I think that it all comes down to recognising the limits of our knowledge during discussions. We are moving in an age where so much information is available to us. Personally, I read many books on a daily basis, and enjoy this, but I am aware that understanding of profound ideas needs to be supported with the experiential level. Information does not transform us into qualified teachers and I think that this is the main thing which people have to remember when we are in the exploration and discussion of ideas which are of an esoteric nature.
If you think that was a long passage ...
And if you're replying to a post without having read it ...
Not for me. What use are the opinions of the unenlightended about topics that are far beyond their scope?!
Please see my post to Synthesis to see the perspective I am coming from. Also, please bear in mind that it was not me who began the thread, so it will be interesting to see what the originator of the thread thinks too. Usually, the thread originator has a major role to play in deciding what way discussion should go, so I think that I will be silent until then.
And they are so "esoteric" to a large extent because people feel so free to share all kinds of opinions about them, even though they don't have the required attainment. It's what gives those ideas that characteristic air of hocus pocus.
Ideas are becoming less esoteric because so much information is available. I just believe that we should be a bit on the side of caution, and be honest about limits of our knowledge, so that we don't contribute to such discussion becoming hocus pocus.
A few things I want you two to shed light on.
1. I'm not quite sure of this but I've been told Buddhism is identified more as a mystical tradition rather than your everyday, garden variety, religion. Anyway, a week ago I watched this video on mysticism and one statement caught my attention and that statement is "to be conscious without being conscious of something". I take that to mean, to draw an analogy, that consciousness is like a vessel - it can contain stuff (thoughts & perceptions) but it can be, with meditation, emptied of its contents and just as the vessel remains even when its devoid of anything, consciousness too persists even when it isn't thinking or perceiving something. Call this container consciousness
2. I believe that the notion of consciousness that's around is at odds with container consciousness - the Wikipedia entry on consciousness defines it as awareness of either the self or one's environment and what that means is without an object (self/the environment) to become aware of, consciousness is nonexistent. Call this content consciousness.
3. Nirvana, in my humble opinion, makes sense, given that, knowingly or not, Buddhism puts such an emphasis on deep meditation, only within the context of container consciousness. The idea is to extinguish thoughts and perceptions and not consciousness itself. Discard the contents but keep the container; a very counterintuitive suggestion/recommendation given that in everyday life its the contents that tend to be valuable rather than the packaging (container) they come in. Emptiness? Sunyata?
No not at all. I appreciate you highlighting this. Upon reconsidering I think it was a mistake for me to borrow the term Nirvana out of its original context. I often struggle to use the right words when speaking of metaphysical things/ states of mind. As is often the case with philosophy attempting to define your thoughts for others without accidentally misappropriating things is tré difficult.
Perhaps I shouldn’t use this word. In essence I was pondering the existence of some “opposite/contrasting” state (That I will now leave unnamed haha) to that of suicide. One that is not typical to the average Human experience just as suicide is not typical of the average human experience but is an extreme end.
I might instead describe parameters without naming the phenomenon. Suicide once committed is permanent. So this alter ego state would also be (once established) permanent for the remaining lifespan of the person.
Instead of losing all hope, this state would be a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences. Instead of suffering one is in a state of tranquility despite circumstances.
In essence if suicide is the lowest point one can go in the experience of good and bad, what is the the highest state. Does it exist?
Possible contenders: dare i mention them may be a state “True peace”, “ego death”, some form of “mania/ ecstasy or euphoria” or maybe “total love of life” or “sustained love” , a “hyper-empathy” maybe?
I hope this clarifies the state of mind I’m asking about.
Interesting.i would follow up with a question; can one commit mental suicide instead of physical suicide? A snuffing out of the power of life to dictate whether one feels good or bad. A total control of your own state of mind where you can live in holistic permanence.
How would you suggest one comes to be ontophilic? (Asking for myself :P )
The issue I would have with this is that many would consider relinquishing yourself of desires towards your family (be it ones of affection, love, friendship, protection, desire for providence or benevolent feelings towards family - all of which require a sort of “favouritism” or “emotional bias” towards your family over strangers) appears to be Inconsiderate, unfair or maybe even irresponsible- in the especially in the sense of Parental duty to their children.
How does one resolve to treat everyone equally (love thy neighbour) without being chastised for not putting family first?
I will give two examples for this. The first being a mother throwing herself int traffic to save her child verse a mother throwing herself into traffic for a stranger while her child sits and observes from safety. Which is more noble? Preserving herself to ensure her child isn’t left without a parent or to see a stranger as equally worth saving?
The second example: in a situation where you were forced to choose between the well-being of your family and the well-being of an equal number of random strangers ... to be relinquished of attachment you would have to say “I cannot choose my family over them.” Which one would imagine your family would be astonished by/ resentful of. I think it’s even likely that faced with such a situation most people would even allow the suffering of more then the count of their family members if it guaranteed their families well-being. I wouldn’t say this is strictly moral/ just but it’s certainly human. And likely a typical response.
A footnote: doctors probably face this dilemma when confronted with conflict between their “professional duty of care” and “potential child neglect” - not being their for their children/ being estranged from them in order to facilitate life improving treatments for other people.
Yes, I think what you were talking about was more about the opposite state to suicide rather than the spiritual topic of Nirvana and I think that is worth discussing as a philosophical problem.
I believe that finding ways to cope in the face of despair is part of this. I had 2 friends committed suicide while I was at University and 1 about a year or 2 later, and this led to the becoming extremely depressed. I am someone who does believe in finding opposites to the states of feeling despairing.
I call it the process of seeking peak experiences and Abraham Maslow talks about this in his whole description of self-actualization. Colin Wilson has also explored the search for heightened states of awareness and has focused on how artists and writers have sought this. These writers are not just talking about using drugs to achieve this but accessing states of mind conducive to creativity and heightened states of self awareness. It probably is not completely separate from some of the states of awareness known to meditators.
I feel that I have known moments of heightened self awareness, often while creating art or listening to music. However, it is not always easy to tap into these states at will. I do believe that meditation is one way. But I believe this is an important area of discussion, so I hope that many people contribute to this.
I find that, aside from simply allowing myself to ignore the meaningless craving for meaning that ontophobia brings on, the way to cultivate ontophilia is to practice the very same behaviors that it in turn inspires more of. Doing good things, either for others or just for oneself, and learning or teaching new truths, both seem to generate feelings of empowerment and enlightenment, respectively, and as those ramp up in a positive feedback loop, inspiring further such practices, an ontophilic state of mind can be cultivated.
I also find that it helps to remain at peace and alleviate feelings of anxiety and unworthiness by not only doing all the positive things that I reasonable can do, as above, but also excusing or forgiving myself from blame for not doing things that I reasonably can't do.
Meditative practices are essentially practice at allowing oneself to do nothing and simply be, to help cultivate this state of mind. A popular prayer also asks for precisely such serenity to accept things one cannot change and courage to change the things one can. And the modern cognitive-behavioral therapy technique called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is also entirely about committing to doing the things that one can do and accepting the things that one cannot do anything about.
It is of course very hard to do this sometimes, so it helps also to cultivate a social network of like-minded people who will gently encourage you to do the things you reasonably can, and remind you that it's okay to not do things that you reasonably can't, between the two of which you can hopefully find a restful peace of mind where you feel that you have done all that you can do and nothing more is required of you, allowing you to enjoy simply being.
Simply connecting with other people in itself helps to cultivate feelings of meaningfulness, as it is precisely that connectedness that constitutes meaning in any sense.
Modern people sometimes say that the Buddha acted selfishly by abandoning his home and family. I think the response to that is that, first, his family was not materially deprived by his absence. But second, it is comparable to going off to defend the country in a time of war. Nobody would say a soldier who did that would be acting selfishly, because it requires sacrifice of self. As did the Buddha's spiritual quest, which was undertaken for the greater good of humanity, not for selfish reasons.
Within Buddhism itself, there is recognition that emotional detachment is not simply indifference or coldness or not caring. On the contrary, the Buddhist view of compassion is that it should be extended to all beings - which, I think, is also the meaning of 'love thy neighbour'. In Mah?y?na there is recognition of the role of the lay-person who may indeed be a bodhisattva even if a married householder. This is the subject of a famous text in Asian Buddhism, the Vimalakirti Nirdesa.
Quoting TheMadFool
Buddhism is famously 'a religion without God'. For the early Western discoverers of Buddhism, this was the ultimate perplexity, as 'religion' can only ever be about God. I recall reading a letter by a Catholic missionary to Ceylon which reported that the Buddhist monks were serene and scrupulously virtuous, even despite 'lacking in religion'.
Even now, many Western adherents of Buddhism will say that it's 'really' a philosophy or a way of life, as distinct from a religion. But I'm sure that's because of the way 'religion' has been defined or understood in Western culture. Religion is intellectually disreputable in secular culture, and a lot of people don't want to associate with it. But Buddhism is a religion, because its aim is soteriological - to escape the endless round of rebirth in sa?s?ra.
As for it being mystical - mysticism is a very slippery term. Buddhism is quite prosaic in some ways. On the other hand, the 'eight levels of jhana' (meditative trance states) are prominent in early Buddhism.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you said that in an essay on Buddhist philosophy, you'd get an 'F', unfortunately.
In one school of Buddhism, there is a concept called 'storehouse consciousness' (?layavijñ?na) - but it is controversial and by no means accepted in all Buddhist schools.
Understanding the Buddhist philosophy of mind is a large topic but Buddhism doesn't posit an eternal substratum or persisting core of consciousness - it's a big no-no. There is no eternally-persisting anything in Buddhism. That's why, again, many of the early Western scholars characterised it as nihilistic - but it's not that, either.
All I could do is recommend readings on the topic, but it would be a big list.
Well, "going crazy" (psychotic) might be one way to escape from awareness of the psychic sufferings of reality. But, I don't recommend it. Also, I suppose that some cynics might consider prematurely reaching Nirvana (quenching the flame) via meditation to be a form of "mental suicide". In a more literal sense, the self-immolating monk apparently committed suicide, while meditating, but without actually quenching the flames. Yet, again, I don't recommend it. :sad:
Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, burns himself to death on a Saigon street on June 11, 1963, in protest of alleged persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government. (Malcolm Browne/AP)
I wonder, "where" do you think Thich Quang Duc was when he set himself ablaze? I think the event tells us something about the relationship between the self, the "deep agency" of the self, that can remove itself from sense perception completely. If a person can do this, then it makes for an argument that gives unqualified independence to this self, if you will, within the self, if he can put this kind of distance between suffering and his own meditating self, where does this place any identifying features at all of the if one say say, apophatically, well, this is not the self?
Yes, some deep meditators are supposed to be able to shut-out physical pain while they retreat into an inner world of their own. Years ago, I knew a man, who had been through rigorous Erhard Seminars Training (EST), which included a form of non-buddhist meditation. He flew from California to my state to set-up an aerial mapping office in my college town. But, when he arrived, he realized that he was coming down with the flu. Since he couldn't take several days off for such personal problems, he decided to get it over-with in one night. So, he began to meditate, focusing on his bad feelings instead of a mantra. For about an hour, he felt really really sick. But, then got-up and went about his business with no more flu symptoms. That's what he told me. And I had no reason to doubt him. But what the monk did was pretty extreme. He took a quick but all-in path to Nirvana. :gasp:
do you know the meaning of 'siddhi'? They are the super-normal powers which yogis are supposed to attain through the perfection of dhyana. (I suppose your account of your friend who fought off a viral infection might also be an example, although obviously I don't know.) Those who master them are called 'siddhas'. I would say that the ability of that monk to remain immobile while being incinerated was an example of such a power. I'm not saying that on this account, self-immolation is a worthy act, there have been many such cases of self-immolation in Tibet over the last few decades in protest at Chinese rule, which I think can only be seen as a tragedy. But the fact of that monk's immobility in that photograph is something that I think needs to be explained.
Incidentally, there are some obscure passages in the early Buddhist texts which suggest that some monks formed the view that, having attained the Path, then death by suicide was an acceptable act, based on the view that they would no longer face an unfavourable re-birth. I seem to recall that the Buddha gave the monks a stern talking to about the matter, firmly discouraging suicide, although I can't remember the details.
Well, Thich Quang Duc would be the definitive case in point. After all, being burned alive ON PURPOSE has got to be a whole other universe of superhuman feats. Makes Houdini look like mere dabbler. I put a lighted match to my finger in a microsecond it's too much to bear.
He was not in this world when he lit the match.
:rofl: That's all I could manage with the little that I know.
Quoting Wayfarer
I would like you to clarify a matter that's been bothering me for quite some time now. It's about the epistemological nature of what comes across as the Buddhist practice of denial - the neither x nor not-x position which seems to be at the heart of Buddhist thought, a fact that inheres in your posts such as the one above, exemplified in the denial of "...eternally-persisting anything..." and also the denial of the "...nihilistic...". Is this the famous middle path?
Anyway, what I'm particularly concerened about is whether the Buddhist practice of denial emerges from knowledge or ignorance. Perhaps a simple example will get the point across better than trying to explain my predicament so, here goes: Imagine a pot of water standing on the floor of the room. In reality, the water contained in the pot is tepid/lukewarm.
Suppose there are two people, X and Y and while X is allowed to feel the water Y isn't.
X feels the water and discovers the water is neither hot nor cold - X, epistemologically, now has knowledge of the water's thermal state.
Y, on the other hand, hasn't touched the water i.e. he doesn't know the water's temperature and comes to the conclusion that he's too ignorant to claim that the water is cold or that the water is hot.
As is obvious, X and Y both are identical in the sense they agree that water in the pot is neither hot nor cold but X has knowledge (X touched the water) while Y is ignorant (Y never touched the water).
In summary, a neither x nor not-x denial stance can arise from either knowledge or ignorance. In the case of Buddhism, which is it?. Buddhism, according to some sources, shares a deep connection with skepticism and that would suggest that at some level the Buddhist habit of denial of both thesis and anti-thesis has got more to do with ignorance than knowledge. If that's true, it would be disappointing:
[quote=Dogen]Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters[/quote]
There’s a pattern here. Recall the other day, you were arguing that hot and cold are on a continuum, and so couldn’t really be considered opposites. Here you’re using a similar argument in a different context.
Anyway - in this case, the hypothetical doesn’t really do justice to the subject matter. If you study Buddhism, it doesn’t really consider hypothetical abstracts of the kind you’re considering here. To appreciate what it is concerned with, you have to study it or discuss it or learn it from a teacher. But I presume you’re familiar with the outline that is given as the ‘four noble truths’. The concern of that is always ‘the cause of suffering’ and the way to the cessation of suffering. It’s easy enough to state it in summary form but the depth of the subject matter is enormous.
When ‘mindfulness meditation’ is taught, even in a modernised, secular context, the emphasis is always on ‘observing’ - observing the flow of thoughts and feelings, observing the way they arise and fall, observing all of the feelings in the body and mental phenomena. The theoretical aim of these practices are to understand, to get insight into, the transient nature of such phenomena. That is where ‘detachment’ starts to become meaningful. ON a mundane level, consider an annoying traffic incident - idiot driver swerves into your lane without even looking, causing you to brake sharply. That will set off a whole series of autonomic and other reactions - adrenal, heart-rate, swearing, anger, ‘IDIOT!’ And so on. The theory is that at this exact point, if your mindfulness training is effective, that awareness will short-circuit this chain reaction. Don’t worry, I myself still get adrenal and yell IDIOT - but that’s the theory, and in some areas of my life, mindfulness training has been very effective. But that’s the kind of subject-matter that Buddhism really is concerned with. Not theoretical analyses of hypothetical claims (although you do sometimes find hypotheticals in the literature).
Given all that, what is the subject matter of the ‘x and not-x’ claims you’re referring to? The canonical case is the Ananda Sutta. And the question at issue is, ‘does the self exist’? The Buddha declines to answer that question. If you read the sutta, he gives an account to his attendant, Ananda, as to why. That sutta is the origin of the middle way. It’s very simple in some ways, but also a very deep issue.
I see you're learning the basic lesson of religion/spirituality: becoming authoritarian.
On what grounds do you believe that I am becoming authoritarian, because what you have said is a sweeping statement in itself?
In terms of early Buddhism, what you're describing in roundabout fits what is called bhava tanha and vibhava tanha: the craving for becoming (for existence) and the craving for non-becoming (for non-existence, annihilation).
Nirvana is neither of them. A "self generating state of full hope/optimism" is consistent with bhava tanha; the desire for suicide is consistent with vibhava tanha.
It's not clear whether "a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences" is even possible in early Buddhist thought.
A buddha isn't optimistic or hopeful, though he is unperturbed by bad luck and negative experiences and he does not suffer.
Deep in martyrdom. His self-immolation was a political protest, similar to others of this kind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations .
People are willing to die for their ideas, it's nothing new.
I certainly don't see myself as talking down to you. That is your interpretation. Really, I just want to discuss philosophy and not get into petty arguments and I feel that such discussions as you are initiating with me here are interfering with the thread topic. I will try to make sure that I read all your comments fully before replying, but I do struggle with links because the phone signal in my area is poor.
Thanks for the gentle reminder. From the perspective that I had suggested in that previous thread, dualism would be an illusion for each pair of opposites would be unified as simply two aspects of an underlying harmonious oneness - they're not two conflicting sides like, say, good and evil, but are more like the aging of a person with time, the ignorant child, say, gradually being replaced by a knowledegable adult - ignorance is the opposite of knowledge and are contradictories but both can be brought under the rubric of, let's name it knowledge shall we? This knowledge would be a scale extending from 0 to an arbitrary number, suppose 10, with 0 = ignorance and 10 = omniscience. It's kinda like an Amazonian setting eyes on a man for the first time and coming to the realization that men too, just like them, are also people - people being the cornerstone of unity, oneness, and gender being the preeminent reason for a dualistic worldview.
However, the neither x nor not-x is not just a rejection of dualistic weltanschauungs is it? If not for any other reason than that the mathematical perspective I offer is, whether it makes sense or not, well, new and wasn't available in Buddha's or succesive Buddhist masters' time.
Quoting Wayfarer
My example was hypothetical but the point it makes is as central to any philosophy as it is to Buddhism. I really wouldn't want to build a way of life around ignorance all the while thinking that I'm in posession of knowledge. However, if Buddhism comes forward and accepts its skeptical roots, I'm game.
Who is commanding you, and where, to "treat everyone equally"??
I suggest you look up neti neti and ex negativo.
It's a way to define something by pointing out what it saliently is not.
I think this is a generally accepted human ideal no? Egalitarianism both underpinning ethics (do no harm/ attempt the greatest good, spiritualism/ religious scriptures, moral in philosophy and biology - equilibrium/ balance in systems.
Of course there are other approaches but this is no doubt a popular one. No one is commanding me it simply appeals to me as a lifestyle structure/goal
Self-realized masters are said to have first-hand knowledge, while aspirants don't.
For an aspirant, Buddhist doctrinal claims are epistemically, dogmas, things he takes for granted, on faith.
Not at all.
For further discussion, you need to be more specific which religion or culture you want to talk about.
In dharmic religions, suicide is not seen as an end to suffering. In those religions, killing oneself in an effort to end suffering only leads to another rebirth/reincarnation, and generally not a good one.
Whenever magic is involved in super-normal claims, I become skeptical. I don't know so much about Buddhist magic, but Hinduism has a long tradition of magical feats performed by "spiritual" tricksters, for gullible audiences. One example, that I'm familiar with, occurs in the US. It's called "Yogic Flying", or "Levitation by Meditation". This trick works best in still photos, because in videos it's obvious that it's muscles, not magic that levitates the meditators.
I don't doubt that meditation is a good discipline for those with unruly minds. But back when I tried Alpha-Theta meditation, I discovered that my normal state of mind is pretty close to the meditative state. And Lucid Dreaming was more suited to my rational nature. So I decided I had better uses for my time, such as exercising my brain by posting on philosophical forums. :cool:
Siddhi is the term given for a spiritual or seemingly magical power or capability, which is obtained through rigorous and accomplished spiritual practices such as yoga and meditation.
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5172/siddhi
Yogic Hopping :
https://youtu.be/UUnxnuUVEOs
Hopping while Sitting :
https://medium.com/@transcendentaldeception/yogic-flying-sore-knees-getting-conned-by-transcendental-meditation-433ac4dc59ff
Ordinary humans can do some amazing, and disgusting, things when entranced by faith. In some Catholic countries, people celebrate holy-days by whipping themselves, til their flesh is in shreds. In Japan, disgraced Samurai (not necessarily Zen Buddhists) sometimes committed ritual suicide by hara kiri (belly cut). Self-disembowelment is one of the slowest and most painful ways to pay for the shame of public dishonor. That's just one of many reasons I try to avoid the mind-control methods of Faith. They too often require horrendous self-sacrifice for reasons that seem ridiculous to non-believers. :sad:
Hara Kiri : https://www.interactiongreen.com/why-samurai-commit-seppuku/
Of course. It is a cultural taboo, and such purported powers are obviously ripe for explotiation. In fact there's a rule in Buddhist orders right back to Buddha's day never to exploit psychic powers, on pain of expulsion from the order. But that rule assumes there are powers to exploit. I was well aware of the 'psychic flying' scam from the transcendental meditation movement, it was very dissappointing to see such chicanery.
I don’t know. I think these “siddhi” if they were real word be of a more subtle and rationally achievable vein than flying or pain tolerance.
More believable or philosophically grounded siddhi from a state of mental clarity, focus and understanding would be say (and I only speculate);
1. “foresight/ prophecy” due to the a). Relinquishing the minds false belief/ delusions, b).heightened awareness of the patterns, cycles and nature of reality and human behaviour c). Time to concentrate on the future and maximising the calculative and probabilistic algorithms used by the brain.
2. “Healing”- because of an understanding the interconnectedess of the mind and body and it’s environment, intuition as to the imbalances impacting the health of a specific individual, maybe even interacting with a person in such a way as to subconsciously correct poor autonomic nervous function/ stabilise hypothalamic regulation of body rhythms etc.
//Hasten to add, I'm not trying to persuade that there are such things as miraculous powers. If someone claimed to have them, or to have seen an example, then I'd certainly have to be persuaded by evidence. But surveying the grand sweep of history, I think it's mistaken to rule them out entirely as a matter of principle, because the principle that rules them out, namely, scientific rationalism, is a leaky sieve.//
It's not just a Western "cultural taboo". Throughout history, miracle-workers, including Gandalf & Dumbledore, have warned against frivolous use of magic powers. And modern stage magicians tend to be careful when & where they perform. Probably, because those who get the big head, and believe their own tricks, may get careless, and allow their exploited onlookers to see through their smoke & mirrors. :gasp:
Serious vs Frivolous Magic :
A magician, also known as a mage, warlock, witch, wizard/wizardess, enchanter/enchantress, ... As a result, competent wizards do not use their magic frivolously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magician_(fantasy)
Actually, there are some people, who achieve seemingly supernatural feats, not by magic, but by self-control. In the article linked below, the "spiritual" elements seems to be profound self-confidence (faith), and the human body's response to the Placebo Effect (what you believe, the body will try to do). :brow:
The Science Behind Miracles : "For thousands of years, humanity has occasionally glimpsed man’s capacity to do the seemingly impossible or the miraculous using only force of will . . . . Hof, for his part, sees the whole thing in a much more spiritual light—getting back to a purer, more primitive version of ourselves. . . . But he’s not magic, and we should be careful about trusting important health decisions to any belief-based technique."
https://www.outsideonline.com/2146421/limits-endurance
I agree. But his martyrdom was no more miraculous than that of the Islamic Jihadiists who willingly blow their pain-feeling fleshly bodies into smithereens, motivated by their faith that they will instantly go to heaven, restored to whole youthful bodies, comforted forever by a bevy of beautiful babes. Apparently, the monk believed that he would achieve liberation from Samara (cycles of mundane rebirth & suffering).
Presumably, he would achieve Moksha, Nirvana, Mukti or Kaivalya. However, his sacrifice may also have been a supreme example of altruism. Which is a primary virtue in almost all religions. I'm in favor of moderate altruism, but I'm not prepared to go quite that far to prove my faith & virtue. :cool:
When being immolated, there is some period of time, perhaps many seconds, of continued awareness and presumably awareness of pain. The fact that this monk was able to remain literally unmoved by this horror is what seems super-normal. The death of a suicide bomber, by way of contrast, is absolutely instantaneous.
(Incidentally, I read some years back that the Islamic myth of the ‘72 virgins’ that would greet a martyr in heaven might have been the result of the mistranslation of an early text. The scholar concerned said the term translated as ‘virgins’ might instead have referred to a particular kind of date which was considered a luxurious delicacy. However the Islamic world being as it is, the kind of scholarship that was applied by the ‘critical Christianity’ movement was strictly forbidden, and nobody was ever allowed to follow up the idea.)
Apparently, what adepts in meditation are able to do, is to be rationally aware of the pain, without suffering the emotional sensations. Self-confidence guru Tony Robbins' disciples, who walk on hot coals, seem to adopt a trance-like state of mind, that allows them to ignore their innate fear of fire, and to let their body's natural defenses control the minor damage from superficial burns. the fact that some do get fairly serious injuries indicates that it's Faith, not Magic at work. Again, I don't have that much self-confidence, and don't feel the need to prove my overcoming Faith. I'm OK with mundane pragmatic beliefs. :gasp:
The physics of hot coals :
https://tonyrobbinsfirewalk.com/physics-of-hot-coals/
I agree. That's why my personal philosophy, based on the Enformationism worldview, is the BothAnd Principle, which can be visualized in the Yin-Yang symbol, and practiced in the Buddha's Middle Path between extremes, and summarized in Aristotle's Golden Mean of moderation. Since appearances can be deceiving, when something seems "supernatural", I reserve judgment until I can know what happens behind the smoke & mirrors. Until then, I'll call it simply "preternatural", or "weird". :smile:
The BothAnd Principle is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Spiritualism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Haha it is a leaky sieve indeed. Especially when one targets the concept of “objectivity” With regard to “objective observation as a fundamental basis for scientific method”. Discerning what is objective and what is not is (as far as I can tell) most likely a continuum with no discernible strict limit dividing the two, as well as the possibility of “relativity” playing a larger part than we give credit for.
How is immolating oneself an example of altruism??
Some historical background for the practice of auto-cremation in Chinese Buddhism:
[i]/.../
In Chinese Buddhism, for example, self-immolation has a long and well-documented history. From written records, we know of several hundred Chinese Buddhist monks, nuns, and laypeople who offered up their bodies for a variety of reasons—though not usually in protest against the state—from the late 4th century to the present. The majority burned themselves to death, often in staged public spectacles. (Scholars use the term auto-cremation for this rather than the more common self-immolation, which means “self-sacrifice.”) The numerous accounts and discussions of self-immolation in Chinese records make it clear that many Buddhist authors did not condemn it as an aberrant or deviant practice but understood it as a bodily path to awakening. For Chinese Buddhists, in fact, auto-cremation belonged to a set of practices collectively known as “abandoning the body.”
/.../
The mass of data that we have about self-immolation in Chinese history shows that self-immolation was not considered a marginal or deviant act. On the contrary, it was relatively common and largely respected within the tradition. In fact, the Chinese example has motivated Buddhist practitioners well into modern times. It is known, for example, that Thich Quang Duc, the scholarly Vietnamese monk who burned himself to death in 1963 to protest the South Vietnamese government’s treatment of Buddhists, was conversant not only with the scriptural sources for auto-cremation—he chanted the Lotus Sutra every day—but also with the history of Chinese auto-cremators who had gone before him.
/.../[/i]
https://tricycle.org/magazine/self-immolation/
Self-immolation per se is not altruistic, especially if it's a cop-out on life, like some cases of suicide. But in this case, the monk sacrificed his own life for the betterment of his society. It was a political protest. But most politically motivated demonstrations only risk imprisonment. So this dramatic demonstration of love for others may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Deim regime, which was being supported by the US military. As a Buddhist monk, he was not likely in favor of Communism specifically, but of regime-change in general. :smile:
John 15:13 : There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
Please explain how his suicide contributed to the betterment of his society.
Where is the "love for others" in his killing himself?
How?? By shocking them into having mercy for the Vietnamese Buddhists?
He was a Mahayana monk, not a Theravada one, so different rules apply.
Still, as far as Buddhist monks go, it's strange for a monk to get involved into social and political issues, given that a Buddhist monk is said to have renounced the world.
(Too bad you have to quote a Christian scripture to defend the acts of a Buddhist.)
That's beside the point. I was just guessing that his radical political statement of solidarity with his fellow Buddhists, was intended to accomplish that goal. Ironically, Vietnam eventually fell to the communists, who were not noted for their tolerance of any religion. Here, judge for yourself.
The Story Behind The Burning Monk :
https://time.com/3791176/malcolm-browne-the-story-behind-the-burning-monk/
Ngo Dinh Diem : but his own Catholicism and the preference he showed for fellow Roman Catholics made him unacceptable to Buddhists,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ngo-Dinh-Diem
Quoting baker
I wasn't "defending the acts of a Buddhist". Just giving an example of mind-over-matter, which is claimed to be an almost magical power of meditation. For the record, I don't believe in Magic . . . except, of course, for Stage & Movie Magic. I don't know if the monk achieved Nirvana, but if "good works" count for anything in Buddhist tradition, he should go down in history as a saint, right alongside all the Catholic and anti-catholic martyrs, who were burned at the stake for their pro or con beliefs.. :cool:
That's the official party line, yes -- that he was a saint. But if you stick around Buddhism -- different schools of Buddhism -- long enough, you'll see that not all Buddhist opinions view those self-immolations so favorably.
It's just that it's not likely that those different opinions will ever become mainstream, given that Buddhist monks aren't supposed to publicly criticize other monks.
What is your canonical support for this claim?
My understanding of Nirvana is that it is not a goal of meditation but rather a resulting state of mind, once all mental disturbances cease.
Again, what is your canonical support for this claim?
Are you enlightened? Have you attained at least stream-entry?
If not, you have to base your understanding on someone else's words, on some text. It's this text I'm asking about.
Wikipedia gives the following definition:
“As expressed in the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, the goal of Buddhism is to overcome suffering (du?kha) caused by desire, attachment to a static self, and ignorance of the true nature of reality (avidya).[7] Most Buddhist traditions emphasize transcending the individual self through the attainment of Nirvana or by following the path of Buddhahood, ending the cycle of death and rebirth.[8][9][10]”
At 27 posts, you should be able to already post links.
There are all kinds of things circulated around as being "the teachings of the Buddha".
One would hope that the people who are making those claims would have enough respect for the Buddha not to ascribe to him words he didn't say, or words for which there is good reason to believe or suspect he did not say them.
Your doctrinal criticisms of Buddhism are going off-topic. The OP was not asking about the veracity of Buddhist doctrine, but only if any human mind can achieve an altered state in which the sufferings of life, and the fear of death are of no consequence. Personally, I doubt that doctrinal Nirvana per se is achievable, but it's obvious that some human adepts (such as the flaming monk) can approach a similar state of indifference to the outside world. I don't doubt that the mind can adopt measurable "altered states". But, when Mind Magic is attributed to those states, I might ask : "what is your [s]canonical[/s] [empirical] support for this claim?". :cool:
OP -- Existence of Nirvana :
[i]"Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death . . . .
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state."[/i]
Altered States of Consciousness :
https://hraf.yale.edu/ehc/summaries/altered-states-of-consciousness
Such states are trivially possible. Just ask any meth addict.
The salient point is, and this is where veracity issues come into play, 1. whether such an altered state can be brought about deliberately, and 2. whether the person can be in such a state and still go about their daily life in a productive way.
"Deep meditation" and trance states are fine, but of entirely no use, if you can't handle being stuck in traffic for three hours with three crying children in the backseat.
One cannot just ascribe to someone some words just because they "make sense to one". That's bestial.
"This makes sense to me, therefore, [insert name of favorite religious/spiritual figure] said it" --?????
I agree. However, I’m not suggesting that one puts words in a religious figures mouth, but rather that the accuracy of what was actually said thousands of years ago, by various religious figures, is debatable. My point is this: regardless of word accuracy, does what was said resonate within you as being true?
Do you mean the things you ascribed to the Buddha? No.
Good.
Those whom seek nirvana, will not find it and those whom do not seek nirvana will also not find it and yet nirvana may still be found, nevertheless!
*sigh*
Are you enlightened?
:lol:
Well said! The hat of a divine madman suits you!
I haven’t experienced an enlightened moment, therefore I do not KNOW what enlightenment IS, do you?
You are in the same boat Baker, unenlightened and without a clue on what nirvana IS. Philosophy does not claim to be fact, simply a view on how things might be.
Humans make stuff up, that’s what we do! We make up language, to communicate ideas. We make up stories for book, music for mood, movies for entertainment, inventions for convenience like washing machines and dishwashers.
One may choose to believe the words attributed to the Buddha or Jesus Christ, or not, that is the beauty of freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion as freedom of delusion?
And worse, "choose to believe" -- IOW, epistemic trivialism as foundation for religious choice?!
/facepalm/