What is Nirvana
As I understand Buddhism, the ego is what causes suffering for the reason that suffering means something is claiming identity in the face of sensations. So if the ego dies a consciousness would feel everything there is and there will be a cancelling of good and bad which results in a state of bliss. If the body dies, consciousness can live on because it is nothing without an ego. But how can a state beyond the world be?
Comments (140)
[i]“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices:
“When this is, that is.
“From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
“When this isn’t, that isn’t.
“From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
“In other words:
“From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
“From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
“From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
“From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
“From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
“From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
“From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
“From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
“From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
“From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
“From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.
From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.
From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.
From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
“This is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment.[/i]
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_92.html
Death is the ultimate mystery for humans. I think it's possible that when we die our consciousness enters another body and we can call this reincarnation or the ressurection of the body (if we get the same body back). The thing for me is that it seems we are bodies and brains so we seem to die on our death beds for good but Buddhism offers the possibility that consciousness is substance less such that it can go somewhere else when the body dies. You're right though that this is all completely speculative and it's something we can't figure out. It's nice however to have a belief in an afterlife
Nirvana is an endless dreamless sleep.
The opposite of our contingent state might seem like absolute nothingness from our perspective in this life, but once there it might be the fullness of reality
Possible, yes but do keep in mind, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The English were wise folks.
Such persons in history most likely knew damn well what problems they would reveal ... but someone had to really because there has to be a pinhole for others in the knowledge that some others will 'see' rather than 'follow'.
Indeed.
Try it, and find out. No point in asking a bunch of amateur, mainly Western philosophers to speculate in ignorance, no point in trying to understand Nirvana from the outside, as a theory. That's like sitting in the cafe in the valley wondering about the view from the top of the mountain. Save your breath and get your boots on.
Why so? Particularly in light of the fact that,
Quoting Gregory
Please expand upon this. Is this describing a diminishment of consciousness (I do not think so), or, perhaps, a full or expanded consciousness accompanied by some type of "absolute emptiness"? I cannot fathom what is meant by this.
I assume that you mean "...as a result of having experienced Nirvana", which leads me to believe that you are a Buddhist. Using that assumption as a context, I would like to have your opinion on something, particularly under the assumption that there is no "soul", "spirit" or independent "consciousness" by means of which Samsara might be effected (that is, under the assumption that there is no "cycle of reincarnation" to be interrupted): is this "bliss" that you mention worth what is sacrificed in the pursuit of "Nirvana"? It appears to me, indeed, as Gregory has noted above, that what is sacrificed in this pursuit is the "ego"...one's very self, including the will and every other aspect of one's personality. Is this true, and if it is, is the loss of self worth achieving the bliss of Nirvana? I assume that if there is no Samsara, that "bliss" is the only thing to be achieved by striving for Nirvana. I might just as well achieve "bliss" through the regular use of heroin, no? In that case, I would not have to lose that essential aspect of my "self" which proceeds from my consciousness, namely my will, in order to achieve bliss (though indeed, other things are sacrificed thereby). I ask these questions, because they lie at the very heart of the misgivings that I have long had regarding Buddhism.
In his new book, ‘Helgoland…’, about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only features in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by ‘emptiness’ in his Buddhism. Further note that the universe and all that comes and goes in it is temporary.
Relationism and Buddhism
(Outline from reading Rovelli)
Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.
Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.
Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.
All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.
Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.
There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.
The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.
Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
[u]This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
As all temporary, is Nirvana.[/u]
I suppose it is enough the Permanent can only form temporaries.
Non-dualist philosophy does say we lose ego, but we don't know what the absence of ego really means until it happens. Discussing how we do this is useful though. Whether we go to another body or our own body may or may not be relevant to that pursuit. Eastern thinkers seem to think the body is not important, but a Western version of Eastern philosophy might resurrect, so to speak, the ancient doctrine of Nirvana but insist that a consciousness, without ego, must be inside a body even though consciousness is without substance and a type of nothingness without ego
Quoting Michael Zwingli
In Buddhist lore, one of the fates of beings after death is that of the 'hungry ghost'. The hungry ghost is typically depicted as having a huge mouth and a penci-thin neck and is in a state of perpetual craving. It can be understood as a metaphorical description of the addict.
Ego is not the self, but the self's idea of the self. In sacrificing the ego, nothing is actually lost, because it has no substance in the first place. Ego clings to its imagined sources of satisfaction but all of them are transient and incapable of providing lasting happiness.
[quote=Nyanoponika Thera, Buddhism and the God Idea; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html] The materialistic philosophy of annihilationism (ucchedavada) is emphatically rejected by the Buddha as a false doctrine. The doctrine of kamma is sufficient to prove that Buddhism does not teach annihilation after death. It accepts survival, not of an eternal soul, but of a mental process subject to renewed becoming; thus it teaches rebirth without transmigration. Again, the Buddha's teaching is not a nihilism that gives suffering humanity no better hope than a final cold nothingness. On the contrary, it is a teaching of salvation (niyyanika-dhamma) or deliverance (vimutti) which attributes to man the faculty to realize by his own efforts the highest goal, Nibbana, the ultimate cessation of suffering and the final eradication of greed, hatred and delusion. Nibbana is far from being the blank zero of annihilation; yet it also cannot be identified with any form of God-idea, as it is neither the origin nor the immanent ground or essence of the world.[/quote]
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, an important distinction for sure. I find myself under the impression, though, that in order to achieve Nirvana, the will must be relinquished. Is this a correct understanding?
Quoting Wayfarer
Certainly. Tell me, though, how do you define "lasting" in this context?
Also, and this seems quite important, what is the design and meaning of Nirvana if one has not been able to accept the claim of Samsara?
The world is appearance just as the ego is, however. Phenomenology has much to say about our being in the world
I think so, although not a particularly nuanced way of putting it!
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Not subject to decay, imperishable, secure. Generally speaking, in terms of ordinary life, whatever can be gained can also be lost, what is young will become old, everything we hold dear is subject to decay, but Nirv??a is not, according to Buddhism.
I think it can be said that the early forms of Buddhism were strictly renunciate, with a radical difference between the Buddhist order and ordinary life. However in Mah?y?na Buddhism (of which Nichiren Sh?sh? is a form) there is not the same sense of the radical separation of renunciate and worldly life.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
I personally don't think the former is really meaningful without the latter. In Western culture, there is a movement that identifies as 'secular Buddhism' that generally doesn't accept the idea of continued re-birth in sa?s?ra. There's quite a good essay on the distinction between classical and secular Buddhism here, by Bhikkhu Bodhi, who is a well-regarded scholar-monk and translator. But, personally, I am of the view that Buddhism is a religion, not simply a form of therapy or means of adjusting to life, with the caveat that it has religious conception which is fundamentally different to the Biblical.
Buddhism as far as I’m concerned is related to nihilism. The nihilist grows from the assumption that life needs to give them something, that they deserve more. They stare down into the abyss instead of recognising what is around them. The buddhist is in the abyss, they look up but see nothing much. Both disregard life. One expected more from life and the other nothing whatsoever.
Both abstain from living. Some who tread that pass hit the depths of despair so hard they suffer just the right amount and release something within that shine a light on life in full technicolour.
Heroin isn’t ‘bliss’ btw. I know someone who took it and they sounded more like a nihilist/buddhist. They wanted to stop feeling, it numbed them. The thing is such practices (like buddhism or nihilism) cause stress and strain. From stress and strain humans can trigger something in themselves.
It is no coincidence that the stories of Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha stem from each individual being under enormous stress and strain prior to their revelations. For buddhism the story is a little more unique as buddha appears on the cusp of nihilism coming from a life of extraordinary wealth and riches. His exposure to ‘suffering’ gave him life not his unknown avoidance of it.
The same ritual is plain enough in shamanic practices too all around the globe.
Without looking up the term, this is called something like Theraveda (?), would that be right? Practiced mostly in India and Myanmar? Within this type of framework, is Buddhism considered to be something "only for the monks", with the 'laity' not pursuing a Buddhist lifestyle at all?
Quoting Wayfarer
Ah, my pal didn't explain that to me. I was under the impression that "Nichiren" formed it's own "branch" of the Buddhist "family ttree", if you will, rather than being a form of Mahayana.
Thanks for the link to the Boddhi essay, I will read it.
Quoting Wayfarer
You have, I think, missed the admittedly 'implied but unexpressed' essence of my question here. I guess the way I would pose it to a Buddhist scholar (not quite sure if that adequately decribes yourself) is, "if individual consciousness does not survive the body, meaning that the doctrine of Samsara is false, does the 'hardcore' (if you'll forgive the term) Buddhist expect the individual experience of Nirvana, even though being 'not subject to decay', to expire with the end of natural life?" I have an opinion about this, but yet wonder what the Buddhist thought would be. What I seek is to assess the applicability of Buddhism to my own personal life, as well as the desirability of pursuing that.
Theravada = 'doctrine of the elders' - the tradition practiced mainly in SE Asia and Sri Lanka, and based on the Pali Buddhist texts. There is certainly accomodation for lay practitioners and in Thailand, for example, it is frequent for individuals to spend some time in one of the Buddhist orders during their life.
It's more that, with Mah?y?na Buddhism, the example of the 'householder-practitioner' became established. Also the ideal of enlightenment shifts from the 'arahant' who attains release for themselves alone, to the Bodhisattva, who continues to be born voluntarily for the benefit of all beings. There's a Mah?y?na Sutra about the life of a silk merchant, Vimalakirti, whose understanding of Buddhism is so profound that the Buddha's disciples are afraid to debate him! But understanding the differences between Theravada and Mah?y?na Buddhism is quite a deep subject in its own right. (There's a good quality academic text available here.)
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Buddhism is often equated, falsely, with nihilism. But the point is a very subtle one and difficult to condense. The Buddha was well-known for refusing to respond to what he thought of as metaphysical conundrums - these are the so-called unanswered questions of the Buddha (which have elsewhere been compared to the Kantian antinomies of reason). One of these questions is whether the Buddha continues to exist after death. Of course it is implicit that beings other than the Buddha are reborn into various realms, on account of their not having attained freedom from re-birth. When pressed on whether the Buddha continues to live on in some sense after having reached the pari-Nirv??a, the answer given was:
This is of course a difficult idea to fathom. Nirv??a, meaning literally the 'blowing out', has often been misconstrued as nothingness, annihilation or non-being (including by the European scholars who initially encountered the tradition.) Also the Hindu opponents of the Buddha often depicted his teaching as nihilism. But I don't think it's true. It's more the case that Nirv??a is beyond conceptual understanding; we can't imagine or envisage it.
(As to whether I'm a scholar, I did complete an MA in the subject around 10 years ago, purely for my own edification and interest. I have given some informal talks at a Buddhist library since then. That is about it.)
Quoting Michael Zwingli
What is the source for your understanding of Buddhist doctrine?
Try what, find out what?
What the term "nirvana" means?
Sounds as much like a plan as deciding to go to Katowice, and then just "going until you get there", without consulting any maps.
Sounds like at least one definition of philosophy. :joke:
The last book I read on Buddhism was Thoughts without a Thinker by Mark Epstein. I read articles too
My general concern here is how Buddhist reject substance all together. Rejecting ego is understandable. But why is rejecting substance in general important? Are they saying simply that there is nothing that deserves attachment? That's a very hard doctrine to follow especially while someone rejects ego. And if complete detachment is impossible, then so seems Nirvana
Quoting Tom Storm
Only if you expect answers from it. I see philosophy as consisting in the discovery of questions (in it's dimension as history of ideas) and descriptions of our practices, and the dissolution of artificial language-generated puzzles.
Philosophy should help you to stop chasing your tail, otherwise it is a waste of time (unless like some dogs, you enjoy it).
Yep, I agree philosophy is, like the arts, a matter of taste. Why do it if there's no joy in it for you? (I don't mean you, the 'you' there is generic).
I posted on a Mah?y?na Buddhist forum for quite a few years. I learned there that the most scholastically-educated Buddhists, even those of Western ancestry, were scornfully dismissive of one of the Hindu sages that first attracted me to Eastern philosophy. He is, formally speaking, a heretic, from the Buddhist P-O-V. It's that sectarian aspect of Buddhism that I like least about it.
My knowledge is very general. Quite a number of years ago, I read a book called "Buddhism for Beginners" (I forget the author's name), and I've read one and a half of Thich Nhat Hanh's books, given to me by a buddy: all of "The Art of Communicating", and about half of "Living Buddha, Living Christ", before my interest in something else tore me away from it. Also, I have, somewhere, a great looking scolarly book on the ways in which Buddhism was changed as it crossed the Himalayas into China and Tibet. I actually can't remember the title right now, but I think it's from the University of Chicago Press...that tome is somewhere on the reading list... I've gotten my concept of the 'general Buddhist landscape' from the Wikipedia article on Buddhism (colored maps, and all, Wikipedia is awesome, sometimes), and that is where I originally read about Theravada (which I evidently misspelled earlier) Buddhism, it's geographic distribution and it's distinction from better known Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. I also have a friend who, following his mother, practices Nichiren Buddhism, and have had a few brief conversations with him about that. That's about it, really.
I suppose my own stated misgivings are based upon my view of the human being, and the fact that I percieve Buddhist doctrine and practice as involving a renunciation of those things that make particularly men great men: aggression, the lust for power and dominance, the desire for fame/renown, etc., etc. To be totally honest, I must admit that, in common with most other "meat and potatoes" American guys, these traditional western "manly attributes" remain my own cherished values; I suppose that I am fully steeped in that tradition. Though they all certainly died agonistically, driven men like Alexander, Sulla (a real 'man's man'), Caesar, Charlemagne, remain my ideals, as opposed to Diogenes, Cicero (although his bad-ass prose redeems him), and indeed, Siddhartha. Of course, the purpose of life for such men as compose the first group is not bliss, happiness, or inner peace, it is achievement. Buddhism just seems to fly in the face of all the values that I was raised with. For me to accept Buddhism as aiming at something desirable, my basic values would have to change.
The second reason for my misgivings center around my renunciation of any notions of "spirituality". I am an atheist who refuses to accept the possibility of the existence of a God, of Satan, of heaven or hell, of spirits, human souls, and all the rest of it, until such a time as I have some evidence for these things. In short, I have become a strict spiritual skeptic. Based upon my notion that, ultimately, the acceptance of Samsara, of reincarnation, which itself suggests the incorporeal self, the 'spirit' if you will, is necessary to the full realization of Buddhist doctrine, it would seem to myself that my lack of belief in the incorporeal self nearly proscribes participation in the Buddhist enterprise. To myself, the pursuit of Nirvana without believing in Samsara appears as no more than a masturbatorial exercise, a mere chasing after the good feeling of bliss. For a guy who believes that the point and purpose of life has nothing to do with feeling good, it seems that all masturbatory exercises should be limited to two minutes in the loo...
This is alot more information than you asked for, @baker, but I figured I'd put it all out there, so people could try to convince, enlighten, shape, and mold me in more pointed ways, should they desire to do so.
There are dozens of purported pathways of practice to Nirvana. How do you know which one to choose?
Assuming that one means something by the words one uses, how can one practice toward Nirvana, if one has no idea what it is? (Or at best, only has an Oxford English Dictionary kind of definition of it.)
But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?
Quoting Gregory
It doesn't seem to, as the analogy with the handful of leaves illustrates.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html
One of the meanings of "samsara" is 'to wander on, aimlessly'.
But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?
Why would you even think of accepting it?
From a Theravadan perspective, this is backwards. They would say there is kamma, therefore, there is rebirth. It all starts with kamma. And ends with the ending of it.
Ha ha! That's something to say to the modern Buddhists!
No, Buddhists are generally not particularly interested in proselytizing, so don't expect much from them on that front.
Buddhist practice is a matter of life and death.
Right view vs. wrong view is a matter of life and death.
Right view and wrong view cannot coexist peacefully.
Yep, from ???- ("sam-"), "along with", "together with" + ??? ("sara"), "extension", "prolonging", "stretching out". And so literally, "that accompanied by prolongation", or metonymically "aimless wandering".
No, I cannot say that I have. I suppose that a translation would have to be special ordered at the bookstore, allow five weeks for delivery...
Quoting baker
To fill the void left by the lapsed Christian faith. Religion seems important to me, after all.
Quoting baker
Did you mean to write "karma"? Please expand upon this when you have time. Does the view of this differ in Mahayana Buddhism, or in Tibetan?
Yes, but only excerpts in textbooks and such. I want find find detailed arguments about philosophy from Buddhists, but maybe they are hard to come by, as the following indicates:
Quoting baker
Btw, High Noon cool
You can start right here, right now:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
or
https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta
Okay.
"Kamma" is Pali for Sanskrt "karma". Pali is the language usually used in Theravada.
For your questions, you may consult
The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
and other writings by the same author.
I addressed your OP question in my first post in this thread.
The links from it contain further links that address all of your further questions. Understanding dependent co-arising/dependent origination is vital.
Thanks for the resources. The quote about dependent origination is interesting because it directly contradicts the Prime Mover argument
It was a more a matter of responding to the speculative questions in the OP.
'The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2) mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self.
What am I?
How am I?
Am I?
Am I not?
Did I exist in the past?
Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past?
How was I in the past?
Having been what, did I become what in the past?
Shall I exist in future?
Shall I not exist in future?
What shall I be in future?
How shall I be in future?
Having been what, shall I become what in future?
Whence came this person?
Whither will he go?'
I don't see them as speculative in the pejorative sense suggested, but as questions that are bound to arise for a person who relies on extracanonical sources for Buddhist doctrine but which are nevertheless being presented as Buddhist doctrine.
The simple fact of the matter is that all kinds of things are being presented as "paths to enlightenement" and as Buddhist doctrine, marketed and sold under the title of Buddhism, and yet those teachings have little or no grounding in the Pali Canon.
So when people who read those teachings come up with the questions you mention, that is a different situation from when an ordinary person who has no knowledge of Buddhism is asking those questions.
Other than that, I'd still like to hear your reasoning for agreeing with @unenlightened 's stance earlier.
Point taken, although there's a lot of diversity in California.
Buddhism, A Philosophical Approach, Cyrus Panjavi
Buddhism as Philosophy, Mark Siderits
The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, T.R.V. Murti
(The last was published in 1955. Murti was an Indian scholar educated at Oxford and his book has detailed comparisons with Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy with Kant, Hegel, Bradley and others. It is nowadays a pretty unfashionable book, current Buddhist scholarship says he was too Euro-centric in his views, but it was one of the first serious books I read on the subject and I found it incredibly illuminating. It was also my first exposure to Kant, and seeing Kant through that perspective has also been important, because it locates his work in a practical philosophy. See this excerpt.)
Those books look amazing. I shall order them
:up:
Clearly then, you're working with a heuristic for how even an unenlightened person can nevertheless choose the right school, the right lineage, the right teacher, and thus, the right practice.
A heuristic that I'm not privy to (and I'm quite sure neither is the OP).
It seems to me that to live without human ego is to live as God. God no longer an object of thoughts or devotion, but know as the true identity. Even animals have some identity
The OP is specifically asking about what is nirvana. It's a request for a clarification of terms.
But, and this is my point, there are several competing ideas about what nirvana is. How do you decide which one is the relevant one? (And which one will then inform your practice.)
the OP is engaging in just the kind of speculative questions that I referred to.
Quoting Gregory
Quoting baker
Completely different question. Nowadays you can browse books from all different traditions and schools, I daresay that in traditional cultures, you would never have that kind of choice at all.
"Egolessness" is a term from popular/modern Buddhism. It's rather difficult to talk about it because "egolessness" is a term that is hard to support with the Pali canon.
It's the way some people, including some Buddhists, render the term Pali term "anatta". It's a highly debated term.
In my opinion, "egolessness" approaches the problem of suffering from a direction which I would never take and which is fraught with further problems. I think the doctrine of "egolessness" is an extracanonical doctrine, so I would never associate it with what the Buddha taught.
The title of the thread is "What is Nirvana".
The "speculative questions" are not the OP's fault, though. It's evident the OP has read some popular Buddhist writings, in good faith assuming they teach what the Buddha taught.
Anyone reading the writings of some modern/popular Buddhists would have those questions. And not because of their propensity for speculation, but simply because anyone wanting to make sense of those texts would end up with those questions.
When you read the suttas, such questions do not arise in your mind. When you read some modern/popular Buddhists, they do. And why is that? Whose fault is that?
No, it's a question that refers to @unenlightened's advice and your agreeing with it. Both of you implicitly criticize people for "talking instead of doing", but you gloss over the problem of what exactly it is that one should be doing.
Should one follow some teacher who teaches egolessness, or some other? Based on what can one make such a decision?
(Having multiple options to choose from only makes the matter worse, not easier.)
Guilty as charged.
I feel like I need a rational understanding of the goal. Ego is one thing, but identity is another. To destroy the identity through self humiliation is annihilation unless identity comes back with humility
That’s not true. There are quite clearly buddhist practices that believe in deities. Of course you may not refer to these as ‘true buddhism’ but that doesn’t matter to those who practice that particular kind of buddhism.
Btw have you experienced ‘bliss’? Just curious because it seems a bit daft for anyone to ask for advice from you if you haven’t.
Fair enough!
Quoting I like sushi
Rather it's that the deities they worship are not recognised as such by monotheism. Buddhism is not theistic in the sense of relying on God or gods, the basis of the religion is the recognition of dependent origination - emptiness. Of course, it turns out there's quite a lot of convergence between Buddhism and Christianity in terms of ethics and conduct, but the principles are nevertheless distinct.
Quoting I like sushi
Sure! Decades ago, I got initiated into meditation practice by an organisation that was kind of like a cross between EST and Transcendental Meditation. They taught the theory behind it, and a twice-daily meditation practice with mantra repetition. I found through that practice that I would have intense and unexpected episodes of bliss - such as one morning when standing at a supermarket checkout. But those feelings dissipate just as quickly as they arrive, and you can't do anything to hold onto them, so I learned that it was a mistake to depend on them or try and seek them out, but every so often it would occur. 'The bliss you cannot have', I used to call it.
This was before a became interested in Buddhism - it was that which lead to my interest, through seeking a framework within which such experiences are intelligible.
It is still incorrect to imply that buddhism is not theistic because there are examples of this.
I don’t know what you mean (personally) by ‘bliss’ and I’m also interested to know whether you think there are other means of experiencing ‘bliss’. How would you describe the moment you had in the supermarket? You said it was more of glimpse, so how long did this fleeting experience last? Minutes? Hours? Days? After it had subsided what had changed for you?
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. If there are examples of theistic Buddhism, then I'd be interested to know what they are. There are holy beings in Buddhism, but no creator God. (See Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition, Richard P. Hayes.)
Quoting I like sushi
Those episodes were generally brief, but the point which struck me was that it was something entirely new, something I had never felt previously. It was like another dimension of experience. As I said, they were transient, but they left an impression.
At that time I had been reading the literature of popular spirituality - Krishnamurti, books on Buddhism and related subjects that were circulating at the time. Something clicked at that time, or came together - it was an opening or awakening experience, I thought maybe what is called the opening of the heart chakra (although don't know for sure). There are such states as meditative realisations but they're impossible to describe. The consequence was a greater sense of empathy with others and also a sense of joy. It was a permanent change, although not a permanent state, because no state is permanent. But nothing exceptional, life goes on, I think overall it made me a better person, but certainly neither sage nor saint. If you want an exceptional example read this account from the annals of Richard M. Bucke, who solicited accounts of individuals whom he said had experienced Cosmic Consciousness, from his book of that name, published in 1901. (Nothing like that ever happened to me.)
Yu must be using the term 'theism' as rigidly meaning 'creator' then. I don't and others don't. It is only correct for certain branches of buddhism and in the cases where it isn't it is only correct - as far as I know - in terms of 'theism' being framed as belief in a 'creator'.
Tibetan buddhism is clearly 'theistic' although they don't believe in a creator god or frame the 'beings' they talk about as gods ... just because they use different terms it doesn't mean the principles are any different from polytheistic beliefs.
I can only agree (as far as I know) that there are no distinct buddhist groups that believe in a creator god but there are distinct groups that do believe in 'higher beings' they just don't frame them as gods in what would be identical to more western traditions.
Quoting Wayfarer
You can do better than that! The link you provided did so so why can't you? I'm very curious about this. You can send DM if you prefer
Nirvana is the complete cessation of suffering.
See The Four Noble Truths.
If you're going to insist on this terminology, more than just casually, then, from some point on, you need to take responsibility for doing so and have some justification for doing so.
To be clear:
So you agree you gloss over the problem of what exactly it is that one should be doing?
For me identity is the same as consciousness.
*shrug*
I think in all Buddhism gods are part of samsara but have been released. I haven't seen Buddhist talk about a being that is necessary existence
The nearest to a philosophical sense of necessary being is the term 'unconditioned'.
This points to the fundamental distinction between the uncreated and created. In theistic religions, that is represented as the relationship between creator and created. And that is a distinction which has been completely lost to modern thought.
I didn't see it as germane to the point of the OP, which initially seemed to me a philosophical question, using Buddhism as an illustrative example. That's why I agreed with Unenlightened's remark. However this forum being what it is, a meandering discussion has now ensued, and I'm OK with that, too.
As I've tried to explain above, I can only see consciousness existing with a sense of self. Those seem self evidently identical to me. It's just meaningless to talk about, say, a plant having consciousness but no identity. BUT this is my knowledge of life on this side of death. In another realm of existence all my mental distinctions might become meaningless. The Buddhist claims of anatman don't replace the soul with God, as Hindus do, and so it seems to Westerners that they preach annihilation. The East though has a very different sense of individuality however and when we speak of an afterlife probably all earthly words won't suffice to describe it. I do find Buddhism peaceful and it's ideal of compassion has helped my personally at times
There's more.
Quoting Gregory
Buddhism is a theism. This isn’t really up for dispute. I find it evasive to not reply and evade questions. I find this happens a lot when someone theistic guards their sect/beliefs. Buddhists believe in a ‘higher plane’ of being and some believe in higher beings. That is a description of theism and there need be no belief in and creator god to qualify a religion as a religion.
@baker If you wish to experience ‘bliss’ then I can tell you what to do but the chances are you won’t do it. Basically you need to stress yourself for a prolonged period of time. How much and for how long would be completely dependent upon your physiological makeup.
The triggers for altered states of consciousness are sleep deprivation, fasting, intense concentration, trance dance, hyperventilation and/or prolonged periods of ‘pain’ in some form or another. It won’t be pretty but the chances are if you achieve something like the desired goal you won’t recall half of what really happened anyway (in terms of the negative side of it). A lot of it is about being brutally honest with yourself, getting rid of distractions and facing up to fears.
Meditation - in the philosophical sense - may get you there. Meditation in the buddhist sense won’t. It can give you glimpses though. What you should be doing is what you want to do. The problem is you don’t know that so just live of a little more instinct and exploration if you are seeking some ‘answer’. Never give up, I mean never … if you experience ‘bliss’ you’ll understand why those words are ironic :D
It is not only 'up for dispute', it's factually incorrect. Buddhism is a religion, sure, but it is not based on the existence of God.
Quoting I like sushi
Buddhists generally would not accept that.
You mean buddhists don’t believe in a creator god. Okay, that doesn’t make it NOT theistic in the general meaning of the term theistic. It just doesn’t, sorry.
And as I stated there are groups that hold to the belief in ‘higher beings’ and just because they don’t refer to them as ‘gods’ in the more Judeochristian sense doesn’t make them any less ‘supernatural’ - same goes for Confucianism where it is more or less about ancestor worship (still theistic in that there is ‘other’ or ‘void’ - a beyond).
Not all Christians believe in an actual personification of god either. Many see it is a ‘force’ or ‘power’. That doesn’t make the foundation of Christianity non-theistic though.
Millions of people practically worship buddha (and I mean that literally) I’ve seen it and spoke to people about it who practice this. They don’t know why they are doing it most of the time though and refer to ‘tradition’.
In any case, as far as the view of Theravada Buddhism about 'theism' is concerned, see Buddhism and the God Idea. For a general overview, there's a wiki article on Creator in Buddhism.
Quoting I like sushi
As the second article above points out, in Buddhism, there is no definite beginning to the world, and so, no need of a creator who acts as the first cause. There are deities some of whom are members of the general Indic pantheon who are incorporated into Buddhist mythology but none of them are regarded as eternal or as the creators of the world.
What I've noticed is, if you ask two Buddhists any challenging question about their religion, you get four or more contradictory answers.
Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists.
Oh. And you think I don't know that?
Are you enlightened?
‘Enlightened’ is something a buddhist might say not me. I had an experience that completely changed everything for me but I’m not, nor have I ever been, ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word. If you’re a buddhist and what I say upsets you I don’t really care. I’m not trying to upset people just stating what I know and what I’ve experienced.
Quoting baker
Why? Is Elvis supernatural? If people believe that I guess it would be theism in the broader sense of the term. Reincarnation is a supernatural idea not an objective proven fact - same goes for pantheism. Buddhism is categorised more as autotheism I believe but there are some who are buddhist that believe in gods (outside of buddhism), because in eastern traditions people have no real issue with a pick and mix style ‘religion’. It isn’t all that uncommon.
A monk I met in Thailand (who was running the pagoda) had friends (fellow monks) who were both muslim and buddhist, and knew of others who were hindu, buddhist and christian.
Note: These were actual full time monks not merely ‘people in the street’.
There are also people who follow christian beliefs BUT don’t take the literally (as mentioned). They are more or less agnostic rather than theistic, and don’t hold to any of the idea of an afterlife but merely say they don’t dismiss as they don’t know (but I would still call Christianity a theism).
Elvis is god.
It must be great to be you.
:up:
You can wiki it if you want. Buddhism is theistic but it is not theistic in the same way that most judeo christian practices are (for the majority of buddhist practices).
Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'.
People seem to be under the impression that Buddhism is atheistic. It isn't - the entire Hindu pantheon is part of the Buddhist belief system - but what's unique to Gautama's religion is no god(s) is/are the supreme authority like in the Abrahamic triad. This seemingly small alteration in the status of god(s) makes a huge difference presumably. Wayfarer is probably alluding to this, what is a, recalibration of our relationship with god(s). More can be said I suppose.
Hence, Elvis is god, and Elvis fans are theists ...
It's possible to be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
It Means, you done everything as "Leaving", ego and you go to ultimate expensions.
This goal, by hypothesis, or by dogma, was attained by Gautama Buddha after meditating under a fig tree. One must therefore surmise that it is a human condition, and primarily a state of mind. Judging by the replies so far, we have not been graced with one who has attained this state, and I, of course am proudly not the exception.
So any attempt to answer the op's question is as theoretical as this one, and not based on experience. So there is a jolly little game that goes on of calling each other out over various issues and expertises about stuff that bears some relation to what none of us knows from experience. But it sure sounds like a lot of fun.
In religious doctrines, terms have definitions.
Some people have been trying to bypass those definitions, and insist on using terms in idiosyncratic ways. What use is doing that?
Think you may find that religions argue about definitions all the time and have schisms over them on a regular basis. Philosophers are somewhat inclined to do the same. But what is your beef? I quoted the cybergod definition and observed that it is a real thing but extremely rare. If the op wanted a doctrinal definition, a buddhist website would be the place to go for no doubt several lengthy ones. But I suspect he wanted an account. He's not going to get that either. Meanwhile, lighten up dude, I'm not trying to steal your throne.
Unless we have all been teleported to Humpty Dumpty Land, one still cannot make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.
Conceptual clarification is one of the main purposes of philosophy.
From what I've seen, even self-identified Buddhists often can't find their way around Buddhist scriptures and other Buddhist sources. Some self-identified Buddhists also flat out ridicule the foundational Buddhist scriptures and consider them irrelevant. What to speak of non-Buddhists and their knowledge of Buddhism.
I asked the OP about his sources for his knowledge on the topic of Buddhism. From his answer to this, it is clear to me whence his OP.
I want to know whether the Buddha was sourgraping, so I question everyone who claims or implies that he was.
Oh, I have a throne that I don't know of?
Firstly, wrong thread, and secondly, nothing I have said is sceptical of Buddhism or its founder. I am sceptical of much of the Western interpretation of Buddhism, and perhaps of the beliefs of some Buddhists that have a supernatural or magical turn. I lean more towards the Zen schools and a practical, psychological understanding of an end to the narrative self as a projection from memory to imagination, or past to future, a thought construction of the self that creates desire and suffering.
:up: Once upon a wanton youth ... now day to day, moment by moment, as best as I can (my mandala) :death: :flower:
@Gregory
I (understand) 'nirvana' as the irreversible cessation of suffering (and joy), the release from "rebirth" – from distinctions, dualities, multiplicity, cycles and from release itself; and whereas 'nirvana' supposedly is the final consequence of following the Noble Eightfold Path, etc, it is not, however, "the goal" (since it's the cessation of goal-seeking). A meta-psychological (non-religious) corollary is, I think, Freddy's supposition of the Eternal Recurrence where 'the cycle' (of all binary opposites) is affirmed to such a degree that 'the cycle' becomes transparent – disappears – and loses its vice-grip on – releases – one's psyche. Another variation: Camus' "Sisyphus" overcomes – moment by moment releases himself from – 'the Absurd' by affirming, without evasions from or succumbing to, 'the Absurd'.
That is funny you say that because I been recently researching scripture of the Bible. And it relates to the same idea in Genesis
Genesis 2-17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Most people confuse this to knowledge of Science but in reality it talks of the awareness of ego. Shame, guilt and the primordial subconscious of the human psyche. And how it will be the cause of suffering in the world.
In Buddhism it talks about escaping this ego when you enter into Nirvana. In Christianity it says a savior will free us from that but we describe it as Sin.
I’m sorry I just find it fascinating how certain philosophy and belief intersect sometimes. Just noting the similarities.
Interesting comment. Nirvana is not knowing good and evil but transcending all duality
Yes, I think Buddhism is about saving yourself
Odd things happen given enough time. There's a post somewhere in this forum where a member remarks, paraphrasing, "if time is infinite, anything that can happen will happen." It's inevitable.
I'm in awe as to the grandness and complexity of the human mind to say nothing of the cosmos itself. You think you're right and you're wrong and just when you lose all hope and resign yourself to being always wrong, you're right. This is just a sample, not representative in any way but does give you a feel of how deep the rabbit hole goes. :grin:
No, the question of whether the Buddha was sourgraping is often on my mind, it pertains also to topics that nominally don't seem related to it.
Of course you do:
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting unenlightened
I pursued this, at length, but neither you nor @Wayfarer who agreed with you offered any actual answers, other than admitting that you aren't enlightened.
All this ego talk is a "Western interpretation of Buddhism", but you're not skeptical of that one.
Quoting 180 Proof
That depends on the school of Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities
See Tara worship, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism)
People worship her for the purpose of making spiritual progress.
No, baker, that statement doesn't make sense. Cultural "venerations" and "gods" in countries wherever Buddhism has taken root are not – could not be – central to Buddhist practice as taught by Buddha (or the early Therav?din). Such devas are neither "eternal" nor "karma-free" and, like all other living beings, "gods" are also working out their own salvations in Buddhist terms. Religious accretions of "gods" merely reflect, IMO, karmic attachments (re: sams?ra) of local adherents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
I replied to your post saying
Quoting 180 Proof
Indeed, in some Buddhist schools/lineages, "devotion (attachment) to deities" is considered relevant for liberation.
Quoting 180 Proof
Like I said:
Quoting baker
and a passage on Buddhist cosmology quoted in the post.
As for whether deity worship is "central to Buddhist practice as taught by Buddha" -- ha ha, I dare you to take this up with a Vajrayani!
Some indeed may think so, but that in no way means that what they believe is consistent with the early practices and the Pali canon. Fidelity to philosophical first principles are more substantive, or central to Buddhist practice, than parochial cultural variations of expression. Again, this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
Maybe I'm too biased by my (Western, nonpracticing) affinity for secular Buddhism to take serious as integral to the Noble Eightfold Path (etc) the admixture of local superstitions that have accumulated over millennia.
Also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism
I think it's more or also that you have not experienced sectarianism among Buddhists first hand.
Witnessing this sectarian fierceness, the sheer wrath of it! That's a crossfire you don't want to find yourself in. And it can make you rethink everything you have believed thus far.
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made[/i][/quote]
You're right that I haven't. My point is not that the local religious accretions or sectarian schisms are not important to those involved; simply, rather, that they are, so to speak, merely dry leaves and thin branches scattered by fall & winter winds and dead tree trunks fallen by storms or forest fires, and, therefore, not the deep, wide roots of early Buddhism which persist through the seasons. Yeah, the "gods" are interesting to many but, as Buddha taught, they are not important to one's "salvation". (NB: Jains, Daoists, Confucians, Epicureans, Kynics, Pyrrhonians and even Stoics taught non/trans-theism as well.)
[quote=Beyond Good and Evil, preface]Christianity is Platonism for the masses.[/quote]
And thereby nothing to do with what the Nazarene rabbi taught. The "revelations", like "enlightenments", come first to the very few, then "gods" & sects" come later like fetishes (blinders) to corral the blinkered many into divergent (narcissism of small differences) "tribes" & camps. "After all, it was you and me" ... :fire:
Two things:
One, on the ground level, when one is actually involved in Buddhism and Buddhist life, esp. when one approaches Buddhism as an outsider who yet has to decide which Buddhist school to look into, it is virtually impossible to not get burnt by the intersectarian fights (and pulled into them, with the expectation to take sides). It can make for a deeply unsettling experience that takes a long time to recover from.
Two, it's not always easy to tell what those "local religious accretions" are and what is probably the teaching of the Buddha. (The teachings on kamma and rebirth are often dismissed as such "local religious accretions" and "historical trappings".)
Moreover, in order to establish some kind of functional relationship with Buddhists for the purpose of receiving instruction, those "local religious accretions" must sometimes be taken up, accepted, considered as relevant enough.
:smirk:
Re: m?y?, anicca, anatta, moksha ...
:death: :flower:
Or maybe Nirvana is the Buddha's secret trick by which we can become philosophical zombies. :scream: The enlightened ones are really just robots now.
Oh, you think I joined, got initiated? Nothing of that kind. I read up on things first, and since that alone was inconclusive for me, not enough to make a firm decision one way or another, I approached some religions/spiritualities a bit closer, such as by visiting their groups or discussing things with individual practitioners, and further reading and listening to lectures. I thought I would visit for a while, "see how it goes", familiarize myself enough to figure out what next. But it turned out that was wrong. A few kind enough people there actually told me that my having a "bookish" background significantly contributed to my problems. Nothing in the books prepared me for the culture shock I experienced there -- namely, that those religious/spiritual people were so ordinary, just like ordinary people. The psycho-social dynamics were like highschool all over again. I was bewildered by that -- why bother with all doctrine and all those practices, if the real aim is to be exactly like the people who don't have such doctrines and practices.
In hindsight, my conclusion is that as far as religion/spirituality is concerned, if there is no "love at first sight" -- if after the first brief exposure I don't feel that this is the religion/spirituality/group/teacher I want to join for the rest of my life, then there's no point in pursuing it further. If that initial spark is not there, it's not going to happen later, no matter how much I try.
Who would be transcendent?
My experience with Zen exactly. I agree. :100:
Of course, the Buddhists also like to say that their teachings are only for those with "little dust in their eyes". I suppose I just have too much dust in my eyes, and they see me as too much of a liability to invest in me. I kind of can't hold that against them. But I'm still sad about it. I used to think that the Buddhists would teach me how to have faith, but I was wrong to expect that.
Quoting baker
That - sadness - is the key to nirvana. Feel sad, and I mean true heartache and we set the stage for enlightenment. Maybe nirvana is just sorrow in a disguise.
One half of Meno's paradox: If you don't know what you're looking for, how will you find it?