Nirvana is the exact opposite from a divine being, blessed with an absolute omnipotence, omnisapiency, and omnimorality. It's an absolute state of omni-absency, total absolute nothingness.
Nirvana is an endless dreamless sleep — GraveItty
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 — Gregory
Indeed.'see' rather than 'follow'. — I like sushi
Why so? Particularly in light of the fact that,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). — Gregory
...it seems we are bodies and brains so we seem to die on our death beds for good... — 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.Nirvana is...an absolute state of omni-absency, total absolute nothingness.
Nirvana is an endless dreamless sleep. — GraveItty
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.I had bliss... — I like sushi
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). — Michael Zwingli
I might just as well achieve "bliss" through the regular use of heroin, no? — Michael Zwingli
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. — Michael Zwingli
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. — Nyanoponika Thera, Buddhism and the God Idea
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?Ego is not the self, but the self's idea of the self. — Wayfarer
Certainly. Tell me, though, how do you define "lasting" in this context?Ego clings to its imagined sources of satisfaction but all of them are transient and incapable of providing lasting happiness. — Wayfarer
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. — Nyanoponika Thera, Buddhism and the God Idea
I find myself under the impression, though, that in order to achieve Nirvana, the will must be relinquished. Is this a correct understanding? — Michael Zwingli
Ego clings to its imagined sources of satisfaction but all of them are transient and incapable of providing lasting happiness.
— Wayfarer
Certainly. Tell me, though, how do you define "lasting" in this context? — Michael Zwingli
Also, and this seems quite important, what is the design and meaning of Nirvāṇa if one has not been able to accept the claim of Samsara? — Michael Zwingli
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?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. — 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.However in Mahāyāna Buddhism (of which Nichiren Shōshū is a form) there is not the same sense of the radical separation of renunciate and worldly life. — 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.Certainly. Tell me, though, how do you define "lasting" in this context?
— 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 Nirvāṇa is not, according to Buddhism. — Wayfarer
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? — Michael Zwingli
"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. — Michael Zwingli
any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata* would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.
*'Tathagatha' = honorific title of the, or a, Buddha.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.