It wasn't 'a stance'. It was advice. I agreed with it, for the reasons I gave, I'm not going to elaborate. — Wayfarer
Not at all. Remember the character Vachagotta, the kinds of questions he would ask and the responses to them? The 'undetermined questions?' ('avyakarta' from memory.) It's simply a matter of not entertaining speculations like 'I wonder what it would be like not to act in an egocentric way?' The only way to discover that is to do it. And even then, that is not something the ego can latch onto and say it's something it can take credit for. You can only know by doing, not by pondering it. — Wayfarer
The OP is specifically asking about what is nirvana — baker
So if the ego dies... — Gregory
this is my point, there are several competing ideas about what nirvana is — baker
seems to me that to live without human ego — Gregory
The OP is specifically asking about what is nirvana
— baker
the OP is engaging in just the kind of speculative questions that I referred to. — Wayfarer
this is my point, there are several competing ideas about what nirvana is
— 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.
Buddhism is not a theistic religion, though, and would never use that terminology. — Wayfarer
I feel like I need a rational understanding of the goal. — Gregory
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. — I like sushi
Btw have you experienced ‘bliss’? — 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. — Wayfarer
It is still incorrect to imply that buddhism is not theistic because there are examples of this. — I like sushi
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 like sushi
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. — Wayfarer
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 an opening or awakening experience. I think maybe what is called opening of heart chakra. 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, although 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 experienced cosmic consciousness. (Nothing like that ever happened to me.) — Wayfarer
I feel like I need a rational understanding of the goal. — Gregory
Ego is one thing, but identity is another. To destroy the identity through self humiliation is annihilation unless identity comes back with humility
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.
— baker
Guilty as charged. — Wayfarer
I haven't seen Buddhist talk about a being that is necessary existence — Gregory
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. UD 8.3
So you agree you gloss over the problem of what exactly it is that one should be doing? — baker
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. — Wayfarer
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 — Gregory
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.