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. — I like sushi

Oh. And you think I don't know that?

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

Are you enlightened?

No creator god, fine. No creation, fine. Those are NOT the sole items that make some doctrine theistic or non-theistic. — I like sushi

Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists.

When you start asking questions about THAT group, comparisons to average Americans just don't seem to fly. — Xtrix

It seems to me that in terms of values, morality, psychologically, the 1% are actually similar or even the same as the middle class people. What makes the difference is that the 1% are operating within an entirely different socioeconomic context, which makes for vastly different results.


For example, Bill Gates' father wrote a book, Showing Up for Life: Thoughts on the Gifts of a Lifetime. In terms of morality and psychology, it's nothing special, it's middle class mentality. Except that if one can do those things with the kind of socioeconomic influence that these rich people have, the results are vastly different than if an ordinary, middle class person were to do them.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

It seems to me that everyone’s done everything except address the OP.

1: They’re very hard workers

2: They’re very good a setting an objective and then making a plan to get there

3: They’re very good at projecting into the future

4: They’re very adaptable

5: Many of them are very innovative

6: They’re very good at choosing people to work with, understanding them, motivating them

7: They inspire people within their circle

8: They have a through understanding of the world they’re operating in

9: They’re very good at networking

10: They create opportunities for others — Brett

Some things about them we may not be impressed with.

1: They make decisions in a pragmatic way that may hurt others: what do I need, what don’t I need, how do I get what I want?

2: They measure all actions, all success, in terms of profits

3: They may at times bend the rules to achieve their objectives

4: They probably lie and deceive often

5: Their egos are all powerful

6: They view politics as merely a tool to achieve their objective

7: They’re never satisfied — Brett

But the same applies to drug dealers, mobsters, small time conmen ... and to pretty much anyone who is eager to succeed.

IIRC, it was Bill Gates who said that it is luck that plays a major role in how successful a person will be.

Often, we are told that ambition and hard work are what it takes to succeed. But this isn't all. The opportunities for success in this world are limited, at from some point on, ambition and hard work make no difference.

My point was I am not interested in reflecting upon my own consciousness. I can't see how this approach could lead to much more than a self-indulgent manufacturing of meaning. But I could be wrong. — Tom Storm

From a Wiki page on Hesse's Siddhartha:

In Hesse's novel, experience, the totality of conscious events of a human life, is shown as the best way to approach understanding of reality and attain enlightenment⁠—⁠Hesse's crafting of Siddhartha's journey shows that understanding is attained not through intellectual methods, nor through immersing oneself in the carnal pleasures of the world and the accompanying pain of samsara; rather, it is the completeness of these experiences that allows Siddhartha to attain understanding.

This is an example of an non-systematic, non-structured approach of reflecting upon one's consciousness, for which, nevertheless, enlightenment is promised as a result. It's a rather popular approach, this freestyle, DIY-enlightenment.


In contrast, Early Buddhism, as well as, to some extent, phenomenology, work with a structured, systematic reflecting upon one's own consciousness. One isn't supposed to just "look within", but to look within in a very specific way. Many will object, of course, that in such a case, one isn't actually looking within at all.


Here an example of "reflecting upon one's own consciousness" in a structured way from the suttas:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

I'm saying that humans are in a different category to animals - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike animals, who do not have any of the above. Animal behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that humans are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer

You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans.

Look:

I'm saying that Gentiles are in a different category to Jews - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike Jews, who do not have any of the above. Jewish behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that Gentiles are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.

Or

I'm saying that men are in a different category to women - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike women, who do not have any of the above. Women's behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that men are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.

And so on.

The egalitarian idea that all humans are equal in some essential and important way is a humanist pipe dream which very few people actually believe in. For all practical intents and purposes, humans are as discriminating against other humans as they are against animals and plants.

Reduce consumption overall. It's not an overnight thing. But conscious deliberate mindfulness. — Caldwell

Reduction of human consumption does not change the nature of the relationship between humans and animals, only the mode of it.

As long as the nature of said relationship doesn't change, a change in its mode is a poor consolation, to say the least.


And, of course, a "live and let live" attitude will get you in trouble with other people, who want to live the way they want (which can include killing and eating animals), and not have anyone tell them how to do it.

Sometimes I wonder if the occasional omni reads these animal rights threads and.... though s/he is perhaps not yet convinced about animal rights... realizes that everything being said on the omni side is irredeemably flawed. — Artemis

I know meat eaters who say that humans must kill and eat animals, so as to make it clear who the boss is. That humans must continually assert their supremacy over animals and the natural environment, or else humans will be pushed out by them.

Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. — Shawn

Or was that onset of mental illness due to syphilis?

They have a will to live. — Caldwell

You still need to explain what you believe to be the correct inference from this.

And so we cannot change? — Caldwell

What's your plan?

Phenomenologists still make decisions and have preferences in the world (politics, spirituality, jobs, family, schools) - how are these made? — Tom Storm

I wonder about that too.

Yep, I get that - but I ask what it might contribute towards an ordinary life and decisions? How is it of use? — Tom Storm

For example, it can radically reconceptualize the way one understands "empathy" and the way one "empathizes".

Normally, when an objectivist/naive realist "empathizes", this is actually a simulation, an imagining of what it would be like to be in another person's shoes.

But, ideally, a phenomenologist could empathize without simulation.

Empathy without Simulation

Philosophical Empathy (in the Style of Merleau-Ponty)

*shrug*

Why do you argue in false dilemma all the time? Is this the only way you can think? — Caldwell

*sigh*

Farming plants for food still results in harm to animals. By plowing the soil, by using pesticides or other substances and techniques to minimize the populations of insects and other animals that would destroy the plants or the fruits. Then in the process of harvesting, again, animals are being killed.

And the people producing a vegan diet aren't necessarily vegan themselves either.

In short, no matter where you turn, animals are being killed in the process of producing food for humans, in one way or another, whether they are killed and eaten directly, or end up killed as competitors for human food or as collateral damage in the production of human food.

You're still not getting my point. Human will is the same as animal will.

So? What do you think necessarily follows from this?

But the way we treat animals disregards this point.

People kill eachother as well, or act without regard for the wellbeing of other people, thus disregarding that the will of another human is the same as one's own.

It is not the case that humans would only disregard will when it comes to animals; no, the disregard is far more universal.

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

To be clear:
So you agree you gloss over the problem of what exactly it is that one should be doing?

And eat what? Plants, because "they don't have any feelings" so it's okay to eat them?

I feel like I need a rational understanding of the goal. — Gregory

Nirvana is the complete cessation of suffering.
See The Four Noble Truths.

Ego is one thing, but identity is another. To destroy the identity through self humiliation is annihilation unless identity comes back with humility

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.

This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Dramatic, yes, but fallacy nonetheless. — Caldwell

Why would that be a false dilemma?

Are you saying it is possible to live without eating? To eat without causing harm?

Why do you think so many people behave this way? — Shawn

Probably because they believe that their lives are worth more than those of animals.

Many people also believe that their lives are worth more than the lives of many other people.

That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation.
— baker

Please explain. — Caldwell

The Jains, ideally, believing in absolute harmlessness, end up not eating at all, and thus die of starvation.

Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have.
— baker
I just said it is not the only perspective. What you're saying is, that's the only acceptable perspective for you.

Humans can only take a human perspective.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification.
— baker

I don't see anything wrong with that, do you? — Shawn

I do. It's a dishonorable perspective to take. Dishonorable for the person who takes such a perspective.

In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled.
— baker

What kind of debate? I'm not sure I'm following the issue of externalizing the issue to blame or justification in comparison with any framework to operate with, which seems necessary to even begin discussing animal rights...

The debate around whether X is deserving of respect on account of X's inherent value or the lack thereof.

We are looking at this issue for the sake of our interest only. — Caldwell

Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have.

Treat animals with respect like us because they, too, have a will to live.

That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation.

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

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?

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.

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.)

seems to me that to live without human ego — Gregory

"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.

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. 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.)

And one could hope in all endeavors, except those requiring a shoot-first ask-later response. — tim wood

Such a scenario would not occur for someone who has vowed to train themselves according to the (five) precepts.

In other words, there are epistemic cunundrums that a person who has committed themselves to living a highly moral life would simply not face.

See this article. — Wayfarer

Actually, it's the ideas about what Western culture and Westerners are like that I find more peculiar.
On the one hand, we have folk wisdom sayings like "People see what they want to see" and disagreement is expressed in terms of "there is something wrong with you". While on the other hand, it is assumed there is a real world "out there" and that beings and objects have "inherent nature", each their own.

An interesting distinction to draw out would be the one between phenomenology and solipsism. In what ways is phenomenology like solipsism and in what ways is it not.



As for your article: At a major Buddhist online forum, there used to be a main section of the forum called "Buddhist phenomenology" (or something similar, it had the word "phenomenology" in it, but it's since been renamed). There is a circle of Buddhists very knowledgeable of phenomenology.


For a puthujjana the world exists. He can perceive things in that world, see them appear and disappear, he can see them changing. A puthujjana can also affect his surroundings and modify things according to own preferences, pursue the desirable experiences and avoid the undesirable ones—the puthujjana is involved. This ‘involvement’ with things represents the very core of the puthujjana‘s ‘experience as a whole’. Most people spend the majority of their lives obliviously absorbed in it, taking the course of ‘involvement’ for granted.[1]

It needs to be understood that these ‘objects’, which the puthujjana is fundamentally involved with, are things which his experience is inseparable from, for the simple virtue of being his experience of those things. For this reason we have to broaden the meaning of the term ‘things’, from usually denominating ‘objects’ in one’s surroundings, to include any experience whatsoever that arises and can be discerned internally or externally (whether it is ‘objects’, ‘tools’, emotions’ or ‘thoughts’). In that way the term ‘things’ would correspond to what is meant by Pāli term ‘dhamma’. Thus, the experience of the puthujjana’s everyday world, his possessions, his desires and fears, anxieties and happiness are all things or phenomena. All these phenomena are completely unknown in their nature. This is why it is crucial for a puthujjana to recognize that a nature of a thing exists. This existence is not ‘in’ the world of the objects that are ready-to-hand, not ‘in’ his mind, not even between the two—but, a thing exists as an experience. Strictly speaking that’s all that can be truthfully said, without resorting to presupposed theories, inductive observations and explanations of the experience—the only thing that a puthujjana can know for certain is that ‘there is an experience’.

https://pathpress.org/appearance-and-existence/

It wasn't 'a stance'. It was advice. I agreed with it, for the reasons I gave, I'm not going to elaborate. — Wayfarer

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).

Yes, that's the point of the OP. Although when advocating for an animal (which isn't unusual) people tend to level their intelligence to our own. — Shawn

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification. Ie. the case is made that some being or object has inherent value because of which people should treat this being or object well. With this, the contrast is also held in place: It's because some being or object does not have inherent value that we do not have to treat them well.
"It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings."

The "black lives matter" is another such an externalizing lines of reasoning that is doomed to ineffectiveness. It's saying "Black people are worthy people, too." Clearly, as history has shown, there has been a lot of disagreement as to the inherent value of people depending on their race, sex, socioeconomic status. Such externalizing lines of reasoning do not have much persuasive power.

In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled.

I read Pyrrhonists (and apparently Buddhists) as avoiding that pitfall. Do you think we might call it considered/informed indifference? — tim wood

As for Buddhism: No, but a case of witholding final judgment until the conditions for it are met. Or, holding tenets tentatively, provisionally.

It's why in Eastern philosophies, realization is so important: with it, the distinction between holding a tenet tentatively/provisionally, and knowing something to be a fact (ie. realization) is made clear.

Like in this analogy with seeking a bull elephant:

The Blessed One said: "Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.

"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.

"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.

"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html

I really don't think this is meaningful idea. A case can be made for not culling sharks but I don't think it can be grounded in the idea that a shark has rights. — Wayfarer

Indeed. The focus should be on the behavior of humans, and not on the supposed inherent value and nature of animals, or the rights of animals.
In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people.

However, if we cannot argue with the consumer of pork or beef, then what are we to do about this issue between interested parties? — Shawn

Not produce pork or beef, nor do anything that would support their production.

Oh no, those Californians are undead.

It was a more a matter of responding to the speculative questions in the OP. — Wayfarer

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.

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 — Gregory

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.

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?
— baker
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... — Michael Zwingli

You can start right here, right now:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/

or

https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta

Why would you even think of accepting it?
— baker
To fill the void left by the lapsed Christian faith. Religion seems important to me, after all.

Okay.

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.
— 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?

"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.

It's that sectarian aspect of Buddhism that I like least about it. — Wayfarer

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.

My knowledge is very general.
/.../ — Michael Zwingli

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?

For me to accept Buddhism as aiming at something desirable, my basic values would have to change.

Why would you even think of accepting it?

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.

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.

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.

Ha ha! That's something to say to the modern Buddhists!

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.

No, Buddhists are generally not particularly interested in proselytizing, so don't expect much from them on that front.

The fact that philosophy continues to recycle the same questions and answers on an almost endless loop of reoccurrence strongly suggests to me a nutty mammal doing circles to catch an extremity. — Tom Storm

One of the meanings of "samsara" is 'to wander on, aimlessly'.