The words attributed to the Buddha have formed the basis of the Buddhist religion. After achieving enlightenment, the Buddha taught that “desire is the root cause of all suffering” and

that “everything is impermanent, so avoid attachment and cultivate appreciation for all that IS, here and now. — Present awareness

Again, what is your canonical support for this claim?

My understanding of Nirvana is that it is not a goal of meditation but rather a resulting state of mind, once all mental disturbances cease.

Are you enlightened? Have you attained at least stream-entry?
If not, you have to base your understanding on someone else's words, on some text. It's this text I'm asking about.

The world doesn't need to be saved. /.../ Is that Buddhist? — frank

I think it's consistent with early Buddhism and Theravada, but not with Mahayana/Vayrajana.

It is something not needed by the truly noble — Tobias

What does Nietzsche say about nobility: Is it something that one either has or doesn't have, or is it something that can be learned, developed?

In Buddhism, desire of any kind leads to suffering. Nirvana is the absence of desire, a presence of mind which is neither for or against whatever IS in the present moment. — Present awareness

What is your canonical support for this claim?

I don't know if the monk achieved Nirvana, but if "good works" count for anything in Buddhist tradition, he should go down in history as a saint — Gnomon

That's the official party line, yes -- that he was a saint. But if you stick around Buddhism -- different schools of Buddhism -- long enough, you'll see that not all Buddhist opinions view those self-immolations so favorably.

It's just that it's not likely that those different opinions will ever become mainstream, given that Buddhist monks aren't supposed to publicly criticize other monks.

What these are is unspeakable, which is Wittgenstein's point. The world "shows " us this, but this will not be contained in language. — Constance

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. If I widen my linguistic abilities, I will be able to talk about things that previously seemed ineffable.

The wonder turns to shocking revelation that there is no foundation to our existence, and nihilism asserts itself. Nihilism is very disturbing only if one thinks about it. Ethical nihilism is, by my thinking, impossible. Call this dread: the meeting of deep suffering and no foundational redemptive recourse. — Constance

and

It's a good point. Dread has always been a poor concept to describe the "feeling" of that penetrating understanding that we are thrown into a world, not of digital realities, but actuality, where reason is undone. To me, this is an extraordinary thing, but the dread of it issues from the, I dare call it, objective need for redemption. Redemption is a moral term, and the world is morally impossible as it stands before us. This is not a psychological matter, an emotional deficit or deformity on my part: it is at the very core of our actuality — Constance

It seems that what you're talking about is called samvega in early Buddhism, here as defined by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

/.../ Samvega was what the young Prince Siddhartha felt on his first exposure to aging, illness, and death. It's a hard word to translate because it covers such a complex range — at least three clusters of feelings at once: the oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that come with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of our own complacency and foolishness in having let ourselves live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. This is a cluster of feelings we've all experienced at one time or another in the process of growing up, but I don't know of a single English term that adequately covers all three.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/affirming.html

The joy? Absolutely! This, I think, is what Buddhism is about.

I'd like you to be more careful/specific when using the word "Buddhism". I'm not sure you appreciate the vast and unbridgeable differences between some Buddhist schools.

where a certain class of people were filled with resentment about their bad predicament — Ross Campbell

List three examples of people who were faced wtith a bad predicament and who were not filled with resentment.

That would be specifically a Mahayana/Vajrayana perspective, but not generally a Buddhist one.

I don't think we even call that shadenfreude, because we don't see it as the perpetrators misfortune, but as something that the perpetrator deserves. I think the example that ↪baker gave can be viewed similarly. — ssu

So how about the perpetrator? What about his feelings? They don't matter? The other person -- oh, the perpetrator -- is, thinks, intends, and feels whatever those accusing him of a wrongdoing claim that he is, thinks, intends, and feels?

the point being made is it is a sadistic life to imagine everyone that's different from you will burn eternally while your group floats amongst angels. There is no evidence either will happen but it is sadistic to subscribe to such a thought. — OneTwoMany

It's religiously justified narcissism to the extreme.

If, as a homeowner, someone breaks into your house while your family is home, and kills someone, then gets caught, would you not be glad the man who murdered a member of your family is in jail? What about as a neighbor or just someone reading about it in the paper. Should they too not be glad a dangerous person can no longer bring harm and misery to others? — Outlander

By all means, non-Christians are dangerous persons who deserve to burn in hell for all eternity!! So that they can no longer bring harm and misery to the righteous Christians who have the most powerful being in the universe on their side!!

But in this case, the monk sacrificed his own life for the betterment of his society. — Gnomon

Please explain how his suicide contributed to the betterment of his society.

So this dramatic demonstration of love for others

Where is the "love for others" in his killing himself?

may have contributed to the eventual downfall of the Deim regime, which was being supported by the US military.

How?? By shocking them into having mercy for the Vietnamese Buddhists?

As a Buddhist monk, he was not likely in favor of Communism specifically, but of regime-change in general.

He was a Mahayana monk, not a Theravada one, so different rules apply.
Still, as far as Buddhist monks go, it's strange for a monk to get involved into social and political issues, given that a Buddhist monk is said to have renounced the world.


(Too bad you have to quote a Christian scripture to defend the acts of a Buddhist.)

To me this is a world where no one is justified to claim they know anything — Anopheles

Most people disagree. So you're in the minority.

Some historical background for the practice of auto-cremation in Chinese Buddhism:

/.../
In Chinese Buddhism, for example, self-immolation has a long and well-documented history. From written records, we know of several hundred Chinese Buddhist monks, nuns, and laypeople who offered up their bodies for a variety of reasons—though not usually in protest against the state—from the late 4th century to the present. The majority burned themselves to death, often in staged public spectacles. (Scholars use the term auto-cremation for this rather than the more common self-immolation, which means “self-sacrifice.”) The numerous accounts and discussions of self-immolation in Chinese records make it clear that many Buddhist authors did not condemn it as an aberrant or deviant practice but understood it as a bodily path to awakening. For Chinese Buddhists, in fact, auto-cremation belonged to a set of practices collectively known as “abandoning the body.”
/.../
The mass of data that we have about self-immolation in Chinese history shows that self-immolation was not considered a marginal or deviant act. On the contrary, it was relatively common and largely respected within the tradition. In fact, the Chinese example has motivated Buddhist practitioners well into modern times. It is known, for example, that Thich Quang Duc, the scholarly Vietnamese monk who burned himself to death in 1963 to protest the South Vietnamese government’s treatment of Buddhists, was conversant not only with the scriptural sources for auto-cremation—he chanted the Lotus Sutra every day—but also with the history of Chinese auto-cremators who had gone before him.
/.../
https://tricycle.org/magazine/self-immolation/

However, his sacrifice may also have been a supreme example of altruism. — Gnomon

How is immolating oneself an example of altruism??

seeing as suicide and suffering vs non suffering is a continuum common to all cultures ways of life and doctrines — Benj96

In dharmic religions, suicide is not seen as an end to suffering. In those religions, killing oneself in an effort to end suffering only leads to another rebirth/reincarnation, and generally not a good one.

I think this is a generally accepted human ideal no? Egalitarianism — Benj96

Not at all.

For further discussion, you need to be more specific which religion or culture you want to talk about.

In summary, a neither x nor not-x denial stance can arise from either knowledge or ignorance. In the case of Buddhism, which is it? — TheMadFool

Self-realized masters are said to have first-hand knowledge, while aspirants don't.

For an aspirant, Buddhist doctrinal claims are epistemically, dogmas, things he takes for granted, on faith.

However, the neither x nor not-x is not just a rejection of dualistic weltanschauungs is it? — TheMadFool

I suggest you look up neti neti and ex negativo.

It's a way to define something by pointing out what it saliently is not.

How does one resolve to treat everyone equally (love thy neighbour) without being chastised for not putting family first? — Benj96

Who is commanding you, and where, to "treat everyone equally"??

It would help if the flag/report function would allow for some explanation for why the post is being flagged, in order to make moderation easier (such as a number of preset options to choose from).


For example, a while back, I flagged an OP post because a significant portion of it was a direct copy-paste from Wikipedia, but the post contains no reference to it, no link. It's plagiarism.
Nothing happened.

Of course, what we can talk about is therefore only what can be said clearly. Really? Do you think this is right? — Constance

Of course.

If one has the feeling that one is talking about a topic in a blind-men-and-an-elephant manner, then one is, clearly, not talking clearly. It doesn't matter what the topic is, although the blind-men-and-an-elephant manner seems to be more common when talking about philosophical, religious, or spiritual topics.

Read what I said.

I wonder, "where" do you think Thich Quang Duc was when he set himself ablaze? — Constance

Deep in martyrdom. His self-immolation was a political protest, similar to others of this kind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations .
People are willing to die for their ideas, it's nothing new.

Based on how you talk down to me, and that you see fit to comment on my posts without even reading them.

Perhaps I shouldn’t use this word. In essence I was pondering the existence of some “opposite/contrasting” state (That I will now leave unnamed haha) to that of suicide. One that is not typical to the average Human experience just as suicide is not typical of the average human experience but is an extreme end.

I might instead describe parameters without naming the phenomenon. Suicide once committed is permanent. So this alter ego state would also be (once established) permanent for the remaining lifespan of the person.
Instead of losing all hope, this state would be a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences. Instead of suffering one is in a state of tranquility despite circumstances. — Benj96

In terms of early Buddhism, what you're describing in roundabout fits what is called bhava tanha and vibhava tanha: the craving for becoming (for existence) and the craving for non-becoming (for non-existence, annihilation).

Nirvana is neither of them. A "self generating state of full hope/optimism" is consistent with bhava tanha; the desire for suicide is consistent with vibhava tanha.

It's not clear whether "a self generating state of full hope/optimism that is unperturbed by suffering/ bad luck and negative experiences" is even possible in early Buddhist thought.

A buddha isn't optimistic or hopeful, though he is unperturbed by bad luck and negative experiences and he does not suffer.

I see you're learning the basic lesson of religion/spirituality: becoming authoritarian.

Whenever one speaks beyond one's competence, one is bullshitting.

Yes, I think that it all comes down to recognising the limits of our knowledge during discussions. We are moving in an age where so much information is available to us. Personally, I read many books on a daily basis, and enjoy this, but I am aware that understanding of profound ideas needs to be supported with the experiential level. Information does not transform us into qualified teachers and I think that this is the main thing which people have to remember when we are in the exploration and discussion of ideas which are of an esoteric nature. — Jack Cummins

And they are so "esoteric" to a large extent because people feel so free to share all kinds of opinions about them, even though they don't have the required attainment. It's what gives those ideas that characteristic air of hocus pocus.

Thanks for providing a link and a long passage which I will read. — Jack Cummins

If you think that was a long passage ...
And if you're replying to a post without having read it ...

But really i would have been more interesting to hear your view or understanding of the idea of nirvana.

Not for me. What use are the opinions of the unenlightended about topics that are far beyond their scope?!

I actually edited my reply to you because I realised that it was from a book. I knew that it was not your own writing and I really can't see the point of you just quoting a whole passage from a book. The idea of Nirvana is complex and needs to be understood in terms of the perspective it comes from. Otherwise, it becomes extremely concrete information gathering and not an actual philosophy discussion at all.

My own view is that the idea of Nirvana points to a possibility of freedom from earthly suffering, but that to understand the fuller picture we need to see it within the framework of that spiritual tradition, otherwise it cannot be appreciated in its truest sense. Spiritual knowledge is rather different from concrete information gathering. — Jack Cummins

The idea that people who have not even attained stream-entry can meaningfully discuss nirvana based on their personal experience, is patently absurd.

This is why, when one is below that level of attainment, it makes sense to refer to established sources.


Further, the passage I quoted is about cultural and historical knowledge, not about first-hand experience of nirvana.
Peeople from the West tend to interpret the fire imagery in old texts in accordance with their own modern (or popular) notions of fire and burning, disregarding that people back then possibly had a different understanding of fire and burning.

Is the extract your own writing and interpretation or is it taken from the link you have provided because the source is not clear. — Jack Cummins

??

I prefaced the part in italics with:
"From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:"
and provided a link.

Usually, this means it's a direct quotation.

Those who don't evidently find the alternative superior. — Pfhorrest

In the West, we're used to thinking like that, and to think those are the alternatives.

In contrast, in some other cultures, the relevant dichotomy is living an honorable life vs. not living an honorable life. Considerations of wealth and material wellbeing are secondary or even irrelevant to this.

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak? — Darkneos

But do you know what that actually entails?

Heaven help the person who jumps off that bridge, with certain death imminent, and who, in those five seconds of falling, realizes he hasn't thought things through as thoroughly as he first assumed he did before jumping.

Not playing the proverbial game is much harder than just offing yourself. If you think that by offing yourself, you'll exit the game, then you're still giving supremacy to others, still letting others dictate your life, and you're even devoting those last few seconds of your life to them. To people who don't care enough about you to be there for you. Now that's a shame.

From Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

We all know what happens when a fire goes out. The flames die down and the fire is gone for good. So when we first learn that the name for the goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana (nirvana), literally means the extinguishing of a fire, it's hard to imagine a deadlier image for a spiritual goal: utter annihilation. It turns out, though, that this reading of the concept is a mistake in translation, not so much of a word as of an image. What did an extinguished fire represent to the Indians of the Buddha's day? Anything but annihilation.

According to the ancient Brahmans, when a fire was extinguished it went into a state of latency. Rather than ceasing to exist, it became dormant and in that state — unbound from any particular fuel — it became diffused throughout the cosmos. When the Buddha used the image to explain nibbana to the Indian Brahmans of his day, he bypassed the question of whether an extinguished fire continues to exist or not, and focused instead on the impossibility of defining a fire that doesn't burn: thus his statement that the person who has gone totally "out" can't be described.

However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nibbana more as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment — calm and unconfined. This is why Pali poetry repeatedly uses the image of extinguished fire as a metaphor for freedom. In fact, this metaphor is part of a pattern of fire imagery that involves two other related terms as well. Upadana, or clinging, also refers to the sustenance a fire takes from its fuel. Khandha means not only one of the five "heaps" (form, feeling, perception, thought processes, and consciousness) that define all conditioned experience, but also the trunk of a tree. Just as fire goes out when it stops clinging and taking sustenance from wood, so the mind is freed when it stops clinging to the khandhas.

Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom.
/.../

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html

Does the existence of a state of mind that actively pursues it’s own death - (suicide) ie. has no hope left, is in endless suffering/ misery, has exhausted all effort to endure and ultimately believes life is not good
, prove, that a contrary pole exists to the spectrum of the mind - one of persistent peace, contentment, hope and one that ultimately sees only good in the world? A nirvana like state. — Benj96

It's not clear that such is the case.

We know the bad side exists for definite because death is fairly definitive evidence.

Bad for whom? Certainly not for bacteria and fungi that will feast on the corpse, and not bad for the undertaker's business either.

But I think it’s reasonable to believe that like many things in nature the mind is a spectrum and if there is one extreme there must exist the other.

But what if the mind is, say, like a tree? There's no opposite to a tree.

And if you believe the existence of suicide is no reason to suppose the existence of nirvana then would that not imply that life is ultimately skewed towards the negative/bad - and that states of permanent joy are impossible?

More like life being skewed toward eating, consuming. Consider: life is all about consumption.

In conclusion, because of their contingent natures, the true significance of Descartes' Cogito and even of his indubitably certain Sum, is their inherent existential tenuousness and triviality. — charles ferraro

Of course. Whatever philosophy Descartes devised, it's always is reference to RCC doctrine. The moment one divorces Descartes' thoughts from the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, is the moment when they're rendered trivial.
Per RCC doctrine, the individual person/soul is contingent upon God and has no existence on his own.

The OA hasn't been refuted in a way that silences its proponents or satisfies its opponents. — TheMadFool

Because it's never been about the OA argument itself.

It's always about the social hierachy, power games, one-upmanship. IOW, about the argument from power, which is the most powerful argument.

A glimpse of divine karmic justice! :p

P-zombies are entities physically identical to normal human beings except that they lack consciousness. It's said or the argument goes that if p-zombies are possible physicalism is false. — TheMadFool

Why do you want to figure this out?

I'm asking because sometimes, getting clarity about one's motivation to solve a problem can be more useful than solving the problem itself.

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? — Darkneos

If your basement hasn't been flooded, why would you worry about your basement becoming flooded?
IOW, a problem only has relevance to a person by its relative proximity to a person. I'm not so sure most people ever think about their "reason for living", unless they experience some traumatic event.
Ignorance makes for blissfully happy campers.

I want to show that there is no reason for living so that when I eventually take my life people won’t call my illogical or clouded — Darkneos

That is such a crappy reason to engage in such a discussion and figure things out.

And yes, there will be many who will say that your reasons were "illogical or clouded". Don't count on them.

As things stand, you're on the trajectory of a self-fulfilling prophecy, nothing more. That's lazy. You need to put in more effort.


I suggest reading William James' Is life worth living?, if you haven't already:

/.../
These, then, are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The 'scientific proof' that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached. But the faithful fighters of this hour, or the beings that then and there will represent them, may then turn to the faint-hearted, who here decline to go on, with words like those with which Henry IV. greeted the tardy Crillon after a great victory had been gained: "Hang yourself, brave Crillon! we fought at Arques, and you were not there."