Nirvana - Unborn or Created

[oushi]

Arguing about nirvana. Splendid !

[gregkavarnos]

A fantastic posting, as always, by Tobes! Thank you, yet again, Tobes!

[gregkavarnos]

Arguing about nirvana. Splendid !

It is actually quite important how one defines Nirvana, because it will determine how one goes about "achieving" it.

[oushi]

Arguing about nirvana. Splendid !

It is actually quite important how one defines Nirvana, because it will determine how one goes about "achieving" it.

Are those quotation marks, around achieving, implying that it isn't quite so? Desire for holy things is justified right? If somebody practices without a goal, is he doomed to fail?

[gregkavarnos]

Are those quotation marks, around achieving, implying that it isn't quite so?

It is in quotation marks because, depending on how one defines Nirvana, it may or may not be something that is "achieved".

Desire for holy things is justified right?

Some say that Nirvana is beyond holy nor unholy, beyond desire and repulsion, beyond justified and unjustified, beyond right and wrong.

If somebody practices without a goal, is he doomed to fail?

You can't fail if you do not have a goal. Failure is judged by seeing if one has achieved or not-achieved a goal. Practicing without a goal seems about as useful as not practicing at all. In both circumstances one has the same possibility of accomplishing what needs to be accomplished.

So is there a goal to practice? The Buddha seems to think so: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[oushi]

Practicing without a goal seems about as useful as not practicing at all.

Appearances can be deceptive.
"Be free from hope for nirvana and from fear of samsara. "- Longchenpa

[gregkavarnos]

Appearances are just appearances, deception and revelation are what we ascribe to them. Not practicing at all, may be more conducive to liberation than practicing without a goal. At least through inaction you do not run the risk of generating more negativity.

[oushi]

As all views are empty, there is no need to compare them. I will leave the riddle how "Not practicing at all" is "inaction" that decreased the "risk of generating more negativity" unsolved.

[Son of Buddha]

Once having achieve this state we find, as it states in the Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (2), nothing. Nothing here does not mean lacking something, but describes the dharmadhatu, the living space or sphere where appearance is possible.

I have to admit that this understanding was made clear to me last night after/during reading "The Sovereign All-Creating Mind - The Motherly Buddha" (Kun byed rgyal po'i mdo)

"Homage to the All-Creating Sovereign, the mind of complete purity, the victorious one!"

Could you explain the "nothing" teaching in more detail.

(also I love the tantra I havent got to read it all,I only got to skim over it)

[Nothing]

It is actually quite important how one defines Nirvana, because it will determine how one goes about "achieving" it.

Although one is deluded when one tries to "define" Nirvara, yet how can the deluded one truly define it before one enters.....surely not a requirement for one to achieve it?
Better without any definition.....one cannot define a square so to fit into a circle?

Less speculation ..... and more practice.

[gregkavarnos]

"I" don't try to define Nirvana, I read what the realised and enlightened have to say about Nirvana and report on that.
Anyway, are you deluded 24 hours of the day? What of your practice then? No respite from ignorance at all? No flashes of insight? No glimpses of reality?

Are you involved in goal-less practice too?
Like my signature says:

"Meditation is familiarisation with realisation"
Jigten Sumgon Gonchig: The Single Intent, the Sacred Dharma

Is your practice fulfiling this criteria? If not...

Don't kid yourself, even "just sitting" has a goal, otherwise why "just sit"?

If it is evident,
what does meditation do?

If it is hidden,
don't measure darkness.

Saraha constantly
cries out loud:

your innate nature
neither exists nor does not.

Saraha Tantric Treasures

[gregkavarnos]

Could you explain the "nothing" teaching in more detail.

What is there to explain? How do you explain to a fish what the sea is?

small fish big fish.jpg (27.02 KiB) Viewed 343 times

See the whole story here

[Nothing]

.....

Reading and understanding are two very different things, one cannot simply read and understand as one cannot just grasp the full meaning.....it must be realized.....in the mind.....before one can even truly explain what it is.
Although one needs to be very careful what one reads as one who is deluded does not truly know if what one is reading is actually that of an enlightened being.....A blind man cannot lead a blind man out of the forest!

Was it not the Buddha who mentioned that to admit oneself is deluded is a wise man.....and for one who does not admit onself is deluded is in fact a fool.

For practice to exist, there must be a purpose!.....and for one to have familiarisation, one must first achieve realization.

Natural reaction is a common theme yet controlled by their emotions, one does not know ones own actions as one cannot control the deluded self.

[Son of Buddha]

Could you explain the "nothing" teaching in more detail.

What is there to explain? How do you explain to a fish what the sea is?

small fish big fish.jpg

See the whole story here

Ah so its the ultimate reality

[5heaps]

Nagarjuna clearly asserts that so long as an entity is seen as a conventional entity (i.e. even in its dependent co-arising) it cannot be the perspective of nirvana. The experience of nirvana entails the experience or apprehension of the emptiness of the phenomena, not the phenomena as it conventionally exists.

he does? he wouldnt, because doing so annihilates arhats, since they cant see emptiness outside of equipoise (and thus must not have attained nirvana)

One has completely missed Buddhism if they are making a case for conditioned reality only which is never other than samsaric. Where in the canon does it say that nirvana is conditioned, is something born, impermanent and suffering?

its unproduced, meaning its unchanging, an unchanging negation, and these are dependently arisen as well ie. depend on mental imputation

its not just sautrantikas that accept nirvana as an unchanging negation..everyone does except vaibhashikas/most theravadins. vaibhashikas have to say that nirvana is a functioning thing, because they dont understand buddhist imputation. they dont know how to posit an existing thing without it being a substantially (ie. non imputed) functioning thing. the sautrantikas crucify them, which the mindonly and middleway schools all applaud, by illustrating that persons are imputedly knowable objects rather than substantially knowable objects.

its very fun to make fun of all the theravadins and their bad explanations of subtle impermanence...they cant understand that its imputed, they think that the ending of a thing in its final moment is a functioning thing that functions at the same time as the final moment of the thing. in other words they think that the end of a cup exists while a cup is still there

[Salomon]

.....

Reading and understanding are two very different things, one cannot simply read and understand as one cannot just grasp the full meaning.....it must be realized.....in the mind.....before one can even truly explain what it is.
Although one needs to be very careful what one reads as one who is deluded does not truly know if what one is reading is actually that of an enlightened being.....A blind man cannot lead a blind man out of the forest!

Was it not the Buddha who mentioned that to admit oneself is deluded is a wise man.....and for one who does not admit onself is deluded is in fact a fool.

For practice to exist, there must be a purpose!.....and for one to have familiarisation, one must first achieve realization.

Natural reaction is a common theme yet controlled by their emotions, one does not know ones own actions as one cannot control the deluded self.

Happy to read you my friend. You are full of good sense and sanity. Hope to read you more here or elsewhere.

[gregkavarnos]

Reading and understanding are two very different things, one cannot simply read and understand as one cannot just grasp the full meaning.....

They might be different things (like eating and satiating ones hunger are two different things) but they are not mutually exclusive.

it must be realized.....in the mind.....before one can even truly explain what it is.

Teachings are explanations too. Knowing is also an aspect of realising.

Although one needs to be very careful what one reads as one who is deluded does not truly know if what one is reading is actually that of an enlightened being.....A blind man cannot lead a blind man out of the forest!

The Buddha was a blind man? Jigten Sumgon? Saraha? The authors of "The Sovereign All-Creating Mind - The Motherly Buddha"? I think you will find that these are trustworthy sources, I cannot have the same faith in what you say though (though others may).

Was it not the Buddha who mentioned that to admit oneself is deluded is a wise man.....and for one who does not admit onself is deluded is in fact a fool.

I don't think anybody here claimed to not be deluded. Or maybe there is somebody here who can claim this?

...and for one to have familiarisation, one must first achieve realization.

Not necessarily, I can familiarise myself with Jhana experiences by reading any number of texts, then when I experience them... Of course "knowing" about them is not the same as experiencing them, but "not knowing" of them is also not the same as experiencing them. Knowing is not realising (though it can lead to realisation), but I would say that "not knowing" is hardly a precondition to bringing one closer to realisation.

Natural reaction is a common theme...

What are you talking bout here? I fail to understand this term.

[Son of Buddha]

"gregkavarnos"]

Is Enlightenment empty without substance and dependently originated?

Yesirree, indeed it is! Just in reverse order.

Lankavatara Sutra Chapter 3 LXXVI (red pine translation)

The Buddha told Mahamati, "I teach that Tathagata does not not exist but also that nothing can be grasped in what neither arises nor ceases.Also,it neither arises nor ceases because it is not dependent on conditions.
What does not arise is beyond the understanding of the followers of other paths,shravakas,pratyeka-buddhas,or bodhisattvas of the first seven stages.Mahamati,"What does not arise" is anouther name for Tathagata

also here is the link for the most commonly used Translation in English to date
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-chapter-3.htm#chap3

The Buddha is not something that dependently arises
nor does the Buddha cease
the Buddha is inherently Existant(not born,not created,not arising due to dependent origination/Dependent arising.

[Son of Buddha]

So everything is without substance it is empty and dependently originated.

Is Enlightenment empty without substance and dependently originated?

(that is your definition of empty everything that is dependently originated correct?)

Indeed, as Greg said. Just look at the four noble truths. The first two tells about samsara and its cause, the second two about nirvana and its cause. Very simple.

and this was Gregs answer to the question :Is Enlightenment empty without substance and dependently originated?

"gregkavarnos"
Yesirree, indeed it is! Just in reverse order.

Okay Astus you make the claims here that Enlightenment is dependently originated and that everything that is empty without substance is dependetly originated.

yet....here in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=80&start=60
when i made this same statement "which would mean empty of everything even itelf,which means everything including the Buddha is subject to dependant origination"

your reply was and i qoute:

"Astus"
That's absurd. The point of being enlightened is that one becomes free of karma, free of rebirth, free of dependent origination. It is exactly because there is no self that there is freedom. If there was a self, it would be either deluded or enlightened, making any path of liberation impossible or unnecessary.

since when do you beleive that the point of being enlightened is to be FREE from Dependent origination,then turn around and say Enlightenement comes from Dependent origination.thats an utter contradiction of what you previously told me before?

[gregkavarnos]

Is the apple which falls from a tree the same as the seed that gave rise to the tree?