Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:59 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
This is a question can be interpreted however you feel.

Is the path, the journey, nirvana incessant? I mean if samsara is incessant (may be assumption) does that make the path aka nirvana incessant? They are only the same thing (existence/non-existence) perceived differently right?

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:57 am
Posts: 231
I can imagine you learned Buddhism from some sleazy person trying to make a buck who spewed Asiany sounding slogans with some Buddhist words mixed in.
:rolling: wabi sabi. if you don't understand it must be mystical and wise. :rolling:

This is Buddhism 101:
Nirvana is the goal.
The path is something separate that leads to nirvana.

Nirvana and samsara are words for distinctly different modes of existence.
Nirvana is the total cessation of suffering brought about by putting an end to the causes of suffering.
Samsara is the desperate wandering through rebirths suffering.


Nirvana and samsara are not the same thing or opposite sides of a coin.
If you suffer at all that means you are not enlightened.
Enlightenment does not come and go, it is permanent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
Ramon1920 wrote:
I can imagine you learned Buddhism from some sleazy person trying to make a buck who spewed Asiany sounding slogans with some Buddhist words mixed in.
:rolling: wabi sabi. if you don't understand it must be mystical and wise. :rolling:

This is Buddhism 101:
Nirvana is the goal.
The path is something separate that leads to nirvana.

Nirvana and samsara are words for distinctly different modes of existence.
Nirvana is the total cessation of suffering brought about by putting an end to the causes of suffering.
Samsara is the desperate wandering through rebirths suffering.


Nirvana and samsara are not the same thing or opposite sides of a coin.
If you suffer at all that means you are not enlightened.
Enlightenment does not come and go, it is permanent.




As far as I understand nirvana is extinction of suffering which not the same as non existence. You just perceive noble wisdom rather than suffering and that they ARE two sides of one coin. Do you reach goal and vanish? I think not I think it is just changing perception of self in wisdom and your life becomes the path. Here's my question... Does the path ever end?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:57 am
Posts: 231
Yes. It ends when you get nirvana.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
I don't disagree with you Ramon I mean the noble eightfold path... Leads to extinction of suffering... Not extinction of existence... We may enter higher realms but is the path ever really "complete" in abhidhamma you can experience fruits of path only once... You may experience the functional path billions of times over... I mean buddhahood could be seen as a birth In its own right so are at this goal nirvana we still exist (again could be assumption) but I see no end to it all that's why I titled it path with no goal yes I know goal is nirvana but are we are destined to rebirth whether as sentient being or enlightened being is there an ultimate goal or "end" if path?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:57 am
Posts: 231
I can see you're fishing for an answer that degrades nirvana to some sort of temporary accomplishment.

The Buddha taught nirvana is a permanent accomplishment. I can't imagine anyone else knowing more about this subject than the Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
Ramon1920 wrote:
I can see you're fishing for an answer that degrades nirvana to some sort of temporary accomplishment.

The Buddha taught nirvana is a permanent accomplishment. I can't imagine anyone else knowing more about this subject than the Buddha.


Permanent Accomplishment Of nirvana I agree... im not disagreeing... but i see no end in sight... Maybe it's just where I'm at spiritually... :shrug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
Ramon1920 wrote:
Yes. It ends when you get nirvana.


I must not be "getting" nirvana yet. Sounds like I'm not on your level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:26 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Ramon1920 wrote:
Nirvana and samsara are not the same thing or opposite sides of a coin.
Buddhism 101 examination question:

If Nirvana was somehow seperate to samsara (which is where we are right now) then it would be unattainable. It would be like expecting corn to sprout from a bean. So if Nirvana is somehow seperate from samsara then where is it?

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:57 am
Posts: 231
Nirvana and samsara are not places. If they were a place, you could go to Rajagriha and sit where the Buddha sat and be in nirvana.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
Ramon1920 wrote:
Nirvana and samsara are not places. If they were a place, you could go to Rajagriha and sit where the Buddha sat and be in nirvana.


In this context ramon... We walk the path and samsara ceases... Do we keep walking... It's like your saying we don't "reach" some nirvanic plane... So do we keep walkin? Okay so it's a state of permenant nature... Can you go into this further I am feeling how the Buddha said there are eternalist and nihilist views... I am seeing the eternal... Am I having wrong view? How do I go beyond eternalist view... But then again there is no birthplace or deathplace of phenomena... What's the difference between birthless deathless view and eternalist view... I need guidance... I strongly love the path... But fear reaching the "goal."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
The goal of the path is Nirvana, which is goalessness, thus it is goal free.
Quote:
How do I go beyond eternalist view...

Drop it.
Quote:
I strongly love the path... But fear reaching the "goal."

That's why you need the path. You are afraid of the unknown, like everyone. The path does not create nirvana, it removes this fear you have.
It is obvious that you are looking for reliable description of Nirvana. This is an usual way to remove fear, by knowing something.
Reality divided into things we know and don't know, is samsara. Striving to grasp more and more, so finally one day we know everything, we have everything figured out, is suffering. Honestly, what do we know? Few relationships between phenomena we labeled with words.

This behavior is removed by recognizing unknowing. Not only one needs to remove the fear of unknown, but he needs to start loving it.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
'Eternalist views' are the views of those who believe they will be reborn in perpetuity, that they will continue to exist forever.

'Nihilist views' are the views of those who believe that at death and the breaking up of the body, the process of birth and death comes to a complete stop.

'Nirvana' is neither 'continuing to exist in perpetuity' or simple non-existence. If you think it is hard to understand, then you're correct, it is impossible to understand for those who have not reached that state of being. But you can still have right intention and right aim, otherwise there would be no Buddhist path and practice.

Whether you 'reach the goal and vanish' depends on what 'vanish' means. Again it doesn't mean non-existence, non-being and again it is not possible to form conceptual ideas of what state this might be.

Quote:
Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know.


From here.

I think the idea of 'goal-less-ness' is a specific teaching to overcome the idea that nirvana is like a personal achievement, something that you can 'get'. There is a sense in which we can't 'get' it, because in order to 'get' it, we have to cease from any idea of 'getting'. Paradoxically that doesn't mean not striving, but with dedication based on the worthiness of the aim alone, not on the idea of 'getting something' which again re-inforces the ego. And again, if you think it is hard to understand - it is!

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:06 pm
Posts: 952
Quote:
Does the path ever end?


Does suffering? Mahayana vows anyone? :woohoo:

Comparing the verbal pass me downs of what is not wordy to the 'experience' means the Buddhas expression is not as valuable as our knowing - when we know.

:offtopic:

Enlightenment first. Then we can know what we can do with opinions :toilet:

There is a path for many. There is a means for many. There is a goal for many.
What is unclear from the pass me downs? :shrug:

_________________
YinYana Buddhism


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 11:49 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Ramon1920 wrote:
Nirvana and samsara are not places. If they were a place, you could go to Rajagriha and sit where the Buddha sat and be in nirvana.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you did not understand my question.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:57 am
Posts: 269
Location: Bangkok Thailand
:smile:
Quote:
Nirvana and samsara are words for distinctly different modes of existence.
Nirvana is the total cessation of suffering brought about by putting an end to the causes of suffering.
Samsara is the desperate wandering through rebirths suffering.


Nirvana and samsara are not the same thing or opposite sides of a coin.
If you suffer at all that means you are not enlightened.
Enlightenment does not come and go, it is permanent.

--------------------------------
If that's what you believe I won't argue about it.
I'm quite prepared to say I am NOT enlightened (whatever that means).
However, my personal opinion is closer to this:

Nirvana and Samsara are like a woven carpet with both black and white fibers.
One minute the black fiber shows, the next the white fiber shows.
Together those two fibers, warp and woof, are the fabric of the carpet
It's our illusion that the two fibers, warp and woof are separate, different.
They are not, that separation is our illusion
Secondly the Buddha did not promise that achieving Nirvana would end all our pain.
That may be what we may think we heard, but it is not what he said.
All he really promised was that on "enlightenment" or "achieving understanding" what you would have is "freedom from the pain of the suffering of Samsara, and a release from the suffering of it's cycle of life, death, and rebirth.
Consider that statement carefully and note the subtle difference between "release from the cycle of life and death" and "release from the pain of SUFFERING of the cycle of life and death".
Considered carefully .... they are NOT the same thing are they?

But as I said, that's just personal opinion ..... my interpretation ..... and you are quite free to disagree if you choose to.
After all, what do I really know?
:smile:

_________________
Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.
Did you think it was not there--
in your wife's lovely face
in your baby's laughter?
Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it?
from - Judyth Collin
The Layman's Lament
From What Book, 1998, p. 52
Edited by Gary Gach


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:57 am
Posts: 269
Location: Bangkok Thailand
:smile:
Quote:
Nirvana and samsara are words for distinctly different modes of existence.
Nirvana is the total cessation of suffering brought about by putting an end to the causes of suffering.
Samsara is the desperate wandering through rebirths suffering.


Nirvana and samsara are not the same thing or opposite sides of a coin.
If you suffer at all that means you are not enlightened.
Enlightenment does not come and go, it is permanent.

--------------------------------
If that's what you believe I won't argue about it.
I'm quite prepared to say I am NOT enlightened (whatever that means).
However, my personal opinion is closer to this:

Nirvana and Samsara are like a woven carpet with both black and white fibers.
One minute the black fiber shows, the next the white fiber shows.
Together those two fibers, warp and woof, are the fabric of the carpet
It's our illusion that the two fibers, warp and woof are separate, different.
They are not, that separation is our illusion
Secondly the Buddha did not promise that achieving Nirvana would end all our pain.
That may be what we may think we heard, but it is not what he said.
All he really promised was that on "enlightenment" or "achieving understanding" what you would have is "freedom from the pain of the suffering of Samsara, and a release from the suffering of it's cycle of life, death, and rebirth.
Consider that statement carefully and note the subtle difference between "release from the cycle of life and death" and "release from the pain of SUFFERING of the cycle of life and death".
Considered carefully .... they are NOT the same thing are they?

But as I said, that's just personal opinion ..... my interpretation ..... and you are quite free to disagree if you choose to.
After all, what do I really know?
:smile:

_________________
Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.
Did you think it was not there--
in your wife's lovely face
in your baby's laughter?
Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it?
from - Judyth Collin
The Layman's Lament
From What Book, 1998, p. 52
Edited by Gary Gach


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
Also see The Path has a Goal, Thanisarro Bikkhu.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
jeeprs wrote:
'Eternalist views' are the views of those who believe they will be reborn in perpetuity, that they will continue to exist forever.

'Nihilist views' are the views of those who believe that at death and the breaking up of the body, the process of birth and death comes to a complete stop.

'Nirvana' is neither 'continuing to exist in perpetuity' or simple non-existence. If you think it is hard to understand, then you're correct, it is impossible to understand for those who have not reached that state of being. But you can still have right intention and right aim, otherwise there would be no Buddhist path and practice.

Whether you 'reach the goal and vanish' depends on what 'vanish' means. Again it doesn't mean non-existence, non-being and again it is not possible to form conceptual ideas of what state this might be.

Quote:
Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know.


From here.

I think the idea of 'goal-less-ness' is a specific teaching to overcome the idea that nirvana is like a personal achievement, something that you can 'get'. There is a sense in which we can't 'get' it, because in order to 'get' it, we have to cease from any idea of 'getting'. Paradoxically that doesn't mean not striving, but with dedication based on the worthiness of the aim alone, not on the idea of 'getting something' which again re-inforces the ego. And again, if you think it is hard to understand - it is!


This is a most bizzare concept. I think it's important to note that this world we know as proposed by the mind only school is self sustained... By attachment to discriminations of mind... Belief in samsara or nirvana is all relative to buddhist practitioners... The mind only school even says that the dharma is like illusion just as much as anything else... So "samsara and nirvana" are relative to belief in a self in the first place which as taught by Buddha is mistake no self is the way right? If there's no solid me there's no solid samsara/nirvana either


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:08 pm
Posts: 22
Quiet Heart wrote:

Secondly the Buddha did not promise that achieving Nirvana would end all our pain.
That may be what we may think we heard, but it is not what he said.
All he really promised was that on "enlightenment" or "achieving understanding" what you would have is "freedom from the pain of the suffering of Samsara, and a release from the suffering of it's cycle of life, death, and rebirth.
Consider that statement carefully and note the subtle difference between "release from the cycle of life and death" and "release from the pain of SUFFERING of the cycle of life and death".
Considered carefully .... they are NOT the same thing are they?

But as I said, that's just personal opinion ..... my interpretation ..... and you are quite free to disagree if you choose to.
After all, what do I really know?
:smile:


Where did you get this idea it might be the subtle hint I am missing? Genius!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group