proof of nirvana?

[Aemilius]

The question is in the terminology of science. At present science doesn't know anything, or knows very little, about reincarnation, about the consciousness that precedes birth, about the states following death, etc... The state of nirvana would belong to this category.

[catmoon]

I don't know if there is a gradual reduction of hatred that ever reaches nirvana. If we were to graph it:

y=hatred
x=mental training

y=1/x

y never reaches 0, hatred never reaches nirvana.

That's why I think the sudden is the only viable path. Nirvana: Just do it.

No , clearly the approach to Nirvana graphs out as y = 10-x. It's in the algebrani sutra, right after the derivation of the Pythagorean karma theorem.

[SunWuKong]

1.People are very quick to assume God exists, Heaven exists, and yet where is the proof for that?

2.Just because Nirvana does not need the validation of the ego, does not mean it is not "experienced."

3.The proof is implied in stillness itself, similar to the lack of speed/motion at the axis of a wheel.

4.Getting rid of the self means fully experiencing life, not ceasing to.

5.??

[Supramundane]

Logically, if there is ignorance, then there must be enlightenment.

There must be a way to dispel ignorance, to know the truth.

Enlightenment is not nirvana, but enlightenment points the way to nirvana....

[Queequeg]

Logically, if there is ignorance, then there must be enlightenment.

There must be a way to dispel ignorance, to know the truth.

Enlightenment is not nirvana, but enlightenment points the way to nirvana....

Can you elaborate on the distinction you see between enlightenment and nirvana?

[SunWuKong]

Is nirvana a phenomenon? If not it can't even be demonstrated let along proven.

Samsara cannot be proven and yet we assume every second of our lives that it exists.
If ignorance exists then it follows that enlightenment exists.....

Your question is intriguing. Is nirvana a phenomenon?
I suspect that it may be. It may be nore more no less than the very phenomenological world we live in, closer to us than anything, closer to us than our own name...
But it is the deathless element

[Supramundane]

Is nirvana a phenomenon? If not it can't even be demonstrated let along proven.

Samsara cannot be proven and yet we assume every second of our lives that it exists.
If ignorance exists then it follows that enlightenment exists.....

Your question is intriguing. Is nirvana a phenomenon?
I suspect that it may be. It may be nore more no less than the very phenomenological world we live in, closer to us than anything, closer to us than our own name...
But it is the deathless element

hey thanks, appreciate it!
i have never got 'good posting' before!
a first!
metta bro

[Supramundane]

Logically, if there is ignorance, then there must be enlightenment.

There must be a way to dispel ignorance, to know the truth.

Enlightenment is not nirvana, but enlightenment points the way to nirvana....

Can you elaborate on the distinction you see between enlightenment and nirvana?

yes with pleasure

but my opinion is purely speculative, as i have never come across a sutra that discusses such a difference.

but i believe they are different.

logically, when the Buddha realized the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, the three marks of existence, etc., we can surmise that he became enlightened, i.e. he realized the nature of existence and the path to ending ignorance and suffering. But this does not mean that he had entered Nirvana.

Logically, knowing the way is not Nirvana.

Enlightenment is a spiritual/intellectual awakening, a snuffing out of desire and ignorance.

Nirvana is on the other hand not a state, not a place, not a condition.

Therefore, Nirvana is different from Enlightenment.

The two do not overlap. Nor is there a causal relationship between them.

I think there are many enlightened beings.... some of them are even on this forum perhaps.

But Nirvana is a different cup of tea.

I believe if we glimpse Nirvana ---if only for a moment--- then all of our problems will disappear in a flash. Nirvana is very close to us. Closer than anything else. Closer than our father or mother, than our own name. We just need to reach out...

[Queequeg]

...i have never come across a sutra that discusses such a difference.

but i believe they are different.

logically, when the Buddha realized the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, the three marks of existence, etc., we can surmise that he became enlightened, i.e. he realized the nature of existence and the path to ending ignorance and suffering. But this does not mean that he had entered Nirvana.

Isn't that the nirvana/parinirvana distinction?

Enlightenment is a spiritual/intellectual awakening, a snuffing out of desire and ignorance.

Elimination of desire and ignorance is not intellectual as far as I know.

And in some systems, there is a step beyond eliminating desire and ignorance - there is still fundamental ignorance.

Nirvana is on the other hand not a state, not a place, not a condition.

As I understand, Nirvana is beyond states, places, conditions, not a mere negation of those propositions. In other words, nirvana is also not not a state, place, condition.

[Supramundane]

...i have never come across a sutra that discusses such a difference.

but i believe they are different.

logically, when the Buddha realized the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, the three marks of existence, etc., we can surmise that he became enlightened, i.e. he realized the nature of existence and the path to ending ignorance and suffering. But this does not mean that he had entered Nirvana.

Isn't that the nirvana/parinirvana distinction?

Enlightenment is a spiritual/intellectual awakening, a snuffing out of desire and ignorance.

Elimination of desire and ignorance is not intellectual as far as I know.

And in some systems, there is a step beyond eliminating desire and ignorance - there is still fundamental ignorance.

Nirvana is on the other hand not a state, not a place, not a condition.

As I understand, Nirvana is beyond states, places, conditions, not a mere negation of those propositions. In other words, nirvana is also not not a state, place, condition.

G, your comments and questions are well taken.

i can't answer a lot of your questions because they are quite just. there are various descriptions of enlightenment, Buddhahood, nirvana, paranirvana, Buddhamind, Buddha Nature, etc. which are hopelessly entangled. At the stage I'm at, i distinguish enlightenment and Nirvana in a certain way, but you are right: is my definition of enlightenment/Nirvana the same as Nirvana/paranirvana? could be ... my view on this matter is still evolving.

i believe that when asked about Nirvana, the Buddha simply smiled. Probably because he knew about Nirvana did not know how to convey it in words.
i will also smile, but because i do not know Nirvana and thus do not know how to convey it in words.

Perhaps the best answer i can give is that Nirvana is a verb, not a noun, and that is why it is difficult to describe. Samsara is perhaps not a place or realm either, but just a certain mechanism of the senses: a latching on if you will which creates the realm of Maya that we live in.

Pursuant to the foregoing, Nirvana is thus perhaps the action that does not trigger the samsaric mechanism. so as you rightly point out it is not a mere negation --- but perhaps it is a negating verb ---. i think there is a sutra to support this reading of Nirvana.

[Queequeg]

...i have never come across a sutra that discusses such a difference.

but i believe they are different.

logically, when the Buddha realized the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, the three marks of existence, etc., we can surmise that he became enlightened, i.e. he realized the nature of existence and the path to ending ignorance and suffering. But this does not mean that he had entered Nirvana.

Isn't that the nirvana/parinirvana distinction?

Enlightenment is a spiritual/intellectual awakening, a snuffing out of desire and ignorance.

Elimination of desire and ignorance is not intellectual as far as I know.

And in some systems, there is a step beyond eliminating desire and ignorance - there is still fundamental ignorance.

Nirvana is on the other hand not a state, not a place, not a condition.

As I understand, Nirvana is beyond states, places, conditions, not a mere negation of those propositions. In other words, nirvana is also not not a state, place, condition.

G, your comments and questions are well taken.

i can't answer a lot of your questions because they are quite just. there are various descriptions of enlightenment, Buddhahood, nirvana, paranirvana, Buddhamind, Buddha Nature, etc. which are hopelessly entangled. At the stage I'm at, i distinguish enlightenment and Nirvana in a certain way, but you are right: is my definition of enlightenment/Nirvana the same as Nirvana/paranirvana? could be ... my view on this matter is still evolving.

i believe that when asked about Nirvana, the Buddha simply smiled. Probably because he knew about Nirvana did not know how to convey it in words.
i will also smile, but because i do not know Nirvana and thus do not know how to convey it in words.

Perhaps the best answer i can give is that Nirvana is a verb, not a noun, and that is why it is difficult to describe. Samsara is perhaps not a place or realm either, but just a certain mechanism of the senses: a latching on if you will which creates the realm of Maya that we live in.

Pursuant to the foregoing, Nirvana is thus perhaps the action that does not trigger the samsaric mechanism. so as you rightly point out it is not a mere negation --- but perhaps it is a negating verb ---. i think there is a sutra to support this reading of Nirvana.

In Nikaya/Agama Buddhism (I'm aware these don't perfectly line up but for our present purposes they are close enough), becoming an arhat means that not only has karma ceased, it has been exhausted but for residue that supports the body. When that is finally exhausted - parinirvana.

"If, bhikkhu, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the eye faculty, one experiences revulsion towards the eye faculty; if, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the ear faculty, one experiences revulsion towards the ear faculty; … if, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the mind faculty, one experiences revulsion towards the mind faculty, then, experiencing revulsion, one becomes dispassionate…. When [the mind] is liberated, there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’"
SN - 35 (but this passage is more or less boilerplate that can be found all over the Nikayas)

There is the story of the Buddha displaying a knowing smile on being asked about Nirvana. I don't buy that Gautama would communicate in that way. Too cheeky. His personality that you find in the early texts doesn't suggest such a character.

In the Abhidhamma, there is actually an analysis of arhats smiling, and its not karmic. I'm hazy on circumstances in which an arhat (or Buddha) would smile, but its functional, in response to the senses.

My recollection is that when Buddha is asked questions that can't be answered, he remains silent, until he's asked at least three times. Then he explains that the question is more or less meaningless in light of the subject matter, for instance, Nirvana. As you say, what can be said about Nirvana really?

I appreciate your point about nirvana as a verb, but that is problematic because verbs implies a doer which is not consistent with explanations of nirvana.

Buddha is as buddha does?



Buddha...

[Caoimhghín]

Nirvāṇa isn't really a "verb," it's a noun derived from a past participle of a verb (√vā, to blow --> vāna, blown) with a prefix added to the front (nis/nir, out).

Nirvāṇa, the "out-blown," or the "extinguished."

[Queequeg]

Learning Caoimhghín = Kevin, = nirvana =

[Wayfarer]

Enlightenment is not nirvana, but enlightenment points the way to nirvana....

I think there is obviously a distinction between bodhi as an attribute and Nirvana as the final realisation of the path - so would agree.

One point that might be worth mentioning is how the word 'enlightenment' came to be used in regards to Buddhist discourse. It goes back to Thomas Rhys-Davids, founder of the Pali Text Society, who used it as the translation for 'bodhi'. Sometimes 'bodhi' is also translated as 'wisdom'.

Interestingly, one reason Rhys-Davids chose that word, is because of the resonance with the European Enlightenment, with which it is, in all other respects, very different. But Rhys-Davids was an ardent proponent of the view that Pali Buddhism was the most compatible with modern science.

[Caoimhghín]

Learning Caoimhghín = Kevin, = nirvana =

That's the power of etymology yo

[Supramundane]

Isn't that the nirvana/parinirvana distinction?



Elimination of desire and ignorance is not intellectual as far as I know.

And in some systems, there is a step beyond eliminating desire and ignorance - there is still fundamental ignorance.



As I understand, Nirvana is beyond states, places, conditions, not a mere negation of those propositions. In other words, nirvana is also not not a state, place, condition.

G, your comments and questions are well taken.

i can't answer a lot of your questions because they are quite just. there are various descriptions of enlightenment, Buddhahood, nirvana, paranirvana, Buddhamind, Buddha Nature, etc. which are hopelessly entangled. At the stage I'm at, i distinguish enlightenment and Nirvana in a certain way, but you are right: is my definition of enlightenment/Nirvana the same as Nirvana/paranirvana? could be ... my view on this matter is still evolving.

i believe that when asked about Nirvana, the Buddha simply smiled. Probably because he knew about Nirvana did not know how to convey it in words.
i will also smile, but because i do not know Nirvana and thus do not know how to convey it in words.

Perhaps the best answer i can give is that Nirvana is a verb, not a noun, and that is why it is difficult to describe. Samsara is perhaps not a place or realm either, but just a certain mechanism of the senses: a latching on if you will which creates the realm of Maya that we live in.

Pursuant to the foregoing, Nirvana is thus perhaps the action that does not trigger the samsaric mechanism. so as you rightly point out it is not a mere negation --- but perhaps it is a negating verb ---. i think there is a sutra to support this reading of Nirvana.

In Nikaya/Agama Buddhism (I'm aware these don't perfectly line up but for our present purposes they are close enough), becoming an arhat means that not only has karma ceased, it has been exhausted but for residue that supports the body. When that is finally exhausted - parinirvana.

"If, bhikkhu, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the eye faculty, one experiences revulsion towards the eye faculty; if, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the ear faculty, one experiences revulsion towards the ear faculty; … if, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the mind faculty, one experiences revulsion towards the mind faculty, then, experiencing revulsion, one becomes dispassionate…. When [the mind] is liberated, there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’"
SN - 35 (but this passage is more or less boilerplate that can be found all over the Nikayas)

There is the story of the Buddha displaying a knowing smile on being asked about Nirvana. I don't buy that Gautama would communicate in that way. Too cheeky. His personality that you find in the early texts doesn't suggest such a character.

In the Abhidhamma, there is actually an analysis of arhats smiling, and its not karmic. I'm hazy on circumstances in which an arhat (or Buddha) would smile, but its functional, in response to the senses.

My recollection is that when Buddha is asked questions that can't be answered, he remains silent, until he's asked at least three times. Then he explains that the question is more or less meaningless in light of the subject matter, for instance, Nirvana. As you say, what can be said about Nirvana really?

I appreciate your point about nirvana as a verb, but that is problematic because verbs implies a doer which is not consistent with explanations of nirvana.

Buddha is as buddha does?



Buddha...

[Supramundane]

Nirvāṇa isn't really a "verb," it's a noun derived from a past participle of a verb (√vā, to blow --> vāna, blown) with a prefix added to the front (nis/nir, out).

Nirvāṇa, the "out-blown," or the "extinguished."

ah very true.
i should have said, "Nibutti", which i believe is the verb i was looking for.

[Supramundane]

Enlightenment is not nirvana, but enlightenment points the way to nirvana....

I think there is obviously a distinction between bodhi as an attribute and Nirvana as the final realisation of the path - so would agree.

One point that might be worth mentioning is how the word 'enlightenment' came to be used in regards to Buddhist discourse. It goes back to Thomas Rhys-Davids, founder of the Pali Text Society, who used it as the translation for 'bodhi'. Sometimes 'bodhi' is also translated as 'wisdom'.

Interestingly, one reason Rhys-Davids chose that word, is because of the resonance with the European Enlightenment, with which it is, in all other respects, very different. But Rhys-Davids was an ardent proponent of the view that Pali Buddhism was the most compatible with modern science.

Very true, WF. The English translation is misleading. But it has stuck now and hard to change.

Enlightenment and nirvana also exhibit sectarian nuances since the Mahayana goal is enlghtenment while the Theravada is nirvana, i have read. Some are votaries of an intrinsic difference between the two existing while others argue it is only semantics. I see a difference.

[Caoimhghín]

Nirvāṇa isn't really a "verb," it's a noun derived from a past participle of a verb (√vā, to blow --> vāna, blown) with a prefix added to the front (nis/nir, out).

Nirvāṇa, the "out-blown," or the "extinguished."

ah very true.
i should have said, "Nibutti", which i believe is the verb i was looking for.

It's rather difficult to find but I think the Sanskrit corresponding to that Pāli is nivṛtti.

[Aemilius]

How are synonyms for emptiness to be recognized ?" Suchness, the reality-limit, the signless, the ultimate, the Ground of all events, are, in
brief, synonyms for emptiness."
I. 14. How are the meanings of these synonyms to be known ?" From being non-otherness, non-reversal, cessation, the scope of the exalted, and the cause of exalted events, the meanings of the synonyms are understood in order."
I. 15.It is Suchness in the sense of non-otherness in the sense that it is just so, all the time. It is the reality-limit in the sense ofthere being no reversals there, because of the insubstantiality of reversals. (It is also the reality-limit in that it is the furthest point of awareness.) It is the signless in the sense of being the cessation of all signs, there being a total non-being of signs there.
Because it is the scope of exalted knowledge, it is called"the ultimate", and because it is the causal ground for exalted events, it is called "the Ground of all Events". For the meaning of "ground" is here the meaning of "cause". How are the divisions of emptiness to be known? "Both afflicted and cleared"
I. 16a.This is its division. In which situations is it afflicted and in which cleared ?"With flaws and without flaws"
I. 16b.When it exists with flaws, then it is afflicted. When it is freedfrom flaws, then it is cleared.


from Commentary on the Separation of th Middle from Extremes (Madhyanta-Vibhaga-Bhashya); Maitreya/Asanga, Vasubandhu, Stefan Anacker; in Seven Works of Vasubandhu