I've been reading about Buddhism recently particularly the main books of the pali canon and I still cannot wrap my head around how Nibbana (Nirvana) is not eternal oblivion. If cessation of rebirth is cessation of becoming, wouldn't that imply cessation of existence?
On the one hand the Buddha rejects all notions of Nirvana being a permanent end. On the other hand he characterizes it as 'extinguishment' and repeatedly said things that point toward some form of ceasing to become, notably "Destroyed is birth" and "there is no more coming back to any state of being" or "it is no longer subject to future arising".
Nirvana is right now. You just cant hear it or see it because you haven't learned to listen without listening or see without seeing. Despook yourself my karma.
>eternal It's hard to make such statements in Buddhism. If consciousness cease to be, won't it arise immediately again due to even eternity of being unconscious non-cognizable? Will it be your consciousness or someone else's? Are you afraid of oblivion? That's natural for unenlightened person. Oblivion as perceived by enlightened people is seen as pleasurable: accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html >When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?" >"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.
>"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant." >chinese trying to make schism in Sangha to battle Buddhism weaker Also this buttblasted tone is an indication that author is not even Buddhist.
Christian Wood
Nibbana is cessation of suffering, not existence. Buddha never goes into what existence is because the idea of "existence" is considered a wrong view.
When Buddha talks about destruction/end of the birth, he's talking about the formations of the cycle of rebirth. He's talking about the karmic chains and the delusions that we call "self" that is reborn. And yes, regardless of what others say there is a "self" that is reborn each cycle. Its not a self in that there is a permanent identity or core, but rather an ever changing threads of karma/intentions that pushes each other to new rebirth.
When that chain of karma/intentions ceases to form the idea of a "self", there is the end of cycle of rebirth/samsara. You might say, "wait a minute, isn't that oblivion?" No because if you've paid attention to anything in Buddhism, its the importance of right understanding of our "self" and the nature of the selves in the world in how it forms/shapes/influences.
TL;DR there never was a "self" in the ultimate sense and there never cannot be an oblivion of the self in this sense. In the realm of mundane, the "self" is a karmic chain binded by delusion of our own mind that bears no resemblance to our grasping of the idea of self.
Dylan Stewart
so basically there never was a 'something' to begin with in the sense of a 'self' beyond the 5 aggregates therefore there is nothing that can be voided eternally? In that case wouldn't it be preferable to continue the process of rebirth? Because it would seem like the Buddha is equating perpetual becoming as suffering (dukkha) and something that should be ceased (not putting words in his mouth but it seems to imply such a thing).
Isaac Richardson
If you buy into the notion that the "self" was never more than delusions(not that it doesn't "exist") brought on to the mind by ignorance and if you buy into the fact that ignorance is the to be fixed by proper understanding, then the preference for rebirth is not really "there." But in these process, there is a chance that you might cling on to your self-hood, however delusional it maybe and however delusional this process of clinging maybe, and these are things that meditators go through before reaching enlightenment(and are warned against for proper buddhist students). Buddhist meditation can reveal great insights into the mind and how to shape it, but not all are motivated by reduction in suffering/understanding the natural world properly. As such some of these insights can morph into materialistic tools to further their own self-delusion. We have the problem already in the west in the forms of McMindfulness meditation which is sold more as a "stress relief" for corporate world rather than a tool to understanding the self/ending suffering.
Alternatively, you can see another way like this. There never was a "self." There never was a "preferer" and there never was a "sufferer." So claiming things like "preference" or "rebirth" or "suffering" becomes meaningless. The unification of mundane/ultimate is a great tool in Buddhism that helps unify/closes the gap in their philosophical system. Also Heart Sutra says something similar here.
Meme title, that's for sure. And written by an anglo
Jeremiah Foster
Your temporal metaphors of ‘eternity’ and ‘forgetting’ won’t suffice because Nibbana is outside of time. There is no before, now, after. There is no being, no non-being, no ‘is’, no ‘is not’. It escapes all linguistic mediation, all symbolic signification. It’s always here, yet not. This is only a finger pointing to the moon. Be like water in a stream, desu.
Ian Walker
>If cessation of rebirth is cessation of becoming, wouldn't that imply cessation of existence you are forgetting that it is also the cessation of non-existence, and neither of the two, and not one and the other, nor one or the other, and not not cessation of existence and not not cessation of non-existence. Basically just read Nagarjuna
Colton Myers
read this book, OP. It should answer most of your questions. and Nyanananda's Nibbāna Sermons if you wanna go even deeper
Ryder Lopez
Question...is this the hellish realm?
Jason Martin
There are many schools and subschools of Buddhism. I'm not personally a Buddhist but I have met some really diverse people into Buddhism, enough to make me realize on the one hand that it's historically and philosophically diverse as fuck, and on the other hand that people within a given sect will often simply tell you their sect is the Correct One. The answer to your confusion might be to research Buddhism historico-philosophically and actually see what different, REAL practitioners and faithful have thought, written, said, and done over many centuries. I guarantee you, just based on the dilettantish knowledge I have, that you will find many many people who have asked these same questions, and founded whole schools or lines of thought by trying to answer them.
These were historically very significant but not often mentioned today. Hell, just look at how recent some of the scholarship on it is.
Again, I'm not an oriental or an oriental philosopher, but I think westerners badly stereotype oriental philosophy as some kind of monolithic tradition. It is just as diverse as the west. If you read it historically you might find lots of neglected things - and if you join that historical reading with philosophical reading, you can evaluate the things you find in terms of their logical/objective/rational content and not just as culturally contingent forms of religion.
Dylan Barnes
no this is the human realm, but based on your actions in this lifetime, it is possible to basically be living an experience that is mentally equivalent to one in the hellish realm, ie if you're a serial killer or something. Your mind state by the end of this life is generally an indicator of how you'll be reborn. If you're a virtuous, loving, kind person full of happiness, chances are there will be rebirth into a heavenly realm (since the manner in which the mind arises depends on its conditioning). If the mind is conditioned to hellish mental states, it'll arise in hell, if conditioned to heavenly mental states, it'll be heaven.
Thomas Sanchez
So what is karma, exactly? One's intent? Not the universe's intrinsic system of justice, right? That's the Western understanding of it.
Julian Morgan
This is a good point. OP for Buddhist history, read Buddhist India by TW Rhys Davids and A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities by David Kalupahana Although OP, your questions are indeed answered in the earliest suttas anyways, and expounded upon further by Nāgārjuna in a way that corroborates the explanations in the suttas, so those would be good places to start if you don't wanna wait til after you've read up on Buddhist history, to get some answers. Also this:
Liam Collins
Karma is the conditioning of the mind, not a cosmic justice system. The view of an external objective universe which could be doing the service of cosmic justice is a flawed one, based on conjecture. Actions determine the manner in which mind will arise in the future, ie its conditioning. Actions fueled by good-will condition the mind to wholesome, pleasant, even heavenly states, to arise in the future in a wholesome/pleasant/heavenly manner. Actions fueled by ill-will condition the mind to unwholesome, unpleasant, even animalistic or hellish states, to arise in the future in an unwholesome, unpleasant, animalistic/hellish manner....etc.
Jonathan Wood
Ah, got it. Thanks. Technically it kind of does function like a justice system, in that a person always gets what their state of being deserves for itself, but I get that it's not a cosmic justice system intrinsically, but somewhat functions like one consequentially.
Eli Cruz
It is just the nature of the mind. This is observable IMO on a macro, shallow level. Look at gangsters, always paranoid, hardly able to sleep at night, spending the majority of their waking life intoxicated because in their sober state they're too tormented to even operate in society. Compare this to the kindest, most generous people you know, who in pretty much all cases will be the most at ease, the most joyful, the most content people you meet.
Austin Collins
I wouldn't say "what their state of being deserves," because the idea of someone objectively deserving something is ultimately unfounded. There is only the naturally occuring cause and effect of action/intention and conditioning.
But if "heavenly realms" are "objectively better", doesn't this imply that a person who goes there is objectively receiving something better than someone who doesn't, and someone who goes there essentially being "rewarded" for it? Again, I recognize it's not a justice system, but it still seems to distribute individuals according to their mental state, and these mental states having an objective, set hierarchy to them. I get what you guys mean though - it's mental, not JUDGmental - but it still ultimately distributes people proportional to the goodness, or absence of such, within their being.
Ayden Robinson
The idea of there being an actually existing location in the universe where the heavenly realm exists, to which beings 'travel' to based on their merits, is based on unfounded ideas of objectivity. The idea of beings being born into realms in the first place is conventional reality, as in, how it would immediately appear as it is experienced (just as we perceive the world we experience as an objectively existing place out there in space), but it is not ultimate reality. Experience and birth are dependently arisen. The mind simply arises in a heavenly manner, this in a heavenly realm. The mind is the forerunner of the nature and manner of experience. Also the heavenly realms aren't necessarily "better," they're just more pleasant. In terms of Dhamma, they're actually not that great for rebirth because the pleasures are so boundless that heavenly beings have no desire to escape samsara (unless they are already a Buddhist, or have attained to some level of awakening already like Stream-Entry in a past life). This is not to say that making merit and abstaining from killing, stealing, lying/deceiving, sexual misconduct...etc is bad (not conducive to the cessation of suffering) - it certainly is good/conducive, but making merit alone does not lead one out of samsara. However, merit/virtue/sila is an absolutely necessary foundation for the rest of the practice.
Adam Murphy
Not always. Karma is the collected results of your intentions which shape your mind. The idea of good karma and bad karma is correctly viewed as "wholesome" and "unwholesome". Wholesome/Unwholesome is in reference to enlightenment, not some universal goodness or badness since there is no "evil" in buddhim. What Buddhism has is the idea that all the suffering is caused by ignorance (of the world/delusions of the mind). So things like justice/deserving/etc are in some ways not really applicable.
