Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Hi all, I think this is a different way we can look at Nirvana or the absolute. In Zen Buddhism nirvana is the realization of the true nature of the mind (consciousness), which is identical with the true nature of how human beings experience their world--the buddha-nature (bussho). This realization is only possible through wisdom. Thus nirvana is often equated with prajna. In the Zen sense, prajna and nirvana are two aspects of the same state. Nirvana is the state in which a person lives who has attained prajna and thus also insight into his own mind or true nature; and prajna is the wisdom of a person who has attained nirvana. " The Bodhisattva's nirvana is perfect tranquillity, but it is not extinction nor inertness. " Buddha, Lankavatara Scripture, Goddard. Two types of nirvana are distinguished: indeterminate (apratishthita- nirvana) and complete (pratishthita-nirvana). In actuality, the experiencer moves between both types of nirvana. Having the capability to cease the activities of the mind and to create mental activity in various combinations of thought, seeing, hearing and remembering, etc. 12. The Madhyamikas see nirvana as emptiness (shunyata), which they define as " coming to rest of the manifold creations of the mind. " This means the cessation or absence (temporarily) of the activity of the mind. Nirvana is a conscious experience of the oneness with reality that had always existed, only is not recognized. Nirvana and samsara are not different if one perceives the world in its true nature, which is emptiness. It is our discriminating mind that prevents us from recognizing this true nature. Wheel Publication No. 17. c 1981, 1995 Buddhist Publication Society. http://www.selfknowledge.com/109719.htm When the two become " ONE " Love, Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > Hi all, I think this is a different way we can look at Nirvana or > the absolute. > > In Zen Buddhism nirvana is the realization of the true nature of the > mind (consciousness), which is identical with the true nature of how > human beings experience their world--the buddha-nature (bussho). > This realization is only possible through wisdom. Thus nirvana is > often equated with prajna. In the Zen sense, prajna and nirvana are > two aspects of the same state. Nirvana is the state in which a > person lives who has attained prajna and thus also insight into his > own mind or true nature; and prajna is the wisdom of a person who > has attained nirvana. " The Bodhisattva's nirvana is perfect > tranquillity, but it is not extinction nor inertness. " Buddha, > Lankavatara Scripture, Goddard. > > Two types of nirvana are distinguished: indeterminate (apratishthita- > nirvana) and complete (pratishthita-nirvana). In actuality, the > experiencer moves between both types of nirvana. Having the > capability to cease the activities of the mind and to create mental > activity in various combinations of thought, seeing, hearing and > remembering, etc. > > 12. The Madhyamikas see nirvana as emptiness (shunyata), which they > define as " coming to rest of the manifold creations of the mind. " > This means the cessation or absence (temporarily) of the activity of > the mind. Nirvana is a conscious experience of the oneness with > reality that had always existed, only is not recognized. Nirvana and > samsara are not different if one perceives the world in its true > nature, which is emptiness. It is our discriminating mind that > prevents us from recognizing this true nature. I wonder if it's useful to know all this stuff? If you describe some state that I can allegedly reach, does that description help me in any way? Do all of these concepts and words help? Or do they create expectation and burden me with a bunch of concepts? You write: Nirvana is a conscious experience of one-ness. Really? If so, then it will pass. Any and all experience passes. That's one of Buddha's truths -- impermanence. Therefore, Nirvana cannot be a state of mind. All states of mind pass and change. There is no such thing as a permanent state of mind. And is there an experiencer moving from one state to another state? If so, then one-ness has not be achieved. If so, then there is still a sense of separate self. Therefore, that is not nirvana, as it is normally understood in popular Buddhist sense. I'm not sure if you wrote this or you copied from somewhere else, but there are many problems with these definitions. Some problems relate to a misunderstandings of the texts/definitions/terms -- and I find it problematic to even have any concepts about this stuff. Who needs another suitcase to carry around? Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, I think this is a different way we can look at Nirvana or > > the absolute. > > > > In Zen Buddhism nirvana is the realization of the true nature of > the > > mind (consciousness), which is identical with the true nature of > how > > human beings experience their world--the buddha-nature (bussho). > > This realization is only possible through wisdom. Thus nirvana is > > often equated with prajna. In the Zen sense, prajna and nirvana are > > two aspects of the same state. Nirvana is the state in which a > > person lives who has attained prajna and thus also insight into his > > own mind or true nature; and prajna is the wisdom of a person who > > has attained nirvana. " The Bodhisattva's nirvana is perfect > > tranquillity, but it is not extinction nor inertness. " Buddha, > > Lankavatara Scripture, Goddard. > > > > Two types of nirvana are distinguished: indeterminate > (apratishthita- > > nirvana) and complete (pratishthita-nirvana). In actuality, the > > experiencer moves between both types of nirvana. Having the > > capability to cease the activities of the mind and to create mental > > activity in various combinations of thought, seeing, hearing and > > remembering, etc. > > > > 12. The Madhyamikas see nirvana as emptiness (shunyata), which they > > define as " coming to rest of the manifold creations of the mind. " > > This means the cessation or absence (temporarily) of the activity > of > > the mind. Nirvana is a conscious experience of the oneness with > > reality that had always existed, only is not recognized. Nirvana > and > > samsara are not different if one perceives the world in its true > > nature, which is emptiness. It is our discriminating mind that > > prevents us from recognizing this true nature. > > I wonder if it's useful to know all this stuff? Things immaterial......are of no use to an illusory entity....... If you can't eat it.......if it doesn't help keep you warm.......and you can't mate with it.......it is of no use to you...... Comparing shadows.......however.......does help pass the time...... If you describe some > state that I can allegedly reach, does that description help me in > any way? No medicine can help a disease that does not exist. The " me " is nothing other then solidified memory...........nothing conceptual can help it....... Do all of these concepts and words help? Or do they create > expectation and burden me with a bunch of concepts? The " me " is nothing other...then a clot of concepts. > > You write: Nirvana is a conscious experience of one-ness. Really? If > so, then it will pass. Any and all experience passes. That's one of > Buddha's truths -- impermanence. Therefore, Nirvana cannot be a state > of mind. All states of mind pass and change. There is no such thing > as a permanent state of mind. ...........and there is no such thing......as mind. > > And is there an experiencer moving from one state to another state? No. > If so, then one-ness has not be achieved. If so, then there is still > a sense of separate self. Therefore, that is not nirvana, as it is > normally understood in popular Buddhist sense. > > I'm not sure if you wrote this or you copied from somewhere else, but > there are many problems with these definitions. Some problems relate > to a misunderstandings of the texts/definitions/terms -- and I find > it problematic to even have any concepts about this stuff. .........The problem is not having concepts......the problem is believing that there is a you to have them..... > > Who needs another suitcase to carry around? > " You " .......are the suitcase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > Hi all, I think this is a different way we can look at Nirvana or > the absolute. > > In Zen Buddhism nirvana is the realization of the true nature of the > mind (consciousness), which is identical with the true nature of how > human beings experience their world--the buddha-nature (bussho). > This realization is only possible through wisdom. Thus nirvana is > often equated with prajna. In the Zen sense, prajna and nirvana are > two aspects of the same state. Nirvana is the state in which a > person lives who has attained prajna and thus also insight into his > own mind or true nature; and prajna is the wisdom of a person who > has attained nirvana. " The Bodhisattva's nirvana is perfect > tranquillity, but it is not extinction nor inertness. " Buddha, > Lankavatara Scripture, Goddard. > > Two types of nirvana are distinguished: indeterminate (apratishthita- > nirvana) and complete (pratishthita-nirvana). In actuality, the > experiencer moves between both types of nirvana. Having the > capability to cease the activities of the mind and to create mental > activity in various combinations of thought, seeing, hearing and > remembering, etc. > > 12. The Madhyamikas see nirvana as emptiness (shunyata), which they > define as " coming to rest of the manifold creations of the mind. " > This means the cessation or absence (temporarily) of the activity of > the mind. Nirvana is a conscious experience of the oneness with > reality that had always existed, only is not recognized. Nirvana and > samsara are not different if one perceives the world in its true > nature, which is emptiness. It is our discriminating mind that > prevents us from recognizing this true nature. > > > > Wheel Publication No. 17. c 1981, 1995 Buddhist Publication Society. > > http://www.selfknowledge.com/109719.htm > > When the two become " ONE " > > Love, > Alberto, ********************************************************** Hi Joe! Well, well, well! humm! What do we have here? Joe you don't know me, hein? If you knew me you would know that my english is very very poor! :0 if you read what is written on the text it is an Ok english don't you think? And yes of course I copied it!!! In the text there is a .12 meaning maybe 12th idea, or something like that! and I put that after the whole text : Wheel Publication No. 17. c 1981, 1995 Buddhist Publication Society. http://www.selfknowledge.com/109719.htm I even put the web site in case someone would be interested to read more about this. If it doesn't interest you, no problem at all. The message was to all, not only to " you " the ego. I don't find nothing ridiculous about what that web site wrote. What I wrote is this statement above is: When the two become " ONE " and I signed under that. Not under the whole copied speach! You see! Nothing to worry about! As I always said to all: What do you want? What do you need. You need to know exactly what do you want! When you need to eat you go to a restaurant, or you eat something. You don't go to the dentist and bitch the poor Dentist because he didn't prepare you a very good meal, you see! Here would be the perfect exemple of someone's Zen Stick!!!(not mine);0) but a Zen stick would have maybe been needed! I don't know! Maybe not? I don't know you Joe and I don't want not to be polite! But you see Joe, It is important in the spiritual path to learn more about yourself the " Ego " then after having learned much, you see that he doesn't exist and then you drop the suitcase. because as you said there is no need to add more weight to you suffering, to you problems. You can start to ask yourself, What do I really want? If you want to know about Master Nis or several spiritual teaching there are few people here that can give you the old medicine as Toombaru said. But most of the spiritual paths have as aim to remove that false " Ego " . That one " ego " that doesn't exist but pretends that he exists. As toombaru said it is very very difficult to prescribe a medicine to cure something that does not exist! Some as Master Nisargadatta, get rid of that false Ego in few years time. Others never! there are under the " Ego " spell, and never get rid of it! That's how it works! That's life! Some are rich some are poor some get rid of it some don't!! You choose! Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Hi Joe, right, dont pick this suitcase up! But maybe have another look at that, which does not fit in any suitcase... >You write: Nirvana is a conscious experience of one-ness. Really? If >so, then it will pass. Any and all experience passes. That's one of >Buddha's truths -- impermanence. Therefore, Nirvana cannot be a >state of mind. All states of mind pass and change. There is no such >thing as a permanent state of mind. If you like, lets look one more time at this " conscious experience of one-ness " . " One-ness " means there is no space, no time. It is not a state of mind, it cannot even be be grasped with the mind. It cannot be born, cannot die, cannot pass. At the most somebody might be able to catch a glimpse of this truth through intuition. In fact it does not fit in any suitcase... but people are trying all the time to bend such words until they fit in the suitcases of their minds. But the only adequate response to such a sentence would be silence. The whole effort of Buddha, Vedanta tradition, masters... is: to put that into language which - by its nature - cannot be expressed. But the effort is taken, because few people might get a glimpse of truth through those words... If you dont need those words... even better!!! All the best Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > " You " .......are the suitcase. Sandeep, is this you again?! Or is this a Sandeep clone? :-) Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > Some as Master Nisargadatta, get rid of that false Ego in few years > time. Others never! there are under the " Ego " spell, and never get > rid of it! That's how it works! That's life! Some are rich some are > poor some get rid of it some don't!! > > You choose! > > Alberto, You ignored all the questions I raised! I wasn't just bitching, I was questioning the skillfulness of such concepts of enlightenment, etc. Oh well, no biggie. See you around. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > right, dont pick this suitcase up! But maybe have another look at > that, which does not fit in any suitcase... Ah, if only we could! ;-) We can only look at what is known. > > All the best > Stefan You too -- Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: Me: >But maybe have another look at >that, which does not fit in any suitcase... >you: >Ah, if only we could! ;-) We can only look at what is known. Joe, I said through a glimpse of intuition... One question... that puzzels me (dont misunderstand me... I am asking this question also to myself): Is there anything you " know " ? Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > Me: > >But maybe have another look at > >that, which does not fit in any suitcase... > >you: > >Ah, if only we could! ;-) We can only look at what is known. > > Joe, I said through a glimpse of intuition... Yes, but I wonder how one decides this is the ultimate? What criteria are used that separate this " glimpse " from other passing insights? It feels special? It matches what other people have said is the Truth? There was no 'me' there? It felt/seemed more real than any other glimpse, insight or experience? It seems one has to have preconceived ideas/criteria by which to judge this so-called glimpse. > > One question... that puzzels me (dont misunderstand me... I am asking > this question also to myself): > > Is there anything you " know " ? > > Greetings > Stefan It's a good question. I don't know. I know many relative things. I don't know if I know anything absolutely. I don't think it's possible. Knowing happens via thought. Thought doesn't refer to anything real. Whatever I am thinking about, it doesn't seem to have a relationship to what's 'out there'. There's this undescribable flux of being and then there's some thoughts that are supposed match up to it. I don't think they do, so in way, what real knowledge is possible, other than practical day-to-day knowledge? Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: >Joe, I said through a glimpse of intuition... >Yes, but I wonder how one decides this is the ultimate? What criteria >are used that separate this " glimpse " from other passing insights? >It seems one has to have preconceived ideas/criteria by which to >judge this so-called glimpse. Well, intuition just comes and is not anymore intuition when it is examinated further. There is no guaranty. But I see already... this does not help you much... :-) Me: >Is there anything you " know " ? You: >It's a good question. I don't know. I know many relative things. I >don't know if I know anything absolutely. > >I don't think it's possible. Knowing happens via thought. Thought >doesn't refer to anything real. Whatever I am thinking about, it >doesn't seem to have a relationship to what's 'out there'. There's >this undescribable flux of being and then there's some thoughts that >are supposed match up to it. I don't think they do, so in way, what >real knowledge is possible, other than practical day-to-day >knowledge? I have also come to the conclusion that it would be not possible to know that we are knowing... or to think that we are thinking - (be it all illusionary or not) - if there would not be something " behind " thoughts. But if there would not be any " non-thought " instance or reference there simply could not exist a word for " knowing, thinking " . To make this clearer with an example: One could not call the " ocean " the " ocean " ... the " river " a " river " etc... if everything that existed was just only water. This is maybe not helpful for you either... but this " thought " keeps me going, at least. One more logical thing: if you would call " everything " that exists " illusion " ... you could as well call it all reality. Because to identify something as " illusion " there has to be something " real " as a reference. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: > > >Joe, I said through a glimpse of intuition... > >Yes, but I wonder how one decides this is the ultimate? What > criteria > >are used that separate this " glimpse " from other passing insights? > >It seems one has to have preconceived ideas/criteria by which to > >judge this so-called glimpse. > > Well, intuition just comes and is not anymore intuition when it is > examinated further. There is no guaranty. But I see already... this > does not help you much... :-) Help with what?! Intuition is another arising, one that we call " intuition " . Some people like to give this arising prominence over other arisings. > > I have also come to the conclusion that it would be not possible to > know that we are knowing Well, see, there's something you know! ;-) > > One more logical thing: if you would call " everything " that exists > " illusion " ... you could as well call it all reality. Because to > identify something as " illusion " there has to be something " real " as a > reference. I agree. I don't buy the 'all is illusion' line. May as well say all is blueberry muffins. Catch you later, Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " josesiem " <josesiem> wrote: Me: >Well, intuition just comes and is not anymore intuition when it is >examinated further. There is no guaranty. But I see already... this >does not help you much... :-) You: >Help with what?! I was refering to your remark: " Yes, but I wonder how one decides this is the ultimate? " BTW, I did not even mean to say that those glimpses have to be ultmate. Enough if they raise a question. Me >I have also come to the conclusion that it would be not possible to >know that we are knowing You >Well, see, there's something you know! ;-) I wanted to saiy " it would not be possible to think about thinking ... without having a reference point outside thinking " . My conclusion was: there has to be something else than thought. The fact that " this is again knowing/thinking " is without importance. I am only drawing a conclusion. Is it wrong? >I agree. I don't buy the 'all is illusion' line. May as well say all >is blueberry muffins. Also if you call it " blueberry muffins " there would have to exist something " non-blueberry-muffins " . If only blueberry muffins existed, it could not be recognized or named (or eaten haha!) All the best Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.