Nibbana is not a fluke in translation between Spiritual Traditions. It is actually something powerful and unique in Buddhism, and to the Buddhist Teachings. The Mind, among the aggregates, also is tended to be “blown out” like a candle when Nibbana is reached. What is left, my friend, is a state of “no-Mind” and beyond. All of it’s fabrications and formations cease. It is the end of the road for the conscious being. But it is not death! What Nibbana is, is in fact the Deathless… And in Nibbana with remainder, the Life-Force within the body still remains Transcendentally. Transcendental to the Saha World and Samsara. But words cannot describe the height of the attainment. And words fail to explain the freedom from this world attained. But that’s what Buddha was pointing to.
There is a belief among some that Enlightened beings still have the Skandhas, however in my understanding they are merely provisional ones–not really there, much like the rest of the person may be a beautiful Emanation, but sincerely, there is no person anymore, and truly never was. It is an illusion this world plays as a trick on one. The Highest Pathway is the one of non-abiding in this world.
So although Nibbana is the powerful solution for our material ailments, it is also something really quite Spiritual, it opens up the Gateway to true Spiritual Life, and never death, as it is the Deathless. In fact I am certain although there is no easy way to describe Nibbana, it is one of the most worthwhile fruits of Buddhism. Like a Jewel, comparable to the Three Jewels, resting within.
What happens If you buy conciously and wholeheartedly into “story” and constructs the storytelling?
“Changing timelines”
You then have the advantage of co-creating and “move forward” while standing still in “meditation” and let the mango land in your hand, by using your own controlled “software” cycling and emerge to your reality from the deep of the unconscious.
'Having conquered the army of the pleasant and agreeable, meditating alone, i discovered bliss,
the attainment of the goal, the peace of the heart. Therefore I don’t form intimate ties with people,
nor does intimacy with anyone get a chance with me (AN10.26)
"There is no fire like lust and no crime like hatred. There is no ill like the aggregates (of existence) and no bliss higher than the peace (of Nibbana). (Dhp202)
Cut off any affection for one’s self, like an autumn lotus plucked with the hand, develop fully the path to peace and Nibbāna taught by the Fortunate One.(Dhp285)
The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being through nourishment and the guide [that is craving]—
is unfit for delight.
The escape from that is peaceful, permanent, a sphere beyond conjecture, unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, stilling-of-fabrications bliss. (iti43)
Perceiving in terms of signs, beings take a stand on signs. Not fully comprehending signs, they
come into the bonds of death. But fully comprehending signs, one doesn’t construe a signifier.
Touching liberation with the heart, the state of peace unsurpassed, consummate in terms of signs,
peaceful, delighting in the peaceful state, judicious, an attainer-of-wisdom makes use of classifications
but can’t be classified. (iti63)
Knowing the escape from sensuality, & the overcoming of forms, ardent always, touching the stilling
of all fabrications: he is a monk who’s seen rightly. From that he is there released. A master of direct knowing, at peace, he is a sage gone beyond bonds. (Iti72)
Knowing the body as falling apart, & consciousness as dissolving away, seeing the danger in acquisitions, you’ve gone beyond birth & death. Having reached the foremost peace, you bide your time, composed. (Iti77)
Focusing on foulness in the body, mindful of in-&-out breathing, seeing the stilling of all fabrications
—ardent always: he is a monk who’s seen rightly. From that he is there released.
A master of direct knowing, at peace, he is a sage gone beyond bonds. (Iti85)
All such things point to knowing Nibbana as the supreme state peace. If one can know the peace of Nibbana, the bliss of this peace, peace of heart, does it makes sense to talk about no-Mind?
It is also does not aligning with Dhamma to talk about things that cannot be directly known. Dhamma is always said to lead to direct knowledge. Nibbana can also be directly known (MN1). If it can be known, how can mind be blown out?
Great meditation masters have this message that when the aggregates ceases, that is not some moment that there is an absence of all knowing, but knowing at that moment stands prominent and a luminosity is seen all around. Finally it is seen what mind/heart really is.
Buddha has not created Nibbana. It is all amazing what he did. I do not know where he found this strenght. Buddha is, ofcourse, idealised and not seen as someone with guidance but i think he had guidance. Ofcourse one can believe that all his choices, insights, his Path was merely his own choice, his own merit, his own kamma. Really? What really drives us?
There is the idea of the Buddha-mind in certain perceptions, and I find it accurate, but I am not trying to instill you with a doubt about these Traditions. But the Buddha-mind is not a necessity for an Enlightened being, even for a Buddha. They can Transcend Mind fully. Imagine a Buddha deciding to be reborn, when they are first developing, there is no Mind yet, and yet they are to be considered to be a fully living being based on respect for their life and Life-Force. They are not unenlightened in the womb. Similarly, in very High Realms, those who have reached Nibbana do not have to provisionally experience “Mind” if they do not wish to. All experience is provisional for the Tathagata–and where they truly are cannot be found [by worldly measures.]
The status/validity of objects is a crucial question in some quarters because a “correct view” is considered a prerequisite for liberation. The logic runs, that because we view objects as possessing inherent qualities we develop desire and aversion towards them. The solution, therefore, is to see through this ‘mirage’ to the ultimate truth (emptiness) and thus cut the three poisons. This is an intriguing proposition, as it offers a radical alternative to our usual way of viewing the world, and suggests a solution. In my limited understanding, the historical Buddha didn’t engage with philosophical questions such as: are objects external or mind-only? Do objects exist/ not exist/ both exist & not exist etc?
I feel he didn’t engage because the ultimate status of objects is a non-issue, in fact it’s arguably redundant. He taught followers to observe the habitual processes within their own minds and see what’s actually unfolding. If we nurture intellectual views about objects, and leave it there, we risk short-circuiting our internal journey of discovery. We need to observe the four noble truths in action. If we can’t locate or identify stress, we cannot find its origin or release it, and we have no path to its release. Okay, I’m going to put my neck on the block with this next statement, but Buddha in the suttas compares the world to an illusion, but never states that it is an illusion. He teaches not-self, but never says there is no self. He mentions emptiness in different contexts, but never reduces such “skilful means” to the level of a metaphysical position. This is only what I have taken away from Pali translations and elsewhere. I cannot read Pali, so I may stand to be corrected. My background is a synthesis of Tibetan and Theravada.
The whole world is empty of self, all dhammas are not self, clearly indicates no self.
It’s only confusing for people who are super clinging to 5 aggregates as self to hear no self meaning no 5 aggregates. But this is not what is meant by no self. The conventional self referring to 5 aggregates is a useful language tool to be used in everyday life and morality.
The illusion thing I think one way to look at it is things appear (6 sense bases), but not exist independently (they are conditioned). Whereas self cannot be said to even appear. The sense of self known by the mind is actually not self, because the sense of self is impermanent, constructed, suffering, and brings suffering. It can be deconstructed.
Self meaning permanent entity, freed from suffering is not found at all, it’s mere empty concept.
The dependent origination works on the 6 sense bases, but there’s nothing to be spoken of for the self, as it’s a wrong concept, that is why there’s no answer to the Buddha exist, not exist, both, neither after death. It’s that the appearance of the 5 aggregates we call the Buddha has no more conditions for them to continue existing after their breaking up, other than the relics due to laws of physics (mass-energy conservation).
Internally, the 6 sense bases experienced by the Buddha is no more after death due to cessation of their causes and not arising anymore.
We do not really have to think about ultimate truth of emptiness but we can also very easily see that all beings experience sense objects dependend on their disposition. How we as humans perceive the world is not more real or true then any other being. If we experience a decaying body as disgusting and a fly and maggot as heaven, we cannot say, ofcourse, our perception is correct.
I feel it is sometimes shocking to see my thoughtproces that can be so ego-centric, talking about nice weather for me, while other being die of heat or have great troubles. It is all so relative.
Very well said. And very hard to practice, very hard because we love discussing, debating, the realm of views, and also feel intellectual satisfaction (also a kama raga) from all this. Which is not real Dhamma practice of course.
Yes, and also this is very hard for us humans because we like the grip of an intellectual position more then the freedom to be without. It is hard for us to really deal with openess, freedom, lack of position.
We also feed upon all that knowledge we accumulate. In other words, it is almost impossible to practice Dhamma in a pure way. It is so easy to use Dhamma in a way it even more defiles.
I guess I encountered some metaphysical stuff at the start of my journey and was convinced I’d found the essence of Buddhist doctrine. If you’ve ever ran through Chandrakirti’s Sevenfold reasoning of the chariot, you’ll know the sort of thing; chariot is not to be found in its components, the collection of the components, nor anywhere else (in this way self should be regarded).
I coated my perception with a veneer of mental projection about emptiness etc, and could easily annihilate objects with logic and be certain they were mere non-existent imputation / convention etc.
Unfortunately, that never stopped me desiring or disliking objects, because i never observed the process of desire and aversion as it arose in me, and never relinquished it.
